Why honor a date of infamy?
We Americans want to commemorate everything. Why do we want to commemorate the attack on Pearl Harbor? To remember, yes; to reflect, most certainly, but to commemorate ` to honor the memory of ` "a date which will live in infamy"? What honor? Whose honor?
For the past several weeks, we have been bombarded with newspaper articles and TV specials about Pearl Harbor day. We cannot escape from it.
The people who remember the day most do not need another reminder. People like Gene Oishi and the Okuras can never forget it.
Seth Cropsey, director of the Asian Studies Center of the Heritage Foundation, said it best by pointing out in his article "Japan's other atrocities" (Other Voices, Dec. 3) that perhaps some people have not learned from history, especially if history is not written or recorded truthfully, as history textbooks in Japan seem to indicate. The rape of Nanjing or, for that matter, China, in 1937 would be another period to commemorate. I do not need to be reminded, as the days were etched on my mind at an early age in China. Many Chinese will remember, but most Chinese do not dwell upon it as their "holocaust," nor do they honor the memory of those days.
, Perhaps they (we) are wrong!
Samuel C.H. Lee
Howard Brassington offers another bid for "the hair of the dog that bit us" by Howard Brassington (Forum, Dec. 4) bids for "the hair of the dog that bit us" in calling for an updated Civilian Conservation Corps.
It isn't time for his "Rebuild America" plan. To institute this "thousand points of blight" plan, he and his ilk must continue to tear down completely to rebuild, not "repair," the whole infrastructure.
There are those of us still alive today who have had our fill of the Roosevelt era alphabet soup.
There was to me even as a child something distasteful about the connotation of the CCC, the WPA, the NYA, etc. They were not very appetizing, even to us of the Great Depression, as a steady diet.
If our "enemy within" would work as hard to ensure the success of the "private enterprise" system as it works to bring about Utopia, in short, socialized government, we would not be in the economic turmoil we find ourselves in today, due to the nostalgic longing of some to bring back the master-serf relationship of yesteryear.
Blanche K. Coda
License to kill
Recently I read an article in The Evening Sun about the boot camps that some criminals are sent to, and I am puzzled. The article stated that these camps are used as an alternative to prison for non-violent offenders.
However, I was recently informed of a case where a convicted drunk driver who killed a young girl was sent to this boot camp instead of jail. Since when is killing by drunk driving considered a non-violent crime?
Maybe if drunk driving were considered a violent crime and viewed more seriously by the public and the judicial system, many of these drivers would not be allowed back on the roads so swiftly.
The public would be appalled if people who commit murder with guns and knives were allowed out of jail and given their weapons back. But no one becomes enraged when a drunk driver is released and given his or her weapon back, along with a license to use it.
V The writer is president of the northern Maryland chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
The great opera composer, Giuseppi Verdi, once said, "Sometimes to go back is progress." As a multicultural nation, we acknowledge what is traditionally important in our lives. No greater respect has been displayed than we have for the preservation of our right to vote, the call to arms when we are needed, religious teaching and the strong belief in family values.
These principles are engraved in posterity and should be engaged without hesitation in our daily living.
Rosina B. Norman
Guns and crime
If I misinterpret A.J. Pierce in his letter (Forum, Dec. 5), as he apparently did with Richard Lyon's letter of Oct. 28, then the interpretation should be thus: Mr. Pierce is apparently happy that the victims of the Killeen, Texas, tragedy had no guns to protect themselves. He would also be happy to see murderers, rapists and other criminals released early, so they can continue their criminal ways. He would certainly be unhappy if any crime victims actually had the means to protect themselves from these criminals. Maybe Mr. Pierce likes criminals and does not want their victims to be armed for protection.
His analysis of Texas gun laws and private firearms ownership may also be in error. He seems to ignore the fact that Texans are not permitted to carry any guns for self-protection. They are only allowed to wait helplessly for execution.
He did state one truth: that "people with guns kill people," but he omitted some other truths. "People with knives kill people," "people with clubs kill people," "people with ball bats kill people," "people with cars kill people," and I could go on.