Open culture blog

This is a great blog discovery. The blog is called Open Culture, concentrates on all quality culture expressions (web or not) and is updated daily. One of the good things is their guide to podcasts. They even supply a list of recommended educational podcasts - always very valuable. Podcast articles and resources is actually one of the blogging categories.

Here are some of their articles that contain lists:

• University & College Podcasts - Free Educational Podcasts
• Ideas & Culture Podcasts
• Ten Podcasts to Build Your Vocabulary
• Technology Podcast Collection
• News & Information Podcast Collection
  
• New Additions to the Podcast Family (general)
• And: on the right hand side there is a Podcast Library. A quality directory that is constantly updated
  

Here is what they write about themselves:

Open Culture explores cultural and educational media (podcasts, videos, online courses, etc.) that’s freely available on the web, and that makes learning dynamic, productive, and fun. We sift through all the media, highlight the good and jettison the bad, and centralize it in one place. Trust us, you’ll find engaging content here that will keep you learning and sharp. And you will find it much more efficiently than if you spend your time searching with Google, Yahoo or iTunes.

Ronald van den Boogaard interviewt Ina Muller-van Ast

Weer een goed interview uit de archieven van VPRO's Marathon Interview. In het jaar 1989 sprak Ronald van den Boogaard met PvdA kamerlid Ina Muller-van Ast. Doorgaans moet ik niets hebben van interviews met politici. Ik heb daarover al twee keer geklaagd in verband met Niko Koffeman. Politici zijn zo druk met hun imago en zo akelig goed bewust van hoe ze overkomen, dat alles wat er in een interview gebeurd te gepolijst, te bestudeerd, te geregisseerd eruitkomt. En als het niet het zelfbewust ego is dat de boel in de hand houdt, dan is het wel de partijdiscipline of de hete adem van de opiniepeilers en de grootste gemene deler van de kiezers, ingebeeld of niet.

Het contrast met Ina Muller kon niet groter zijn. Ik herinner me geen andere politici van haar kaliber en ik maak me geen illusies dat in de moderne, meer dan ooit door media gelikte tijd nog een politica als zij kan opstaan. Luister naar het interview en je snapt wat ik bedoel. Ze zegt waar het op staat. Ze staat voor haar principes en is zelfs transparant, wanneer Ronald haar dwingt te laten zien waar ze in onderhandelingen wil toegeven.

Nog mooier wordt het wanneer de emoties gaan meespelen. Wanneer ze volschiet als ze over Joop den Uyl vertelt. Uit haar slof schiet over Lubbers en Ruding. Ja zelfs de kiezer wordt niet gespaard. Waar zal je dat ooit zien? Een politicus die de kiezer aanpakt? Eigen schuld, moet je maar nadenken bij het stemmen. Ik heb geen nostalgie naar die tijd, zeker niet als je haar over de zaken hoort praten die eind jaren tachtig speelden, maar het is wel jammer dat het het interview zo gedateerd maakt. En het type van Muller des te meer. Of sterker nog: niet van deze wereld, want ook toen week ze af.

Weight loss -- myths and errors

At the Wise Counsel podcast Dr. David van Nuys interviews Deirdre Barrett, Ph.D. on motivating people to eat healthy and her book Waistland. She explains the science relevant to healthy weight, obesity, diet and weight loss in general. She comments on diets, on the genetic component and the counterintuitive elements in choosing the right food.

Diets and weight loss formulas are big business and consequently it is very necessary to get the pseudo-knowledge that runs around debunked. This is especially important in the light of the public health problem of obesity, which is -also in the podcast- sometimes called an epidemic. Since I have had some personal experience with overweight and am happy to report having been able to return to the right weight and stay there, I deeply connect with what she says. What she points out as myths and erroneous presumptions about weight and diet, concur with what I have learned and experienced. What she points out what eventually works, also parallels what I have found.

Hence, apart from being a high quality podcast, in my view, this particular issue is also an extremely important one. Strongly recommended.

Public Speaking with The Word Nerds

Dave Shepherd and Howard Chang discuss public speaking. First they dissect the phenomenon, go over the various aspects and necessary qualities and finally close off with practical pointers. Apart from the usual quality (the best kind of radio), this issue is also very practical. You nervous guys who are to engage in public speaking: this podcast may prove to some help.

The rude word of the week, if less helpful, is one of the regular sections and the one that is always the most charming, if naughty, still educational section. As always I have this tiny contest with myself, if I can guess up front what the rude word is going to be. This time my guess was demagogue, but it turned out to be rabble-rouser, which is somehow a synonym - yay! Not the first time I got it nearly right.

This is the language podcast I stick to. It is entertaining, funny, educational and charming at the same time.

Writing Show about self-publishing (again)

On the Writing Show we are beginning to see the subject of self-publishing becoming a genuine thread. There were comments, monologues, a panel discussion and now an interview with the CEO of one of the leading self-publishing companies. Paula B spoke with Susan Driscoll of iUniverse. What sticks with me as a bottom-line is: publishing makes no author rich. He may make a living at best, but neither traditional nor new age style publishing is gonna bring in the big bucks. The J.K. Rowlings and Dan Browns are the exceptions that prove the case.

Go and listen to Susan and to the rest of the thread, if you like, but I haven't heard much new stuff. I can see the positions taken and I am neither drawn to nor repelled by any way of publishing. And my blog, I write it because I like.

What is much more gratifying is that Paula read my comment at the end of the show. It was a reaction to the show about Tolkien and Caroll and the issue of telling versus showing. I have written my thoughts also in my blog and also mailed to Paula. Now she picked that up and broadcasted them. In the next show there is going to be another comment of mine...

What is the matter with antimatter?

BBC's In Our Time gave a shot at antimatter. We have had tough physics concepts before. I recall enjoying the issue about gravitational waves, but this time around, the show was lost on me. Not that is was bad, quite to the contrary. In Our Time was as excellent as it always is; antimatter just didn't click with me. It remained totally esoteric.

Isn't that a paradoxical thing? That a discipline as concrete as physics eventually runs into such immensely flighty concepts as antimatter? Apparently anywhere, no matter how concrete and practical, if you look long enough, dig deep enough, think persistently enough, you'll find yourself in a maze of abstractions. You can be as naturalistic, rational and fact oriented you like, but nothing helps. You have to interpret, generalize, construct and deconstruct and before you know it, you are playing a game of words.

Another thing may chip in. Something that was said on this show of In Our Time. As far as our reality is concerned, what we have access to, the world of matter (mostly) consists, in hard physics terms, of only one billionth of all there is. In other words, all that we can possible observe and lay our hands on, can never be more than a tiny fraction of the whole of nature. It is like trying to read a whole library of books while having access to one printed character in it. Try imagining more characters, whole words, sentences, a printed sheet, the semantics, the syntax, the whole book. More books, different books (non-fiction, fiction, poetry, drama), magazines, newspapers, microfilm, index cards, digitalized text and other media. All in the library, but from the one character, sheer conjecture and crazy conjecture at that.