Yes, this sounds like some scene from 1984. No, you should not be scared. You gave them all the information beforehand anyways.

We’re talking resumes here. And many people, when it comes time to find a new job, are unsure of how to craft their resume in a way that makes them extremely attractive (in a professional sense of course) to these employers.

That’s why Teresa Buckley and James Odato from the Times Union spoke to students at UAlbany last Wednesday night. Buckley, the executive city editor for the Times, and Odato, a capitol bureau reporter, talked to Prof. Michael Huber‘s (also of the Times Union) online journalism class during their last meeting of the year, giving advice on how to write the resume and find employment in an increasingly competitive job market.

When resumes come in to the Times Union, Buckley is the one who reads them over, finding perspective candidates amongst the piles of papers, resumes, and writing clips. Reading so many resumes can become monotonous and boring without a doubt, so it’s necessary to make your resume stand out from all the others if you want to be considered. But how do you do that?

Buckley recommends using strong verbs. “Cut out all the fluff. No adverbs, no adjectives. Use action verbs.”

Another major part of the resume, especially for journalists, is including several writing clips, preferably ones which have been published. According to Buckley, experience is extremely important to have under your belt, as it shows your potential employers that you can handle writing for a newspaper.

Not as important, surprisingly, is having a degree in journalism. Buckley can recall dozens of people she has hired who had little or no university level schooling or instruction in journalism.

“It’s about having a drive and a passion,” said Buckley.

“There’s a certain type of character or mindset that a reporter has. That’s what I look for. You need hands on experience to really get the feel of journalism. Some of our best reporters have had college degrees in all sorts of different fields.”

Odato, who has spent the past thirty years reporting on government and politics in New York State, reiterated Buckley’s statements, also pointing out that experience was key in finding employment in the world of journalism.

Picture of James Odato. Obtained from his online page at timesunion.com

“It helps to show that you know what you’re doing and that you know the elements of journalism and writing.”

Of course, now with the realm of online journalism becoming ever more popular, journalists must not know only how to write, but how to use many different computer programs and features. Writing online is more interactive than a newspaper and knowing HTML code and how to embed video clips, amongst other online journalism techniques, is almost a necessity nowadays.

However, to succeed in the world of journalism in today’s job market, you do not have to be the Renaissance Man it appears the job seems to demand.

“You don’t need to come in knowing all the computer codes and how to build a website and everything,” Buckley said reassuring the class.

“You just need to come in with a open mind and be willing to learn. You need to be willing to try and give anything a chance.”

The market itself isn’t free either. What makes the market “free” is it’s separation from controlling forces, which allows the market to act individually of governments and people, it’s open to the free will of the people and their money. We’ll as noted above, the people under a capitalistic system don’t have that free will to choose, as it is limited by the free market. In this sense, the free market limits itself, in that the forces which are supposed to dictate the free market (freedom) are subsequently dictated by the market itself. If the market causes us to act a certain way, a way in which the current system is continuously perpetuated, then is it really free? You tell me.

In describing the fundamentals of Socialist ideology pertaining to war in the context of the current hostilities, Lenin seems to focus particularly on the issue of just war and the conditions under which such a war can legitimately be waged. Deeply influenced by Marxist teachings, Lenin uses the approach to socio-economics promoted by Marx in The Communist Manifesto, termed historical materialism, to analyze the wars of the past century and provide an account for the conditions under which war can not only be legitimized, but be necessary for the good of society. It is according to these guidelines that Lenin, adhering to the orthodox line of Marxist thought, repudiated any and all people who participated in the World War on behalf of their national government, denouncing many of his contemporary Socialists who in his mind “distort the views of Marx and Engels in the interest of the bourgeois and the opportunists.”

It is no doubt that Lenin was in disapproval of the war. His essay called for all Socialists to root for the defeat of their own government in the ongoing conflict, so that the weaknesses and embarrassments of their national governments can be exposed and taken advantage of in the name of class struggle. Civil, revolutionary war was the main goal in the eyes of Lenin, and to this end he argued that the Socialist revolution was necessary for true, lasting peace to occur. But why in a time when so many Socialists and members of Social-Democratic parties across Europe were in favor of fighting for their respective nations does Lenin speak out so adamantly against such actions?

It is the ideological influences of Lenin, most notably Marx and Engels, that provides the background for Lenin’s revolutionary ideology. Looking at the essay more closely, one can clearly see the formation of Lenin’s argument. In proposing that the war is illegitimate, Lenin begins with a summation of Socialist principles regarding to the legitimacy of war. Before doing so, Lenin differentiates between Socialism and other contemporary anti-war groups, Pacifists and Anarchists. Socialists, Lenin writes, understand that while war between nations is barbaric and cruel, war between classes is necessary to abolish all class restraints, and is a legitimate and progressive conflict. Furthermore according to Lenin, Socialists understand the need to study wars as separate individual entities, a hallmark of Marx’s historical materialism theory.

In providing the background for what constitutes as legitimate, just war, Lenin uses many fundamental Marxist theories to rationalize his position and provide a basis for his own ideology. According to Lenin, there are two types of war, aggressive and defensive. For Socialists, a defensive war is a just war, and is a war of liberation or for the “defense of the fatherland.” Such wars are just because they are for the liberation of a people, and Lenin writes that Socialists everywhere should champion the right of oppressed nations and people to self-determination.

The First World War, as mentioned before, was in Lenin’s eyes an imperialist war being fought between nations over the right to plunder resources from colonies. He backs up this statement by making a connection between capitalism and imperialism, asserting that imperialism is in fact the highest form of capitalism. Lenin writes that capitalism has become too big for its national state boundaries, and has caused these “great powers” to look beyond their borders for sources of capital. This has left the nations of Asia and Africa to be divided up amongst the “lords of capital” as Lenin puts it.

Lenin further backs up his position that the current war is an imperialist one by providing empirical evidence. Using charts and tables, Lenin points out that of the major belligerents in the war, over the past forty years, they have colonized an area two and a half times the size of Europe, containing roughly 521 million people. Using the case of Belgium as an example, Lenin says that while Germany violated the neutrality of Belgium, the other nations are not waging war solely for the liberation of Belgium, they all have imperialistic ambitions to divide the spoils of the war, as Lenin provides evidence of this in the national government’s desires to divide Germany and her colonies after the war.

Lenin goes onto to further provide documentation as to the imperialistic nature of the war by using an analogy comparing the belligerents of the war to slaveholders fighting over the “just” distribution of slaves. “But picture to yourselves a slave-owner who owned 100 slaves warring against a slave-owner who owned 200 slaves for a more “just” distribution of slaves. Clearly, the application of the term “defensive” war, or war “for the defence of the fatherland” in such a case would be historically false, and in practice would be sheer deception of the common peopIe, of philistines, of ignorant people, by the astute slaveowners.” This is exactly the same way, Lenin claims, in which the imperialist powers are deceiving their peoples to strengthen their own slavery over their colonies. He says that for every four people living in the national boundaries of a great power, there are five people living under oppression within those countries’ colonies. In a rallying call to Russians, he says that for every 2 Great Russians who have full rights, there are three Russians viewed as aliens who must fight the imperialistic wars for their oppressors.

After providing evidence of his assumption that the war is imperialistic, Lenin then goes on to denounce those Social-Democrats who voted for war credits and have supported the war efforts of their respective governments, using the writings of Marx and Engels to validate his ideology and position in the war. Lenin denounces social-chauvinism, which he describes as advocacy of defense of the fatherland in the war, because it leads to the abandonment of class struggle. He calls those who promote this idea opportunists, people who are simply looking to exploit those below them from their advantage point in the war. In doing so, he says people who promote this idea are allying themselves with the bourgeois and subordinating the working class. Lenin is trying to call all Socialists to rally against the war, because it is unjust and against the principles of Socialism, saying that there is no room for reformist Socialism and people like Kautsky. Pointing to the teachings of Marx, he says it is the duty of all Socialist everywhere to turn the current war into a civil war, and to inform the masses of what they need to do support the revolution.

While Lenin’s work, an English translation of the Russian original, is in some areas difficult to follow because of differences in grammar and possible translation discrepancies, the message is still quite clear. The current war is an unjust war, one fought amongst the bourgeois capitalists for the right to oppress colonies, and it is the duty of Socialists everywhere to use this as an opportunity to act against their governments and exploit their weaknesses. Those who do not do so, in Lenin’s eyes, are not true Socialists and do not follow the true teachings of Marx and Engels.

Citing the economy and war in Iraq as the biggest issues in America, voters around the Albany area and around the country as well called for change as Obama was elected the Forty-Fourth President of the United States, defeating his Republican challenger by a wide margin in the Electoral College, and becoming the first African-American elected president.

“This is the first time I could vote in the Presidential election, and to have something historical like this to happen, and to be a part of it, it’s amazing,” said, Natalie Roth, a senior at UAlbany as she left the polling place at St. Vincent’s Center.

Roth was one of many students living in the Pine Hills section who cast their vote for president for the first time on Tuesday. At St. Vincent’s Center, the local polling place located on Madison Ave., large numbers of students from UAlbany and St. Rose converged during the day to cast their vote.

Tori Capazzoli, 20, a junior at St. Rose, said she was excited to be able to vote in this election, adding, “This is the first election where me and others my age have a voice, and can help make a difference.”

While she was initially leaning towards voting for McCain, Capazzoli said that Obama’s message seemed to be more genuine.

“I think he’ll be able to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans better than McCain would be able to work with Democrats,” Capazzoli said.

Another Obama supporter and first time voter, UAlbany senior Ryan Price, 21, said that while he did not feel particularly strong about either candidate, the wave of optimism surrounding Obama, “really made him more of an appealing candidate.”

“His words, the way he conducts himself, I think he’ll do just fine,” said Price.

Later on in the day farther uptown at Eagle Point Elementary School at 1044 Western Ave., the scene at the polls was different as there were older people reaching the polls on their way home from work. While the overall mood was still in favor of Obama, there were more McCain supporters out in the crowd.

“I think when you look at McCain’s record, and what he’s given for this nation, he’s the man for the job,” said Robert Andersen, 53, of Albany.

“He’s got more experience with foreign affairs and politics in general,” said Andersen. “He’s been in the game a while, he really knows how things work in Washington and around the world.”