Brian Anderson is the author of South Park Conservatives, and now he’s got a new book out with Adam Thierer entitled A Manifesto for Media Freedom. We talk to Anderson about efforts to restore the Fairness Doctrine, the prospect of media regulation via subterfuge, and the likelihood of efforts to squash the alternative media in the next Congress — as well as what to do about it.
The Glenn and Helen Show: Brian Anderson on Media Freedom
Can you still make it from scratch in America? That’s the question that Adam Shepard asked himself in college. On graduation, he took a train to Charleston, South Carolina and started out with nothing but $25 and a backpack. A year later, he had a car, and apartment, and $2500 in the bank. How he did it — and what he learned along the way — is the story of his new book, Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American Dream.
We talk to Shepard about what it takes to get ahead, how better-off Americans have lost touch with the world of work, and what politicians and pundits ought to be talking about.
We talk to Pickens about oil dependence, wind power, NIMBYism, and the future of America — plus, how to get rich and the future of entrepreneurialism among American youth.
The Glenn and Helen Show: T. Boone Pickens on Wind Energy
Like many states, Massachusetts has an income tax. But in Massachusetts, people are trying to do something about it. Libertarian activist Carla Howell organized an initiative in 2002 that would have abolished the state income tax. It got over 45% of the vote, and now she’s back with another effort.
We talk to her about libertarian politics, politicians and taxes, and whether this initiative might start a national anti-tax trend. Plus, what you can do, if you want to help.
The Glenn and Helen Show: Carla Howell on Ending the Income Tax in Massachusetts
They used to say that it was a man’s world, but you don’t hear that much any more. Women outnumber men in college, get preferential legal treatment in many areas, and in general seem to be doing better, while boys lag girls in education and men generally seem to be doing worse. Should anyone care?
Yes, says Kathleen Parker in her new book, Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should Care. We talk with her about what’s going on, why the condition of men matters to women, and why many men are afraid to speak out. Plus, Barack Obama on fatherhood.
The Glenn and Helen Show: Kathleen Parker on Why Men Matter
Douglas J. Feith served as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy from 2001 through 2005. His new book, War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism, looks at the response to the 9/11 attacks, the invasion of Afghanistan, and most significantly the Iraq war and its aftermath. Feith’s book is copiously documented, and he’s also made a lot of his documents available on his website. But the book, though selling well online, hasn’t gotten the kind of Big Media attention you’d expect. We talk to him about the war, the Bush Administration, the media, and whether the American political class is up to dealing with matters of national security.
In the 1990s, people talked about the “end of history,” when international power politics wouldn’t really matter. In his new book, The Return of History and the End of Dreams, Robert Kagan talks about democracy, autocracy, and the return of Great Power politics to international relations.
The Glenn and Helen Show: Robert Kagan on the Return of History
With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama still slugging it out in the Democratic primaries, John McCain has already cleared the way to the Republican nomination. He’s spending his time laying out his positions for the general election, and one of the most important issues has to do with judicial nominations. We were lucky enough to catch up with McCain’s friend Fred Thompson, who talked with us about McCain’s positions, the current and possible future states of the federal judiciary, and whether there’s a place for an Attorney General Fred Thompson in a McCain administration. (“No Ma’am” he responded, when Helen asked.)
The Glenn and Helen Show: Fred Thompson on John McCain and Judges
Sunstein and Thaler espouse a theory of “Libertarian Paternalism,” in which people have more choice than they do now, but in which ignorance and sloth are exploited to encourage them to make good choices even when they’re lazy. We talk about libertarian paternalism, the virtues and vices of technocracy, and which Presidential candidates favor Sunstein and Thaler’s approach.
The Glenn and Helen Show: Cass Sunstein on Libertarian Paternalism
We talk to Michael about independent blogging, the situation in Iraq and how it’s changed since he started reporting in 2004, and his new book. Plus, advice for the Presidential candidates on what to say, and do, about Iraq over the coming year.
The Glenn and Helen Show: Michael Yon on the Moment of Truth in Iraq
Tax Day is approaching, the markets are turbulent, and people are wondering how to move financially. So we talked with Jim Schlagheck, producer of public TV’s Retirement Revolution and author of The Cash-Rich Retirement: Use the Investing Techniques of the Mega-Wealthy to Secure Your Retirement Future. The book is interesting, action-oriented, and — in my opinion — more conservative and realistic than a lot that I’ve read. Our discussion includes what to do financially, how the housing bubble and the “coming demographic storm” of Baby-Boomer retirements are likely to affect investments, and what economic problems will confront the next President.
We talk to Jim Dunnigan, publisher of StrategyPage.com and author of numerous books on war, intelligence and security, and Austin Bay, who blogs at AustinBay.net, and who is the author of both novels and nonfiction works on war and military matters. They fill us in on the latest developments in Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela, and talk about why the Obama Campaign is good for America.
Want to raise a rich kid? Or at least a kid who knows how to make money without waiting for someone else to offer a job? That’s what Troy Dunn offers in his new book, Young Bucks: How to Raise a Future Millionaire. We talk to Troy about why parents should want their kids to be entrepreneurial, how to encourage them to strike out on their own, and what the Presidential candidates are missing when they talk about economics.
With the Super Tuesday primaries just a couple of days away, we caught up to Mitt Romney and asked him about gun control — he says he’ll veto any gun control bills that cross his desk as President — about the economy, and about John McCain. Plus, whether Romney is mean enough for politics. Can he pull off a Turnaround?
The Glenn and Helen Show: Mitt Romney Talks Super Tuesday
It’s an bipartisan election double-header, featuring interviews with Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton economic adviser Gene Sperling. We talk to both about the Second Amendment, energy policy, terrorism, and Hillary’s stimulus plan. Plus, Helen cracks Glenn up with an observation on podcast tax credits.
How can we break the OPEC oil cartel for $100 a car? Engineer Bob Zubrin has the answer — by requiring all new cars sold in the United States to be flex-fuel vehicles that can run not just on gasoline, but on ethanol and methanol.
It’s sure to make a splash, and it’s already got some left bloggers in a tizzy even though it doesn’t come out until next week. It’s Jonah Goldberg’s new book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. The title comes from H.G. Wells, and the history won’t be news to people who’ve paid attention — which means it will be news to a lot of people, but Goldberg has a lot to say about the “progressive” roots of both socialism and fascism and the way they’re reflected in contemporary politics. Plus, thoughts on the Hillary and Huckabee candidacies.
The Iowa Caucuses are just around the corner, and we thought it was a good time to catch up with Senator John McCain, who’s seeking the Republican nomination for President. (Our earlier interview with Sen. McCain is here.) We talked about the election, Supreme Court appointments, the Second Amendment, Iraq, and much, much more. McCain was rested, relaxed, confident, and full of I-told-you-sos, but then he was staying in a Holiday Inn Express when we talked to him.
The Supreme Court has decided to hear an appeal on the D.C. gun-ban case, meaning that the question of whether the Second Amendment protects a right to arms will be squarely before it. The suit was brought by Bob Levy, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute, and we talked to him about the case, the law, and what may come next.
First, it was the Dangerous Book for Boys, and now it’s the Daring Book for Girls. We talked to Daring Book authors Andrea Buchanan and Miriam Peskowitz about girls, the outdoors, and the shockingly large number of fun activities that don’t involve cellphones, televisions, or videogames.
We traveled to the Popular Mechanics Breakthrough Conference in New York, and talked to energy efficiency guru Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, MacArthur Genius Award winner and science educator Shawn Carlson, and appropriate-technology entrepreneur Shawn Frayne. It’s a fascinating discussion of everything from how America can save energy and protect the environment without sacrificing our lifestyle, to ways of helping the third world, to techniques for energizing American students interest in science and technology.
The Glenn and Helen Show: Amory Lovins et al., on Science, Engineering, and Society
We talk to Laura Ingraham about her new book, Power to the People, which looks at ways that ordinary people can empower themselves in the culture and in politics. We talk about large families and prejudice against parenting, against porn (we’re a lot more favorable than she is) and politics, plus a look at the 2008 elections and the immigration battle.
It’s an interesting discussion, and Ingraham is different from many other social reformers in that she largely stresses individuals using their voices and market power, as opposed to the force of law, to effect changes in culture, politics and media. She also suggests that individuals get involved in reporting on local politics, school boards, and the like, a place where one or two people can make a real difference.
The sixth anniversary of September 11 is just past, and it’s a good time to look at where we are, and what to do in coming years. We spoke to Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith, whose new book, The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration, tells the story of his experience working at the Defense Department and as head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, and also looks at how the decisionmaking process relating to terror is being “strangled by law.” Goldsmith talks about his experiences, his book, and what the next President and Congress should do.
This podcast was brought to you by Volvo Motors. Music is by Mobius Dick. Visit our show archives for updates and prior episodes at GlennandHelenShow.com.
The Glenn and Helen Show: Jack Goldsmith on Law, Terror and Politics
These are topics of particular interest to us, as Helen is kept alive by Tikosyn, a somewhat unusual anti-arrhythmic drug. We talk to Epstein about the pharmaceutical industry, its critics, and what to do to promote new drugs and treatments for problems that people are dying from today.
Austin Bay is a novelist and nonfiction author (author of The Wrong Side of Brightness and A Quick and Dirty Guide to War), blogger and host of Pajamas Media’s Blog Week in Review. He and his daughter spent part of this summer following the route of Austin’s great-great-grandfather in the Civil War, shooting video and working on a book project tentatively entitled Eli’s War.
They passed through Knoxville, and we managed to have dinner with them. Join us for a talk about war, history, and family.
We caught up with independent journalist Michael Yon via satellite phone. Yon, who’s been covering Operation Arrowhead Ripper in the (former) Al Qaedah stronghold of Baqubah reports on how things are going, what he thinks will happen next, and his thoughts on the likely consequences of premature withdrawal.
He’s played with everybody from Lonnie Brooks and Albert King to Terry Hill and Balboa. We talk to legendary guitarist Hector Qirko about music and life — and his work remastering some of the late Terry Hill’s lost tapes. We also listen to some tunes by Hector, Terry, and R.B. Morris.
Once again we talked to our two military experts, Jim Dunnigan of StrategyPage and Pajamas blogger extraordinaire Austin Bay, about the war, Iraq, and America. As always, they have a lot of interesting information and perspective that you’re not likely to get anywhere else. Listen and learn!
The Glenn and Helen Show: Austin Bay and Jim Dunnigan on Iraq
Bill Frist isn’t Senate Majority Leader any more, and he says he gets more respect when he goes by “Doctor” than when he goes by “Senator.” But he hasn’t given up on changing the world, and he’s working — with Tom Daschle — on a bipartisan program called One Vote ‘08, aimed at helping the people that Paul Collier calls the bottom billion.
Since he’s from Tennessee, we also had to ask him what he thinks about the Fred Thompson campaign, and he sounded pretty positive.
The Glenn and Helen Show: Bill Frist on Fighting Global Poverty and Supporting Fred Thompson
Are we turning into a nation of wimps? Do boys need to be boys? Is there something parents and schools should be doing differently? We talk with British author Conn Iggulden, whose new book, The Dangerous Book for Boys, takes an old-fashioned positive look at boyhood, bravery, and the nature of risk, about those subjects and others — including the effect of modern parenting and education on military recruitment and the future of Western civilization. Is being optimistic old-fashioned? Plus, revelations about Helen’s misspent youth!
Traditional media are worried, and new media are excited. In both cases, it has a lot to do with where the advertising money is going, and where it’s not going. Nobody knows more about advertising than David Verklin, CEO of Carat Americas. Carat is the world’s largest independent media buying operation, and Verklin is also the coauthor — with Bernice Kanner — of Watch This, Listen Up, Click Here: Inside the 300 Billion Dollar Business Behind the Media You Constantly Consume. We talk to him about what’s happening now, what will happen next, and how the future of advertising might actually be more pleasant for consumers, as advertisers serve up ads based on things people are actually interested in.
The Glenn and Helen Show: David Verklin on Online (and Offline) Advertising
Hewlett-Packard is now the biggest information technology company in the world, having surpassed both the $100 billion mark and IBM. How did it get there, over a period of time when so many promising companies fell apart? That’s the topic of Michael S. Malone’s new book, Bill and Dave: How Hewlett and Packard Built the World’s Greatest Company. We talk with Malone about the role of old-fashioned values in surviving new-era corporate challenges, and the difficulties that HP has had in sticking to its approach as times change. It’s a very interesting story, underscoring the fact that the most important part of every technology story involves the people behind the technology.
This podcast brought to you by Volvo USA. Music is Indistinguishable from Magic, by Mobius Dick.
The Glenn and Helen Show: Michael S. Malone on the Past and Future of Silicon Valley
Are we infantilizing teens to the point that we are raising a nation of wimps? Is adolescence extended so long that people have grey hair by the time they become adults? Robert Epstein, Director Emeritus of the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies in Massachusetts and author of The Case Against Adolescence: Rediscovering the Adult in Every Teen talks about these questions and more on today’s podcast. Epstein’s new book argues that adolescence is an artificial and unnecessary part of life that people are better off without. Find out how your teen’s exposure to school and Western media may be setting him or her up for incompetence, poor judgement and social-emotional turmoil. What can you do about it? Read the book or listen to the podcast to find out. Or go take Dr. Epstein’s competency test to find out how adult your teen is (or how adult you are) at www.howadultareyou.com or visit his website at drrobertepstein.com.
The Glenn and Helen Show: Should Adolescence Be Abolished?
The surge is well underway in Iraq, and by some reports it’s already making a big difference. We contacted the blogosphere’s man-on-the-spot in Baghdad, Michael Yon, by satellite phone, and got his take on how things are going. Some important bits: The dispersal of troops out of big bases and into Iraqi neighborhoods has had a big impact — somewhat like the “community policing” approach in New York and elsewhere — and is generating a lot more intelligence and assistance from ordinary Iraqis. “Just being there makes a huge difference,” says Yon. But don’t expect overnight results: “The surge itself will go on well past summer,” and it’ll be Fall before we can tell if the trends are good or bad.
Listen to the whole thing — he’s also got some interesting takes on changing tactics and changing press coverage.
The Glenn and Helen Show: Michael Yon Reports on the Surge
We talk to Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) about why he wants to be President. We caught up with Rep. Hunter as he was getting ready to go to Iraq, and talked with him about the war, gun control, stem cell research and cloning, and much more. Plus, what his son learned serving in Fallujah.
Music is by Doug Weinstein’s acid jazz band, XTemp, from the album Bugsy’s World. This podcast is brought to you by Volvo USA.
The Glenn and Helen Show: Duncan Hunter on Why He Wants to Be President
We talked with Col. David Enyeart, Deputy Commander of Task Force Phoenix, the command dedicated to training the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police.
Col. Enyeart talks about addressing corruption, the much-anticipated Taliban spring offensive (which he calls “make or break for the Taliban”) addressing corruption and illiteracy, and the success in recruiting efforts. His conclusion: “This is a winnable war over here.”
It’s a brother-sister novelist act, as we talk to Claire Berlinski, author of last year’s powerful nonfiction book, Menace in Europe and now of a new novel of Internet dating and espionage, Lion Eyes — and her brother, Mischa Berlinski, whose novel Fieldwork, on missionaries, anthropologists, and murder in the hills of Thailand was published on the same day as Lion Eyes.
The conversation ranges from Internet dating and blogger romance, to the historical conflicts between missionaries and anthropologists, to the advantages of novel-writing over having to hold a real job. Plus, a year-later look at how the predictions in Menace in Europe — which is now out in paperback — have held up. (And last year’s interview with Claire Berlinski on that book can be found here.)
Music is “Black UFOs” and “Temptation” by Mobius Dick. This podcast sponsored by Volvo Motors USA.
The Glenn and Helen Show: Claire and Mischa Berlinski on Two New Novels
John Ondrasik is Five for Fighting. Unless you’ve been living in a cave in Waziristan, you’ve heard his songs like 100 Years,Superman, and The Riddle. But the title cut to his latest album, Two Lights, turns out to come from a lunch with none other than blogosphere fave Victor Davis Hanson. We talk to Ondrasik about politics in the music business, what drives his songwriting, what aspiring musicians should do to make it, and more — including his new web-video-based viral charity enterprise, What Kind of World Do You Want? (Hear his music on iTunes here.)
Music is by Five for Fighting. This podcast is sponsored by Volvo USA.
The Glenn and Helen Show: Five for Fighting’s John Ondraisik on War, Peace, and Music
Michael Yon is back in Iraq, where he’s been for over a month now. We caught up to him via satellite phone and got his views on the surge (it will be “unlike anything we’ve seen before”), the status of Iraqi security forces (they’ve made “tremendous progress” since he was there last year, but things are “still dicey”), evidence of Iranian involvement in terror attacks in Iraq, what the Iraqi public thinks, and much more.
Pioneering forensic anthropologist Dr. Bill Bass is the inventor of the University of Tennessee “body farm,” made famous by Patricia Cornwell’s bestselling novel of the same name. Bass is also, with Jon Jefferson, a bestselling author in his own right under the name Jefferson Bass. We talk about forensic anthropology, their new novel Flesh and Bone, what CSI gets wrong, and how to have fun in Chattanooga’s gay bars.
People in the newspaper business seem awfully gloomy about the future right now, and with reason. But there’s one bright spot: Wall Street Journal publisher Gordon Crovitz, who describes himself as “the last person in the country with ‘newspaper publisher’ in his title who nonetheless is an optimist.”
We’ll talk about why he’s optimistic, about how the Wall Street Journal’s online edition came to be the fourth biggest newspaper in the country — bigger than the Washington Post or the L.A. Times — and how newspapers, and newspaper publishers, should be adapting to the new era. Plus, his view of blogging as “a great journalistic art form.”
Mitt Romney has officially declared his interest in the 2008 Presidential election. In this interview, he responds to a controversial YouTube video about his positions on abortion and other social issues, and talks about the war, gun rights, health care, research and development, and the role of the blogosphere in the 2008 election, among other things.
Does marriage still matter? We talk to the Manhattan Institute’s Kay Hymowitz about her book, Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age. Hymowitz talks about the role of marriage in childrearing, wealth accumulation, and more — and how the unequal popularity of marriage is making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
It’s a Martha Stewart Christmas at the Glenn and Helen Show! Well, it’s a show about Martha Stewart at Christmastime, anyway. We interview law professor Joan Heminway about her book, Martha Stewart’s Legal Troubles, which comes out next week. We’re joined by Professor Ellen Podgor and talk not only about Martha Stewart’s legal troubles, but about the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, white-collar crime, and the criminalization of nearly everything.
You hear a lot about suicide and depression during the holiday season. We talk with Dr. Eric Caine, head of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Rochester and a consultant to the President’s Commission on Mental Health, about suicide and suicide prevention. Do antidepressant drugs raise the risks of suicide or lower them? What preventive steps work, and what should general medical practitioners, or concerned friends and family do? Dr. Caine offers lots of answers, and interesting discussion.
In this episode, we take listeners’ questions and answer them — including a few that were emailed in audio form, making it a sort of call-in show. Tune in and learn!
Most people agree that political divisions have gotten worse in recent years. Orson Scott Card’s new novel Empire looks at whether and how those divisions might lead to an American civil war in the near future. It’s a thriller novel, a la Tom Clancy, but it’s also a cautionary tale. We talk with Card about the novel, the political scene, and what Americans should be doing.
The Glenn and Helen Show: Orson Scott Card on Empire and Division in American Politics
With the Democrats back in Congressional majority, there’s more talk of health care regulation, and perhaps even a Canada-style socialized-medicine approach. Dr. David Gratzer is the author of a new book, The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care, and — as the foreword by Milton Friedman might suggest — he suggests a very different approach.
Are old media doomed to be replaced by new media? Or is there more likely to be some sort of symbiosis?
Lots of people wonder about that, and we took the opportunity to talk with Angela Diegel and David Dunbar from Popular Mechanics when they came to town. Diegel is the magazine’s online director, while Dunbar is the Executive Editor.
The Democrats have taken the House and, it appears, the Senate. Donald Rumsfeld has resigned, to be replaced by Robert Gates. What’s next for the War on Terror and U.S. national security?
The American media have been obsessed with this week’s Congressional elections, but the foreign media have been just as interested. We caught up with Mark Little and Ken O’Shea of Irish TV’s “Primetime,” a show that’s a bit like our “Nightline” — to see what interests them about the American elections, and what has surprised them about their reporting. Plus, a look at the effect of American portion sizes on Irish waistlines.
How’s the Army doing in the Long War? Pretty well, according to Dr. Francis Harvey, Secretary of the Army, who notes that reenlistment is at a 9-year high and that recruitment is doing very well.
Helen couldn’t make it — it was a bit late for her — but I caught up with milblogger Scott Koenig, better known as Smash, when he passed through Knoxville last week. Since he’s a celebrity blogger, I took along a portable recorder and managed to cadge an interview.
Michael Totten is an independent blog-journalist who has covered the Middle East with support from his blog readers. He’s reported from Libya, Tunisia, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, and Egypt — and he’s now planning another trip.
We talk to Michael about what he’s observed, and what it’s like to make a career-change from blogger to professional blog-journalist. Plus, reviews of Libyan restaurants!
%%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20061001-MichaelTotten.mp3|The Glenn and Helen Show: Michael Totten on Independent Journalism and the Middle East%%
Jim Geraghty talks with us about his new book, Voting to Kill: How 9/11 Launched the Era of Republican Leadership. Geraghty talks about “security voters,” the Democrats’ problems and what they can do to address them, and whether Hillary can save the Democratic Party. Plus, Bush’s own problems with his “war base.”
The House and Senate have passed landmark legislation imposing transparency on earmarks in the appropriations process. The Senate is also looking at the John Bolton confirmation, and legislation aimed at trying terrorists before military tribunals.
We managed to catch up with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist this morning and talk about all of these subjects, plus Frist’s new Blogging for Bolton venture and the joys of blogging and podcasting.
%%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060914-Frista.mp3|The Glenn and Helen Show: Bill Frist on Porkbusting, the Bolton Confirmation, and the Joys of the Blogosphere%%
With Senator Bill Frist retiring and leaving his seat open, Tennessee is one of the handful of states where Democrats have a chance of picking up a Senate seat this fall, making it crucial to Democratic efforts to recapture the Senate. Earlier this year we interviewed the Democratic candidate, Rep. Harold Ford, Jr., of Memphis.
Now we’ve got the other side of the story, with Republican candidate Bob Corker. Corker answers questions on Iraq, the war on terror, the Second Amendment, immigration, and more. Plus, questions about earmarks and pork!
%%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060912-Corker.mp3|The Glenn and Helen Show: Republican Senate Candidate Bob Corker%%
With the fifth anniversary of the September 11th attacks coming up, we thought we’d talk to law professor and U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner, whose latest book, Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency looks at terrorism, the Constitution, and issues of surveillance, civil liberties, and history. One quote: “Civil libertarians are in a state of denial.”
%%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060829-PosnerOnTerror.mp3|The Glenn and Helen Show: Richard Posner on Terror and the Constitution%%
TRANSCRIPT
The Glenn & Helen Show: Richard Posner on Terrorism and the Constitution
Transcribed for use only by INSTAPUNDIT.COM
by eScribers, LLC
(Music Intro)
GLENN: Hi and welcome to another episode of the Glenn and Helen Show. Now brought to you by Pajamas Media’s PoliticsCentral.com. Today our guest is Judge Richard Posner, author of Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency.
HELEN: He’ll talk about surveillance, whether America should take a more European approach to terror, why the FBI isn’t up to the job of fighting terror, and more.
(Music)
GR: We’ve got Richard Posner on the phone now. Hi Judge Posner, and thanks for joining us.
RP: My pleasure.
HS: Thank you so much for coming on. Judge Posner, you’re a law professor and a judge, but you’ve now written several books in a row on war, intelligence and national security. Why have you chosen this focus?
RP: Oh, it was kind of — it was an accident, really. In the summer of 2004 I was asked by the New York Times Book Review out of the blue to do a law review of the 9/11 Commission’s report which was about to come out. And I agreed to do that, plus I’d gotten a little bit interested in terrorism because I had been doing some writing about catastrophic risk. So I thought it would be interesting and I enjoyed working on the review and it got pretty good press, and I was encouraged to do more work. Hoover Institution at Stanford asked me to enlarge my review into a short book, and I did that. One thing leads to another and I met a number of people in the intelligence arena and got progressively more interested and made my interest enlarge from a specific interest in intelligence reform to broader questions of how to deal with terrorism.
GR: Well it’s interesting, your book’s aimed at a general audience, not just at lawyers —
RP: Right, right.
GR: Well, that’s like this podcast.
RP: Right.
GR: And I guess the title, Not a Suicide Pact kind of gives it away to some degree, but can you give our listeners sort of a short summary of your thesis?
RP: Yes, well, the question is to what extent does the Constitution place a limitation on effective means of dealing with terrorism. Now there is a whole network of other laws, like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that limit counterterrorism, but the book is just, and I mention that in passing, but the book is essentially about constitutional limitation. And the danger is of interpreting the Constitution in a way that it really makes it difficult to respond to novel threats that weren’t anticipated in the eighteenth century. And, of course, there’s a famous quotation from an opinion by Justice Jackson, the Terminello case, dissenting opinion in which he said we shouldn’t allow the Bill of Rights to become a suicide pact. He had lived, of course, through World War II and actually he was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, so he was very alert to novel menaces presented by twentieth century totalitarianism. And, you know, he wanted to remind us we have to interpret the Constitution in a way that it will enable us to cope with unanticipated dangers. Well, that was then, and now we have the terrorist threat, which is very grave, and it’s also very novel, and the question is whether the Constitution has enough clay in its joints that we don’t have to commit national suicide in order to comply with it. And my conclusion is, yes, the Constitution is flexible, the dominant interpretive theme in the history of constitutional law is flexible interpretation. I’ve always agreed with that approach, and I think if judges were more knowledgeable about the terrorist threat they would see how the Constitution can be interpreted in a way that it protects civil liberties adequately but doesn’t cripple our counterterrorist efforts.
HS: So, judges don’t really know much about terrorism. They are not trained in, say, information about national surveillance and that type of thing. They’re making decisions based on misinformation?
RP: Yes, let’s just say it’s a serious problem. See, we have a tradition in this country, we have a generalist judiciary. We don’t have specialized judges or specialized courts. There are exceptions, but they’re very few. That’s the tradition, so we don’t have national security courts. The closest we have, of course, is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and then the review court on top of it, but they just do the FISA warrants, that’s all, they’re not a general antiterrorist court the way the French have. So most of these issues interpreting the Constitution in reference to antiterrorist measures are going to go before generalist judges like the judge in Detroit and her decision is going to be reviewed by the Sixth Circuit, a generalist court, and probably by the Supreme Court, a generalist court, so yes, our judges are seriously lacking in expertise. It wouldn’t be too serious a problem — it would be a problem, it wouldn’t be as serious as it is if there weren’t an imbalance. Because the judges at least think they know a lot about civil liberties. They don’t know anything about terrorism, so when they’re confronted with a civil liberties issue involving terrorism, they’re much more likely to give way to the civil liberties concerns, because that’s what they know about, than the terrorist concerns which they don’t know about. Now, some judges would be the opposite. Some judges would say well, since I don’t know anything about terrorism, I better let the government do what it wants. Some judges will react that way. But I think more judges, probably because there’s hostility and skepticism by the Bush administration, more judges, I think, will react the other way. They’ll say to themselves well, I know a lot about civil liberties, now this terrorism business, I don’t know how serious that is, I don’t know where the government is approaching, whether these measures it’s taking are necessary, so I’m not going to give up on civil liberties just because of some kind of nebulous concern with terrorism.
GR: One of the things I notice you say in the book is that we tend to apply one of two different models: either a law enforcement crime model or a sort of World War II total war model to terrorism, but that it’s really somewhere in between. And, what does that lead to in terms of our approach?
RP: Yes, well it is uniquely in between. So, here’s what focuses it. So, in a conventional war like World War II, you’re usually pretty sure who the enemy is because the enemy, they’re foreigners, they’re abroad, they’re wearing uniforms, very easy to figure out who they are. Now once in a while, of course, you had those eight saboteurs landed by German submarine in 1942 in Long Island. Of course, they were — that was a little more complicated. They weren’t uniformed and so on. But they were quickly identified as German soldiers. So that was no problem. On the other hand, with terror we know there’s from England, we know there’s from the Pidia case and so on. The enemy may be your own citizens, they may be inside the United States, and it may be unclear whether they are the enemies or whether they’re just people with their big mouths or something like that; they talk wildly or maybe they just — it’s just a case of mistaken identity. So lacking that certitude about who the enemy is — to treat this as war is, I think, excessive. I was on a panel at N.Y.U. with a conference at N.Y.U. and another panelist was just a very intelligent young lawyer from the Justice Department who said well, since the battle zone, as he put it, is the whole world, the government should have the same power to seize people in the United States as enemies and cart them off to a military brig or something, as it would in a foreign country if they’re U.S. citizens. Well, that’s obviously a problem. So that’s why I don’t like the war metaphor. The crime model is even worse, actually. Because on the one hand this kind of terrorism we’re facing, maybe because of its international scope or because it’s growing on a population of a billion three hundred million Muslims and so on, but also because we’re living in the era of proliferation where the potential access of terrorists to nuclear/radiological weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons and so on is growing by the day. So, we’re in serious danger and our criminal justice system simply isn’t designed for that. The procedures are wrong, the institutions are wrong, the whole basic assumption is wrong. So our criminal justice system assumes there’s going to be a huge amount of crime. And the purpose of criminal justice is not to extirpate crime, which would be completely quixotic, it’s just to control it. So we have, I think, about thirty thousand murders a year. And we’d like to maybe reduce that number slightly; we want to prevent it from growing. That’s the function of our criminal justice system. But we can’t take the same approach to terrorism and say, well, as long as we don’t have, more than five thousand people killed a year in terrorism, it’s just a spike in our murder rate and we’ll use the same old means. That doesn’t fit. That’s just wrong. So we have to have much more focus on prevention. And that isn’t the focus of criminal justice. The focus of criminal justice is the way you prevent is you wait for the crime to occur, sometimes we don’t stage the crime with a sting, we do wait for it to occur, then you arrest the person and the fact that you’ve caught someone has a deterrent effect on other people, and it incapacitates this guy. Well, that’s feeble as a strategy against terrorists. First of all, it’s extremely difficult to deter these people. They’re fanatics, many of them are suicidal, and deterrence doesn’t work. Incapacitation is not very effective because there’s this huge reserve army of potential terrorists. I mean, what the economists would say you have very high elasticity of supply. You remove one terrorist and someone else steps into his place. Really, they’re drawing on this pool of a billion three hundred million. Plus, not to mention the converts that they’re busy trying to make. Now, only a very tiny fraction of that billion three hundred million are potential terrorists, but you don’t need a big fraction of a billion three hundred million to have a really large pool of recruits. So if you lose one, ten, a thousand stuck in a prison somewhere, well, they’re quickly replaced. So, the criminal justice system obviously has a role to play in this, but I think it’s a subordinate role. And I’ll give an example of why — it may shock you a little — example why our criminal justice system just isn’t designed for this. If you think of the rule of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which you need to convict and imprison a person, what it says is that we’re much more worried about acquitting — I mean, we’re much more worried about convicting an innocent person than acquitting a guilty person because with that rule you’re going to have a lot more false negatives, that is, acquitting guilty people, and a lot fewer false positives, convicting innocent people. And, you know, so you’re weighting the false positives much more heavily as bad things and jiggering the rules so that that you minimize those. Well, with terrorism it’s very different. Because that false positive, that terrorist you failed to neutralize, he may be incredibly dangerous.
HS: And the other criminals aren’t? I mean, we have people released, I’ve seen people released as a false positive and they go off and do some pretty awful things.
RP: Yes, but there is a great difference in the scale because even a serial murderer is a good deal less dangerous than a terrorist. If you think about the recent Heathrow plot — now, we don’t know how far that actually would have gotten because a lot of these things fall of their own weight and they — people get discouraged, their efforts to create explosives don’t work, they blow themselves up, and so on. But it was a dangerous plot you certainly had to take seriously. And think of what it would do to the country if there were a really serious attack on civil aviation. And civil aviation is by no means the only thing these people are interested in. If you think of the history of the Al-Qaida attacks, so the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 had nothing to do with civil aviation. Likewise, the attacks on our African embassies and the attacks on the Cole. So while they’re clearly very interested in shutting down — would like to shut down civil aviation, that’s not all they’re interested in. And as I say, with the access to weapons of mass destruction improving for individuals and small groups, these terrorists have really a tremendous potential to do harm. And as I say, our criminal justice system sort of is premised on the idea that yes, we’re going to have a lot of crime and we don’t try to prevent or extirpate crime, we just try to control it. We just try to keep it down. And that’s not good enough for terrorism. That we have to prevent. Even a single attack could be — I mean, look at the enormous repercussions of the 9/11 attacks. You could say well, what’s killing three thousand people? It’s a tiny fraction of the U.S. population. It has tremendous effect; not just direct economic effect, but political effect, geopolitical effect, and that can happen again. And our criminal justice system isn’t designed to prevent that.
GR: Isn’t one of your points as well that an ounce of prevention may actually preserve more civil liberties given that in the event of a big terrorist attack you’re likely to see a backlash and much more stringent regulations after the fact?
RP: Yes, absolutely. Yes, there’s no question that the worst thing that could happen to civil liberties would be another attack, and I think the civil libertarians are in a state of denial. Because in order to feel comfortable about their civil libertarian posture they have to, as a sort of psychological matter, they really have to denigrate the terrorist threat. They have to say it’s exaggerated and we haven’t been hit in five years, and so on and so forth. So, if they faced up to the fact that there is a real danger and that another attack on the scale of 9/11 would really set civil liberties back by many, many years, no question about it. It’s interesting, the Heathrow business. The Heathrow plot scared people in the United States partly because the tremendous inconvenience that was visited, just for a few days, but the inconvenience, that got people’s attention. So all of a sudden they start thinking about the English, their law that allows them to hold a person basically incommunicado for twenty-eight days. Maybe that’s something we should be thinking about. So even the foiled plot gets people thinking about how we could — about the tradeoff between civil liberties and security.
GR: One interesting irony here is that it’s usually people on the left that want the United States to be more like Europe. And people on the right —
RP: I know.
GR: — that talk about exceptionalism, but here it seems like it’s totally reversed.
RP: I know, it’s really funny. I think the reason — I mean, yes, I think that’s an excellent point. One of the things that I have complained about with regard to the Supreme Court’s practice of citing foreign decisions in constitutional cases — I have many complaints about it. What is probably the most important is simply that it requires a great deal of cultural awareness to understand the meaning and context of a foreign decision dealing with, you know, freedom of religion, or abortion or what have you. But the other — another objection I have is that if they’re going to say we’re one world and we can learn a lot from foreigners, and so on and so forth, well, then they ought to be looking sort of across the board and look at other areas besides capital punishment, where foreigners have a different approach from Americans. And one of these is national security. What’s so interesting about Europe is, and it makes kind of sense when you think about it, it’s a more statist culture, so and it’s anti-capitalist, so European countries have much more stringent protection of privacy against corporations than we do, but they’re much more relaxed about national security surveillance, other evasions of privacy done by government. ‘Cause they trust their governments. So there’s this curious inversion. But I think, obviously I don’t think we should mold our constitutional law into foreign values, but we should look at foreign experience and see why they do that. Now, it is very important in counterterrorism, much less important in criminal justice, because less is at stake with ordinary crime, it is very important to be able to hold people for a prolonged period, not indefinitely, not forever, incommunicado because you don’t want to let them go before a judge because then everything’s out in the open and the person clams up and so on. You want to isolate people in order to put pressure on them and also to conceal what you’re doing from their accomplices. So, there are a lot of ways in which once you identify the terrorist threat as sui generis which you say this provision and that provision and so on of our law doesn’t fit. Now as it turns out, if you look at — not at a network of laws that could be changed relatively easily, but you look at the Constitution, we’re less penned in than people think. So these articles in the newspaper about the twenty-eight day rule in Britain says oh well, that’s really different than the United States because in the United States you have to bring a criminal suspect before a magistrate within forty-eight hours. Well, that’s wrong. What the Supreme Court has said is that there’s a strong presumption that you have to bring someone before a magistrate within forty-eight hours, but if it’s a bona fide emergency or there are other exceptional circumstances, you can keep the person longer. Now that vagueness, that open-endedness, how much longer do they mean and so on? That’s bad, and of course the cautious criminal prosecutors, they don’t want to endanger a prosecution so they’re going to stick to the forty-eight hours, but it would be constitutionally permissible, I think, to have a law like the British law permitting longer detention in a national security emergency. So, the civil libertarians love to wave the Constitution because, you know, the Constitution is kind of holy writ for Americans. In American public discourse if you say something is unconstitutional you say that the framers of the Constitution lacked perfect foresight or something, you’re a blasphemer. So it’s important to recognize the Constitution is really quite a loose garment, not a shrink-wrap, so we have flexibility to address these terrorist dangers.
GR: That’s kind of another role reversal, isn’t it? I mean, usually the living constitution theory is associated with people on the left and with, you know, trying to find a right to gay marriage or something, but here it sounds like you’re the one advocating a living constitution approach and it’s the civil libertarians who are sort of taking the rigid ‘it is written’ approach.
RP: Yes, that’s interesting. I hadn’t thought about that. You know, these interpretive theories tend to be very opportunistic and often the same people will argue strict construction when they’re defending something that is in the original Constitution and loose construction when they want to do something that isn’t there. But I think I’ve been consistent, I think I’ve always been a loose constructionist like Oliver Wendell Holmes because it’s an eighteenth century document, and I think the framers were really remarkable people. They were extremely intelligent and they had opportunities that closed for subsequent generations, they really could write on a clean slate; they had very relevant historical experience with the British monarchy, and strength and limitations, so I think they did a great job. But the notion that they had the answers to twentieth century problems rather than having created a framework in which these novel problems could be addressed is, I think, wrong and dangerous. So you’re right, but there’s another reversal, this is having civil libertarians rhapsodizing about the FBI and about warrants and so on, and about warrants presented to a secret court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. They used to complain that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was just a rubber stamp; that it had never turned down a warrant request. I think what actually happens is, from what I understand talking to people, is that sometimes they’ll tell the Justice Department they’re not satisfied with the showing they’ve made and then they send them back to get more evidence. But an ex parte judicial proceeding, especially of a secret tribunal where the people are presumably self-selected, you see, you can’t become a member of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court unless you undergo the full — well, all of the judges get a full background investigation when they’re appointed, but to be on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court you have to have an investigation that will qualify you for a top secret clearance. Well, a lot of judges just wouldn’t undergo that. They’d regard it as an invasion of privacy and they’re not that interested in listening to warrant applications, so you will tend to get on a court like that the national security buffs. And they’re not going to be quick to prevent the government from conducting surveillance for national security purposes. Now, if they’re defied by the administration, the administration has not been tactful in its dealings with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, then they may get their back up and they begin asserting their independence, but I don’t think the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s really a significant screen protecting people from overzealous national security investigations. And similarly I think the civil libertarians, are very much opposed to the creation of a domestic intelligence service on the model of MI-5, something I have been urging since my book review two years ago, because they say the FBI is in the Justice Department, that means it’s completely sort of domesticated and trained to be able —
HS: Why don’t we have a counterpart to the MI-5? What’s that about?
RP: Well, I think the reason is that we don’t have the same history. You know, the distant origins of MI-5 are actually in the sixteenth century because Queen Elizabeth, the first Queen Elizabeth, faced a very serious what today we call a terrorist threat that actually has parallels because she was Protestant and the Catholic powers, France and Spain particularly but also the Pope, were very eager to bring her down. And one way in which they tried to do it was to send priests disguised as ordinary people into England with instructions. They would try to kill Queen Elizabeth, they would try to disrupt the monarchy and pave the way for Mary Queen of Scots, and so on. And they were told, this is the sort of modern parallel, you’re likely to be caught, tortured and killed but that’s okay because you’re going to be a martyr. So they got these martyr candidates flooding into England. And Queen Elizabeth had a very able counterterrorist officer, Sir Francis Walsingham, and he conducted domestic surveillance. Obviously he couldn’t do it electronically but intercepting mail and planting spies inside the subversive groups and so on and so forth. So, from the sixteenth century on, Britain appreciated the importance of domestic intelligence and MI-5 was founded along with their CIA counterpart, MI-6, in 1909, and they had very significant successes during World War II where England was peppered with spies. It was extremely easy for Germany to plant spies in England by submarine, by parachute, and just a lot of people who would fly into England from neutral countries. And MI-5 was extremely successful in turning these people and using them to feed misinformation back —
HS: So we just haven’t had the experience?
RP: We haven’t had the experience. You know what’s interesting, our OSS, our first real sort of counter — it was more than CIA, more than intelligence but also covert acts and so on, founded it when we got into World War II. Actually, the impetus from it, the inspiration came from an English intelligence officer, a fellow named Stevenson. So we’ve always lagged in that. Of course in World War II we were worried about German espionage and had very much of it — FBI dealt with that. The real penetration of the United States in the forties was not by the Germans, it was by Soviet agents. And that was terrible. Hundreds of members of the U.S. government were Soviet agents. And, of course, they got some of our atomic secrets that way. The FBI was totally ineffectual in dealing with the communist penetration. By the early fifties the communists in the government had been rounded up and neutralized one way or the other. But at that point the FBI kind of wakes up and penetrates successfully the U.S. Communist Party. But by that time the Communist Party was not a big danger. Anyway, the real spies — the Soviet spies had generally not been members of the U.S. Communist Party because that was a giveaway since there was some surveillance of them. So that was the fifties and then, of course, in the early seventies came the revelations that the CIA and the FBI and other agencies like the Chicago Police Red Squad had been engaged in domestic intelligence activities that were quite off the wall and quite absurd, partly because of J. Edgar Hoover’s paranoia, partly because there is a great potential for abuse whenever you start trying to maintain surveillance of domestic threats. Because terrorism is a political crime, if you’re worried about terrorists you’re going to be interested in people’s political views, and there’s always a blurry line between actual terrorists and someone who is just preaching revolution. So there were abuses and that lead to a big reaction, the Church Committee and the Pike Committee and since then the FBI has been relatively docile and focused on ordinary crimes. But the deeper problem with the FBI as an all-purpose domestic intelligence and police service is that they are a criminal investigation agency and all their culture, their recruitment, their practices, they’re all oriented toward arresting people and developing evidence that will stand up in court and lead to a conviction. That’s what they understand. They don’t understand the kind of cat-and-mouse game that’s involved in trying to learn the scope of a terrorist network. So they’re premature. They jump in too soon. Like this group in Miami, the Miami Seven, who wanted to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago? They were actually penetrated by an FBI informant, which is great, and then as soon as the informant had learned enough about these people to realize they were committing crimes and materially supporting terrorism and so on, the FBI pounced and arrested them and they’re being prosecuted. Now, so there are several problems. One is when you arrest people at the very outset of their terrorist planning you don’t really have the kind of the strongest case. You may have plenty of evidence for a conviction, but there’s always the uncertainty when you catch people in the early planning stage, was this really serious or were these just a bunch of loonies who were just talking a lot and devising ridiculous plans. So, the terrorist prosecutions we’ve had in the United States since 9/11, they haven’t been very impressive occasions, have they? No, for one thing you provide a platform for fanatics, people like Moussaoui to have their hour on the stage making a lot of noise with the court. That’s not great.
HS: But you argue that the real issue isn’t really the gathering or interception of information on individuals, but how it’s put to use. How comfortable should we be that the government will use that information that it gathers about us properly and not link it, say, link it to, like, an insurance company, our boss or the New York Times?
RP: Well as I say, I think the warrant as a protection for civil liberties in the national security area is not a good idea. What happens is that you get dilution. Apart from the secret court and so on, the warrant requirements under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act are laxer than under Title III, the standard wiretapping statute, because all you have to show is that someone is an agent of a foreign power, a foreign group, and that’s different from having — when you’re talking about terrorists, if you have probable cause to think a person is an agent of a terrorist group, or probably is engaged in illegal activity, although not a hundred percent. But there is a loosening in the standard but it’s still too tight because what you really want to find out is who these terrorists are, so FISA is designed for the case in which you know that you’re dealing with agents of a foreign power, you’re dealing with terrorists, and you want to monitor their communications. It’s no good for finding out whether someone is a terrorist or who is a terrorist. For that you need — probable cause is too restrictive for that. So that presents your question. If we have more surveillance, if we don’t use warrants, then how are we going to prevent the recurrent kind of abuses we had for many, many years. And, I’ve suggested two ways. One is that interceptions for national security purposes can only be used for national security purpose. So in other words, if you have some large scale surveillance program and you’re listening to a lot of people and so on, and you discover that one of these people is not in fact a terrorist but he doesn’t pay his taxes, doesn’t pay child support, employs illegal immigrants or what have you, I would say no, that information can’t be used to prosecute this person for any other reason. It can only be used to deal with a national security threat. That, I think, would alleviate people’s concerns. The fact is it’s very difficult for most people actually to navigate through life in our society without violating laws once in a while. There’s rampant illegality of a minor sort and people don’t want to be in a position where loose talk on a phone or in an e-mail leads to their being prosecuted because they’ve provided some compelling evidence of criminality, but it’s minor and usually not bothered with. So that would be one thing. The other thing would be to make sure that whenever someone’s conversation is listened to or e-mail is read by an intelligence agent, intelligence officer, a record be made who is the person, why did they listen, what did they find out and so on, and this information about who is monitored should be turned over to watchdog committees in Congress, maybe the executive branch, maybe even some kind of judicial organ to make sure that these are bona fide national security investigations. It won’t be perfect, there would be abuses, but I think the danger is great enough that we have to — you know, it’s interesting. What we have grown accustomed to is an extraordinary degree of privacy in certain ways. Back in the — remember in the days of telegraph, you had no privacy because you gave your message to the telegraph operator and he would then click the key so he knew exactly what — and then after, with the early telephone, most people were on a party line. And of course eavesdropping on party lines was pervasive. Finally we get secure telephonic communications, so now people have more privacy than they ever had before. Well, if we subtract a little bit of that privacy because we have a national security threat, move the privacy dial back a few notches, people shouldn’t feel that that’s the advent of the Orwellian state, because we didn’t have an Orwellian state when we didn’t have secure telephonic communication. The other thing is that people — it turns out Americans give up their privacy for relatively small benefit. So, for example, if you buy books on Amazon the way I do, you know that Amazon creates a profile of your reading preferences which tells anybody who’s interested a great deal about your politics and so on and so forth. But people do that because they can’t resist the one click, right? So I think a lot of — and of course a lot of people, myself for example, we’re using the e-mail of our employer. Well, you don’t have any privacy right in the e-mail of your employer, the computer of your employer and his e-mail system. He has that. He can monitor that all he wants. So, I think a lot of people would be more comfortable if they thought that only the government, and not their employer, was reading their e-mail, and that the government’s only doing it because it was looking for terrorists. And obviously most people aren’t terrorists, so they don’t worry about that. So I think we need some fresh thinking. And there’s a tendency of the civil libertarians to kind of repeat tired formulas. You know, it’s a kind of nostalgia for the old days. It’s like the people who get misty-eyed about the New Deal and things like that, or about the labor unions’ struggle in the twenties and the Wobblies and Tom Mooney and all that stuff. Most civil libertarians are nostalgic for the McCarthy days, right? We had a simple enemy in McCarthyism and we could marshal all our constitutional resources to fight McCarthyism. Now it seems to me to be an immensely more complex and equivocal a problem and this old thinking is not helpful.
GR: Well, thank you for joining us and injecting a little bit of new thinking. Before we go, is there any final point you want to make or comment on ways you think people might misunderstand your book that you’d like to clear up in advance or something?
RP: No, but I really thank you, the two of you, for giving me this opportunity and I think this is a great new medium, the podcast, and I know, Glenn, how much you’ve done for blogging, so thank you very much.
GR: Thank you for joining us.
HS: Thank you.
(Music)
GLENN: Well, that certainly gives us a lot to think about and I hope a lot of people will be thinking.
HELEN: You know he’s right about the law enforcement end of this. I think the FBI and other law enforcement have a really hard time dealing with any type of prevention. They’re mainly on the scene when the, you know, after the crime’s occurred, but you can’t count on them a whole lot for preventing crime.
GLENN: Yeah, it’s when you find Professor Plum dead in the conservatory with his head bashed in with a lead pipe that they swing into action, not before the fact as a general rule.
HELEN: I think we need somebody way before that when we’re fighting something like terrorism.
GLENN: Yeah, I really do think it’s interesting the role reversals he sees, you know, you really do find sort of left and right swapping where people on the left don’t want to become more European, they talk about American exceptionalism, the people on the right often admire the anti-terror efforts of Britain and France. And it’s even true on the constitutional front, I think. You know, people will tell you that changes in technology and military matters mean that the right to bear arms shouldn’t mean anything, but they don’t seem interested in hearing that changes in technology and military matters mean that the government should have different powers in fighting terrorism, so it’s a big switcheroo all around.
HELEN: I guess it just depends what view you have.
GLENN: Yeah, I guess that’s right, it’s all lawyering, isn’t it? Well, there’s nothing wrong with that.
We hope you enjoyed this show anyway, and you can tune in for future episodes whenever we get around to making them. Check out our show archive at glennandhelenshow.com or you can subscribe via ITunes or any of a wide variety of other podcast subscription services. Until then, have fun on the internet.
Terror plots being busted via electronic surveillance and confidential tips, Israelis in Lebanon, Ethiopians in Somalia, Iranians in Iran, and what Montgomery Ward taught us about fighting terrorism — all in the latest Glenn & Helen Show with guests Austin Bay and Jim Dunnigan.
=====
A Production of Pajamas Media, the Best of the Blogs, and POLITICSCENTRAL. More 24/7 MidEast War Coverage HERE. More MidEast War Podcasts HERE.
%%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060811-BayDunnigan.mp3|Glenn and Helen with Austin Bay and Jim Dunnigan%%
Are America’s kids too fat? Yes! And what can — and should — we be doing about it? We talk to Dr. Michael Zemel of the University of Tennessee Nutrition Institute, and the UT Medical School, about this issue. But first, beer! We visited a microbrewery and talked with Master Brewer Al Kruzen and his apprentice brewer Joey Barbarito about the way the brewing industry has changed, …
%%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060716-FatKidsandBeer.mp3|on fat kids and beer%%
GLENN REYNOLDS AND DR. HELEN SMITH talked with JOHN MCCAIN, Republican Senator from Arizona and likely 2008 Presidential candidate about a variety of hot button topics, including immigration and campaign finance reform.
%%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060712-JohnMcCainNew.mp3|Glenn and Helen Interview John McCain%%
LONG TAIL RADIO! We interviewed Chris Anderson, editor-in-chief of Wired Magazine, about his new book, The Long Tail : Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More, a book that I liked a lot and that has a pretty strong Army of Davids resonance in places. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060711-ChrisAnderson.mp3|Glenn and Helen talk to Chris Anderson%%
It’s another podcast — this one featuring blogger and author Austin Bay and StrategyPage publisher, and author of many books, Jim Dunnigan. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060707-BayDunnigan.mp3|glenn and helen with austin bay and jim dunnigan%%
We’re podcasting from the eye of the storm. Er, or we would be, if it had an eye. Anyway, it’s a spur-of-the-moment podcast from the vicinity of Apalachicola, Florida, where we’ve tried to equal the Big Media folks in hurricane hysteria. (Besides, it was still a bit too chilly for the beach this morning). %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060613-Alberto.mp3|glenn and helen from florida%%
It’s not the movie, but an episode of The Glenn and Helen Show about divorce. We interview family/divorce lawyer Lauren Strange-Boston about aspects of pre-marriage, marriage, divorce, and post-divorce life from a legal perspective. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060609-StrangeBoston.mp3|glenn and helen are happily married%%
We talked to James Lileks, author of Mommy Knows Worst : Highlights from the Golden Age of Bad Parenting Advice, and blogger and frequent reporter on the “Mommy Wars” Cathy Seipp about parenting, how it’s changed since the mid-twentieth century, and where things might be going in the future. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060604-LileksSeipp.mp3|glenn and helen with lileks and seipp%%
This week we interview Mary Cheney about her new book, Now It’s My Turn: A Daughter’s Chronicle of Political Life. And, unlike some people, we actually spend most of our time talking about the non-gay parts! And, shockingly, that’s actually most of the book. Who knew? %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060522-MaryCheney.mp3|glenn and helen interview mary cheney%%
Okay, a while back I was skeptical of Seth Roberts’ new book, The Shangri-La Diet: The No-Hunger, Eat Anything Weight Loss Plan. Most diets don’t work, and this one sounded particularly oversold. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060517-ShangriLaDiet.mp3|glenn and helen interview seth roberts%%
It’s a roundup of Republican problems and solutions in today’s Glenn and Helen Show. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060511-MehlmanBarone.mp3|glenn and helen with ken mehlman and michael barone%%
We talk to Jim Meigs of Popular Mechanics about alternative fuels, and Henry Copeland of Blogads.com about the new Blogads reader survey and the future of the blogosphere. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060502-CopelandMeigs.mp3|glenn and helen with jim meigs and henry copeland%%
I’m interested in the Singularity, and I’m a big fan of Vernor Vinge’s. He’s got a new book out next week called Rainbows End, set in 2025, and as I’ve mentioned before it’s pretty much an Army of Davids kind of world. He’s also the author of such previous classics as A Fire Upon the Deep and A Deepness in the Sky. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060426-Vinge.mp3|glenn and helen interview vernon vinge%%
We interview blogger Michael Totten, who spent the last six months covering Lebanon, Egypt, and Iraq for his blog, with support from his blog readers. He talks about what he saw, how well the reader-support model works, and what he sees in the region’s future. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060421-TottenBayDunnigan.mp3|glenn and helen with michael totten austin bay and jim dunnigan%%
Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. is running for Senate in Tennessee, and his bus tour took him right past our house. He stopped by for a rare in-studio interview (since we usually do these by phone), and talked about Iraq, Iran, alternative energy, ANWR drilling and nuclear power, gun rights, immigration (he supports the Sensenbrenner bill, and explains why), health care, and more. Including, of course, PorkBusters. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060411-HaroldFord.mp3|glenn and helen interview harold ford%%
We managed to catch up with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist this morning, and talked to him about immigration — both legal and illegal — whether the issue will split the Republican party, and what he thinks about Trent Lott’s remarks on PorkBusters, and about pork generally. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060406-FristImmigration.mp3|glenn and helen interview bill frist%%
It’s all about kidney donation, and organ donation policy, with Virginia Postrel. Virginia is the author of books like The Substance of Style and The Future and Its Enemies. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060403-VPostrel.mp3|glenn and helen with virginia postrel%%
It’s a podcast about Israel and blog carnivals. You wouldn’t think the two are connected, but that’s because you don’t know about the nude bodypainting. Or — well, just listen. Sharon Stone appears, briefly. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060322-IsraelandCarnivals.mp3|glenn and helen with daniel ayalon and brad rubenstein%%
Is psychology over-politicized? We interview Dr. Nicholas Cummings, a past President of the American Psychological Association, and coauthor of Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm, about the injection of politics into mental health in general, and the American Psychological Association in particular. Plus, why men are disappearing from the psychological profession. As always, my lovely and talented cohost is soliciting comments and suggestions. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060315-PsychologyandPolitics.mp3|glenn and helen with dr nicholas cummings%%
This time we interview cardiologist Dr. Wes Fisher, and Laurie Anderson of WebMD, about heart attacks, heart attack prevention, and the latest information on cardiac health. Also, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Stewart Baker talks about the Dubai Ports deal, and comments on some port security suggestions from Frank J. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060304-CardiologyandPorts.mp3|glenn and helen with dr wes fisher and stewart baker%%
We interviewed Claire Berlinski, author of Menace in Europe: Why the Continent’s Crisis is America’s, Too, about Europe, Muslim integration (and the lack thereof), and the political, diplomatic, and military consequences thereof. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060228-ClaireBerlinski.mp3|glenn and helen interview claire berlinski%%
We interviewed John Scalzi, author of Old Man’s War and Ghost Brigades, as well as Tim Minear, Executive Producer and writer for Firefly, Wonderfalls, The Inside, Serenity, and more. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060225-ScalziMinear.mp3|glenn and helen interview john scalzi and tim minear%%
Once again we’re featuring blogger and author Austin Bay and StrategyPage publisher, and author of many books, Jim Dunnigan. Bay and Dunnigan have been our most popular guests so far — their last episode has been downloaded over 125,000 times — and this time they talk about the ongoing Dubai ports imbroglio, the troubles of Islamists in the Philippines, the continuing danger posed by Iran, and Europe’s problems with Muslim immigration. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060222-BayDunnigan.mp3|glenn and helen with austin bay and jimm dunnigan%%
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist talks about government preparations for avian flu, and bloggers interviewed on the fly talk about everything, all in the latest Glenn and Helen podcast. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060215-FristAvianFlu.mp3|glenn and helen talk to bill frist%%
Today we talked with James L. Swanson, author of Manhunt: The 12-Day Chase for Lincoln’s Killer, about John Wilkes Booth, Confederate plots, revisionist history, the trustworthiness of actors, the upcoming movie based on the book, featuring Harrison Ford, and much more. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060208-JamesSwanson.mp3|glenn and helen interview james swanson%%
Austin Bay and Jim Dunnigan on the war, Roger Stern and Lynne Kiesling on oil supplies and energy policy, and warblogger Michael Yon on his experiences in Iraq, and his difficulties with the U.S. Army — all in the latest podcast. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060204-IranOilMichaelYon.mp3|glenn and helen with austin bay jim dunnigan roger stern and lynne kiesling%%
ANOTHER PODCAST: It’s guy stuff, with interviews about boys in school and hybrid cars. Michael Gurian, the author of The Minds of Boys: Saving Our Sons from Falling Behind in School and Life (and subject of thisNewsweek cover story) talks about how boys learn differently, and how changes in education have hurt their progress. He also offers some solutions, and some thoughts on videogames, character, and violence. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060130-GurianandMeigs.mp3|glenn and helen with michael gurian and jim meigs%%
So we interviewed Norah Vincent, author of Self Made Man: One Woman’s Journey into Manhood and Back. Helen does most of the talking on this one, as Vincent talks about dating women as a man, the importance of fathers, and why being a man isn’t nearly as easy as most women think. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060125-Norah.mp3|glenn and helen with norah vincent%%
It’s another podcast — this one featuring blogger and author Austin Bay and StrategyPage publisher, and author of many books, Jim Dunnigan. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060120-DunniganBay.mp3|glenn and helen with austin bay and jim dunnigan%%
It’s another InstaPundit / Dr. Helen podcast, featuring ex-Wonkette Ana Marie Cox, who talks about her new novel Dog Days, Nick Denton’s eccentric management style, how blogging actually helps with book-writing (I agree) and the role of women in the blogosphere — a subject on which she and Helen are not in agreement. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060117-ToddAna.mp3|glenn and helen interview todd steed and ana marie cox%%
IT’S ANOTHER PODCAST: We were going to run this later, but with the American Film Renaissance happening this weekend, we decided to go ahead and post this new podcast interview with independent documentarians Evan Coyne Maloney and Stuart Browning of On the Fence Films, talking about looking for the Men’s Center on campus, how technology is changing the documentary-film business (and maybe reducing its leftward tilt), and the difference between Canadian hopitals and Canadian veterinarians. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060111-EvanStuart.mp3|glenn and helen with evan coyne maloney and stuart browning%%
PODCASTING COMES TO INSTAPUNDIT: This was actually Helen’s idea, and with the book done I finally had some time. Today’s episode features an interview with blogger Michelle Malkin, talking about her book Unhinged, her life as a blogger, the Washington Post and the Bill Roggio affair, the Condi Rice presidency, and whether she plans to follow in the footsteps of Wonkette. %%AUDIO=glenn_helen_show/20060108-MalkinColdiron.mp3|glenn and helen interview michelle malkin and audra coldiron%%
This is the popular podcast series of Instapundit and University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds and his wife forensic psychologist Dr. Helen Smith. The Instapundit and the Instawife not only interview political figures and candidates, but also authors, musicians and cultural figures.
The Glenn and Helen Show: Brian Anderson on Media Freedom
The Glenn and Helen Show: Army Secretary Francis Harvey on Recruitment, Retention and Force Structure
The Glenn and Helen Show: Beers and Barbecue with Milbogger Smash
The Glenn and Helen Show: John Fund on Election Fraud and Its Remedies
The Glenn and Helen Show: Michael Totten on Blog-Journalism and the Middle East
Jim Geraghty on 9/11, National Security, and Political Realignment
Bob Corker and the Tennessee Senate Race
Russell Friedman on Moving On
Judge Richard Posner on Terrorism.
The Politics of Food
Austin Bay and Jim Dunnigan on the War
Fat Kids and Beer
Interviewing John McCain