I have become accustomed to reading in the State News that there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush, and, therefore, voting in the recent election was unimportant, uninspiring or unnecessary.

I have not responded, because I was certain that, experience being the best teacher, it would soon become apparent that important differences do indeed exist between a candidate who is pro-choice and one who imposes a gag rule preventing doctors in clinics which serve the poor in other nations from even mentioning abortion, even if those clinics do not offer abortion services.

I thought the difference would soon be evident between a candidate who appoints a Secretary of the Interior who favors the interests of developers and loggers over the need to preserve the environment for future generations would be apparent - if not immediately, then certainly when we have lost irreplaceable Alaskan wilderness to oil drilling. I am certain that the difference between the two candidates is apparent to women who must rely on John Ashcroft to protect their constitutional right to reproductive choice, to minorities seeking fair treatment and to gays who rely on John Ashcroft to protect them from harassment.

Given the importance of the larger issues at stake in the recent election, perhaps I should only be amused that Andrew Banyai cannot differentiate between the candidates on the lesser issue of past drug use (“Locking up drug offenders not the answer,” SN 2/5). Had Banyai followed the issues more closely, however, he would be aware Al Gore has indeed admitted to marijuana use.

Applying the tired “Slick Willie” epithet to both candidates may make for amusing writing or further Banyai’s claims, but isn’t indifference to fact precisely the same error Banyai is criticizing?

Cynthia C. Craig
Italian professor