Based on James Peterson’s Sept. 14 column that uninformed people should not vote, I assume he includes himself. At least he should, if he seriously believes that anyone who perceives Bush as cutting federal budgets is uninformed.

The fact is that certain federal budgets have been slashed and others have not. But of course, Peterson didn’t put it in that factual way. Rather, in a spin formation format so typical of the current administration, he tried to pawn a half-truth off as a full truth. Just like the argument that, even though we were wrong on every initial reason used to declare war on Iraq, we should have gone there anyway.

Their argument is that Saddam is a bad man and he really did have relations with al-Qaida prior to Sept. 11.

Yeah right. Great spinformation. But in fact, it is misinformation meant to lead the public (as it did so successfully) to believe, contrary to the facts, that Iraq and Sept. 11 are very much connected. Spare me from such “well-informed” voters. The fact is, very few people are completely uninformed and no one is completely informed.

Even Bush admitted to lack of information when confronted with the commission’s conclusions concerning the reasons initially given to invade Iraq.

But really, Mr. Peterson, if you are going to attempt to convey your argument in a manner that doesn’t reek of ulterior motive, at the very least, do not label liberals as uninformed and conservatives as informed. And don’t juxtapose “good people” against Hillary, OK?

It really does expose your blatantly uninformed agenda to keep liberals away from the polls.

But know that complete knowledge is not possible. And so, if you believe that you have made a reasonable attempt to become informed, then, by all means, vote.

Peter Sherman

Associate Professor

Aerospace Engineering