Why Plain was a bad choice
After reading the Editor-In- Chief Augusta Nissly’s opinion piece last week on John McCain’s vice-presidential pick, I felt the need to present some weaknesses in her political argument.
As a review, Augusta has changed her vote to McCain, because she felt that McCain was politically smart enough to choose Palin, which would manifest his ability to lead a country.
First, McCain had no relationship or planned intention to choose Palin. This is evident in the numerous reports stating that he met her only once before choosing her, and that a Republican committee was also responsible for finding her, considering she had no national name recognition before last week.
McCain was not intelligent; he followed the influence of a Republican political machine to choose someone that would give him votes from moderates.
Second, Palin is a woman, but a poor choice of a woman. As a male that thinks that the presidential glass ceiling should have been shattered fifty years ago, I am disappointed that Palin could become the first woman of anything. Why? She has few credentials as a leader other than governing one of the smallest populations for two years.
Also, she does not represent the needs of women. The evidence is that she is pro-life and anti-equality.
At no point in her acceptance speech did she mention a glass ceiling, equal pay for equal work, or even women’s rights.
What kind of woman deserves the label as a pioneer, if she’s simply a tool for the Republican party to get votes because she has two X chromosomes.
Augusta and any others that have decided to vote for McCain for this one fact are falling under the propaganda of the Republican political machine, the same machine that got
Bush elected twice.
Vote for what’s best, not for an evident trick.
Senior, Phil Kyle
MU Rankings cause dismay
I read “MU Falls in U.S. News rankings” with dismay. May I dare suggest that perhaps part of the reason we fell so much in the rankings is because our administration’s apparent nonchalance to the issue?
They claim that we lost ranking because other universities improved in areas Millersville is already doing well in.
Why were we not improving at the same rate as other universities, or even at a higher rate? Why settle for doing ‘well’, instead of aiming for ‘very well’ or ‘excellent’?
All students have a vested interest in the popular opinion of our university, since the esteem given to Millersville makes our degrees more marketable, and hence more valuable.
I hope our administration will use the rankings as a tool for self-assessment and self-improvement.
Junior, Todd Bogdanovich