They Did It
Editor: Yes! Let's always remember Pearl Harbor. People like columnist Richard Reeves will someday have us believe that the Japanese never did it, as some would have us believe there never was a Holocaust. I, for one, wish Mr. Reeves could have been at Ground Zero.
Editor: I am writing in response to the letter from Dave Reich (Oct. 22), who suggests that military spending ''works'' better than social spending.
He ignores the part that economic disorder and courageous citizens played in the collapse of communism.
He ignores the suffering wielded by our military machine.
He ignores the fact that the military could defend our shores by spending much less. Pentagon waste is legendary. Obsolete weapons systems persist, and nuclear weapons continue to be overstocked to the point of overkill.
also ignores the fact that defense spending protects more than our shores. It protects the interests of mega-corporations, weapons contractors, Third World weapons purchases, etc.
I would rather spend my money on drug treatment centers, health care, shelters, schools, parks, teen and community centers, medical research, etc.
Laszlo R. Trazkowski.
No Means No
Editor: There has been a lot of controversy concerning the issue of rape. In the news recently, points have been brought up that if a woman dresses provocatively, that means she's asking for it.
I don't believe this is at all true. A woman has the right to dress any way she wants; it's a freedom she is granted. If she wears a short skirt or a low-cut top, that doesn't mean she's inviting a man to rape her.
If a woman spends time with a man and she says no to sex, she means no. It's her body, and she has control over it.
I know that rape is something we will probably never be able to get rid of entirely, but I feel that when someone is found guilty of rape, the consequences should be harsher. I think a convicted rapist should at the very least serve the maximum sentence and not be released early. This is only fair to the victim.
I don't know all of the answers, but I feel that more could be done to hopefully cut down on this painful violation of a woman's body.
Editor: Fantastic. Just fantastic.
American auto companies build the best cars in the world. Right? Everybody should buy them, right?
So the companies insist they can't improve the miles-per-gallon figure.
So they import more foreign parts for their American cars so they can exempt these cars from the American fuel efficiency standards.
So they demand absolute limits on the number of Japanese cars to be sold in the U.S. -- a limit to include Japanese cars manufactured in America.
So when smaller cars actually did better than bigger cars in crash tests, the American auto industry developed a commercial with a Department of Transportation staged crash test presuming to show big cars are better.
So oil-man Bush's Department of Transportation admits to finding in two tests that smaller cars are safer, and then deliberately staged a later test and circulated that video.
So oil-man Bush opposes fuel efficiency and wants oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Preserve.
Fantastic! No, real.
Mary O. Styrt.
Editor: It seems generally agreed by most commentators that the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee disported themselves in almost obtuse fashion incident to the Clarence Thomas hearings.
However, in my opinion, it was a non-committee member who engaged in the most fatuous, senseless and asinine behavior, in the form of your Sen. Barbara Mikulski in the course of final arguments on the floor.
Coincidentally, I served on the Senate Judiciary Committee in the late Seventies as a minority counsel, and so histrionics on the part of members are nothing new. But in the case of Ms. Mikulski, I was not aware that we had a neo-Goebbels in that body who delivers her rumble bumble even accompanied by Goebbelian gestures.
I listen in vain for some sparks of intelligent thought, but the best I could get out of her exhortatory vibrations was, ''Down with everybody and everything.''
Theodore L. Humes.
Paradise Valley, Ariz.
No Assaults Due
Editor: In a Nov. 4 letter, Gordon Shelton refers to legislation regarding the ban on assault weapons as "useless." He further maintains that the legislators who voted the bill down are courageous. Even more laughable is his assertion that assault weapons have "next to nothing to do with crime."
I would agree with his assertion that the problems of poverty, family disintegration, drugs and poor education contribute to this nation's crime rate. I also agree that these problems need to be addressed now. What I disagree with is the notion that if the ban of assault weapons will not single-handedly eliminate our crime epidemic, it be considered useless.