Thursday, October 29, 2009

Our Brand Is Crisis

Latin American leaders have been targeted and accused of "anti-americanism" Mark Engler argued that ever since the United States came in power, they have been looking for enemies, and playing the "blame game" with the Latin American leaders.
According to "", "Anti-Americanism" is being opposed to the
government, official policies, or people of the United States. So what the U.S govt. does is to look for the leaders that could threaten their power, and try to get rid of them.In this case, accusing Evo Morales and other new leaders of Latin America of being anti-american is basically accussing him of hating anything that has to do with the United States.
Merriam-Webster dictionary describes "populism" as a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people. This means Morales would also favor the people (like granting them more job opportunities, less taxes, e.t.c), when he becomes president. He (Morales) was accused of representing a dangerous form of populism, which means he woulld probably neglect the people when he gets in power.. And the U.S government did it, just to paint a bad image of the Latin American leaders.
And thirdly, Wikipedia describes demagoguery as a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to the emotions, fears and expectations of the public. All these accusations paint a bad image of Morales, and shows that if he gets in power, he wouldn't fulfill his promises.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Revision Brainstorm

What is my thesis?- A fast Food restaurant can NEVER be a symbol of power, it could be a decoy, to distract people (protesters) from the real source of income (oil companies)...the so-called fast food restaurants are only famous and noticable, but they don't produce much of an income.

"If I hadn't written this, would I have convinced myself of this thesis? What would I be skeptical about?- If i hadn't written this, i would be skeptical about the fast food restaurants becoming the main source of America's succes and imcome. I would have convinced myself that the fast food restaurants are wildly known my the people, so there would also serve as the means of income.
If I hadn't written this, my thesis would have remained thesame, I still hold my arguement.

Does my evidence support my thesis?-.
My evidence severely supports my thesis. I contradict with any author that says fast food restaurants are the main source of income, because I can still prove that oil companies are.

Where am I being vague?-no me!

What have I left out?-. Absolutely nothing, I'm cool, I gave all the neccessary informations about what needs to be known....on second thought, I think I've left out mark Engler's argument, and how basically oppose it, and why I think his argument isn't true.

How can I make what I'm saying more interesting?- I can make whatever I'm saying more intersting by me giving more examples and stories, instead of just emphasizing on my arguments alone, so that my writing doesn't becomes less interesting.
And I would also be giving my works cited.

What parts of the text(s) are important that I haven't dealt with?-
I basically haven't dealt with the fact that U.S closed down about a dozen McDonald's in England, because they were scared of more protesting, and the U.S still struggles with Iraq over oil (even after the capture and death of Saddam Hussein).

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Revised Paragraph

Over the past decades, places that have been thought and seen as important keeps changing. Corporations and big businesses like oil companies have been the primary target for protesters to be rebelling against the United State imperialism. In "Latin America in Revolt," Mark Engler (the author) argued that fast food restaurants is a symbol of America's power, and the main source of income. But McDonald's was never a symbol of the American power. However, as protesters saw that
American fast food restaurants (Mcdonald's) were increasing abroad, they saw McDonald's was the new target for vandalism as a sign of their opposition to America's domination.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Video of Naomi Klein on the Colbert Report

-In this video, Stephan Colbert pretends to defend making money off disasters. Despite his jokes, Klein gets her argument across. Notice the connection she makes to Hurricane Katrina. How do you think this argument relates to our overall course theme of America's place in the world?

-Before answering the question, I would like to say Naomi Klein is freakin' cute...I was expecting to see some old lady. And she must have a lot of guts to expose the American government's corruption.

-That's what America actually do, they indirectly put people in shock, so they can get whatever they want from off the people. The American government sees that whenever people look unto them in the time of trouble, they have a chance to prove their authority, and take advantage to enrich themselves. This is an act of selfishness, and that's how America's place in the world is today. Every international affairs America involves itself with is for her selfish reasons.

Thursday, October 8, 2009


What was your experience in writing the first essay like? How does it compare to the kinds of writing you've done in or out of the classroom before? What do you think would help you become a stronger writer?

My first essay was freaking awesome, I my biggest problem is actually with the conclusion. I always have a hard time writing the conclusions. But whenever I write an essay, I really consider what my arguement would be about. But this essay was alot easier (we didn't' even have to list where our work was cited); in other essays, we had to get the details of where we got our information from.
To become a strong writer, I think I would need to read more essay very often, visit the writting center more often, and probably see Miss Tanenbaum. =)

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Life and Debt

Life and Debt is a perfect example of colonialism. The Jamaicans were indebted to the United States, and these debts kept on increasing. The Americans lend some money to the Jamaicans, and gave them conditions that the Jamaicans wouldn't place tariffs on the American goods being imported to Jamaica, there should be no subsidies, and the Americans also gave some other conditions, so they're products would be cheaper than that of the Jamaicans.
The Americans did all that so they could get the upper hand in the economy, and then dominate the Jamaicans economically so that they could be a colony of Americans.
There are so many forms of colonialism, a country can have a colony through war (violence), while some can have a colony by threats. The most peaceful way to colonize is through the economy.

The Americans had the upper hand, because the Jamaicans were heavily indebted to the Americans, and they were too poor to pay back the money. So the Americans started imposing their own rules and regulations, in they economy. Eventually they gained complete control of the Jamaican economy and used it as a way to dominate the Jamaicans, and be incharge.
Part of the actions that the Americans took was to sell their products cheaper so that the Jamaicans would run out of business.
If the Jamiacans want to challenge it, they have two options: It's either they boycott all American products or they sell their own products cheaper.

The connections between this film and other cluster is "A small place" by Jamaica Kincaid. Some of the quotes in the story were also mentioned in the film, and for a second I thought it was the movies of the book.