This post is part of our Money Face-Offs feature. Let us know who you think comes out ahead in this head-to-head match-up, and check out our other Money Face-Off posts.

In October 2005, I went to hear Bono, the lead singer of rock band U2 and global poverty-fighter, at New York University. He wasn't there to sing, although he was met outside the door by a crowd of adoring fans. He was there to advocate for the world's poor, sick, and hungry, sharing top billing with renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs.

During his talk, Bono explained how Sachs was his mentor, teaching him about the roots of poverty in the developing world, traveling with him to Africa, and convincing him it was possible to end global poverty. But lately, he lamented, when he called Sachs, he was told, "Sorry, he's with Angelina Jolie."

That line brought down the house. At that point, film actress Jolie was just coming under Sachs' tutelage. She was an increasingly important celebrity advocate for the poor, but she had nowhere near the creds of Bono, who was that year nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize and named Time magazine's person of the year.

Fast forward two years and the picture has changed a bit. Bono is still large on the world stage as a humanitarian, social activist and rock star. But Jolie, in large part due to constant media focus on her relationship with actor Brad Pitt, has lately become a more prominent fixture in the news media.

Jolie has been a Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations Refugee Agency since 2001, but her involvement with Pitt starting in 2005 has increased her influence. Marketers now rank her among the most influential celebrities in the world. She has been photographed repeatedly on UN missions to Africa and Asia, adopting three children from Cambodia, Ethiopia and Vietnam.

Google (NASDAQ:GOOG) has been a target for a number of internet privacy groups who feel that it keeps personal data on users for too long. Google argues that having the data helps deliver better search results. Plus, the company decided to cave into pressure and agreed to keep data on individuals no longer than 18 months.

Now, Google want to be out in front of the drive for Internet privacy. It is an unlikely about face, but it is one nonetheless. According to the Financial Times, Google is "calling for new international laws to be set up to protect personal information online." It wants a body like the UN to draw up the rules.

Google's position is clearly one that it would rather not be forced to take, but it is making the best out of a bad situation. Clearly, the more data a search engine has, the better the results. This allows for better text ad targeting and better profits. Now that Google has purchased DoubleClick the use of data collected from users is even more important to get good results for display ads.

But, Google has to protect its image and so instead of just going along, it will lead the parade.

The company may figure that if it take a central position in drafting new rules so that it can at least slant them a bit to its advantage. It is not being helpful for nothing.

Douglas A. McIntyre is a partner at 24/7 Wall St.

For just a moment, let's try to forget the perceptions we have in our minds of a barren, desolate Africa. Sometimes it is easy for us to forget that there many areas on the African continent that possess great wealth in natural resources, but the Chinese aren't forgetting. China has been making big moves into the continent in pursuit of natural resources, mainly oil, to fuel its growing demand.

I ran across a great article today over on The New York Times online regarding the growing interest China is paying to African countries such as Sudan. Sudan is one of the countries in Africa that has a sizable amount of oil resources, but so far has yet to be fully developed. The question is why? Why is it that in today's world, where oil seems to be the most important resource for developed countries, there are places like Sudan not being developed?

After all, it was only just a little over a week ago when Russia went so far as plant its flag under the North Pole, but has not gone into Sudan. Why? The answer is that countries like Sudan are viewed (and arguably correctly so) as being too volatile for a country to set up shop. Civil wars have gripped the region and corruption is assumed to be fairly widespread.