demagoguery

the accusations that these new leaders are facing in latin america are ones of a paranoid U.S. government...what these accusations mean is that the exploiters of these countries are pretty upset with the new conditions and policies put into place by leaders like Morales...the idealogy of populism is defined as "A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite" which sounds pretty accurate when speaking on the people of latin america... so this accusation is actually an admittance of exploitation by the accusers...anti-americanism is the term used by this 'elite' class in describing the people who are fighting back against a long history of neoimperialism that has been occuring since the monroe doctrine...the term demagoguery is often used in describing a manipulation or distortion of the people by using prejudices often described in the tactics of Hitler or Stalin...the reason this term is used here is to make out these latin american leaders as if they were manipulating their people with lies about the United States...if truely these leaders gained power based on the masss' prejudices then they must hold some truth to them....the way Morales nationalized oil and gas is a way to keep the U.S. out of their business but some describe " a country that is nationalizing, or, if you prefer, stealing, foreign-owned assets.....(282)" is the way that the ELITE class of corporations see this new revolution of deglobalization

STORM IN MY BRAIN

WHAT IS MY THESIS?
As the world may have realized, the U.S. uses both imperialism and globalization in order to mantain its position of superiority in the global community. Though it may appear that these forces may come into conflict, nine out of ten times they work together.
CONVINCED MYSELF OF THIS THESIS?
In the second paragraph it is clear that is the direction this essay is going towards. Connections are made between both in every supporting paragraph even if it seem unnecessary sometimes.
DOES MY EVIDENCE SUPPORT MY THESIS?
Don't know why else it would be there...but if it doesnt support it directly then my evidence highlights a point that is relevant to the development of my thesis/arguement.
WHERE AM I BEING VAUGE?
Most likely in the introductions of my quotations or my explanations that follow them. This is probably because I didn't want to dwell on the actual citation but the point it was supporting. I reasoned that it was obvious how my quotes supported my arguement. . . .but clearly not the case
WHERE IS MY READER CONFUSED?
Hard for me to say because when I read this paper I'm not confused but I guess it can go back to the explainations of my quotations. Some of these concepts may not be THAT easy to grasp so i guess I should spend more timing "babying" my reader.
WHAT HAVE I LEFT OUT?
Limited sources limit the flow of my arguement. The fact that this text has to be used forces my paper to flow in a certain direction... but since I am not an acceptable source of citation or information I guesss I left out REAL citations and sources.

Testing quotes, not exactly a REvision

Following the tragedy of September 11th, the Bush administration had formed policies that weren't exactly favorable to our idea of freedom. It is clear that everything changed after 9/11, but some of these changes were less visible to the public. The government allowed itself "...in the aftermath of 9/11 to dramatically increase the policing, surveillance, detention and war-waging powers of the executive branch" according to Klein on the bottom of page 298. Without this sense of shock that the population was experiencing, the need for the government to "stop talking and start doing(299)" would have never exisited. This allowed the government implement new stratgies without any open debates basically giving them the power to conduct business in national security as discreetly and as profitably possible. One example would be instead of analyzing what were the flaws in the security system operated by the government, they were considered flawwed and discarded as such, allowing all money for improving such secuirty to be thrown at private corporations to do the governments job 'more efficiently'. What allowed this to happen in the plain sight of the public was the addition of the department of homeland security as a 'branch' of government. The common misconception is that this branch of the goverment is run by the government when in reality we "have corporatism: big business and big goverment combining their formidale powers to regulate and control the citzenry.(307)"

ENGLER&KLEIN

I think that Engler is trying to say is that this shock doctrine that Klein speaks of is only relevant in the United States. What I mean by this is that the "shock" of 9/11 was used to mask the governments intention's to it's citizens, but not to the citizens of Iraq. The foil that he speaks of is that this doctrine she speaks of had no type of effect on Iraqi resistance. These people knew right away why the most "powerful" nation in the world was "helping" their country. It wasn't to setup a democracy for the interests of Iraqi citizens but for the interests of our big government and our big corporations. But it isn't the first time this part of the world has been invaded for profit and is the reason that Iraqis are "unshocked' by the type of actions our government has been taking. This motivates Iraqi resistance because they are the ones who can clearly see our government isn't doing ANYthing productive for their country. This further implies that the United States is still the biggest bully in the world with no shame in our game. The government just tries to cover it up with our citizens in order to prevent social uprisings, they don't care what the world thinks because they're not the ones keeping them in power, it's the deceived population of our nation that allows for such immoral capitalism to continue in the world....

colbert&klein

The video turns this serious matter into a pretty funny situation. This relates to our course theme in a few ways. Our cluster is called America in the World and the way the world views the United States. This is relevant because her opinion, although researched and very detailed, is the belief of many in the global community. The actions of our government is what develops worldwide prejudices and resentment towards all Americans. The connection is that our government will not get involved unless the government or big corporations can make some money off of it. This is true in many cases throughout American history and Klein just sheds some light on how it operates in plain sight.

Shocked? not reallly...

The shock doctrine can be interpreted in a few ways. Predominantly, it all comes down to this war on terrorism that we are still actively engaged in despite having achieved most of our "goals" in the mideast. By goals I mean the exucses that were used to justify such militant action against Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran. The initial terrorist acts of 9/11 is what allowed this shock doctrine to work its path through the privatization of government agencies and the neo-colonialism of the middle east. The SHOCK, was the idea of protection from terrorism used to manipulate national securitity and immigration policies favoring big corporations as well as privatized government. These unheard of policies allowed for the violation of privacy and permited the executive branch to conduct itself in anyway it seemed fit in order to protect the country. What should be more shocking is the fact that the Bush administration used the war on terrorism to maximize profits and mantain the battle to keep it an open market. Cheny's famous 1% doctrine claimed that if there is a 1% chance that something is a threat, it requires the U.S. to treat it as if the threat is 100% real. This is the doctrine that is most shocking and was the justification of the War in Iraq. The war on terrorism can never be won, but if the idea and fear still sits in citizens minds, the government will continue to use this as an economic oppurtunity to further personal interests of those in positions of power.

BULLLLLLLY

When first entering the class I was expecting a more formal breakdown of world history. I actually thought that this class would show what the world was like prior to American exisitance, and then show the effects that the U.S. had on the rest of the world once it became recognized as a part of the global community. This idea definetly stems from the infamous worldwide hate that Americans have generally accepted as common. I want to learn more about the inconventional methods that the U.S. has used to force it's influence on other nations. I also wouldn't mind to learn a bit more about our capitalist society that is clearly the downfall of our current global economy. My thoughts still lean to Dr. King's interpretation of the United States government. This is not a opinion based thought. It is clear and apparent throughout "our" history that we unfortunately are and have been the most violent bully in this world.