Claim OwnershipVital Interests Podcast
Subscribed: 16Played: 319
Subscribe
© JAY-VEE Productions
Description
Hosted by Karen Greenberg. Brought to you by the Center on National Security, Vital Interests Podcast was designed to help you think about security in its many dimensions, from pandemic to climate change, from terrorism to population migration, from war to peace - all with an eye towards the rule of law, the protection of human rights and the respect for civil liberties.
Twitter: @VI_PodcastCNS, @KarenGreenberg3.
Twitter: @VI_PodcastCNS, @KarenGreenberg3.
57 Episodes
Reverse
In this episode of Vital Interest Podcast, Sheila Foster, a professor of urban law and policy at Georgetown University and the co-director of LabGov, reimagines traditional structures of governance in cities. She offers a new approach: the Co-City, which identifies urban space as a “commons.” Vital Interests Podcast with Karen Greenberg is brought to you by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.
Matt Duss, Foreign Policy Advisor to Bernie Sanders, joins this episode of Vital Interests Podcast to discuss the Capitol Riots, Biden’s foreign policy challenges, and the legacy of 9/11. Vital Interests Podcast with Karen Greenberg is brought to you by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.
The Justice Department’s legitimacy took a hit under the Trump administration. Can reforms within its Office of Legal Counsel—and a rule-of-law-abiding new Attorney General— help burnish its reputation? Annie Owens, a former Attorney Advisor in the OLC, joins this episode of the Vital Interests Podcast to discuss. Vital Interests Podcast with Karen Greenberg is brought to you by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.
Nearly 20 years after 9/11, one might ask, where do we stand now in terms of counterterrorism policies? What have we accomplished? What remains to be done? Fionnuala D. Ní Aoláin, UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism joins this episode of Vital Interests Podcast to share her views on the counterterrorism missteps from the past, today's challenges, and best strategies for the future. Vital Interests Podcast with Karen Greenberg is brought to you by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.
Journalist Peter Beinart joins this episode of Vital Interests Podcast to discuss China, multilateralism, a One-State solution for Israel – and more. Vital Interests Podcast with Karen Greenberg is brought to you by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.
Tech entrepreneur and early leader of the Lean Startup movement Steve Blank joins this episode of the Vital Interests Podcast to discuss his Stanford University course, Hacking for Defense, and how the lessons learned from successful startups in Silicon Valley should be applied to 21st
century warfare and weapons manufacturing. Vital Interests Podcast with Karen Greenberg is brought to you by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.
Edwin Frank, the editorial director for the New York Review of Books, joins the podcast to discuss his long-running collection, the NYRB Classics Series. Vital Interests Podcast with Karen Greenberg is brought to you by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.
In this episode of Vital Interest Podcast, Former Democratic Senator Russell Feingold unpacks the historic challenges threatening America’s democratic system and offers four Constitutional amendments to fix “some of the glitches that exist. Vital Interests Podcast with Karen Greenberg is brought to you by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.
The former National Security official joins this episode of Vital Interests Podcast to discuss his time in government, the need for reforms at the Department of Homeland Security, and what’s at stake in the upcoming US presidential election. Vital Interests Podcast with Karen Greenberg is brought to you by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.
Jonathan Stevenson, senior fellow for US Defense at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, joins this episode of Vital Interests Podcast to discuss the future of the Iran Nuclear Deal, the state of the State Department under Secretary Mike Pompeo, and the Trump administration’s use of the military in responding to nation-wide protests on racial inequality and police brutality. Vital Interests Podcast with Karen Greenberg is brought to you by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.
Liam Collins, the founding director of the Modern War Institute, joins this episode of the Vital Interests Podcast to discuss proxy wars, cyber security, and the future of global conflict. Vital Interests Podcast with Karen Greenberg is brought to you by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.
Dangerous Myths: How the Crisis in Ukraine Explains Future Great Power Conflict
Listen to Robert Draper, writer for the New York Times Magazine & National Geographic, on his new book To Start a War, How the Bush Administration Took America into Iraq. Vital Interests Podcast with Karen Greenberg is brought to you by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.
Rep. Jahana Hayes, National Teacher of the Year in 2016, joins this week’s episode of Vital Interests Podcast to discuss her continued hope in American democracy, and how the COVID-19 recovery is an opportunity for systemic and inclusive change. Vital Interests Podcast with Karen Greenberg is brought to you by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.
A conversation with Rebecca Ulam Weiner about the evolution of terrorism, and the current challenges facing law enforcement and society at large. Vital Interests Podcast with Karen Greenberg is brought to you by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.
Listen as Tom Parker discusses the value of understanding the conditions that give rise to terrorism and the need for a longer time frame for measuring counterterrorism strategies. Vital Interests Podcast with Karen Greenberg is brought to you by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.
Join us as Peter Bergen discusses terrorism, the Iran Deal, the Taliban, a Biden presidency and America’s ever-changing national security landscape. Vital Interests Podcast with Karen Greenberg is brought to you by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.
Jonathan Hafetz talks about Adham Hassoun, Enemy Combatants and today’s Department of Justice. Vital Interests Podcast with Karen Greenberg is brought to you by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.
Michel Paradis discusses the legacy of 9/11, war crimes, military commissions, and his new book Last Mission to Tokyo. Vital Interests Podcast with Karen Greenberg is brought to you by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.
Former California Governor Jerry Brown discusses what more states can do to respond to COVID, how we can honor the humanity in all of us, and ways to help parents in today's difficult times.
Vital Interests Podcast with Karen Greenberg is brought to you by the Center on National Security at Fordham Law.
California's Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis discusses immigration, trade policy, women in politics and her hopes for the future with host Karen Greenberg.
Top Podcasts
The Best New Comedy Podcast Right Now – June 2024The Best News Podcast Right Now – June 2024The Best New Business Podcast Right Now – June 2024The Best New Sports Podcast Right Now – June 2024The Best New True Crime Podcast Right Now – June 2024The Best New Joe Rogan Experience Podcast Right Now – June 20The Best New Dan Bongino Show Podcast Right Now – June 20The Best New Mark Levin Podcast – June 2024
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store
United States
I struggled to find the value in this interview. I don't have an issue with the thesis, but the guest seemed to confuse his wealth with competence. He misunderstood or misconstrued questions, he did not seem particularly well read on the topic (neither in terms of philosophy nor in empirical research), and he seemed quite comfortable opining based merely on his intuitions and ruminations. In short, this came across to me as another arrogant rich (though well-intentioned) guy presenting his hypotheses as conclusions. I think I broadly agree with him on this point, but what is he adding and what evidence does he have? Moreover, why does he think his rhetorical approach and format are the most effective ways to achieve his goals on this topic?
Odd to hear a former National Teacher of the Year use poor grammar (e.g., "... my grandmother raising my brother and I") and have the odd NJ habit of dropping middle ts (e.g., "impor-ent"). I guess that's just the state of U.S. education.
@19:12: This is an exceedingly dangerous and poorly reasoned argument from Sen. Feingold. He's arguing in favor of a system of governance that facilitates (if not ensures) a tyranny of the majority. What is the check on the legislative branch if not via judicial review? Does he imagine it would be the executive--more or less an individual? To whom could members of minority groups appeal if not to the courts? And given the abominable degree to which representation is tilted to favor Republicans (via structural over-representation in the Senate--which then cascades to Electoral College votes--as well as gerrymandering for the House), his proposed enervation of the judicial branch would likely only worsen the current situation, leading to a tyranny of the minority. After all, from where does he think the current judicial skew arises? From the over-representation by amoral Republicans in the legislative branch! Why empower them further?! No, this is a stupid line of argumentation,
@7:26: Unfortunate to hear Sen. Feingold make such flippant, vague, disparaging comments about racist institutions. That sort of accusation needs to be precise. Likewise, I know of no evidence that George Floyd's killing was racially motivated. It seems to have been a straight-forward case of police brutality, and I worry about such casual imputations of racism, because they distract from actual causes and needlessly erode social capital.
"Warning Signs" sounds like a book based on a misunderstanding of basic statistics. Clarke reviewed false negatives to draw conclusions about predictions, with seemingly no attention to false positives. This is survivorship bias in action. P(A|B) rarely equals P(B|A), as he seems to assume. WHY do we promote people like this and listen to their blather rather than hiring, promoting, and respecting actually competent people?!
I've always disliked the way Clarke speaks. He sounds as if he's over-simplifying events as if he sees (and saw) everything clearly. His way of speaking betrays no real self-reflection or appreciation for uncertainty. It's easy to see how such a person advanced in a political bureaucracy.
It doesn't help the guest's rhetorical case to be so obnoxious, unfocused, and confrontational. He would be better served to calm down, be more precise, and have a structured conversation.
Such an annoying speaking style. Nearly every clause is intoned as if the lady is reading the 800th item from a tediously long list... dragging out the last syllable, adding some nasally vocal fry.
Right? Right?
Lots or weird background noises from shuffling papers.
This lady is an excellent example of how the ACLU has lost its way. She presents nearly everything as motivated by racism or sexism, even when better explanations are readily available. She uses exaggerated language and hyperbole for inflammatory mischaracterizations. Worst of all, she seems much less concerned about protecting civil liberties than about stoking identity politics or equating rhetorical pique with harm. It's unclear how the ACLU plans to abide this sort of dangerous nonsense while maintaining its legacy of protecting actual civil liberties.
It's disappointing to hear people who study public policies use such sloppy concepts and inflammatory language. E.g., it is reprehensible to use race as a proxy for SES. It is irresponsible to refer to any policy that results in economic disparities as "racist", which clearly implies intent. It is stupid and misleading to use vague terms such as "communities of color". All of this might serve to burnish her left-wing credentials, but she sounds like just another twit who can't be bothered with clarity, rigor, or the banal details of actual policy work.