• Hillary Clinton's logo is not newsworthy

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at a fundraiser for Democratic congressional candidates hosted by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi at the Fairmont Hotel, Monday, Oct. 20, 2014, in San Francisco. Eric Risberg | AP Photo
    Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at a fundraiser for Democratic congressional candidates hosted by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi at the Fairmont Hotel, Monday, Oct. 20, 2014, in San Francisco. Eric Risberg | AP Photo

    On Sunday, without surprising much of anyone, Hillary Clinton announced her intention to seek the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Clinton, as former First Lady, US Senator and Secretary of State, is one of the most experienced and famous people to run for the high office in recent memory. She, of course, came very close to receiving the Democratic nomination in 2008, losing to Barack Obama, who then obviously became president.  

    However, amid Clinton's announcements, few are talking about her decades of experience and fewer still are talking about her policy prescriptions, which have been numerous in recent days. Instead, all the attention from the press and the public has seemingly focused on Clinton's logo, a blue uppercase "H" with a red arrow — pointing to the right — overlaid on top of it

    The logo has been the topic of both praise and derision, namely the latter from Clinton's ostensible ideological compatriots. The New Yorker's editorial cartoon on April 13th, long a bastion of liberal, skewered the logo as ironic, given the arrow's color and direction. Closer to home, many found the logo disappointing and reminiscent of former state Sen. Wendy Davis', D-Fort Worth, first logo, which fittingly looked like a sinking ship.

    In one respect, the fact that Clinton doing something as inconsequential as unveiling a silly little logo has garnered so much nonstop media attention speaks to her huge notoriety as a powerful person in the public image. In another respect, it serves to demonstrate just how broken American politics is, with the press groveling before the lowest common denominator, just using buzz words to describe a picture as pretty or ugly, in lieu of — for example — substantial policy discussions. Evidently, world of 140 characters has sadly made those debates passé.

  • Repeal of Dream Act would unfairly harm those who live in Texas

    Senate Bill 1819 is a bill proposed by Sen. Donna Campbell, R-New Braunfels, in the Texas Senate this session. Its passage would effectively repeal 2001's almost unanimously supported HB 1403, otherwise known as the Dream Act. 

    The Dream Act essentially allows undocumented students to take advantage of in-state tuition at in-state public universities if they meet a list of requirements, including having lived in Texas for longer than three years and graduating from a Texas public high school.  

    If SB 1819 passes, these students would have to pay much higher fees in order to attend college in Texas. If anything, this will only further the problem of undocumented citizens struggling to get by.  

    Education is a powerful resource. A degree is an invaluable achievement and can lead to economic success and stability. Texas should allow these students to take advantage of lower tuition prices given to those who reside in Texas because they DO live in Texas and qualify for the Dream Act based on its requirements. With a repeal, families without the financial ability to send their children to school will be scared to do so and economic struggle will continue.  

    I do not think the Dream Act should be repealed. Let these students and their families who live in-state pay in-state tuition. It will be better in the long run. 

    Bounds is an associate editor.

  • Avoid pitfalls of exaggerating, lying in job search

    Exaggeration is human nature. We exaggerate about how happy we are to see a show, or how scared we are to encounter a minor traffic accident. Those exaggerations fill our life with drama and excitement, attracting more attention when we are in conversations. However, when it comes to recounting our own accomplishment on resume, we need to think twice about exaggerating. 

    Brian Williams, the iconic NBC news anchor, was suspended for six months by the news organization after lying about riding in a military helicopter that was struck by a grenade during the Iraq war. Not only has Williams’ reputation plummeted, but NBC is also being viewed as an organization that violates the trust of its viewers. Once that trust is broken, it may never return. 

    It is easy enough for us to fudge the facts on our resume, changing a grade from a “B” to an “A” in a marketing class, listing proficiency in Photoshop when we've only used the software once, saying we did more on a project than we actually did. Unfortunately, those seemingly small issues will work against us in the long term. 

    “If an employer finds discrepancies on a resume … that’s pretty much grounds for termination,” Debbie Kubena said. Kubena is the director of communication career services in the Moody College of Communication and has worked in career advising for more than 20 years. 

    Of course, not everyone will get caught. But those who do can suffer serious consequences. In 2014, Walmart’s top company spokesman, David Tovar, claimed he had a bachelor’s degree from the University of Delaware, when in fact he did not. He was forced to resign after his lie was exposed. 

    According to research conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management, 53 percent of individuals lie about a “fact” on their resume. In the same study, it pointed out that more than 70 percent of college students lie on their resume just to land their dream job. 

    Those numbers are staggering. For employers, it is not difficult to spot fuzzy numbers and fabrications. A recent grad’s resume with more experience than an internship should lead to questions. 

    If you find yourself exaggerating on your resume, be sure to make an appointment with your college's Career Services, where professional staff can help you craft a strong resume that impressively and honestly trumpets your achievements. If it's a good fit, there's no need to stretch the truth and your qualifications will eventually speak for you. 

    Liu is an associate editor.

  • Texas Revue

  • What is the real goal in Iran, democratization or denuclearization?

    Democracy can be seen as a process or as a product. The product does not always follow the process. It’s possible for a country to vote a radical, oppressive regime into office democratically. This is an idea that characterizes American diplomacy. The question is always, will this foster a democratic outcome?

    America has a past of providing financial, technical and arms support to undemocratic governments and guerillas to protect its national security or economic interests. This doesn’t necessarily mean that America is the antagonist. It’s more complex than that. Mutual benefit is necessary for sustainable diplomacy.

    The nuclear deal with Iran, the focus of Jeremi Suri’s most recent column, sounds simple: Iran will stop (or limit) its production of nuclear weapons if we trade with it. This means more economic opportunity for Iran and the protection of American national security interests.

    Both sides benefit, but the implications of this agreement must be considered. It’s not just about opening markets; it’s about changing the relationship between the United States and Iran. The United States can use this economic relationship as a carrot to encourage greater transparency in the Iranian government. It could also use it as a tool of coercion. The agreement opens a possibility for Iran to become dependent on trade with the U.S., or vice versa. This entanglement is likely to happen and will influence our actions and reactions to Iran.

    So then, through increased cooperation with Iran, are we trying to quell potentially dangerous nuclear activity or foster democratic values in the country? If the latter, are we concerned with the process or the product? We are walking a fine line between cooperation and control. Many times, we, as a country, have not been able to answer these questions, and as a result, we have seen undemocratic outcomes.

    The bottom line is, we need to cooperate with Iran. This deal marks a huge geopolitical realignment in the Middle East. It’s important, but in the right context. Western “moral self-righteousness and military force,” as Suri puts it, have produced unsatisfactory results before. We should maintain that U.S.-Iran “cooperation” remains just that — cooperation. And we can do so by being careful not to affront Iranian sovereignty in the future.  

    Shah is a business and government sophomore from Temple.