Review of Rochester Revue misses the point
I feel that the article, ‘Rochester Revue lacks excitement,” misses the point of the event it appraises. Rather than highlighting the diverse student talent on display during the occasion, the author focuses on unconstructively belittling student groups’ performances.
I think it would be difficult to find a single Revue performer who disagrees that their routine should aspire to meet high standards. That being said, events serve as outlets for students to share their passions and hobbies with fellow students and others in the University community. These students work hard to create a fun atmosphere for those in attendance.
At a school with academically rigorous programs and committed students, opportunities for students to focus on talents that extend outside the classroom should not be taken lightly. While I cannot speak for every student, I would proffer that of the high percentage of students participating in clubs, some may join because of educational opportunity or wanting to be the next sensation in the field, but that the vast majority of them do so out of enjoyment and interest in the activity.
Student groups and events such as this one exist for students to showcase their talents and for the audience to appreciate their fellow students’ abilities. I cannot sing (on pitch) a number from Jersey Boys or perform a fan dance. Nor would I look seemly attempting an Irish jig. I do, however, enjoy watching other students accomplish these feats.
The article might be suitable if it were reviewing professionals. I do hope that the author realizes that slamming amateur student groups to make gratuitous jokes discredits the article and calls into question the intentions with which it is written.
Eric Sansky
Class of 2009
Students’ Association President
Article defending Sarah Palin is misleading and uninformed
I am responding to the article entitled ‘Palin’s leadership empowers Republican ticket.” This article was incorrect and misleading. It depicts a mistakenly positive portrayal of Sarah Palin, describing her as ‘a strong and confident leader” who holds steadfast principles that will somehow make our country better. Throughout the article, however, no support is given to prove that she is a competent candidate.
The article claims that people’s ideas of Palin being ‘inexperienced, disconnected from the American people and a liability to McCain” cannot be substantiated and, in contrast, Palin is an innocent, fresh face who somehow saved what was at first an unimpressive presidential race. I beg to differ. Compared to any of the candidates, Palin has had the least political experience. It’s a fact. She’s also more disconnected from the American people than the other candidates are. Being a mayor in Alaska does not prepare you to understand the inner workings of Washington D.C.’s political policies. Running a small town does not prepare you to make decisions regarding national policies.
Whether she’s ultimately a liability to McCain’s campaign, we won’t know for sure until the election is over, but I’d venture to guess that she’ll effortlessly ruin all chances that McCain may ever have had of becoming the president. In the little time we’ve had to get to know her, Palin has only proved that she’s an easy target for great comedy, relatively attractive for a politician, good at avoiding important questions and unversed in many realms of politics.
Zack Gross
Class of 2010
CT mistitles Women’s Weekly article
Women’s Weekly is written by Women’s Caucus, a Students’ Association-funded group. Being SA funded, Women’s Caucus has always been careful not to endorse a certain party or candidate in our Women’s Weekly articles. Last week’s article was not specifically targeted against Senator John McCain but in general against candidates who run on a pro-life platform. For this reason, the Campus Times incorrectly named the article, and we hope that the CT will be more careful when naming Women’s Weekly columns in the future.
Julianne Nigro and Jamie Frank
Class of 2009
