Friday, October 30, 2009

MLK: "I'm Sorry Sir You Don't Know Me"


Video Here

"I'm Sorry Sir You Don't Know Me"

Most Important quote:
  • Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher of consensus but he is a molder of consensus.
  • And on some positions a coward asks the question is it safe.
  • Expediency asks the question is it politic.
  • Vanity asks the question is it popular.
But conscience asks the question is it right and there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right.


Quotes from this speech:
when you go to jail for a righteous cause you can accept the inconveniences of jail with a kind of inner sense of calm and inner sense of peace

I'm gonna continue with all of my might with all of my energy and actions
to oppose the abominable , evil, and unjust war in Vietnam

we must to continue to stand up and we must continue to follow the dictates of our conscience even if that means breaking unjust laws.
non cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as cooperation with good and i do not plan to cooperate with evil at any point.

somebody said to me DR King don't you think you are hurting your leadership by taking a stand against the war in Vietnam. Aren't people who once respected you will lose respect for you and aren't you hurting the budget of your organization and i had to look at that person and say I'm sorry sir but you don't know me.
leadership by looking at the southern Christan leadership budget or taking a poll of the majority opinion.
Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher of consensus but he is a molder of consensus.
and on some positions
coward asks the question is it safe
expediency asks the question is it politic
vanity asks the question is it popular
but conscience asks the question is it right
and there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right.


---Martin Luther King at Santa Rita
produced by Colin Edwards.

Description: King's speech at a demonstration supporting anti-war activitists imprisoned at the Santa Rita rehabilitation center.

MARTIN LUTHER KING AT SANTA RITA produced by Colin Edwards.
RECORDED: Santa Rita, California, 14 Jan. 1968.

BROADCAST: KPFA, 15 Jan. 1968. (23 min.)BB1460 Pacifica Radio Archives.

This item is part of the collection: Pacifica Radio Archives

Video Here

Martin Luther King Jr.: "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam"

Martin Luther King Jr.: "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam"

Sermon at the Ebenezer Baptist Church on April 30, 1967:

A Real Audio file hosted here. Video Here

The sermon which I am preaching this morning in a sense is not the usual kind of sermon, but it is a sermon and an important subject, nevertheless, because the issue that I will be discussing today is one of the most controversial issues confronting our nation. I'm using as a subject from which to preach, "Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam."

Now, let me make it clear in the beginning, that I see this war as an unjust, evil, and futile war. I preach to you today on the war in Vietnam because my conscience leaves me with no other choice. The time has come for America to hear the truth about this tragic war. In international conflicts, the truth is hard to come by because most nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations and the incessant search for scapegoats are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins. But the day has passed for superficial patriotism. He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery. Freedom is still the bonus we receive for knowing the truth. "Ye shall know the truth," says Jesus, "and the truth shall set you free." Now, I've chosen to preach about the war in Vietnam because I agree with Dante, that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal.

The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing, as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we're always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on. Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony. But we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for in all our history there has never been such a monumental dissent during a war, by the American people.

Polls reveal that almost fifteen million Americans explicitly oppose the war in Vietnam. Additional millions cannot bring themselves around to support it. And even those millions who do support the war [are] half-hearted, confused, and doubt-ridden. This reveals that millions have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism, to the high grounds of firm dissent, based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Now, of course, one of the difficulties in speaking out today grows the fact that there are those who are seeking to equate dissent with disloyalty. It's a dark day in our nation when high-level authorities will seek to use every method to silence dissent. But something is happening, and people are not going to be silenced. The truth must be told, and I say that those who are seeking to make it appear that anyone who opposes the war in Vietnam is a fool or a traitor or an enemy of our soldiers is a person that has taken a stand against the best in our tradition.

Yes, we must stand, and we must speak. [tape skip]...have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam. Many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns, this query has often loomed large and loud: "Why are you speaking about the war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent?" Peace and civil rights don't mix, they say. And so this morning, I speak to you on this issue, because I am determined to take the Gospel seriously. And I come this morning to my pulpit to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation.

This sermon is not addressed to Hanoi, or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia. Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Nor is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they must play in a successful resolution of the problem. This morning, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the National Liberation Front, but rather to my fellow Americans, who bear the greatest responsibility, and entered a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.

Now, since I am a preacher by calling, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is...a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I and others have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed that there was a real promise of hope for the poor, both black and white, through the Poverty Program. There were experiments, hopes, and new beginnings. Then came the build-up in Vietnam. And I watched the program broken as if it was some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money, like some demonic, destructive suction tube. And you may not know it, my friends, but it is estimated that we spend $500,000 to kill each enemy soldier, while we spend only fifty-three dollars for each person classified as poor, and much of that fifty-three dollars goes for salaries to people that are not poor. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor, and attack it as such.

Perhaps the more tragic recognition of reality took place when it became clear to me that the war was doing far more than devastating the hope of the poor at home. It was sending their sons, and their brothers, and their husbands to fight and die in extraordinarily high proportion relative to the rest of the population. We were taking the black young men who had been crippled by society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in Southwest Georgia and East Harlem. So we have been repeatedly faced with a cruel irony of watching Negro and white boys on TV screens as they kill and die together for a nation that has been unable to seat them together in the same school room. So we watch them in brutal solidarity, burning the huts of a poor village. But we realize that they would hardly live on the same block in Chicago or Atlanta. Now, I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.

My third reason moves to an even deeper level of awareness, for it grows out of my experience in the ghettos of the North over the last three years--especially the last three summers. As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through non-violent action; for they ask and write me, "So what about Vietnam?" They ask if our nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without first having spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence I cannot be silent. Been a lot of applauding over the last few years. They applauded our total movement; they've applauded me. America and most of its newspapers applauded me in Montgomery. And I stood before thousands of Negroes getting ready to riot when my home was bombed and said, we can't do it this way. They applauded us in the sit-in movement--we non-violently decided to sit in at lunch counters. The applauded us on the Freedom Rides when we accepted blows without retaliation. They praised us in Albany and Birmingham and Selma, Alabama. Oh, the press was so noble in its applause, and so noble in its praise when I was saying, Be non-violent toward Bull Connor;when I was saying, Be non-violent toward [Selma, Alabama segregationist sheriff] Jim Clark. There's something strangely inconsistent about a nation and a press that will praise you when you say, Be non-violent toward Jim Clark, but will curse and damn you when you say, "Be non-violent toward little brown Vietnamese children. There's something wrong with that press!

As if the weight of such a commitment to the life and health of America were not enough, another burden of responsibility was placed upon me in 1964. And I cannot forget that the Nobel Peace Prize was not just something taking place, but it was a commission--a commission to work harder than I had ever worked before for the brotherhood of Man. This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances. But even if it were not present, I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me, the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I am speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the Good News was meant for all men, for communists and capitalists, for their children and ours, for black and white, for revolutionary and conservative. Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the One who loved His enemies so fully that he died for them? What, then, can I say to the Vietcong, or to Castro, or to Mao, as a faithful minister to Jesus Christ? Can I threaten them with death, or must I not share with them my life? Finally, I must be true to my conviction that I share with all men the calling to be the son of the Living God. Beyond the calling of race or nation or creed is this vocation of sonship and brotherhood. And because I believe that the Father is deeply concerned, especially for His suffering and helpless and outcast children, I come today to speak for them. And as I ponder the madness of Vietnam and search within myself for ways to understand and respond in compassion, my mind goes constantly to the people of that peninsula. I speak not now of the soldiers of each side, not of the military government of Saigon, but simply of the people who have been under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them, too, because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution until some attempt is made to know these people and hear their broken cries.

Now, let me tell you the truth about it. They must see Americans as strange liberators. Do you realize that the Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence in 1945 after a combined French and Japanese occupation. And incidentally, this was before the Communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. And this is a little-known fact, and these people declared themselves independent in 1945. They quoted our Declaration of Independence in their document of freedom, and yet our government refused to recognize them. President Truman said they were not ready for independence. So we fell victim as a nation at that time of the same deadly arrogance that has poisoned the international situation for all of these years. France then set out to reconquer its former colony. And they fought eight long, hard, brutal years trying to re-conquer Vietnam. You know who helped France? It was the United States of America. It came to the point that we were meeting more than eighty percent of the war costs. And even when France started despairing of its reckless action, we did not. And in 1954, a conference was called at Geneva, and an agreement was reached, because France had been defeated at Dien Bien Phu. But even after that, and after the Geneva Accord, we did not stop. We must face the sad fact that our government sought, in a real sense, to sabotage the Geneva Accord. Well, after the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come through the Geneva agreement. But instead the United States came and started supporting a man named Diem who turned out to be one of the most ruthless dictators in the history of the world. He set out to silence all opposition. People were brutally murdered because they raised their voices against the brutal policies of Diem. And the peasants watched and cringed as Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition. The peasants watched as all this was presided over by United States influence and by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem's methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown, they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictatorships seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace. And who are we supporting in Vietnam today? It's a man by the name of general Ky [Air Vice Marshal Nguyen Cao Ky] who fought with the French against his own people, and who said on one occasion that the greatest hero of his life is Hitler. This is who we are supporting in Vietnam today. Oh, our government and the press generally won't tell us these things, but God told me to tell you this morning. The truth must be told.

The only change came from America as we increased our troop commitments in support of governments which were singularly corrupt, inept, and without popular support and all the while the people read our leaflets and received regular promises of peace and democracy and land reform. Now they languish under our bombs and consider us, not their fellow Vietnamese, the real enemy. They move sadly and apathetically as we herd them off the land of their fathers into concentration camps, where minimal social needs are rarely met. They know they must move or be destroyed by our bombs. So they go, primarily women, and children and the aged. They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the towns and see thousands of thousands of the children, homeless, without clothes, running in packs on the streets like animals. They see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food. They see the children selling their sisters to our soldiers, soliciting for their mothers. We have destroyed their two most cherished institutions: the family and the village. We have destroyed their land and their crops. We have cooperated in the crushing of the nation's only noncommunist revolutionary political force, the United Buddhist Church. This is a role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolutions impossible but refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that comes from the immense profits of overseas investments. I'm convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, militarism and economic exploitation are incapable of being conquered.

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be changed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth with righteous indignation. It will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, "This is not just." It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of Latin America and say, "This is not just." The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just. A true revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

Oh, my friends, if there is any one thing that we must see today is that these are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born. The shirtless and barefoot people of the land are rising up as never before. The people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. They are saying, unconsciously, as we say in one of our freedom songs, "Ain't gonna let nobody turn me around!" It is a sad fact that because of comfort, complacency, a morbid fear of communism, our proneness to adjust to injustice, the Western nations that initiated so much of the revolutionary spirit of the modern world have now become the arch anti-revolutionaries. This has driven many to feel that only Marxism has a revolutionary spirit. Therefore, communism is a judgment against our failure to make democracy real and follow through on the revolutions that we initiated. Our only hope today lies in our ability to recapture the revolutionary spirit and go out into a sometimes hostile world declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism. With this powerful commitment we shall boldly challenge the status quo, we shall boldly challenge unjust mores, and thereby speed up the day when "every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low, and the rough places shall be made plain, and the crooked places straight. And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together."

A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies. This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing, unconditional love for all men. This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of mankind. And when I speak of love I'm not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of John: "Let us love one another, for God is love. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us."

Let me say finally that I oppose the war in Vietnam because I love America. I speak out against this war, not in anger, but with anxiety and sorrow in my heart, and, above all, with a passionate desire to see our beloved country stand as the moral example of the world. I speak out against this war because I am disappointed with America. And there can be no great disappointment where there is not great love. I am disappointed with our failure to deal positively and forthrightly with the triple evils of racism, economic exploitation, and militarism. We are presently moving down a dead-end road that can lead to national disaster. America has strayed to the far country of racism and militarism. The home that all too many Americans left was solidly structured idealistically; its pillars were solidly grounded in the insights of our Judeo-Christian heritage. All men are made in the image of God. All men are bothers. All men are created equal. Every man is an heir to a legacy of dignity and worth. Every man has rights that are neither conferred by, nor derived from the State--they are God-given. Out of one blood, God made all men to dwell upon the face of the earth. What a marvelous foundation for any home! What a glorious and healthy place to inhabit. But America's strayed away, and this unnatural excursion has brought only confusion and bewilderment. It has left hearts aching with guilt and minds distorted with irrationality.

It is time for all people of conscience to call upon America to come back home. Come home, America. Omar Khayyam is right: "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on." I call on Washington today. I call on every man and woman of good will all over America today. I call on the young men of America who must make a choice today to take a stand on this issue. Tomorrow may be too late. The book may close. And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, "You're too arrogant! And if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I'll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God."

Now it isn't easy to stand up for truth and for justice. Sometimes it means being frustrated. When you tell the truth and take a stand, sometimes it means that you will walk the streets with a burdened heart. Sometimes it means losing a job...means being abused and scorned. It may mean having a seven, eight year old child asking a daddy, "Why do you have to go to jail so much?" And I've long since learned that to be a follower to the Jesus Christ means taking up the cross. And my bible tells me that Good Friday comes before Easter. Before the crown we wear, there is the cross that we must bear. Let us bear it--bear it for truth, bear it for justice, and bear it for peace. Let us go out this morning with that determination. And I have not lost faith. I'm not in despair, because I know that there is a moral order. I haven't lost faith, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. I can still sing "We Shall Overcome" because Carlyle was right: "No lie can live forever." We shall overcome because William Cullen Bryant was right: "Truth pressed to earth will rise again." We shall overcome because James Russell Lowell was right: "Truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne." Yet, that scaffold sways the future. We shall overcome because the bible is right: "You shall reap what you sow." With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our world into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when the lion and the lamb will lie down together, and every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree, and none shall be afraid because the words of the Lord have spoken it. With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when all over the world we will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we're free at last!" With this faith, we'll sing it as we're getting ready to sing it now. Men will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. And nations will not rise up against nations, neither shall they study war anymore. And I don't know about you, I ain't gonna study war no more.

Text from Pacifica Radio/KPFA/UC Berkeley Library's Media Resource Center's site. The sermon was at the Ebenezer Baptist Church, not the Riverside Church -- that speech is here.

Source

Obama to lift HIV entry ban soon

Obama to lift HIV entry ban soon

President Barack Obama, 30 Oct
Obama: "We need to be a global leader on Aids"

The US is to end its 22-year ban on people with HIV entering the country, President Barack Obama has confirmed.

Mr Obama made the announcement as he extended funding for an act that provides HIV/Aids related health care.

"If we want to be the global leader in combating HIV/Aids, we need to act like it," Mr Obama said.

The US is one of only about a dozen countries barring entry on HIV status. The ban is expected to be lifted at the beginning of 2010.

'End the stigma'

Mr Obama confirmed the move as he signed the Ryan White HIV/Aids Treatment Extension Act.

Mr Obama said the entry ban had been "rooted in fear rather than fact".

He said: "We lead the world when it comes to helping stem the Aids pandemic - yet we are one of only a dozen countries that still bar people with HIV from entering our own country.

"On Monday, my administration will publish a final rule that eliminates the travel ban effective just after the New Year."

Mr Obama added: "It will also take an effort to end the stigma that has stopped people from getting tested, that has stopped people from facing their own illness and that has sped the spread of this disease for far too long."

The process to lift the ban had begun under the administration of George W Bush.

The Ryan White Act is named after a 13-year-old boy who contracted the virus via blood transfusion and helped educate Americans about the disease until his death in 1990 aged 18.

The act helps about 500,000 people, many on low incomes, by providing treatment and support.

HIV was added in 1987 to the list of diseases disqualifying people from entering the US.

Source

Fallout 3 crowned 'game of year'

Fallout 3 crowned 'game of year'

Page last updated at 15:02 GMT, Friday, 30 October 2009

Fallout 3 was crowned ultimate game of the year

Fallout 3 has been named ultimate game of the year at the Golden Joysticks, one of the gaming industry's biggest awards.

The hugely popular Call of Duty series took home a hat-trick of awards including multiplayer game of the year and Nintendo game of the year for World At War.

Meanwhile, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 bagged the 'one to watch' award.

Soundtrack of the year went to Guitar Hero: World Tour while innovation platform game LittleBigPlanet scooped family game of the year.

Have Your Say: What's your video game of the year?

The awards themselves, now in their 27th year, also made it into the Guinness Record Books as the World's Most Popular Video Game Awards, with more than 1.2m votes cast.

FULL LIST OF WINNERS

  • Family game of the year: LittleBigPlanet
  • Bliss handheld game of the year: Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars
  • Retailer of the year: GAME
  • Mobile game of the year: Metal Gear Solid Touch
  • Nintendo game of the year: Call of Duty: World at War
  • MSN multiplayer game of the year: Call Of Duty: World At War
  • The Rampage soundtrack of the year: Guitar Hero World Tour
  • Xbox Game of the Year: Gears of War 2
  • PC game of the year: Fallout 3
  • Amiqus games UK developer of the year: Jagex
  • PlayStation game of the year: Killzone 2
  • Publisher of the year: Activision Blizzard
  • Online game of the year: Left4Dead
  • ShortList one to watch: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2
  • Ultimate game of the year, together with Zavvi.co.uk: Fallout 3

The awards are split across 15 categories and are voted for by UK gamers.

Economic confidence

Activision Blizzard, who are responsible for Call of Duty and Guitar Hero, were named publisher of the year.

Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars for Nintendo DS won handheld game of the year.

Gamers in the UK spent £2.7bn on gaming in the past year, boosting an already growing confidence in the industry.

Organiser of the Golden Joystick Awards Emma Parkinson said: "The games industry remains innovative and vibrant despite economic pressures.

"Many of the winners at the Golden Joystick's demonstrate that UK talent remains crucial to the success of this industry across the globe and must be nurtured at all cost."

To qualify for an award games had to be released between May 2008 and May 2009.

The only exception is the 'one to watch' award which covers games released since then.

Former Radio 1 DJ Dave Lee Travis handed out the first Golden Joystick awards in 1982.

At the video game Baftas in February, Super Mario Galaxy won the best game but Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was the big winner, scooping three awards including people's choice and best gameplay.

Source

Karzai's brother 'on CIA payroll'

Karzai's brother 'on CIA payroll'

US engagement under question after deal with suspected drug dealer

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington

Thursday, 29 October 2009


US involvement in Afghanistan has come into new question with the claim that President Hamid Karzai's brother has for years been on the payroll of the CIA – even though he is suspected of being a major figure in the illicit opium trade that Washington and its allies are pledged to do everything to stamp out.

Ahmed Wali Karzai described the claims as 'ridiculous'

AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Ahmed Wali Karzai described the claims as 'ridiculous'

The allegations against Ahmed Wali Karzai, set out yesterday in The New York Times and attributed to current and former US officials, paint a picture of a shadowy potentate and powerbroker with a finger in every pie, whose fief is the south of the country, heartland of the Taliban insurgency.

They could not have emerged at a more awkward time for the Obama administration, as it approaches a critical decision on American troop strength in the country. That decision in turn will be heavily influenced by the outcome of the run-off between Hamid Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah, the former foreign minister, scheduled for 7 November.

After the uproar over the fraud-ridden original election that purported to return Hamid Karzai with an absolute majority of the vote, Washington is counting on the run-off to produce a government that commands trust across the country. That, many policymakers here argue, is an essential precondition if Barack Obama is to authorise the major troop increase sought by General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan. The signs are that Mr Obama is leaning towards a strategy that would focus on protecting major population centres. This would require more troops than the 68,000 currently in Afghanistan, but not as many as the 40,000 extra or more requested by General McChrystal. But the calculations will inevitably now be even more delicate, amid the controversy over Ahmed Wali Karzai.

Yesterday, he described as "ridiculous" the claims he was being paid by the CIA. "I work with the Americans, the Canadians. The British, anyone who asks for my help," he said. "I've no idea where they [the CIA] get their recruits. It's absolutely ridiculous." The Agency refused to comment, as did Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman. But the affair has already caused divisions within the administration – between "realists" who argue the US has no choice but to work with powerful individuals, however distasteful they may be, and those who insist that the links with Ahmed Wali Karzai made a mockery of America's avowed efforts to promote a clean, trustworthy government.

It has also added to tensions between Washington and Hamid Karzai. According to the newspaper, US officials have pressed the Afghan leader to move his brother out of southern Afghanistan, where he is said to have grown rich by charging large transit fees for the drug traffickers whose activities finance the Taliban and feed corruption in the Kabul government. But President Karzai has refused, in effect protecting his brother from investigation.

Source

Israel endorses Iran nuclear plan

Israel endorses Iran nuclear plan

Benjamin Netanyahu
The Israeli Prime Minister has begun talks with the US Middle East Envoy

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has praised a UN proposal to regulate Iran's uranium enrichment programme.

Speaking before talks with US Middle East envoy George Mitchell, he called it a "positive first step" in stopping Tehran developing a nuclear weapon.

Under the plan, low-enriched fuel would be further processed outside Iran.

On Thursday, the UN's nuclear watchdog confirmed it had received Iran's response to the directive, but its contents have not been released.

Mr Netanyahu said: "I think that the proposal to have Iran withdraw its enriched uranium, or a good portion of it, outside Iran is a positive first step."

He also praised US President Barack Obama's efforts in drawing global attention to the issue of Iran's nuclear programme.

'Old tricks'

But striking a different note in Brussels, European leaders are reported to be preparing a critical draft communique expressing "grave concern" over Iranian nuclear enrichment and its "persistent failure to meet its international obligations".

Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, told the AP that Iran's approach of "back-and-forth talks" were reminiscent of its "same old tricks."

Tehran insists it is enriching uranium for peaceful purposes, fuel and medical research, but the US and its allies have accused it of seeking nuclear weapons.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei said he was hopeful of reaching an agreement with Tehran when he received Iran's response to the UN draft on Thursday.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had described the IAEA proposal as a move from "confrontation to co-operation" by Western powers, but that Iran would "not retreat even an iota" over its right to develop a civilian nuclear programme.

The plan proposes exporting most of Iran's enriched uranium to Russia and France for conversion into fuel rods before being returned.

Source

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Internet addresses set for change

Internet addresses set for change

Cable
Icann oversees the structure of the net

The internet is set to undergo one of its biggest changes, with the expected approval of plans to introduce web addresses using non-Latin characters.

The board of the net regulator, Icann, will decide whether to allow domain names in Arabic, Chinese and other scripts at its annual meeting in Seoul.

More than half of the 1.6 billion people who use the internet speak languages with non-Latin scripts.

The first Internationalised Domain Names (IDNs) could be in use next year.

Plans for IDNs were first approved at a meeting in June 2008, but testing of the system has been going on for two years.

Technical upheaval

If approved on Friday, the net's Domain Name System (DNS) will be changed so that it can recognise and translate non-Latin characters.

The DNS acts like a phonebook, turning easily understood domain names into strings of computer-readable numbers, known as Internet Protocol (IP) addresses.

This change is very much necessary for not only half the world's internet users today but more than half, probably, of the future users as the internet continues to spread
Rod Beckstrom
President of Icann

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) said the "fantastically complicated technical feature" allowing IDNs would represent the "biggest change" to the coding that underlies the internet since it was invented 40 years ago.

BBC technology correspondent Mark Gregory says in the early days of the internet, language posed no problem, as most web-surfers spoke English and those that did not usually wrote in languages based on the Latin alphabet.

But this is no longer true, adds our correspondent.

Icann said it would accept the first applications for IDNs by 16 November, with the first up and running by "mid-2010".

It is likely the majority of early non-Latin net addresses to be approved will be in Chinese and Arabic script, followed by Russian.

Some countries, such as China and Thailand, have already introduced workarounds that allow computer users to enter web addresses in their own language.

However, these were not internationally approved and do not work on all computers.

Our correspondent says the point of the Icann vote is to create a universal internet address code that will work in any language and in every place so all the world's computers can connect with each other.

"Of the 1.6 billion internet users today worldwide, more than half use languages that have scripts that are not Latin-based," said Icann president and CEO Rod Beckstrom on Tuesday.

"So this change is very much necessary for not only half the world's internet users today but more than half, probably, of the future users as the internet continues to spread."

The meeting in South Korea will also discuss its plans to introduce generic Top Level Domains (TLDs), such as .uk or .com.

Last year, the body voted to relax rules on TLDs meaning companies could turn brands into web addresses, while individuals could use their names.

Icann, set up by the US government, was founded in 1998 to oversee the development of the net.

Last month, after years of criticism, the US government eased its control over the non-profit body.

It signed a new agreement that gave Icann autonomy for the first time. The agreement came into effect on 1 October and puts it under the scrutiny of the global "internet community".

Source

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Lie To Me - Grevious Bodily Harm



Some the greatest, No, No. THE greatest acting I've ever seen at 40 minutes on til the end; especially the loyalty with terry marsh part.

Want to be an actor, than witness the miracle that is Lightman.

Scientologists convicted of fraud

Scientologists convicted of fraud

File photo of Scientology's Celebrity Centre in Paris, may 2009
Scientology's Celebrity Centre in Paris was fined in the ruling

A French court has convicted the Church of Scientology of fraud, but stopped short of banning the group from operating in France.

Two branches of the group's operations and several of its leaders in France have been fined.

The case came after complaints from two women, one of whom said she was manipulated into paying more than 20,000 euros (£18,100) in the 1990s.

A Scientology spokesman told the BBC the verdict was "all bark and no bite".

France regards Scientology as a sect, not a religion.

Prosecutors had asked for the group's French operations to be dissolved and more heavily fined, but a legal loophole prevented any ban.

Instead, a Paris judge ordered the Church's Celebrity Centre and a bookshop to pay a 600,000-euro fine.

Alain Rosenberg, the group's head in France, was handed a two-year suspended jail sentence and fined 30,000 euros.

Three other leading members of the group were also fined.

Ban 'still possible'

Unlike the US, France has always refused to recognise Scientology as a religion, arguing that it is a purely commercial operation designed to make as much money as it can at the expense of often vulnerable victims, the BBC's Emma Jane Kirby reports from Paris.

Scientology official Eric Roux at court in Paris, 27 October 2009
Religious freedom is in danger in this country
Eric Roux
French Celebrity Centre spokesman

Over the past 10 years, France has taken several individual members of the group to court on charges of fraud and misleading publicity, but this is the first time the organisation itself has been charged, she says.

Tommy Davis, spokesman for the Church of Scientology International, told BBC News that the court had acted "in total violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and French constitutional guarantees on freedom".

The case "fell flat on its face", he said.

"The fines will get thrown out on appeal. We've had similar cases before and in other countries. If it has to go to the court of human rights we're confident we will win there."

Speaking by phone from the US, he said it was a "political gesture" against the organisation, but "Scientology will continue to grow in France".

The Church of Scientology was founded in 1954 by the late science fiction writer L Ron Hubbard, and includes Hollywood stars such as John Travolta and Tom Cruise.

Manipulation claims

In the case leading up to Tuesday's ruling, a woman said she was sold expensive life-improvement courses, vitamins and other products after taking a personality test.

A second woman alleges she was fired by her Scientologist boss after refusing to undergo testing and sign up to courses.

The organisation denied that any mental manipulation took place.

The court was unable to impose a ban because of a legal amendment that was passed just before the trial began, preventing the banning of an organisation convicted of fraud.

However, that amendment has now been changed.

"It is very regrettable that the law quietly changed before the trial," Georges Fenech, the head of the Inter-ministerial Unit to Monitor and Fight Cults, told French TV.

"The system has now been put in place by parliament and it is certain that in the future, if new offences are committed, a ban could eventually be pronounced," he said.

A lawyer defending Scientology's operations in France said there would be an appeal.

Eric Roux, a spokesman for the Celebrity Centre, urged France to recognise Scientology's "legality".

"Religious freedom is in danger in this country," he said.

Source

Israel 'cuts Palestinian water'

Israel 'cuts Palestinian water'

A girl stands next to a water tank near Nablus, West Bank. Photo: October 2009
Some Palestinians only get 20 litres of water a day, Amnesty says

Israel is denying Palestinians access to even the basic minimum of clean, safe water, Amnesty International says.

In a report, the human rights group says Israeli water restrictions discriminate against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.

It says that in Gaza, Israel's blockade has brought the water and sewage system to "crisis point".

Israel says the report is flawed and the Palestinians get more water than was agreed under the 1990s peace deal.

'Basic need'

In the 112-page report, Amnesty says that on average Palestinian daily water consumption reaches 70 litres a day, compared with 300 litres for the Israelis.

Israel must end its discriminatory policies, immediately lift all the restrictions it imposes on Palestinians' access to water
Donatella Rovera
Amnesty International

It says that some Palestinians barely get 20 litres a day - the minimum recommended even in humanitarian emergencies.

Amnesty says that Israel denies West Bank Palestinians to dig wells, and has even destroyed cisterns and impounded water tankers.

At the same time, the report claims, Israeli settlers are enjoying swimming pools and green gardens.

In Gaza, Israel refuses access to many of the building materials needed to renovate the ailing water system, the document says.

It adds that Israel uses more than 80% of the water from the Mountain Aquifer - the main source of underground water in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

"Water is a basic need and a right, but for many Palestinians obtaining even poor-quality, subsistence-level quantities of water has become a luxury that they can barely afford," Amnesty's Donatella Rovera said.

"Israel must end its discriminatory policies, immediately lift all the restrictions it imposes on Palestinians' access to water."

Ms Rovera also urged Israel to "take responsibility for addressing the problems it created by allowing Palestinians a fair share of the shared water resources".

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said the report was factually inaccurate, accusing the Palestinians of mismanaging water resources.

He also rejected the claim that Israel was preventing Palestinians from drilling for water.

The spokesman said Israel had approved 82 such projects but the Palestinians had only implemented 26 of them.

Source

'Younger wife' for marital bliss

'Younger wife' for marital bliss

Beyonce and Jay-Z
Pop star Beyonce and rapper husband Jay-Z married last year

The secret to a happy marriage for men is choosing a wife who is smarter and at least five years younger than you, say UK experts.

These pairings are more likely to go the distance, particularly if neither has been divorced in the past, according to the Bath University team.

The findings predict a happy future for pop star Beyonce Knowles, 28, and rapper husband Jay-Z, 39.

The work is published in the European Journal of Operational Research.

The researchers studied interviews of more than 1,500 couples who were married or in a serious relationship.

Five years later, they followed up 1,000 of the couples to see which had lasted.

For better or worse

They found that if the wife was five or more years older than her husband, they were more than three times as likely to divorce than if they were the same age.

HAVE YOUR SAY
Not so long ago the husband had to be older than his wife in order to be able to support a family, but such criteria are not so relevant now women have been educated to be able to command good jobs, so I suggest the basis for a successful marriage should be tolerance
Marion Monahan, Bristol

If the age gap is reversed, and the man is older than the woman, the odds of marital bliss are higher.

Add in a better education for the woman - Beyonce has her high school diploma, unlike husband Jay-Z - and the chances of lasting happiness improve further.

Those who have never divorced fare better too. But couples in which one member has been through a divorce in the past are less stable than those in which both members are divorcees.

Dr Emmanuel Fragniere and colleagues do say that men and women choose partners "on the basis of love, physical attraction, similarity of taste, beliefs and attitudes, and shared values."

But they say that using "objective factors" such as age, education and cultural origin "may help reduce divorce".

Source

Turkey chastises the West on Iran

Turkey chastises the West on Iran

Recep Tayip Erdogan
Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the West's stance on Iran was unfair

Turkey's prime minister has accused the West of treating Iran unfairly over its nuclear programme.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan told Britain's Guardian newspaper Western fears Iran wanted to build the bomb were "gossip".

His comments come as a team from the UN nuclear watchdog continues its inspection of a previously secret uranium plant near the city of Qom.

Mr Erdogan is due in Tehran for talks with both President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the country's Supreme Leader.

The Turkish leader suggested that there was a dual standard in the West's approach towards Iran.

He said any military strike against Iran would be "crazy".

Mr Erdogan also said many of the states which objected to any move by Iran to build a nuclear arsenal - including all the permanent members of the UN Security Council - possessed one themselves.

"There is a style of approach which is not very fair because those [who accuse Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons] have very strong nuclear infrastructures," Mr Erdogan said.

"So although Iran doesn't have a weapon, those who say Iran shouldn't have them are those countries which do," he added.

His comments come as world powers await Iran's response to a new proposed deal over its uranium enrichment programme.

Under the arrangement, Iran would send some enriched uranium to Russia to be turned into fuel.

The proposed deal is seen as a way for Tehran to get the fuel it needs for an existing reactor, while giving guarantees to the West that its enriched uranium will not be used for nuclear weapons.

Mountainside plant

But opposition inside Iran to the agreement is said to be growing. The government has promised a response this week.

The four-member IAEA team is expected to return for a second day on Monday to the country's Fordo enrichment facility, some 30km (20 miles) north of the holy city of Qom.

NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
A satellite image of what analysts believe is the facility at Qom
Mined uranium ore is purified and reconstituted into solid form known as yellowcake
Yellowcake is converted into a gas by heating it to about 64C (147F)
Gas is fed through centrifuges, where its isotopes separate and process is repeated until uranium is enriched
Low-level enriched uranium is used for nuclear fuel
Highly enriched uranium can be used in nuclear weapons

During their mission, the inspectors are expected to compare the engineering blueprints submitted by Iran with the actual layout of the plant, interview employees, and take environmental samples to check for the presence of nuclear materials.

The Iranian government says the Fordo plant - which is cut into a mountainside, constructed of reinforced concrete and protected by military installations including missile silos and anti-aircraft batteries - will not be operational for another 18 months.

They claim it will be large enough to house 3,000 centrifuges, which will produce uranium that is 5% enriched, suitable only for peaceful purposes. Weapons-grade material is more than 90% enriched.

Iran agreed to open the site to monitoring at talks with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany in Geneva on 1 October.

Iran says its nuclear programme is for purely peaceful purposes but the revelation of the existence of the new plant had increased fears in the West about Tehran's intentions.

Source