The news business is one of death, destruction, and misery. It's just not compelling to report that people are leading healthy, happy, productive lives. Reporters tell us about the plane that crashed, not the thousands that landed safely. When you look to Africa, you don't have to look too far to find a story that's absolutely horrific. The following is from a
Yahoo News story by George Gedda:
"There is just no question that Congo has the worst, bloodiest, nastiest conflict in the world, but the amount of attention it has received is negligible," says Scott Pegg, an activist and researcher in African issues. And there is nothing resembling a weapon of mass destruction in the conflict. The weapons of choice for the most part are bows and arrows, machetes, assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades. Child soldiers abound. Orphans, some of them under 1 often have little choice other than to join one of the militias doing the fighting.
Because the region is of little strategic interest, major powers show little interest in the fighting. The story talks about the money the Bush administration is sending Africa to fight AIDS. Although I don't have numbers to back up my skepticism, I have to question this quote from Colin Powell:
"You could take all of the lives lost through weapons of mass destruction over the past century ... go through World War I, go through Hiroshima, go through Nagasaki, go through all of them," Powell said two weeks ago. "Put all of those numbers together, multiply by 10 and you don't reach the number of people who will die from HIV/AIDS in the next 12 months."
All the lives lost through weapons of mass destruction over the past century is a lot and 12 months is not a long time. I wish I had the resources to check this out.