To the Editor:

One of the blessings or curses of too many philosophy classes at university is an appreciation for critical thinking skills. Many of these skills are becoming less and less prevalent in modern discourse. Applying those skills to politics is critical to making sound judgements in the voting booth.

Over the last several weeks I have noted political ads in the news and have been using them to help make my voting decisions. Specifically, three ads caught my attention. Two are Republican and one is Democratic. I am registered as unaffiliated. One ad is for the 11th Congressional District race, one ad is for the N.C. House and one ad is for District Court Judge. The first two are objective statements of qualifications for the office and clearly state who paid for the ad.

The third (for District Court judge), I consider to be deficient in that  it lacks objectivity (cherry picked topics with no supporting evidence) some of which to my mine are not really reasons to vote for or against a candidate. Example: “Was Not Always a Lawyer” says nothing as I imagine none of the three candidates was always a lawyer.  It does not carry a “paid for” statement. 

I intend to pay attention to ads that give real information about a candidate, their endorsements, and their positions and not ads that offer little or no helpful information. Such ads only inform my opinion about the candidate running the ad.

Richard Gould

Waynesville