Teaching English as a Second Language dersleri basladi.
[iman] ALLAAAM YAREPPIM BU NE YEAAAA [/iman]
Hoca neden gramer ogretmeliyiz dersini anlatirken (gramer nedir degil) aklim cok acaip yerlere gidiyor.
Ders plani yaparken buldugum fikirler yenilir yutulur cinsten degil.
Bir iki tanesini yazayim ki goz yaslarimi gorun misralarimda.
fiCkir 1:
acaba kultur balinasi yetistirsek Japonlarin avlanmasini engelleyebilir miyiz?
butun memlekete ayda 1 mavi balina yeter gibi geliyor.
fiCkir 2:
inek boku yedirsek insanlar seluloz sindirebilir hale gelir mi?
FiCkir 3:
insanlardan metan gazi toplanabilir mi? minimum metan kaybi hasat aninda ne kadar penetrasyon gerektirir?
fiCkir 4:
bu yeni sindirim yetenegi sonucunda umumi tuvaletlerde sigara icmek hala cezaya tabi olur mu?
FiCkir 5:
Vapur iskelelerinde yazan "iskele verilmeden hayvanlik etmek tehlikeli ve yassahtir" lafi dogru ise yaptirim ne?
FiCkir 6:
Birisine hayvan dedigimizde neden hakaret olarak algilaniyor?
Fickir 7:
insan beyni oda sicakliginda tereyagi kivamindaysa neden simdiye kadar ne bir Jedi ne bir telekinesis sahibi birilerinin beyinlerinin kucuk bir kismini itip adam oldurmeyi akil edemedi? Jedilar giciklar hadi de Sithler neden Force lightningle falan ugrasiyorlar? neticede bu adamlarin iki parmakla beynimizi pismemis omlete cevirmesi mumkun degil mi? (pismemis omlet cirpilmis yumurta olarak da algilanabilir... ben demin uzun bi raki muhabbetinden sonra artmis favayi hayal ettim degisik oldu)
FiCkir 8:
Gecen gun muhendis yaklasimiyla bardagin bos tarafinin olamayacagini cunku bizim bos olarak gordugumuz kismin havayla dolu oldugunu ogrendim (buyuk bir aydinlanma olmadi... hala elektrik faturasi ayni geliyor). Pesimizm icimizdeymis yani. ote yandan bardagin yarisini bos olarak gormek istiyorsak bardagi komple vakuma koymak lazim. o zaman da su buharlasiyor. demek ki everyone is a pessimist in vacuum. in your face enginAr!
Bu fikirler yalniz degiller tabi. kafamdaki tilkilerin (42 adetler) kuyruklarinin birbirine deymemesinin sebebi arkadaslarin bir soru ve fikir havuzunda yuzuyor olmasidir. Takdir edersiniz ki kafamin ici cogunlukla siviyla dolu... sivi ve gazlar disindaki muhteviyat soyle: beyin, 42 tilki, bir suru penguen (Douglas Adams'a gore insan beyninin %90i penguen saklamak icin kullanilir), yazilmamis fikir, FiCkir ve fiction, bir de gazozdaki baloncuk sayisi kadar soru. tabi bu sorularin omru de o baloncuklar kadar oluyor. Lakin onlara daha sonra deginecegimdir.
Orkan bey icin bu yazinin ozeti: SIKILDIM ULAN!
22.02.2012
Suicide is Better than Homicide
In this bio centric era we as a species are, there is a debate about whether we should stop suicide attempters or not. Most members of our society would bring forth the "sanctity of life" to debate against the right to end one's own life. Even pro-choice people, who say abortion is a woman's right, would actively try to prevent a suicide attempt. Most people don't recognize the need for this act, let alone understand why someone would actively try to end this "perfect and holy of all concepts".
In 1897 Emile Durkheim organized the research which had been going on since the 1820's and integrated them in his book Suicide: A Study in Sociology. This statistical research started, almost at the same time, in France and Germany by Jean-Pierre Falret and Johann Casper (in respective order). This work was actually intended to classify and understand the concept of suicide in general. It is classified according to age, gender, nationality, race and class of the individual. It also distinguishes between group suicides and individual suicides (which is named "egoistical suicides" in the book).
Since the act is greatly personal in its nature (that is to say: no matter how many people kill themselves and for what reason they do that, people are buried in different holes in the ground) the sincerity of anyone (including Durkheim) talking about the subject would not be sound if even the tiniest bit of generalization takes place; but for the sake of being academic some form of generalization is required. To fill those requirements the subjects of this article will be grouped as non-Muslim males living in a multicultural country with a population consisting of mainly Muslim people. The age group of these individuals is 20 to 25, and they have weak or no family ties.
The subjects of the group specified above have a greatly different view on most topics considering life, universe and everything, which goes something like this: Consider the Earth, a rock with a juicy hot center orbiting a hot ball of gas. The only planet we've found life on so far. It was created roughly 4.57 billion of years ago and the layer which supported life on it (the biosphere) is actually younger than 1 billion years. The evolution of any species is just at its beginning. With the number of individuals from all species in mind one can easily say that it is very easy to force a species into extinction with the wrong species sneezing on another. Human beings, with an immense infantization process lying in their evolutionary past are by far the most fragile of these species. Humans tend to see themselves as superior to other races simply because we can build computers or send satellites into space. The reason for that is to forget how jealous of bears we used to be so we skinned them and wore their pelts. Humans would be forced back to those "animal skin wearing ages" in 2 years maximum, if we eliminate the electricity completely.
Environmentalists would roar in anger when someone says the only harm we did to the Earth is sending stuff off it not polluting the atmosphere. Maybe the whole reason for this biosphere to form is to eventually invent plastic which would lead to inorganic life. Comparing the length of life of plastic and flesh we can easily see how better than plastic bottles we are. This is life. People who claim life is sacred lack the consistency in their arguments. If every fragile and short lasting thing is sacred, why hasn't anyone built a shrine to the light bulbs or test tubes which get broken by hundreds each day?
People call this point of view dumb or pessimistic (depending on the mouth flapper) but it actually is an objective and realist approach. With this in mind one can easily see none of this is special or sacred. Any bond you form with members of your own species and those of others' is based on personal gain. You can even say suicide is humane considering it means I will not use anything you use. The resources and the space would be recycled without people noticing it.
The people who actively try to prevent suicide attempts also try to remind the suicide attempter how much they mean to them or how bad "the country needs bright minds like theirs". These two are examples for how inconsiderate and idiotic human beings really are. The people who buy those lines and decide that the sunset is really beautiful are not different from the ones who stopped them and/or didn't actually mean to kill themselves but send a message (which is usually a list of demands- another act reeking of inconsideracy and stupidity.)
Most others (usually therapists) say that suicide is wrong because it's an irreversible process. This is a text-book phrase which skips the fact that attempters do not really care about the consequences of the action, because, well they won't be a part of them anymore.
The psyche of the attempters in this group can be summed up in to "being fed up" or "tired" and telling them how beautiful the moonlight is would only provoke a flow of negative feelings. As stated before attempters do not see life the way others do. To them the bugs with big colorful wings and reproductive organs of immobile organisms are not beautiful or interesting. Those people have passed the age of wonders and were not impressed.
Since the group do not have (or need to have) social connections, the emotions which were loaded on them by their kin do not mean anything other than a burden. They do not marvel in their "friends'" happiness and asking one to be by their side for ever and ever and ever is perceived as is perceived once repeated three times in a row.
Some countries even banned attempting to commit suicide. This is the world which tries to motivate their young into being more productive members of their societies. Once they succeed however nothing changes for the attempter. They're still alive and overly unsatisfied and disappointed with members of their race yelling that they love him from a distance but not caring at all. The governing bodies do not offer any way to change the way life runs for the attempters.
This brings us back to the sanctity of life. A life is sacred only to the one who lives it. The promises one offers to another in an attempt to save his life are actually ways of trying to save the moment. Memories are acidic compounds stored in different parts of the brain and they get altered daily, so the pain which is claimed to be caused by the death of a "loved one" is not eternal. (If it is, well, there is always the choice of suicide. This idea also fits the life after death theory but the subjects in the group being focused on do not believe in the afterlife.)
Any time someone tries to prevent the suicide actually fortifies the reasons to wish this all ends in the group.
In 1897 Emile Durkheim organized the research which had been going on since the 1820's and integrated them in his book Suicide: A Study in Sociology. This statistical research started, almost at the same time, in France and Germany by Jean-Pierre Falret and Johann Casper (in respective order). This work was actually intended to classify and understand the concept of suicide in general. It is classified according to age, gender, nationality, race and class of the individual. It also distinguishes between group suicides and individual suicides (which is named "egoistical suicides" in the book).
Since the act is greatly personal in its nature (that is to say: no matter how many people kill themselves and for what reason they do that, people are buried in different holes in the ground) the sincerity of anyone (including Durkheim) talking about the subject would not be sound if even the tiniest bit of generalization takes place; but for the sake of being academic some form of generalization is required. To fill those requirements the subjects of this article will be grouped as non-Muslim males living in a multicultural country with a population consisting of mainly Muslim people. The age group of these individuals is 20 to 25, and they have weak or no family ties.
The subjects of the group specified above have a greatly different view on most topics considering life, universe and everything, which goes something like this: Consider the Earth, a rock with a juicy hot center orbiting a hot ball of gas. The only planet we've found life on so far. It was created roughly 4.57 billion of years ago and the layer which supported life on it (the biosphere) is actually younger than 1 billion years. The evolution of any species is just at its beginning. With the number of individuals from all species in mind one can easily say that it is very easy to force a species into extinction with the wrong species sneezing on another. Human beings, with an immense infantization process lying in their evolutionary past are by far the most fragile of these species. Humans tend to see themselves as superior to other races simply because we can build computers or send satellites into space. The reason for that is to forget how jealous of bears we used to be so we skinned them and wore their pelts. Humans would be forced back to those "animal skin wearing ages" in 2 years maximum, if we eliminate the electricity completely.
Environmentalists would roar in anger when someone says the only harm we did to the Earth is sending stuff off it not polluting the atmosphere. Maybe the whole reason for this biosphere to form is to eventually invent plastic which would lead to inorganic life. Comparing the length of life of plastic and flesh we can easily see how better than plastic bottles we are. This is life. People who claim life is sacred lack the consistency in their arguments. If every fragile and short lasting thing is sacred, why hasn't anyone built a shrine to the light bulbs or test tubes which get broken by hundreds each day?
People call this point of view dumb or pessimistic (depending on the mouth flapper) but it actually is an objective and realist approach. With this in mind one can easily see none of this is special or sacred. Any bond you form with members of your own species and those of others' is based on personal gain. You can even say suicide is humane considering it means I will not use anything you use. The resources and the space would be recycled without people noticing it.
The people who actively try to prevent suicide attempts also try to remind the suicide attempter how much they mean to them or how bad "the country needs bright minds like theirs". These two are examples for how inconsiderate and idiotic human beings really are. The people who buy those lines and decide that the sunset is really beautiful are not different from the ones who stopped them and/or didn't actually mean to kill themselves but send a message (which is usually a list of demands- another act reeking of inconsideracy and stupidity.)
Most others (usually therapists) say that suicide is wrong because it's an irreversible process. This is a text-book phrase which skips the fact that attempters do not really care about the consequences of the action, because, well they won't be a part of them anymore.
The psyche of the attempters in this group can be summed up in to "being fed up" or "tired" and telling them how beautiful the moonlight is would only provoke a flow of negative feelings. As stated before attempters do not see life the way others do. To them the bugs with big colorful wings and reproductive organs of immobile organisms are not beautiful or interesting. Those people have passed the age of wonders and were not impressed.
Since the group do not have (or need to have) social connections, the emotions which were loaded on them by their kin do not mean anything other than a burden. They do not marvel in their "friends'" happiness and asking one to be by their side for ever and ever and ever is perceived as is perceived once repeated three times in a row.
Some countries even banned attempting to commit suicide. This is the world which tries to motivate their young into being more productive members of their societies. Once they succeed however nothing changes for the attempter. They're still alive and overly unsatisfied and disappointed with members of their race yelling that they love him from a distance but not caring at all. The governing bodies do not offer any way to change the way life runs for the attempters.
This brings us back to the sanctity of life. A life is sacred only to the one who lives it. The promises one offers to another in an attempt to save his life are actually ways of trying to save the moment. Memories are acidic compounds stored in different parts of the brain and they get altered daily, so the pain which is claimed to be caused by the death of a "loved one" is not eternal. (If it is, well, there is always the choice of suicide. This idea also fits the life after death theory but the subjects in the group being focused on do not believe in the afterlife.)
Any time someone tries to prevent the suicide actually fortifies the reasons to wish this all ends in the group.
Geniuses
We humans like to think of ourselves as masters of nature. Through development and use of technology we believe we can change the conditions like heat, light or the threat from other organisms to our favor. Nature has proven us wrong in the past five years but nobody seems to notice; nobody seems to care.
Even when most of the world became aware of the problem called global warming some people (who actually held the positions of power) chose to discard this fact completely and decided to pursue their own goals (which would mean nothing if there's no food to buy). The more shocking fact is seeing a member of Greenpeace smoke and flick the butt into the sea. This makes one think that not all members of the so called nature lovers love nature but a community to belong in to (or being able to get a mate easier by showing how caring they are). Considering most female members of our species are attracted to sensitive and caring males, and most male members of our species are in favor of females who are capable of chaining themselves to some place to make a point (which must symbolize the sentimental attachment to their loved ones or something like that); joining the club is a smart move.
Every group has a different thing to say and a different point to raise awareness to. As you can see Greenpeace is not a solitary example of those groups which has members with a different goal. These groups are well aware of that but since the thought they're defending is more or less non-changeable what they need is bodies not minds. They need move vocal cords yelling the same slogans which were set months back. The leaders of these groups know one fact: the more people you have the easier you get them to do what you want them to. A reason for that every member of the group has the fear of being cast out of the group (either politely or by being cast out of existence through lynching). A cult can be motivated in to mass suicide; a group of people can be convinced that a person who tells everyone that living in peace and together is a good idea is dangerous. Individual members of those said groups would never kill themselves or a person with obvious good intentions.
So what makes people easier to control when they are in a group with a large number of members? Do they get dumber? How do we calculate the intelligence quotient of a group?
The standard intelligence quotient test was created by a French psychologist Alfred Binet and was later revised by Levis M. Terman. It is basically mental age divided by biological age multiplied by 100. It is greatly unreliable because the test assumes that, mentally, the older you get the wiser you become (which is a shame coming from a psychologist because interview with elders over 100 years of age reveal that they become more childish). One other factor that makes this test unreliable is the younger you take the test the higher your IQ score gets. For example let's take a child who is 4 years old and by some bored parent was taught how to read and count. If that child takes the test his or her mental age is about 8. When calculated this child's IQ score is 200. The highest IQ score ever recorded was Marlyn vos Savant with 228 (this is the reason for using the word savant instead of genius).
What does that prove? That an educated but unemployed parent's child has a higher IQ?
Definitely not. If that child learned how to read on his own or with minimal help we can say that he/she is gifted.
We didn't give ourselves the title master of nature just because we're vein though. There are these gifted children who can devise their own calendars at the age of 10 or force their teachers to quit drawing and do only sculptures at the age of 14 (this is Leonardo da Vinci by the way). Then there is this other group of individuals who do not have gifts but have an immense devotion and ambition. They learn how to do something and work on it intensely to become almost excellent (yes they are usually annoying people who have nothing else in life but the thing they devoted themselves to -like in the case of Michelangelo).
These two groups of people create technology and art. They send people to the moon or harvest electricity from rivers by building dams. Some others observe and copy nature and some up with the parachute (inspired by the seeds of certain plants) or the most efficient tire patterns (inspired by reptilian feet). We can see people can be greatly cunning if they are left alone or in small groups. The larger the group gets the idiotic they act.
Consider a group of scientists who sent a shuttle to outer space. If a problem occurs none of those so called geniuses can come up with a solution together. They need to separate in to smaller groups which in turn divide into groups of two or three. So why can't they come up with a way to save those people who would either freeze in space or fry while waiting to crash and get pulverized?
My theory for this is that the group’s intelligence quotient and that of individual members of the group have little to do with each other. One can easily see that a group of people as a whole act dumber than the member with the lowest intelligence score.
I came up with a formula which I (sadly) got to test a few times and found out that I was almost close to an answer. It's something like this: you pick the lowest IQ score in the group and divide it by the number of individuals in the group. If the population has 2 or less digits you multiply by 10, if it has 3 digits multiply by 1, if it has 4 or 5 digits divide by 10. If there are 6 or more digits the intelligence quotient is irrelevant because the members would either divide in to smaller groups or if that isn't possible they act like a herd of animals. Observe the fact that many people get trampled on in crowded meetings. Much like what happens in stampedes.
This is why professors and scientists throw chairs at each other in a formal and scientific convention.
Even when most of the world became aware of the problem called global warming some people (who actually held the positions of power) chose to discard this fact completely and decided to pursue their own goals (which would mean nothing if there's no food to buy). The more shocking fact is seeing a member of Greenpeace smoke and flick the butt into the sea. This makes one think that not all members of the so called nature lovers love nature but a community to belong in to (or being able to get a mate easier by showing how caring they are). Considering most female members of our species are attracted to sensitive and caring males, and most male members of our species are in favor of females who are capable of chaining themselves to some place to make a point (which must symbolize the sentimental attachment to their loved ones or something like that); joining the club is a smart move.
Every group has a different thing to say and a different point to raise awareness to. As you can see Greenpeace is not a solitary example of those groups which has members with a different goal. These groups are well aware of that but since the thought they're defending is more or less non-changeable what they need is bodies not minds. They need move vocal cords yelling the same slogans which were set months back. The leaders of these groups know one fact: the more people you have the easier you get them to do what you want them to. A reason for that every member of the group has the fear of being cast out of the group (either politely or by being cast out of existence through lynching). A cult can be motivated in to mass suicide; a group of people can be convinced that a person who tells everyone that living in peace and together is a good idea is dangerous. Individual members of those said groups would never kill themselves or a person with obvious good intentions.
So what makes people easier to control when they are in a group with a large number of members? Do they get dumber? How do we calculate the intelligence quotient of a group?
The standard intelligence quotient test was created by a French psychologist Alfred Binet and was later revised by Levis M. Terman. It is basically mental age divided by biological age multiplied by 100. It is greatly unreliable because the test assumes that, mentally, the older you get the wiser you become (which is a shame coming from a psychologist because interview with elders over 100 years of age reveal that they become more childish). One other factor that makes this test unreliable is the younger you take the test the higher your IQ score gets. For example let's take a child who is 4 years old and by some bored parent was taught how to read and count. If that child takes the test his or her mental age is about 8. When calculated this child's IQ score is 200. The highest IQ score ever recorded was Marlyn vos Savant with 228 (this is the reason for using the word savant instead of genius).
What does that prove? That an educated but unemployed parent's child has a higher IQ?
Definitely not. If that child learned how to read on his own or with minimal help we can say that he/she is gifted.
We didn't give ourselves the title master of nature just because we're vein though. There are these gifted children who can devise their own calendars at the age of 10 or force their teachers to quit drawing and do only sculptures at the age of 14 (this is Leonardo da Vinci by the way). Then there is this other group of individuals who do not have gifts but have an immense devotion and ambition. They learn how to do something and work on it intensely to become almost excellent (yes they are usually annoying people who have nothing else in life but the thing they devoted themselves to -like in the case of Michelangelo).
These two groups of people create technology and art. They send people to the moon or harvest electricity from rivers by building dams. Some others observe and copy nature and some up with the parachute (inspired by the seeds of certain plants) or the most efficient tire patterns (inspired by reptilian feet). We can see people can be greatly cunning if they are left alone or in small groups. The larger the group gets the idiotic they act.
Consider a group of scientists who sent a shuttle to outer space. If a problem occurs none of those so called geniuses can come up with a solution together. They need to separate in to smaller groups which in turn divide into groups of two or three. So why can't they come up with a way to save those people who would either freeze in space or fry while waiting to crash and get pulverized?
My theory for this is that the group’s intelligence quotient and that of individual members of the group have little to do with each other. One can easily see that a group of people as a whole act dumber than the member with the lowest intelligence score.
I came up with a formula which I (sadly) got to test a few times and found out that I was almost close to an answer. It's something like this: you pick the lowest IQ score in the group and divide it by the number of individuals in the group. If the population has 2 or less digits you multiply by 10, if it has 3 digits multiply by 1, if it has 4 or 5 digits divide by 10. If there are 6 or more digits the intelligence quotient is irrelevant because the members would either divide in to smaller groups or if that isn't possible they act like a herd of animals. Observe the fact that many people get trampled on in crowded meetings. Much like what happens in stampedes.
This is why professors and scientists throw chairs at each other in a formal and scientific convention.
Job Satisfaction?
On any weekday morning, take a look at people’s faces on the bus or subway. Do they look happy? How many of them are there because they want to be? OK, now you can stop staring. They will be there with the same bored and blank look in their eyes tomorrow. Most of them will avoid eye contact, or if it’s a Monday you may get some evil looks.
This is normal, right? People don’t look happy in the morning because they probably did not get enough sleep the night before. They don’t like Mondays because it’s the first working day after a break. This is almost the same reason why Friday is so special. Everyone hates Mondays and loves Fridays, right? Well, not the bosses.
By bosses, I do not mean your boss. I mean your boss’ boss. The top guy, the big man, the BOSS... To him every day is the same. He doesn’t rush to the subway with the day break. He doesn’t eat unhealthy food and wash it down with cheap imitation coffee either. Come to think of it he probably doesn’t even walk fast and runs only on treadmills.
He doesn’t have to do all these because he has you. He has a whole organization to keep him where he is and when you see him (like once in every 5 years) he gives the “We are one big family” speech.
I really don’t want to upset you but he does NOT care about you at all. Your newborn son or mother who has cancer are, to him, just distractions from your work. They look like they’re concerned about your well-being but that’s not because he cares about you but because he knows that happier workers are more efficient and productive. You see how close the family members are when you get the pink slip.
I’m sorry but no one cares about you. It’s not because Joe-from-the-next-cubicle hates you but because it’s every man for “the boss”. There’s nothing he can do for you either. He’s just a “nobody” like you and everyone else on the floor. The people who work on the lower floor are worse than you and the upper floor is a little better. The Big Man does not care about the altitude of your chair though. To him you are a just worker. You are not replaced by robots yet because of some technical difficulties but in a few years that will be possible. That will make the boss man happier because you (as a carbon based life form) require a lot to work. You should be thankful because Canada has Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If these rights were not written down some time ago you’d be treated worse than our metallic brothers are. To be precise, you’d be exactly like sweatshop workers. You would not sweat as much because the country is cold but not to worry… people work faster in the cold.
The system has changed a little but you and I my friend are still slaves. Our trustworthy friend Wikipedia defines slavery as “a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.” In this system
people can be held against their will, are deprived of their right to leave, to refuse to work and to demand compensation.
Do not, for a second, think that the world is free from slavery. Do you have any idea how many committed suicide in the factory that produces your iPods and iPads? Did you know that the company put up nets between buildings to cut down on the fatalities? You see they did not try to make the conditions better. They just stopped slaves from hitting the ground.
I have a few questions for you.
-Can you give a break whenever you want?
-Can you quit on a whim?
-do you think your paycheck is fair?
If you answered any with yes; you my friend are a modern day slave. You may argue that you can choose your profession and the company you work for but having the chance to pick the slaver you want does not make you less of a slave.
Think of it like this. You always wanted to be an engineer. You worked really hard to get into a university. You are taught mainstream science, because that’s where the money is. No one cares about Schrödinger’s cat because a dead radiated cat and a live radiated cat cost about the same amount. In the end you might turn out to be the best engineer of all time but by then you are so specialised that you can’t do anything else. You cannot make your own clothes or find sustenance which is not sold somewhere. You cannot fix plumbing or your relationships. You are given pieces of paper which can be traded for these services. You get what you pay for, so you never actually expect the same service the big man gets. The food you buy either gives you cancer or lowers your IQ score. The clothes you buy last only for a few years.
With the new system, the boss does not have to provide shelter or food for you. The sad thing is the quality is not that better. You think your house is better than a slave pen because you have a sofa, TV etcetera but, no, sorry, you were tricked into buying those from the boss-man’s friends. The sofa is there so your back doesn’t hurt while you watch TV and the TV is there because it’s cheaper than hiring people to whip you afterhours.
This may be the reason for “the Case of the Mondays” or “Thank God It’s Friday”. I think deep down we all know we waste our lives working so that the big guy lives in comfort. We feel there is something wrong with the system. Not only that, something is missing, right? You had this feeling since you started working. Oh, OK, I’ll just go ahead and say it, so you can keep on doing the job you hate. It’s the whip. Without the whip we say “Sure Boss” and not “Yes Master”.
This is normal, right? People don’t look happy in the morning because they probably did not get enough sleep the night before. They don’t like Mondays because it’s the first working day after a break. This is almost the same reason why Friday is so special. Everyone hates Mondays and loves Fridays, right? Well, not the bosses.
By bosses, I do not mean your boss. I mean your boss’ boss. The top guy, the big man, the BOSS... To him every day is the same. He doesn’t rush to the subway with the day break. He doesn’t eat unhealthy food and wash it down with cheap imitation coffee either. Come to think of it he probably doesn’t even walk fast and runs only on treadmills.
He doesn’t have to do all these because he has you. He has a whole organization to keep him where he is and when you see him (like once in every 5 years) he gives the “We are one big family” speech.
I really don’t want to upset you but he does NOT care about you at all. Your newborn son or mother who has cancer are, to him, just distractions from your work. They look like they’re concerned about your well-being but that’s not because he cares about you but because he knows that happier workers are more efficient and productive. You see how close the family members are when you get the pink slip.
I’m sorry but no one cares about you. It’s not because Joe-from-the-next-cubicle hates you but because it’s every man for “the boss”. There’s nothing he can do for you either. He’s just a “nobody” like you and everyone else on the floor. The people who work on the lower floor are worse than you and the upper floor is a little better. The Big Man does not care about the altitude of your chair though. To him you are a just worker. You are not replaced by robots yet because of some technical difficulties but in a few years that will be possible. That will make the boss man happier because you (as a carbon based life form) require a lot to work. You should be thankful because Canada has Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If these rights were not written down some time ago you’d be treated worse than our metallic brothers are. To be precise, you’d be exactly like sweatshop workers. You would not sweat as much because the country is cold but not to worry… people work faster in the cold.
The system has changed a little but you and I my friend are still slaves. Our trustworthy friend Wikipedia defines slavery as “a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work.” In this system
people can be held against their will, are deprived of their right to leave, to refuse to work and to demand compensation.
Do not, for a second, think that the world is free from slavery. Do you have any idea how many committed suicide in the factory that produces your iPods and iPads? Did you know that the company put up nets between buildings to cut down on the fatalities? You see they did not try to make the conditions better. They just stopped slaves from hitting the ground.
I have a few questions for you.
-Can you give a break whenever you want?
-Can you quit on a whim?
-do you think your paycheck is fair?
If you answered any with yes; you my friend are a modern day slave. You may argue that you can choose your profession and the company you work for but having the chance to pick the slaver you want does not make you less of a slave.
Think of it like this. You always wanted to be an engineer. You worked really hard to get into a university. You are taught mainstream science, because that’s where the money is. No one cares about Schrödinger’s cat because a dead radiated cat and a live radiated cat cost about the same amount. In the end you might turn out to be the best engineer of all time but by then you are so specialised that you can’t do anything else. You cannot make your own clothes or find sustenance which is not sold somewhere. You cannot fix plumbing or your relationships. You are given pieces of paper which can be traded for these services. You get what you pay for, so you never actually expect the same service the big man gets. The food you buy either gives you cancer or lowers your IQ score. The clothes you buy last only for a few years.
With the new system, the boss does not have to provide shelter or food for you. The sad thing is the quality is not that better. You think your house is better than a slave pen because you have a sofa, TV etcetera but, no, sorry, you were tricked into buying those from the boss-man’s friends. The sofa is there so your back doesn’t hurt while you watch TV and the TV is there because it’s cheaper than hiring people to whip you afterhours.
This may be the reason for “the Case of the Mondays” or “Thank God It’s Friday”. I think deep down we all know we waste our lives working so that the big guy lives in comfort. We feel there is something wrong with the system. Not only that, something is missing, right? You had this feeling since you started working. Oh, OK, I’ll just go ahead and say it, so you can keep on doing the job you hate. It’s the whip. Without the whip we say “Sure Boss” and not “Yes Master”.
17.02.2012
urun fikri
sakizdan daha yumusak ve kolay yutulabilen bir madde alinir. bu maddeye saglikli bir doz laksatif emdirilir. laksatif yalniz kalmasin diye su an bir cok sakizda mevcut olan temizleyicilerin OB-BAOV miktari da bu karisima eklenir.
urun 5 dakika kadar cignendikten sonra kolay yutulacak kadar yumusar. bol su yardimiyla yutuldugunda mevcut olan veya olmayan kabizlik hissiyle beraber urun de vucuttan uzaklasir!
bu urun su an mevcut sindirimi hizlandiran sicamiyoruz yogurtlarina alternatiftir ve raf omru daha uzundur.
adini siz koyun.
lakin urun adinda ismimi istemiyorum, neticede laksatif urune isim vermek istemem.
urun 5 dakika kadar cignendikten sonra kolay yutulacak kadar yumusar. bol su yardimiyla yutuldugunda mevcut olan veya olmayan kabizlik hissiyle beraber urun de vucuttan uzaklasir!
bu urun su an mevcut sindirimi hizlandiran sicamiyoruz yogurtlarina alternatiftir ve raf omru daha uzundur.
adini siz koyun.
lakin urun adinda ismimi istemiyorum, neticede laksatif urune isim vermek istemem.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)
