SANE Navigational Policy, Corruption In Government, the 'Daily Princetonian'

Corruption

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I happened to pick up a copy of the CRIMSON the other day (issue of Oct. 26) and was struck by an article which I would have found ludicrous in almost any other place except Boston, namely the article quoting the Harvard Government professor as stating that ocrruption is not only inevitable but enviable in government, and that bribery is a modern necessity. Bribery, to me, has always represented greed and avarioe and cowardice, greed on the part of the taker, and cowardice on the part of the giver, since it effectively buys his desired ends without ever exposing them to the public eye, much less to the "reasonable discussion" mentioned by Edward C. Banfield, professor of Government as occasionally engaged in by political officials.

Nere and some of the other erased emperors hired poets and singers to extol the virtues of their madness, perhaps Boston city government can pat themselves on the back for having effectively provided themselves with the same, and, at a great savings to the taxpayer since his salary is being paid by a private institution. What next -- a class in Corrupt Practices I-A? Terry M. Bennet, 2 Med.

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The sailors on our ship--that of Messrs. Khinoy, Fresco, Bulliet, and Scott--had better focus their spyglasses before they start building lifeboats. For it's not leeberge, we're worried about, but another ship which is, in the eyes of our sailors, continually encroaching on our rightful waters. Of course, both vessels carry an overwhelming complement of hair-triggered cannon.

Now our mate pushes for a mass life-boat program and, since our crew is seriously frightened of the other ship, the lifeboats are built.

Meanwhile, someone on one ship or the other has tossed a tomato onto the other deck, and soon our crewmen are being actively besieged by tomatoes. Our mate is incensed, "Provocation, aggression!" he screams, and the crew sets up an uproar about "standing firm" and "teaching those hoodlums a lesson" and "we're ready for anything." Another tomato splats in front of our mate and we open fire, Immediately the other ship returns the barrage. When the dust clears, it is apparent that both ships are sinking.

Some of the sailors who reach the lifeboats, concerned about there being enough room for them, outlans the rest.

After several weeks on the open sea the survivors reach a small desert island and die in agonized thirst.

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

A single example will easily demonstrate the extent of distortion and illogic in the letter by the Committee for a Sane Navigational Policy:

The many happy and successful voyages of the TITANIC were permitted by just the careful preparation so scorned by the CSNP. Far from making Navigators of that great ship negligent in their duties, or creating a false illusion security, the enormous power of TITANIC, and its excellent prepare for any catastrophe, rather made its pilots of the more aware of their responsibility and dangers. And when, after so many perfect crossings (and despite the eternal watchfullness of the Navigators), a particularly malicious iceberg struck Titanic; even then the trust of the passengers was not in vain. For the powerful ship was hardly damaged by the blow, and the passengers, who (to be twice cure) had calmly boarded the life he were easily rescued.

The lucky passengers or the TITANIC will forever be thankful that their ship was strong, and their life boats ready for any emergency.

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

... The Committee says that the policy of having bomb shelters, or "life boats," "would full you into a false sense of security," and "would cause undue alarm." It is not possible for these effects to coexist since they are opposites. I would be interested to find out which the Committee really thinks would happen.

The Committee says, "In the event of being struck by an iceberg . . . the 'life' boats would certainly sink along with the ship." This is, of course, untrue. Fallout shelters outside the blast area would not be destroyed.

Items 7 and 8 on the Committee's list say that we shall die when we emerge from our shelters. Perhaps I am wrong, but I believed that after a period of two weeks to one month the air was once again possible to live in.

Item 9 says, "If you should be rescued by a passing vessel, you would spend a life of remorse mourning over your lost loved ones." Does the Committee really believe that it is better to die than to live in sadness? Does it believe that it is better to destroy our people, and along with them our beliefs and ideals, than to try to save part of the nation we have worked so long to build? It is impossible to take such a viewpoint seriously.

The panic mentioned in item 10 would occurs only if there were not enough "life boats" to go around. By trying to cut down on the number of shelters, SANE becomes a strong agent for the very bestiality it condemns.

But suddenly I see item II. I have been trapped. I have contemplated the catastrophe, and therefore I "obviously" must advocate it (although the Committee assures me that it "shares my concern.") The Committee here believes that it is better to deliberately blind oneself, to live in a dream world, rather than face reality and attempt to deal with it.

After the TITANIC sank, a folk song was written about the disaster. The chorus goes something like this.

"Wasn't it sad when that great ship went down?

Husbands and wives, little children lost their lives.

Wasn't it sad when that great ship went down?"

After all, the very ideas of life boats was absurd. The Titanic was unsinkable. I am sure the few lucky survivors of that disaster would be most impressed with the Committee's views.   William Holden Clafin '65.   David Griffiths '64   Tod Gitlin '63