US History - from Civil War to Present

I wonder why the lectures on Berkeley's podcast featured History 7B, US History: from Civil War to Present, only once. Maybe the reason is that professor Jennifer Burns has moved on to another institution, otherwise, I'd think, this would be among the podcasts that attracts the most attention for Berkeley. Face it, the majority of internet users is American. It would only be natural for them to go for the American History podcast in great numbers. And they probably do - considering the comments on Jennifer Burns' homepage.

Nevertheless, it is History 5, European Civilization from the Renaissance to the Present, that caught my attention first and which I continued to follow. Only now, I have turned to American History, in order to fill the gaps that lay in that area.

After the first lectures I am so happy, as usual with Berkeley. Professor Burns is a careful and patient lecturer. She is, on top of that, professionally aware of being on air, and makes sure the audio is always evenly effectuated. So far, we have little visuals to miss out on. Hence, After three lectures, which are intended to merely get us started, I have already learned more about the American Civil War than ever before and am eager to continue.

Hans Galjaard

Het marathoninterview met Hans Galjaard wordt overschaduwd door de televisieserie van Wim Kayzer Beter dan God. Hans Galjaard werd in die serie geinterviewd en dat bracht zoveel teweeg dat er twee jaar later in het marathoninterview opnieuw voortdurend aan gerefereerd wordt. In 2005 werd er in Holland Doc over nagepraat (video-stream) en ik heb er ook even naar gekeken om na te gaan hoe actueel het oude marathon interview nog was.

Eigenlijk ten overvloede, omdat het interview hoe dan ook fascinered was. Galjaard geeft aan dat hij het als onderzoeker veel te druk heeft om zich in alle ethische aspecten van zijn werk te verdiepen. Hij spreekt ook zijn zorg uit, dat bij de ethische hetze van die in de media steeds opsteekt, als bijgevolg zal hebben, dat de onderzoeker niet meer openheid van zaken zal geven. Anno 2007 kennen we de hetze nog steeds. Anno 2007 is noodzakelijkerwijs te technolgie razendsnel voortgegaan en men zal mogen geloven wat Galjaard al in 1989 ervoer: de technoloog heeft zich met ethiek niet beziggehouden. Hoe erg zijn de ethiek en de technologie nog verder uit elkaar gedreven?

Ikzie hoe moeilijk het is om achter de stand van de techniek te komen. In podcasts kom je wel eens technologen tegen en die vertellen dan wat er mogelijk is en niet meer. Toen ik op zoek ging naar podcasts die de ethiek bespraken, kwam ik niet verder dan de zwaar aangezette Christelijke podcast Bioethical Podcast. Als dat representatief is, dan is de realiteit waar Galjaard voor vreesde. De ethici in dit beeld, zijn fundamentalistische Christenen die op voorhand hun mening al klaar hebben en dus meer aan hetze dan dialoog doen. En de techneut, kent de taal van ethiek niet. En wat is er terechtgekomen van het sociaal-wetenschappelijke onderzoek waar Galjaard om vroeg, daar kom ik niet achter.

Hoe hard de ontwikkelingen ook gegaan zijn, het gesprek lijkt na 18 jaar nog zeer relevant.

Avicenna - IOT

In Our Time discussed the 9th century physician and philosopher Avicenna. I had heard of his name, but knew hardly more than that through his writings Aristotle made it to the West in the Renaissance. What I did not know, was that he wrote comments on Aristotle, so influential, that until his age, one commented on Aristotle and after him, one commented on Avicenna's works, among which, his comments on Aristotle.

Should one think influential philosophers are isolated and ascetic figures such as Kant, with Avicenna the picture turns out completely different. He was flamboyant, traveled extensively and indulged in wine and sex. Where his student and biographer praises Avicenna's prowess in carnal activities, Avicenna himself, so it turns out in the beginning of the show, praises himself for his genius. He seems to be able to pull the inflated ego off and is considered among the most influential thinkers of the Middle Ages.

In fact, he is the first thinker of whom I know he has put his mark on Islam (directly) as well as Judaism and Christianity. It is said his works were an inspiration for Maimonides (Rambam) and for Thomas Aquinas. Listen to Melvyn Bragg's guests explain this feat.

Stanford travel lectures - Africa (Morocco)

In iTunes U / Stanford, under the rubric 'Travel', Stanford's David Abernethy has two sets of lectures, one titled Africa and one Asia. These lecture series are preparations to organized journeys for Stanford Alumni. The Africa series adresses a travel to Morocco. There have been and will be more travels to other countries in Africa. I hope there will be more lecture series too.

This particular one, gives a great introduction to Morocco, its history, its culture, its religion - whatever you need to know. Abernethy is a good speaker and even if the podcast listener cannot see the slides that accompany the talk, there is still much to be learned and one will not lose focus. Great audio by Stanford as usual.

As usual, also, it is such a pity this content is only available through iTunes and is not syndicated. Is the university willingly closing part of the public off, or has Apple, through iTunes, managed to monopolize the audio content the university delivers? How inappropriate for this day and age.

EDIT: this last point has been repaired. The audio is now syndicated as well

KMTT - Isaac emulating Abraham

The KMTT podcasts about the weekly Torah portions are not delivered on a weekly basis. Parashat Chayeh Sarah was not in the series last week, though now this week, we do have parashat toldot.

Isaac takes his wife Rebecca on a visit through the region of another ruler in Canaan. He announces on this trip that Rebecca is his sister and doesn't admit she is his wife. There are two similar stories in the Torah - here it is Isaac's father Abraham, who journey's with his wife (and Isaac's mother) Sarah and also he doesn't admit she is his wife, but claims she is his sister. The podcast by Rabbi Chanoch Waxman then explains how Isaac is repeating all that his father has done and goes on to point out how this emulation is meaningful.

A thought that arose with me, already on the previous stories, especially where it took place in Egypt was that historically - so i have read somewhere, or heard in another podcast - it was customary among Egyptians to refer to their wives as their sisters. Maybe this started as a simple misunderstanding; or an attempt by Abraham to adapt to local customs has taken on an entirely different meaning? Poor Isaac, having to repeat all that nonsense...

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

The University Channel Podcast published the audio of a lecture by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, about The Israel Lobby in the US, after their book about the same subject. This is a very vivid lecture with a good question round in the end. The authors get to make their point that there is a very effective Israel Lobby. The Lobby is not a lobby of the Jews, neither of the State of Israel, but rather an American interest group, backed by Jews and also Evangelical Christians. They claim that the lobby has a great influence on the US foreign policy and that this influence at times turns out to be neither beneficial to the US nor to Israel.

The Israel Lobby neither reflects the opinion of the vast majority of American Jews, nor, so it seems to me, represent the opinion of the Israeli government or even the majority of Israeli's. The lecture confirms my impression that those who are actively lobbying for Israel in Washington - or claim to do so - tend more to the hawkish, nationalistic side of the spectrum. This goes as well for the Jews involved as well as the Christians. It means for me, as an Israeli in favor of a peaceful Middle-East policy a lose-lose situation. Either one has this hawkish lobby or there is no lobby at all and in both cases my interests are not served. It calls for a lobby inside the lobby.

My stomach turns especially when I hear Mearsheimer and Walt claim that the Lobby was not particularly in favor of the Oslo agreements. They say that the Lobby 'grudgingly' went along. I would expect that an movement that grudgingly goes along with a certain development, will jump of the train at any moment. Was that what happened when Rabin was murdered? How bad was the grudge of the Lobby for the peace process at that turn of events and in how far could it have saved the process afterwards and maybe chose not do so? I would have loved to ask THAT question.