Mumin,+Keise


 * //Dec. 10 2009//**

Seattle Times: [] BBC: []  During a three-month-long operation Africa authorities have raided shops, intercepted vehicles, and used sniffer dogs to find over 3,800 pounds of illegal elephant ivory in a six-nation operation. Authorities also seized leopard, crocodile, and snake skins, as well as other illegal animal products. This operation is being coordinated by the international police organization and involves the wildlife authorities, police and customs departments of Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. The last year has seen a major increase in the illegal ivory trade, with more involvement from organized crime. The monitoring of the trade shows a doubling in the volume of illegal ivory seized from 2008 to 2009. Most of it is poached in west and central Africa while the destination is usually China. The elephant populations of many African countries were being decimated until a global ban on the ivory trade was implemented in 1989. Since then the elephant population of Kenya, for example, has grown to 35,000 this year, from 16,000 in 1989. The increased number is still lower than the estimated 167,000 elephants that roamed Kenya in 1973.  The Seattle Times article focused more on the 3-month-long operation that involved the African authorities, and the six-nation operation. It provided the names of the six countries involved, the amount of ivory confiscated, and the number of people the Kenya Wildlife Services arrested. This article contained many statistics, and dates. The BBC article talked more about the illegal ivory trade in general and the impact it has on the elephant population. This article did not have as many statistics but it had many dates, it mainly focused on events between 2008 and 2009. The BBC article talked a little about how the ivory trade is impacted China as well as Africa. The Seattle Times article only focused on Africa, and it seemed a little bit more focused and to the point.  In order for ivory to be taken from the elephants they have to be killed, and the tusks must be forcibly removed. Taking ivory from elephants results in the rapid decrease in their population, and for what? To make some billiard balls and piano keys? Personally, I think there is no need what so ever, to harm another living creature in order to extract what we need from them and use what we have taken to make things for our own use. This is very selfish. Elephants are gentle giants and if you don’t bother them they won’t bother you. However, this issue is not only about elephants, it is about ALL animals like leopards, crocodiles, snakes etc. I do not get why some people would feel it is necessary to do these cruel things even if it were legal (which it is not by the way, and for good reason.) Having an item made from the flesh of some other creature (like a carpet or a coat or jewelry or something) just seems very gross and unnecessary to me.

 Source: Seattle Times: [] New York Times: []
 * //Dec 4, 2009//**

South Africa has an estimated 5.7 million people infected with the HIV virus that causes AIDS, this is more than any other country in the world. President Jacob Zuma, announced on World AIDS Day that the changes in AIDS treatment in Africa include starting treatment for pregnant women, and patients with TB and HIV earlier. The United States is giving South Africa $120 million for AIDS treatments drugs, which is Zuma’s new approach to fighting the epidemic in the country with the world’s heaviest AIDS burden. Former president Thabo Mbeki’s health minister distrusted drugs used to keep AIDS patients alive; instead, he promoted the use of beet and garlic remedies. However, Zuma and his health minister have realized that Thabo Mbeki’s policies were wrong and he has set a target of getting 80 percent of those who need AIDS drugs on them by 2011. The new policy on pregnant women, aimed at ensuring that babies are born healthy, is in line with the [|new treatment guidelines] issued by the [|World Health Organization]. Treating infected babies earlier is expected to help South Africa, [|one of only four countries where child mortality has worsened] since 1990, improve the survival odds of its youngest citizens.

I think that the improvement in the prevention of the HIV virus in South Africa is a very, very good thing. I just do not get how the situation was going on for so long, and the decision to make a change has only occurred recently. Thabo Mbeki’s health minister was obviously not very educated, and didn’t know what he was doing. I mean, I know drugs are not always the best option, but beets and garlic? It sure is a good thing that his policies have finally been realized as being wrong. But I don’t really know about how good of a president Zuma would be. He admitted, while on trial for rape, that he had intentional sex with a women infected with HIV without using a condom. He said he showered afterwards to minimize his risk of getting infected.

Both articles talk in general about the affects of HIV and AIDS in South Africa. The Seattle Times talks more about the $120 million that America has given to South Africa and how the way of the government has changed. The New York Times article focused more on what the new policies for HIV prevention in pregnant women were, how HIV affects people, and how the government is dealing with the epidemic. Both articles talk about how President Zuma was trailed for rape and admitted to knowingly having sex with a women infected with HIV without the use of a condom.

//**Nov. 27 2009**//

Sources: KOB: [] Seattle Times: []

Zimbabwe’s prime minister says he is thankful for the efforts to help his coalition government. The prime minister says that South Africa’s president is going to visit the troubled neighboring country next week. At a party at Harare the prime mistier told 30,000 people for “the government of South Africa, in particular President Zuma, for helping us." and that "they [The South African government] still continue monitoring what we are doing here in Zimbabwe." Tsvangirai entered into a power-sharing agreement in February with President Robert Mugabe. “South African and other regional leaders had pushed for the coalition following a series of inconclusive elections marred by violence blamed on Mugabe's loyalists, urging the longtime rivals to work together to end their nation's political and economic crises.” But Tsvangirai temporarily withdrew from the unity government in October and returned three weeks later after receiving assurances that South Africa's president would intervene. ‘People should not live in fear of violence or being beaten by police" because they support Tsvangirai's party, he said at Sunday's rally. "This must end.” ’

Both of the two articles are exactly the same, they contain the same information, names and the same quotes. I am not sure if one of the articles copied from the other, but neither of the articles gives the link or mentions anything about another source but the KOB article has some information about copyrights and stuff. Both articles have the same author, and they were posted on the same day. However, the Seattle Times article was posted about 2 hours before the KOB one.  I’m not entirely sure what my opinion on the situation would be on the issues discussed in the two articles, I don’t really understand what exactly is going on. I get that the prime minister of Zimbabwe is wanting help from South Africa, desperately? People are being beaten by police because they support Tsvangirai’s party because he withdrew from government and they don’t trust him anymore? Well, people getting beaten by police is definitely not OK, aren’t there laws about that? And if there are, are the laws getting enforced at all? The polices job is to protect people, not to harm them because they don’t do things a certain way.


 * //Nov. 20 2009//**

Sources: ABC News: [] Seattle Times: []

Malaria kills about a million African Children every year. However, there is now hope, a vaccine that seems to be able to prevent Malaria in about 50% of children is now undergoing its final stages of testing. If it is decided that the vaccine is safe, then it will be on the market within the next 3 to five years. It would be the first vaccine against a human parasite. Millions of Africans suffer from Malaria every year, and the parasite is responsible for more than a third of the hospital beds in rural Kenya being occupied. More than 1 million children die from Malaria annually. The Malaria vaccine was developed specifically for Africa and will prevent the African strain of the disease; this would be a historic advancement. More than $500 million has been spent on the combined efforts by drug maker GlaxoSmithKline and the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative, which is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The Phase III testing is being done at 11 sites in seven African countries on 16,000 children under the age of 18 months. The goal is to immunize children against malaria during their youngest high-risk years, and then for them to develop their own natural immunities as they age.

In my opinion, it is a massive step forward if the malaria vaccine is to become successful. It will be helping all those in children, and maybe even adults who suffer from the disease. A lot of money has been funded to help with research, and the making and testing of the vaccine. But, they’re testing the vaccine on 16,000 children under the age of 18 months, isn’t this a bad thing? What if the vaccine has some crazy after affects that no one predicted? However, I doubt that they would put that they would allow little children to take the vaccine if it wasn’t safe. In the articles they say that the vaccine was developed specifically for Africa, why exactly, is this? I mean I understand that Africa has a very high Malaria rate, but wouldn’t it be better if they created one vaccine for everyone around the world? Although, what they are doing now is like a said before, a step in the right direction.

Both of the articles are exactly the same. They contain all of the same information, and state the same things word for word. They have the same statistics, names, and information. I am not sure if one of the sources copied of the other, or if they both copied from another source. The Seattle Times Article gave the links to other websites: PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative, [|http://www.malariavaccine.org], GlaxoSmithKline, [], the ABC News article only showed copyright information.

//**Nov. 13 2009**//

Sources: BBC: [|http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8349020.stm] Seattle Times: []

A Chinese leader is attending a 2-day China Africa cooperation meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh. Mr. Wen says that they are trying to build up Africa’s financing capacity. The Presidents of Sudan and Zimbabwe are attending these meetings. Mr. Wen says that China is planning to create environmental programs for Africa; this includes 100 clean energy projects. "The Chinese people cherish sincere friendship toward the African people, and China's support to Africa's development is concrete and real," Says Mr. Wen. China is also going to forgive the debts of the poorest of African nations that have relations to Beijing. The West has accused China of taking advantage of Africa’s resources to fuel their economy. “China's state owned Global Times newspaper wrote, ‘The West is envious of China and Africa drawing closer,’ "

I think that it is a good thing that China is planning on helping out Africa, but I’m still not entirely sure why China is doing this. They say that China is supporting Africa’s development but why now? Do they think that Africa is poor continent that can’t support itself? Do they think Africa won’t be able to pay its debts to China on its own? I don’t know if China is doing these the things to help out Africa because it’s concerned about its people, because China thinks they are greater than Africa and they want the world to know. And about Wen’s comment about the west being “envious” about China and Africa drawing closer, I don’t think the west is envois at all. Maybe they just want to know what’s going on and why.

Both of these articles take quotes from the same person, Mr. Wen, and they use them in their articles. The two articles don’t really use the same quotes but they do contain the same basic idea. The BBC article was a lot shorter than the Seattle Times article was, so it didn’t contain as much information. The Seattle Times article goes into more detail about what China plans on doing, and what China thinks the westerners are thinking about what they are doing. The Seattle Times article also contains a lot more numbers and statistics on Chinas budget, it also shows a lot more percentages and dates.


 * //Nov. 5 2009//**

Sources: SMH: [] CNN: []

Beyonce is having her “first-ever concert in the land of pyramids” but she’s causing controversy. Hamdi Hassan an Islamist member of Parliament is accusing Africa’s government for letting Beyonce “a singer who appears half naked in her clips” to perform, and at the same time not letting an Islamic band play religious music to children. But this isn’t the first time a “Western pop Diva” has had problems with Egyptian law, Avril Lavigne and Gwen Stefani also had to deal with similar consequences and both had to perform showing little skin. Most women wear traditional Muslim headscarves in the streets of Cairo Egypt which is quite a contrast to the poster of Beyonce wearing a “revealing, flame-covered outfit” in one of her posters. A Facebook campaign against Beyonce's concert collected nearly 10,000 supporters. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> Okay, I don’t see what the big deal is about Beyonce performing in Malaysia. I think if the government doesn’t want her to perform she shouldn’t, and if they allow her to she should do what she wants to do. Why do they have to make such a big deal of it? I mean, I know that they don’t like their women showing much skin, so can’t they just tell her to change or give her some clothes to wear or something? Malaysia requires female artists to cover up from the shoulders to the knees and bans any showing of cleavage; I think she can follow those rules. It doesn’t seem that difficult. But if she doesn’t want to then maybe she just shouldn’t go to Malaysia...?

Both of these articles talk a lot about what Egypt thinks of the situation of Beyonce performing, but they don’t talk much about how other countries would react. The CNN article compares the “Beyonce Controversy” to what has happened in the past with other female singers, unlike the SMH article. Both articles have quotes from the same person, Hamdi Hassan, but the SMH article uses the harsher things he says when they quote him. They almost make it seem like Beyonce is a bad person and she’s indecent or something. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">


 * //October 30 2009//**

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Sources: Digit <span style="font-family: 'Cambria Math','serif'; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Cambria Math';">​ <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">al Journal: [] CN <span style="font-family: 'Cambria Math','serif'; font-size: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Cambria Math';">​ <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">N: []

In Afghanistan a young boy is forced to dance with bells on his feet. He is a “ <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;">bacha bazi” boy, forced to dance to please his master and his guests. The tradition Bacha Bazi is one in which young boys are taken away from their families and used as sex slaves. This practice has been going on for centuries and the number of young boys involved in unknown. The practice of Bachi Bazi is unaccepted, illegal, and immoral, but it still continues in Afghanistan today. The boys are treated like slaves and are taken to parties to dance and provide sexual favors to the men there. Many boys do not choose the fate of Bachi Bazi but they are tricked and raped by more powerful men, some of the boys stay for the monthly allowance they receive but they often go from mater to master. Many of the boys only do it for the money, they come from poor families and sometimes it might be the only income for them and their family. <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">

Personally I think the act of Bacha bazi is wrong, and disgusting. How could someone stand to be treated that way? Even if it is the only income many of the boys’ families receive there must be another way for them to earn money. What they’re doing is selling themselves, their time, and their bodies. They should have more of a sense of self-worth. And what is the government is Afghanistan doing about Bacha bazi? It is illegal but people still do it, and from reading the articles the police are not much help. Isn’t what the young boys are doing considered prostitution? Would they go to jail if caught for they are doing? If caught would the master be just as punished as the boy? “We know it is immoral and unIslamic, but how can we quit? We do not like women, we just want boys.” Well, in America wouldn’t we consider that rape? This is a 35-year-old man saying that he wants to have sex with 14-18 year old boys! Something should be done about this. “Indeed, the government has failed to do much about the practice of bacha bazi, and police force do little to encourage public confidence. Local officials do admit the practice is prevalent but seem at a loss as to how to combat it.”

Compare and Contrast: The CNN article talks allot about how the government is not involved and about how they don't keep an eye on the "Bachi Bazi." The Digital Journal article on the other hand, sates that the act is illegal and immoral and it leaves it at that. In the CNN article they really tell you about the abuse the young boys face, and the Digital Journal article does this too, but CNN seems to harp on it a little more. Both articles use a lot of quotes from boys who have been a part of the Bachi Bazi practice and there are also quotes from some of the owners of Bachi Bazi boys. The articles talk to different people, but the general idea of what the people are saying is the same. The Digital Journal article is a lot older than the more recent CNN article, so the CNN has more current perspectives. Although both articles give a lot of information, none of them have any statistics with their information.