Journal 1: The World of a Communications Intern

Wow. It is really Senior year. I can not believe I have made it this far.

Every day I am struck with this feeling that it is all going to end but I will move on and hopefully change the shape of journalism if I come in and show exactly how skeptical cautious Millennials are.

I am currently writing for both "The Stormy Petrel" and The Source on campus and it is exciting. 

It is very interesting to sit down and write about school activities. I very much enjoy the research aspect of writing stories and interviews.

I find it a little off-putting that schedules don't always work out the way you would like but it is just a part of life. Not every interview is able to work out and compromises have to be made.

Things I have learned already:

• That I love to research fine arts aspects of life (duh!)
• I am growing more fond of light roast coffees
• I still hate how terribly people treat each other
• My co-workers are the most awesome people to deal with
• Non-disclosure forms will have to be signed for an increasing amount of jobs I end up taking
• I should be used to opening the door by now but I still end up smacking myself every now and then when I open the door to Pegasus in the mornings
• The people in Oglethorpe's Communications Department are wonderful and a blast to be with
• We truly are a community. Oglethorpe is it's own little polis if you want to mention the school's core program
• I think better with a little music on
• I probably look crazy dancing in my seat while writing but its fun
• And last on this current list, I need to really find out what exactly my paper topics are again so I can write the papers for this.

I think I would enjoy writing about fine arts as a job but have no expectations other than knowing that I will specifically ask to not be put on a Sports beat. 

I don't know how many people will read this. But those who do, thank you very much. I do appreciate it. This is my little confessional corner for this internship. 

There will be ups and downs and probably a (censored) swear word every now and then but thank you. Hold on. I will try to post more frequently if anyone reads this.

American Libertarian Confessional Wednesday

No one is perfect.

I am not infallible, nor do I have all the answers to all the questions in the world, but please listen to what I have to say.

Freedom isn't free.

Men and Women die every day for our f***ed up political system that doesn't seem to care about them.

There are politicians who would say that a woman has no right to an abortion, or that terminal cancer patients do not have the right to a less painful death, or that adults have no right to consume a variety of substances that, whether we like it or not, are being used and sold every day.

We must face the fact that by waging a war on drugs, we create violence and this helps lose the spirit of our Constitution by slowly outlawing civil liberties. 

I am not usually one to come out and say "TAX IT!", but taxing these currently illegal substances would stop the black market and get people education instead of incarceration.

I'm not saying all the violence associated with the farming of various substances would be eliminated, but also consider this:

 Drug Lords are forced to moved farms whenever they are found out. 

When this happens, thousands upon thousands of acres of land in the rain forests are cut down to replace the old farm land that has now been found. 

Gang Violence associated with substances that can be locally grown, such as Cannabis or certain strains of Poppy, will decrease because their customer base will have fled to the new legal market which is a naturally occurring part of a capitalistic system. 

And, substances that could easily have been tainted would be able to regulated to reduce the risk of accidental death by unknown chemicals. 

As for my comment about abortion:

My definition of an infant is that the fetus is able to survive outside of the womb. 

Until such time, it is a part of the woman's body, and she should be able to choose whether or not to carry the pregnancy to full term.

"What about Euthanasia?" you ask.

What about it? I'm not saying people should go to the doctor any time they want to off themselves, but I'm also not saying that people shouldn't have the right to choose whether they live or die.

"Suicide is bad though!"

It's not so much about whether or not someone who is terminally ill should be able to kill themselves, but about everyone's right to do whatever they want with their body.

We may not agree with that person's choices, but we are not the one's living that path. 

Your body is your own and you should be able to do whatever you desire to it, whether it is fatal or otherwise. 

It may be depressing to family members and/or friends, but it's NOT THEIR LIFE.

We say that we are more humane to people now, but we allow them to slowly rot from the inside out and die painfully or so doped on pain medications that they can't see straight. 

Is that REALLY humane? 

My father  has the degenerative auto-immune disorder called psoritic arthritis, which attacks the body's own joins,skin, and occasionally the muscles with the immune system and can cause a variety of health problems and pain throughout life. 

I also know that I could lose this person to this same disease. 

I love my father very much, and am a true daddy's girl, but I would honor his wishes if he wished to end his pain.

There are people who would use suicide to get away from the world and its every day emotional pains, which can be seen as cruel and irresponsible, but there are also those who would welcome the end of suffering. 

But these are all victim-less crimes (and yes, I know Pro-Lifers would disagree, but here's one more view on it: There are so many children, and so many in the "system", that it is cruel to try and ask someone to carry a child to term when the child is going to possibly end up like thousands of other children. We should try to adopt the children we already have first)

 And, prostitutes having sex for money is another example of a victim-less crime that is illegal for ridiculous reasons. 

I don't know how many readers there are, or how many people even care about what I have to say, but this is my opinion. 

Feel free to respectfully disagree, but realize that we may already be very different. 

I'm a white, middle-class 20 year old woman from the American South who was raised by two atheists who happen to love hunting AND civil liberties, as well as fiscal responsibility. 

My parents are also small business owners. 

When I was born, we lived in a trailer park. No shame in admitting it. We simply didn't have the money to buy a house. 

But as I got older and my dad was able to grow the business, we were able to live more comfortably.

I've been bullied because of my lack of religion, and yet no one paused to think that it is just as mean and spiteful to make fun of the atheist child's beliefs as it is to do it to the Jewish or Muslim kids.

This is a f***ed up world we live in where we can see blood and gore and terrible violence on television, but  hell freezes over at the sight of a nipple, which is a non-sexual organ. It's like getting up in arms about showing a cow's udder.

Our government officials ignore the people and vote for whatever they want, no matter what the people say they desire. (We've all gotten the letter back from our Congressman that says "this is what and why I am voting and you can't change it".)

And not only do they ignore the People, they spend Their money on pork barrel legislation while ignoring the thousands of lines of Legislation already in place which could be picked through and culled to help alleviate governmental debts and pay for day to day funding rather than upping taxes.

This is partially a late night rant because I am bored, but please think about what you've just read.

I really wish that someone will read this and take away from the blog some new information to sway them toward Libertarianism. 

Have a wonderful night.

Katze

Gary Johnson and the Media: Why Americans Should Be Informed (A Theoretical Approach to Viewing the Media)

(Paper was written on May 7th, 2012)

Gary Johnson is the 2012 Libertarian Presidential candidate as of May 3, 2012. Mr. Johnson started off on the Republican ticket, as he was a Republican when he ran and won for governor of New Mexico. However, he switched to the Libertarian ticket because of how the media and the Republican party mistreated him as a candidate. He was neglected by the media for undiagnosed reasons, and was ignored by the Republican leaders until he jumped to the Libertarian ticket which betters fits his views, but not perfectly, as you will later read about. In this paper I plan to use the Agenda Setting Theory to show why the media focused on the more party line candidates. I also plan to use elements of Coordinated Management of Meaning Theory along with elements of Muted Group Theory to show how a societal strange loop is caused by politicians and the media, and how they allow the American people to fall into an unofficial, yet officially supported, two-party system that Americans have begun to struggle against. When only a small portion of those actually running for presidency (in this case) or any political office are shown, the people are limited by those shown choices. Only those people that the media find appealing have a chance to win, because of the coverage and the possibility of the need for orientation of viewers. However, I will also use Uses&Gratifications and Media Ecology Theory to show how modern Americans have the chance to pull away from that repetitive pattern based on the current symbolic environment.

First, Mr. Johnson had difficulty being included in the debate process. He did have some media coverage on this issue on Judge Napolitano's show on Fox Business, one of two Libertarian leaning shows on this portion of the Fox enterprise. But, part of what made things so difficult for Mr. Johnson was not being included in the polls that determine who will be included in upcoming debates. As a result of this, there are very few articles prior to Former Governor Johnson switching parties at the beginning of 2012. There was only one article on Gary Johnson on journalism.org, and he was only mentioned in passing. He was required to have a two percent support when his name was excluded for people to show his support (Johnson). When he was finally included, CNBC changed the requirement that a candidate must attain a three percent support rate in order to participate in the Republican debates^*. This disallowed Americans the ability to learn about this candidate at the same time the other candidates were taking hold, as he was only included in two of the debates. And after Mr. Johnson was able to gain the needed support by the designated date, he was told he needed more followers to join the debate because the new support rate was set at four percent. When Gary Johnson's supporters complained to the campaign law section of the FCC or CNBC about the unfair treatment that by the network's own standards and law is unjustifiable, they received letters similar to this one:

“The equal time law is not absolute. In the 1950’s Congress enacted several exceptions to the law, including candidate appearances on newscasts, interview or call-in programs, and candidate debates. Thus, one candidate’s appearance in one of those kinds of programs does not create an equal time right for his opponents. Despite what CNBC’s website indicates, the bottom line is that they can have whichever candidates they want on their candidate debates, and they do not need to specify criteria. Gary Johnson is therefore not entitled to be included in an on-air candidate debate.

Sincerely,
Mark Berlin
Policy Division (political office)
Media Bureau “ (sn: MotherHeroic)

What makes the situation more outrageous is that CNBC allowed other small candidates to participate, such as Herman Cain and Michelle Bachman, when neither of which have any executive branch experience (Johnson and CNBC). Gary Johnson is a former two term governor who was able to not only bring his state out of debt, but leave it with a surplus budget (Johnson). He also, like Herman Cain, is a successful small business owner. During his college days, he started a one man handy man business that has flourished, and currently employs more than 1,000 people and is worth several million dollars, making Mr. Johnson a self-made millionaire (Johnson).

Now, McCombs and Shaw say in Agenda-Setting hypothesis that “mass media have the ability to transfer the salience of issues on their news and public agenda...(and)'We judge as important what the media judge as important,” (Griffin 378). The Media agenda is based on the patterns of news coverage and is measured by the prominence and length of the story. (Griffin 379). The hypothesis is based around how media effects voter perception,and whether or not a cause-effect relationship exists. If there are any articles about Gary Johnson outside of personal blogs and small newspapers who's editor choose to include Johnson in their coverage, they are often small and simple. This caused Gary Johnson and his supporters to become an Interest Aggression of sorts to the Media. This means that they were forced to take a stand to be heard by the media, and Johnson did this by switching parties¹. By doing this, the media was forced to stand up and look at the presidential hopeful for at least a small portion of time

The CNN article on his Libertarian presidential run is 13 paragraphs long, while an article on the 2008 Democratic Convention is almost twice as long at 23 paragraphs long. Also, there are featured stories on the political ticker for CNN's website. This potential presidential nominee had an article written about him winning the nomination on May 5, 2012, two days prior to when I am checking, and as a presidential nominee you would think he would take a slot in the top stories. However, he failed in CNN's eyes to overcome the CNN Gut Check from May 4, which is the lead article in a conversation that is about the politics of the two-major parties. He also failed to outdo Former President Clinton's “big phone call”, and Perry's inappropriate “'God help us if' Romney doesn't win”(CNN).

State of the News Media helps to collect data on What the media covers, and How Much Time the media gives the topics throughout the year.

Naturally, we will see that the economy is the top story for 2011 since several Debt Ceiling Crisis occurred. Several Middle Eastern Governments have been overthrown in 2011, or are close to being overthrown in 2012; and it comes as no surprise that, as we draw closer to the elections, not only do the candidates talk more about the occupation of the Middle East, but the news media picks up on this as well. The presidential election is third runner up on the list with about four to five percent of news coverage from these three of top news agencies. This topic is of huge concern for the American people, because there is already a high salience with the American viewing audience over the presidency. The president directly affects their lives, and this causes more coverage of the topic, which creates more connection. It's a cyclical process.

Most of the voting population is middle to senior citizen age, and often prefer more traditional means of news media like the news stations. And many sit down and listen to what they are told by media conglomerates about the news, almost to the point of blind acceptance. This causes them to miss out on an entire world of new information. These voters are also impressionable in-so-far as they don't look further than the candidate's media self, and have a high need for orientation due to the continual polarization of two-party politics. The media's agenda excludes muted, or marginalized groups, such as the Libertarian Party, which makes it more difficult for the group's messages to be heard by the American people. And because only about forty-six percent of Americans vote, any marginalized group suffers disproportionally. This creates a strange loop by disallowing new, outsider ideas from being introduced, and keeping the same unwanted pattern of the two-party system that Americans are growing more tired of, as shown by the Occupy movement and their protesting of the government's misuse of power and funds to help Corporate America.

This strange loop is obviously not between any one person or thing, unlike how Coordinated management of Meaning uses the term. It is between Americans, their government, and the media (members of big Corporate America). Unfortunately, it is my opinion that it will be difficult to “mediate” this strange loop. The politicians have the power and the media has the money, and the American people are caught in the middle of a puppetry production from yet another two-part system. Unless the people take initiative (i.e. Occupy Wallstreet or by emailing elected officials), and start being vocal about more than a two-party system, the loop can not be broken. However, there is always the potential to break away from the media's agenda.

The Uses and Gratification Theory by Elihu Katz states that we make daily choices about the kinds of media we consume and the context in which we consume it. Based on the use of the media, we determine the result of consumption, or the gratification. An example of this is a husband and wife sitting down to watch television. For the husband, the hockey game is a welcome addition to his daily entertainment, and he is ready to root for his team. For his wife, it is a welcomed distraction from the disturbing news of an oil spill.

The husband was watching the hockey game for community and enjoyment, while the wife watched to escape. The personal media choices consumers make determine how they will be influenced by that media meaning that media does not affect people the same way. This means that if someone watches the news for enjoyment, they might be susceptible to the media's message more than someone who watches it simply to pass the time.

The uses of news media could be under the typologies, or categories, of: information, passing time, enjoyment, relaxation, escape, or (the pseudo-typology) parasocial relationships. Obviously the first job of news is to inform, but some Americans use the news to pass the time by having it playing in the background, or it helps them to relax and/or “get away”, or they simply enjoy it.

A parasocial relationship is the sense of friendship or emotional attachment some viewers develop with a media personality. This is often a purely imagined relationship, but can influence the way viewers act and spend money even. After “The Fonz” from the series Happy Days applied for a library card, library card applications increased by 500 percent in the United States. Some viewers watch one network over another because they feel more of a connection to one of the newscasters than a newscaster from another network. An example of this in my own life is my choice to watch Fox over ABC or NBC for my local evening news. I feel more of a (unbased) connection to Ken Cook as the weatherman. But because of this possible effect, the viewer might believe what one particular anchor says more than any random anchor. This also means that the power the media holds over Americans could potentially be used to sway the voters to one party or another. The use effects how well the viewer receives the message of the media, which can help Americans break free from the media's agenda.

We are also able to break away from the Media's agenda due to our Symbolic environment. We live in an extension of the electronic age called the digital age, which allows us to move away from the main-stream media agenda and create our own personal media agendas. I was able to break away from main agenda and find information on alternative candidates prior to the debates when there was barely coverage on who would be running for sure. My use of the media technology via the internet was purely for information purposes. I looked at the use of power by the candidates, their political track records, and what they propose to do after their candidacy as a potential president. I found that I agreed with Gary Johnson a considerable amount more than any other person in the running.

My goal was that of a curious American looking to the future, and I was unsurprised by the attempt to suppress the marginalized Libertarian leaning former Republican's views. I was dismayed by it simply because I believe that all view points need to be heard and respected in politics, and it seemed that the only goal being supported by the Republican party was to get more Christian Fundamentalists to vote. I felt this way because several Republican candidates told Americans that “God” told them to run for office, while totally conflicting with one another. God couldn't tell all of them they would win.

Had the Republican party allowed more liberal Republicans beyond Ron Paul into the debate, they might have had a chance at the presidency this time around, because Americans tend to be more socially liberal and believe in fiscal conservativism. But the party refused to speak up for the marginalized portion of their establishment.

I did, however, read an op-ed that helped me to better understand why the party was so quick to dismiss Mr. Johnson. It talks about how Ron Paul is more “consistent”, or as I have come to understand it, he is simply more Christian as well as he does not think about the cost prior to spending, but what he considers morally right. Paul says he's against the drug war, but is against the personal freedom to choose to have an abortion prior to a fetus' ability to be viable outside a womb. And the writer, Tom Mullen, considers Mr. Paul a libertarian, based on how Ron Paul forms his decisions with the non-aggression principle stated by the Libertarian party.

This same article frames Former Governor Johnson as wishy-washy with his foreign policy, because he proposes a cost-benefit analysis approach rather than a “moral” approach or a perfect non-aggression stance to government, because religious values differ and because of that difference, morals differ as well. He believes that: "the War on Drugs should end based on the costs versus the benefits, and that the continuation of this metaphorical while literal war on drugs perpetuates violence (He uses the term “harm reduction strategy” to include not just Marijuana legalization, as he is most famous for supporting, but all substances) (Webster); personal freedom and responsibility should reign over government oversight and controls ; and, we should stop spending beyond the means of our government's budget (Johnson).

The reason why this comes off as anti-libertarian is because it could potentially mean that Johnson's policies might involve military spending as a part of the cost-befit analysis, because he is open to potential situations requiring assistance, but only when asked by a government or potentially the theoretical nation's people for humanitarian reasons. In an interview with The Daily Caller, he stated that he believes that withdrawing the troops from Afghanistan might be the wrong idea, and implied it is because the slowly increasing amount of non-state actor aggression tactics and not any military threats (Weinstein). The use of military force for humanitarian reasons is to leave the option open so that another Holocaust will not occur.

Gary Johnson is now able to get more media attention as a third party candidate, but he is still marginalized. The only recent articles from major networks are about his recent nomination as the party's presidential candidate, with no mention of his Vice Presidential candidate, Judge Jim Gray. Also, his appearances on network television are often with the same libertarian leaning Fox Business hosts John Stossel and Judge Napolitano², or with the satirical newscaster Steven Colbert.

The media has the agenda of money and power, and the Libertarian party is not in power, simply put. And most politicians are there to see themselves reelected, therefore keeping their power. Conglomerations are giant power sources that wish to keep themselves in business, and this has begun to interfere with the ideals of news media. Anchors are to report news in a fair and unbiased manner, but the problem is that they take that to mean the stories they want to show the American people and not what the American people want and need to know. Political interests divide the rich, the middle class, and the poor in America; and the people are not able to create a real political picture if only a portion of the puzzle is given to them. Information can not be spontaneously absorbed from one's surroundings. This causes the strange loop of politics in America that will continue on until a third party is finally able to gain enough “underground” (i.e non-mainstream) political ground that the mainstream is forced to publicize the information.

Bibliography

1. "Meet Gary." Http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/front. Gary Johnson, 2012. Web. 7 May 2012. <http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/about>.
2. Weinstein, Jamie. "Gary Johnson'€™s Strange Foreign Policy." The Daily Caller. The Daily Caller, 9 Apr. 2012. Web. 07 May 2012. <http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/09/thedcs-jamie-weinstein-gary-johnson- strange-foreign-policy/>.
3. Mullen, Thomas. "Gary Johnson Is Not a Libertarian." Washington Times Communities. The Washington Times, 12 Apr. 2012. Web. 07 May 2012. <http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening- liberty/2012/apr/12/gary-johnson-not-libertarian/>.
4. MotherHeroic. "Re: Gary's Exclusion from the Nov.9th Debates." Web log comment. Gary Johnson Grassroots. 7 Nov. 2011. Web. 7 May 2012. <http://garyjohnsongrassroots.com/viewtopic.php? f=10&t=863&sid=2991f287eac84f7684423695b0762425&view=print>.
5. Mitchell, Amy, and Tom Rosenstiel. "Overview | State of the Media." Overview | State of the Media. Rew Research Center, May 2012. Web. 07 May 2012. <http://stateofthemedia.org/2012/overview-4/>.
6. Webster, Stephen C. "Former NM Gov. Gary Johnson: Legalize Marijuana to Reduce Violence." Former NM Gov. Gary Johnson: Legalize Marijuana to Reduce Violence | The Raw Story. The Raw Story, 20 Apr. 2012. Web. 07 May 2012. <http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/20/former-nm-gov-gary-johnson-legalize-marijuana-to-reduce-violence/>.
7. Griffin, Emory A. A First Look at Communication Theory. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012. Print.
8. CNBC. "Your Money, Your Vote: Republican Debates 2011." CNBC. CNBC, 9 Nov. 2012. Web. 07 May 2012. <http://www.cnbc.com/id/45232734/print/1/displaymode/1098/>.
9. Wallace, Gregory. "Gary Johnson Wins Libertarian Party Presidential Nomination." CNN Political Ticker. CNN, 5 May 2012. Web. 07 May 2012. <http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/05/gary-johnson-wins- libertarian-party-presidential-nomination/>.
10. Gary Johnson Big Announcement. Youtube. Google, 30 Dec. 2011. Web. 7 May 2012. <http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=PlBQZolFBC4&feature=related> and <http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=7o3UknQ7Ico&feature=relmfu>

*I was unable to find the network's official requirements on their site. However, I do not disbelieve what Mr. Johnson claims, because I was receiving his campaign emails at the time, and I remember him clearly being excited about getting the first stated amount of needed supporters.

1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlBQZolFBC4&feature=related and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o3UknQ7Ico&feature=relmfu

2Napolitano's show, Freedom Watch, on Fox Business will be canceled. However, he will still be providing legal insight for the media conglomerate.   

It's No Long "Fu** the Police": Technology introduces "Film the Police"

2011 is right in the middle of the golden age of technology.


Social networking sites have revolutionized how news is reported in an attempt to make governments accountable.


Revolutions now start on Facebook and Twitter. 


The Egyptian revolution started with the tweets talking about democracy in Egypt for example.


And the recent Occupy movement worldwide is also another great example of technology changing the news.

The footage from Occupy UC Davis was taken by citizens, and is a great way to hold police accountable for their actions. 

There is now a rap video that parodies N.W.A's controversial "Fuck the Police", and turns it into "Film the Police" by B. Dolan and a variety of other rappers. 

So, next time you feel threatened by a cop for whatever reason, pull out that cell phone, or camera, because the video will be proof.

I leave you with a video that is not about the police, but still applies to our lives. The educational rap made me think of a video my A.P. economics teacher showed my class. Sit back, and enjoy the laughs.

Fox vs The Muppets: Red, Green, and Ridiculous.

Spoof Poster of Twilight for the new Muppet Movie.

Do you want your kids to believe in communism? Well, that's what a Fox Business anchor thinks the new Muppets movie is out to do. 

Fox Business anchor Eric Bolling insists that Disney's newest edition to Jim Henson's long loved muppet series is the newest edition of Hollywood propaganda against consumerism and capitalism because the film's antagonist is an oil baron. 

Collection of Muppet action figures.

"It's amazing how far the left will go just to manipulate your kids, to convince them, give the anti-corporate message," he said. 

Personally, I find that to be totally ridiculous since 1) Disney is one of the largest examples of consumerism and capitalism, and 2) it's a children's movie for goodness sake. That's like saying Beauty and the Beast is promoting Stockholm Syndrome rather than being for pure entertainment purposes. 

It's the entertainment industry. They pick up themes from news around them, because that's what draws sales. Bolling obviously never took that into account. 

Apparently the film does not hit on the good that has come from oil use and drilling, but again IT'S A CHILDREN'S MOVIE. The demographic for the movie is probably between the ages of three and 10. Not everything is made for adults, or is it possible that he thought "The Muppets" were growing up when he did? 


**Images found on Google Images**

Has the War on Drugs Gone too Far?

This is in response to many articles that I have read, but the two (1 link and 2 link ) that were read most recently have me incensed. 

                                                    Illicit Drugs  (Weed, hash,
                                                  acid, coke, and some other drug)


150 drug raids are made every day in the United States.

People's houses are invaded that do not know anyone who does drugs of any kind.

Houses with children present are shot up while police look for the contraband materials, and only enough drugs are found for personal use.

Sound like a 1984, big brother state yet?

America had prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s. Gangs organized, and crime skyrocketed with the introduction of alcohol to the black market.

So who thought it was a good idea to make even MORE substances illegal?

I certainly don't know why we would continue to enforce a policy that creates unnessecary violence, and imprisions millions of Americans on nothing more than the personal use of a substance while on their own time. And to even CONSIDER taking away someone's LIFE for carrying more than 100 doses of a drug is out right crazy.


First off, Say WHAT?! Newt Gingrich, a presidential candidate, signed onto this idea. 


What made him think he has the right to tell adults how to live when it is the government prohibition that started the violence to begin with. 


If there is no embargo, there is no reason for the violence associated with illegal activities. 


Secondly, who decides what a "dose" is? And what IS a dose?  Especially since users have different tolerances and preferences.


I'm very vocal about this cause, because the government is treating adults like they are children by enforcing policies like drug laws, and I personally find it insulting that they believe that they can enforce a moral code that is detrimental to personal freedom. Especially since it is supposedly based in religious doctrine, because not every American is Christian, and not every Christian believes in the drug war. 

Plus, how many billions of dollars does the government spend on the enforcement and imprisionment of citizens? How much money would we actually GAIN if: we legalized; let prisioners with nonviolent "drug crimes" free(i.e. no theft, murder, or any other crime beyond their use); and we sold the drugs and EDUCATED people instead of outlawing it?

Doesn't that make more sense? especially since the US has budget problems since it has been running without a blannaced budget for so long. 

Conflict Diamonds: Americans and the Outside Word

CNN posted an article recently on conflict diamonds that made me think back to my international studies courses and model U.N. conferences.


Before I started participating in those activities, I was unaware of what confict diamonds were. But what I came to learn was terrible.


Many African nations have some form of conflict funding item (whether it's diamonds, mineral ores, wood, guns, etc.), and with every form comes human rights violations.


Sierra Leon is the most infamous case of what has come to also be known as "Blood Diamonds", and has a movie starring Leonardo DiCaprio that is loosly based around events that took place during the civil war in Sierra Leon,  many of the same human rights abuses exist to this day.

An oversight process, called the Kimberly Process, was put in place in Kimberly, South Africa to help end the bloody treatment of men and women in these diamond mining facilities (It is located here because it is funded by the De Beers Diamond company who holds a large percentage of the diamond market).


But it has not worked out as hoped.


The numbers still don't add up with as many diamonds in the market, because the diamonds are easily smuggled into other countries by lack of police oversight and police corruption.


These smugglers can then sell the diamonds, and return with money to fund their activities.

                                           Enslaved workers using primitive
                                           techniques to mine diamonds. 




Did you know that people have been enslaved and forced to work as a diamond worker? and if they don't work as fast as the foreman wants they are either beaten, or physically maimed. 

                                                        A person who has had their 
                                                       hands cut off, because they 
                                                       did not work fast enough.


Unfortunately, most Americans know nothing about these conflict items that help fuel human rights abuse in Africa.


So tell that friend you have that is getting engaged, or your mother who wants a new ring for your parent's 30th anniversary.


It's estimated that even today, with the Kimberly Process in place, that 4% of the world's diamond market is made up of blood diamonds.


Don't help to fuel the fire, and consider other less expensive options for jewelry.


For example, cubic zirconia costs less than a diamond; doesn't look like cut-glass; and, is really just a diamond made in a lab.


So think before you buy this holiday season.


May your breaks be pleasantly warm.


And if you want to know about the declaration of human rights.