mariam

دخترک شش سالهٔ زیبایی‌ را می‌شناسم که نور چشم پدرش است . این دختر باور دارد که بابانوئل راستکی است . او معتقد است که سندباد هم وجود دارد ؛ و آرزو دارد وقتی‌ که بزرگ شد پری دریائی شود . وقتی‌ بزرگتر‌های جدی و محترمش به او یا همکلاسی‌هایش بگویند که بابانوئل یا پریان دریائی وجود دارند ، کاملا باور می کنند . بچه‌ها هر آنچه را که بهشان بگویند باور می کنند . اگر بگوئید که جادوگر‌ها می توانند یک شازده را به قورباغه تبدیل کنند باور می کنند . اگر هم بگوئید که بچه‌های بد در جهنّم کباب می شوند، شب‌ها کابوس کباب شدن می‌بینند . من به تازگی شنیدم که این دخترک را بدون اجازه پدرش برای یک دورهٔ یک هفته‌ا‌ی پیش یک راهبهٔ کاتولیک فرستاده اند . فکر می‌کنید این طفل در مکتب آن راهبه چه می‌آموزد ؟
با ۳۷ امتیاز و ۰ نظر فرستاده شده در بخش دانش و فناوری
لینک مستقیم

تواناتک: گوگل، دیگر شما را حمایت نمی کند و مشهورترین آر اس اس (RSS) جهان، اکنون دنیای مجازی را بدرود گفته است. ما از این موضوع ماه ها است که با خبریم، اما بسیاری از ما هنوز آر اس اس دیگری را انتخاب نکرده ایم. در اینجا سه جایگزین برای گوگل ریدر را به شما معرفی می کنیم.
با ۳۹ امتیاز و ۰ نظر فرستاده شده در بخش دانش و فناوری
لینک مستقیم

تا سال ۶۲ قانونی در زمینه لزوم رعایت حجاب اسلامی وجود نداشت. اولین قانونی که در خصوص پوشش زنان به تصویب رسید، ماده ۱۰۲ قانون تعزیرات بود که بعدها به صورت تبصره‌ای به ماده ۶۳۸ قانون مجازات اسلامی مصوب ۱۳۷۵ الحاق شد. به موجب این ماده از قانون "هر کس عملا در انظار، اماکن عمومی و معابر تظاهر به عمل حرامی کند علاوه بر کیفرعمل به حبس از ۱۰ روز تا دو ماه یا ۷۴ ضربه شلاق جریمه می شود و اگر مرتکب عملی شود که نفس آن عمل دارای کیفر نباشد ولی عفت عمومی را جریحه دار کند فقط به حبس از ۱۰ روز تا دو ماه یا ۷۴ ضربه شلاق محکوم می شود." و در تبصره آمده است: "زنانی که بدون حجاب شرعی در معابر و انظار عمومی ظاهر شوند به حبس از ۱۰ روز تا دوماه یا از ۵۰ هزار تا پانصد هزار ریال جزای نقدی محکوم خواهند شد." اما حجاب، قبل از ورود به دهه ۶۰ و از همان روزهای نخست سرکار آمدن حکومت جدید جنجالی شده بود. سوم بهمن ماه ۱۳۵۷، روزنامه کیهان اولین مصاحبه آیت‌الله خمینی با یک خبرنگار ایرانی را(همزمان با اطلاعات) منتشر کرد. نوشابه امیری، خبرنگار کیهان پرسیده بود: "چون مرا به عنوان یک زن پذیرفته‌اید این نشان دهنده این است که نهضت ما نهضتی مترقی است ولی دیگران کوشیده‌اند آن را عقب‌مانده نشان بدهند. فکر می کنید آیا زنان ما باید حتما حجاب داشته باشند؟ و مثلا روسری رو سر داشته باشند؟" آیت‌الله خمینی که کیهان نیز او را با نام "امام خمینی" اطلاق می‌کرد، پاسخ داده بود: "اما اینکه شما را پذیرفتم، بنده شما را نپذیرفتم شما آمدید اینجا و من نمی‌دانستم شما می‌خواهید بیایید اینجا که پذیرفتم. این هم دلیل بر این نیست که اسلام مترقی است که به مجرد اینکه شما به اینجا آمدید دلیل بر این است که اسلام مترقی است. ترقی هم به این نیست که زنها خیال کرده‌اند یا مردها خیال کرده‌اند. ترقی به کمالات انسانی و با اثر بودن یک زن در مملکت است نه به اینکه سینما برویم که دانس برویم و اینها ترقیاتی است که محمدرضا برای شما درست کرد که شما را به عقب رانده که ما باید بعدها جبران کنیم. شما آزادید در کارهای صحیح دانشگاه بروید هر کاری را که صحیح است بکنید و همه ملت آزادند در اینها اما اگر بخواهند کارهای خلاف عفت بکنند و یا کارهای خلاف ملیت بکنند از آنها جلوگیری می‌شود و این دلیل بر ترقی و مترقی بودن است." در پاسخ آیت‌الله تاکیدی در مورد حجاب در آن وجود ندارد. در اولین روز جهانی زن پس از انقلاب ۵۷، در حالی که دولت موقت بر سر کار بود و هنوز جمهوری اسلامی رسمیت پیدا نکرده بود، روزنامه کیهان با تیتری درشت از دستور جدید رهبر انقلاب خبر داد: "زنان باید با حجاب به ادارات بروند" آیت‌الله خمینی عنوان کرده بود: "الان وزارتخانه‏ها- این را مى‏گویم که به دولت برسد، آنطورى که براى من نقل مى‏کنند- باز همان صورت زمان طاغوت را دارد. وزارتخانه اسلامى نباید در آن معصیت بشود. در وزارتخانه‏هاى اسلامى نباید زن‌هاى (بى حجاب) بیایند، زنها بروند اما با حجاب باشند. مانعى ندارد بروند اما کار بکنند، لکن با حجاب شرعى باشند، با حفظ جهات شرعى باشند." به این ترتیب اولین راهپیمایی ۸ مارس رنگ و بوی مخالفت با حجاب اجباری به خود گرفت و جمعیت بسیاری از دانشگاه تهران به سمت کاخ دادگستری راهپیمای کردند و شعار دادند: "چادر اجباری نمی‌خواهیم" این تجمع مورد حمله گروه‌های تندروی طرفدار حاکمیت قرار گرفت و پایه‌گذار شعار معروف آنها "یا روسری یا توسری" شد.
با ۶۲ امتیاز و ۰ نظر فرستاده شده در بخش اجتماعی
لینک مستقیم

New WEEKLY WEINERSMITH. This episode featuring Zombie Ants. Here's the Kickstarter mentioned in the podcast. It's to help educate kids about evolution, via zombie ants.

How do you want to die? Quickly, painlessly, peacefully lying in your own bed?

Most people say that. But then, people seem to cling to their lives, even if that could mean a less peaceful end. When asked whether they would want physicians to perform certain interventions to prolong their lives like CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) or mechanical ventilation (‘breathing machine’), people say ‘yes’.

Interestingly, a study discussed in a Radiolab podcast from earlier this year reveals that contrary to lay people, physicians do not want these life-saving interventions they perform on their patients performed on themselves.

Joseph Gallo, physician and professor for mental health, reports: if physicians are asked whether they would agree to have certain treatments performed on them in case if they were suffering from an irreversible brain injury without terminal illness (a state similar to severe dementia), the vast majority say ‘no’. 90% of physicians don’t want CPR. Around 80% object to mechanical ventilation, dialysis, and the use of a feeding tube. Over 60% even reject the use of antibiotics. The only thing physicians want for themselves is pain medication (over 80%). Lay people, however, generally want all these when presented with the same scenario.

What causes such a big gap between the wishes of lay people and physicians? The simple explanation seems to be: knowledge. Physicians know how these interventions work and how high their success rates are – and what side-effects they can cause. Lay people’s opinion, though, seems to be guided more by the rose-coloured picture medical dramas on TV are painting. A study from the end of the 1990s found that in medical TV dramas like ‘Emergency Room’ and ‘Rescue 911’ when CPR is shown in 75% it leads to the patient walking out of the hospital door cured. In real life, however, only 3% of CPRs lead to a ‘good outcome’, i.e. patients surviving in a healthy condition. A further 3% of patients don’t die, but fall into a chronic vegetative state. An additional 2% of patients are stuck somewhere in between. The remaining 92% die.

But the low success rates of these interventions are not the only fact physicians know better. According to Ken Murray, a retired physician and clinical assistant professor interviewed for the Radiolab podcast, some of these interventions are ‘pretty terrible’. He gives mechanical ventilation as an example: the ventilator enforces a certain breathing rhythm to patients that doesn’t match their own. So patients have the feeling they can’t breathe and unwillingly fight the machine. The only way to get ‘air in and out of them’ is to paralyse them. So they are fully aware of what is happening, but completely helpless because they can’t neither move nor communicate. Murray says that in hospitals ‘a lot of times we are doing things to people that we wouldn’t do to a terrorist’.

Apparently, knowing all that affects the choices of physicians. Murray writes in one of his essays: ‘I cannot count the number of times fellow physicians have told me, in words that vary only slightly, “Promise me if you find me like this that you’ll kill me.” They mean it. Some medical personnel wear medallions stamped “NO CODE” to tell physicians not to perform CPR on them. I have even seen it as a tattoo.’

What should we make of that? In many countries, physicians are required to perform life-sustaining treatments on patients – treatments they wouldn’t want for themselves. Isn’t that telling…?

“Alan Turing, the Enigma codebreaker who took his own life after being convicted of gross indecency under anti-homosexuality legislation, is to be given a posthumous pardon,” writes The Guardian today. One of the great mathematicians of the last century, Turing laid the foundations for computer science and played a key role in breaking the Nazi Enigma code during World War II. Despite his contributions to defending Britain, Turing was prosecuted in 1952 for engaging in homosexual acts under an 1885 law that led to the convictions of 49,000 gay men, including Oscar Wilde. It’s a sad tale that gets recounted by another computer pioneer Jaron Lanier here:

For years, supporters have called upon the British government to issue a posthumous pardon. And while British Prime Minister Gordon Brown apologized in 2010 for “the appalling way [Turing] was treated,” members of the House of Lords resisted issuing an actual pardon as recently as last year. But, according to The Guardian, legislators are prepared to pass a new bill as early as this October. As many of our readers will be quick to point out, the concept  of a pardon is a bit strange, seeing that Turing did nothing wrong. But the willingness of the government to effectively nullify the conviction and reject an archaic law is a welcomed piece of news.

via @philosophybites

Related Content:

Watch the 1996 Film, Breaking the Code, Starring Derek Jacobi

The Enigma Machine: How Alan Turing Helped Break the Unbreakable Nazi Code

N Is a Number: A Portrait of Paul Erdős, the Most Prolific Mathematician of the 20th Century

6 comment(s)

“I . . . a universe of atoms . . . an atom in the universe.”

“Everyone’s moral behavior is much more variable than any of us would have initially predicted,” psychology researchers David DeSteno and Piercarlo Valdesolo wrote in their fascinating exploration of the good and evil in all of us, and hardly is this variability more critical than in matters that profoundly affect not merely the fate of the individual but also the future of society at large. In The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman (public library) — the same indispensable anthology that gave us The Great Explainer’s insights on the universal responsibility of scientists and the role of scientific culture in modern society, titled after the famous film of the same name — Richard Feynman explores the capacity of science to be a catalyst for both good and evil, and the moral choices steering the direction of the dial:

The first way in which science is of value is familiar to everyone. It is that scientific knowledge enables us to do all kinds of things and to make all kinds of things. Of course if we make good things, it is not only to the credit of science; it is also to the credit of the moral choice which led us to good work. Scientific knowledge is an enabling power to do either good or bad — but it does not carry instructions on how to use it. Such power has evident value — even though the power may be negated by what one does.

I learned a way of expressing this common human problem on a trip to Honolulu. In a Buddhist temple there, the man in charge explained a little bit about the Buddhist religion for tourists, and then ended his talk by telling them he had something to say to them that they would never forget — and I have never forgotten it. It was a proverb of the Buddhist religion:

“To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven; the same key opens the gates of hell.”

What, then, is the value of the key to heaven? It is true that if we lack clear instructions that determine which is the gate to heaven and which the gate to hell, the key may be a dangerous object to use, but it obviously has value. How can we enter heaven without it?

The instructions, also, would be of no value without the key. So it is evident that, in spite of the fact that science could produce enormous horror in the world, it is of value because it can produce something.

But, for Feynman, science has another value, an entirely personal one, captured in the famous Feynmanism after which this very book is titled. This glorious intellectual enjoyment, he argues, is far too frequently dismissed by those who stress scientists’ moral obligations to society, but it is of equal importance:

Is this mere personal enjoyment of value to society as a whole? No! But it is also a responsibility to consider the value of society itself. Is it, in the last analysis, to arrange things so that people can enjoy things? If so, the enjoyment of science is as important as anything else.

But I would like not to underestimate the value of the worldview which is the result of scientific effort. We have been led to imagine all sorts of things infinitely more marvelous than the imaginings of poets and dreamers of the past. It shows that the imagination of nature is far, far greater than the imagination of man. For instance, how much more remarkable it is for us all to be stuck-half of us upside down — by a mysterious attraction, to a spinning ball that has been swinging in space for billions of years, than to be carried on the back of an elephant supported on a tortoise swimming in a bottomless sea.

He concludes by illustrating his point with what could be best described as a prose poem about the magnificence of evolution, what Richard Dawkins termed “the magic of reality”, Einstein extolled as the ineffable spirit of the universe, and Carl Sagan celebrated as the reverence of nature. The poetic eloquence for which Feynman remains known, which hardly anyone has mastered since, except perhaps Neil deGrasse Tyson and Brian Cox, makes for a beautiful read on par with Diane Ackerman’s Cosmic Pastoral. Feynman writes:

I have thought about these things so many times alone that I hope you will excuse me if I remind you of some thoughts that I am sure you have all had — or this type of thought — which no one could ever have had in the past, because people then didn’t have the information we have about the world today.

For instance, I stand at the seashore, alone, and start to think. There are the rushing waves . . . mountains of molecules, each stupidly minding its own business . . . trillions apart . . . yet forming white surf in unison.

Ages on ages . . . before any eyes could see . . . year after year . . . thunderously pounding the shore as now. For whom, for what? . . . on a dead planet, with no life to entertain.

Never at rest . . . tortured by energy . . . wasted prodigiously by the sun . . . poured into space. A mite makes the sea roar.

Deep in the sea, all molecules repeat the patterns of one another till complex new ones are formed. They make others like themselves . . . and a new dance starts.

Growing in size and complexity . . . living things, masses of atoms, DNA, protein . . . dancing a pattern ever more intricate.

Out of the cradle onto the dry land . . . here it is standing . . . atoms with consciousness . . . matter with curiosity.

Stands at the sea . . . wonders at wondering . . . I . . . a universe of atoms . . . an atom in the universe.

The Pleasure of Finding Things Out is absolutely fantastic in its entirety. Complement it with Feynman’s little-known sketches and drawings and his graphic-novel biography.

Brain Pickings has a free weekly newsletter. It comes out on Sundays and offers the week’s best articles. Here’s what to expect. Like? Sign up.

Brain Pickings takes 450+ hours a month to curate and edit across the different platforms, and remains banner-free. If it brings you any joy and inspiration, please consider a modest donation – it lets me know I'm doing something right.

Earlier this month we posted an excerpt from an interview in which linguist Noam Chomsky slams the Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic Slavoj Žižek, along with the late French theorists Jacques Lacan and Jacques Derrida, for cloaking trivial ideas in obscure and inflated language to make them seem profound.

“There’s no ‘theory’ in any of this stuff,” Chomsky says to an interviewer who had asked him about the three continental thinkers, “not in the sense of theory that anyone is familiar with in the sciences or any other serious field. Try to find in all of the work you mentioned some principles from which you can deduce conclusions, empirically testable propositions where it all goes beyond the level of something you can explain in five minutes to a twelve-year-old. See if you can find that when the fancy words are decoded. I can’t. So I’m not interested in that kind of posturing. Žižek is an extreme example of it.”

Chomsky’s remarks sparked a heated debate on Open Culture and elsewhere. Many readers applauded Chomsky; others said he just didn’t get it. On Friday, Žižek addressed some of Chomsky’s criticisms during a panel discussion with a group of colleagues at Birckbeck College in London:

Žižek’s remarks about Chomsky don’t appear until about the one-hour, 30-minute mark, but Sam Burgum, a PhD student at the University of York, has transcribed the pertinent statements and posted them on his site, EsJayBe. Here are the key passages:

What is that about, again, the academy and Chomsky and so on? Well with all deep respect that I do have for Chomsky, my first point is that Chomsky, who always emphasizes how one has to be empirical, accurate, not just some crazy Lacanian speculations and so on… well I don’t think I know a guy who was so often empirically wrong in his descriptions in his whatever! Let’s look… I remember when he defended this demonstration of Khmer Rouge. And he wrote a couple of texts claiming: No, this is Western propaganda. Khmer Rouge are not as horrible as that.” And when later he was compelled to admit that Khmer Rouge were not the nicest guys in the Universe and so on, his defense was quite shocking for me. It was that “No, with the data that we had at that point, I was right. At that point we didn’t yet know enough, so… you know.” But I totally reject this line of reasoning.

For example, concerning Stalinism. The point is not that you have to know, you have photo evidence of gulag or whatever. My God you just have to listen to the public discourse of Stalinism, of Khmer Rouge, to get it that something terrifyingly pathological is going on there. For example, Khmer Rouge: Even if we have no data about their prisons and so on, isn’t it in a perverse way almost fascinating to have a regime which in the first two years (’75 to ’77) behaved towards itself, treated itself, as illegal? You know the regime was nameless. It was called “Angka,” an organization — not communist party of Cambodia — an organization. Leaders were nameless. If you ask “Who is my leader?” your head was chopped off immediately and so on.

Okay, next point about Chomsky, you know the consequence of this attitude of his empirical and so on — and that’s my basic difference with him — and precisely Corey Robinson and some other people talking with him recently confirmed this to me. His idea is today that cynicism of those in power is so open that we don’t need any critique of ideology, you reach symptomatically between the lines, everything is cynically openly admitted. We just have to bring out the facts of people. Like “This company is profiting in Iraq” and so on and so on. Here I violently disagree.

First, more than ever today, our daily life is ideology. how can you doubt ideology when recntly I think Paul Krugman published a relatively good text where he demonstrated how this idea of austerity, this is not even good bourgeois economic theory! It’s a kind of a primordial, common-sense magical thinking when you confront a crisis, “Oh, we must have done something wrong, we spent too much so let’s economize and so on and so on.”

My second point, cynicists are those who are most prone to fall into illusions. Cynicists are not people who see things the way they really are and so on. Think about 2008 and the ongoing financial crisis. It was not cooked up in some crazy welfare state; social democrats who are spending too much. The crisis exploded because of activity of those other cynicists who precisely thought “screw human rights, screw dignity, all that maters is,” and so on and so on.

So as this “problem” of are we studying the facts enough I claim emphatically more than ever “no” today. And as to popularity, I get a little bit annoyed with this idea that we with our deep sophisms are really hegemonic in the humanities. Are people crazy? I mean we are always marginal. No, what is for me real academic hegemony: it’s brutal. Who can get academic posts? Who can get grants, foundations and so on? We are totally marginalized here. I mean look at my position: “Oh yeah, you are a mega-star in United States.” Well, I would like to be because I would like power to brutally use it! But I am far from that. I react so like this because a couple of days ago I got a letter from a friend in United States for whom I wrote a letter of recommendation, and he told me “I didn’t get the job, not in spite of your letter but because of your letter!” He had a spy in the committee and this spy told him “You almost got it, but then somebody says “Oh, if Žižek recommends him it must be something terribly wrong with him.”

So I claim that all these “how popular we are” is really a mask of… remember the large majority of academia are these gray either cognitivists or historians blah blah… and you don’t see them but they are the power. They are the power. On the other hand, why are they in power worried? Because you know… don’t exaggerate this leftist paranoia idea that  ”we can all be recuperated” and so on and so on. No! I still quite naively believe in the efficiency of theoretical thinking. It’s not as simple as to recuperate everything in. But you know there are different strategies of how to contain us. I must say that I maybe am not innocent in this, because people like to say about me, “Oh, go and listen to him, he is an amusing clown blah blah blah.” This is another way to say “Don’t take it seriously.”

via Partially Examined Life

Related content:

Noam Chomsky Slams Žižek and Lacan: Empty ‘Posturing’

Noam Chomsky Calls Postmodern Critiques of Science Over-Inflated ‘Polysyllabic Truisms’

John Searle on Foucault and the Obscurantism in French Philosophy

Philosophy with a Southern Drawl: Rick Roderick Teaches Derrida, Foucault, Sartre and Others

Download 90 Free Philosophy Courses and Start Living the Examined Life

18 comment(s)

The word “philosopher” tends to conjure up the archetypal image of an ascetic figure standing above the follies of everyday life, absorbed in thought. Perhaps that’s why so many people have found it fascinating to hear of the disagreements between Noam Chomsky and Slavoj Žižek.

Several weeks ago we posted an excerpt from an interview in which Chomsky accuses Žižek, along with Jacques Lacan and Jacques Derrida, of empty “posturing.” Yesterday we posted Žižek’s response to Chomsky: “I don’t think I know a guy who was so often empirically wrong.” Some of the responses have been amusing. “The gloves are off!” wrote one reader on Twitter. “Fight! Fight! Fight!” said another.

Of course, we should bear in mind that the two celebrity intellectuals are not really at each other’s throats. Chomsky gave his brief assessment of Žižek and the others in response to a question during a long interview back in December. Žižek’s remarks were a small part of a two-hour panel discussion on various topics. It’s hard to imagine either man seething over what the other has said.

Still, the boisterousness of many of the responses reminded us of the studio audience in this 2009 sketch (above) from The Chaser’s War on Everything, an Australian comedy show. The sketch is a parody of The Jerry Springer Show and the other tabloid TV talk shows that multiplied like weeds in the 1990s. It’s extremely silly, but good for a laugh.

Related Content:

Noam Chomsky Slams Žižek and Lacan: Empty ‘Posturing’

Slavoj Žižek Responds to Noam Chomsky: ‘I Don’t Know a Guy Who Was So Often Empirically Wrong’

Noam Chomsky Calls Postmodern Critiques of Science Over-Inflated “Polysyllabic Truisms”

Clash of the Titans: Noam Chomsky & Michel Foucault Debate Human Nature & Power on Dutch TV, 1971

 

0 comment(s)

Last day for the new project! Thanks, geeks!

Eva Brann discusses her book The Logos of Heraclitus (2011).

The Grand Mufti of Kashmir has been accused of hypocrisy after he was captured on film enjoying a concert months after he issued a fatwa declaring music un-Islamic.

سین هر روز یک مدل عکس از خودش در فیسبوک می گذارد. ف اسمشان را گذاشته "سریال چشمها و لبها". عکسهای ایستاده، خوابیده، فر خورده، اتوشده،با گردنبند مروارید بارباماما و انگشترهای پرنس جان. یک شگردهایی هم بلد است که بدون آنکه بخندد گونه هایش باد می کنند و چشمهاش برق میزنند و ازینجور آلاگارسن بازی ها. دیشب بعد از نیمه شب وقتی همه ساختمان زیر صدای فرّ و فرّ کولر خوابیده بودند و لابد خواب روزهای شیرین آینده و امید و کلید را می دیدند که بیشتر شبیه کارتون خاله ریزه و قاشق سحرآمیز است، من باز عکسی تازه از سین را تماشا می کردم که مثل نازی روی مبل خزیده وخودش را گرد کرده و زل زده بود به دوربین. چراغش هم روشن بود. برایش نوشتم این عکسهای س.ک.س.ی چیه از خودت میذاری؟ جواب داد: مگه کجام لخته ؟! میخواستم  خودم را بکشم. بگویم عکسهایت در حد کله پاچه_­­ی بی مغز و زبان است. در حد یک دختربچه سیزده ساله شیردوش بیسواد ماتیک ندیده مردپرست داهاتی که هر مینی بوسی براش بوق بزند رنگ میدهد. نگفتم. دلم نیامد. واقعا هم اینطور نبود. برای ف پیامک دادم. ف گفت که قبلا دیده و گفت که به من ربطی ندارد و نباید دخالت کنم چون او بچه نیست، لااقل بچه من نیست و من یک زن سرگردان بین سنت و مدرنیته و پر از تضاد هستم که در نوجوانی زیر مقنعه چانه دار از تصور برداشتن پیوستگی بین ابروهایش به فضا می رفته و با داشتن یک بچه هنوز با بدنم بیگانه ام و نیاز به روانکاوی دارم.

***

میم کوچک بعد از سالها آمده و یک ماه مانده بود. حساس تر از قبل. مثل گل قهر کن. با همه درگیر شد و کار بجایی رسید که از هفته سوم در خانه خاله جان مقیم شد. وقتی می آمد با من و ف قهر بود ،وقتی می رفت با تور اسب و سین. قبل از آمدنش به رشت بابا زنگ زده و تهدید کرده بود اگر میم کوچک را ناراحت کنم حسابم را می رسد چون بالاخره او یک بچه­ی حساس و دلسوز و نادان و دکتر است و باید هوایش و احترامش را داشته باشیم. با این حال تلفنی یک بار با هم "گرفتیم" اما زود ول کردیم. او قهر کرد و گفت نمی روم رشت اما مامان قولنجش را گرفت. بعد آمد و چقدر حرف زدیم و کمی گشتیم و یک نفر دور فلکه شهرداری نیشگونش گرفت که تا چند روز از عصبانیت پیشانیش را نگهداشته بود و بخاطر راننده ای که بدون راهنما پیچیده بود از پلیس می خواست اسلحه اش را به سمت شقیقه طرف نشانه برود.در همان فاصله نازی سر زا رفت و دو بچه ازش ماند. مامان روزها گریه کرد و میم کوچک مجبور شد تا ساری برود و برای بچه ها شیشه پستانک و شامپوی مخصوص بخرد و دامپزشک بیاورد. وقت ناهار، مامان  با دیدن تکه های استخوان گوشه بشقاب ها برای نازی بغض می کرد. نازی را بردند باغ پشت خانه چال کردند و بابا بعدا یواشکی رفته بود یک تکه چوب بلند روی قبرش فرو کرده بود که جایش را گم نکنند. میم کوچک می خندید و می گفت بروید قطعه سه قبر نازی آنجاست. مامان می گفت مصلحت خدا را دیدید؟ شما هیچکدام فهمیدید چرا بعد اینهمه سال میم کوچک حالا آمده؟ چون از طرف خداوند مامور شده بود بچه های نازی را تروخشک کند. اما میم کوچک آنقدر در خشک کردنشان با سشوار زیاده روی کرده بود که حیوانکی ها تلف شدند و میم کوچک موقع رفتن عذاب وجدان داشت.  

The ability to reach items on high shelves and easily see through a crowd may no longer have the same appeal for some women. A study recently published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention finds a link between postmenopausal women's height and cancers. According to the study, the taller a woman's stature is, the higher her risk of cancer at a number of different sites, including breast, colon, endometrium, kidney, ovary, rectum and thyroid. Additionally, taller women have a greater risk of developing multiple myeloma and melanoma...

نوشتهٔ عروسک‌هایی برای فلیکس را در گوشه کامل‌تر بخوانید.