Your humble blogger is typing these words in Seattle.  I'll be presenting tomorrow on Theories of International Politics and Zombies at ZomBcon 2011. 

[Um... does tha fact alone merit a blog post?--ed.]  Good point.  There are two other zombie-and-me events this week. 

From 7-9 PM EST this Wednesday, I'll be the "Expert to Discuss How Theories of International Relations Could Salvage Humanity from Global Zombie Apocalypse" according to this press release.   That's because I'll be delivering the Centre for International Governance Innovation's Signature Lecture on Zombies, the G20 and International Governance in Waterloo, Canada.  Not any old zombie lecture -- the signature one.  If you don't live in Waterloo, don't worry, you can sign up for the free, live webcast of the lecture. 

As a warm-up for that lecture, however, might I suggest, the night before, watching Zombies: A Living History.  It will be aired on the History Channel on Tuesday, October 25, at 8 PM.  The filmmakers interviewed me for half a day, so I'll pop up now and again. 

Here's the extended trailer:

Enjoy your weekend! 

My latest diavlog is with Mother Jones' Adam Weinstein to talk about... er... yes, Theories of International Politics and Zombies. 

[We're walking away now.--ed.]  No, wait!!  This diavlog is worth watching for two reasons:

1)  It has, hands down, the most awesome opening of any Bloggingheads diavlog in history.  Really.  I'm not exaggerating. 

2)  There's a prize for watching it!  Hidden in the diavlog are five different images from well-known zombie features (four movies, one TV show). The first Bloggingheads fan to correctly identify when those zombie scenes appear in the diavlog and from what movie or TV show they were taken, gets a copy of my book. For a chance to win: send an email to bloggingheadszombiehunt@gmail.com. In the body of your email, include a link to this diavog blog post, the five different times (minute and second) in the diavlog when the zombie images appear, and the movie/show from where the images were taken. Contest ends at midnight on March 1, 2011.

So, watch carefully, keep an axe nearby, and enjoy! 

For the rest of this week your humble blogger will be on the 2010 leg of his Zombie Talk Tour in support of the forthcoming book.  Talks are scheduled at UC-Irvine and ZomBcon.  That's right, ZomBcon.  

Blogging will be light for the next few days.  Here's a topic for discussion, however.  Apparently, the New York Times' standard operating procedure is to recycle the same story every week about how the U.S. is now lining up allies in the Pacific Rim to ward off a rising China.  The Financial Times is reporting on how the United States is encouraging India to step up inthe region.  Stronger bilateral ties with China's enduring rivals (Japan, Vietnam, India) are simply an ad hoc response to China's recent strategic missteps, however.  Chinese intentions are unclear, and if you read western pundits, there are an array of contradictory recommendations about how to suss them out. 

Question to readers:  if you had to engineer the U.S. strategy in the Pacific Rim, what would you do to deal with a rising China?  In your answer, be sure to acknowledge the risks and costs, as well as the benefits of your strategy. 

I remember a few things about the day of the September 11th attacks. I remember being at Heathrow and wondering why they weren't announcing the gate for my flight. I remember being puzzled why I couldn't complete a transatlantic call when my flight appeared to be delayed. I remember my wife telling me what happened. I remember cursing the fact that I was marooned on another continent on one of the few days when my chosen specialty might have been of some practical use for my wife. And I remember, at some point, telling her, "it could have been worse." 

Because it could have been. United 93 could have hit its intended target instead of having the passengers and crew overwhelm the terrorists. Al Qaeda could have had a second wave of attacks planned. With some imagnation, al Qaeda could have killed a lot more people on that day. 

The other thing I remember in reaction to that day was when it was OK to be funny again.  Many pop culture historians will likely point to the first Saturday Night Live episode featuring Rudy Giuliani -- except that wasn't funny. Slightly more hip pop culture historians  might point to the monologues of either David Letterman or Jon Stewart -- except they weren't funny either. 

No, the first thing that made me laugh after the terrorist attacks  -- and sustained my hope for America -- was The Onion's first post-9/11 issue, from the headline "HOLY F&#KING S*&T" on the front to the television schedule in the back (On NBC at 10: "America's Time Of Trial: Who F**king Wants Some? You? Do You? How 'Bout You?"). Consider just the following list of headlines:

Not Knowing What Else To Do, Woman Bakes American-Flag Cake

Hijackers Surprised To Find Selves In Hell

U.S. Vows To Defeat Whoever It Is We're At War With

American Life Turns Into Bad Jerry Bruckheimer Movie

God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule

Arab-American Third-Grader Returns From Recess Crying, Saying He Didn't Kill Anyone

President Urges Calm, Restraint Among Nation's Ballad Singers

Jerry Falwell: Is That Guy A Dick Or What?

Rest Of Country Temporarily Feels Deep Affection For New York

Massive Attack On Pentagon Page 14 News

And finally, the headline that has defined U.S. foreign policy debates for the past nine years: 

We Must Retaliate With Blind Rage vs. We Must Retaliate With Measured, Focused Rage

Any country with the capacity for that much self-lacerating humor will be OK in the long run.  So I mean this with all sincerity: that issue of The Onion made me proud to be an American.

Well, that and this Jack Shafer column on why Ground Zero is not hallowed ground. 

Your humble blogger was all prepared to be diligent, posting even while on a brief vacation.  However, after three days in a spectacular Europeal locale that will go unnamed oh, I'll fess up, I'm in Florence, I'm afraid that I've eaten too much fabulous pasta to give a damn about blogging Eurosclerosis has overtaken my Yankee work ethic. 

Active blogging will resume on Thursday.  In the meantime, commenters are heartily encouraged to suggest future blogging topics.  I'm well aware that I've harped a bit on macroeconomic imbalances, sanctions and zombies as of late.  I'd be happy to blog about other trouble spots (Kyrgyzstan, Thailand) other trends (Facebook overtaking Google), events (criminals going free) or whatnot.

But you'll have to take the zombies away from my cold, undead hands -- got it? 

Ciao!! 

My latest bloggingheads diavlog, with NSN's Heather Hulburt, is now online.  We discuss the Academy and the academy -- that is to say, the Oscars and the policy relevance of that "other" academy. 

Enjoy! 

My latest bloggingheads diavlog with with Reihan Salam of the New America Foundation.  As it's the anniversary of Lehman going under, we talk about the political economy of the financial crisis, Ben Bernanke, the future of trade, and the future more generally:

Go check it out. 

My latest bloggingheads with Matthew Yglesias is up.  Topics discussed include Obama's first month, why less earmarks means more grandiose slabs of pork, and how to do an end-run around Hugo Chavez. 

Go check it out. 

Loyal readers of foreignpolicy.com can hear the dulcimer dulcet tones of your humble blogger's voice at two different venues today. 

First, I had a commentary on Obama's leadership style on NPR's Marketplace today.  The key, hopeful paragraph: 

With markets and politicians in a state of panic, Obama has demonstrated that he appreciates the gravity of the situation but will not be overwhelmed by it. Even more encouraging is Obama's ability to understand and explain contending points of view. If Obama can show his cabinet that he has truly heard their views, they will be more willing to support him, even if he goes in another direction. By encouraging debate without alienating his team of egos, Barack Obama might just plug the leadership gap.

I also participated in a bloggingheads.tv diavlog with Rosa Brooks.  Many topics were discussed, including the utility of special envoys, the transition period, Bono, the Middle East, Joe the Plumber, and whether Rosa will be attending an inaugural ball (if you click here, you will, in fact, here me say "Bibbidy bobbedy boo").   

I am deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf, who was not just our neighbor, but a dear friend to Michelle and me. We are joined in this time of grief by the entire Hyde Park community, the American Jewish Community, and all those who shared Rabbi Wolf's passion for learning and profound commitment to serving others. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family. Throughout Chicago and in Jewish homes and classrooms across our country, Rabbi Wolf's name is synonymous with service, social action and the possibility of change. He will be remembered as a loving husband and father, an engaging teacher, a kindhearted shepherd for the K.A.M. Isaiah community, and a tireless advocate of peace for the United States, Israel and the world.

The Anti-Intellectual Presidency

• Using Flesch scores, the two least sophisticated set of presidential papers in the last eighty years are Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton -- i.e., they were written at an eleventh-grade reading level (the Bushes finish third and fourth).
• Using those same Flesch scores, social scientists write denser more sophisticated prose than those in law or the humanities. 

Harry Truman’s presidency illustrates the lasting impact of first impressions. For many Bush officials, Truman is a comforting role model—another wildly unpopular wartime leader who aimed big and is now viewed as one of the presidential greats. As Rice reflected, “When you’re at the beginning of a big historical transformation, it doesn’t look like you’re doing much right.” Bush himself invoked Truman at his 2006 West Point graduation speech, comparing the struggle against Communism to the war against Islamic radicalism and noting that “Like Americans in Truman’s day, we are laying the foundations for victory.” No one disputes that Bush’s aims are sweeping or that, like Truman, he seeks to transform international relations for a new enemy in a new era. Bush’s second inaugural proclaimed American foreign policy to be nothing less than spreading “democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” The difficulty of the task, he said, “is no excuse for avoiding it.” Ending tyranny would be “the concentrated work of generations.” As Rice noted, the president does not just defend the status quo. When it comes to vindication, however, the Truman parallels fall short. History’s judgment of Harry Truman came early, not late. His greatest cold-war policies were recognized as triumphs from the start, and his failures remain failures to this day. Truman’s March 1947 containment speech to Congress was met with a standing ovation and press reports that instantly hailed it as a historic landmark in U.S. foreign policy. His European economic-recovery program, the Marshall Plan, also attracted widespread public support (thanks in large part to the administration’s own public-relations campaign) and produced impressive and fast results. In 1953, just five years after it began, the Marshall Plan formally ended, Europe was well on its way to economic recovery and Secretary of State George Marshall received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work. At the same time, history has not reversed judgment about Truman’s foreign-policy failures. Nixon may have opened China, but Truman still lost it. For starving North Koreans or anyone who worries about Kim Jong-il’s nuclear weapons and crackpot tendencies, the Korean War is still searching for a happy ending. Truman, like Bush, did face stormy opposition and plummeting public approval during his presidency. But his low popularity had many causes, and foreign policy was not the primary one. Postwar economic reconversion, high taxes, government spending, labor disputes, the firing of General Douglas MacArthur, the anti-Communist hearings of Senator Joseph McCarthy and salacious corruption scandals including influence peddling with fur coats and deep freezers all helped to sour the public’s mood by 1952. In January, Truman’s public disapproval hit a whopping 67 percent, a record surpassed only by the current president. Notably, the same poll asked Americans what they believed were the most important issues in the 1952 presidential election. More said government waste and corruption than the Korean War. Republican Party leaders agreed, ranking corruption and wasteful government spending their top two campaign issues by overwhelming margins in a November 1951 Gallup poll. The Korean War ranked a distant fourth (behind taxes), and other foreign issues were even lower. Domestic policy, not foreign policy, was the administration’s greatest weakness and the Republicans’ best hope. Combating the “mess in Washington” became one of Dwight D. Eisenhower’s central campaign themes. The Republican presidential nominee made headlines and scored one of the biggest ovations of the campaign when he assailed the Truman administration as “barefaced looters” during an Indianapolis stump speech. The notion that Truman was drummed out of office for foreign-policy failures that were subsequently judged successes might be comforting, but it is not correct.