nailsmith rencontre oysterfish negrophil daschagga mnemotechnist elongation bespeech
Clinton orders Medicare to cover new costs for clinical trials
http://cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/02/04/emirates.environment.reut/

The answers(solutions) to the problems that Africa is passing through all the ages belong to African themeselves. As African we know how best to satisfy our needs. Unfortunately our leaders are leaving their responsibility and deny the voices of aficans to Western and so called"Supper Power". How can someone who doesn't know my needs find the best way to satisfy them?

Unfortunately, when people talk about "friends," they usually mean money. Governments can contribute money, but they are not "friends." Celebrities can advocate for worthy causes, but they are generally underinformed or misinformed by the special interests who stand to benefit more than Africans from the donations.

Africa's economies were land-based until Northern Europeans and others invaded and started plundering its natural resources, including its people, and generally imposed a foreign, cash-based system. Those who get their sustainment directly from the land do not need so much cash, but when the land is taken away, the forests despoiled, the water polluted or diverted to industrialization, the people are left worse off than before.

Africa needs help developing self-sufficient economies, but outside "friends" are depriving individuals who live there of the means for self-sufficiency. It is a hoax perpetrated by those who would exploit naive cultures for profit.

You have made valid points, Mr. Gumede. Many a times we do see these so-called celebrities act with herd mentality. Like we are witnessing in child adoption post Anjelina Jolie's attempt at making a global family! Therefore, if Africa can somehow get a star like her to get associated with its causes, the entire Hollywood would follow her footsteps! And, Africa would be able to "Draw Many More" like Drew Barrymore!

To Anonymous,

Yes, Africa is a continent.
Yes, Africa has got plenty of resources.
Yes, Africans should take care of themselves -- there are plenty of people, starting with yours faithfully but including Nobel Prize winner Wole Soyinka and countless others, who are shouting out that exhortation at the top of their lungs and not anonymously.
But, you see, precisely because Africa has a lot of resources (in particular, a strategic resource that is currently widely coveted --- oil ), and the free trade mantra promoted by developed country leaders who are only salesmen for mega- corporations opens up the possibility of the ruthless exploitation of these resources by these mega-corporations who have a pronounced propensity to bribe Africa's no-doubt corrupt leaders, the oppressed people are dirt poor and reamin so. Revolt, you tell them? Sometimes (maybe too often), that is what they do. But revolutions come at a terrible short term cost that is unbearable when the initial desperation is itself crushing. It's a catch22 situation, but yes, these blokes are still struggling to overcome the impossible odds.
The aid pledges, be assured, mostly amount to little more than hot air or means to bribe Arrica's corrupt politicians -- lately, development workers have invented the term 'philanthropic imperialism' to describe the cynical reality.
Have I made the situation a little more clear to you, Anon? In case you think it is Africans who are making the tax burden very heavy on you, think again. Developing countries give out in aid (including military 'aid' designed to crush restive populations) no more than one third of one penny out of every dollar they make every year, while Saudi Arabia gives out 7 pennies out of every dollar.

No, Mr. Gumede, it is not just a question of passing fad nor is it always a missionary zeal. The scientific concept of 'complexity' is even more relevant to human values and motivations than it is to purely physical phenomena, be they at the Newtonian 'aggregate' level or at the quantum/multiverse level.
If we are ready to extend the concept of 'star' to media-exposed personalities, we can make interesting comparisons on the performance of stars in the field of povery allevaition. One would have to be of incredible bad faith to say that it is a passing fad for the self-made star Mohammad Yunus, whereas one can convincingly argue, in the case of Wolfowitz, that it was an opportunistic shot at refurbishing his image, even as the case had been far more complex for Robert MacNamara who managed a successful reconversion from Vietnam War czar to corporate-backed poverty alleviation star.
In the area of the anti-apartheid and anti-racism crusades, Ahmad Kathrada has been a self-effacing but immensely effective crusader, while the stars Thabo Mbaki, Cyril Ramaphosa and Tokyo Sexwale might have been more realistic in risking diluting the crusading spirit by braving the business success venture, evwen while still others, like Imam Haroun, Steve Biko, Chris Hani met the fate of martyrs but keep the flame of anti-racism militancy burning forever. Similarly on the front of the legal crusade against apartheid and racism, the achievements of the late first post-apartheid Chief Justice Mohammad Ismael are generically different from those of George Bizos without the one diminishing the shine of the other.
Comparing movie star records, that of Harry Bellafonte was, no doubt, in a different category from that of Angelina Jolie, but we should not allow any trace of reverse-racist temptation, however faint, to make us categorise Harry's performance as being, ipso facto, more soul-elevating than Angelina Jolie's or Bono's.

I was also outraged to see Jolie's photo associated with this article. She has proven over the past 5+ years to be committed to African and poverty causes, sticking to the belief that if people are going to photograph her, she'd prefer it be in a poor village than in Beverly Hills. As a life-long Post reader, I demand that her photo be disassociated with this article, or that the author at least mention her as not being included in the group of celebrities who use African poverty to boost their careers.

Shameful.

Sorry, but like many of the other commenters here, I disagree with the Post's using Jolie's picture next to an editorial decrying the "fashion fad" like treatment Africa is given. No matter how much Jolie does (or any celebrity for that matter), there are always going to be those who say she's not doing enough, her intentions are not genuine, and on and on. At the very least, she has raised awareness. Which is more than most of us can say.

Africa needs this, Africa needs that...yes we get the idea, Africa needs a lot from everybody. But it also needs to take a look at itself. A plethora of corruption, rent-seeking etc. goes on among and within many of its nation-states. The West can pump all the money it wants into Africa, but what good does it do if it is not properly allocated? This is not to say that the West should not help Africa, but rather that Africa must be more willing to help itself too by making serious commitments to change its governance. We cannot forget that there have been many empty promises made by various African leaders to the West...

I actually agree with you all regarding Jolie's picture. The blurb originally included a mention that some actors help while others treat activism as a passing fad, as William's and other panelists' pieces discuss at length. Previous panelist responses in fact mention Jolie directly with positive assessments of her work. The promotional blurb on the Post homepage was shortened, but has been revised to re-incorporate the balance that should accompany Jolie's picture.

Thanks all for the thoughtful participation.

I fully agree with the demand to remove Jolie's photo from this weblink. This is unexpected from the Washington Post, rather it reflects the actics of the NY Post....

I also agree with Brett and Jeff B. It was totally unfair to put Jolie's photo next to this story. Unfortunately you can no longer expect better from the Post. This is who they are now.

I agree with Brett's comment. Angelina Jolie has said her life changed after spending time in Cambodia filming Tomb Raider (2001). Since then she has been increasingly devoted to humanitarian causes. There is nothing fad-like about it. The Post's association of her photograph with this article is just plain inaccurate and I would expect far better from the paper.

This is why I'm glad I'm not a star. When stars live out a vapid existence of self-indulgence, we lament that they should use their voice for something be a positive influence on the world.

When stars use their voice to be a positive influence on the world, we question their motivation as a "stunt".

I agree that Africa needs genuine friends and that the problems on that continent, while vast, are not greater than its potential. Personally, I have no problem with people who have a voice using it for a good cause. Even if it is fleeting, perhaps they will ignite a fire in others.

While I don't particularly care for her as an actress, I think it was unfair of the Post to print the picture of Angelina Jolie next to this article. She has shown, for years, that her devotion to the humanitarian causes of the UN are not a passing fancy. The exact opposite of the type of short attention span that is being spoken of here.

Africa can always use new friends and old friends too. One thing I've always enjoyed about working with disadvantaged African Americans in the United States is that they require first and foremost that you intend to help. They are flexible on many other factors like ability, knowledge, and formal training, and they can pretty much figure out who is there to help and who is not.