Felsefe, çevre, politika, futbol, mutlaka ama mutlaka sinema. Biraz ondan, biraz bundan, canı istedikçe çıkan blog. Hayata dair ama tabii ki bana ait. Evet, isyan!

Salı, Ağustos 30, 2005

Dada

cikolata yiyiniz,
beyninizi yikayiniz,
dada dada
su iciniz.
Neden bilmem, beynime kazinmis bir dize. Sanirim Iletisim yayinlarinin eskiden cikarttigi ozel konular uzerine hazirlanmis kitapciklardan birinde, "Gercekustuculuk" adindaki kitapciktan kalmis aklima. Universiteye ilk basladigim yillarda, buyuk bir merakla okuyordum boyle seyleri. Iste bazi seyler de kalmis, gitmemis bir yere.
Bakalim dadacilar ne diyor:
Bir sanat yapiti hiçbir zaman nesnel olarak herkes için karar yoluyla güzel olamaz. Öyleyse elestiri yararsizdir, her kisi için öznel olarak ve en küçük bir genellik izi tasimaksiziýn vardir. Su sonsuz ve biçimden yoksun degisimi, insani olusturan kaos nasil düzene konmak isteniyor ki? "Yakinini sev" ilkesi bir aldatmacadir. "Kendini tani" bir ütopyadir ama daha kabul edilebilir bir seydir, çünkü kötülügü içerir. Acimak yok. Katliamdan sonra bize arinmis bir insanlik umudu kalir. DADA, toplumdan bagimsiz olma, topluma karsi güvensizlik duyma gereksiniminden dogdu. DADA soyutlamanin bayragidir. Ailenin bir yadsimasi durumuna gelmeye elverisli olan her tiksinti ürünü DADA'dir; yaratiklar arasindan güçsüzlerin dansi olan mantigin ortadan kaldirilmasi DADA'dir; her hiyararsinin ve uþaklarimiz tarafindan, degerler için kurulan her toplumsal denklemin ortadan kaldirilmasi DADA'dir; her nesne, bütün nesneler, duygular ve karanliklar, hortlaklar ve paralel çizgilerin kesin soku savasmak için araçtir; Iste bu da DADA'dir; bellegin ortadan kaldirilmasi DADA'dir; arkeolojinin ortadan kaldirilmasi DADA'dir; gelecegin ortadan kaldirilmasi DADA'dir.

Ne olcak bu Genclerbirligi'nin hali?

Ne olacak gercekten bu Genclerbirligi'nin hali yav? Ziya Dogan'da gitti. 4 hafta sen gol atama, ustune bir de butun transferlerini yaptirdigin, onemli oyuncularini (ornegin Skoko) teknik direktor istemiyor diye yolladigin takimi teknik direktorsuz birak.
Butun bunlarin tek bir sorumlusu var bence. O da baskan Ilhan Cavcav. Cavcav, bu takim olmazsa olmazi olsa da, ayni zamanda bu takimin en buyuk handikapi. Ve artik, gitmesini zamani da geldi bence.
Hikaye bilindik aslinda. Ama ne kadar da guzle tarif ediyor:
Bu ellinci kattan asagi dusen bir adamin hikayesidir
her katta, asagi dususu boyunca
durmadan tekrarlamaktadir:
buraya kadar hersey yolunda
buraya kadar hersey yolunda
buraya kadar hersey yolunda
oysa önemli olan asagi dogru düsmek degildir.. yere çarpmaktir

Pazar, Ağustos 28, 2005

Siya Siyabend

Bazi Siya Siyabend sarkilarini iceren bir link.
http://www.yerarti.net/siyasiyabend/
Triktrak (yutkuna yutkuna) bence cok iyi.
Vur Allah vur,
Vur kula kula vur ...
Vur baba vur, vur baba vur.

Cumartesi, Ağustos 27, 2005

Crossing the Bridge-The sound of Istanbul

“Hiç, hiç bir şey bilmiyorlar, bilmek istemiyorlar
Şu cahillere bak, dünyaya egemen onlar.
Onlardan değilsen eğer, sana kafir derler
Onlara aldırma Hayyam, yoluna devam et.”
Siya Siyabend'in "Istanbul Hatirasi" filminde gecen sarkisinin sozleri bunlar. Bizon Murat, sarkiyi soylerken Istanbul'u gosteriyor bize uzaklardan, tas ustunde tas Istanbul'u. Hic birsey bilmeyen, bilmek istemeyen, evlerindeki televizyonlari, buzdolaplari, boktan herseyleriyle dunyaya sahip olduklarini zanneden, insanca yasamanin uzagindan gecmeyen, hayatlari boyunca yarin korkusu olmadan bir tas corba icemeyecek ama kendinden olmayan herseyi tu kaka ve tabu ilan eden, herseyden, herkesten korkan kara cahilleri gostererek.
Dortluktekiler sizlerseniz yahu. Aynaya baktiginizda ne gordugunuzu saniyorsunuz; kariyer, para, kadinlar..
Yasadiginiz hayati kendinizin sectigini mi saniyorsunuz?
Hahaaa. (Simpsonlardaki su hasari cocuk efekti)

Cuma, Ağustos 26, 2005

Ayni Hikaye

Hikayeyi biliyorsunuz. Londra'daki patlamalardan sonraki takip eden cadi avi sirasinda, metroda supheli davranislariyla dikkat ceken, polisin daha onceden takip ettigini iddia ettigi, bombalama olaylarindan sorumlu olabilecegi ihtimali bulunan, o gun uzerinde "nedense" genis kiyafetler bulunan (genis dediysek icine bomba konacak kadar) ve polisin dur uyarisina uymayarak, bilet noktalarinun uzerinden atlayarak kacmaya calisan esmer vatandaslardan birisi (esmer dediysek Pakistaliya benzeyecek kadar) polis tarafindan kafasina kursun sikilarak oldurulmustu. Gupegunduz, herkesin ortasinda. Basina yapilan aciklamada oldurulmenin ne kadar yerinde oldugunu ispat edecek kanitlardi bunlar. Insanlar rahatlamis, kamuoyun nezdinde polisin davranisi onaylanmisti, ne de olsa bir terorist daha listeden silinmisti. Ta ki birkac gun sonra oldurulenin Brezilya asilli Jean Charles de Menezes oldugu, (Brezilyali Islamci terorist?) o gun de hergunku gibi isine gittigi, muhtemelen de kacak calisan bir elektrikci oldugu ortana cikana kadar. Hikayenin bundan sonrasi oldukca bilindik: Basbakan Tony Blair cikmis ozur dilemisti, polis sefi ne yapalim, yanlis istihbarat demisti, basin da olur boyle vakalar, Scotland Yard yakalar, stres mtres diye gecistirmisti. Ne iktidardaki Isci Partisi milletvekilleri ne de mufalefetteki Muhafazakar Partinin onde gidenleri olayin oyle cok da fazla uzerine gitme niyetinde de degildi. Sonucta ozur dilenmis, ulkeye gelen Brezilyali bakan da bir kac gun agirlanip, ekononomik isbirligi mesajlari verilip ulkesine gonderilmisti. Nedense kimse de polisin ne hakla sokak ortasinda kafaniza kursun yagdirabilecegini tartismamisti. Bir gun evinize giderken bu kursunlarin adresinin siz olabilecegi gibi konular dusunelerek can sikilmamisti.
Sonra, hikayeyi biraz daha "bilindik" hale getirmeye calisan yazarimiz isin icine aslinda o gun neler olduguna diger bilgiler sarpistirmeye karar vermisti. Meger o gun Menezes polisten kacmiyormus, bilet kontorlerinin uzerinden atlayarak gecmemis, meger o gun siradan, modayi pek de takip ettigin soyleyemiyecegimiz bir ceket giyiyormus, cektetten de bomba duzenegi parcalari, teller filan sallanmiyormus, ve de daha da onemlisi kafasina yedi kursun (siz bir insani oldurmek icin kafasina tek kursun yeter sananlardan misiniz?) sikilirken zaten teslim olmus, ve butun bu kursunlarin maktulun hemen dibinden sayildigi ortaya cikmis. Guardian gazetesinden Simon Hattenstone' nin haberine gore bu durum Inglitere'de de ilk degil.
Ya Turkiye? Yargizisiz infaz tartsimalarindan bu duruma cok da fazla uzak oldugumuz soylenemez. Daha yeni, Kasim 2004 de, Mardin Kiziltepe'de babasiyla birlikte oldurulen 12 yasindaki Ugur Kaymaz'in vucudundan 11 kursun cikarildiktan sonra nedense ellerinde kalasnikof tufeklerin olmasi raslanti degil tabii. Ne de olsa hava yagisli ve kapaliydi, net gorememisti polis ama teroristler de haklanmisti, degil mi?

Polis bunu hep yapiyor

We cannot take them at their word
'Police sources' routinely vilify victims and excuse police actions
Simon Hattenstone
Thursday August 18, 2005 The Guardian

When the Metropolitan police promptly apologised for killing Jean Charles de Menezes, it looked as if this could signify the new era of openness promised under Sir Ian Blair's leadership. After all, the police had never issued such an unequivocal apology after a death in custody.
This week leaked documents suggested that the story the Met had told about the shooting, and the media had dutifully reported, could not have been been more different from the truth; the "suspected terrorist" was not wearing a suspiciously heavy or padded jacket, let alone with wires sticking out; he never ran from the police; he didn't jump a ticket barrier. Worst of all, it emerged that Mr de Menezes had already been restrained when shot seven times in the head at point-blank range.
Now let's return to the initial reports. The press were pretty much as one - this was undoubtedly a tragedy, but the police had at least apologised for the enormity of the error, tensions were high after the bombings, the police had a hellish job and, to be fair, Mr de Menezes was hardly acting like a law-abiding citizen. No newspaper or broadcaster seriously questioned the validity of the reports from "police sources".
If the allegations contained in the leaks turn out to be true, this would not be a one-off. The police and the media have a distinguished history of misrepresentation in such cases; there have been more than 1,000 deaths in police custody in Britain in the past 30 years - most involving restraint, either in the cells or during arrest - and many of these people have subsequently been demonised.
In 1994 Richard O'Brien died after being restrained by police at a party they had been called to - reports focused on the fact that he was overweight (ie vulnerable) and had just been in a fight. In fact, the fight had involved two women.
In the same year Shiji Lapite was stopped by two police officers for "acting suspiciously". Half an hour later he was dead. The cause of death was asphyxia from compression of the neck, consistent with the application of a neckhold. One officer told the inquest that Mr Lapite was "the biggest, strongest, most violent black man" he'd ever seen. In fact, he was 5ft 10. At the inquest an officer admitted kicking him twice in the head as hard as he could, and said he was using reasonable force to subdue a violent prisoner.
In 1999 Roger Sylvester died after being restrained on his stomach by six police officers. He was portrayed as a feral, naked black man prowling the streets of Tottenham - in fact he was an average-sized naked man with mental health problems locked outside his house. He was also described as a crack addict, although no traces of cocaine were found in his blood or urine. Newspapers published first and apologised afterwards.
Scotsman Harry Stanley was killed by police after leaving a London pub in 1999. It was a particularly controversial case - he had been shot, well before the police began to operate their shoot-to-kill policy. The police had received reports that an "Irishman" with a suspicious package that looked very much like a wrapped-up sawn-off shotgun was on the loose. Mr Stanley was actually carrying a table leg. He was not a black man so he was demonised in a different way - portrayed as a feckless drunk.
It was reported that he raised the table leg as if to shoot. One story even suggested that he was depressed because he had cancer, so it was all an elaborate suicide attempt - in fact, he was in recovery and hopeful for the future. It was reported that Stanley was facing an officer with his "gun" - they had no choice, it was them or him. The entry and exit wounds to Mr Stanley's head later suggested that this was unlikely.
In 2003 Mikey Powell, a man without a criminal record, died after police officers drove their car at him, sprayed him with CS gas and restrained him. Soon after, an article in a local paper said that the police had driven their car at him only because he pointed a gun at them. He was actually holding a belt. When the family complained to West Midlands police, they were told it had been a mistake made by a source close to the investigation. By then the damage had been done. In the public mind, Powell was a crazed gunman who deserved to die.
Few deaths at the hands of the police have been as clear-cut as that of Jean Charles de Menezes. None has been as high profile. But the subsequent police distortion is all too familiar. So how should a responsible media treat these official statements or unofficial "police sources" that invariably excuse police actions or vilify victims? With caution, at the least. We know that the reality is so often complex and multidimensional. The police should be regarded as one player in the story. Just as witnesses are "reported" or "alleged" to have seen an incident, so should the police - rather than being allowed to issue reports (often anonymously) as if they were objective purveyors of the truth.

Perşembe, Ağustos 25, 2005

Madalyon

Öyle veya böyle; biraz politika, biraz cevre, biraz spor, ya da hayata dair hersey, ama daha cok kendi bellegim olacak.
Ya herru ya merru...