Friday, November 28, 2008

Democracy and Human Rights In Iran: What Role for the West?

House of Commons

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great pleasure for me to be with you this afternoon, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Henry Jackson Society in London as well as Gisela Stuart MP for helping to organize this meeting.

Let me start by saying that in my talk with you today, I wish to go beyond the designated issue of democracy and human rights in my country, and any role which the West might have in promoting them. This is because, democracy and human rights in Iran is today intricately tied with a number of other key issues such as nuclear proliferation, regional stability and finally, international peace and security. To be more specific, I wish to say that the threat that is posed to international security by the Islamic Republic of Iran, is precisely because of the fact that Iran is today governed by a brutal dictatorship, where the will of the majority is ignored and anyone who in any way challenges the decisions of the state are severely dealt with. It thus follows that the establishment of a democratic system of government in Iran that respects the human rights of its citizens will undoubtedly pave the way for removing Iran as a major source of international anxiety. The implications of such a transition are quite obvious for both the people of Iran as well as the wider international community. For the people of Iran, the establishment of a democratic government would mean that their country would cease being an international pariah. Moreover, it would mean that country’s vast resources would be mobilized for securing the future of the country by helping to cure its ailing economy instead of driving the nation to the brinks of an unwanted military confrontation with the international community over something ridiculous like uranium enrichment. Indeed a democratic government in Iran would invest in the people of Iran instead of investing in forces of instability and terror with whom they have bonded for promoting a militant anti-Western, and in particular, anti American agenda.

In my view, it thus follows that the West does have a role in seeing how this scenario develops. It can either stand aside or remain impervious to the plight of millions of my compatriots by trying to compromise with their oppressors or adopt a different, more ethical role of siding with them and helping them to attain their fundamental rights and basic freedoms.

Here, I wish to add that, in my view, there is no question that the prospect for change in the aftermath of the election victory of President Elect Barrack Obama, has already aroused a new atmosphere of great expectations on the part of people everywhere, including my homeland, who see his success as a new and promising catalyst for the construction of a new world order that is based on peace, freedom, justice and opportunity. Given his personal background, people – irrespective of their nationality or geographical circumstance – are hopeful that the new US president will be much more sensitive to the kind of problems and impediments which have held them back and compromised their honor and dignity at the same time.

The pertinent question, therefore, is whether such expectations are realistic or not? Another words, will it be business as usual where economic interest often trump human rights considerations or will we step into a new and different era with all its incumbent challenges?

Focusing on my country, it is fair to say that up until the last several weeks when world attention has been fixed on the ongoing international financial crisis, that Iran and Iran related issues – in one way or another – had consistently received a disproportionate share of attention in the world media. Iran’s obstinate disregard of numerous UN Security Council resolutions and various international warnings concerning its nuclear policy and ambitions has created a situation whereby the country has become increasingly isolated while creeping slowly to the edges of an unwanted military conflict. It is also true to say that while certain parties in the West have periodically responded to Iranian disregard for international pressures such as those demanded by the Security Council and others that were more diplomatically conveyed in the ‘5+1’ meetings, by insisting that “all options are on the table”, there is a general sense that warnings of this nature are more indicative of rising frustration rather than clear intent.

It is clear that so far, the ‘5+1’ policy in halting Iran’s uranium enrichment program has failed to achieve its objectives, since neither the promise of inducements nor the threat of punishments have been sufficient to convince the Islamic leaders to change direction. It is in finding itself in such a situation, when its repackaged incentive offer has been effectively turned down, and in circumstances when the ‘5+1’ have been unable to be more robust in imposing stricter sanctions against the clerical regime, that the debate regarding ‘cooperation or confrontation’ with Iran is once again being revived.

Now, when we speak of ‘cooperation or confrontation’, there is no question that everyone would prefer ‘cooperation’ to ‘confrontation’. The most obvious factor is whether it is possible to arrive at an acceptable ‘modus vivendi’ with Iran or not? Here, it is essential once again, to take note that in the case of Iran’s nuclear file, the West has been engaged in negotiations with Iran for over 5 years, where the Europeans in particular have gone to extreme lengths in order to arrive at some form of a compromise. Their failure is due to the fact that their offers of incentive have been insufficient to commit the Iranians to observing their ‘red-lines’.

Thus, in very simple terms, unless the US and the EU are willing to re-draw the very ‘red-lines’ that they have marked of their own accord, then prospects for cooperation would appear to be very dim. No doubt if the ‘5+1’ were willing to live with a nuclear Iran, it would inevitably lead to a major proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, making the region a greater powder keg than it already is, then I am sure that the current crises could be resolved ‘cooperatively’. A recent study produced by the Institute for Security Studies of the European Union makes specific recommendations to this effect. But this is not a formula that I would recommend.

Here, I wish to be very candid with you: I believe that while one must strive for making every effort to make cooperation work, one cannot avoid confrontation by behaving expediently or by compromising one’s own principles. I believe that the majority of honored guests here this afternoon are well familiar with the history of the 1930s when the will to cooperate in an attempt to avoid conflict, blinded responsible politicians and eventually forced them into a much more costly confrontation which they had tried so hard to avoid in the first place!

So what can be done or should be done? Will cooperation be the way forward or is there no choice other than confrontation?

Today, the diplomatic ‘buzz word’ seems to be ‘engagement’. The obvious inference from this is that the US, in particular, should no longer insist on any preconditions and be ready to open direct talks with Iran. Here, it must be reiterated that perhaps for more than two decades we had a reverse situation, where the US was willing to come to the table but it was the Islamic regime that had the preconditions.

It is interesting to point out that while Iran has been clamoring for some time for direct talks with the US, and as signs have appeared that moves towards that end are now being seriously contemplated by the new Obama administration, another spanner was recently thrown into this mind-boggling equation by one of Ahmadinejad’s close advisers in Teheran who said that Iran will only talk with “the US when it has left the Middle East and ended its support for the Zionist regime”!

Most proponents of this line of thinking – perhaps wishfully, nourish the prospect that once direct negotiation starts than all contentious issues that have led to an estrangement of relations between Iran and the US, which have also indirectly affected Iran-EU relations, may in time become resolved.

In this context, quite apart from issues of primary concern to a majority of Iranians who aspire to live in a society that is free and humane with all its incumbent paraphernalia, the Iranian regime would be expected to modify its behavior on such issues as its nuclear aspirations, active engagement in international terrorism and finally, its menacing and destabilizing activities in places like Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf region.

But, is this a realistic expectation, given the nature of the Islamic Republic and the fact that for the past 30 years, militant anti-Americanism across the board has been the very foundation of its foreign policy? I certainly hope that the next US administration would give proper consideration to such realities. Most importantly, I feel that everyone in the West and in particular the US, would have a much clearer picture of issues, if they made a serious attempt at seeing matters from the prism of the Islamic leadership in Iran and not just their own wishes and priorities. I accept that this is not an easy challenge, but it is crucial and until such time that an effort has been made in this direction, there is no reason to hope that future policy decisions will be any better than those made in the past 30 years.

Having said all that let me make it clear that I am strongly opposed to any form of military action against my country. But for diplomacy to succeed, the aims as well as the obstacles to any intended objective needs to be carefully assessed and above all understood. Moreover, it is imprudent and self defeating if the West was to constantly find itself in a position of having to re-draw its own red lines.

Here, it is also essential that the ideological divide that separates the Iranian regime from the Iranian people as well as the wider world be also taken into account.

I would like to elaborate this point by suggesting that a consequence of the Islamic regime’s estrangement with its own people who are without doubt its ‘Achilles’ Heel’ in the course of the last three decades, has been the main impetus behind what I call its policy of ‘entrenchment’ in the Middle East region and beyond. In other words, as the regime gradually lost its popularity and legitimacy at home, it felt the need to hold some cards outside Iran for the obvious reason of fending off external pressures that might threaten its very existence.

Now let me say a few words about matters inside Iran. Despite its seemingly confident and secure outlook, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) is in fact more vulnerable and damage prone than ever before in its 29 years of existence. The effects of the UN Security Council sanctions have already affected the country’s economy by having a significant impact on the private sector, while the imposition of gasoline rationing as well as the recently introduced VAT charges, have resulted in huge public protests that have led to unexpected strikes and violence.

In previous years, the IRI has successfully been able to ‘ride through’ a number of serious crises, a factor that is a mark to their resilience as well as the support base on which their order was initially constructed. Nonetheless, the number of difficult circumstances which the regime has confronted in previous years have taken their toll. Moreover, the mass exodus of its most skilled and experienced entrepreneurs, managers, bureaucrats and educated elites have contributed greatly to a major mismanagement crisis across the board, resulting in a tremendous fall in the per capita income of all Iranians.

Today, the clerical regime’s support base is at best no more than 10-15% of our population. In times of emergency, such as election times and the like, using the resources of our country, they are able to mobilize another similar figure. What this means is that in the course of the last three decades, the regime has alienated the rest of the population and is thus fearful of any circumstance that might lead to the mobilization of those it can no longer persuade. Also, while Iran is perhaps the cradle of modern day ‘Islamic Fundamentalism’, it is an accepted fact that despite its general rhetoric, none of the regime’s sanctimonious pronouncements have any bearing on the conduct of every day life amongst the Iranian people. Indeed, there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that, although a theocracy in name, Iran is today governed like most other secular dictatorships that the world has known, since people only obey the likes of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, not because of their special relationship with the almighty, but simply out of fear or economic need.

This development is a natural consequence of successive years of failure by the regime to improve economic conditions, and to relax social and civil society demands in a milieu where 70% of the population is below the age of 30 and well versed with the desires and aspirations of their contemporaries in other parts of the world and in particular, the West.

In the sphere of foreign policy, because of its intransigence over its nuclear file, the IRI has never been under such international pressure since its very inception. In the past 12 months, a total of four UN Security Council Resolutions have warned and subsequently punished Iran for its continued defiance of the international will. Moreover, it is thought unlikely that Islamic Republic will ever accept any compromise involving a complete halt to its uranium enrichment program.

Iran’s current stand off with the international community is also exacerbated by other factors such as Iran’s continued reliance on resort to Terrorism – both direct and indirect – for the advancement of its foreign policy objectives which have further increased tensions with the US and its various allies in places like Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Afghanistan.

In summary, for more than a year now, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been in the midst of two extraordinary and dangerous crises. First, the amount of international pressure on Iran because of its uncompromising stance over its nuclear agenda, and second, the country’s domestic crisis fueled mainly as a consequence of its faltering economy, have both been unprecedented. As we speak, the pressures from these quarters have not declined, and there are no immediate signs that this crisis will be coming to an end any time soon.

How this crisis comes to an end is, nevertheless, a matter of supreme importance not just to the Islamic leadership in that it can mean survival or the beginning of the end for them, but for the West, given that it now has the opportunity for tilting the balance in favor of forces of democracy, progress and human rights.

Seen from the stand point of the West, I should like to point out that in the course of the past 30 years, there have been a series of confusing signals which have simply complicated matters. Focusing in particular on the US, there is little wonder that rhetoric and posturing should have eclipsed meaningful policy based on reality. As a result, there have been great many vacillations over the years that have ranged from accommodation and cooperation to regime change. Perhaps what lies at the heart of this problem – something which I believe to be a especially central issue for the new US administration – is the need to come up with a clear and robust policy that is capable of dealing effectively with Iran.

From the perspective of the EU and next US administration, while any talk of regime change – something that in any case is only the business of the Iranian people – may be set aside, securing Iranian compliance or cooperation over a whole host of critical issues highlighted by the current nuclear impasse will remain a clear priority. Indeed, dealing with some of these critical problems is widely expected to be the first major foreign policy challenges of the new Obama administration.

Finally, I would like to leave you with this thought: In the last 30 years, since the advent of the Islamic regime in Iran, we have seen a sizable expansion in the number of highly destructive conflicts that have raged in the Middle East spanning from Afghanistan to the Eastern shores of the Mediterranean. As we speak, there are some unfinished conflicts that still continue to threaten the peace and stability of the region as well as the prospects of all future generations living in the Middle East.

What has happened in the last 30 years is history.

But looking to the future it is important to note that the Islamic regime, and the regional friends and allies it has been able to cultivate, have a vision of life and society that is in stark contrast with the majority of other regional governments and their allies which includes the EU and the US.

To move forward positively, it is crucial for the West not to once again indulge itself in tactics that have been tried and tested before, and seen to fail.

Therefore, bearing in mind all that has been said, and given the fact that we are living in an increasingly interdependent environment, it should be apparent that Without a creative new policy supported by robust diplomatic efforts that encompasses a role for the overwhelming majority of Iranians who do not share the visions and values of their current rulers, nothing will change. A policy of misplaced cooperation will be tantamount to capitulation, except for the fact that the ultimate cost of confrontation will most likely increase with time. The only meaningful policy would be to engage the Iranian people and invite them to be part of a new and imaginative policy which will guarantee Iran’s territorial integrity, freedom of choice and democratic expression plus a respect for individual human rights.

A Speech by Reza Pahlavi II

Reza Pahlavi's Speech at The House of Commons


"Do These Facial Exercises every two hours"
"It is good for your stress relief"

Thursday, November 27, 2008

New oral sex-cancer link is ‘extremely disturbing’

A clear link has been made between mouth cancer and the sexually transmitted human papilloma virus (HPV), reports the British Dental Health Foundation (BDHF).

A simple oral rinse has been hailed as a potential lifesaver – studies show the rinse could help spot HPV occurrences early and prevent their spread.

New research has also suggested the Gardasil vaccine, currently prescribed for cervical cancer, may prove effective for males in preventing HPV.

The cancer virus is transmitted through oral sex, and is thought to contribute to the doubling of mouth cancers in young men in the last decade.

Foundation chief executive Dr Nigel Carter described the link as ‘extremely disturbing', speaking during Mouth Cancer Action Week in November.

Leading US HPV expert Maura Gillison MD PhD – who discovered the link between HPV and oral cancer, plus the further risks in taking multiple sexual partners – published new research on HPV links as the oral rinse on November 15, the eve of the 2008 Action Week.

Foundation chief executive Dr Nigel Carter BDS LDS (RCS) said the research must now move people to take action to protect themselves from mouth cancer.

‘As young people become more sexually active, this link certainly helps to explain the disturbing rise in mouth cancer cases among younger men,' said Dr Carter.

‘In the last 10 years, the percentage of males under the age of 45 with mouth cancer has risen by almost a third.

‘New techniques and treatments are vital to our population's health as we take action against this disease. We hope, in the first place, the public will heed our campaign slogan: “if in doubt, get checked out.'

Gillison linked 20,000 new cases of mouth cancer to HPV over a five-year period, arguing the risks posed are a worrying new trend.

HPV, the most common sexually transmitted virus, is already accountable for 98% of cervical cancers.

L'infection à Human Papilloma Virus (HPV)


HPV est l'abréviation de «human papilloma virus », aussi connu sous le terme «papillomavirus». Dans la majorité des cas, le HPV est transmis par contact sexuel. On estime que c'est la principale infection sexuellement transmissible (IST) aux États-Unis.

Le virus se transmet par contact sexuel. Il faut le contact direct de peau à peau avec le pénis, scrotum, vagin, vulve, anus, bouche ou une autre partie du corps d'une personne infectée pour qu’il y ait transmission. Le HPV n'est pas transmis par le sang.


Les verrues génitales sont un signe d'infection au HPV. Cependant, dans la plupart des cas, le HPV s'avère une infection «discrète». En d'autres termes, nombreux sont les individus infectés qui ne présentent pas de signe évident d'infection.

Le HPV affecte la région anogénitale tant de l'homme que de la femme. Chez les femmes, ceci comprend la vulve, le col de l'utérus et l'anus. Chez l'homme, cette région inclut le pénis, le scrotum et l'anus. À cause de ces différences physiques dues au genre, le HPV affectera les hommes et les femmes de manière différente.

Chez les femmes, l'infection au HPV peut affecter les cellules du col de l'utérus de la manière suivante :

* l'infection inactive ou latente, où les cellules affectées demeurent normales. Il n'y a pas de signe ou de symptôme d'infection de telle sorte que vous pouvez bien ne jamais savoir que vous êtes infectée. Votre corps combat le virus d'une manière que l'on ne comprend pas clairement.

* l'infection active où les cellules du col infectées montrent des changements microscopiques. Ces changements anormaux peuvent être décelés à l'aide d’un frottis qui examine un échantillon des cellules du col de l'utérus.


En fonction du type de HPV présent, l'infection peut évoluer vers l'un ou l'autre des deux extrêmes suivants :

* Les cellules anormales «se dissipent spontanément», c'est-à-dire que l'infection devient inactive et ne pose plus de problèmes significatifs pour la santé. Une infection inactive peut devenir de nouveau active sans qu'on sache clairement pourquoi.

* Les cellules cervicales anormales peuvent évoluer lentement vers le cancer du col de l'utérus. Selon les tests, plus de 90 % des femmes affligées du cancer du col de l'utérus ont aussi le HPV.

Tant pour l'homme que pour la femme, le HPV peut affecter la peau de la région génitale en y développant des verrues appelées condylomes. Ces verrues génitales ont l'air d'un petit choufleur, ou bien elles sont plates.

La plupart des types de HPV sont bénins, c'est-à-dire qu'ils ne causent pas le cancer. On a identifié environ 13 types de HPV qui ont un lien avec différents types de cancers de l'anus, du pénis, de la vulve et du col de l'utérus.


Pour beaucoup de femmes, le premier signe d'une infection au HPV proviendra des résultats d'un frottis du col de l’utérus. Ces frottis sont donc très importants afin de détecter rapidement des cellules anormales.

Les hommes n'étant pas soumis de façon habituelle aux tests du HPV, l'examen de la région génitale devient alors important dans le but de détecter des verrues génitales.


Dans le cas où des cellules anormales sont révélées à l'aide du frottis cervical, votre médecin vous suivra de près et il pourrait demander d’autres investigations.

Des traitements comme la cryothérapie ou la chirurgie au laser pourraient s'avérer nécessaires pour éliminer les cellules anormales. Les soins vont dépendre de plusieurs facteurs dont le degré d'anormalité des cellules révélée par le frottis.

Les verrues génitales visibles qui causent des symptômes dérangeants ou des préoccupations d'ordre cosmétique peuvent être traitées. Des produits pharmaceutiques peuvent être appliqués. L'éradication de ces verrues requiert souvent plusieurs traitements. Dans les cas d'infection par un nombre élevé de verrues, des traitements comme la cryothérapie, la chirurgie au laser ou la chirurgie pourraient s'avérer nécessaires pour éliminer complètement l'infection au HPV. Enlever les verrues visibles n'élimine pas nécessairement le HPV. Les verrues peuvent réapparaître.


Si vous êtes actif sexuellement, le fait d'éviter le contact avec une personne infectée et de limiter le nombre de vos partenaires sexuels peut réduire les risques d'infection.

Le préservatif peut réduire les risques d'infection au HPV mais ne fournit pas une protection absolue vu que le HPV se transmet par le contact de peau à peau.

Les femmes peuvent se protéger encore plus du HPV au moyen de la détection rapide à l'aide du frottis du col de l’utérus.

D'autres façons de réduire le risque d'infection au HPV incluent :

* retarder les rapports sexuels jusqu'à ce que le col de l'utérus soit bien formé (18-19 ans),
* s'abstenir de fumer.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Sezen Aksu - Farkındayım

Ne yapsan olmuyor gözüm
Terketmiyor bizi hüzün
Bir macera yaşamak dediğin
Küçük zamanlar harmanı
Sevildiğin, üzüldüğün

Hatırlamaktan ibaret
Hatıralar nihayet
Tesellisi çok zor sözün

Ne gemiler yaktım
Ne gemiler yaktım
O kadar yandı ki canım
Sonunda karşıdan baktım
Ne göreyim
Kendime yıldızlardan daha uzaktım

Bu kızı yeniden büyütmeliyim
Kor ateşlerde yürütmeliyim
Değirmenlerde öğütmeliyim
Kazanmalı, kaybetmeliyim
Aşk uğruna harp etmeliyim

Kendini seçemiyorsun
Bırakıp kaçamıyorsun
Yazmadığın bir hikayede
Uzun ya da kısa vadede
Az biraz keşfediyorsun
Öteki olabilmeyi
Yerine koyabilmeyi
Geride durabilmeyi

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Nilgül ve Bertuğ Cemil “Yandım, Yandım, Yandım…”

Sevgilim gec kaldın aşka
Benide hayata gec bıraktın
Yaşayan bir ölüyüm şimdi
Sensiz sessiz son baharda

Cennetlik duygularla
cehennem oldun kaldın
Yandım Yandım Yandım
Yandım Yandım Yandım

Sevgilim inanmadın aşka
Gercekle yüzleşince korktun kaçtın?
Yaşayan bir ölüyüm şimdi
Beni anınca için sızlamaz mı?

Cennetlik duygularla
cehennem oldun kaldın
Yandım Yandım Yandım
Yandım Yandım Yandım

Hangi yasak iki kalbe bedeldir söyle
sitem etsem dünyaya avunmaz kalbim
Hangi yasak bedeldir ikimize
En tatlı rüyadan uyandım

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Letter to The Honorable Barack Obama - President-Elect of the United States of America

Dear Mr. President-elect,

It is with a great pleasure that I offer you my heartfelt congratulations on your historic election victory.

This is indeed a proud moment not just for America, but for millions of others around the globe who have come to believe in and aspire for the kind of values that have become universally acknowledged as the hallmarks of American society. Your success is a remarkable reminder of the potential for promoting major change through the ballot box in a free and fair electoral process.

Mr. President-Elect,

The prospect for change as promised by you has already aroused a great deal of expectation from people everywhere who are hopeful of emulating your example by constructing societies based on peace, freedom, justice and opportunity.

No where is the desire for such change greater than in my homeland, Iran.

The people of Iran are perhaps amongst the most eager aspirants for the kind of values that have become synonymous with your success in the recent months. Iranians believe ‘that if allowed the opportunity, yes they will’.

It is their hope that with your moral and vocal support, they too can pursue their struggle for the realization of their individual liberties and fundamental freedoms along with the restoration of their pride and dignity as human beings.

Wishing you ever increasing success in all your future endeavors,

Yours sincerely,

Reza Pahlavi

Copy of the Original Letter

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Tolérance et ouverture d'esprit

Dans un banquet, un prêtre (catholique) se retrouve à coté d'un imam.

Voulant être serviable et sympathique, il se propose de servir son voisin qui accepte mais lui précise :

- Je ne veux évidemment pas de viande de porc.

Le père s'en amuse et dit :

- Ben ça alors... quelle drôle de religion que la vôtre qui vous interdit de goûter au cochon, c'est si bon !

L'imam ne pipe mot. Mais au moment de se retirer, il va saluer l'homme d'église et lui demande :

- Pourriez-vous s'il vous plait transmettre mes hommages à Madame votre épouse ?

Le père en avale son dentier et précise, horrifié :

- Mais enfin, Monsieur l'Imam , vous savez bien que la sainte église m'interdit de me marier et que par conséquent je n'ai pas d'épouse !

Et l'autre de régler le compte :

- Sans blague ? Quelle drôle de religion que la vôtre qui vous interdit de goûter à la femme, c'est si bon ! Et laissez moi vous préciser que pour nous, même lorsqu'elle est cochonne, elle n'est pas interdite !...

Friday, November 14, 2008

The Best Dentist - La Meilleure Dentiste

Saturday, November 08, 2008

Galatasaray ile 361. randevu

Fenerbahçemiz ile ezeli rakibi Galatarasaray, Turkcell Süper Lig'in 10. haftasında Fenerbahçe Şükrü Saracoğlu Stadı'nda yapacakları maçla birlikte 361. kez karşı karşıya gelmiş olacaklar. 17 Ocak 1909 tarihinde, şimdiki Fenerbahçe Şükrü Saracoğlu Stadı'nın bulunduğu "Papazın Çayırı" olarak adlandırılan yerde yapılan özel maçla başlayan 99 yıllık rekabette, bugüne kadar 360 maç geride kaldı. Geride kalan maçlardan 135'ini Fenerbahçemiz kazanırken, Galatasaray 116 kez galip geldi. 109 maçta da eşitlik bozulmadı. Bugüne kadar Fenerbahçe'nin attığı toplam 503 gole, Galatasaray 461 golle karşılık verebildi. İki takım arasında, son olarak geçen sezon Ali Sami Yen Stadı'nda oynanan lig maçını Galatasaray 1-0 kazanmıştı.


Fenerbahçemiz ile Galatasaray arasında bugüne kadar 100 lig maçı oynandı. Genel toplamdaki üstünlüğünü lig maçlarına da yansıtan Fenerbahçemiz, galibiyet sayısında ligde de Galatasaray'ın 40-29 önünde bulunuyor. Ligdeki 31 maç ise berabere sonuçlandı. Lig maçlarında Fenerbahçemizin attığı 128 gole, Galatasaray 100 golle karşılık verebildi. İki takım arasındaki lig maçlarından en unutulmaz olanı ise 6 Kasım 2002'de Fenerbahçe Şükrü Saracoğlu Stadı'nda oynandı. Bu maçı Fenerbahçemiz 6-0 kazanarak, ezeli rakibine unutulmaz bir mağlubiyet tattırdı.


Fenerbahçe ile Galatasaray arasındaki maçlarda en az seyirci 17 Kasım 1922'deki karşılaşmaya geldi. İttihat Sahası'nda şiddetli yağmur altında yapılan ve hakem Fethi Tahsin Başaran'ın şemsiyeyle yönetmek zorunda kaldığı maçı, tamamı biletsiz 14 kişi izledi. 21 Eylül 2003'te İstanbul Atatürk Olimpiyat Stadı'nda yapılan lig maçını ise 70 bin 125 seyirci izlerken, bu rakam, ezeli rakipler arasındaki bir maçı izleyen seyirci sayısındaki rekor olarak tarihe geçti.


Galatasaray ile Fenerbahçe arasındaki 98 yıllık rekabette en fazla golü, Fenerbahçeli Zeki Rıza Sporel attı. Sporel, Galatasaray'a karşı oynadığı 42 maçta, toplam 27 kez rakip fileleri havalandırdı. Zeki Rıza Sporel'i, 24 golle yine bir Fenerbahçeli Alaattin Baydar izliyor. Fenerbahçeli Lefter Küçükandonyadis'in 20, Galatasaraylı Metin Oktay'ın ise ezeli rekabette 19 golü bulunuyor. Bu arada 2 takımda da forma giyen Tanju Çolak'ın da 14'ü Galatasaray, 8'i de Fenerbahçe formasıyla olmak üzere ezeli rekabette toplam 22 golü var. Lig maçlarında ise Galatasaraylı Metin Oktay 9, Fenerbahçeli Aykut Kocaman da 8 golle takımlarının en golcü isimleri olarak tarihe geçti.


Galatasaray-Fenerbahçe rekabetinde, şimdiye dek birçok oyuncu futbolculuk yaşamında 2 formayı da giyme şansını buldu.Son dönemde iki takımda da oynayan futbolcular şöyle: Raşit Çetiner, Güngör Tekin, Erdoğan Arıca, Engin Verel, Mehmet Oğuz, Erhan Önal, Arif Kocabıyık, İlyas Tüfekçi, Tanju Çolak, Semih Yuvakuran, Selçuk Yula, Hasan Vezir, Benhur Babaoğlu, Elvir Boliç, Sedat Balkanlı, Saffet Sancaklı, Ahmet Yıldırım, Sergen Yalçın, Emre Aşık, Fatih Akyel, Elvir Baliç, Haim Michael Revivo, Abdullah Ercan, Mehmet Yozgatlı, Stjepan Tomas, Servet Çetin.


Galatasaray-Fenerbahçe maçlarında şimdiye dek 1 maçta bir futbolcu tarafından atılan en fazla gol, 4 olarak gerçekleşti. Galatasaraylı Celal İbrahim, Cemil Gürgen ve Metin Oktay ile Fenerbahçeli Zeki Rıza Sporel, rakip filelere 4'er gol atma başarısını gösterdi.


Galatasaraylı Metin Oktay'ın 10 Haziran 1959'da Fenerbahçe ağlarını delen golünden önce, Fenerbahçeli Halit Deringör'ün bir golü, Galatasaray ağlarını delmişti. Şeref Stadı'nda 13 Aralık 1942'de yapılan bir maçta, Galatasaray ilk yarıyı 2-1 önde kapatıyor. Fakat ikinci yarıda sahneye çıkan Fenerbahçeli Halit Deringör, "Kova Osman"ın koruduğu Galatasaray kalesine gol atarken, top ağları delerek Çırağan Sarayı'nın havuzuna düşüyor.


Sultan kendi vakfını kendi kuruyor

İş başa düştü! Dünyanın en çok film çeken kadın oyuncusu unvanına sahip Türkan Şoray, yoksul çocuklar için kuracağı vakfa kendi adını veriyor


Türk Sineması'nın sultanı Türkan Şoray, adını taşıyacak bir vakıf kurmak için kolları sıvadı. Şoray; daha önce Ankara'da açılan 'Türkan Şoray Beyazperdede Kostümler' sergisinin İstanbul ayağında yapılacak açık artırmadan elde edilecek gelirle kendi vakfını kuracak. Burada yoksul çocukların eğitimini karşılayacak.


Cemal Reşit Rey'de dün açılan ve bir ay açık kalacak sergide sanatçının bugüne kadar oynadığı filmlerde giydiği kostümler ve taktığı aksesuvarlar yer alıyor. Şoray sergiyle ilgili "Her parçada benim hem güzel hem acı günlerimin, emeğimin izleri bulunuyor. Dilerim vakfı bir önce kurarız" diyor.


La candidate perpétuelle

En travaillant, en solo, son image de rénovatrice et d’opposante, Royal a gagné son combat.

Ségolène Royal ou l’éternel retour. Un come-back qui se chiffre à 29,59 % des suffrages militants. Un peu moins de la moitié de son score de la primaire de 2006. Pas assez pour s’emparer, à elle seule, du parti. Mais quatre points de plus, tout de même, que ses principaux concurrents dans la course à la succession Hollande, Martine Aubry et Bertrand Delanoë.

Deux ans ont passé depuis ce soir de novembre qui l’avait vue installée, par ces mêmes militants, dans le tailleur de la concurrente présidentielle de Sarkozy. Et dix-huit mois depuis sa promesse, à l’issue de sa défaite : «Quelque chose s’est levé et ne s’arrêtera pas.»«Un an et demi de petits complots pour l’écarter, estime François Rebsamen, un de ses proches. Ce qui a été mis en place au PS, c’était un dispositif pour l’éliminer.» Royal, pourtant, est toujours là. Mais a-t-elle vraiment quitté le devant de la scène ?

Rémanente.Là où Sarkozy adopte la posture du coup d’éclat permanent, Royal, elle, a inventé une autre figure : celle de la candidate rémanente. Sa campagne, au fond, n’a jamais pris fin. En témoignent les législatives de 2007, à la fois troisième tour face à Sarkozy et round supplémentaire contre ses «camarades». Une occasion de demeurer au centre du jeu socialiste, en récidivant dans l’appel à François Bayrou commis dans l’entre-deux tours de la présidentielle, ou en annonçant qu’elle«présentera sa propre motion» au congrès du PS. Lequel est savamment repoussé par ses camarades, pour une fois d’accord, à un an et demi plus tard… Car le temps joue contre elle. Ses anciens soutiens désertent, ses partisans s’interrogent. Quant à sa popularité, elle s’effrite lentement mais sûrement dans les sondages. Au profit de Dominique Strauss-Kahn, parti au FMI, et de Bertrand Delanoë qui, depuis sa mairie de Paris, rumine la revanche du «old party». «Ça a pataugé à mort, se rappelle Patrick Mennucci, ex-pilier de sa campagne. Il y a eu la dépression de l’après élection, Hollande qui est parti et les amis qui sont repartis… Elle s’est retrouvée seule et s’est repliée sur des trucs qui n’avaient rien à voir avec le parti.»

Tailleur. Confrontée en interne au front du refus, Ségolène Royal, comme à l’accoutumée, joue l’extérieur. On la croise au chevet des industries malades de la mondialisation, chez le chausseur Charles Jourdan ou les sidérurgistes lorrains d’Arcelor Mittal. Elle écrit, aussi, revisitant sa défaite dans Ma plus belle histoire, c’est vous, ou se demandant, avec le sociologue Alain Touraine, Si la gauche veut des idées. Elle voyage. Travaille sur ce fond, qui, pendant la présidentielle, lui avait fait défaut, planche, groupes d’experts à l’appui, sur les relations internationales et l’économie. Et, pour s’installer dans le tailleur de l’opposante numéro un, s’en prend avec régularité au Président. Au point de jeter le doute, sans la moindre preuve, sur le«rapport» entre la «mise à sac» de son domicile et ses accusations de «mainmise du clan Sarkozy sur la France»…

Car, toujours, elle est en campagne. Celle des municipales, qu’elle bat de ville en ville : «Je fais mon devoir.» Et, aussi, celle du congrès. «Si je suis capable de rassembler les socialistes sur cette offre politique, j’irai jusqu’au bout de cette démarche», ébauche-t-elle en janvier. «Si les militants en décident ainsi et s’ils l’estiment utile pour le PS, j’accepterai avec joie et détermination d’assumer cette belle mission de chef de parti», confirme-t-elle en mai. Avant de rétropédaler, en septembre, et de mettre sa candidature au «Frigidaire» pour rendre possible le deal avec les barons locaux de la Ligne claire, qui refusent un présidentiable à la tête du parti. «Le moment où elle fait ce pas en arrière, c’est le moment décisif», estime Mennucci. Il lui assure l’appui des puissantes fédérations des Bouches-du-Rhône et de l’Hérault. Sans lesquelles elle ne serait jamais arrivée en tête. Un «hollandais» en convient : «C’est ce jour-là qu’on a perdu le congrès.»

A l’époque, celui-ci est loin d’être gagné pour les amis de Royal, qui s’extrait du théâtre des opérations. «Ségolène ne s’est pas du tout occupée de la bataille du parti, résume Rebsamen. Il ne fallait pas qu’elle soit présente tous les jours.» Elle se limite donc à quelques apparitions soignées. Comme celle qu’elle réserve à ses fidèles, fin septembre, au Zénith de Paris, au cours d’un ahurissant show musico-politico-théâtral. «Ségolène ? Elle est ailleurs», glisse Martine Aubry, visant tant une matrice psychologique qu’une pratique politique.

Foules. De fait, le capital de Royal réside dans un rapport charismatique aux foules. Hollande : «Ségolène déplace le plus de monde. Elle a une légitimité de suffrages, pas une légitimité de parti. C’est celle qui mobilise le plus le sien.» Un dirigeant confirme, qui explique sa pole position par une «vraie mobilisation des adhérents». «Avec un thème qui a très bien fonctionné, celui du changement. Même si c’est de la poudre aux yeux.» Car c’est bien un «syndicat du crime», raille un jeune socialiste, qui œuvre dans l’ombre de la madone de la rénovation. On y croise, entre autres, François Rebsamen, ex-patron des fédérations du PS, le sénateur maire de Lyon, Gérard Collomb, l’homme fort des Bouches-du-Rhône, Jean-Noël Guérini ou son homologue de l’Hérault, Robert Navarro, proche du sulfureux Georges Frêche.

Mais l’essentiel est ailleurs : dans l’image. Celle que l’ex-candidate, qui parlait volontiers, pendant la présidentielle, compétitivité et soutien aux PME innovantes, offre lorsqu’elle tonne, en pleine crise financière, contre «la caste des financiers irresponsables qui s’en met plein les poches». Ou, à la veille du scrutin, lorsqu’elle offre de «rembourser les cartes» aux militants désargentés. Propositions fort peu désintéressées, mais payées en suffrages militants sonnants et trébuchants. Le bénéfice d’un investissement politique de tous les instants.


Friday, November 07, 2008

‘Dr’ title for dentists sparks row

A move by dentists to request they be called by the title ‘Dr' so as to fit in with other EU countries has sparked controversy.

Dentists are demanding the right to call themselves by the title 'Dr', giving them the same privileges as their counterparts in other European countries.

But the call has upset medical doctors, who complain that dentists could mislead patients about the extent of their expertise.

The General Dental Council (GDC) says: ‘The GDC does not prohibit the use of the title ‘Doctor' as a courtesy title in the case of dentists. Dentists who choose to use the title must ensure that it is not used in a way which could mislead the public, for example by giving the impression that the dentist is a registered medical practitioner if they are not.'

Recently, a private surgery in Knutsford was ordered to stop calling a dentist ‘doctor' in adverts for facial surgery because the advertising authorities deemed it ‘misleading'.

The private Woodvale Clinic used dentist John W Stowall's honorary title in a magazine advert offering 'a comprehensive range of services to achieve an improved youthful and attractive appearance', including ‘facial fillers and lip enhancements'.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said although Mr Stowall is a specialist in surgical and oral dentistry, the use of Dr was ‘ambiguous' and ‘misleadingly implied' he is qualified to conduct facial surgery.

Dentists insist that more widespread use of the term would not confuse patients and would only bring Britain into line with the rest of Europe, where it is commonplace.

But Dr Jonathan Fielden, chairman of the British Medical Association's consultants committee, called for dentists to be banned from using the term, to protect patient safety.

‘Patients have a right to clarity and to be secure in the knowledge that the person treating them is competent and qualified to do so,' he said.

‘Certain titles can sometimes mislead patients into thinking people are medically qualified when they are not. We think it's important that patients can establish whether or not the person treating them is medically qualified. The title used by the person treating them is thus of crucial importance.'

A spokesperson for the British Dental Association (BDA) said: ‘The length of training for medical and dental students is similar – for three years there is a crossover point between the two groups, i.e. they study a similar curriculum, and dentists do a vocational year which is similar to the medics doing a post-registration year.'

And Peter Ward, chief executive of the British Dental Association (BDA) said: ‘We believe that dentists should be permitted to use the courtesy title ‘Dr' should they wish and provided that it is not done in a way which might mislead patients as to their qualifications.'

‘The GDC has no objection to the title and its use is becoming widespread.'

Wednesday, November 05, 2008

President-Elect Barack Obama - Election Night Speech in Grant Park - Chicago, Illinois

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

It’s the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voice could be that difference.

It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled – Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

It’s the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.

It’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.

I just received a very gracious call from Senator McCain. He fought long and hard in this campaign, and he’s fought even longer and harder for the country he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine, and we are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. I congratulate him and Governor Palin for all they have achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation’s promise in the months ahead.

I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton and rode with on that train home to Delaware, the Vice President-elect of the United States, Joe Biden.

I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of my life, our nation’s next First Lady, Michelle Obama. Sasha and Malia, I love you both so much, and you have earned the new puppy that’s coming with us to the White House. And while she’s no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure.

To my campaign manager David Plouffe, my chief strategist David Axelrod, and the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics – you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you’ve sacrificed to get it done.

But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to – it belongs to you.

I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn’t start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington – it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston.

It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give five dollars and ten dollars and twenty dollars to this cause. It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation’s apathy; who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep; from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers; from the millions of Americans who volunteered, and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later, a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from this Earth. This is your victory.

I know you didn’t do this just to win an election and I know you didn’t do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime – two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they’ll make the mortgage, or pay their doctor’s bills, or save enough for college. There is new energy to harness and new jobs to be created; new schools to build and threats to meet and alliances to repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America – I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you – we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won’t agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can’t solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it’s been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years – block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek – it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it’s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers – in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House – a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, “We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.” And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn – I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of our world – our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. To those who would tear this world down – we will defeat you. To those who seek peace and security – we support you. And to all those who have wondered if America’s beacon still burns as bright – tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from our the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope.

For that is the true genius of America – that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that’s on my mind tonight is about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She’s a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election except for one thing – Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn’t vote for two reasons – because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that she’s seen throughout her century in America – the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we can’t, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.

At a time when women’s voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.

When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that “We Shall Overcome.” Yes we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can.

America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves – if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time – to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth – that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people:

Yes We Can. Thank you, God bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Is Obama a danger to Israel after all?

Every Israeli who has lectured to a Jewish-American audience in the past year knows the drill. Immediately after leaving the stage he is taken aside by a few worried Jews. "We know you can't publicly interfere in our our business," they whisper into his air. "But tell the truth: Is Obama a danger to Israel?"

According to the polls, most Jews say "no" to this question despite such concern among some Jews. Despite the negative campaign about Barack Obama's "connections" with Israel and the hoopla over his middle name (Hussein), the overwhelming majority of Jews will apparently maintain their historical loyalty to the Democratic Party. But the nagging doubt won't go away.

The standard Israeli answer is that Obama apparently is not a danger to Israel. The American system is stronger than the individual. Barring an extreme crisis, it's hard to see how a single president could put a serious anti-Israel spin on U.S. Middle East policy. That kind of change takes years, and Obama, anyway, is talking about changes in other areas.

Support for Israel is rooted deep in the heart of the Washington establishment. And, of course, we can't scoff at the declarations of the candidate himself, who has reiterated his commitment to Israel.

But there is one unknown in Obama's foreign-policy equation: his attitude toward Iran. Officials in Jerusalem won't say it out loud, but Obama's support for renewing the dialogue with Tehran is making them very uncomfortable. True, President George W. Bush plans to establish a U.S. interests office in Tehran. But Bush overall has demonstrated determination against Iran, while to Israeli ears Obama's tone regarding that country's nuclear program sounds slightly appeasing. It could, of course, go the other way: A failure of diplomatic contacts with Iran could stiffen President Obama's attitude to Iran. In addition, he is well aware of the suspicions against him in this area. Nevertheless, when it comes to Iran, it would appear that Israel would be more comfortable with President John McCain.

It's hard to ask Israelis to look at the wider picture with the threat of an Iranian bomb floating overhead, but an Obama victory would have a plethora of positive implications that don't necessarily have any connection to the Middle East, such as for interracial relations in the U.S. and America's image around the world.

Even more important: Obama is poised to become president of a country where just 50 years ago in some states a black man risked being hung on the nearest tree merely for looking at a white woman; a place where just 45 years ago Jewish civil rights activists were murdered, their bodies thrown into a Mississippi delta swamp for registering and encouraging black voters; where Martin Luther King, Jr. was murdered by a white racist for daring to argue that blacks deserved equal rights.

One of the unofficial songs of Obama's campaign has a special significance: "Yes, We Can," written and performed by two natives of New Orleans, Lee Dorsey and Allen Toussaint. New Orleans is the city that the Bush administration left to die in Hurricane Katrina.

"Yes, We Can," like most of the great anthems of the civil rights movement, was written in the 1960s. In 1964, when Obama was 3, Sam Cooke wrote "A Change Is Gonna Come." On Tuesday, if Obama wins, radio stations in the U.S. will be playing this song, whose third verse  "I go to the movie and I go downtown, somebody keep telling me don't hang around"  was once too blunt for radio play.

An Obama victory will be no less important than King's March on Washington, and nearly as important as the Civil Rights Act signed by then president Lyndon Johnson.

On Tuesday morning a black man - even if he is not the direct descendant of slaves (his father came to America from Africa 90 years after the abolition of slavery) - is expected to be elected to the most important job in the world. Somewhere, Sam Cooke must be smiling.

By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent

L'actualité vue par Ali Dilem