Nieuws

Je kunt niet beweren dat ze dicht moeten blijven omdat er anders te veel reisbewegingen of boekenliefhebbersbewegingen zijn. In een boekhandel komen minder mensen dan in een supermarkt.

Mij verbaast de vanzelfsprekendheid bij een hoger echelon dat zegt dat boekwinkels niet essentieel zijn. De redenering om ze gesloten te houden (...)' lees verder

"We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

Ehrlichman's comment is the first time the war on drugs has been plainly characterized as a political assault designed to help Nixon win, and keep, the White House.

It's a stark departure from Nixon's public explanation for his first piece of legislation in the war on drugs, delivered in message to Congress in July 1969, which framed it as a response to an increase in heroin addiction and the rising use of marijuana and hallucinogens by students.

However, Nixon's political focus on white voters, the "Silent Majority," is well-known. And Nixon's derision for minorities in private is well-known from his White House recordings.

The comments come as there has been a marked shift in attitudes toward handling drug use -- ranging from the legalization of marijuana in various states to White House candidates focusing heavily on treatment as an answer to New Hampshire's heroin epidemic while they were campaigning across the state.

RELATED: 2016 candidates on the front lines of N.H. drug epidemic

Ehrlichman died in 1999, but his five children in questioned the veracity of the account.

"We never saw or heard anything from our dad, John Ehrlichman, that was derogatory about any person of color," wrote Peter Ehrlichman, Tom Ehrlichman, Jan Ehrlichman, Michael Ehrlichman and Jody E. Pineda in a statement provided to CNN.

"The 1994 alleged 'quote' we saw repeated in social media for the first time today does not square with what we know of our father. And collectively, that spans over 185 years of time with him," the Ehrlichman family wrote. "We do not subscribe to the alleged racist point of view that this writer now implies 22 years following the so-called interview of John and 16 years following our father's death, when dad can no longer respond. None of us have raised our kids that way, and that's because we were not raised that way."

Ehrlichman's comments did not surface until now after Baum remembered them while going back through old notes for the Harper's story. Baum said he had no reason to believe Ehrlichman was being dishonest and viewed them as "atonement" from a man long after his tumultuous run in the White House ended.

"I think Ehrlichman was waiting for someone to come and ask him. I think he felt bad about it. I think he had a lot to feel bad about, same with Egil Krogh, who was another Watergate guy." Baum told CNN.

Baum interviewed Ehrlichman and others for his 1996 book "Smoke and Mirrors," but said he left out the Ehrlichman comment from the book because it did not fit the narrative style focused on putting the readers in the middle of the backroom discussions themselves, without input from the author.

Baum equated Ehrlichman's admission with traumatic war stories that often take decades for veterans to talk about and said it clearly took time for Ehrlichman and other Nixon aides he interviewed to candidly explain the war on drugs.

"These guys, they knew they'd done bad things and they were glad finally when it was no longer going to cost them anything to be able to talk about it, to atone for it." Baum said. "Nobody goes in to public service, I don't think, on either side of the political aisle, to be repressive, to be evil. They go in because they care about the country."

“

Dit is een dusdanige omkering van wat in de openingen van mijn petitie staat, dat van een typefout geen sprake kan zijn.

Ik beschouw het maar als kwade wil.

Hoogachtend,

Jan Asselbergs

We hopen op een positief resultaat.

Today, quality universities have become a primary source of prosperity in the area where they are located. The higher the scientific level realized, the greater the contribution to prosperity.

Universities, therefore, should promote excellence at all times. This means that they should not settle for followership, but aim for leadership in their scientific fields. It also means that universities are communities without ideological and political purposes. And above all, at universities the principle of Freedom of Speech and Inquiry are by no means negotiable. History shows that new insights come from doubters and dissenters; they ensure scientific progress. Those scientific 'rebels' must therefore be given every freedom to question what already exists and to present new concepts, with the aim of getting closer to the truth. Universities should nurture these creative scientists. After all, consensus in science means the end of progress.

How different it is in politics. Politics is not about truth, but about power. In the most favorable situation, power is obtained democratically. Whoever manages to gather the most votes comes to power. We know that political rebels end up badly. So, searching for the truth has nothing to do with what the political majority wants. Every university should therefore keep far away from politics.

In short, truth-seeking (argumentum ad verecundiam) and power-seeking (argumentum ad populum) do not fit together at all. Even worse, they obstruct each other. The conclusion is therefore that University Boards should not ‘play little parliament’ in their boardrooms.

The foregoing brings me to the honorary doctorate you are going to confer on Frans Timmermans. This politician has done just about everything in his career to abuse science. He did so by intertwining searching for the truth with political majority building. That has led to the glorification of a climate theory that does not correspond to what we observe in nature, meaning it is scientifically wrong. And this wrong science has resulted into the introduction of a climate policy that has plunged Europe into an energy crisis. And that energy crisis means that Europe has been thrown into a negative socio-economic spiral. Colleague van der Hagen, with all respect, which technical or economic or social merits of Timmermans do you have in mind?

I invite you to watch and listen to this historic interview with Frans Timmermans:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgEcIQ_WoiU

It was already clear even at that time that Timmermans intended to abuse science for his own political gain. The last ten years have only confirmed that. TU Delft, as a so-called 'climate university', went along with this. Now, you award an honorary doctorate to this person?

Finally, I repeat, Frans Timmermans, with his climate policy, has plunged Europe into an energy crisis with major socio-economic consequences. Please, look at the facts! I therefore urge you nót to award this man with an honorary doctorate. TU Delft will go down in history as the technological university that - under your leadership - scientifically supported the destructive climate policy of this politician and then even awarding him with an honorary doctorate.

Colleague van der Hagen, start the new year well and show courage by retracing your steps. Please, do nót confer an honorary doctorate on this politician.

With collegial regards, Guus Berkhout MSc student from 1952 -1957 Ph.D. Cum laude in 1971 Professor 1976 - 2016 Member of the Delft University Board from 1997 - 2001 Member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences since 1990