The General's Jump
Sir:
Your excellent article on the continental Air Defense Command [Dec. 20] served to highlight many of the problems we have to wrestle with in this air defense business . . . I would, however, like to correct an impression that may possibly have been created by one paragraph wherein you describe the parachute jump from a burning plane, piloted by me, which caught fire while returning from a gunnery mission. This might be construed to imply that panic or extreme slowness of action on the part of the sergeant observer in clearing the plane was the primary cause of my injury; such was not the case. The fire, caused by a severed fuel line, started when we were at an altitude of approximately 1,500 feet. It was necessary to hold the plane in a violent sideslip attitude to keep the flames from enveloping the cockpits; this naturally caused us to lose altitude at a faster than normal rate. Lacking intercom in those days, I signaled the sergeant to bail out; the only delay on his part was difficulty in getting out of his safety harness and clearing the plane in a steep sideslip attitude. The sergeant, as eager as I was to get out of the plane, left it about 750 feet, and I did not get clear of the plane until about 400 feet from the ground. Believe me, neither of us was hesitant about wanting to jump to a cooler spot on this occasion.
(GENERAL) B. W. CHIDLAW
Commander, Air Defense Command
Ent Air Force Base
Colorado Springs
Security & Wolf Ladejinsky
Sir:
I would like to compare two stories that appeared in your Jan. 3 issue. One, the account of Wolf Ladejinsky, the U.S. agricultural attache, fired as a security risk for the flimsiest of reasons. He was publicly condemned by the Agriculture Department in spite of having been previously cleared by the State Department. The other story was that of Irmgard Schmidt, the German girl who obtained secrets for the Russians by using her charms on U.S. Air Force intelligence officers. These intelligence officers are certainly security risks since they obviously are easy prey for a shapely girl. Who are they? Have they been reprimanded? Apparently not. They have been allowed to hide behind the skirts of the Air Force. Contrast this set of facts with those concerning Mr. Ladejinsky . . .
MRS. JOHN CHIARIELLO
Albany, N.Y.
Sir:
Cheers for your intelligent presentation of the Wolf Ladejinsky story. No good citizen would deny the need for searching and ironclad security arrangements. However, if the facts in this case are as they seem to be, this Ladejinsky firing is just one more example of how we are losing our security in the name of security . . . Unless all the pundits I have read so far were dead wrong, Ladejinsky--and MacArthur--in the land reform program in Japan were on the right track. Now, wasn't this dismissal of the mastermind of the program a colossal mistake?
PALMER VAN GUNDY
Santa Monica, Calif.
Sir:
The firing of Wolf Ladejinsky reminds one of the slaying of John the Baptist to please the whims of a dancing girl. Surely the real reason for this firing is in the phrase "he has never been close to American farming problems and operations." Unlike the head of John the Baptist, Ladejinsky can be replaced. To cater to the whims of a few who feel an agricultural economist must farm with his hands is stupid. To say Ladejinsky is a security risk is to ignore what he has done.
PHILIP S. JAYNES JR.
Highland, Ind.
Man of the Year (Contd)
Sir:
As each day of 1954 slipped by, I could not help but appreciate more and more the ability of TIME'S Man of the Year, Mr. Dulles. I was not only amazed by his international adroitness, but at his physical stamina, mental alertness, patience and charm. This man truly is deserving of the distinction you have given him . . .
JOHN B. REYNOLDS Stamford, Conn.
Sir:
Your choice should have been Eisenhower, [who] labored hard for America that it have its cake and eat it too . . . Dulles is only an earnest fellow on horseback galloping madly off in all directions.
CHAS. OVERILL
Yuma, Ariz.
Sir:
Since when does a man deserve your title for just carrying out his duty, which is part of his job? . . . What else is Mr. Dulles' policy but a return to good old Dean Acheson's not very spectacular but realistic "containment policy"? . . .
CLAUDE E. SPINGARN
Rochester, N.Y.
Sir:
Congratulations on your selection . . . Dulles and Cordell Hull are the two outstanding Secretaries of State in our generation.
A. P. HAMRICK
Festus, Mo.
How to Harry a Millionaire
SIR:
I AM RATHER ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT YOUR THEME THAT THE ENTREPRENEUR IS NEITHER OBSOLETE NOR UNREWARDED AND SURPRISED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTINGUISHED GROUP IN YOUR "NEW MILLIONAIRES" ARTICLE [DEC. 27], BUT AM DESPERATELY ANXIOUS YOUR READERS KNOW THAT I NEITHER APPRAISE THE FAMILY PURSE NOR MAKE PUBLIC PRONOUNCEMENT AS TO ITS DIMENSIONS [TIME'S appraisal: $50 million]. MY FRIENDS SHUN ME AND MY ENGLISH PROFESSOR TURNS OVER IN HIS GRAVE AT THE SIGHT OF THAT AWFUL QUOTE "I'VE GOT SO MANY BUCKS TO PROVE IT."
HOWARD AHMANSON
LOS ANGELES
Stranger in the House
Sir:
Re "Test-Tube Case" [Dec. 27]: the noticeable absence of morality contained in Dr. Kinsey's comedies on sexual behavior were their main weakness. So it is with those who condone test-tube babies and are shocked when told they are doing something immoral. Northwestern University's Dr. Irving Stein talks arrant nonsense when he implies that artificial insemination is moral merely because people are asking to have babies in that manner . . . The whole idea of a Christian marriage is destroyed when a wife attempts conception by "relations" with a man other than her husband, whether it be in actual physical union or by artificial insemination . . .
(A/15T C) GLENN RUGGLES
U.S.A.F.
Kirtland, N. Mex.
Sir:
A sincere minority (25%) of the American Society for the Study of Sterility do not approve donor insemination. Few share my Catholic faith. Yet as scientists we agree that to spouses alone is reserved the right of human procreation. Sad indeed is the plight of these strangers in their fathers' houses . . . The tragic obsessive maternal instinct of the childless wife does not justify a random sire-less son. Should this wanderer on the wasteland of time choose to end his artificially initiated life, who but the physician is responsible for planting the psychological time bomb of lack of lineage?
JOSEPH BERNARD DOYLE, M.D.
Boston
Angels, Twerps & Monsters
Sir:
Re "The Trouble with Angels" [TIME, Dec. 27]: A wholesome trend seems indicated by Father Kilian McDonnell's protest against the "treacly travesties" of angels. I too was brought up on these androgynous twerps, and I never liked them either. Great artists of the past may have done right by the angels sometimes, but many have contributed to this error. It seems to me that many of the old masters are notorious for portraying people who don't have their minds on their work . . . Albrecht Duerer gives us angels like the one who wrestled with Jacob; his are not only beautiful and terrible but anatomically accurate and aerodynamically sound . . . It is indeed a pity that some of Duerer's angels . . . can't be set to guardian angel duty, as none of them, should the occasion arise, would hesitate to fetch a smart smack to a refractory moppet's posterior, and juvenile delinquency would soon disappear.
LORETTA KNIGHT
Detroit
Sir:
My article in The Sign did not say that "great artists of the past" represented angels as unmistakably masculine and sometimes even a little muscular, but that strong, masculine "representations of angels are to be found on the walls of early Christian churches" . . . Most of the masters are among the principal offenders . . . A notable exception is Michelangelo's trumpeting angels in his Last Judgment [see cut]. But not only were the masters persistently guilty of portraying angels in the feminine, but, what is worse, as babies, e.g., both Titian's and Murillo's Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, and Raphael's Sistine Madonna. Pictorially baby angels might be cute, but theologically they are monstrosities.
(THE REV.) KILIAN MCDONNELL,
O.S.B.
Holy Rosary Church
Detroit Lakes, Minn.
Feet of Klee
Sir:
. . . If a child of mine ever created anything as abysmally inane as the Mask of Fear, I would hand said child over to the authorities handling delinquents . . .
JOHN A. MORGAN
Beverly Hills, Calif.
Hypothesis in Spain
Sir:
In reference to your report [on the banning of the New York Times from Spain--TIME, Jan. 3]: How can a responsible newspaperman discuss in his articles laws which do not exist, agreements which have not been signed and, in presenting news regarding the internal policy of a friendly country, deliberately distort the facts? Such has been the case in recent weeks in reporting on Spanish matters, ranging from the hypothetical press law to questions arising from eventual marriages of American G.I.s assigned to Spanish bases.
Is it not a curious coincidence that each time there is a failure in Western European unity and Spain's strategic value against the Red menace reveals itself as more and more important, there should be a press campaign tending to present an unpleasant picture of my country? . . .
JOSE M. DE AREILZA
Ambassador of Spain
Washington, D.C.
P: When the Spanish government forbids journalistic discussion of its acts and proposals, it draws its own unpleasant picture.--ED.
This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.