A Battle of Giants

Sir: One point you failed to mention in your excellent article on the stock market [May 25] was the effect of the high surcharge on commissions for the small investor. By discouraging the little man who would like to share sincerely in American industrial progress, the marketeers will soon find themselves facing institutions only. Then we will see a battle of the giants interested only in outsmarting each other. Trade-offs on huge blocks of shares may be common, and eventually brokers will disappear.

GEORGE MOORE Charlottesville, Va.

Sir: When 1,000,000 people, half of whom are probably in the $10,000-to-$ 18,000 bracket or better, are out of work largely because of Government spending cutbacks in aerospace and related industries, you cannot help but have a slump [June 1]. It is simply a downward spiral: less income, less tax paid, less money spent; ergo more Government funds for unemployment.

What ever happened to the good old adage, "It takes money to make money"?

The Nixon Administration had better beware, for this time it is not the blacks or other minority groups who are out of work, it is his precious Silent Majority, and I must say they asked for it by electing him.

(MRS.) DOROTHY HOFFMAN Huntington Beach, Calif.

Sir: The overpowering force causing inflation has been and is the Federal Government's consistently spending more than it has taken in through recent years. President Nixon, your article notwithstanding ("Nixon has clearly let economic forces get out of hand"), is not solely responsible. Neither should labor and management be made the whipping boys. How about the Congress living up to its responsibility of seeing that the country lives within its means?

Just "a little controlled inflation" is not acceptable. What is required is balanced budgets, sound money and new labor legislation, in that order.

FRED G. WACKER JR. North Chicago, Ill.

Sir: You quote President Nixon as being convinced that the recession at the end of the Eisenhower Administration cost him the presidency in 1960.

But you fail to point out that there were three recessions during the Eisenhower-Nixon Administration, and that the chief economic adviser during much of this period was Arthur Burns.

Most of the economic trouble now facing the nation must rest with Mr. Burns. When presidential policies don't work, Mr. Burns has a habit of saying that he disagreed with them at the time. But there is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Burns disagreed with the decision to eliminate the wage-price guidelines, or that he disagreed with the policy of trying to control inflation by relying almost entirely on tight money and high interest rates.

More than any other person, Mr. Burns was responsible for the Nixon program for controlling inflation. How unbelievable that he should have been rewarded for his mistakes by being made Chairman of the Federal Reserve. In this position Mr. Burns will be with us for a long time, where he will be in a key position to continue economic programs that place the cost of the war on the poor, the aged and the unemployed.

JOHN C. DAVIS

Economist, President's

Council of Economic

Advisers, 1947-52

New Port Richey, Fla.

Is Cambodia Necessary?

Sir: In your discussion of presidential war powers [June 1], you neglected to quote the most relevant part of the so-called Tonkin Gulf Resolution: ". . . The United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom."

Did Congress need to be more explicit? South Viet Nam is a "protocol state," and "all necessary steps" for its defense can plainly include air, naval and ground action against all hostile forces and bases which threaten its security, whether they be in Cambodia, in Laos or in North Viet Nam itself.

KENNETH H.W. HILBORN Associate Professor of History University of Western Ontario London, Ont.

Sir: President Nixon was elected because he said he had a plan to extricate us from Southeast Asia. I see now why he did not tell us what that plan was.

ROBERT M. STANLEY Sacramento, Calif.

Sir: In an obvious effort to depreciate whatever our soldiers may have accomplished in Cambodia, you say: "The 1,700 tons of captured ammunition is a huge haul [June 1]. Yet two-thirds of it is .51-cal. ammunition used for antiaircraft purposes . . ." As the father of a helicopter pilot in Viet Nam, may I ask just what the hell is wrong with that? If all this ammunition had been intended to shoot the brats who are burning buildings, would you have depreciated its capture?

I deplore the scooting of any of our children, whether they be brats or heroes. But let's give the heroes equal TIME.

ALBERT BOYD SHARP Haddonfield, N.J.

Service and Disservice

Sir: I find your assertion that "a few resignations might help" [June 1] to be both dangerous and absurd. The tragedy of this Administration lies in the near unanimity in the minds of its officials, and in the lack of opposition to its divisive policies. The Finches and Hickels are our last hope; if they go, no doubt their replacements would be cast in the same unimaginative mold that characterizes Nixon's official circle. Their resignations would deprive them of the publicity accorded high officials, rather than result in any great reassessment of policies.

DAVID MARGOLICK Windsor, Conn.

Sir: It is good to have a private airing of differing opinions within the Administration. But once a policy has been adopted, it is the clear duty of all members to either implement that policy with complete loyalty or resign. Only if the latter course is chosen does one have the right to public expression of contrary views.

RICHARD G. MULFORD Dearborn, Mich.

War on Words

Sir: "In cold blood" killing in the Middle East is not limited to one side as your article [June 1] suggests. Is not the killing in reprisal of the 13 Lebanese civilians "nothing less than a calculated act of vengeance" as much as the Israeli school-bus attack by the eight Popular Front Arabs? The important difference is that one is carried out by a few self-appointed, vengeful Arabs, condemned even by the Al-Fatah, and not at all representative of the Arabs; the other one is implemented by the army of the government of Israel carrying out a blatant national reprisal policy against the neighbors with whom it so cunningly purports to desire "peace."

You state that Israeli jets "accidentally" bombed an Egyptian industry, killing 80 workers, and that 30 Egyptian children were killed when the Israelis hit a building "believed to be a military installation." Yet when an Arab commits a killing it is billed as "murder" and all Arabs are blamed. Israeli killings are characterized as just the unlucky happenings of war. The killings are wrong on both sides and your wording is unfair.

NANCY FIGGINS HENDEREK Rockaway, N.J.

Sir: Seeing the bodies of the Israeli children, and reading of their murder by bazooka "at pointblank range," one cannot help recalling the U.N. debates following the 1967 war and the lamentations of the Saudi Arabian ambassador who passionately accused Israel and the world of "not understanding the Arab mind." Now, perhaps, we do.

CHARLES S. BRUMMER, M.D. Rantoul, Ill.

The Double Standard

Sir: Masters and Johnson's work [May 25] is unfortunately marred by their hypocritical attitude toward women. They claim that it is unjust to deny treatment to single men for their sex problems, yet perfectly proper to deny treatment to single women! Their rationale is that women are taught that for them, sex belongs only in marriage; therefore treatment outside marriage would only complicate their problems.

They are perpetuating our culture's ridiculous double standard, which in itself is the basis for many sex problems for both females and males. Their concern doesn't seem to extend to the wife surrogates provided to male clients. In Masters and Johnson's own judgment, these women are going to end up with some terrific sex problems. The authors completely ignore those women who have chosen to remain single while maintaining an active sex life. Denying them treatment is clearly open discrimination against a large segment of our society.

ANN KRUSE Davenport. Iowa

Sir: As a young married couple in our mid-20s, my husband and I are all too familiar with the sexual demands that have been placed upon our society, primarily by the advertising media. What woman today isn't made to feel sexually lacking if she isn't celery-stalk slim, beautifully made-up all the time and sexually appeased nearly that often? And consider the poor husband whose wife is in any way lacking these things. Amid all this confusion, the article on Masters and Johnson was somehow reassuring.

MRS. LARRY A. BRANDT Seattle

Forum for Crisis

Sir: Re your story about the work of the Illinois constitutional convention and a canceled appearance by former HEW Secretary John Gardner [May 25].

As president of the convention, I invited Mr. Gardner to speak on the constitutional implications of the urban crisis. It became apparent that Mr. Gardner, after accepting our invitation to discuss this subject, decided that the war in Southeast Asia was of greater concern and was determined to speak on this question rather than the subject assigned.

Since the convention was obviously an inappropriate forum for Mr. Gardner's released talk, he was asked to respond directly to our invitation by speaking on the urban crisis and constitutional remedies. This suggestion was rejected, and Mr. Gardner returned to Washington without addressing our convention. Reports that Cambodia and other issues not directly involved in our deliberations have been debated at the convention are erroneous. Charges that the action taken was politically motivated are not true.

SAMUEL W. WITWER President

Sixth Illinois Constitutional Convention Springfield, Ill.

Sound-Off on the SST

Sir: Considering the multifaceted disruption of our environment that this flying travesty will incur, I would rather spend a few extra hours in the sealed chambers of a conventional jet than land two hours early in an SST [June 1] on a nearly uninhabitable earth.

MICHAEL S. BALIS, M.D. Sausalito. Calif.

Sir: We already know too much about the SST's potential for wreaking environmental havoc to need to see and hear it perform.

Going ahead with this monstrosity is like playing Russian roulette with all the chambers loaded.

DICK ALLIETTA Charlottesville, Va.

Expectation: Sloshed

Sir: If General Motors' physiological tester [June 1] is no more reliable than the cars it produces, I can't see how it will restrain enough drunk and deficient drivers to justify the extra cost and time involved. In fact, even if it works perfectly, its installation in every car ominously reduces the Government's expectation of human performance to the lowest common denominator: every man is now presumed sloshed until he demonstrates otherwise.

DAVID E. REYNOLDS Stanford, Calif.

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