Economic Hitmen

The way America has developed countries through capitalism has essentially robbed them from the freedom and ability to ever be self-sustainable. By seeking out countries that have resources that we want or need, we instead of giving them a loan from the world bank, we use the money to build industry and infrastructure in that country to "help them get started." But when lack of human labor or education provide less-than-necessary means for supporting and growing these businesses, the country goes into debt and is forced to sell the few assets they have back to America to pay back the debt that they "owe." This vicious cycle repeats itself and causes poverty and a large disparity between classes (rich vs. poor).
My emotional reaction to this video was not very dramatic; I am aware of the ways that capitalism, and particularly capitalism injected into third world countries, can do more damage than good. The cycle of selecting countries to support or build up as a disguised means of helping them essentially robs them from the success they may or may not have by developing industries that are plentiful and beneficial for that particular country.
My intellectual response to this video is that America needs to stop seeking out poor and weak countries to "create from the ground up." By controlling the infrastructure of an entire nation, American leaders and CEO's can take advantage of the resources available by giving the country's leaders bonuses and making deals that they can't refuse. In this way, our oil companies control the amount of oil that is produced as well as the price that we are willing to pay a developing nation for their oil. These oil companies that make up a large part of the infrastructure in developing nations don't provide enough jobs in relation to the nation's population, and therefore only benefit a few people. However, the interesting aspect of this type of development in countries is that it happens on a smaller scale than any of the trade that goes on in America, but is still very powerful in using resources and exploiting the vulnerability of these weak countries. As the pie chart in the NPR article shows, America's number one supplier of oil is ourselves, with only 10.3 % from Africa and 12.9% from the persian gulf.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/24/574161/what-five-oil-companies-did-with-profits/
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised

What does it mean to be a Terrorist?

There are many conflicting and contributing factors that make up what I believe constitutes the title of "Terrorist" for an individual or a group of people. While researching the various types of terrorism, both domestically and internationally, as well as contemporary versus historical terrorism, I was surprised by the information that is available and spread on the internet about this controversial subject. My initial idea of a terrorist was skewed and shaped by my age and moderate-conservative upbringing. While I do not consider myself a die-hard advocate for the government action against terrorism recently in international affairs, I grew up believing that Islam is a dangerous and violent religion, that Muslim people had generally poor views of Americans and their values, and that terrorists were only out to strike fear into entire countries over large disagreements such as starting wars or exploiting resources. I grew up believing that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were one of the greatest attacks on American liberty and safety. However, I was very wrong. I did not know about the "terrorism" that was used by Patriot soldiers after the revolutionary war in the northeast before they returned to England. When researching more modern domestic terrorists, my surprise when learning about the Animal Freedom organizations, UNABOMBER, and various Marxist anti-government organizations turned into suspicion. If these groups of people are defined by their extreme views and violent actions because of these views, virtually every war could be claimed to have been started by terrorism. And if terrorism on an international scale is in question, what is different about terrorism than staunch patriotism? While I don't believe that terrorism is warranted in any situation, the further I researched into the information was provided, the more convoluted my definition and idea of what a terrorist is became. These images do not reflect my personal beliefs, but do pose controversial questions about the way people are labeled as terrorists based on their crime, age, race, religion, and other identifying traits.

The youtube video is a trailer for the highly successful film Zero Dark Thirty, which describes the search for Osama Bin Laden as "The greatest manhunt of all time." This movie not only depicts terrorists as extraordinarily dangerous, but total enemies to the US and people that are acceptable to torture, capture, fear, and ultimately slaughter. The American CIA agents in the film are depicted as heroes with unwavering faith in their cause and their means of finding and killing Bin Laden. But is there ever a way to stop terrorism without walking close to the line of participating in it?

Introduction: While democide is a fairly recent term used in the global conversation on the prevention and types of genocide that have occurred throughout history, events such as the Holocaust, Mao's famine, or the current argument on gun control are clear examples of genocide that was supported or aided by a government, in the effort to exterminate or severely weaken groups of people with particular political viewpoints or influence. This presentation shows my understanding of democide and the repercussions I believe it has had on the world; and maybe most importantly, a way to stop it. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1D8bncrTlwQ5HN1CiImaJ0n_QE5HuAP3neWRK-p7iJFE/edit#slide=id.gb6b36cab_00

Six Companies Compete for World Domination

In a world, where six companies control 90% of the media that is accessible from every continent, updated every second, and available to less than half of the population, consolidation is the buzzword of the century. Sound like a horror story about the future of our technologically advanced, globalized earth? Think again. This is in fact the reality of our world, little known to most of its growing population of 7 billion (World Bank). As reporters from Forbes and Business Insider sound off on the pattern of amalgamation between the most rich and therefore powerful companies, the shocking truth about the hierarchy of power within business and the media is revealed. While Forbes' report on "The Four Companies that control the 147 Companies that Own Everything" makes little sense to the average american, due to foreign economic terms, one can gather much of the necessary information which is being shared from the title itself. These four companies, of which are all "indexers," have the power to crush or elevate a business by placing it as more valuable within an index, and therefore increase the value of that company's stocks, and the rest is history. The frightening reality of how much power rests in the hands of companies that control world economics based on the exchange and value of invisible money reveals the downsides of globalization. While trade, business, and communication between nations has grown exponentially, the inevitable growth of control of businesses has reduced the "free market" to essentially serving any one of four masters. The less companies that control world finances, the greater the chances of more consolidation are. Consolidation in itself is not a bad thing, and can streamline and focus a business to offer better products, be more competitive, and create more jobs for potential employees. However, with consolidation means that the overarching economic trends of our world are controlled by less and less people. If this pattern continues, we will reach the point where two companies are fighting to control world economics, and could easily lead to corruption within every business exchange, as a means to gain more power. Now these are the facts of the world economy, which few Americans realize or understand. But stepping a little closer to home, with an issue that many Americans have raised complaints about, is the shrinking amount of control in the media by various companies. The information shared with you above is available to anyone with an internet connection and a web-browsing device. However, even the website that this was shared on is essentially owned by one of six companies that control 90% of the world's media and news. That's like living your whole life only living with, talking to, and working for six people. And as time goes on, some of those six people buying each other out, and shrinking the circle. Clearly, humans have made advancements in technology and communication that has benefited people all over the world. But as we continue to progress in certain arenas, our choices in our consumption of media is greatly limited because of the struggle for power that our capitalist country has encouraged. These six companies are GE, News-Corps, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, and CBS (Business Insider). These companies own and control most of the media that is consumed around the world every single day. While the likelihood of this pattern of consolidation to stop or reverse is slim, being aware of the limited choices we have is valuable for understanding the nature of modern media, and the direction of the world economy. Sources: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brendancoffey/2011/10/26/the-four-companies-that-control-the-147-companies-that-own-everything/ http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6 https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=world%20population