Skip to content

Aptitude Results Test

Motivational Qualities Report
Brian Gottesman
We are pleased to present your Motivational Qualities Report! The items in this report are based on results of the 71-question MAPP assessment. You will find your top six motivations written in “I” statements. Copy and paste some or all of the information as a section on your resume.
I derive personal satisfaction from directly helping others.
I desire to share ideas with the intent of helping people.
I thrive on change, and know how to capitalize on it. It is important that I have enough change and variety.
I am motivated to cause good, growth and gain in the lives of others. I am also insightful as to the personality, intentions, emotions, ethics, values, and moods of people. I am effective in helping to develop other employees or interacting with customers
I truly enjoy being part of the team, and will contribute to the team’s success.
I understand the meaning of ideas and words, and use them effectively in written or oral communication. I have the ability to express key concepts.
For maximum confidence, remember to review this information right before an interview!

The New Rules of News Releases according to David Meerman Scott

1) Don’t just send news releases when big news is happening; find good reasons to send them all the time.

2) Instead of targeting a handful of journalists, create news releases that appeal directly to your buyers.

3) Write releases that are replete wit the keyword-rich language used by your buyers.

4) Include offers that compel consumers to respond to your release in some way.

5) Place links in releases to deliver potential customers to landing pages on your website.

6) Link to related content on your site such as videos, blog posts, or e-books.

7) Optimize news release delivery for searching and browsing.

8) Add social media tags for technorati, DIGG, StumbleUpon, and Delicious so your release can be found.

9) Drive people into the sales process with news releases.

So, I Am In A Bind.

So, I Am In A Bind..

So, I Am In A Bind.

I am not sure I could get a tenured track position in a research university due to intense competition for such positions.Plus, in order to get accepted for such a position I would have to be in school for at least 8 years after I graduate seeing as how I will not have the G.P.A. to be admitted to a university which makes it probable that I will get into such a position, therefore, I will have to do more undergraduate work or a masters.Due to all this I have decided to do freelance PR at least a little bit to see if I could be successful in it.

The Syrian Revolution And Its News Coverage

First, as noted in a email obtained by WikiLeaks ( when the U.S, started taking a stronger position towards Syria the media put the stories about this catastrophe in more prominent places. I would just like to say that this is another example of News being influenced by the rich and powerful besides the obvious potential influence, America.

The multinational corporations have a stake in this as well. The Syrian Government is a very lethal enemy to Israel, and has a lot of oil. Therefore, a change in regime can greatly increase the revenue of certain corporations. Thus, making them want to parade what is going on in Syria.

As the saying goes it’s easier to push someone over the edge once he gets into it (not really sure if that’s how the saying goes).

The Effects 9/11 Had On Jews In NYC

The Effects 9/11 Had On Jews In NYC.

The Effects 9/11 Had On Jews In NYC

According to a Wikipedia article titled “Demographics of New York City” “The New York metropolitan area’s Jewish population in 2001 was approximately 1.97 million.” They write before that “The New York metropolitan area is home to the largest Jewish population in the world outside Israel. After dropping from a peak of 2.5 million in the 1950s to a low of 1.4 million in 2002.”

Take into account these statistics when pondering the question has any ethnicity/religion/nationality/etc been as big of a target in New York City as Jews due to 9/11.

My Essay For My Intro To Sociology Class On Power Elite Theory Vs. Pluralism



A theory of the state is an explanation of what causes the typical action of a state. It says what enables and constrains a state, how it relates to and functions in society, who generally controls it, and whose interests it promotes.

A theory of the state is rather abstract, it cannot be confirmed by a single fact but it should be able to generate concrete hypotheses that are empirically testable.

Although a theory of the state is meant to explain modern states of a variety of regime types, it may be able to explain some cases better than others.

Most everyday thinking about governments utilizes an implicit theory of the state.

All of the theories of the state that I will mention here are sociological in that rather than taking the state for granted, they try to explain its relationship to the larger society.

The theories of the state I will mention are descriptive theories, not normative theories; that is, they try to explain what is the case, not what should be the case.

I will mention briefly four theories of the state. The first one is Pluralism. Its theory is that the modern democratic state is neutral with respect to social groups and reflects the input of a plurality of interests. The next one is Power Elite/Instrumentalism. The philosophy is that the state is “captured” (directly controlled) by and used as an instrument to promote the particular interests of the capitalist class or a broader group called the “power elite.” The following theory is Structuralist Marxism. It says that the state achieves “relative autonomy” from the demands of social classes so that it can protect the long-term interests of Capital. The last philosophy is Institutionalism/Statism/State Autonomy Theory. It states that the state is independent, and that it pursues policies that are in their interests.

Here are the basics of Pluralism: it is the mainstream view of democracies. It believes in society there is a variety of interest groups that pressure the state, but their interests cannot be presumed in advance and none has a fundamental advantage in the political process. Pluralism says the democratic state is in principle neutral with respect to conflicts in society. The theory believes politicians gain needed public support by making decisions popular with as many people as possible. The philosophy believes everybody gets their voices heard, although those groups with louder voices (i.e., stronger preferences or better organization) get heard more often.

Here is what Pluralism says about society: There is no dominant class in society. There are no fundamental social cleavages that generate antagonistic interests about political issues. There may be elites in society but they have different, often conflicting, preferences. This collection of diverse elite preferences does not add up to a shared worldview or set of interests that elites would try to impose on the state against the preferences of ordinary people. If there is social conflict over policies that would affect the distribution of economic resources, it does not have to map onto political divisions or be reflected in state institutions. Workers may be disadvantaged economically, but not politically. Social groups that are most affected by a policy and are easier to organize have more influence on the government; where interests are more dispersed (e.g., consumers) there are collective action problems involved in forming political support.

Here is what Pluralism says about the state: In democracies, politicians have to compete for public support. Citizens have roughly the same resources to use to affect democratic politics. That means powerful groups in society will not have systematic privilege in politics. There are multiple centers of power which are fluid or shifting. After the fact, you can see who in society had more power to influence the state by observing who participated in the democratic process. The most influential groups are ones that are better organized and have stronger preferences; this does not mean they have more political power.

Here is Pluralism’s Liberal tradition: Thomas Hobbes thought that human nature made for a “war of all against all” and so people agreed to a state with absolute power in order to ensure social order. John Locke viewed people as more reasonable and argued that in a “state of nature” they would agree to a “social contract” where the state governs legitimately but only if it protects their property and elicits their consent. Unlike Hobbes’ “Leviathan” state, Locke thought the state should be limited and not interfere with private property, which exists “prior” to the state. For Adam Smith, because people were rational and wanted to improve their welfare, they would spontaneously form the market, which would bring the greatest good for the greatest number if the state did not interfere. In this liberal tradition, the democratic state is (and should be) based on the collective will of the people but kept limited and separate from the economy; civil society is made of voluntary groups since the economic structure does not generate class divisions.

Here is Pluralism’s methodology: Empirical evidence supporting pluralist theory would be a correspondence between public opinion and policy outcomes. Pluralism is “empiricist” in that it confines itself to what is directly observable; unlike the other theories, it does not try to go “deeper” by theorizing the social relations that enable and constrain the state. How would pluralists explain cases where the state seems to act against the interests of the majority of society?

Here are the basics of Power Elite Theory: Elite social groups “capture” the state and use state institutions as a tool or an instrument to promote their own interests. The state is not neutral with respect to groups in society; perhaps it is neutral in principle, but properties of the people within the state or their social networks make it systematically favor particular segments of society.

Power Elite theory is non-Marxist because it has a wider, more diverse, conception of who is the ruling class—it includes not just capitalists but upper management, top military officials, individuals with great influence over the media or popular culture, and even the heads of big unions. Ordinary people can sometimes have an influence on the state, especially if the elite are divided.

The Power Elite theory holds that elites or the ruling class exercise direct political control over state institutions, even democratic ones.

            According to Power Elite theory these are the casual mechanisms that allow elites or the ruling class to apply direct political control over state institutions: The social background of state managers and their social networks establish an affinity between their worldview and that of the ruling class by recruiting state managers directly from the ruling class, the “revolving door” between public and private sector, social networks (e.g. universities and country clubs), and favors to politicians and outright corruption. Institutional dependence makes individual state managers dependent on the resources of the ruling class because campaign financing gives the rich more influence, lobbying reflects a logistical need for specialized information as well as pressure from industries with money to spend, and politicians must look good in the privately-owned mass media because the media can shape public opinion

            Israel declared itself a country in 1948. America was the first to recognize Israel. It self- identifies itself as a “Jewish State”. It is made up of roughly 7 million people with approximately 6 million Jews, and 1.2 million Gentiles. Virtually all the gentiles were originally Middle Eastern, and a vast majority of them are Muslim. Israel’s national language is Modern Hebrew. The country has a policy called “Aliyah”, Hebrew for “ascent”, which states that if someone has as much as a grandparent who is Jewish, or is the spouse of a Jew, or a Jew’s child they are automatically a citizen if they so choose. The policy started since the creation of the country, and is due to past persecution of Jews.  

            Many Jews started moving into Israel in the name of Zionism, which is the ideology that started in the end of the 19th century which says Israel belongs to the Jews. They would buy property from absentee landlords, and if people where living there they would usually in the beginning of the Jewish movement to Israel allow them to stay.

            Israel was promised to two different peoples. In between the Ottoman Empire and the current Israeli state the British owned it until for a very short time in where they gave up ownership to the U.N. so they could decide what to do with it. The British promised to give Palestine to the father of the first King of Jordan in exchange for helping fight the Ottoman Empire, which he did. Then after that promise in 1917 the British promised Palestine as a home for the Jews, this action was called the Balfour Declaration. The Jews took this to mean that Israel will be a Jewish country.

 Naturally a conflict ensued. There was a minor amount of violence mainly from the Arabs living in what is now Israel and Palestine towards Jews living in that area, but the major bloodshed did not start till around 1920. The Jews formed terrorist groups in response to an increase in terrorism by Arabs. The Jewish terrorist groups were the Stern Gang, the Irgun, and the semi-legal/Semi-terrorist organization the Haganah. Their goal was to make Israel a Jewish State.   The Jews were responsible for a vast majority of innocent Arab casualties through such massacres as the King David Hotel Bombing, and the Deir Yassin Massacre. They also ethnically cleansed the Arabs from that land by scaring them away usually using extreme violence. These terrorist groups were also fighting the British army stationed in what is now Israel and Palestine in order to achieve a Jewish State.

Before giving the land over to the U.N. the British gave out many proposals on how they should disperse the land, but they were turned down usually by both sides, though sometimes the Jews were willing to accept the offer.  The United Nations decided to give most of the land to the Jews due to empathy for them because of the Holocaust, and past persecution.

The Arabs rejected this. Not only did the Jews accept this, but they claimed that what the U.N. offered to the Jews as their nation. President Harry S. Truman acknowledged Israel as a state right away, and established diplomatic relations with them. Now a vast majority of the world believes in Israel’s right to exist, but not necessarily as a Jewish State. While a vast majority of the Arabic countries do not believe it has a right to exist.

 The declaration of independence prompted Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon to go to war with Israel, and they did so immediately. Israel won the war known to Israelis as the “Independence War”, and to Arabs as the “Nakba”, which in Arabic means “catastrophe”, with little help from the West. The negative outcome of this war for Israel was 1% of the Jewish-Israeli population died, and a lot of the land was damaged including agriculture land which was, and still is a huge source of income for Israelis. The positive outcome for Israel was that it got its independence, and more land then they previously claimed. The negative consequences for the Arabs were that there were now 750,000 Arabic refugees, and that Israel got its independence, plus more land. Depending on who is talking there might have been some positive consequences for the Arab side, such as Jordan getting the West Bank, and Egypt getting the Gaza Strip.

Israel receives a lot of criticism for some of its cruel practices. The bad practices include what many people, including ex-president Jimmy Carter call the “Apartheid Wall” as an analogy to its resemblance to the Apartheid Era in South Africa. Israel claims the wall is being built to deter terrorism, and since the wall has been put up terrorism involving suicide has decreased dramatically. Some reasons why it is called the Apartheid Wall is because they discriminate by usually destroying Palestinian land instead of their own in order to build the wall. Another reason it is called that is because since the wall was up it became increasingly easier for Jews to enter Israel than Arabs, and more and more difficult for Arabs to get into Israel. This causes problems such as having a more difficult time seeing family members, and getting to work. An additional reason it is called the “Apartheid Wall” is because Israel uses it as an excuse to slow down, decrease, and sometimes stop needed amenities from entering the Palestinian territories.

What was just talked about the Middle East can be explained according to Pluralism

When President Truman acknowledged Israel, and established diplomatic relations with them he did so from deeply held personal beliefs, but mostly because he had to cave in due to the response to an organized petition campaign by 33 state legislatures, 40 state governors, a Congressional majority, and millions of Americans who urged him to do so. The methodology used to see if a state’s action supports pluralism by checking the correspondence between public opinion and policy outcomes shows that Truman’s backing of Israel in this case is due to the state acting in a pluralist fashion. Another proof that this was pluralistic is that the group that was most influential was also the best organized, and had the strongest preferences. The reasons why these assumptions that these actions were pluralistic is because it is illogical for the average student to believe this was not representative of public opinion, or that this was not the best organized group with the strongest preferences at that time.

            The methodology would also explain why Israel was accepted as a Jewish State, and as one who grants automatic citizenship to people of its nationality/ethnicity/religion in America. It does so because according to Menachem Begin at the time of Israel’s independence most of the American public was empathetic towards the Jews, and supported a Jewish State that would serve as a refuge for Jews from persecution.

            This methodology could prove why it was pluralism that stopped Truman from helping Israel during the 1948 War. Due to the Cold War Truman tried to maintain access to petroleum resources, military bases, and lines of communication in the Middle East and to deny these assets to the Soviet Union. Due to the Cold War, and his support of Israel he sought to promote peace in the region, and to sustain governments supportive of Western political objectives. Truman believed that continued conflict between Israel, and its main enemies, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia, would cause Arab Nationalism which in turn would cause Arab neutrality in the Cold War, and economic problems for America. It would also be harmful to Israel seeing how in the Independence War it lost nearly one percent of its Jewish population. He thought that if the Arab world adopted neutrality towards the Cold War it would harm America’s interests. Therefore, after the war America tried to promote peace by brokering some of the Armistice Agreements between Israel, and its enemies, and also by becoming an enforcer of the Armistice Agreements.  

Americans supported a Jewish State, but at the same time they were equally against the Soviet Union. Truman listened to the public, and acted accordingly by treating the Arabs and the Jews the same. Therefore, this adds on to the theory that America is a pluralistic country. He did not give financial or military support to Israel during the 1948 War since this would make the Arabs turn their backs to America and towards the Soviet Union. The absence of help to the Arabs during the 1948 War could be explained by his support towards Israel.

This is more evidence that America is a pluralistic country because the American people were overwhelmingly Pro-Israel in this situation, and so was the Administration.

                        Another example of America being a pluralist country is its stance on what some people call the “Apartheid Wall”. A January 2004 ARNSI poll conducted by IPSOS- Public Affairs, one of the largest polling organizations, showed that 68% of Americans agree with the statement “Israel has the right to take action to defend itself by building a security fence, even if many other countries disagree.” Only 22% disagree. The administration at that time joined more than 2 dozen other countries in support of the International Court of Justice not taking up this matter. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) commonly votes against Israeli policies when they are brought into the (ICJ). The ICJ has a large amount of influence in the international community therefore a vote by it against the security fence might stop Israel from building it. A pluralistic America would have supported an action in favor of Israel’s security fence at that time because for a country to be pluralistic its citizens’ public opinion must be reflected by its policies. In this case this is especially true since the odds were over 3:1 in support of Israel building the security fence. America’s action towards the ICJ was done to help Israel build the security fence. Therefore, this was a pluralistic action.

                        The actions of America since before 1948 regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict can also be explained through the power elite theory.  

            Mainstream media is included in this section because the power elite theory believes that politicians must look good in the privately-owned mass media because the media can shape public opinion. Therefore, the elites through mass media can apply direct political control over state actions which is in accordance with the power elite theory.

            According to Noam Chomsky, a political scientist very often cited in scholarly journals about American media and its influence, the elite media controls the rest of the mass media in this country. These media outlets’ reports depend not on their audience, but with who they are in business with. The elite media are the ones with the biggest resources. Therefore, they influence other media outlet’s stories because there is an immense amount of pressure on other mainstream media to copy their stories since they themselves do not have the resources to compete with one of these outlets. This control allows the elite media to shape what the public thinks.

There is an over-abundance of proof that the mainstream media directs the public’s actions. The most familiar one is probably the American citizen’s support for the Iraq War prior to the invasion. A 2002 Pew/CFR poll gives many examples of this, such as that 65% of Americans support a war with Iraq, and 39% of people opposed to war say they would support it if Saddam Hussein refuses to cooperate with a full and complete weapons inspection. More interesting statistics from this poll are that 56% approve of Bush’s handling of the situation, 65% believe Saddam is close to having nuclear weapons, and 14% believe he already does. The reason this relates to Chomsky’s theory is that the mainstream media’s coverage of the possible Iraq War were completely in line with these numbers. Even the New York Times, an elite media outlet, which in a 2007 Rasmussen poll Americans said almost 4:1 that the newspaper had a liberal bias, was overly uncritical of the war.

Chomsky includes Hollywood/Entertainment as part of the mass media, but he does not say explicitly why. Implicitly he says it is also because they cannot compete with the elite media’s resources. I think this is true because for instance if Hollywood tried to base a movie, or issues in a movie of off something they wrote news articles about the film would not be as successful due to that the news articles will not be as popular as one they would normally use.

This paragraph will show an alternative to the pluralist argument for why America accepted Israel as a Jewish State, and one that has the policy of ‘Aliyah.’ It will do this by showing a scenario in which the policies were enacted due to the views of the elite. The American media was very supportive of the Jewish terrorist groups when it came to them being against the British. There were many Hollywood moguls and American professional athletes that supported these terrorists. An example of this is when “A rising young star named Marlon Brando volunteered for the lead in “A Flag is Born,” a pro-Irgun play authored by Hollywood’s leading screenwriter, Ben Hecht, which was staged throughout the U.S. during 1946-1947.” Since the mainstream media, and elites who have a huge impact on popular culture were so supportive of these terrorist groups around the time of Israel’s declaration of independence it makes sense that America would recognize Israel as a country. This is because according to power elite theory politicians base their policies of how the media portrays them, and in the case of elites who have a huge impact on popular culture by getting favors such as endorsements. The fact that the mass media and these elites were in support of these terrorist groups makes it illogical that they would not be strongly in support of a ‘Jewish State’ and ‘Aliyah.’

This paragraph will show an alternative to pluralism again, but this time it will be on why America did not support Israel in its first war as a country, and will only deal with the power elite theory’s mechanism of elites applying direct political control over state institutions because of the mass media. During the time of that war the mass media was reflecting the growing anti- communist political environment. Since the media was a reflection of the political environment one must take into account that although the government was against communism the fact that the mass media and these elites had such strong support for these terrorist groups, and that the public was much less anti-communist because the cold war just started and they were not as scared since America was stunned to find out the U.S.S.R. got a nuclear weapon in 1949 that the media was about equal in giving importance to the Soviet issue, and Israel’s security during the Israeli War of Independence. This theory can be exacerbated by the amount of anti-McCarthyism in the next decade and that the public nearly always viewed the economy more important than the red scare even though they had a good economy most of the time. The media was also still very much pro- Israel.

 The choice Truman made and why he did it discussed in the paragraph explaining why he did not help out Israel in this war through pluralism applies here as well. This is because according to the power elite mechanism between the mass media and policy making if the media places equal emphasis on two things a politician will pick the even ground.

The vote to block the ICJ from ruling on this case by the United States is explained is explained differently by the by two things according to the power elite theory, the public’s perception of Israel, and the terminology to describe the Apartheid Wall/Security Fence by the media. If one were to consider the trend of public and media support for Israel, which was shown by all the previous examples to be positive and if the media uses a neutral term to describe the Security Fence/Apartheid Wall while all other variables are held constant it would be illogical to believe that Americans’ reactions would not be pro-Israel. According to recent research the Apartheid Wall/Security Fence is being described by neutral terms such as “Wall”, and “Fence” by mainstream media. Therefore, this proves the power elite theory is right because politicians would have to support Israel if they want to look good in the media. This is because the media is pro-Israel on this issue, which can be proven because one can assume the media is logical in its rationality, and all of the past examples lend a lot of credence to the belief that they favor Israel in their reporting. Therefore, if the president at the time wanted to be elected according to the power elite theory he would have voted against the ICJ judging this. This is contrary to pluralism because it states media was the reason for America’s decision.

            The mass media played a role in American policies toward the Arab-Israeli conflict. Mainstream media is controlled by the elite, and unlike where pluralism says “There may be elites in society but they have different, often conflicting, preferences. This collection of diverse elite preferences does not add up to a shared worldview or set of interests that elites would try to impose on the state against the preferences of ordinary people.” Close to all if not all of the elites in these cases have close to the same preferences, and imposed them against the preferences of ordinary people. This means that the power elite theory better explains the empirical examples.

Another reason this was not included in the section about how U.S. policies towards this conflict are pluralistic is because pluralism believes that citizens have roughly the same resources to use to affect democratic politics. That means powerful groups in society will not have systematic privilege in politics, but mass media gives systematic privilege to the elite.



  1. Pappe, I. (October 2006). The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. England: One World Oxford
  2. Bard, M. The 1948 War, Retrieved from
  3. (1998). Al Nakba: The Palestinian Catastrophe, 1948. Retrieved from
  4. Palestine/Palestinian Territories of West Bank and Gaza Strip. Retrieved from
  5. Bowen, G. L. (2010). “The Creation of Israel,” The Forties in America. Mary Baldwin College. Retrieved from
  6. Reynolds, P. (2007, November 6th). History of Failed Peace Talks. BBC News. Retrieved from
  7. Begin, M. (January 1979). The Revolt: Story of the Irgun. Israel: Steimatsky
  8. Hahn, P.L. (Spring 2004). Caught in the Middle East: U.S. Policy toward the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1945-1961 (From the Book: Introduction).  The University of North Carolina

Press. Retrieved from

  1. Cavari, A. & Gabay, I. (January 24th 2010). Foreign Affairs and the Local Newsroom: Local Television News Coverage of the 2006 Lebanon War. Prepared for presentation at the American Politics Workshop, University of Wisconsin-Madison, January 25, 2010. Retrieved from
  2. Rutenberg, J. (2006, August 15th). Bush Defends U.S. Handling of Lebanese Conflict, Asserting That Hezbollah Is the Loser. New York Times. Retrieved from
  3. (2010, September 10th). ARNSI Poll-Americans Support Israel’s ‘Fence’. Foundation For Defense Of Democracies: Fighting Terrorism And Promoting Freedom. Retrieved from
  4. Telhami, S. (December, 9th, 2010). Attitudes Toward the Middle East Peace Process: Surveys of Arab and Jewish Opinion in Israel and Public Opinion in the United States. Saban Center for Middle East Policy The Brookings Institution. Retrieved from
  5. Horn, J. (2011, April 12th). Half of Americans oppose unilateral creation of ‘Palestine’. Retrieved from
  6. Chomsky, N. A. (1997, October). What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream. Retrieved from–.htm
  7. Feinstein, L. (2002, October 10th). Most Americans Support War with Iraq, Shows New Pew/CFR Poll. Retrieved from—commentary-lee-feinstein/p5051
  8. (2007, July 15th). New York Times, Washington Post, and Local Newspapers Seen as Having Liberal Bias. Retrieved from
  9. (2008, May 2nd). Authors@Google: Noam Chomsky. Retrieved from
  10. Kidnappings, Beatings, Murders and Hangings: Attacks by the Irgun and Stern Gang. Retrieved from
  11. Medoff, R. (2003, January). Hollywood, Saddam, and Israel. Retrieved from
  12. Rosati, J.A., Scott, J.M. (January 10, 2011). The Politics of American Foreign Policy. Kentucky, USA. Wadsworth Publishing.
  13. Rogers, R. & Ben-David, A. (2010). Coming to terms: a conflictanalysis of the usage, in official and unofficial sources, of ‘security fence’, ‘apartheid wall’, and other terms for the structure between Israel and the Palestinian territories. Retrieved from


A Funny, Inspirational, Upbeat and True Article I Saw.


A few days ago we introduced you to “Texts From Hillary,” a Tumblr devoted to launching a Hillary Clinton-as-Superwoman meme that was probably long overdue, not to mention pretty damn funny.

Well, America’s Secretary of State has apparently been enjoying it just as much as the rest of us as the two guys who launched the Tumblr — Adam Smith and Stacy Lambe — were summoned to the State Department today to meet with Hillary, who even presented them with her own submission for the site.


Reports Politico:

Adam Smith, who created the Tumblr account that has quickly gone viral with his friend Stacy Lambe – both communications professionals based in Washington, D.C. — told POLITICO soon after meeting the secretary of state Tuesday that he was “still in shock” about the invitation to the State Department.

“It was great. She came out, she was all smiles, told us how much she likes the site and that people have been telling her all about it,” Smith said. “She just thinks it’s great.”

Adding even more to Smith and Lambe’s excitement was a submission to “Texts From Hillary” from Clinton herself, featuring pictures of the two men.

“I think it’s hysterical,” Smith said. “I think it’s a terrible picture of me so I clearly need to add a little more privacy and security on Facebook!”

Clinton even autographed a copy of her creation, writing, “Adam – Thanks for the many LOLZ,” and signed it, “Hillary ‘Hillz.’”

Total. Bad. Ass.

Taken from written by CAJUN BOY

A Response To A Question By A Friend

My friend Kieshorne Dennie asked this on Facebook in response to a blog on the Economist: ‎””The United States isn’t in decline”, Mr Mead writes, “but it is in the midst of a major rebalancing. The alliances and coalitions America built in the Cold War no longer suffice for the tasks ahead.” . . . Mr Mead says that the “trilateral system” is in decline. According to Mr Mead, from the 1970s to the early oughts, an alliance of America, Western Europe, and Japan dominated global affairs. Japanese and European stagnation mean that the “trilateral era” is now over” Is Mead right? Is America simply “rebalancing” itself in a “septagonal” world? Or is it just in decline?”

Here’s the link to the Economist article:

I love Mead, but in this case his affiliation with realism is a fault. This is because him being a realist decreases the legitimacy of what he says here because instilling a lack of confidence in another country(ies) is usually be a realist approach when the state is in competition with you, and if in the case of an ally is not in danger.

When he talks about the “trilateral era” being over I don’t think he means the alliance failing, just weakening, since states usually make alliances according to their own interests.

It would make sense for America to want to enter a “septagonal” world since it would allow it to have more influence in the world due to reciprocation between America and these other countries, and also due to America’s financial, and militaristic supremacy.

I don’t know whether America is in decline, but the way to tell would be to compare it to other countries. The most important country that America has to be compared to is China. The U.S. could go into decline due to an increase of power of multiple countries together, but that doesn’t seem as imminent.

One thing I can say that would contribute to that comparison is that China does not seem to want to develop its military for the spread of its ideology, but rather for resources. Also, it does not look likely that China will try to outdo America militaristicly, or that it will seek major sources of resources beyond its region. Therefore, since America for good reasons will not attack China the most basic answer to the question “Is America in decline” will be answered by contrasting China’s wealth vs. America’s over time.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.