My Africa Today

6 September 1963 - The Opening of Nurses Home in Nairobi with President of Kenya Jomo Kenyatta and Ismaili nurses





Prince Sadruddin - Deputy U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees presented President Kenyatta with a new recording of the "International Piano Festival", the proceeds of which were to benefit refugees from all over the world. The festival featured many famous international musicians.





March 1981 - Hazar Imam with Kisumu Mayor Ezra Gumbe and Nyanza P.C. Francis Cherogony



H.H Shah Karim Aga Khan with President Nyerere share a joke. Welcoming the Tanzania leader to the opening of the New IPS Building H.H said he was deligthted that people of Tanzania had once again overwhelmed re-elected Ar. Nyerere as President.

You know you are a TRUE African IF

1) You can eat rice everyday for a week without getting tired.

2) Your event starts 4 hrs after the start time on the invitation card/flyer

3)Your mother (living in the U.S) is a Nurse

4) You like Reggae more than the people from the Carribean

5) A discount is not enough, you want things for FREE

6) 90% of the international calls you receive are from people asking for money

7) You know the names of at least 2 different international calling cards

8) Everytime you get into a fight, you always ask the person "Do you know who I am?" and the accent comes out.

9) Taking trips to Islands and warm places don't impress you (Your homeland was HOT ENOUGH!)

Feminists believe that all men are evil abusers.

When a man abuses them, deep down they feel a creamy sense of satisfaction. Their belief has been validated.

Therefore they carefully craft a life, and surround themselves with people who will create more of this abuse.

Thus further confirming their belief structure.

This type of mentality has been studied and explored by countless psychologists, and is well-understood by all people with common sense.

Also, there is a more dangerous issue, here.

Men are very "susceptible" to women's opinions of us. Let's face it guys, when we get married, we are very likely to start changing in response to our woman's needs. We can't help it...her emotions are so strong, and our sense of responsibility to her is so deep, that we can't help but slowly become the man she envisions us to be.

That can be good, or bad. A man who is married to an angry feminist will often become more abusive, fulfilling her expectations of him. She accuses him of shit he didn't do...finally he thinks "well, if she's going to treat me like a scumbag, then by golly I should just go ahead and be a scumbag."

On the other hand, a man who marries a loving woman (who trusts men) will usually become more worthy of trust, thus fulfilling her expectations of him.

The old cliche of "behind every great man is great woman" is so true.

Men, choose your wife carefully. Her mental image of men will probably become your destiny. Avoid women who think badly of men (which as you know, includes the vast majority of American women).

American women have been born and raised in the corrosive negative world of feminism. They can't help but think like a feminist and view the world like a feminist.

So they have learned to always emphasize the negative things about men, never the positive. In any given opportunity...

instead of saying "he's protective" they'll say "he's oppressive"

instead of saying "he's smart" they'll complain "he demeans my intelligence"

instead of saying "he's hard-working" they'll say "he's obsessed with work"

instead of saying "he's confident" they'll say "he's an ego-monster"

The bottom line...every one of your qualities will be spun as a NEGATIVE, not a positive.

Of course, they don't do this when you are dating. All women put up a good face early on. Later, after a few years of marriage, suddenly the real woman will emerge, and you will subjected to negative diatribes about you, day in, day out, like a constant weight on your shoulders.

So when you marry a feminist, you will slowly change to become the bad man that she sees. All the negative aspects of you (which you've probably learned to suppress and minimize) will suddenly start to crop up again. Eventually you'll say "well, fuck it, if she's going to attack me for a bad habit anyway, I might as well indulge in it."

She will bring out the worst in you.

And of course, she'll be happy, because then she can scamper off to her feminist-asshole friends and say "SEE! We're right! Men really ARE as bad as we've said!"

1.SUZUKI / ESCUDO
2.TOYOTA / COROLLA SEDAN
3.TOYOTA / LANDCRUISER PRADO
4.TOYOTA / RAV4
5.TOYOTA / MARK II
6.ISUZU / BIGHORN
7.TOYOTA / HIACE
8.MITSUBISHI / PAJERO IO
9.HONDA / CR-V
10.LANDROVER / DISCOVERY

If you liked our report on the bizarre handwritten lawsuit against Google from a guy worried that his social security number was too similar to Google's name, here's another one for you. Once again, special thanks to Eric Goldman for passing this one on. This time, at least, most of the lawsuit is typed (there are some handwritten parts at the end), though, there are numerous typos. The lawsuit is being filed against both Google and Yahoo by a guy who is apparently being detained by Immigration services in Houston. He claims that both Google and Yahoo stole their names from Tanzanian tribes -- and now they should pay up. Specifically, he claims that Google took its name from the Gogo tribe and Yahoo took its name from the Yao tribe. Conveniently, this guy happens to be a descendant of both tribes. He's merely asking for both companies to pay $10,000 each to every member of both tribes, going back three generations. Simple!

While it is true that many companies are using foreign words (Swahili is especially popular) in choosing company and product names (Kijiji, Joomla, Renkoo, Wiki, Tafiti, Jambo, etc.), both Google and Yahoo have pretty well-documented histories of their names, and the names of these Tanzanian tribes clearly have nothing to do with either one. Not that the guy doesn't try: "The court is now been asked to answer a common sense question: Is "Google" much more related, semantically and lexically, with "Gogo" or with "Googol"?" Once again, the chance of this lawsuit getting anywhere is basically nil (even if they had taken their names from the tribes, which they clearly did not), but as Goldman points out to us: "There is, of course, a serious problem here about the courts getting clogged up with lawsuits brought by prisoners/detainees with too much time on their hands and nothing to do but file lawsuits, and companies having to spend money to stomp out these lawsuits." In the meantime, this seems mighty close to life imitating The Onion।

With several private companies launching businesses to provide customers with unprecedented access to their genomes' secrets, legislation protecting people from genetic discrimination is more timely than ever. But Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahama) is single-handedly stalling federal legislation to do just that.

The Senate passed earlier versions of the bill twice before, but they were blocked from coming up for House floor votes. This year, the House passed it by a bipartisan landslide, but Coburn has held up the legislation in the Senate, saying it could place too much strain on businesses.

"We're not really clear on what Coburn wants, because his excuses don't make sense," said the bill's original sponsor, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-New York). "But if this bill got to a floor vote in the Senate, I think it'd pass almost unanimously."

Coburn spokesman John Hart said his boss supports the intent of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, known as GINA. Coburn voted for a nearly identical bill in 2005, but now says the bill's language exposes employers to too much liability. Supporters of the bill see Coburn's new beef as another in a string of inconsequential objections to the legislation.

23andMe, Navigenics and Decode Genetics have recently launched programs to scan individual's genomes and provide access to the information online. Customers will have to spend a for 23andMe's service.

In the absence of federal legislation, most states provide some degree of protection against discrimination. Many have gone further, explicitly providing genetic-privacy protections. Alaskan law (.pdf), for example, says DNA samples are an individual's private property. Still, companies offering personal genome scans, as well as biotechs offering genetic diagnostic tests, worry that their businesses will not gain traction without a federal law.

Slaughter introduced GINA in the House 12 years ago, but Republican leadership repeatedly blocked a vote, even as it passed the Senate twice. Under this year's new Democratic majority, the House passed GINA, 420-3 (H.R. 493), and it appeared ready to sail through the Senate (S. 358). But Coburn, exercising a prerogative available to all senators, placed it on hold, which requires a supermajority of 60 senators just to bring the bill up for a relatively rare floor debate.

An internal memo obtained Thursday from Coburn's office said the senator's make-or-break objection was the possibility that an employer who provides health insurance for its workers could be sued both as an insurer and as an employer. That means employers could be hit for much higher damages than insurers.

Representative Slaughter said she'd never heard that particular objection from any company in 12 years of campaigning on behalf of GINA. "But it's pretty creative," she said.

Coburn is a physician. He picked up the nickname "Dr. No" from pundit George Will, because of his frequent contrarian positions and use of the hold prerogative. Coburn has consistently opposed bills that enable lawsuits against businesses and his fellow medical doctors.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and trade associations like the National Retail Federation are GINA's main opponents, claiming it would spur frivolous lawsuits.

Michael Eastman, executive director of labor policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, applauded the Senator's move to stop the bill.

"Coburn has been willing to put his name out there," he said.