There has been one common complaint by Africa against the rest of the world: that most stories out of Africa are about, war, disease, corruption and natural calamities.

The complaint may have its basis by I recall talking to an international journalist who told me that those angles may be the only that sell well and that Africa is used to perpetrating the prejudices really well.

I remembered those words when I heard about the Togo footballers' bus attack in Cabinda, Angola. It was sad that for many people who did not know about the separatist movement in Cabinda, they got to know it.

There is no doubt that this attack will punctuate every story written and broadcast about the Africa Cup of Nations in Angola. The country has made tremendous improvement and demonstrated that it is capable of matching other countries in hosting big events but unfortunately all that will not be remembered.

Instead, the focus will be on the terrorist group, how the Angolan government has been unable to crush the terrorist movement and how the international community can intervene in the whole saga.

I can imagine how the Togolese players were excited about the bus ride and how others thought it was a waste of time and that they should just fly to Luanda. I think it is an enriching experience, to see the country side and appreciate the countries you pass through but with the risk of being sprayed with bullets like dogs, I will fly any time.

Angola has had its share of problems; the most know conflict was that led by Jonas Savimbi from 1975 to around 2005 when he was killed (am not sure of the date). But since then, the country has been reconstructing at great pace.

Angola has rich oil deposits, which has been the reason for war; indeed, most African conflicts are as a result of economic and natural resources such as water and grazing land.

Although the peace efforts are known in Africa, the Cabinda movement must have felt shortchanged that they are not recognized and what a way to announce their existence? After all, football is the most appreciated sport in Africa and globally and with the World Cup in the neighboring South Africa, it was a chance for the movement to send a message of fear.

This fear, insecurity and continent-at-war message is not good for us, I can imagine some of the countries participating in the World Cup will pitch their tents in Europe and Asia instead of coming to train in Africa.

This may have affected Africa's image but am sure some national teams will choose to come regardless of media reports of insecurity. I can imagine someone arguing that; if they can attack an African team, what do you think about other teams.

I would love an announcement by the British national team that they will train in the Democratic Republic of Congo, am sure this would send the British media in a frenzy, analyzing their chances of winning the world cup and the psychological effects of training in a war torn country that has so many active volcanoes and other weird stuff that we don't know about.

So, the Africa Cup of Nations will go on, am hoping we get to see exciting stuff that will make us forget the senseless attacks and that Togo will have an excellent campaign.

After the investments and advertisements, Angola certainly deserves better!

The other day I had an interesting conversation with a watchman, he told m that its not that women are bad in driving, its only that they don't know much about the reverse gear, they only know drive.

So, when you start engaging a woman on how to reverse and get into a tricky parking spot, then you may have a problem. In as much as its funny, I guess there is an element of truth in his statement, of course he was speaking out of experience.

This made me wonder, are women bad drivers compared to men? Are men inclined to be better drivers compared to women? Of course this is controversial but it sounded funny.

I also noticed that people tend to behave funny when they notice its a woman driving, if a mistake is made, they say..aaahh its a woman driving, which I find very rude.

So, that was food for thought.......

It is ironical that in Kenya, it is acceptable that an old man can get a younger woman, even if she is half his age, it is acceptable. But if it is a younger man, it becomes another story. Whether the relationship is casual or serious, such unions make perfect fodder for the gossip columns.

That is why the young men, who want "rich, stable, older" women have found it easier to deal online. The online space has allowed people to use fake IDs and to seek unions that dont allow the society to judge them.

It is a totally different story when we talk about gay and lesbians in Kenya, we like to wish it away and imagine that all the people around us are straight, heterosexual or any other term that you may want to ascribe.

People usually imagine that others do not have the freedom to follow their paths; whether beaten or otherwise and so when you ask around, it will be said that the gay community does not exist in Kenya but that is not the case.

To get a better feel of the situation, I decided to register in a site; seeking men, women and for casual sex. You will be shocked the responses I received. From the women to younger boys promising me energy and vitality. But there was this married old guy saying that he is interested but can only call these and these times and another offered to take me out on Friday night.

I have my own curiosities about everything and so for the women who expressed interest, I was able to ask questions under my fake ID, which allowed me to embarrass myself with the consolation that this woman does not know me.

After all.... the exercise was enlightening and showed me that the online spaces are providing new grounds for people to meet and share the common things, whether the society likes it or not.

Psssstt.....I am still weighing about the friday date though am not sure who the person is......

Ends

A few weeks ago, Kenyan women went on sex strike; as a way of forcing the political leaders to agree and get on with business.

The exercise made headlines; drew laughs and revived the heated debate whether women's rights are respected in Kenya and whether it was a ploy for the women's movement to relaunch its campaigns that were in top gear a decade ago but seem to have lost steam.

In one of the news items on TV, there was this bitter old man who was interviewed about the sex strike and said; "tutawachapa, wajue ni nani amewaoa" meaning we will batter the women until they recognize they are married.

It was easy to laugh about it; because of the intonation but the man was not mincing words. He looked like those men who will start beating the wife in the presence of their kids or chasing her through the whole neighborhood.

I had a chance to engage a few women and men on what they think about the debate. The most interesting answer was from a woman who could be my mothers age mate who told me that women have always had a way to use sex to get whatever they wanted, provided it was within the confines of their bedroom.

The challenge of such a publicized campaign was that men who would not have otherwise demanded for sex would do it and start a fight about it.

She argued that the sex boycott could be used by some men who wanted to have concubines as a reason to desert their homes. The ability of that "side dish" to provide sexual favors even during the boycott would definitely endear her to many men.

He verdict was that many women did not join the boycott because of fear of battery; because they feared the men would run away from the homes and with the economic meltdown, the spouses would find a way to abscond their responsibilities.

There is no doubt that the women's movement has done a fantastic job; the reason I went to the University and my mother did not speaks a lot. The reason I have a job and can claim equal rights is evidence of major campaigns.

I am for empowerment but does the sex boycott mean that we have achieved everything? I am imagining that for the boycott to be effective, women's reproductive role and contribution in society must be appreciated.

Ends

Ten years ago, the debate over whether condoms should be used during intercourse was still raging; the Kenyan society had been rocked by HIV/AIDS and was looking for ways to stem the rising infection rates.

Men argued that they could not use condoms because it diminished the sex experience. It was argued that it was like eating a banana with the outer skin or taking a candy with the wrap on.

Being a patriarchal society, women were disadvantaged because they could not insist on condom use, even when the risk was manifest. Trust issues were raised and infection rates rose like bush fire.

Then the prevention campaigns went on the over drive, people started accepting condoms and women became empowered to demand for condoms.

That is why the announcement by the Kenyan government that it will purchase 100 million condoms did not merit much debate; it has become part of our lifestyle. If it was in 1999, the news would have had some space on the front page and radio stations would have made it part of the debate for a day or two.

Now the news was in the inside pages, which is probably a testimony of how the times have changed.

I once participated in a very interesting debate between men and women discussing why condoms are now acceptable more than before. The men argued that it has become hard to trust the women and the same argument was advanced by the women. So, infidelity that goes both ways has led to some form of empowerment because we have all realized that we are all at risk and no one is a victim of the other.

The stories of how the community has struggled with supporting the sick members. How grand mothers have been forced to learn how to change nappies because they can not even provide food let alone afford diapers.

The main question then becomes; would you ensure that you have condoms in the pocket/bag? Just in case you never know when the craving strikes.

The other day I met Tom Osanjo, a former colleague and friend, and we got into a discussion about the rights that a writer retains.

The issue we were debating was whether journalists retain any rights to the material they publish. There are two schools of thought; there are those who think that once you have written, thats it, the rights shift to the publisher.

Another school of thought holds that the journalist holds the rights and if the publisher wants to use the story or photo again, then they must pay again or something like that.

James, winner of the CNN sports journalist of the year in 2007 gave us his experience; how the organizers of the CNN awards made him sign an agreement that allowed then to redistribute the pictures.

James' argument was that if the rights are retained by the media house, then CNN would have asked the media house for permission to use. That supported the argument that the rights are retained by the writer.

That argument seemed to have preempted a debate that I would have a week later.

Today I found myself weathering a storm in a tea cup.

Sometimes last year, I participated in online discussions about the fiber optic cable and so many other attendant issues. Some of the issues were very technical while others were social-economic.

In writing an article, I went to some old drafts of the daily summaries that I had done and used the material that was summarized for the final report.

The agreement with the organizers was that I still retained rights to the material and was free to use the material so long as it was advancing the wider goals of the ICT sector.

As a journalist, the right to use materials is of paramount importance. The organization and the author did not have any problem. Nevertheless, the article rightly credited the author and the organization.

Forget about my incident, the question I asked was; what happens in those cases when somebody asks you to do a speech on their behalf, do you still retain the rights to the contents of the speech or not?

It got me thinking...... I think I still retain the rights but if someone paid me to do the speech, then the rights go to them.

But still....I think there is much to be debated....

I think it has become slightly safer for people to talk on phone while walking downtown Nairobi. After seeing their comrades beaten to death over cheap phones, I guess the thugs have changed tact,

But it does not mean that the thieves have abandoned their trade, they have just become sharper; the steal the phones that are more expensive.

My friend Muthoni, made us laugh the other day when she told a story of how the thugs in the estates have leant the value of the phone by the ringtone.

Her story was that there was this woman going home one day in Dandora estate, and she was passing through an alley. It was at 7 pm so there were many people walking to and from the shops, acting busy.

Though her phone was ringing, she could not pick because of the four men who were walking with her group. So the phone annoyingly rung and it was apparent that she was fearing that her phone might just go.

Put off by the ringing or failure to remove the phone from the bag, one guy said; Mama oya thimu ithuii tutiendaga Motorola (just pick up the phone we are not interested in your Motorola).

But if its a Nokia, they know the series by the ring tone and they just kindly ask you to pretend you are relatives and just hand over the phone! They even force you to hug them as they rob you in front of everyone.

Others are able to tell the kind of phone when its in the pocket; depending on the shape it projects in the pocket.

The tips are apparent; don't wear tight trousers then slide the phone in the pocket, unless you want to invite the crooks. If you can, let the phone be on vibrator or the single beep then vibrator otherwise the phone will just go.

I wonder what will happen now that the founder of Oscar Foundation is dead. Just hours after the government spokesman said that the Oscar foundation was a front for the proscribed Mungiki thugs and their sympathizers.

Being a legal foundation- giving free legal aid to suspects- the foundation was likely to attract all manner and sorts of characters including Mungiki thugs and other goons.

Is it a crime to give legal aid to Mungiki suspects? I am not defending the members because they have raped and killed many in my village neighborhood but I also know two young men who have been shot dead and their only crime is peer influence and moving at night. When you are labeled as Mungiki, no one sympathizes.

Mungiki is a Gikuyu word meaning the crowd though there is no proper direct translation. Its use imbues a sense of community and support for each other. It used to be a sect, recruiting mainly men, pretending to practice traditional Gikuyu traditions while in fact it was a gang for hire, thriving on intimidating people by killing those who refuse to join the sect.

It is almost predictable that when the police announce or publish the names of "wanted" criminals, they are only looking for a license to kill, with no questions asked.

Sample this; the police publish the photo of a wanted criminal, that week he/she is gunned down.

It has happened consistently at least since the mid '90s when they published the photos of three notorious gangsters; Wanugu, Wacucu and Rasta. They were later caught and shot dead.

There is no doubt that the criminals deserve to be arrested or maybe die like the many they are alleged to have killed, but is it by coincidence that the criminals are caught and killed immediately the photos are published?

Is it that police tips do not work and the public tips work better, or is it just a case of seeking license to kill?

Now the blame will start shifting over who actually killed the foundation head. I will not be surprised if the government spokesman comes up with a theory that he was killed by a rival Mungiki gang.

And we talk of impunity!