Letters To The Editor

ROCK AESTHETICS

Rock spraying is worthwhile

A recent Associated Press article described how U.S. Representative, Jack Metcalf, halted rock “painting” by the U.S. Forest Service in a scenic area near Stevens Pass.

After 30 years in construction, I find disfiguring our scenic areas a particularly disturbing aspect of this work. Unfortunately, the demands of an ever-increasing population and the need to provide safer highways result in constant road construction.

Fifty years ago Snoqualmie Pass with its two-lane highway was far more scenic than the multiple east- and westbound lanes with their concrete structures and overhead signs that we have today.

A number of techniques have been developed to reduce the scarring effect of our construction activities. One involves spraying a solution on damaged rocks to replace the natural rock surface color destroyed by construction work. This process has been used with a high degree of effectiveness in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area and Mount Rainier National Park in addition to scenic areas in other western states.

This process has nothing to do with painting or the activities of high school kids, as described by Rep. Metcalf. The project he has singled out is located directly across the Skykomish River from the popular Money Creek campground. I find this a shame. Had Rep. Metcalf ever actually observed a treated area he might agree.

We can’t completely undo the effects of construction on the unique natural landscape of the Northwest, but through the use of technology much can be done to reduce these effects. Development and use of these remedies should be encouraged and not met with blind rejection. Larry Livingston Olympia

Along with cost, know value

I’ve been following the increasingly heated debate over “painting” rocks along scenic highways in Washington state. I’m in favor of it, even though I realize the country and this state need to do a lot of belt-tightening and fiscal soul-searching.

Is it wasted money if we use a minuscule portion of the huge highway construction budget to repair the damage we do to Mother Nature when blasting through her ancient rocks? I understand the process used to restore the rocks closely resembles nature’s own process - only it takes days rather than thousands of years.

Ugliness in the environment breeds ugliness in people - it’s no accident crime of all sorts thrives in cities which have neglected to keep up their appearance. Ugly walls invite graffiti just as one piece of garbage on the ground tends to attract another.

When money and the saving of it become the primary consideration in everything we do, everything becomes cheap.

Americans spend millions every year traveling to Europe to gawk at castles and cathedrals - buildings on which no expense was spared. Those which were ravaged by time and pollution or destroyed by war were faithfully restored and rebuilt exactly as they looked before. The Europeans know why they’re spending billions of pounds, marks, francs and lira on these. “Old houses” attract tourists from all over the world.

Shouldn’t it be worth a few thousand dollars in tax money to heal the scars we must inflict on the natural beauty which attracts people from all over the world to our state each year? Heidi Shelton Bothell, Wash.

OTHER TOPICS

V-chip a cop-out

American parents are all too often shying away from their parental responsibility. Afraid to make their own choices and just say no to their children, they rely on the U.S. Congress, television set makers and TV networks to determine an acceptable amount of sex and violence and provide the technology to block it.

Amazingly, this technology already exists. We call it the adult human brain and the channel selector. As a backup measure, we have the on-off button.

Come on, we’re adults. We can make decisions and stick with them. The V-chip is just one more opportunity to remove ourselves from any responsibility for our own children. Deborah Lawrence-Hale Greenacres

School officials overreacting

The school districts are at it again. Security guards in the schools?

Reading the front page article on Aug. 3 (“Security guards to patrol county schools”), one would think we have a problem like the inner cities of our nation. We have a 61 percent increase in weapons-related incidents, it says. What does that mean? Did it increase from one to three or maybe five to eight, or were the ‘92-‘93 school year figures higher?

Quantity does matter when we are talking about the drastic measure of hiring guards for our hallways. Seems like another power play by our school district for more money. Sure, the state will help pay, but who do you think supports the state? Surprise: you and I.

There are problem children in our schools, but they make up only a small portion of our school population. This is overreaction by school officials and shouldn’t be condoned. They spend enough of our hard-earned money and give our children little in return.

It reminds me of an incident in junior high many years ago, when a student threatened to noogie someone to death. Believe it or not the principal called to police to handle the threat. Noogies are a circular running of your knuckles on somebody’s head. Come on, school districts, shape up or ship out.

Maybe we need to look at our school board members and vote in those with more common sense and less political savvy. George Springer Spokane

WAR AND REMEMBRANCE

And what of Pearl Harbor dead?

Fifty years ago, the ceremony in Manito Park lighting candles commemorating those who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki must have been beautiful. We need to remember the horrors of war.

I wonder, did anyone in Japan light lanterns commemorating those who died during the bombing of Pearl Harbor? Robert Weaver Spokane

Revision of history no good

After 50 years, it’s sure easy for junior armchair historians to point fingers and rewrite history. I was fortunate to barely escape World War II and unfortunate not to escape the Korea fiasco. But I remember!

We may rightly feel sympathy for those killed by the atomic bomb, just as we should feel sympathy for the military men who were slaughtered on both sides. It seems we somehow think it’s bad to kill civilians and it’s OK to kill military people.

I imagine those men wading ashore on Iwo Jima and a few dozen other rocks in the Pacific would have preferred to remain civilians.

The number of people killed with the two bombs is mind-numbing. But remember, we were also raining down thousands of tons of high explosives on Japan every day. If the war had lasted a few weeks longer, an equal number of civilians would have been killed, plus a good many more of the fighting forces (both sides).

War is stupid! In our foolish so-called police and peacekeeping actions, we appear to have forgotten it takes brutal and superior force to end a war. If the atomic bomb saved a day, week or month of continued fighting, perhaps its horror was justified.

Let the men and women who lived through the island invasions write the history books. Let the newcomers devote their efforts to future peace. Let us all rejoice in the freedom earned with the blood of our civilians turned soldiers. G. Wilder Spokane

Writer’s errors, gaps appalling

I don’t understand why certain people will ignore the truth at their own peril.

Columnist John Martin, wrote a review of CBS’ “Victory in the Pacific” excoriating Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf’s “one-sided view” of the Hirsoshima and Nagasaki bombings. Mr. Martin maintains the Japanese “were on the brink of surrender before the bombings.” This is a lie.

After the bombings, in fact, during the actual surrender upon the U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Harbor, a ship was en route from Germany carrying the radioactive material needed to manufacture Japanese atomic bombs to be used on American cities. When asked whether they would have carried out actual bombings, Japanese officials answered, “Why not?”

Why did Mr. Martin conveniently omit these facts from his “history”? Why did he similarly leave out the Bataan Death March, the beheading of Chinese prisoners and the raping of Korean women from his memory?

I have to wonder if Mr. Martin ever heard of Pearl Harbor, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Saipan, Midway, Guam, Guadalcanal, etc. Why are Mr. Martin and his ilk blind to the facts staring them in the face? What possible gain could be achieved by ignoring factual history and lying about the “history” they choose to remember? Michael Wiman Spokane

What about the rest of us?

I found the front page of the Aug. 7 SpokesmanReview puzzling in that its headlines and accompanying articles somehow conclude that only veterans and historians have views regarding the use of atomic bombs to end World War II. Charles G. Cromwell Spokane

Talking a good war is also cheap

Historians are attempting to downplay the necessity of the dropping of the atomic bomb. However, if the United States had invaded Japan, how many of these downplayers would have volunteered to be in the first wave? My answer to this question is: Not a damn one! Russel A. Hadley Moses Lake

Beware of reaping a whirlwind

I join those others who are disgusted and sick to their very souls with all this crying about using the bomb to end World War II.

War is terrible; people get maimed and killed. The scars are never removed. Those who would want to start a war are well advised to consider first how it might end.

The Japanese military, with the full support of the Emperor and the Japanese people, started the Pacific war without warning and rained down bombs, torpedoes and machine gun fire on our ships and personnel at Pearl Harbor. Our burned and maimed men and women were pitiful to see.

Gleefully, Japanese commanders relished what they had done and, thinking we were on our knees, returned to Midway to finish the job. They got a big surprise, and they got licked. The American people had united as one to defeat the aggressor. Our technology joined common effort and uncommon valor to win.

Those who today say the Japanese were about ready to give up simply were not there and are misinformed.

The bomb, for all its devastation, saved thousands of American lives. And it literally saved Japan from complete destruction.

Considering the bomb and its technology, it was sure to come in time. Rather than curse its use at a very critical time for the United States, let the bomb’s horror be a reminder to those who would participate in a war - that the end result could be devastating to them. Bill Twitchell Deer Lake, Wash.

We wish to apologize

The Peace Committee of our church feels compelled to make a statement about Americans’ faith, particularly our Christian faith, and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We affirm all people are our sisters and brothers, members of God’s family. We believe embracing nuclear weapons as instruments of security and superiority is a sign of sin and rebellion, inappropriate to a Christian witness. We commit ourselves, as a sign of God’s salvation, to joyfully choose life over death, plowshares over swords.

We gratefully praise God that nuclear weapons have not been used in warfare since 1945 while acknowledging continuing death and suffering from testing and accidental radiation.

In remembering the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we’re unable to find closure without apologizing. Regardless of the unmitigated brutality of many actions of the Japanese military, emerging facts and historical notes make it clear the atomic bombings were a political message to the Soviet Union and not a desperate effort to shorten the war and save American lives. It was evil which must be named in order for the United States to end its reliance upon violence, become vigilant against the worship of brute force and reject the creation and deployment of weapons of mass destruction.

We ask other bodies of believers to join us in the model of the Southern Baptists’ apologizing for having supported the institution of slavery. Gary Jewell, Peace Committee Shalom Fellowship (Mennonite and United Church of Christ)

No apology for Japanese atrocities

I’d like to offer another viewpoint regarding the bombing of Hiroshima. My parents were living in the Indonesian islands, which at that time were Dutch colonies. They considered themselves to be Dutch nationals.

When Japanese troops marched into their small villages, imagine the shock of being pulled from their classrooms to witness horrific scenes. My father said they were forced to watch brutal carnage as a warning of what would happen if they didn’t cooperate.

Then began the door-to-door raids for any able bodies for labor camps. In the men’s camp, “tiger cages” were a favorite method of torture. In such a cage you couldn’t stand or sit. Many times your back would break.

Other favorite methods were bamboo slivers under the fingernails and random beatings, just for sadistic pleasure. My father has talked of men whose spirits were broken. They would give away their rice and water rations.

My parents were both young teenagers at this time. When the bomb was dropped, thousands of people were freed from these camps.

Recently, my father was sent an old family portrait. He recalled how several male relatives in this portrait were beheaded and how half the men were casualties of this invasion. My parents’ families moved to Holland and after marrying, emigrated to America. They have never been apologized to or compensated in any way for all the grief, death, and misery inflicted on their families during the Japansese invasion.

The bomb was a devastating action, but war’s intent is just that. I hope we can learn from this. Gerda Porter Spokane

Controversy whose time has passed

I’m sick and tired of the same old argument continually being used to castigate America for dropping the atomic bomb. We can’t know how many lives might have been lost without this action. We can’t know when the war might have ended otherwise.

If we must puzzle over the past, consider the following possibility. Both Germany and Japan were known to be working on the bomb. Certainly, others may have been as well. If we hadn’t dropped the bomb and allowed the war to drag on, does not human nature foretell some other country eventually would have, to its own advantage?

Then what? Sit on our hands and be overrun? Retaliate and start a bilateral nuclear conflagration to end the war?

We did what seemed correct at the time. We’ve had world peace in great part because of it. Can’t we leave it at that? Let’s put our energy to work solving present problems. Irene B. Anrode Spokane