Was parenting always as difficult as this?

I have a problem dealing with child raising and most of the time, I don't know what to do.

The basic premise is to help her grow up to be a part of the world she will live in, belong to it and thrive in it.

Only, times and systems are changing and it doesn't help when decision makers of your country have their own agenda and don't care how your individual child turns out, and/or simply don't know how to deal with change.

I want her to be knowledgeable, an independent thinker, creative and productive, but also someone who recognizes her responsibilities and fullfils them, and as a result, be a well adjusted, satisfied individual. It is not as easy as saying it.

There is a rift between what I want her to be and do, and what she is and doing, and I need to find a way to bridge that rift.

I know my child. Rewards and punishments donot work. Threats about taking her priviliges away are cruel and unrealistic. And as I am the one who knows her best and as noone is as interested as me in solving this problem, I need to find a solution. . I need to find a solution especially tailored for her, to mobilize, motivate and get results.

Where is the balance between forcing a schedule on her and letting her find her way?

What's the use of creativity without productivity?

People are constantly whinging about creativity and how school doesn't encourage it.

I believe that productivity (the way you use your energy, time AND creativity) is more important that creativity alone. I can be the most creative person, but it is of no use if I can't find ways to channel that creativity into productivity.

And society doesn't encourage productivity. It encourages us to pay for what others produce, not produce ourselves. When many people produce, some will find the channel for creativity. If we don't produce, I don't think it is of much use if we are creative or not.

Bana ürün satmak isteyenlere bilgi...

Rica edeceğim, bana artık yalnızca tasarım, malzeme, işçilik ve hizmet satın. "Marka" satmayın.

Ne idüğü belirsiz, içi boş bir "marka" kavramı için önüme fahiş fiyat gelmesine sinir oluyorum. Kalsın, ben "marka" almayayım. Alana da engel olmayayım. "Pazarda" benim gibi müşteriler olduğunu da bilin ama. "Marka" aldatmacasını daha ne kadar sürdürebilirsiniz, bilmiyorum, zira marka olarak tanıdığım ve fahiş fiyat çekmeyen, sevdiğim, saydığım bir sürü yer var...

Observation about charisma...

I've always wondered at the function of charisma. I know it makes people gather around an individual and act collectively. Not that charisma always leads to good leadership, as studies show that there is a parallel between charisma and psychopathy.

 I still don't know how charisma evolved, what function it has in survival, that it still makes people gather around charismatic people. Is it better to gather around charismatic people than not at all? What is about charisma that makes it good for societies? Is the functional thing charisma itself, or simply the fact that it is the factor that makes people gather and hence act collectively?

I just observed, or thought I observed, that when the leader/manager is charismatic, people face hardships more willingly than they would otherwise. If your leader is charismatic, rather than taking a critical approach to his ways, you accept what is demanded, you work long hours, accept harder work, even sourer behaviour.

That's HOW charisma functions. Now to the WHY of it. :)

"Ellere var da bize yok mu..."

Halktan vergi topluyorsunuz. O vergiyle beslediğiniz orduyla başka ülkelere giriyorsunuz. Doğal kaynaklarına el koyuyorsunuz. Sonra o doğal kaynakları ülkenizin bazı şirketlerine teslim ediyorsunuz. Şirketler kâr yapıyor. Son.

Filmlerde söyledikleri gibi: parayı takip et.

ABD'de, "Biz %99'uz" diyenlerin asıl söylemeye çalıştıkları bu. Kazanılan bir para var, ama, tam olarak bu sözcüklerle olmasa da, "girişimi mümkün kılan para bizden çıkarken, kâra ortak olamıyoruz," diyorlar. Haklılar da.

Halk hareketleri ve devrimler nadiren saf idealist duygudan kaynaklanmış. İnsanların derdi "halkların kardeşliği" ya da "serveti dünyadaki her bireyin eşit paylaşması" değil, geçinebilmek, ülkenin ürettiği artı değere ortak olabilmek ve global ekonomi onlardan alıp zaten zengin olana veriyor.

Zaten zengin olanlar o serveti paylaşmanın bir yolunu bulsa, bu kadar sıkıntı olmayacak. Bir parça para onlardan çıkacak, halka dağılacak, elden ele geçecek, herkes biraz daha kazanacak, harcayacak, ekonomiyi canlandıracak. Ne de olsa, insanlarda para olacak ki, o şirketlerin ürettiği ürünleri satın alabilsinler. Ama para birkaç elde birikince atıl kalıyor, ekonomi yavaşlıyor.

Çoğu göreceli olarak zengin ülke benzer bir durum içinde. Mevcut düzen paranın akmaya devam etmesini sağlayamıyor. Ya bir yol bulacaklar, ya da halk değişiklik talep edecek, "devrim" olacak. "Kadayıfın altı kızardı mı, kızarmadı mı," gelecek olaylar "kanlı mı olacak, kansız mı," hep birlikte göreceğiz.

Translators are the scapegoats of the sector...

When everything is going well, they are not allowed to partake of the rewards.

When everything isn't going so well, they are made to share the punishment.

The translator of Chuck Palahniuk's book, Funda Uncu is being tried, along with the publisher, for up to 3 year prison sentence.

Which witch?

"The idea that women are natural liars has a long pedigree. The key document in this centuries-long tradition is the notorious witch-hunter's manual, the Malleus Maleficarum or The Hammer of Witches, which was commissioned by Pope Innocent VIII. The book was written by two Dominican monks and published in 1486. It unleashed a flood of irrational beliefs about women's "dual" nature. "A woman is beautiful to look upon, contaminating to the touch, and deadly to keep," the authors warned. They also claimed that "all witchcraft comes from carnal lust, which is in women insatiable"."

I really should find and buy this notorious book, or at least an interpretation of it. I really should find and buy a book about Witch Trials and the period that spawned it.

Above quote comes from a totally irrelevant news article about a murder trial, where a woman is one of suspects. The prosecutor accuses the woman of being a witch.


I am a woman, so I know a thing or two about women. A woman as a "contaminating" being? Having "carnal lust"? Being "Insatiable"?

I am curious.

According to the logic of the period, is  it the woman who is contaminating, or is it the man who feels he is "contaminating" the woman by touching her and then transferring the guilt to the contaminated. Remember honour killings, where the female victim of rape is killed to "clean family honour"?

Is it that a woman becomes a witch by carnal lust, or is it the man who cannot control his basic instincts and becomes something lesser than what he is, and then transfers this guilt to the woman? Remember how courts excuse jealousy murders by men of women.

Is it the woman who is insatiable, or is it that man is afraid of not being able to satisfy woman. Or that, because of social rules, the man is the insatiable one? And that fear of being unsatisfactory, or that insatiability, is transferred to the woman?

Were the men of the era punishing women for their own shortcomings or fears?

Remember how, today, a woman is either an angel or a slut.

Are the men in this, modern era punishing women for their own short comings or fears?