Carola van Alphen bij Simek 's Nachts

Carola van Alphen is niet schizofreen, zo leren we bij Simek 's Nachts, ze lijdt aan schizofrenie. Je bent ook niet een gebroken been, je hebt een gebroken been. Ze vertelt hoe het is om te leven met de stemmen in haar hoofd, hoe ze eraan gekomen is en hoe ze met behulp van medicijnen en begeleid wonen leeft. En een vriend heeft. En een boek geschreven heeft.

Niet alle stemmen die ze hoort zijn lelijk of naar, sommige zijn ook lief. Toen ze voor het eerst last kreeg van schizofrenie, wilde ze van die lieve stemmen geen afstand doen. Over wat er gebeurde dat aanleiding was voor die eerste psychose, wil ze liever niet praten. Martin Simek, die normal heel delicaat is, wil de details toch horen en dringt op brute wijze aan, zodat Carola haast stilvalt. En vervolgens hij ook, bijna. Rekende hij erop dat hij dat verhaal wel te horen zou krijgen? Of was hij zijn concentratie helemaal kwijt?

Het duurt even voordat het gesprek weer op de rails staat, maar dan is het weer een ouderwetse, geslaagde Simek 's Nachts. Een van de regels met betrekking tot de omgang met schizofrenie patienten is volgens Carola: Je mag geen druk zetten. 'Dat deed je toch, toen je naar de eerste psychose vroeg.' Zo komt de uitglijder terug en Simek is groot genoeg om zijn fout te erkennen.

Ooit interviewde hij Rita Verdonk en ging op dezelfde manier onderuit, maar nog veel erger. Maar Rita Verdonk is geen schizofrenie patiente, naar ik meen, dus die mag je wel pushen. En toen Simek groot genoeg was, om ook toen zijn fout toe te geven, had mevrouw Verdonk hetzelfde mogen doen. Want dat Carola van Alphen niet over haar trauma wil praten kan ik billijken, maar waarom zou een politica in een interviewprogramma waar ze uit vrije wil komt, ontwijkend mogen zijn? De hele uitzending met Verdonk is even tenenkrommend als dat ene moment met Carola van Alphen. De RVU heeft hem dan ook van haar site en uit de podcast feed gehaald. Maar ik bewaar die mp3 als een kleine getuige.

Skeptics and Legality - SGU #99

Slowly I have been recovering from my dip regarding The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast. A couple of months ago I was a great fan of SGU and made a considerable effort to backtrack all previous issues and at some point, I gather, I got a little too much of it. So I left the cast for some time and now I am back to listening on a weekly basis, keeping track of the newest episodes, leaving the backlog untouched.

Finally, this week, I was thrilled again. More significantly, I was thrilled during the panel section, not just during the interview, which is the more usual highlight. The discussion on news items, stopped on two subjects that not only are important, but were also exciting and for me, thought provoking. They both touched law, now that's a chuckle.

If I were to write about a certain quack that he is a quack, about his quackery to be quackery and his sectarian faith to be a sectarian faith, I might as well the be threatened with a law suit. Mostly if this comes to litigation I am likely to win, but SGU points out that the threat of legal action is used as a weapon. And cases are discussed where this succeeds. This reminds me of a former colleague of mine who wrote her dissertation about the collision between freedom of speech and slander. She found, if I recall correctly, that the court had more or less resolved this by grappling onto 'truth'. Whatever could be shown as truth, can not be slander and whatever is untrue, is easily presumed to be libel, hence forbidden. Show host Steven Novella (photo) would probably like such an approach and his concern is mainly with the issue of who is to prove. He makes a point against, alleged UK legal practice, where the accused of slander, must prove to have spoken truthfully. That is indeed unjust, but still, making law subject to material truth, seems like a sub-optimal legal solution to me.

Material truth is also at stake in the next issue of science and legality. The SGU panel voice their concern that class action suits can be decided in favor of plaintiffs even when there is no scientific evidence for causality. Specifically, litigation on the issue of vaccines that may have caused autism, may succeed even while there is no scientific evidence to that effect (if at all, to the contrary). Indeed, causation for the law, would be stretched incomprehensibly if it were detached altogether from factual causation. Still, if scientific causality were to define causation for the law, hardly any case could be decided. Panel member Perry voices hope for a wise judge. Indeed Perry.

Shrinkrapradio meets Kelly Bulkeley

Edition 93 of shrinkrapradio, is once again a most exciting and inspirational podcast. For anyone who intends to listen, a small word of warning: the sound quality is not good this time around. It is the price many podcasts pay, from time to time, as they are actually recorded phone conversations via phone applications such as Skype. The connection sometimes is less than favorable. Nevertheless, Dr. David van Nuys is at his best again in this interview with Kelly Bulkeley.

I'll give a few teasers of what is discussed in the podcast. Dreams of terminal patients and surrounding issues on the end of life. The question whether persons of different political persuasion or different religions have different dreams. And my favorite: what do the great advances in neuro-science mean for 'soft' areas such as dream research (or psychology in general). Kelley Bulkeley is an exciting speaker on these subjects and first off he inspires the interviewer Dr. Dave to come up with some very alert and to the point questions.

The result is a jewel for the listener. In spite of the bad audio, the best podcast in its kind.

Chicken and vegetables (2)

You know the challenge? There is very little stock in the fridge, it is late and suddenly you must cook a meal as fast as you can with whatever you have. An additional challenge I got: the meal is for a family whom I know quite well, but I have no idea about their eating habits.

So, what did I have? Frozen chicken and minced meat, frozen vegetables, 1 onion, 5 carrots, 4 paprikas, 1 eggplant, lots of potatoes, garlic and tomatoes and regular spices and dried goods. Not everybody likes eggplant, so that is out. Go easy on the garlic and the spices of course. I decided to go for the cookie bag. Half an hour of preparations and one hour in the oven.

4 chicken legs (separated drum sticks and thighs; skin removed)
2 table spoons soy sauce
1 tea spoon squeezed ginger
2 table spoons tomato paste (1 serving)
2 tea spoons sweet paprika
1 tea spoon turmeric
1 tea spoon ground cumin
1 onion
5 cloves garlic (squeezed)
5 potatoes
5 carrots
200 grams thin green beans (defrosted / slightly cooked)
2 green paprikas
1 large cookie bag

Defrost frozen chicken in the microwave (20 minutes). Rinse frozen green beans and allow them to stand for 20 minutes (simultaneous) in a sieve. Peel and cut carrots and potatoes (10 minutes, simultaneous to defrosting). Clean and cut onion, ginger, paprikas and garlic (10 minutes, after cutting vegetables, simultaneous to defrosting). Preheat oven at 190 degrees.
Fill cookie bag with soy sauce, spices, tomato paste. Squeeze garlic and ginger and add to the bag; mix well, by closing and shaking the bag. Add chicken, potatoes, carrots and paprika; mix well, by closing and shaking the bag. Shake the beans in order to remove as much water as possible then add to the bag and shake well.
Seal bag, make 4-8 holes with a tooth pick and place in the oven. Ready after 50-60 minutes.

Sorry no picture. The photograph is of the previous cookie bag meal I posted.

Karaoke nights at the Twilight Lounge - Writing Show podcast

Jean Tennant (photo right) wrote a novel (Karaoke nights at the Twilight Lounge) and is now trying to get her work published. How to go about that task? Send the manuscript to publishers? Get an agent? And another thing, while waiting for answers and receiving initial critiques: Should she rewrite some of the novel upon reconsidering?

Jean Tennant arrives as a regular guest on the podcast The Writing Show to report the progress or lack thereof with getting Karaoke nights at the Twilight Lounge published. She is supported by the show's audience, with good critiques and acclaim. Show host Paula B (photo left) interviews her very emphatically and together they discuss Jean's options. Paula calls this the reality show, as opposed to other editions of the podcast where she interviews writers about their end-products.

For an aspiring, forever aspiring, writer such as myself, The Writing Show is both an inspiration as well as a cold shower. The intricacies of writing and moreover of getting published and what more, that is involved in the writing process makes me discouraged. The example of Jean as a particularly discouraging case in point. I mean sofar, I couldn't push myself to finish an entire novel and she has. But then she mostly gets ignored and if at all rejected it is after more than half a year. In the mean time she has begun rewriting the novel and is still alive and kicking. I'd have come to a grinding halt with a broken heart.

The show is lovely though. Paula Berinstein is an absolute dear and I recommend this podcast warmly, especially for writers.

Not knowing - Zencast 102

One of the podcasts in my playlist that I haven't come round listening to for some time is Zencast. I love the dharma teachings, especially by Gil Fronsdal, but I have to be in the right mood. Zencast puts out podcasts that last between 30 and 90 minutes out every week, so it is easy to build up a backlog -- as I have.

I do not listen to all of them. I am particularly fond of Gil Fronsdal, like I wrote above, unlike some of the other speakers. In view of the backlog, I also revert to selective listening, based upon the subject. Hence, the issue #102 of April 29th had a compelling title: Not knowing.

I like counter-intuitive things. Like here, I am so much into knowing, I try to learn all the time, not for nothing i spend almost all of my free time listening to educational podcasts. Not knowing, stated like that, sounds like some imperative, or at least preferred attitude, and I couldn't possibly relate to the good side of that. Well, only superficially. You can't be very much into knowing, without finding out how little you know. And what is more, how much of what you thought you knew, turns out to be prejudice. In that respect, an attitude of not knowing, could mean letting go of prejudice, and there is a lot to say for that.

Dharma teaching is not like ordinary teaching. Not even like philosophy teaching. So you have to tag along and appreciate the associations and conjectural path of the speaker. That is why speakers I do not like can be so off putting. But not Gil, he has never let me down. And what is more, part of Not Knowing, means, indeed, letting go of prejudice. Fine, sofar, it would be just as good as a philosophy session, but the dharma always implies some exercise and the exercise is to practice not knowing. To study all assumptions and approach all question with an I don't know. See where it gets you. Where? I don't know.