Yee,+Sandy

The country that was once occupied by the Japanese ended after World War 2 in 1945. After that, the country was split into two because of the Korean War. Today, the countries are now known as North Korea and South Korea. For the past three days, North Korea has fired artillery shells near its disputed maritime border with South Korea. According to North Korea and Pyongyang, the firings is part of an annual military drill, but Seoul says it was "provocative", and South Korea's president, Lee Myung-bak, said that they used firing as a negotiating tactic to claim more land. North Korea ships fired about 20 artillery rounds into the sea around the disputed western border. South Korea coastal bases responded by firing warning shots. Mr. Lee said there could be many reasons why North Korea has taken action. There has been three deadly exchanges between the North and South in the past decade. The most recent incident was in last November where both navies fought a brief gun battle that left one North Korean sailor dead and three others wounded, and apparently there were no casualities from South Korea. For now, South Korean marines maintain their barracks behind hills facing the North as a precaution against any attack.
 * SYPNOSIS**

BBC News [] New York Times []
 * SOURCES**

A similarity from these articles are that they both included the recent incident when both navies fought a brief gun battle. BBC News reported, //"In the most recent incident, last November, their navies fought a brief gun battle that left one North Korean sailor dead and three others wounded."// New York Times stated, "//The incident on Wednesday came after patrol ships from the two Koreas exchanged fire in the area in November. One North Korean sailor was believed to have been killed and three others wounded in that fighting, according to the South, which did not suffer casualties."// Another similarity is that both articles made a claim about the border between North and South Korea. Both articles had very valuable information, but there were a few spots where the articles didn't agree with eachother. For example, they both stated about the artillery rounds shot into the sea around the border. BBC News said, "//North Korean ships fired about **20 artillery rounds** into the sea around the disputed western border on Friday."// New York times reported, "//On Wednesday morning, about **30 rounds of North Korean artillery** splashed into two spots just north of the so-called Northern Limit Line."// This shows how one source or the other could be misleading. Another difference is that BBC News had two photos, one photo of a newspaper about North Koreas firings, the other one is a photo of Lee Myung-bak.
 * COMPARING AND CONTRASTING**

If North Korea doesn't stop its "nuclear programme", then it will stir up a war between the two Korean countries, because North Korea is mostly firing at the border. Instead of the border, they could fire somewhere else, but they chose to fire there. I think North Korea wants more land, and South Korea just wants to compromise. The two countries have been fighting on and off for the past decade, but they were brief. This time is slightly different, because North Korea is using artillery shells for three days now. Will the present repeat the past? SYPNOSIS** Guinea's was flown to a hospitol after getting shot by one of his closest aides at point blank range. The situation sent the capital into tension and uncertainty. Witnesses are pointing their fingers at Mohamed Camara for conspiracy of killing Moussa Dadis Camara, the Guinea President. Moussa Dadis Camara is now in recovery from a bullet that grazed his head leaving a splinter in a bone in his brain. He is slowly recovering, but will his country recover from this incident? The United Nations investigators were in Guinea examining into the massacre, in which at least 157 people are thought to have been killed and dozens of women raped. Mr. Bangoura quoted, "For a moment we are watching and waiting, I've just seen two trucks with soldiers pass by."
 * OPINION**
 * _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

New York Times [] Al Jazeera []
 * SOURCES**

Some similarities in these articles are that they both talked about the Guinea's President getting shot, and about who took part in the shooting/killing. Another similarity is that they had a photo of Moussa Dadis Camara. Some differences in these articles are that New York Times had more information and more quotes. In addition, New York Times talked about what happened in the massacre when Al Jazeera only explained about Moussa Dadis Camara attempted assassination. Also, the titles contrast is very different because New York Times title is "After Assassination Attempy, Guinea's Junta Leader Leaves Country for Treatment" and Al Jazeeras title is "Guinean Assassination Suspect Held".
 * COMPARING AND CONTRASTING**

I think President Moussa Dadis Camara needs to choose his friends and co-leaders more carefully. I'm guessing that Mohamed Camara, the suspect of shooting Moussa Dadis Camara, and Guinea's President, Moussa Dadis Camara were relatied in a way, so that explains that you can't trust people when you have a lot of power. For instance, if you were as popular as a celebrity, can you still trust your friends, they are probably only in for the money and fame. I think Mohamed Camara was envious of Moussa Camara's position and how much he had power in decisions and other things. SYPNOSIS** Two foreign journalists, Ms. Lindhout and Mr. Brennan, held captive by militants in Somalia more than a year have been finally released after a ransom demand. Both journalists were in joy and relieved of being free. Somalia has been without an effective government since 1991, and journalists and aid workers are frequently seized. They are not quite sure if the ransom has been paid yet, but fortunately they are free. While their time in captivity, Ms. Lindhout and Mr. Brennan were isolated in a room with a light and no window. They had nothing to write with or write on. Both were given very little food, and they had to use the toilets exactly five times a day. Basically, they sat in the corner, on the floor, for 24 hours for the last 15 months. Also, there was physical abuse and torture. Mr. Brennan told the Australian government he had been pistol-whipped and locked in chains for months. After their release, the only feeling that expresses them the best is "shocked"!
 * OPINION**
 * _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

BBC NEWS [] New York Times []
 * SOURCES**

Some similarities are that both articles stated how the foreign journalists felt about being released. Also, both articles talked about the ransom demand. Furthermore, they explained how their experience in captivity was like. For example, both articles stated the foreign journalists being physically tortured and abused. Some differences are their titles because in BBC News it's title was Joy of Freed Journalists Lindhout, Brennan in Somalia, and in New York Times it's title was Freed in Somalia, 2 Journalists Arrive In Kenya. Another difference is that BBC News included a photo of Ms. Lindhout and Mr. Brennan while New York Times had no photo. In addition, even when both articles had quotes related to eachother, BBC News had more quotes and they were more informative.
 * COMPARING AND CONTRASTING**

I think that Somalia should get a more effective and stable government soon because the islamic insurgments will not stop holding people captives. I believe that the islamic insurgments hold people in captives because it's their own way of making money. Physical abuse, starvation, torture, and solitary on Ms. Lindhout and Mr. Brennan wouldn't have happened if Somalia had a stable government. Many other countries like Somalia should stop using and killing innocent lives to get money. There are people that work hard in civilized ways to earn a living.
 * OPINION**

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A 20 year old woman divorcee was accused of committing adultery in Somalia. According to the articles, anyone who has ever been married - even a divorcee - who has an affair is liable to be found guilty of adultery. The woman had an affair with an unmarried 29 year old man. The judge for a court created by a rebel group al Shabab, Sheikh Ibrahim Abdirahmanwas, sentenced the woman to be stoned to death by Islamists in front of about 200 people. The man was given 100 lashes as his punishment. Reports from a small village near the town of Wajid, the woman was taken to the public grounds where she was buried up to her waist. Then the stoning began and eventually she died. BBC East Africa correspondent, Will Ross says, the stoning is at least the fourth for adultery in Somalia over the last year. In November 2008, a girl was stoned to death for adultery. She was only 13 years old and she had been raped, but Islamists said that she was much older and was married before.
 * SYPNOSIS**

BBC NEWS [] Al Jazeera []
 * SOURCES**

Some similarites from both these articles are that they both contained about the same amount of information. For instance, they talked about why the woman was stoned to death by Islamists in front of 200 people. Also, they explained how she was buried up to her waist to receive her punishment. Furthermore, both articles talked about other stonings of other people who were accused of adultery. A difference in both of these articles is that Al Jazeera used more quotes than BBC NEWS. BBC NEWS wasn't very clear about what was a quote because they didn't include (" "), while Al Jazeera did. Another difference is their titles by a couple of words, because Al Jazeera used "Somali Woman Stoned //to Death//" and BBC NEWS used "Somali Woman Stoned //for Adultery//".
 * COMPARING AND CONTRASTING**

I think her punishment was really cruel and unfair, because I'm guessing that this woman and the man she had an affair with was in love. Being punished for being in love is dumb. On contrary, on her part of confessing about her affair was just asking for trouble. In America, a crime to be brought to death would probably going on a killing spree. Having an affair is personal business and highly confidential. It has nothing to do with any commiting a crime. What is even adultery? It sounds like adults just being adults, its non sense.
 * OPINION**

SYPNOSIS** Mozambique's electoral commision has declared President Armando Guebuza and his Frelimo party as the resounding winners of October's general election. Mr. Guebuza had an overwhelming amount of votes, more than 75 percent of the vote was given to him, allowing him to have a second term in the office. The Fremilo party won a whopping 191 parliamentary seats out of 250. Altogether, he overcomes both of his opponents, the veteran Renamo leader Afonso Dhlakama and Daviz Simango. This was the country's fourth election after the devastating civil war in 1992. Luckily, the Fremilo party was the one in power that led the country to independence from Portugal in 1975. With the great amount of parliatmentary seats won by the Fremilo party, they are able to change the constitution, if they wish to.
 * _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

BBC NEWS [] New York Times []
 * SOURCES**

Some similarities from both of these articles are that they both talked about who were Mr. Guebuza's opponents in the election. Also, both stated how many parliamentary seats the Fremilo party won, "//Frelimo, in power since it led the country to independence from Portugal in 1975, won 191 parliamentary seats out of 250//," nytimes, "//Frelimo won more seats in parliament than it previously held, with 191 seats out of 250//," bbcnews. Some differences from both articles are that each had a different title. In BBC News, they titled it **Guebuza wins Mozambique landslide** and in New york times they titled it **Mozambique: Leader Re-elected**. Furthermore, I believe BBC News had a little more information about the topic than New York times, because it provided the percentile of votes that each opponents received, and it talked about his democratic movement of Mozambique.
 * COMPARING AND CONTRASTING**

I think it was a good idea to re-elect Armando Guebuza as President again, because he already experienced one term powering Mozambique, so he should know how things and people are like there. Also, it was a good idea to re-elect the Fremilo party, because once in the past they brought independence to the country. Their experience and skills could come in handy in the future in case countries start hating on eachother. Do you agree?
 * OPINION**

SYPNOSIS** Malaria is the disease that most people in Africa die from. Malaria is caused by a parasite and spreads through a bite from an infected mosquito. Then the parasite travels quickly through the bloodstream into the liver where it matures. Effecting the liver causes fever, chills, flu-like symptoms and anemia. Luckily, scientists in Africa have begun trials of a vaccine for this disease. With this vaccine, we can save fifty percent of peoples' lives. Fifty percent may not seem like a lot, but having a million of children lives lost each year from this disease, that fifty percent is a huge impact. Unfortunately, this vaccine wouldn't be effective until three to five years later. This is just a minor step back, but once we get a hold on that vaccine, it would change the lives of Africa forever.
 * _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Seattle Times [] Al Jazeera []
 * SOURCES**

Some similarities both of these articles share are that they both stated that the vaccine is approximately fifty percent effective. Al Jazeera stated, //"Data from earlier trials of the vaccine suggest that it is 50-55 per cent effective...,"// and Seattle Times stated, //"A vaccine that appears to be able to prevent the disease in about 50 percent of children, is now undergoing the final stage of testing."// Another similarity is that both articles informed us of the cause of malaria and how it effects the victim. Some differences are how each article created a different title. Al Jazeera created the title "Africa trial for malaria vaccine", and Seattle Times created the title " New vaccine offers hope in Africa's malaria battle". Also, I thought that Seattle Times was more detailed and informative, because the article gave an example of a baby boy getting blood inserted into him through a tube that was put into his head. By doing that, it gives the reader a sense of how bad malaria needs a vaccine.
 * COMPARING AND CONTRASTING**

I think that it is such a relief to know that there is a vaccine in the future that will save approximately half of the kids that are dying from malaria in Africa. It gives everyone a sense of hope, and it also shows how far technology and knowledge can take you. Knowledge is power (emphasize the "is"). In the Seattle Times article, it informs us of organizations that funds for the vaccine. I came upon an organization called UNICEF (The United Nations Children's Fund) that our own school supports. After reading this, I realized I donated a dollar to help the kids in Africa get a vaccine. I feel accomplished. If we all just donate a dollar to this program, it would make a big difference.
 * OPINION**

SYPNOSIS** Manfred Nowak, the UN special reporter on torture, was called for action from the UN Human Rights Council after he was deported from Zimbabwe. Nowak was given a mission to check out Zimbabwe's accusations of trampling on human rights and democracy, and holding the international community in contempt. When he arrived in Zimbabwe, immigrations officials denied entry, and placed him back on the plane.
 * _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

New York Times [] Al Jazeera []
 * SOURCES**

Both news articles used the quote of Joey Bimha, the top civil servant in the ZANU-PF-controlled foreign ministry,"//We had no option but to send [Nowak] back because we had informed him that his services were no longer needed here//," word for word. I believe that both articles explained the event clearly and thoroughly, but Al Jazeera had a more organized and visuale article. It had a photo of Nowak, and it stuck more to the main idea than New York Time's article. The titles could already inform you about the differences, because Al Jazeera uses the word "//ban//" instead of "//deports//". "//Ban//" is simple and easier to understand which describes the overall of the article.
 * COMPARING AND CONTRASTING**

I think it was unnecessary to refuse Nowak's entry into Zimbabwe. What is the worse thing a UN special reporter on torture could do? Especially "barring" Nowak would not solve anything. These kind of events is what I think starts wars and fights around the globe. Miscommunication happens, and when it does, it causes disaster. Also, I think the immigration officials were a little overeactent to the whole issue of Nowak entering Zimbabwe to do a little research/report. I'm dumbfounded, because this is utterly dispictable. What do you think about this?
 * OPINION**