I was all set to prejudge this one, thinking, "¡Dios mío! Why can't Bheads find two actual Cubans to talk about Cuba?" -- and I still think everything else being equal it's always a good idea to get Cubans to talk about Cuba, Russians to talk about Russia and Tibetans to talk about Tibet. But Bardach was good, and Clemons was smart to keep it relatively short and as focused as possible. There was a bit too much inside baseball, but they also touched on the big issues (although they made too much of the Juanes concert) that interest the general viewer. Nice job and probably a really good book.

Quoting Wonderment: I was all set to prejudge this one, thinking, "¡Dios mío! Why can't Bheads find two actual Cubans to talk about Cuba?" -- and I still think everything else being equal it's always a good idea to get Cubans to talk about Cuba, Russians to talk about Russia and Tibetans to talk about Tibet.

Just to push back as a general matter, I don't agree with this. "All else being equal" probably covers anything anyone wants it to, but I am going to say such a condition very rarely obtains. Anyway, while of course I agree that it's great to get the native perspective, and certainly there is nothing so tiresome as the bloviating of an ill-informed outsider, I also think that a lot of times, there is worth to the informed outsider's perspective. There can be a sense of remove, or an absence of childhood indoctrination, perhaps. This is complementary, I think, to getting the view from someone who came up in the country in question, and I don't think it's correct to view it as an either/or choice. I greatly value perspectives on America from anyone who lives outside of it, precisely because I'm interested in what grabs their attention, given their different

Brendan, I don't think anyone would disagree that getting a variety of perspectives is good, but the problem is that we hardly ever get to hear Cubans talk about Cuba or Mexicans talk about Mexico, or Russians talk about Russia, etc. It is always filtered through someone else, and while we certainly probably benefit from their interpretation abilities to communicate with us, we also lose something. Sure you'd like to hear perspectives from non-Americans, but you hear from Americans all day long every day. Anyways, I think we're all kind of nitpicking here, since we all liked this diavlog. I'm a big fan of Mr. Clemons.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: Brendan,

I don't think anyone would disagree that getting a variety of perspectives is good, but the problem is that we hardly ever get to hear Cubans talk about Cuba or Mexicans talk about Mexico, or Russians talk about Russia, etc. It is always filtered through someone else, and while we certainly probably benefit from their interpretation abilities to communicate with us, we also lose something.

Sure you'd like to hear perspectives from non-Americans, but you hear from Americans all day long every day.

Completely agreed, and maybe I should have made it clearer that I was arguing for both; i.e., that it shouldn't be thought of as an either/or, one-is-better-than-the-other proposition. But you are right, special effort should be made to getting more foreign natives, to put it inartfully. Long time no see. Good to have you back in town, as it were.

In other words, Jim DeMint is acting on behalf of, in cahoots with, and against the foreign policy of the United States of America in encouraging post-coup Honduran government officials defy the United States. He is encouraging a political leadership which has no legitimacy and which not recognized by other democracies in the region -- while the ousted President makes cell phone UN General Assembly statements from a couch-bed in the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa.

IOKIYAR http://narcosphere.narconews.com/the...baby-us-senate

I believe that your point of view is not recognized by the the Congressional Research Service as they found

* The Honduran Congress appears to have acted properly in deposing President Manuel Zelaya. Unlike in the United States, the Honduran Congress has the last word when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. Although there is no provision in Honduras's Constitution for impeachment as such, the body does have powers to disapprove of the president's official acts, and to replace him in the event that he is incapable of performing his duties. Most importantly, the Congress also has the authority to interpret exactly what that means.

* The Supreme Court was legally entitled to ask the military to arrest Zelaya. The high court, which is the constitutional venue for trials of the president and other high-ranking officials, also recognized the Congress's ouster of Zelaya when it referred his case back down to a lower court afterward, on the grounds that he was "no longer a high-ranking government official."

* The military did not act properly in forcibly expatriating Zelaya. According to the CRS report and other news stories, Honduran authorities are

Quoting piscivorous: I believe that your point of view is not recognized by the the Congressional Research Service as they found

You do realize that Foreign Policy is a prerogative of the Executive, right?

You do realize that Foreign Policy is a prerogative of the Executive, right?

AemJeff, Maybe I'm missing the context of your statement, but I think that while this position is sometimes assumed in American politics, it does not have a basis in the Constitution as far as I can tell.

Quoting Abu Noor Al-Irlandee: AemJeff,

Maybe I'm missing the context of your statement, but I think that while this position is sometimes assumed in American politics, it does not have a basis in the Constitution as far as I can tell.

Abu Noor, to the extent that that document is accurate (I don't really question that) you have me, I think:

Foreign Policy Roles of the President and Congress

Summary

The United States Constitution divides the foreign policy powers between the President and Congress so that both share in the making of foreign policy. The executive and legislative branches each play important roles that are different but that often overlap. Both branches have continuing opportunities to initiate and change foreign policy, and the interaction between them continues indefinitely throughout the life of a policy.

This report identifies and illustrates 12 basic ways to make U.S. foreign policy. The President or the executive branch can make foreign policy through:

1) -- responses to foreign events
2) -- proposals for legislation
3) -- negotiation of international agreements
4) -- policy statements
5) -- policy implementation
6) -- independent action.

In nearly all of these circumstances, Congress can either support the President's approach or seek to change it. In the case of independent Presidential action, it may be very difficult

So naturally that invalidate the CRS findings! No where have I argued that the administration does or does not have the right to make an ass of them selves in the foreign policy front.

Quoting piscivorous: So naturally that invalidate the CRS findings! No where have I argued that the administration does or does not have the right to make an ass of them selves in the foreign policy front.

Nor have you shown why you think that's true. I should acknowledge Abu Noor's point - I'd thought I knew that the President set foreign policy more independently than seems to be the case . But even so, one member, in the minority at that, is not in the business of setting policy.

If you are curious you should revisit the Diavlog discussion threads rather than have me retype my earlier comments.

Quoting piscivorous: If you are curious you should revisit the Diavlog discussion threads rather than have me retype my earlier comments.

Pisc, "to assert" is not the same verb as "to demonstrate."

This was a good one. Might I suggest more diavlogs that focus on specific geographic regions that do not necessarily come at the subject from an "What should America do about this?" perspective?

I like both of their styles, big contrast. I'd like to see more of Bardach, does she ever write about issues other than Cuba? (Not trying to be critical there)

I'll be disappointed if the embargo doesn't fall in Obama's first term. It's so frustrating to think about, I can think of no current policy more wrongheaded and so self-evidently stupid than this, including the war on drugs. It's a simple sell - we promote the cause of freedom in Cuba by... giving them more freedom. And even with such a questionable record of success embargoes are the number one "peaceful" solution considered for all "rogue" and repressive states. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa064.html