Letters Answer, J. D. Dear Editor, Five questions for Dr. J. D. Williams: 1) Is the imposition by force of arms (550,000 soldiers excluding those 40,000 slaughtered) of a South Vietnamese dictatorship what you mean by "self determination?" determin-ation?" 2) How can you possibly favor the triumph of junta fascism in South Vietnam (unless you favor more of the Franco-Chiang Kai-Chek-Singman Rhee type alliances)? 3) What will be the implication of our continued devastation of South Vietnam on the continued friendship of our European and Latin American allies? (Would you prefer to stand off the "Commies" "Com-mies" with the aid of Thieu and Ky or that of France and Italy?) 4) If you favor an eternal American Ameri-can presence in Vietnam, how does the spectacle of an American Biafra grab you? 5) Is Dr. S. Grover Rich's dramatic dra-matic one-sided (and haughty) dismissal dis-missal of classes on Friday sub-; sub-; versive of the whole idea of a university-motivated by a genuine desire to search for truth among all competing ideas? SCOTT H. CLARK DAVID A. GREENWOOD All is well . . . Editor: Protest has taken up a significant signifi-cant portion of Walter Cronkite's half hour every evening for the last few years, as we all know. What everyone doesn't know is that many of us are getting fed up with it. Take for example the statement of one of our faculty members who doesn't seem to care for protest on a grand scale. "There are many things I would like to protest," and "I just might take the rest of the quarter off." This statement as any enlightened political science prof, knows is calculated to bring out the reactionary reac-tionary best in all of us. We know that to protest is disgusting and against everything sacred. Conceivably, Con-ceivably, this is why he won't take a day off to protest, but only to show us how angTy he can get with those who do. The Germans during World War II knew that to protest was disgusting, and didn't they prove it by showing us all that they knew what was good for them by keeping silent and letting good old Adolf mind the store? Another well-known fact is that those who protest are un-American and "unwitting tools"of Communism. Com-munism. Remember Robert Kennedy Ken-nedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. We are also sure that anyone with long hair has a reddish tint in their philosophy. Witness Nikita and Mao. And besides, have you ever seen a real All-American with shoulder length hair? Of course not! We keep telling these wierdos that if they don't like it they can leave, or go to jail, keeping in mind those democratic principles 'that we know and love so well. Furthermore protest serves no material purpose. We must have a rule of law. How are we expected to wipe out millions of Vietnamese Viet-namese whn we can't get a unani- mous effort from the body poli tic? Just think of all the extra weapons we might employ if only we could get them away from our local police who need them to control these subversives in our midst. It's perfectly clear that we are right and that God is on our side once again, and that democracy democ-racy is the best form of government govern-ment for everyone. Just look how well its working back home. Other objects of protest are similarly lacking in purpose. Take pollution, for example. How dare anyone protest chemical and atomic testing within our atmosphere. atmos-phere. Does it really matter? A little lit-tle more can't hurt when its for the general welfare of all. I have come to the conclusion that protest can serve no earthly, or other, purpose. So we must rationally ra-tionally replace it with a better method of dealing with problems. First, it would be nice to deny everything with phrases like, "Oh it's not so bad," "So what?" "It's none of my business," or, showing extreme anxiety. "Even if it is true, what can I do?" Second, I might find it useful to join with others in declaring the law of the land, "Love it or leave it." This is a simple solution requiring little thought, which suggests that almost anyone can use it, and probably goes far to explain its popularity. Third, I might turn to religious guidance to help me out of my dilemma. I suppose any would do, but since there seems to be a greater concentration of both Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland at this time, perhaps per-haps a trip to the British Isles would be useful. Finally, we can look to our national leadership. Here we can find comfort in the fact that our President wouldn't do anything to let public opinion alter the course he has chosen for our democratic society. This, perhaps per-haps more than any other fact, reassures us that all is well MICHAEL JAENISH Real American? Editor: Tuesday Roger Ekins wrote a very intelligent and impressive column concerning what is "the real American." He defines "the real American" as a person "who does not cower in a corner and cry 'my mind is already made-up don't confuse me with the facts,' but rather as he "who has the courage to listen rationally and objectively to BOTH sides of an issue." Ekins mentions further that "the real American" is the true patriot (the loyal lover of his own country) who can stand on his feet with mind and heart still open to rational argument and constructive criticism from the other side of an issue. With such considerations, I think Darrell Leo should rewrite his Tuesday article which attempted at-tempted to make a farce out of suggestions of a "teach-in" to support sup-port the war. Instead of making a farce of these suggestions, he succeeded suc-ceeded in only pointing out how prejudiced and closeminded he must be with his "mind already made-up-don't confuse me with facts" attitude. If he were a "real American" instead of ridiculing such a suggestion, he would encourage en-courage it so that both sides might be taught. BILL MARTIN