This letter is in response to last week's "The 'Right' Opinion" column by Jason Taormina.

In his column, Mr. Taormina states that refusing to show I.D. in order to board a plane is making our country less safe. The overtone of that section seems to be that air travel is a security risk, and as such, the government needs to be involved. In this regard, Mr. Taormina states that John Gilmore "must follow the rules" and show identification.

The issue I was addressing in my column about Gilmore was not that of him refusing to present his identification. The point of the column was that the government would not publicly admit whether an I.D. requirement is actually a law. One cannot "follow the rules" when not only are the rules kept secret, their existence is, too.

Furthermore, Gilmore was prevented from boarding the flight. If not flying makes someone capable of putting the nation in "grave danger," perhaps the government should just have let him on the plane.

Gilmore's case is not about privacy, despite what Mr. Taormina believes. While it is certainly my opinion that someone should not be required to present identification to fly, my column referenced the Gilmore case as a matter of government secrecy.

Another issue with Mr. Taormina's column is his characterization of John Kerry as someone who changes his opinion to suit his audience. He also portrays President Bush as someone who has followed through on what he said he would do.

George Bush is not as stalwart as Mr. Taormina would have you believe. He has a history of reneging on his promises. Bush promised to improve education in the United States, and pushed hard for the No Child Left Behind Act. He did, in fact, sign the bill into law. What Bush did not push for, however, is crucial funding for the now-mandatory programs that states and schools are required to implement. His budget proposals fall billions of dollars short of what is needed.

Bush also made promises about the environment during the 2000 campaign. He said that "the federal government will set high environmental standards," and then backed America out the Kyoto treaty. He is pushing for a "Clear Skies" law, which would weaken the environmental protections of the "Clean Air" act that have been in effect for years.

Mr. Taormina makes the point that Democrats are only interested in winning the election. No presidential candidate would have a chance at the office if their only goal were to win. People will not support a candidate who they feel will not accomplish anything. Given that recent polls show the two candidates tied in popular support, it is clear that many of the American people feel he is the better choice.

President Bush is running his campaign primarily on attacking the character of John Kerry. This is clearly not the "new tone of respect and bipartisanship" he promised during the 2000 campaign.

There is one thing I agree with Mr. Taormina about. He makes the point that if you want to vote for "anyone but Bush," that does not mean a vote for Kerry. I agree, as there are a number of third-party candidates on the ballot, and their position may better fit with yours. Vote for the candidate you actually want, even if it is not George Bush or John Kerry.

Phil Gengler '05