In Our Words... 
Students giving of themselves for Spring Brake  

When most people think “Spring Break,” they think Cancun, Key West or Panama City Beach. They think drinking until the sun comes up, nursing a hangover and then partying again. They dream of this cycle for the weeks up until the hallowed Spring Break arrives. However, these students are not the only ones who take part in Spring Break. 

There are 10 students, one peer leader and two staff members from Appalachian State University who are altering Spring Break as people know it. They are participating in the ACT Alternative Spring Break where they will be giving of themselves to people in need of their services. They will be bettering small parts of the United States with their time off from classes. 

This year’s group will be going to Kinston, where they will be tearing down a home to rebuild it after the destruction from Hurricane Floyd. Then the group will go to Atlanta to address poverty, hunger and homelessness. There they will teach English as a Second Language to adults and will take place in urban environmental projects, where they will do trail maintenance in a 30-acre nature preserve. 

This year, more applications were turned in than there were positions available. This overwhelming support speaks highly for the caliber of students who attend Appalachian State. It is not even mostly social work majors. All majors are open to this activity and many different majors are taking part in it. 

In the past, students have gone and worked on a wild horse reservation in Beaufort; they have worked in a community garden in Asheville and helped with hurricane relief in Wilmington and John’s Island, S.C. 

If you missed this Alternative Spring Break, don’t fret. There are many more opportunities to get involved in what ACT does around the year. Next fall, there will be another Alternative Fall Break, which is open to people of all majors again. There is no requirement of community service experience. 

Our students who are representing Appalachian should be commended for their selflessness. And we should follow your lead and take part in it next fall.   
 

Choose wisely: Bush or Gore 2000 
John T. Bennett 

With Super Tuesday finally behind us, the stage is set for the political main event promised us by the Republican and Democratic establishments: Vice President Al Gore versus Texas Governor George W. Bush. The prize the two will do battle for between now and November is the office of the President of the United States of America. 

The buildup for Super Tuesday produced record voter turnouts Tuesday as well as in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan and other states that have already held primaries.   

If nothing else, it seems the 2000 campaign has rekindled the political interest of the American voting public. In a country that is fueled by cynicism and apathy, it appears that this is an election the people actually care about. 

While it is intriguing to me that voters are turning out in record numbers to cast their ballot for who they believe to be the best-suited man to become the next President of the United States, I am embarrassed and somewhat terrified by what goes through the mind of the average voter in their decision-making process.  

I have been following this campaign since it’s onset, and there are a few things that truly bother me about how voters choose a president. 

It baffles me that in one of the world’s most educated nations, people would actually cast their vote in favor of a professional politician who they think is an “honest man.”   

To think that any politician, if elected, is not at some point going to lie to their constituency is an absurd thought.  

Yet night after night as I watch the national news telecasts, there seems to be an interview with an average person who reveals they intend to vote for Arizona Senator John McCain because he is an honest man who says if elected president, he will never lie to the American people.  

A wise man once told me that a man who says he will never lie to you just told you his first lie. 
Another terrifying mindset of the American voter is that a man’s facial expression is the most significant reason they will not vote for him.   

The vital anti-qualification of every U.S. President to which I am referring is the so-called smirk of Republican candidate Bush. 

On the Democratic side, Gore wrapped up the nomination Tuesday by trouncing former New Jersey Senator Bill Bradley. But early in the campaign, Bradley’s energetic style was a refreshing change from the stiff, and less-animated approach of Gore. 

Since then, the vice president has moved his campaign headquarters to Tennessee, shed the boring, business-like blue suit in favor of a more casual wardrobe and shown more emotion in front of the television cameras in an attempt to liven up what started out as a lackluster campaign.   

Gore’s efforts have not gone unnoticed, and by the end of the 2000 incarnation of “Super Tuesday,” he had captured the Democratic nominee.  

All this reshuffling of the Gore campaign is a reflection of just how convoluted the American political system has become. And the problems start with the voters.   

The decision of who one will cast their vote for in a presidential election is one of the most important responsibilities we have as citizens of the United States. 

But when the average American steps into the voting booth, they seem to be thinking about the wrong aspects of the candidates. 

Forget a candidate’s history on domestic public policy decisions. Do not take one minute to examine the Congressional voting record of a candidate. And heaven forbid if one were to take the time to learn about a candidate’s experience with foreign policy decisions, budget issues, tax plans, military expenditures, abortion or the death penalty. 

When an average American steps into a voting booth, their focus seems to be on a candidate’s supposed stiff outward appearance or facial expression they saw on CNN, or worse yet some empty promise of honesty they read in a newspaper. 

Only in America. 

Ignoring the real issues and voting against the candidate whose personality you do not like has no place in a presidential election. That kind of reasoning is best left for an election of the local high school student body president, not the President of the United States. 

If personality and character were any indication of how a candidate would perform while in office, then Bill Clinton would have already wrecked this great nation. In reality, Clinton’s poor moral character has made no difference in his performance as president. 

For the most part, Clinton has always made decisions that were best for the country as a whole. 
The bottom line is that a candidate’s smirk or personality is no indication of how he will perform as president.  The decisions a candidate will make are best predicted by examining his political ideology, as well as past actions as an elected public official. 

To ignore the imperative issues and base your choice for the leader of the free world strictly on a candidate’s facial expression or personality is not what the founders of this nation had intended when they gave us as citizens the power to choose the President of the United States of America. 
 

Return To Top