found the Giddens essay to be my least favorite essay on globalization so far. I’m starting to get a bit annoyed by all of the authors making up their own terms for things. Radicals and sceptics can be called pro and anti globalists. I found the author’s argument about how he feels that national political leaders are losing power very interesting. This contradicts Friedman’s essay about his self called (again annoyed) “super-empowered individuals.” Like Friedman stated, the US shot 75 missiles at a single person. To me this shows that his view on national leaders losing power to be a false one. What I found even more interesting was the fact that the author mentioned these powerful individuals in his essay. The author talks about Nelson Mandella and how his image is more well known to us than our own neighbors. This again shows how these political powerhouse individuals (my own term) are gaining more and more power. If I recognize a man thousands of miles away better than my neighbor William who lives 500 yards across the road, obviously individuals can still find power in today’s world. In all fairness, I believe the author did make some good arguments for globalization and I found his statistics about global income well presented and the most interesting part of the essay. I agree with his arguments about how globalization is changing the world technologically, politically, and technologically as well as economically. Yet again, what I don’t understand is why he believes individuals are getting less power in today’s world.