Nuclear Terrorism

On November 20 Micheal Levi held a short talk following the publication of his book On Nuclear Terrorism (Harvard). This lecture was published as a podcast both by CFR as well as by UChannel.

The talk, and apparently the book, focuses on the use by terrorists of nuclear explosives. This means not is included the use of a regular device to spread nuclear contamination, but rather any effort to bring about a nuclear explosion as a terrorist act. Author Michael Levi has tried to start thinking like a terrorist and thus made an inventory what is needed to achieve such a feat. The subsequent question is, naturally, how such can be prevented.

As a careful positive bottom-line, it is stated that no matter how easy it may seem for terrorists to bring about nuclear explosion, it is harder in practice. And no matter how impossible it is for authorities to thwart the possible attempt with a 100% certainty, enough barriers can be mounted on the way, to limit the chances of success. Every attempt faltering at some stage, is a thwarted attempt. Even though these days all knowledge and materials are seemingly available, Levi claims, it is still quite a lot of work to bring it all together, which means the terrorist has a long way to go and when one focuses on each step in the way and increase the likelihood of capture or failure during that process, authorities can practically prevent nuclear terrorism.

More UChannel (aka University Channel podcast):
Attack Iran (or not),
Israel, Iran, terrorism,
Less Safe, Less Free (Losing the War on Terror),
The Greatest Threat to Zionism,
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.

More CFR podcast:
Africa,
CFR podcast,
Sari Nusseibeh.

No more primiaries in America - Economist

The system is broken. The Economist speaks with Tova Andrea Wang, an elections expert with The Century Foundation. Ms Wang would like to create a system that enfranchises as many Americans as possible, not simply the voters in "two little overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly rural states". Iowa and New Hampshire are dictating the pace.

Somehow the change is already taking place, by having all the primaries together on February 5th. Still, if some primaries take place before the rest, the advantage shifts to certain candidates. In addition, she voices a concern that election success implies mainly the success at rallying money. Reform plans are circulating, but eventually the states decide when the primaries take place. Michigan has made a case in point by deciding only at the very last moment when the caucus would occur.

On a side note, I wonder, again, why The Economist, publishes these podcast shortly before an election result? The miss out on the actuality of the moment. In this case, Romney won in Michigan, where everybody expected McCain. They run the risk of making redundant statements. Nevertheless. These podcasts by The Economist have managed to capture my attention and shed some light on the otherwise rather incomprehensible voting system in the US. The podcasts are short, come out with a pleasant frequency - I will keep up with them and can recommend anybody to do so.

More from the Economist and about the 2008 elections:
The Economist in New Hampshire,
A biography for Barack Obama and one for Hillary Clinton,
The Economist podcast,
Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton (UC Podcast),
Religiousness of American Presidents (UC Podcast).

Go for a walk with Open Source

Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies has a podcast called Open Source. This podcast claims to be not a podcast with a web community, but rather a web community that produces a podcast. After listening to two issues, I have yet to feel the community, but in any case there is a good quality podcast. I have to thank the blog Open Culture, for guiding me to Open Source.

Open Culture directed me to listen to the second part of the three installments long conversation with Harold Bloom. In this part Bloom eloquently laments the demise of literature and its study. "They are teaching Harry Potter these days," he cries out. And what is wrong with Harry Potter he underlines with declaring that he has read in one of the books Harry 'stretches his legs' and explaining that this cannot replace 'goes for a walk' - J. K. Rowling therefore cannot write. She is one of many, so it is in his eyes.

Before that I listened to the last show containing a conversation with Anthony Barnett about 2008. Barnett is chosen on account of his, by Open Source admired, e-zine openDemocracy. A historical perspective is taken on 2008 and Barnett explains what the world's situation is today and where we are heading. In his mind we are living in changing times, where most notably the US are losing their supremacy and will have to start sharing the world's leadership with Europe and China, possibly also India. The decline of the US's power is entirely blamed on the failed policies of George Bush.

Spanish Succession and History Podcasts

The Historyzine Podcast is not just a podcast telling history, though it is also that. In a very enthusiastic tone, spread over four episodes, host Jim Mowatt tells about the War of the Spanish Succession. In addition to that he reviews other history podcasts and on the ones I also know (History according to Bob, Binge Thinking and Dan Carlin's Hardcore History), I mostly agree with the expressed opinion. Furthermore, the reviews are very well done - sharp, to the point and intelligent.

As to the history, this is told very aptly as well. Jim reveals his podcasts are scripted, but his tone of voice is very natural and therefore very entertaining. he manages to tell the story, make some tangents and cleverly bring the story back on track. He effectively takes out a number of main characters and hands a in depth profile. Also the intricacies of the succession itself, how it came to be problematic, who were the pretenders and whose support they enjoyed is mapped out solidly.

Wikipedia lets the war span from 1701-1714, But Mowatt starts telling some two decades before. The good thing is, this makes the whole history very clear, but it leaves me wondering whether Mowatt would disagree with 1701 as the starting year and prefer to start maybe as early as 1689. Anyway. This is a podcast I am definitely going to follow more. I will also pick up the podcasts reviewed, in as far as I haven't run into them already.

My reviews of:
History according to Bob,
Binge Thinking History,
Dan Carlin's Hardcore History.

Amerikaanse kandidaten - NRC FM

Op dezelfde dag dat voormalig VPRO-man Ronald Van den Boogaard de NRC FM podcast afdoet als Een krant speelt radio, beluisterde ik de volgende aflevering van deze aarzelende poging in de nieuwe media. Het onderwerp is de Amerikaanse verkiezingen, meer in het bijzonder de potentiele presidentskandidaten. In het achterhoofd speelt de vraag of NRC FM al iets begint te leren, al dan niet naar aanleiding van de ongezouten kritiek.

Om maar met de kleine positieve kanten te beginnen. De inleiding duurt niet meer ellenlang, de sprekers worden voorgesteld en er worden zowaar geluidsfragmenten afgespeeld. De geluidskwaliteit is iets beter dan de vorige keer, maar nog altijd beneden peil. Het duurt steeds een paar seconden voordat een nieuwe spreker de juiste sterkte in zijn microfoon meekrijgt en er is nog altijd veel achtergrondgeluid.

Wat gebleven is, is het gehakkel van de presentator en dat hij deel wordt van de discussie. De discussie verloopt uitermate rommelig en er valt weinig op te tekenen wat in overige media niet al uitentreure over Hillary Clinton en Barack Obama (want zij krijgen de meeste aandacht) is gezegd. Ten slotte krijgt Heleen Mees de ruimte om haar pet peeve, die van het sexisme in de wereld te spelen, zelfs op een ad hominem manier ten opzichte van andere panelleden. Kortom, het blijft een haastig en onprofessioneel in elkaar gebakken podcast, waarmee een serieuze krant eigenlijk niet voor de dag kan komen.

Vorige post over NRC FM.
En over podcast bij de Volkskrant.

Is war innate? - Philosophy Bites

Hobbes assumed that if not for the state, humans by nature would live life that was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Implied here is that aggressiveness is innate in human beings. Plato thought otherwise as is explained by Angie Hobbs (sic) in the last Philosophy Bites.

Where Hobbes assumes a nature state with war of everyone against everyone, Plato lets Socrates describe a bucolic state, where a simple rural society leads a peaceful but abstemious life. War enters the scene when man develops desires for luxuries, specifically Sicilian sweet meat and Corinthian call-girls are mentioned. It is accepted by Plato these desires are innate and that the scarcity of Sicilian sweet meat and Corinthian call-girls will inevitably lead to war.

He questions however, if man's desires necessarily need be directed towards the scarce pleasures. He argues, by that time the desires have been corrupted and that is where aggression kicks in, but innately there is just desire. If desire could be directed to elated things, that are not scarce, aggression need not come out. That would show, aggression as such is not innate.

More Philosophy Bites:
Wittgenstein,
Friendship,
Egalitarianism,
Skepticism ,
Thought experiments (and Avicenna).