Bhumibol and Thailand, China and South-East Asia,... and what you think will be the most interesting foreign policy issue in 2010-2020.

Sino-Pakistani nuclear deal, Somalia, the IPE of food security issues and Romer's charter cities idea...

Or, to be wholly self-serving (and perhaps apropos of some of your posts on scholasticism in poli sci), what fields undergraduates should be studying in IR and how, and perhaps what should undergrads be taking away from the Scholasticism debate, the quant debate, and other topics you've previously covered here (or do undergrads fretting about what kind of research is getting published need to just get lives?)

If you are really in Florence, I have three requests/ recommendations:

i) Try to find out whether and to what extent the Italian banking system is exposed to the current mess.

ii) Try to find out what the hell is wrong with the Italian football team.

ii) Try the "bisteccha alla fiorentina". It's absolutely delicious. After the meal, tell them: "è stato assolutamente squisito, grazie mille".

Buon divertimento!

1. How about some final thoughts on the World Cup? It was funny how during the Round of 16 everyone talked about the superiority of American teams and by the semi-final it was Old Europe all over again. What can learn from this on the prospects the EU/Eurozone?

2. Last week Obama vowed to make a push for the stalled US free trade agreement. Is this time different?

Where people can go to actually learn what's going on in international relations that doesn't involve the U.S. As an example, what open sources political scientists use to document deals between Pakistan and China or how writers are supposed to verify troop movements along the Eritrean-Ethiopian border. I learned in college that apparently a political scientist was supposed to rely heavily on EbscoHost for just about everything.

What is the foreign and national security policy legacy of the last administration within the Republican Party?

There are some issues, like immigration, on which the GOP has already separated itself from the public statements of the last Republican President. Other issues with strong Republican constituencies outside of the policy community, like trade liberalization, had support within the Bush administration but were never priorities of the Bush White House. The party seems to be drifting away from those.

The main line of Bush-era foreign policy was obviously dominated by the war in Iraq, and secondarily the war in Afghanistan. Neither went well, nor is success in either likely to be a political selling point for Republicans going forward. Moreover, budgetary pressures mean that everyone in the national security policy game will have to play on a new field; the huge resources Bush threw at the Pentagon won't be available the next time Republicans call the shots in Washington.

Issues aside, there is the matter of people. A look over at Dan's sister blog here on FP will show that Republicans who worked in the Bush administration are strongly motivated by loyalty to the last administration (that actually seems to be their dominant motivation, but Shadow Government may not amount to a representative sample). Will that emotion drive foreign policy thinking within the party going forward? What will it mean for the key question about any future Republican administration, that being who will get what jobs?

The last Republican administration to see its political support collapse was Richard Nixon's, almost 40 years ago. Yet senior Nixon administration officials dominated the leadership of the Reagan administration's foreign policy team, and the GOP right wing that had regarded Nixon with suspicion came to be frustrated by Reagan's foreign policy as well. Bush's administration had many more people closely tied to their President personally; it is hard for me to visualize someone like Condoleeza Rice, say, playing the role she did for any other President, and it isn't clear that her personal association with Bush would be an asset to her if she wanted to. Of course, most of Bush's most senior people (the Cheneys, Rumsfelds and Powells) will be out of the picture by the time the next Republican administration rolls around, if one ever does. Who would fill their roles for a future Republican President? Who would guide the thinking of a future Republican Congressional majority?

Dan may have a particular interest in whether self-identified Republicans who were not admirers of Bush have a means of pressing their ideas within the GOP. The whole subject is worthy of his analysis.

What are the all-time best zombie movies?
What are the all-time best zombie video games?
The all-time best zombie books?
Define zombie: Does a zombie need to carry the undead virus that turns others into zombies or can it just be walking undead?
What exactly is the process that turns a human into a zombie? Is it fallout from nuclear war or can this be achieved through other ends?
Are there any political or cultural figures that you fear might actually be zombies?
In the case of the above, is there any definitive way to test whether someone is or is not a zombie?
Are there any cures for being a zombie other than death? Can a zombie ever come back to life as a normal (or, put another way, perhaps, can liberals ever recover?)?

why are they important? why does a u.s.-south korea war game scare china / why is it an offense to china / why does it constitute itself as "standing up" to china?

Office 2007
Microsoft Office
Microsoft Office 2007
Office 2007 key
Office 2007 download
Office 2007 Professional
Office 2007 home
Office 2007 Ultimate
MS Office 2007
Office 2007 pro
Windows 7
Windows 7 Professional
Office Professional 2007
Office Ultimate 2007