Agricultural revolution first - History 5 podcast

Diligently I continue through the course of History 5, the podcast of UC Berkeley about European history from the renaissance to the present, about which I have written several times previously. On Thomas Laqueur's series and on Margaret Anderson's fourth lecture and her reply to my thoughts. By now, I have reached the Industrial Revolution.

It is commonly known that the Industrial Revolution started in England and it is also commonly known that the revolution was possible because of new technologies that allowed for mass production. The question is why it began in England in the nineteenth century and not in another place or time. The Chinese had the same technology - Anderson tells us the Chinese had steel bridges, long before the English had them. And France had the same, if not better technology, yet the French took much longer to industrialize. We need therefore a broader answer and I am excited as to how clear the history 5 podcast brings the point home.

If I have to recount this in my own words, I'd do it thus - and this is after one run of the lecture... What is needed for mass production is both a labor force to deliver and a market to buy. A sizeable labor force in England became available because of an agricultural revolution that preceded the industrial. By improving the organization and methods of agriculture, a much smaller force was needed to supply food for the population, thus freeing a large amount of workers for the factories. In addition, England was already a market economy, meaning, that it already had a division of labor going on and had the average Englishman, not produce for his own needs, but rather go out to the market to buy his needs and sell his specialty goods or services. In addition, the strata of English society were permeable and continuous, allowing for a climb on the social ladder to every individual. Consequently, the English already were consumers and therefore, a demand for the mass production on industrial society was also in place.

That was unique for England. In other places, less workforce could be freed from agriculture and less consumerism was in place, so that the market was less capable of growing demand.

Intermediate mindfulness

On the zencast podcast you are instructed in various ways to mindfulness. Gil Fronsdal has no started an intermediate level course into mindfulness generally. This is in an attempt to widen the strengths of the introductory course. What is good about the course, what is good about the repetitiveness of having courses and what needs to be extended. Fronsdal also reveals he is inclined to feel a bit embarrassed if he repeats himself. However, when it is in the framework of a course, and a repeated course, for that matter, he feels less hampered.

As a podcast, this series takes off on a slow start. In the first issue there is a long sitting (meditation) in the middle and that provides for a long silence on the pod. The second issue starts off with questions. Though the recording qualitey has dramatically increased and the questions are entirely audible, still, these silences and questions make the podcast listener rather detached from the course. It takes therefore considerable effort and intent, not to say mindfulness of the podcast, in order to make this course work through the recordings rather than by being present.

Parashat Balak

Jewish tradition has mapped the Torah onto the year and sectioned it into weekly portions, so that in a year's time, the Torah will be read entirely. The portions are named and sequential, so that they are recognizable and read and referred to in the same week, across the board. Last weeks section, called a parasha, or parsha, was Parashat Balak.

Parashat Balak recounts the story of King Balak of the Moabites, who sends for Bileam (Balaam, Bil'am) to curse the Israelites. When Bileam sets out to do so, he rides a donkey that is stopped three times by an angel. Three times he hits the ass and only by the third time understands he is to bless the Israelites in stead.

There are two podcasts I listened to in order to get a teaching on the parsha, KMTT and Rav Dovid's. As usual the teachings are very different, but what was interesting is that I took from them an almost similar bottom-line, though this line was arrived at in a totally different manner. Rabbi Yonatan Snowbell, in KMTT, points out that throughout Sefer Bamidbar (Numbers, Numeri) the Jews are miserably failing by whatever prescript they are met and nevertheless, Bileam is stopped from cursing them. The lesson is, according to Snowbell, that a Jew can always mend his ways and is encouraged to do so. He may be punished, severely at times, but will never be cursed. In other words, one assumes some innate moral quality in the Jew.

Also according to Rabbi Dovid Bendory, drives to this moral quality, but in a much more mystical fashion. In his view Bileam represents the immorality of the non-Jews. Bileam, being this mighty man who can bless or curse and allows his corruption by Balak of the Moabites, once he is sufficiently lured to do so. The Jews on the other hand, also have a mighty prophet on their side, Moshe, but do not lure him into corruption, hence show their innate moral quality. In spite of, adding the words of Snowbell, miserably failing most of the time in acting according to that morality.

So what I see, is that in very different ways, the Jews are encouraged by these interpretations to lead their life morally, that is according to Torah. I feel always a bit uneasy with this exclusion towards Jews and Torah. I am the eavesdropper who is not properly Jewish and therefore is not addressed, maybe even the haughty one who is on the part of Balak and Bileam. But then again the encouragement to lead a moral life is laudable in any case, applicable to everybody. For a non-Jew to hear this, only means that he has an ultimate excuse to stray as he is not Jewish and the appeal is not directed toward him. But at the same time, since he understand and sees the quality, is invited to follow nonetheless and may choose to do so. Hence, in the end, the morality is for everybody. I would add: if it is not for everybody, it is for none.

Bommelhoorspel - podcast

Oplettende luisteraars zullen al wel ontdekt hebben dat er van de avonturen van de heer Bommel een hoorspel is uitgebracht door de NPS. De aflevering worden ook dagelijks als podcast uitgebracht. Zodoende heb ik ook een tijd van dit stukje radio mogen genieten.

Mijn indruk is dat Bommel hier voor kinderen gedramatiseerd is. Er is iets van de punch van Bommel weg. Wat erger is: de stemmen kloppen niet. Nu kunnen ze ook niet kloppen; iedere voormalige lezer van Bommel heeft zijn eigen stemmen uitgedacht, daar kan het hoorspel natuurlijk nooit aan voldoen. Vandaar dat ik afgehaakt ben van deze podcast, maar voor de liefhebbers is het toch wel zaak om er toch even aan geroken te hebben. En als mijn kinderen iets meer Nederlands zouden beheersen, zou ik er nog wel iets mee proberen, maar tot die tijd niet, want aan mij persoonlijk is het niet besteed. Bommel beluister ik niet, ik lees hem.

Perry DeAngelis is right - SGU podcast

I am too far away from the Netherlands and it took The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast to alert me to something that has been going on my old country. There has been a law suit of a quack - Maria Sickesz - and the association against quackery - De vereniging tegen de kwakzalverij (VtdK) - about the fact that the VtdK had published a list of quacks which included Sickesz.

Sickesz is the inventor of a certain manual therapy called OMG (sic!), which makes medical claims that have no root whatsoever science. It just so happened though that two of her pupils (Albers and Keizer) got their PhD through a dissertation that mentions the fact that 67% of patient who underwent OMG, claim to feel better afterwards. The court in Amsterdam (Hof - see photo) uses this as basis to ascertain that the VtdK has not done enough research to claim Sickesz is a quack, hence they are convicted to pay damages / publish a costly rectification -- see verdict.

The court is blissfully ignorant of two facts. One is that the aforementioned dissertation was not a medical one, but rather one in economy. Furthermore, the judges very lightly take the conclusion of the dissertation as evidence. It reminds me of when I studied and taught law: legal professionals have little or no notion of scientific research and consequently are not capable of properly using scientific conclusions. This is terrible when legal decisions hinge on scientific, that is empirical non-legal insights. As here.

It is my opinion that for legal verdict to entirely rely on non-legal foundation is severely problematic from a juridical justification standpoint, but even if one must go that road, then do it properly. The Vtdk is now on the verge of bankruptcy and applies for support. If I were to support, I am a bit concerned where my money would go. The VtdK has the option of appeal to the supreme court (cassatie), but I worry the money will be used to comply by the Hof's verdict.

In the SGU podcast Perry deAngelis suggests: declare bankruptcy and reinstate the association with a new name, but NEVER rectify calling a quack a quack. Hear, hear Perry. And so, let it be said: Mrs. Sickesz is a quack. And in Dutch: Mevr. Sickesz is een kwakzalver!

Sari Nusseibeh - UC podcast

The Council of Foreign Relations also has its own podcast that I need to check out and it may well be, that there is an overlap with the University Channel Podcast. In any case, it is in the UC podcast I found the very interesting lecture and discussion with Professor Sari Nusseibeh.

Nusseibeh presents his Palestinian View on the Israeli-Arab conflict and surprised me with his pacifist, mild and non-polarizing tone. For that reason alone it is very important to listen to the podcast, or view the video. At the end, someone in the audience presents Dr. Nusseibeh with a question that had been bothering me throughout listening as well: Why isn't Sari Nusseibeh the Mahatma Gandhi of the Palestinians? The answer is slightly evasive, if not a bit contradictory to the previous presentation as it emphasizes how the belief in violence is still prevailing, whereas earlier it had been stated that the vast majority of Palestinians is ready for peace.

It would certainly seem very helpful if more of Sari Nusseibeh's idea's would be heard and this would represent more of a visible and viable stream in the Palestinian politics. He seems to be doing his part intellectually as you can see through his website, for example. But the question also comes to mind, whether what we witness there and in the podcast is genuine and there is a rather pounding attack from Front Page Magazine that accuses Prof. Nusseibeh of double-speak, that is, in English saying what the Western Public wants to hear, but in Arabic, saying the opposite. On the other hand, I also found severe criticism from the Palestine side at Znet where Nusseibeh is accused of giving up on the Right of Return. So enough controversial food for thought.