I see a red door and I want it painted black
(Kırmızı bir kapı gördüğüm zaman siyaha boyalı olmasını isterim)
No colors anymore I want them to turn black
(Siyaha dönüşmesini istediğim başka bir renk yok)
I see the girls walk by dressed in their summer clothes
(Yazlık giysileriyle yürüyen kızlar gördüm)
I have to turn my head until my darkness goes
(Karanlığım gidene kadar başımı döndürmek zorundayım)
I see a line of cars and theyre all painted black
(Siyaha boyalı bir dizi araba gördüm)
With flowers and my love both never to come back
(Çiçekler ve sevgilim, hiçbiri geri dönmeyecek)
I see people turn their heads and quickly look away
(Başlarını döndüren ve hızlıca bakışan insanları gördüm)
Like a new born baby it just happens every day
(Yeni doğmuş bebeğin hergün yaptığı gibi)
I look inside myself and see my heart is black
(Kendime baktım ve kalbimin siyah olduğunu gördüm)
I see my red door and it has been painted black
(Siyaha boyalı kırmızı kapımı gördüm)
Maybe then Ill fade away and not have to face the facts
(Belki yavaş yavaş yok olacağım ve gerçeklerle yüzleşmek zorunda kalmayacağım)
Its not easy facin up when your whole world is black
(Tüm dünyan karanlık olduğunda yüzleşmek kolay değildir)
No more will my green sea go turn a deeper blue
(Yeşil denizim artık koyu maviye dönmeyecek)
I could not foresee this thing happening to you
(Sana bu olanları önceden kestiremedim)
If I look hard enough into the settin sun
(Batan günese yeterince sert bakarsam)
My love will laugh with me before the mornin comes
(Aşkım benimle sabaha kadar gülecek)
I wanna see it painted, painted black
(Siyaha boyalı olmasın isterim, siyaha boyalı)
Black as night, black as coal
(Gece gibi kömür gibi siyah)
I wanna see the sun blotted out from the sky
(Güneşi gökyüzünden silinmiş halde görmek istiyorum)
I wanna see it painted, painted, painted, painted black
(Onu siyaha boyanmış, boyanmış, boyanmış görmek istiyorum)
Mick Jagger & Keith Richards
His Bad Side
I was such a fool..
I almost falling in love. All this time, he wanted her&her.. But he said it was me,that she. We believed together and he said he liked a girl who is like a friend to him. I thought this part was a just a dream. But its hard to tell everything actually. He spent all his time with her and everyone told me i was wrong but i underestimated him.
Then i felt somethings.I thought that will be twice if i fell in love this year,i still cant understand me but i love somethings like: the wind, pink colour,cherries,being mad all the time for someone... But i dont know that i love somebody. Just exhausting.
But i shouldnt forget for the next time anymore, boys like girls who similar to her and not like me. I was know this rule once in the past but i think i forgot it.
I clearly see everything. I want to explain all my feelings but now, im trying to digest..
He played with all of us and i thought i played with him. He pretends like a lover and i wont believe next time,for anyone.
I was such a fool for believing that you...i said it.
Talebem olduğunu söyleyen kimse hamamlardan uzak durduğunu, hiçbir canlıyı öldürmediğini, hic et yemedigini; kıskançlıktan, kötülükten, nefretten, iftiradan ve her türlü düşmanca duygulardan arınmış ve ismini özgürlüğünü kazanmışların soyuna yazdırmış olduğunu da eklesin. Apollonious of Tyana- G.R.S. Mead
If any say he is my disciple, then let him add he keeps himself apart out of the Baths, he slays no living thing, eats of no flesh, is free from envy, malice, hatred, calumny, and hostile feelings, but has his name inscribed among the race of those who’ve won their freedom.
Hakimler 3:15 (Ehud'un Solak Olması)
"Ehud was a Benjamite and the phrase translated "left handed man" is a very interesting Hebrew idiom. It literally reads "a man bound/restricted in his right hand." The same phrase is used in Judges 20:16 to describe 700 slingers (also of the tribe of Benjamin). These two verses are the only places where this idiom is used.
Judges 20:16 Among all this people there were seven hundred chosen men bound in the right hand; every one could sling stones at an hair breadth, and not miss. [KJV with the left handed idiom shown more literally]
There is another phrase used much more frequently to describe being left handed or turning to the left. It appears 54 times in the Old Testament (e.g. Gen 13:9; 14:15).
Noting that both instances of this idiom refer to Benjamites, the translators' notes on the NET state:
Perhaps the Benjaminites purposely trained several of their young men to be left-handed warriors by restricting the use of the right hand from an early age so the left hand would become dominant. Left-handed men would have a distinct military advantage, especially when attacking city gates. See B. Halpern, “The Assassination of Eglon: The First Locked-Room Murder Mystery,” BRev 4 (1988): 35.
1 Chronicles 12:2 also mentions a squad of ambidextrous soldiers who were also Benjamites. David's general Joab is also shown to be either left handed or ambidextrous in 2 Samuel 20:8-10. He grabs his opponents beard with his right hand while holding a sword in his left. The opponent takes no heed of the sword in his left and is undefended when Joab strikes. (See also the Iliad, 21.161-68, where Asteropaios, being ambidextrous, throws two spears at once at Achilles.)
When Ehud approached the room to see Eglon, he would have been inspected by the guards. As being right handed was more common then (just as it is now), they would have searched his left side for a concealed weapon more carefully than the right. A right handed person draws a long blade from the left side. Apparently, upon seeing the left side was clear, they didn't search the right for hidden weapons. After all, it was unlikely that he could draw and use a blade from that side."
Letter of Solidarity/Freedom of Access
In Antoine de Saint Exupéry's tale the Little Prince meets a businessman who accumulates stars with the sole purpose of being able to buy more stars. The Little Prince is perplexed. He owns only a flower, which he waters every day. Three volcanoes, which he cleans every week. "It is of some use to my volcanoes, and it is of some use to my flower, that I own them," he says, "but you are of no use to the stars that you own".
There are many businessmen who own knowledge today. Consider Elsevier, the largest scholarly publisher, whose 37% profit margin1 stands in sharp contrast to the rising fees, expanding student loan debt and poverty-level wages for adjunct faculty. Elsevier owns some of the largest databases of academic material, which are licensed at prices so scandalously high that even Harvard, the richest university of the global north, has complained that it cannot afford them any longer. Robert Darnton, the past director of Harvard Library, says "We faculty do the research, write the papers, referee papers by other researchers, serve on editorial boards, all of it for free … and then we buy back the results of our labour at outrageous prices."2 For all the work supported by public money benefiting scholarly publishers, particularly the peer review that grounds their legitimacy, journal articles are priced such that they prohibit access to science to many academics - and all non-academics - across the world, and render it a token of privilege.3
Elsevier has recently filed a copyright infringement suit in New York against Science Hub and Library Genesis claiming millions of dollars in damages.4 This has come as a big blow, not just to the administrators of the websites but also to thousands of researchers around the world for whom these sites are the only viable source of academic materials. The social media, mailing lists and IRC channels have been filled with their distress messages, desperately seeking articles and publications.
Even as the New York District Court was delivering its injunction, news came of the entire editorial board of highly-esteemed journal Lingua handing in their collective resignation, citing as their reason the refusal by Elsevier to go open access and give up on the high fees it charges to authors and their academic institutions. As we write these lines, a petition is doing the rounds demanding that Taylor & Francis doesn't shut down Ashgate5, a formerly independent humanities publisher that it acquired earlier in 2015. It is threatened to go the way of other small publishers that are being rolled over by the growing monopoly and concentration in the publishing market. These are just some of the signs that the system is broken. It devalues us, authors, editors and readers alike. It parasites on our labor, it thwarts our service to the public, it denies us access6.
We have the means and methods to make knowledge accessible to everyone, with no economic barrier to access and at a much lower cost to society. But closed access’s monopoly over academic publishing, its spectacular profits and its central role in the allocation of academic prestige trump the public interest. Commercial publishers effectively impede open access, criminalize us, prosecute our heroes and heroines, and destroy our libraries, again and again. Before Science Hub and Library Genesis there was Library.nu or Gigapedia; before Gigapedia there was textz.com; before textz.com there was little; and before there was little there was nothing. That's what they want: to reduce most of us back to nothing. And they have the full support of the courts and law to do exactly that.7
In Elsevier's case against Sci-Hub and Library Genesis, the judge said: "simply making copyrighted content available for free via a foreign website, disserves the public interest"8. Alexandra Elbakyan's original plea put the stakes much higher: "If Elsevier manages to shut down our projects or force them into the darknet, that will demonstrate an important idea: that the public does not have the right to knowledge."
We demonstrate daily, and on a massive scale, that the system is broken. We share our writing secretly behind the backs of our publishers, circumvent paywalls to access articles and publications, digitize and upload books to libraries. This is the other side of 37% profit margins: our knowledge commons grows in the fault lines of a broken system. We are all custodians of knowledge, custodians of the same infrastructures that we depend on for producing knowledge, custodians of our fertile but fragile commons. To be a custodian is, de facto, to download, to share, to read, to write, to review, to edit, to digitize, to archive, to maintain libraries, to make them accessible. It is to be of use to, not to make property of, our knowledge commons.
More than seven years ago Aaron Swartz, who spared no risk in standing up for what we here urge you to stand up for too, wrote: "We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open Access. With enough of us, around the world, we'll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge — we'll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us?"9
We find ourselves at a decisive moment. This is the time to recognize that the very existence of our massive knowledge commons is an act of collective civil disobedience. It is the time to emerge from hiding and put our names behind this act of resistance. You may feel isolated, but there are many of us. The anger, desperation and fear of losing our library infrastructures, voiced across the internet, tell us that. This is the time for us custodians, being dogs, humans or cyborgs, with our names, nicknames and pseudonyms, to raise our voices.
Share this letter - read it in public - leave it in the printer. Share your writing - digitize a book - upload your files. Don't let our knowledge be crushed. Care for the libraries - care for the metadata - care for the backup. Water the flowers - clean the volcanoes.
30 November 2015