Ultimate Victory?

Sir: Japan's desired goal of political and economic hegemony over the area from the Kuriles to Australia, which triggered the Pacific war, was thwarted by the industrial superiority of America. To have challenged a vast materially and financially endowed nation was an act of utter desperation. It's now emerging that Japan is being asked by the U.S. to share the defense responsibility over the same area that the Land of the Rising Sun coveted over a quarter-century ago [March 2].

It might be well to leave Japan unfettered to use its ability to supply the needs of the old "co-prosperity sphere" nations. American dominance in Asia is diminishing, and President Nixon's declaration at Guam portends the phasing out of deep involvement by the U.S. here. To lead in Asia again won't be a strange role for Japan, and the Japanese trader with his attache case might still furnish the ultimate victory where kamikaze pilots hit a blank wall.

TANCREDO R. VERZOSA Seattle

Sir: An unremarked but vital chapter in Japan's success story deserves to be told. Shortly after the war, these practical people realized the dangers of an exploding population and took effective countermeasures. Their national re-emphasis, involving among other things a generous legalization of abortion, saved their already overcrowded lands from becoming hell in the Pacific.

Twenty-five years have seen Japan grow from a defeated midget to a powerful giant. America, take note.

FELIX LEAF La Crescenta, Calif.

Sir: Your cover story on Japan, the Japanese and Expo 70 was a masterpiece. Totally exhilarating. Your penetrating insight perfectly captured everything Japanese.

K.K. SEO Honolulu

Sir: I suppose the clearest memory I shall retain of the New Japan will always be the matronly housewife I spotted one day, dressed in the traditional manner, with lacquered hair and brightly colored obi around her waist, lighting a cigarette from the dash of her new Datsun sports car. Such scenes are common, even in the country, and make life here that much more interesting for the foreign guest.

JEFF VANDERFORD Lieutenant, U.S.N.R. FPO San Francisco

Breach of Etiquette

Sir: I am a staunch anti-Gaullist and anything but Francophile. Nonetheless, I am appalled by the boycott of Mr. Pompidou [March 2] in Congress, and by the childish, uncivilized behavior of Mayor Lindsay, in being "conveniently" away from New York so as not to give Mr. Pompidou an official welcome. Such behavior is a breach of diplomatic etiquette of the worst kind. And all this because of 109 Mirage jets? I do not recall a similar cold-shouldering of Russian leaders by American officials at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, or after the invasion of Hungary or Czechoslovakia. I wonder whether Mr. Nasser isn't nearer to the truth than we have wanted to believe. The U.S. is definitely biased in favor of Israel.

C.K. FENYES Manhattan

Sir: I bitterly resent President Nixon's taking it upon himself to publicly and abjectly apologize to President Pompidou [March 16]. I believe that what he said did not represent the feelings of a majority of the people of this country.

The ludicrous sight of the President of the strongest nation in the world disguised as a lackey running to New York probably more than made up for any discomfiture suffered by President Pompidou while he was in this country. To assuage the unfriendly head of a fifth-rate power, such actions are only degrading.

RICHARD M. PETTIGREW York, Pa.

Here's Johnny

Sir: I read with a great deal of interest the brief item, "Smokey the Capitalist" [Feb. 16]. Of special interest was the call for a cartoon character like Smokey to deal with problems of the environment.

There is such a character, and I'd like to introduce to you Johnny Horizon. Since

June 1968, he has been the symbolic leader of Bureau of Land Management programs directed toward environmental protection, particularly litter cleanup and prevention. In this brief time, the Johnny Horizon Program has been exceptionally successful. Thirty thousand people in 18 Western states participated last October in the most extensive single cleanup campaign ever held.

JOHN MATTOON Chief, Office of Information Bureau of Land Management U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, D.C.

Call to Arms

Sir: The trial of the Chicago Seven [March 2] was simply a typical Establishment move of self-preservation. The Chicago Seven are guilty of recognizing the hypocritical state of "good old Americanism." They are further guilty of demonstrating their belief that this travesty must not continue unchecked.

The Seven were hauled into court on what is at best a specious charge of what should be an unconstitutional law. They defended themselves as anyone would in a kangaroo court, and in the larger sense they won. As long as the Establishment continues to defend the morally bankrupt principles of the status quo, there will be armies of Sevens to put in jail.

THOMAS M. FLORIDA Northridge, Calif.

Sir: It is a little bit difficult for a policeman to respect someone's rights while he is wiping that someone's saliva from his face, or pulling a rock out of his eye. I like to believe that the majority of people would be inclined to place the trust and safety of their rights in the hands of the police, lest they be trampled by these heroic martyrs of Judge Hoffman's courtroom. And after seeing a few of the pictures of the police alongside of these seven paragons of Christian virtue, I can't help wondering where they get the gall to call anyone a pig.

SAM ROSENBLUM St. Louis

Sir: Does anyone realize that both John Mitchell and Julius Hoffman are, in effect, inciting more separatism, more dissension, and more riots than the Seven could ever have done at Chicago? Does anyone realize that a fair and just trial by one's peers did not exist in that famous courtroom?

Mr. Majority, are you aware of what you are doing to our country?

WILLIAM M. GOODYKOONTZ Lubbock, Texas

Silent Indeed

Sir: I wonder if anyone has pointed out that the term "the Silent Majority" had quite a different meaning a century ago? It referred to the dead. I came across it in a book, Forging His Chains, by George Bidwell, the American forger who swindled the Bank of England out of $5 million; it was published in 1888 by the Bidwell Publishing Co. of New York and Hartford. Bidwell uses the phrase in such a way that it is obvious that everyone at the time understood "the silent majority" to mean those who were dead. I find this quite hilarious in view of its present usage by the Nixon Administration. Did whoever handed it to the President know of its former meaning? Does Spiro Agnew?

JACK COHANE Pallaskenry, Ireland

More Shame than Pride

Sir: I was born white and raised a Southerner, admissions which are now causing me more shame than pride. With forced busing, selective law enforcement and personal liberty as smoke screens, Southern Governors and Congressmen are showing their true prejudicial colors [March 2]. I am sickened by the verbose hypocrites who give lip service to "all deliberate speed" in integration and simultaneously work with gusto to keep integration a dream.

The acquiescence of a majority of Southerners in official efforts at continued segregation is deplorable. God help the blacks: whites never will.

DAVID C. MILLER Gainesville, Fla.

Sir: In spite of antibusing statements by President Nixon, Senator Ribicoff and various Southern Governors, the fact remains that the very children who are being bused today are America's only hope to erase tomorrow the segregated housing patterns that have made busing such a burning issue.

FREDERICK T.A. ELKINS Associate Professor of History University of Oklahoma Norman, Okla.

Sir: You state that busing would be "impossible" in Washington and "impractical" in New York City. However, you recommend it as being practical and "virtually the only way" to achieve integration in smaller communities.

Am I to assume that the size and location of one's community dictate the laws he may or may not observe?

WILLIAM W. ADCOCK Atlanta

Pursuit of Innocents

Sir: Our whole system of justice is steadily drifting toward pursuing the innocent law-abiding citizen simply because he is a docile cooperative quarry. Now I am told that if someone incompetent parks in my trunk or brings my grillwork crashing around my skull, my insurance company should cover it [March 2].

Why not abolish all liability insurance and let each accident victim fight it out at the scene? Once we abandon the doctrines of negligence and guilt, it doesn't really matter who wins these street fights, and we could all save a lot of money.

BRUCE A. MACDONALD Boonton. N.J.

Sir: The elimination of compensation for "pain and suffering" would result in no compensation for the suffering of a young man permanently blinded in an auto accident. The elimination of fault would provide for payment of the medical expenses of the drunken motorist who blinded him. It would seem that any savings in costs would be at the expense of the innocent victim. A better system might be one that permitted the victim to receive a proper award of damages without having to wait four or five years for his day in court.

ROBERT L. HALLORAN Anaheim, Calif.

Ghostly Image

Sir: The article "Frank Fasi Fights Fiercely" [Feb. 23] stated that the Star-Bulletin printed a line that said, "Wake Up Hawaii --Vote Republican" on a political ad of Democrat Fasi. The implication was that the Star-Bulletin had done this deliberately, which, if true, would be reprehensible. The truth is that this line on voting Republican was offset on a press blanket from a previously run ad and, by sheer coincidence, the ghostly image appeared in a black area of Fasi's ad.

I appreciate the difficulties in boiling, compressing and rewriting a story, and for that reason I am not jumping up and down about this. But I did want you to be aware of my feelings on the matter.

HOBERT E. DUNCAN Managing Editor Honolulu Star-Bulletin Honolulu

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.