Why is iTunes U in music and not in podcasts?

There is a new section in the iTunes directory, that is called iTunes U. It is a section where universities (so far only American Universities are present) can publish their audio material. We can safely assume - and a couple of samples I have taken indicate exactly at that - most if not all of this material is educational material, whether they are lectures, interviews, talk radio, panels and so on. From my perspective, this section qualifies as educational podcasts and the content is exactly up my alley.

Not only does it walk and talk like educational podcasts, the fact that the material is free and can be subscribed to, also gives it the attributes of podcasts. That is where we hit a snag. iTunes does not treat this material as podcasts. Upon download, it is placed in the music library, inconspicuously between all the rest of the material. There is no 'podcast' or similar label and neither is it copied into the podcast section. The only separation is a folder with playlists. (I took some stuff from Stanford, so I have a Stanford folder now)

I do not like this taxonomy at all. iTunes should treat all podcasts as podcasts. It would be great if actually all talk material would be separated from the music, podcast or otherwise. Next, it would do, to have this talk section be customizable, so that the user can devise a taxonomy of his own. This woukld also improve the podcast section, which, at the latest version, still has a flat hierarchy, listing all of my podcasts, one after the other, without allowing me to group them in any which way. With the amount of podcasts I keep at hand, this has become near unmanageable.

EDIT: Have Stanford or iTunes officials been reading my blog? Stanford and other universities on iTunes U offer a button to subscribe thus making their audio true podcasts. The content turns up in the familiar podcast section. Such an improvement.

Rudi Kross -- Marathon interview

Rudi Kross fulmineert tegen de popmuziek; Rudi Kross analyseert hoe de chaos van Suriname, leidde to moralisme, wat weer leidde tot een suri-fascisme. Van dat fascisme beticht hij de dictatuur van Bouterse, waar hij toch zelf een zekere periode adjudant van is geweest. "Als een burgemeester in de oorlog?" "Ja, als je dat zo wilt noemen." En passant wordt de tour van '89 aan Fignon toegeschreven (achteraf weten wij wel beter) en heet Suriname 'dat ding'. Dat ding dat de Nederlandse koloniaal gebruikt heeft tot hij het niet meer nodig had en toen anderhalve eeuw te laat onrijp de onafhankelijkheid ingeschopt.

Het marathoninterview dat John Jansen van Galen met Rudi Kross heeft in 1989 is een emotionele wervelwind. En een orgie van het bloemrijke taalgebruik, de secure dictie en het onverschrokken zoeken naar de juiste woorden van Kross. De haat-liefde verhouding met Suriname, met Nederland, met Links, met Bouterse, maar zonder te schmieren. Kross zegt het over de Surinaamse cultuur, en daarmee over zichzelf, waarin het zo anders is dan de Nederlandse: het laat de emotie bestaan. (Ik paraphraseer op mijn onbeholpen -Nederlandse?- manier) Het geeft de ruimte voor iets van esoterie, het vreemde, het mysterie, het unieke. Nederlands is het daarentegen - zo stelt hij nadrukkelijk - om alles te vergewonen. "Oh, je bedoelt eigenlijk te zeggen dat .." Te banaliseren?

Zo niet bij de Surinamers, niet bij Rudi Kross, niet in dit avontuurlijke marathoninterview. Waarin zomin het bagatel als de grote zaken banaal worden. Niets wordt vereenvoudigd. De complicaties worden niet uit de weg gegaan. En Kross blijft proberen uit te leggen, te duiden. Het mysterie blijft bestaan, maar de emotie komt over en trilt nog na, diep in mijn botten, ook hier ver buiten Nederland en bijna 20 jaar na dato.

Bunk on the couch (SRR #111)

Shrinkrapradio's issue #111 is a great podcast as usual. If I am critical of the episode it is because of the subject at hand. Dr. Justin Frank is interviewed about his book called 'Bush on the couch', in which he has made a psycho-analysis of the current president of the US based on whatever sources he had available, short of having had George W. himself on the couch. If the latter had been the case, the study would have been better, but as a doctor, Frank couldn't have published it. With detached distance he could, the question is whether he should have. Allow me to make a couple of reservations.

In 1964 a survey on presidential candidate Barry Goldwater had him declared unfit to become a president on psychological grounds. Afterwards the APA ethical committee defined the 'Goldwater Rule' stating that it is unethical for psychiatrists and psychologists to state an opinion about a person who has not been examined. How different is Frank's book about Bush from the survey about Goldwater? Frank defends himself by pointing out he has done 2 years of research and the Goldwater survey had asked professionals to make a claim on more superficial basis. However, also after 2 years of research, Frank can still not claim he has truly examined George W.

Yet he makes heavy statements summarizing it as: Bush hates his father and he identifies the American people with his father and will do everything to hurt them. I mean, if at all this can be true, it must be subconscious, and sufficiently hidden from his direct circle of adjuncts, otherwise he cannot pull this off. This brings me to the critique of Karl Popper on Freud and psycho-analysis in general: What could possibly falsify these claims about the president's personality?

What I am getting at is that no matter how thorough and conscientious such a study is conducted, it cannot be sufficiently founded. Frank points out that psycho-analytic studies have been made of Moses and Hitler (bien etonnés de se trouver ensemble), but that is for lack of having the opportunity to do otherwise and moreover as part of heuristic historical analysis. He also relates to us that the CIA and other such agents use the services of psychiatrists and psychologists for analyzing important subjects. So why can't Frank study Bush? Well he can study all he wants, but apart from using an authority argument (if the CIA can do it, I can), the kind of study essentially remains heuristic and can never make hard claims. Especially not the kind Frank has made.

It is therefore my opinion the whole study can be debunked a prima facie and the book is basically superfluous. If Bush needs to be criticized it should be for his policies, decisions and statements and that should be enough. Dr. Lawrence Friedman, dean of the Los Angeles Institute of Psychoanalysis, responded to the Goldwater survey in a way that seems to me completely applicable to Frank's study: "I shall do everything I can to help defeat Mr. Goldwater, but I shall point to his ideas, his statements, his political orientation, and his associations, not to his psychology. There is enough political evidence to defeat him with. I would like to see [presented] that information and not waste your facilities on an approach which is neither right nor effective."

Ronald van den Boogaard geeft plug

Wat een stukje radio van twintig jaar geleden, vermag. Ongetwijfeld stonden de archieven van de VPRO al jaren op het internet te verstoffen, maar ik had de marathoninterviews niet zo gemakkelijk ontdekt als er geen podcast van was gemaakt. Trouwens, de VPRO heeft weer een hele batch erbij gezet. Nu kunnen we luisteren naar het archief tot en met 1989. Ik ben meteen maar begonnen met Rudi Kross, en na het eerste uur lekker geinspireerd voor het vervolg. En zo zijn er nog meer: Albert Helman, Lea Dasberg, Hans van Mierlo en meer en meer. Waar haal je de tijd vandaan?

Maar goed, eerst waren daar de interviews van afgelopen zomer (met o.a. Conny Palmen, Lieve Joris, Eugene Sutorius) en vandaar kwamen de oude uit 1986, met onder andere een juweel van een interview met Jan Wolkers. De complimenten die ik hier achterliet voor Ronald van den Boogaard, hebben hun weg gevonden naar zijn -- Van den Boogaards , niet Wolkers' -- blog en daar word ik nu geciteerd. Goed voor hem, goed voor mij. Hartelijk dank, Ronald.

Lees het overig geblog van Ronald, want daar zit allerlei moois tussen. Wat overigens ook wel aardig te vermelden is, is dat Ronald blogt op een site gebouwd met Joomla, net als mijn PBeM website.

UC podcast: US and new Middle East

The University Channel podcast remains an outstanding source of information on many a subject. I can't follow up on everything and usually even on the subjects I do want to follow up on, I have a terrible backlog. So it came to pass only now I had the time listening to a lecture by Gideon Rose on the US and the Middle East, as he held it on April 30th.

If I may paraphrase Rose, he says the situation for the US and the Middle East is bad, it is going to get worse on the short term, but then it is going to bottom out and allow to turn for the better again. Iran may obtain a nuclear weapon, but it is not going to totally upset the region. The US will back out and civil war will prevail in Iraq and throughout the region fundamentalists will gain more power. If however, the countries in the Middle East do not want to turn into stagnating backwaters such as Syria, they must link in with globalization and reform.

All of this is explained in a clear expose. As an audio experience nothing is left to be desired, but as usual with UC podcast, all is available in video as well.

Introducing the unknown - a Writing Show sampler

I know from my own experience how tough it is to start a story in a fantasy setting; totally unknown to the public, exclusively known to me - to the extent I have developed it, that is to say. Before you know it, you are showering your readers with bulky fact packages and that is not as elegant as it should be.

Paula Berinstein has dedicated the September 9th issue of the Writing Show to this problem and she takes tow classic examples to help us out. Who are better than Lewis Carrol and J.R.R. Tolkien to show us the way? Indeed, who are. I think the examples are very helpful

There is a funny thing that happens though. It so turns out both Carrol and Tolkien 'sin' in the way of telling in stead of showing. Paula, apologizes and hastily moves on with the description and analysis. But how bad is this after all? Don't we see here when telling is in order, before showing? When the narrator is working on his relationship with the reader rather than delivering the story? Isn't that a legitimate layer in fiction as well?