Flow

I recently finally got Netflix and have really been enjoying it. Recently, it recommended a documentary to me called Flow. Flow is, in short, about water. As we know from previous posts (here and here) and my attendance at World Water Day a few years back, this is kind of an important issue to me. So I immediately added Flow to my queue. I just finished it this morning and whoa do I have a lot to say.

In short, the movie is about the world water perspective. It's a documentary made up of 16 or so different issues and perspectives from around the world. There's no central narrator. Each segment is made up of interviews. The segments take place in four main countries: South Africa, Bolivia, the US, and India. The segments first cover many different water related topics including contaminated water (like the 20 million people in 25 states in the US who drink water contaminated with rocket fuel), the bottled water industry, the privatization of water, and the effect of damns. It of course gets political and talks about companies involved and the World Bank's influence on the issue. The documentary also shows various grassroots efforts around the world where people have taken on these issues and the adversity they have faced in doing so.

One of the central themes of the documentary is can anyone ever really own water? Historically, water as a transient resource has been the property of no one and everyone at the same time. No one has any more right to streams, rivers, and lakes then anyone else. One particular segment about the bottled water industry in Michigan horrified me. Basically, Nestle came in, set up a bottled water factory and started pumping millions of gallons of water a day out of the local aquifers. At absolutely no cost to them, with a ten year tax abatement, and a 99 year land lease for something like $160,000. They continued to pump at this rate despite a draught and effectively dried up local streams and wells. And they sold the product in the very community they were pumping in. The community saw no benefit from Nestle being there with the exception, I suppose, of the jobs created. Even worse perhaps is a story from India where contracts were signed to privatize stipulating that existing wells and water pumps built by the community had to either privatize (so they could charge people to use them) or be shut down. We're talking about common pumps that provide water to whole villages of the poorest of the poor. Does anyone else feel a little outraged by this?

Perhaps the most shocking news to me is that water is the world's third largest industry. Behind only electricity and oil. If you think water is unimportant, think again. In a way, water is the great equalizer. Every single one of us needs it. In the US, scarcity may not be our largest issue, but there are plenty of other big scary ones out there (like herbicides that cause male frogs to grow ovaries and are banned in Europe, including the country they're manufactured in). If you want more info, check out the Flow website. And please go watch this documentary!

A Deadly Duo

Today, as I was enjoying my cheeseburger and fries at McDonald's (it's a once in awhile treat, don't judge) I realized something that has actually been bothering me for a few months now. It was actual spurred by a conversation I overheard from another table. I give credit where credit is due. Has anyone else noticed that McDonald's is blatantly targeting African-Americans in their ads? I think that every new ad I have seen for good ole Mickey D's in the last six months has featured African-American actors and some version of hip-hop/glam rap. I decided to check this out further and this is what I found.

McDonald's was the second highest spender in targeted African-American advertising from Oct 2006 to Nov 2007, beat out only by Procter & Gamble who sell um...everything. They spent $37.7 million in targeted advertising alone. I also stumbled across some targeted advertising I wasn't even aware of. Since I am not, in fact, African-American this is not surprising. Apparently, McDonald's is specifically targeting African-American women with a branded browser takeover and game on BET.com. Similarly targeted flash ads were also featured on BlackPlanet.com and AOL BlackVoices. As an occasional AOL user and music browser, I can say I saw no similar advertising campaign targeted at Caucasian women. 

Need more evidence? In an article published in the September issue of the American Journal of Public Health, researchers found that advertisers specifically target African Americans with unhealthy food messages. In TV and print, high-fat, high-calorie foods are more heavily promoted to African Americans. Television shows popular among black audiences run a greater number of food commercials than do general-audience shows. And the commercials themselves are more likely to pitch foods higher in calories and lower in nutritional value to black viewing audiences.

And why should we care? As we all well know, McDonald's food is high in sodium, cholesterol, saturated fats, and the especially evil transfat (which the promised to take out of their food in 2002 I might add). Not to mention they fact that their food is low in nutritional value. Even an innocuous seeming salad can have as many as 20 grams of fat BEFORE dressing. Exactly the kind of food that causes heart disease. Some stats about African Americans and heart disease. Blacks are less likely to be diagnosed with heart disease and more likely to die from it.  They are 40% more likely to have high blood pressure and 10% less likely to have it under control. And those African American women we mentioned? They're 1.7 times more likely to be obsese. More likely then who? Non-hispanic whites. Exactly the people McDonald's isn't advertising to. 

Jonas Who?

Do the Jonas Brothers remind anyone else of a slightly more angsty rocky Hanson? For all I know this comparison could have been made, but I'm watching their recent performance on Dancing With the Stars and all I can think is....this is just Hanson redone.

The Big Give: A Show I'd Love to Hate

I decided on a whim to record Oprah's new show, The Big Give. I watched the first episode and am just now watching the second. In some ways, I love this show. In other ways, I hate it. If I could compare it to something, it would be Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. The stories are heart-warming and I cried for full fifteen minutes during the first episode. The show, however, encourages hoopla and showiness about the giving. In fact, the motto of the show is "give big or go home" and contestants on these two episodes have been rated on the "presentation" of their gift.

Some things I like about the show:
1) The show highlights the pure joy in giving. The contestants range in age and background and all of them have no idea there is any reward in it. These people are putting their lives on hold and run around the country, stress out, and give away money. The contestants are so honest about their feelings and their emotions.

2) You can really see how each of the contestants backgrounds and and experiences influence the way they give. Each one has a unique heart for different issues and the second episode does a really good job of highlighting them. It also shows just how easy it is to find a worthy cause to help and support.

3) It shows the diversity of need in our country from the single mom next door to orphaned children. You never know the situations people are living with. So many of these people could be any of our neighbors.

Some things I don't like about the show:
1) It offends my sensibilities to make a reality show/game out of helping others. It's a little showy for me and feels a bit like capitalizing on other's misfortunes. It feels a bit like gawking into people's very private lives and it makes me wonder if they would be willing to share these things on national television if they weren't getting the help they needed out of it. Do I loose my house or admit my vast personal problems to the country?

2) Real people could never give in the way the contestants do. They're given money, cars, laptops, and I'm pretty sure corporate connections. Not to mention the backing of "I'm on Oprah's new TV show, The Big Give." Whose going to say no to that and being featured on national television?

3) While the show does show some worthy charities and organizations, I'd much rather see a show about real people making difference in their communities. Oprah could easily have dumped all this money and corporate sponsorship into already existing organizations and highlighted how great it feels when real people give in ways great and small. Instead of contestants swooping in and dumping in thousands of dollars into who knows what charities and people, we could be supporting great community based grass-roots efforts that are sure to be transformed by a comparatively small investment.

While it has its share of negatives, I think one woman's reaction said it all, "Somebody actually thought that I mattered enough to help me out." That, my friends, is priceless.

If you're interested in watching, the third episode airs on ABC on Sunday at 9pm.

Give the Drugs Companies a Break

This is probably not the first time I will say it but, Congress is nuts! This morning I was enjoying my lunch break (mmm Trader Joe's bean and corn enchiladas) when I saw a Good Morning America spot (I think it was old as this was at 3:30 am) about the controversy surrounding a recent ad put out by Pfizer. It stars Dr. Jarvik, the "inventor of the artificial heart." Apparently, Congress has started a sub-committee to investigate celebrity endorsement in direct-to-consumer drug ads (think Sally Fields and Boniva as well). Way to waste tax-payer dollars.

I realize that the ad is persuasive and plays on Americans' emotions and feelings about heart disease and doctors. I realize Dr. Jarvik is not a medical doctor. I also realize that he didn't even "invent" the artificial heart per say (just his particular version of it). People are complaining that those pitching these ads are not qualified to give medical advice and drugs should be discussed with and prescribed by doctors. Well, last time I checked, they still are. It's not like people call a 1-800 number and order the drug themselves. With the increasing demands put on doctors, an informed consumer is an important thing. And people have a right to now what Pfizer claims (and can back up with research) that their product does.

They also say that people could often get a lower cost drug that would work just as well.
Isn't that the point of advertising? To use whatever means necessary short of out right lying to persuade us that we need this product? While I am in favor of drug reform and would love to see prices lowered and the markets opened up to more competition, especially from foreign drug companies, we currently live in a free market economy. It is the consumers responsibility and privilege to chose. Anyone can request a generic prescription or request a brand name prescription. Pfizer's ads are fine, Congress should not be permitted to step in. It is a doctor's responsibility to discuss side effects, safe dosages, and alternative medications with their patient before prescribing any medication. If that's not happening, it's not Pfizer's fault. We live in a time of tremendously informed medical consumers. If Pfizer wants to provide information, it is entitled to do it in a way that is appealing and persuasive to the consumer. That's the very essence of capitalism. As long as they are not out-right lying (which I don't believe anyone is saying they are), then Congress has no right to get involved. The American people have an obligation to educate themselves. Congress doesn't need to protect us. Adults need to realize you can't believe everything you see on TV. Stop dumbing us down and wasting our money while doing it.

Chavez - friend of the American poor

I recently saw this ad with Senator Joe Kennedy (of the lovely state of Massachusetts). In case you don't have time the watch it, it basically says that Citgo (the oil company owned the Venezuelan people) is providing free oil to those low-income families who qualify for it. My immediate reaction was diabolical laughter. While I'm not so sure about Chavez generally, I think that his aims to help the people of his own country (and now apparently ours) is admirable. The US has used South American countries in a terrible way and I can't blame Chavez for resenting our government for the pain and hardship that it has caused in his country and so many others around the world. We have a history of taking advantage of those too weak to defend themselves and, frankly, I'm glad someone is standing up to us. The ad is also quick to point out that our nation has done nothing to help these people. It's not a low blow. We deserve it. If we can't take care of our own people in one of the richest countries in the world, all our "socialist evil enemies" should step in and do it for us. A quick search revealed much negative buzz, calling the program the "unholy trinity." I say kudos to Joe Kennedy for teaming up with Chavez to get discounted oil in order to give it to those who need it most. Perhaps it's short-sighted of me, but I say screw the political motivations and just be happy that people who need heat have it, no matter how they got it.

Reproductive Outsourcing

A few weeks ago, I happened to be flipping through the channels and for some reason settled on Oprah. The show was about infertility and the segment that happened to be on was on a very new kind of outsourcing: wombs. Apparently, as the cost of fertility treatments and surrogacy continues to rise in the West, more and more couples are turning to India for the answer. I already find surrogacy to be a dubious ethical practice and I was honestly even more repulsed at the thought of paying Indian women to do it for us. Obviously, it's difficult to find people and costs a lot here for a reason. And obviously the reason we're going to India is because it's cheaper and less regulated. Dubious to the second power. What bothered me the most, perhaps, was that Lisa Ling (who did the investigative work for Oprah) worked very hard to paint this practice as empowering to women every where. She talked about how it was women helping women with American women providing economic empowerment for Indian women and Indian women providing babies for American women. In my opinion, it boils down to Americans using their economic edge to exploit those who live in poverty to do something they probably never would otherwise do: rent their wombs. No women should ever have to be forced to rent her womb to provide food and education for her children.

After a little more research, I found out a few important things about surrogacy in India. The industry is worth $449 million in India. Surrogate mothers are typically paid $2500 with the total cost around $6000 in India in contrast with $15,000 in America plus about $30,000 in agency fees. What else makes India attractive? First, there is ready access to high quality health care in private hospitals at a low cost. Second, it has a high percentage of English speaking doctors. Third, India's laws favor what has been dubbed "reproductive tourism." Indian women sign away their rights to the baby as soon as it is delivered and up to 5 embryos can be implanted. (Much looser laws then say Great Britain). Finally, perhaps the most sinister reason of all, there are plenty of lower-middle class women willing to do it. The lure of earning $2500 in a country where the average per capita income is $500 and 35% live on $1 a day or less is just too much.

Despite the many ways that the media and industry try to spin this as a win-win situation, one surrogate mother summed it best when she said, "How else will us uneducated women earn this kind of money, without doing anything immoral?" Other aspects to consider are that Indian women have fewer rights and are often forced to do the bidding of their husbands and in-laws. The potential for women to be forced into surrogacy is great. It cannot be assured that the money made will go toward the education of that woman's children or the betterment of her living situation, as so many claim. There is also tremendous social stigma. One couple interviewed for an article in the Christian Science Monitor moved to a different town in order to avoid becoming social pariahs after the delivery. An article from the Asia Times Online pointed out that in addition to turning to India to answer out customer service calls, the West is now turning to them to have our babies.

As infertility continues to grow, so do ways to get that all important baby. Money is being thrown around desperately. Anytime there is desperation and money to be had, it reeks of corruption. Now that corruption has the potential to be spread to other people around the world. This practice raises so many ethical questions, I can't even begin to wrap my mind around them. A few examples: what if too many fetuses implant and the woman is unwilling to abort and the biological parents are unwilling to take the additional children? who takes the child if the couple is unable or unwilling to do so, such as in the event of death or divorce (which has happened 65 times in the history of surrogacy in contrast to the surrogate trying to keep the baby only 20 times)? who is spared if there is a condition where only mother or baby can be saved? Obviously, all these situations favor the biological parents because well, they're paying good money for the baby and the women is just another poor Indian. While some may be motivated at least in part by altruism, the motivating factor here is clearly financial. No one should have to sell or rent their body to provide a decent lifestyle for their family. How can we be so selfish and short-sighted? Children are important and special, but at what price? There are already so many children in this world without people to love them, so do we really need to go to such great expense and risk just to have our own biological offspring? Renting your womb is not exactly like micro loans here people. Get a grip.

Some Deep Thoughts

Happy Fall! Things have been a little hectic lately, but I'll start with the good news. I passed my comprehensive exam in the 99th percentile! That means that I can in fact graduate in 27 days. It also makes it very tempting not to study any more. Now that this test is finished, I've been doing a lot of thinking and reflecting on the last few weeks. I get pretty fired up about a lot of things. I'm a notorious ranter. Hey, that's why I have a blog. But recently it's gone beyond just rants.

As I handle progressively more acute patients, I often find my head spinning. There is so much wrong in our health care system. Staff are over-worked and unable to perform some of the most basic, important things that every student learns (like checking medication orders). Nurses spend less time at the bedside, providing direct care and more time supervising, charting, and giving medications. It breaks my heart to see the way some people are treated in the hospital. There is no one to blame though. It's not as though the staff sit and around the nurse's station and polish their nails. Every one's working as hard as they can, but you just can't do everything. Health care in our country is politically motivated, it's financially motivated, it's so far from ideal it sometimes hurts me.

On the other hand, there are my classmates, the future shining stars of nursing. I don't want to say too much, however, some seem to have a skewed view of what nursing is. As nurse, you do sometimes have to do things that are disgusting and you do have to do things that could pose a risk to your health. You always watch out for your own health first, however, we learn infection control in order to have a correct and appropriate understanding or infectious diseases and how to prevent them. But no matter what you do, if you choose health care as your profession there is the chance that you will be exposed. It's slight, but it's there. Every profession comes with its own job risks. The risk in nursing is largely to your health. Accept it or move on. No matter what one's view of nursing, whether it's a calling, a job, or a profession, we touch patients. It should be our goal, as human beings, to touch them and treat them in a way that is respectful and dignified. Sometimes, that requires me to change a diaper. Sometimes that requires me to ignore things like dirt, flaking skin, or bad breath. But I do it because that human being I am treating has a right to dignity and compassion. I try to treat every patient like I would want to be treated in their situation, or like I would want my family and friends to be treated. Sometimes that means challenging my patient or encouraging them to do something they don't want to, but it is always with their best interest in mind. I question that motivation in some of my classmates. When we fail to see the humanity in the people that we encounter, we commit the greatest injustice of all.

My recent patients have also been challenging my beliefs about euthanasia and in some ways the very meaning of life. It is so hard to see the value in preserving a heavily medicated, slowly deteriorating life. I almost hate to admit that I ever had such thoughts. I know that every human life has value, that no life is a mistake, and that there is a purpose to everything. It's so hard to watch some one's life break down. To see someone who was once a vibrant person become a completely dependent, helpless thing. To literally watch someone slowly, pitifully, helplessly march to their death all the while expending energy and resources to prevent their body from shutting down becomes so exhausting. I cannot imagine the physical and mental anguish. You don't have to walk a mile in those shoes to know that they just don't want to walk anymore. But for whatever reason or whatever circumstances, I have to do everything in my power to prolong that walk, to slow the march, and, in many ways, slowly torture them. I'm just not sure I can keep doing it. I know I have to and while I think euthanasia is a slippery slope, I wish that we were more willing to challenge families and doctors and institutes that prolong what is inevitable. In the last 10 months I have faced more death then ever in my life and while it is so hard and so painful, it is something we must accept. We can make it comfortable and dignified or we can make it long and painful. Why do we keep insisting on the latter?

Whatever the current climate in health care is and whatever my classmates may due, I am so glad that I know where I want to be and that I can keep challenging the status quo. The only thing scarier then facing these thoughts is reaching the point of acceptance and tolerance of the way things are.

The Health of Our Children

Here's an issue that you may not have known about. You've probably heard of SCHIP or the State Children's Health Insurance Program. It was passed by Congress in 1997 and provided matching grants for states to develop programs to meet the needs of the many, many children in our country who are uninsured. In order to be eligible for Medicaid, families with children under 6 have to make less then 133% of the poverty line, over 6 it's 100% of the poverty line. According to the United States Department of Health and Human services the 2007 poverty line for a single person is $10,210. For a family of four it's $20,650. Um...wow. That's not so much money. So SCHIP is designed to cover the people that make more then that, up to 200% of the poverty line. Because I think we can all agree that $25,000 is not much money to get decent insurance coverage for your two kids.

Currently, SCHIP covers about 4.6 million children and teens. That still leaves somewhere around 9 million children in our country uninsured. And just in case you're thinking about blaming the illegal immigrants, 80% of people in the US without insurance are US citizens. Different states have expanded their coverage to families above the 200% mark and some adults. Other states have experienced short-falls in funding and have had to close enrollment. Obviously we have a problem. So now we know basically what SCHIP is and what it covers. What's the big deal?

The program expires on September 30th and must be reauthorized by Congress. Democrats what to expand the program to cover kids with higher incomes using a monthly fee and co-pay system based on income. Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell wants to expand the program in his state to cover any child that needs it, regardless of income. Those with incomes too high to qualify could buy the coverage at the state's cost. Republicans say this is a sneaky move by the democrats to usher in universal health coverage. President Bush on the other hand wants to cut the program back to cover only those up the 200% income mark. To give you a figure, that's $41,300 for a family of four.

I just don't think that $42,000 if enough to get quality health insurance for two kids. By not providing some kind of affordable coverage, we are simply perpetuating that cycle of poverty and ill-health. We're over-loading our hospitals and ERs and preventing other people who need it from accessing health care in a timely, affordable manner. I don't understand why the government can't see this. I know it's a complex issue, but instead of cutting funding to a program that has the potential to work, why not increase the funding to address the short-falls in some states and to continue to support the expansion of this much needed program? For a more coherent review of the issue, check out this article at thehill.com.

A Recent Conversation on the Price of Gas

Random Friend: my parents and i were just fighting again about gas prices

Me: lol

Random Friend: my mom's like "i just heard they are making $200,000 a minute - this needs to be stopped"

Random Friend: and i was like "yep, you know how you stop it? stop buying it"

Random Friend: she didn't seem to think it was so simple

Me: It's not the governments job to regulate prices

Me: That would make us socialist

Random Friend: exactly, and that's what my dad just said "the government stepped up and regulated utilities in the 80s - they need to do the same now for gas"

Random Friend: and i was like "we shouldn't just sit around and wait for someone else to do something about it"

Random Friend: i'm glad someone's on my side

Me: lol

Me: But I still want to drive to Paramus

Random Friend: exactly

Random Friend: WE ARE SO GOING

Me: lol

Me: I thought so

Random Friend: but see? the gas companies deserve to make that profit because i'm willing to pay them outrageous amounts of money to drive up to see you and then drive up to paramus

Me: Exactly. I 100% agree

Me: In fact, if you really believe in capitalism (which I don't necessarily), kudos to them for charging so much and making so much

Random Friend: exactly!

Random Friend: that was my point

Me: And and! The rest of the world pays this much all the time

Me: The oil companies are just "living the american dream"

Random Friend: i know! lol

Random Friend: which is why america sucks

Me: Preach it sister

Random Friend: don't blame the oil companies

Random Friend: blame america

Me: You should have Jon Stewart's babies
Random Friend: i know!!! god i want to!

The Globe Better Put on its Mittens!

In light of the coldest Easter in fifteen years or something, I thought I'd post on Global Warming! How appropriate. This was the last article I expected myself to post because I'm generally a pretty staunch supporter of global warming. Mostly because it's decent science and it makes sense. This theory, however, also makes sense. I go agree with one of the comments made that we can't completely dismiss global warming because really how can millions of people producing carbon gasses not have some kind of effect on the environment. So the Caitlin solution to climate change? Keep implementing policies to limit carbon emissions because really, what can it hurt? But keep researching other explanations as well. That's my two cents.

Weekend Plans!

Short and sweet post. This Thursday is World Water Day! There are events on both Thursday and Saturday. You should check and see if there are any in your area. I'm going to be attending the Philadelphia Walk with Kim. You should check it out and even if there's nothing in your area you should do the virtual walk. Or just get some more info about the world water crisis! Another great site for info is Blood:Water Mission. Just another little way to get involved in make a difference.

Not a Laughing Matter

I was checking on BBC this morning and found out that our president is currently on a tour of Latin America. This inspired a few articles on BBC about the state of things in Latin America and how our foreign policy has impacted those things. Basically, we've lost all ties to our southern neighbors and by our war in Iraq have driven up the price of oil in Venezuela, not exactly out closest allies, and put them in a position to control the price of oil from now until kingdom come. We're talking more oil in Venezuela then all the countries on earth combined. Let me shake your hand, Mr. President. Said country has also formed an alliance with Cuba and Haiti (two more US foreign policy failures) and meanwhile, China is making buddy buddy with Brazil. Whoot.

Speaking of Cuba...did you know that the infant mortality rate in Cuba is two times lower (at 7 per 1,000 births) then it is for African-Americans (at 14 per 1,000 births) and that Cuba has the lowest HIV infection rate in the Western Hemisphere and all those Cubans that do have HIV receive Cuban produced HAART (highly active anti-retro viral therapy) at no cost. And! As if that wasn't enough to make us look like idiots, most Cubans receive better health-care then do our own citizens who live in Washington, D.C. right under the noses of our fabulous law makers. Huh. And all this in the face of an illegal and intense embargo from said "most powerful nation." This info was taken from Pathologies of Power by Dr. Paul Farmer, whom I just had the privilege to hear speak at Seton Hall. This info is heavily cited in the extensive notes and references section of the book, in case anyone is interested.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.
Here's the link about Venezuela and oil.
Here's the link about the current state of Latin America.
And finally, here's the one about Brazil and China.
Finally, here's my favorite quote from this article on different views on Bushes visit:
"What has President Bush done for Latin America in the past six years? Let's see. He accepted the overthrowing of an elected government in Venezuela - the US was the only country in the hemisphere to do so, and then looked ridiculous when Chavez regained power. He is building a fence with Mexico. He keeps an illegal embargo on Cuba. He supports a government in Colombia that has alleged links to paramilitary groups. On and on we can go. We are poor in Latin America, but wise enough to know that this US president is no friend of ours."
Agustin Yerovi, Montevideo, Uruguay

Huruma at it's Best

Just a little quote from our former President Bill Clinton in his acceptance speech for an award from Africare. Clinton stressed that "you don't have to patronize poor people; you just have to empower them." Addressing the need for new attitudes towards African aid and development, he called for the United States to ask what we can do "with Africa, not for Africa." Ahh so refreshing that someone in this country is capable of intelligent foreign policy.

NPR=Love

A friend just sent me this great NPR piece on Christianity. I've heard the idea of the southernization of Christianity before and experienced it myself in Tanzania. I'm sure many of you that have traveled below our lovely equator have experienced many similar things as Philip Jenkins discusses in this interview. I think we could all benefit from being aware of what's going on in the world, especially when it comes to our faith. Listen. Enjoy. Tell me what you think. Thanks Rob!

Diamonds Simply Aren't a Girl's Best Friend

Ever since my trip to Tanzania and rooming with my dear friend Kim, I have become very convicted about diamonds. Blood diamonds. Conflict diamonds. Diamonds in general. They're so...artificial to me. We've created this equation that says man+diamond=happily ever after. The sad fact is that in many diamond producing countries man+diamond=death, starvation, relocation, or suffering. I know that I would not want to walk around with something on my finger (especially not if I live in Africa someday) that symbolizes generations of pain and suffering and white domination. Not to mention the fact that diamonds are not even that rare or that valuable. Debeers just holds back their stock to drive the price up. If you've ever had any doubts on the issue just check out this article on allafrica.com. You can find out more about the movie at its official site. You can also get more info from Amnesty International (just type conflict diamonds into the search bar on this site and you'll get even more results) and Global Witness. Law & Order even touched on this issue in last season's "Solider of Fortune" episode. This is truly a human rights issue that affects every one of our lives. We do have the ability to make a change in people's lives. I know it's a lot of links but click them! Do the research. Be informed. Make a stand. Whatever you decide to do, don't be content with ignorance.

How could they?

Immigration is a very politically, and sometimes emotionally charged issue in this country. I know how I feel, and I'm sure you know how you feel. But regardless of how you feel, this article has to break your heart. I'm afraid that as a nation (and when I say nation I mean white nation) we're starting to become almost fanatical about preserving ourselves from the outside invaders. And we're willing to go to great lengths to remove them. Personally, I just don't see the harm that these people, illegal or not, have on our nation. They are simply looking for the same thing we all are. A better life for themselves and their children and their families. And they work harder then any of us ever have to get it. Yes, I suppose they do sometimes but a strain on our social services system, but if we all weren't such tight wads and looked out for the good of our fellow man as we should, that wouldn't be such an issue. I read another blog on this article in which the author was cheering the increase in wages. But what about all those business that are going to have to close now because they don't have anyone to buy their products? I'm not an economist, but I don't know how anyone could possibly look at this as some sort of victory. What happened there is a tragedy. It's sad, it's awful, and it makes me want to cry. Just another reason I'm not proud to be an American.