Cai,+Alan

April 09 2010 =US loses first Osprey in Afghanistan, 4 dead=  = =

 An American Air Force 'Osprey' aircraft has crashed in Afghanistan on Tuesday night killing three service members, and one civilian contractor. It crashed in a desert near Zabul Province which is under influence of the Taliban. The Taliban take responsibility for downing the aircraft. Early Friday, officials claimed that the aircraft was in fact taken down by enemy fire, then they decided that it was a mechanical difficulty that occurred that cause the aircraft to descend and crash, and now they've said they aren't sure what happen. When the Taliban leaders claimed that they were the ones that have taken down the aircraft, it is a common thing for them to //claim //  they have done something like this, when in fact they were not involved in this in anyway whatsoever. Mechanical failure has happen with the Osprey before, and on American Soil. Once in 2000, when it killed 19 American soldiers during a //training exercise //  in Arizona. And another four Marines in North Carolina in the December of that year.

It is a major problem for any american to be driving this aircraft. It is obviously not safe and should be tested more before actually being put into action. Obviously, it was not taken down by enemy fire (from the information I read), it was due to a mechanical malfunction that the aircraft came down. Another problem I see is that the Air Force is testing this in the battlefield that is active and controlled by the enemy, which is not smart because if they really do see it, they really are going to shoot the thing down. For the safety of the American people I think that they should not use the Osprey.

There are many differences in the sources. One thing is that, in the Seattle Times they give //**a lot** more information about the Osprey and the deaths that happen with the aircraft in previous years, which I thought was very useful to come up with the fact that it was actually a mechanical malfunction that happen that caused the aircraft to crash. Another difference is in the Seattle Times it says // ' A Marine Osprey flew then-candidate Barack Obama from Iraq to Amman, Jordan, during his visit to the Middle East in July 2008.' which I thought was completely useless and trying to persuade the people reading the article that it was safe and to keep using this aircraft. Another difference is that in the //Ny Times// it talks about the Taliban, and how they've claimed that they shot it down, but in Seattle Times in only talks about it being a malfunction problem. The only similar information between both articles is the fact that it is on the same subject, and the death toll that was caused, the causes of the plane coming down are completely different.

Sources: 1) [|http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/world/asia/10afghan.html?scp=1&sq=Osprey&st=cse 2)][] = = = = = = = = =China Protests against Obamas meeting with Dalai Lama= So president Obama has invited Dalai lama, A exiled Spiritual Lea der to the white house to discuss issues about democracy, human rights, and other things that seemed to tick off Beijing. Obama has expressed support of these beliefs that Dalai Lama has said. This meeting was put off a year before to not interfere with Obama's trip to Beijing last year. China regards Dalia lama is an advocate to Tibetan i ndependence,said that it was 'strongly dissatisfied' and that is expected that United States try to make amends. Friday, China accused Obama of 'seriously damaging' ties between the two countries. The meeting took place in the White House Map Room rather than in the Oval office. This meeting clearly ticked off the Chinese and it is damaging the not so tight ties between the countries even more.
 * //What do you think happen?//** 

I don't think it was a good idea to meet with Dalai Lama and damage the ties between the countries. It was a very stupid move by Obama. Meeting with one person and damaging a tie with a country could start a war. And without China American could say bye bye to its economy. So really, was it worth meeting with a man that a country is not fond of just to talk about ideals that both we and him believe in? Why not spare us the cost and just NOT meet with this man, honestly that was a very irrational meeting.

The Sources both contain very difference ideas. The NyTimes takes us towards a direction where Dalai Lama shares the same ideas as us ' //The two men spoke about democracy, human rights and the need to preserve Tibet’s religious identity and culture — all issues that, predictably, irritated Beijing.'// while telling us why China is irritated (because they don't believe in this), while SeattleTimes is a lot more negative '//There was no welcome fanfare, and Obama made no public comments. The White House banned journalists and distributed a single photo of the two leaders//.', but from both articles we know one thing is certain, China is not happy with this meeting and hopes there will be something done before ties between both are severed Source: [][] = = = = = = = = =China Issues Sharp Rebuke to U.S. Calls for an Investigation on Google Attacks= So Basically, everyone knows about this already. Google has taken itself out of China because of some un-identified Chinese attacks on American people from China. From what we already know, the chinese have a limit on what they can or can not see on the internet. From blocking thousands of blogs and social-networking sites to accusing the United States of seeking information hegemony, China made it clear that the control of information has become even more of a central priority than in years past. Zhou Yonglin, the deputy operations chief of China’s National Computer Network Emergency Response Technical Team, was quoted as saying that China was the world’s largest target for hackers, with more than 262,000 Internet addresses under assault last year, and that the greatest share of attacks — one in six — originated in the United States. Mr.Zhou said “We have been hoping that Google will contact us so that we could have details on this issue and provide them help if necessary,” So they have had a huge block in between themselves (United States and China), people are saying that this is a road block that is going to effect china and america's well beings.

I think it is a very hasty decision for Google to do something like this. And no im not saying this just because I'm Chinese. Their taking one of the biggest internet sites off of China just because of a few hackers who could probably easily be tracked. That is a very bad decision, I think they could have come up with a better solution, I KNOW they could have come up with a better solution. This will not help either side with the problem, it might make matters even worse. I think theres a backstory that we all dont know, something bigger than this, we'll just have to wait and see.

The sources information have many differences and similarities. One difference is in the titles. 'China Issues Sharp Rebuke to U.S. Calls for an Investigation on Google Attacks', and 'Googles New Approach to China unline Microsoft's, not purely commercial'. The second title has less power to it, it tells us this article is not trying to attack this subject while the first title is more agressive, it sets a more powerful mood for us to start the article. Another difference I see is that The first article (SeattleTimes) is more offensive (as the title states), they have a lot more faces on the offensive side while the second article (NyTimes) is purely facts that are neither defensive or offensive, they are just facts. One similarity I saw was they both said that this would not help the global landscape very much, meaning it wont help to withdraw such a large company from one of the largest nations.

Source 1: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/jontalton/2010921432_biztaltoncol31.html Source 2: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/world/asia/26google.html?scp=10&sq=China&st=cse

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =Greek Ship 'Ariana' Finally freed after 6 months of Captivity=

A Greek ship called 'Ariana' has finally been freed after being captured 6 months earlier by Somalian Pirates. The ransom was paid, the owner of the company did not reveal how much the ransom was but the pirate claimed they were paid $2.6 Million dollars. There were 24 Ukraine members helped captive and all were released with no harm done. They were attacked and held captive since May 2nd 2009. And they are not taking more precautions to delivery and now they are relying more on air delivery.

Its great how this crew was freed but why did it take half a year to free these men? They were just trying to make a living and then they get captured. Was it really true they were unharmed because I don't believe these sources. At least this taught the company (and Ukraine) a lesson about sending merchandise with ships, and now they have learned to use aircraft. These Somalian pirates are really getting big and earning tens of millions of dollars from piracy is wrong.

1. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/12/10/hijacking.ariana/ 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/world/africa/11briefs-PirateBrf.html

The Ny time's title was alot more informative. It was 'Somali Pirates Release Ship and Crew After 6 Months, while Cnn's was Ship released 6 months after hijacking'. Another difference I saw was the length of Cnn's article and the coverage of Cnn's article. In Cnn they had alot more commentary from people from the company and civilians, while NyTimes had none. Another thing I've noticed was that In Nytimes they had a amount the company paid the pirates for the pirates ransom. All in all Cnn was a better article and more informative about the subject = = = = = = = = = = = = =South Africa's leader announces new AIDS policies!= On November 30th 2009 The South African leader Jacob Zuma announced that the government will be treating more AIDS patients and will do more testing for AIDS and HIV. South Africa has an estimated 5.7 million infected with HIV, so this is a huge problem. The Us is supporting this and giving 120$ million to AIDS Drugs. Michel Sidibe, head of U.N. AIDS programs, went to South Africa for World AIDS Day in part to show support for South Africa's new direction, saying in an interview that Zuma was "committed to making change happen." A Harvard study of the years under Mbeki, who questioned the link between HIV and AIDS, concluded that more than 300,000 premature deaths in South Africa could have been saved if there was medication for the mothers to stop the passing to the Children. This would be effective from April 2010. Zuma said all institutions were "hard at work" to ensure systems were in place by March 31.

This information is wonderful, AIDS and HIV is a bit thing in Africa so these people willing to spend money and time to give their people medication to help stop this drug from killing everyone is great. All of us know what AIDS and HIV is and we know that if we catch it, we can get medication. But these people had no hope of getting this medication before, all they probably thought about was dieing. And children being born with this virus is even worse, because they had no fault in this, it was the parents fault. So this information is great and is a turn to the greater for this country.

1. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010388878_apafsouthafricaaids.html 2. http://www.sagoodnews.co.za/health_and_hiv_aids/government_steps_up_aids_fight.html

Both sources had nearly the same information except that sagoodnews.co had more information about mothers and their child being born with the HIV virus. The Seattle Times had a lot more information and I thought it was a way better source than what sagoodnews offered due to the fact that it was longer, and contained more facts about the announcement rather than just stating random facts.

= = = = = = = = = = =Two Journalists freed in Somalia= After fifteen months of being captive, Journalists Nigel Brennan and Canadian freelance reporter Amanda Lindhout were freed. The Journalists were freed on Wednesday night and were with Police in a hotel. It is still unclear if their ransom(unconfirmed report said it was 1$million) was paid or not. In August 2008, Brennan and Lindhout were kidnapped. Brennan said (on the phone) that he was tortured during his capture. He tried to escape but it was sabotaged, and after the failed attempt he was chained up and isolated from Lindhout for 10 months. And now after 15 months, they are free.

Its really sad how they were held captive for 15 months. I thought about this and man. While I was having fun in the summer. Someone was being tortured out there and he had nothing to do, While I was here, sleeping, and having fun with my life. It really makes me feel bad about how people have to go through all of this and it makes me thankful i'm in such a safe country where stuff like this rarly happens.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/world/africa/27somalia.html?_r=1&ref=africa 2. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=112192&sectionid=351020501

The New York times article had so much more coverage, we can see the people's comments word for word, just how they said it on the news. In the presstv article there was no commentary just facts that weren't able to be backed up. And the New York times had about the same amount of information as the second one except in the New York times, they strained the sentences to make the article longer. = = = = = = =_= =Pirates Widen Range, Straining Naval Patrols= The Pirates come out of nowhere from the darkness and raid cargo ships for food, machine parts, oil, and weaponry enough to support a small army. And they also hold the prisoners for ransom of up to $1 million. On Monday they launched their longest range highjack firing at a Hong Kong flagged oil tanker 1000 nautical miles east of Mogadishu. The attacks also moved deeper into the Indian Ocean and along the African coast from Somalia toward the Mozambique Channel, away from the well-policed Gulf of Aden. Pirates are using captured ships and avoiding confrontation by disposing of their weapons if the winning chance is slim, experts say. About 20,000 ships pass the Gulf of Aden a year. The International Maritime Bureau reported 359 attacks or attempts this year. Eleven ships and 262 crew members are believed to be detained by pirates right now.

The summary says it all! The Somalian pirates attack range is widening and they are going after bigger profit loots. This is really bad. The thing that surprised me is pirates in our age. When we all think of pirates we think of the ones in the movies, well at least that's what comes to my mind. But pirates are now getting smarter, this is bad for the people getting raided since they earned their money with hard work, and the people on the ships are innocent people and workers just trying to get by the day. And if we don't put a stop to this, sea trade between all countries will have a high risk due to pirates which is not good for any economy. We should take action now to try to stop these pirates.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/world/africa/20pirates.html?_r=1&ref=africa 2. http://somalilandpress.com/9562/somali-pirates-seize-weapons-ship-attack-tanker/

The articles talk about different raids but their ideals are the same. We have to put a stop to these pirates, and if we don't, their raid range will be worldwide. And soon enough this will hurt all of our economies. In article #1 there is a lot more commentary by experts while article #2 only contains 1 line. And in article #1, there are a lot more facts about recent and past raids from the pirates and their gains and their improvements in tactics.

= = =_= =China's $10 billion loan for African development 'motivated by business not aid'=

China Loans $10 Billion to Africa. Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier says "The Chinese people cherish sincere friendship toward the African people, and China's support to Africa's development is concrete and real." Wen said China wants to help Africa and would lend $10 billion in concessional loans - ones with generous terms. The offer marks a doubling from $5 Billion in 2006, Over the past eight years China and Africa's trades had risen to 107$ Billion by the end of 2008, and despite the financial crisis investments in Africa (by the Chinese) have risen by 77% in 2009. China's generosity brought up alot of accusations about how they only want to sap Africa of it's resources to boost it's bustling economy, in other words they believe the Chinese have just come to drain Africa of it's natural resources. Wen claims China's imports of African resources and energy account for only 13% of the continent's total exports and its investments in Africa's oil and gas sector were only one-sixteenth of the total investments in the continent.

The facts about how much money in being lent and how much trade between both countries is exactly the same. The difference is the way the people see the loan. In the seattletimes, they see it as China just using this as a coverup to steal Africa's resources, while article #2 is more of the Chinese people are really trying to help them, and the friendliness is real. Both articles are very persuading and I believe both of them. I believe that China is actually going to use this as an excuse to take some more resources from Africa and some of them actually do care. But I think their just trying to boost their economy. Why would they want to befriend one of the weakest countries out there? For their resources.

1. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010227212_apmlchinaafrica.html 2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/6526187/Chinas-10-billion-loan-for-African-development-motivated-by-business-not-aid.html

I thought that the seattletimes was more informative compared to the telegraph. In the seattletimes article theres an offensive side and a defensive side. Talking about how they really mean it and how their trying to get resources. The telegraph has more dialogue from the Chinese Primer Wen Jiabo and I thought it was good to get the story from one side of the argument. = = = = = = = = = = =_= =New vaccine offers hope in Africa's malaria battle=

We have found a new vaccine for Malaria! The vaccine appears to be able to prevent the disease in 50% of the children, and is currently undergoing the last staging of the tests. Tens of millions of Africans a year are plunged with the Malaria disease, More than one million children die of Malaria annually, devastating numbers. Some say 50% is NOT enough, but considering the fact that one million kids are lost a year due to this vicious disease, saving half of that would be a great start. No prices have been placed for this vaccine yet, but some say Africa's families will not have to pay anything for this vaccine. The vaccine took over twenty years of research and development to complete and they're overjoyed that it finally came. Until now the only way to protect from this disease was the distribution of nets to keep away the mosquitoes.

In the Article from SeattleTimes(First Source) it contains more dialogue. It also contains more details about how many death percentages were due to malaria and how the families are feeling while in Aljazeera article it was straightforward facts, Facts after more facts. Both source contains reasonable amount of similar data, but one thing that pops up is; SeattleTimes writes "No Prices have been set for this vaccine, though families in Africa may not have to pay a cent". while the second article say "We are not going to let price get in the way of access for malaria vaccines". This might not point out much but it tells me that SeattleTimes interviewer got a man that will actually give his vaccinations for free, while the second article's interviewer is still thinking about setting up a price.

1. SeattleTimes: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2010190185_apafafricamalariavaccine.html 2. AlJazeeraEnglish: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2009/11/200911341029993119.html

Depending on what you like to see in an article, Id like to read AlJazeera more, because there are more facts in the article. When I read an article I do not like to read for dialogue and peoples opinions, I like to go for the facts. They are more trustworthy than normal human opinions from one side of the story. And in Aljazeera there are entertaining pictures and shares with us how Malaria is spread.

__

=Zimbabwe deports UN investigator to South Africa=

Zimbabwe barred the United Nations torture investigator from entering their country and made him return to South Africa Thursday. Nowak (the investigator) said that he had a scheduled meeting with the Zimbabwe Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai. Nowak says this his treatment was the "alarming" truth about the split between Africa's country's coalition government. He arrived at the airport on Wednesday and the airport immigration officials told him the foreign ministry had not cleared this to them, so he was forced to stay at the airport overnight. He says he has never been treated so rudely by any government as rude as the Zimbabwe. "This is not the way the United Nations should be dealt with by a member state of the United Nations," said Nowak.

In the article of the SeattleTimes, it goes towards the side that Zimbabwe is wrong. It does not get any dialogue from the ZImbabwe what so ever, but only from Nowak the United Nations Torture investigator. In the NyTimes they defend Zimbabwe with statements such as Ephraim Masawi, a spokesman for Mugabe's ZANU-PF party, said angrily that allegations Mugabe was involved in barring Nowak were not true. While the SeattleTimes uses statements from Nowak that say that Zimbabwe did actually hold him there.

1. SeattleTimes: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2010157308_apafzimbabwe.html 2. NyTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/10/29/world/AP-AF-Zimbabwe.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Zimbabwe%20deports&st=cse

I think that the coverage from The SeattleTimes was way more believable and the NyTimes was just trying to stretch the truth. I believe that they actually did hold him and they really did not want him there to investigate their country, and no matter what the NyTimes said I believe that the president of Zimbabwe fully knew that he was there and going to the meeting.