Little Eva
Sir:
DEEPLY SHOCKED AT IDOLIZATION OF MADAME PERON ON YOUR COVER [TIME, JULY 14].
PAUL H. GOLDENBERG
New York
Sir:
TIME has certainly reached a new low. The article on Eva Peron is the devil's own broth of poison and vituperation. . . .
Eva Peron is a most prominent man's wife. It is obvious that Mr. Peron knows what TIME could not possibly know about Eva's heart and soul, and that is the reason why he chose her as his wife. . . .
F. C. MONTUORI
Washington, D.C.
Sir:
. . . There must be something more important going on in Latin America that you could devote this precious space to. . . .
PHIL SHERF
Los Angeles
Sir:
. . . A classic. Plutarch or Dante could not have surpassed it. The resemblance to Aimee Semple McPherson is uncanny. . . . Too bad there are not more women like them.
JAMES PRESTON SCROGGS
Los Angeles
Renter's Slant
Sir:
TIME'S comments on the rent situation are cogent and fair [TIME, July 14], and it is refreshing to find it not subscribing to the denunciation of an unidentifiable "real-estate" lobby. . . .
The nubbin of this situation is really easy to understand if we approach it from a different slant.
Q.: How much of total expenditures went for rent, prewar?
A.: Nationwide, approximately 20%.
Q.: How much of total spending goes for rent in 1947?
A.: Less than 15%.
In other words, one class of the population is being mulcted for the benefit of another larger class. . . .
I'm a renter, but I say the renters should be sufficiently grounded in equity to consent to give their landlords that 5% [difference] without bellyaching.
FRANKLIN KNOX
Tujunga, Calif.
Rhyme & Reason
Sir:
I have often noticed your readiness to correct erroneous statements and, no doubt, you will accept my assurance that "Fildes" has never rhymed with "Shields," but always with "Childs" [TIME, June 23]. . . . As for his "goatee" . . . his was an ordinary beard (see cut) as worn by many "gents" of his day. He looked like the doctor in his picture [of "The Doctor"]. . . .
More important is your story of a preliminary small-scale picture followed by the large final version. The truth is that the large picture is the original. My father made a small copy of it years later. . . .
PAUL FILDES
London
P:I TIME was misinformed (rhymes with wrong).--ED.
There'll Always Be a Linden
Sir:
Elliot Paul might be interested to know that modern Lindeners are still running true to form: "Lindeners were basically easygoing, but could become aroused over really important issues" [TIME, July 14].
Last time I was home a hot petition was covering Linden from Eastern Ave. to Salem St. Seems that the local two-engine fire station had been condemned, was to be torn down and a larger one built in the next district to service both communities. . . .
I can't say this issue "cut through religious, political and even family lines," but it sure raised a tempest. . . .
Incidentally, I never suspected the old home town would ever have a book written about it, let alone get two columns in TIME.
T.R. LEMAIRE
Oak Park, Ill.
Plane Talk
Sir:
. . . There are several aspects of your . . . article, "Icarus v. Harvard" [TIME, July 14], upon which I would like to comment. . . .
Certain statements attributed to me are completely unjustifiable. For example: "Dr. McFarland concludes that modern planes . . . are . . . a generally unsatisfactory means of travel." Further on: "The airplane itself is a menace to health, McFarland thinks." The article is concluded: "Anyway, 300 m.p.h., he thinks, is plenty fast enough." These statements do not represent my views and I doubt that they can be substantiated or inferred from the book [Human Factors in Air Transport Design] unless statements have been taken out of context or distorted by the reviewer's own interpretation. . . .
This is the first time that such an interpretation has been placed on the study. . . .
ROSS A. MCFARLAND
Boston
P: TIME admits that Dr. McFarland should be the best interpreter of his own book, regrets its air-queasiness.--ED.
Wool & the World
Sir:
In the July 7 issue . . . there is an article on . . . the wool bill President Truman recently vetoed. In this article, you make the astonishing statement that "wool growing is a small, uneconomical U.S. industry," and then go on to say that "it has many political friends in Congress as well as the White House."
Wool growing and wool manufacturing is one of the most basically essential industries in the country. Together with food and housing, adequate wool clothing is necessary for the maintenance of life itself. It is of paramount importance, therefore, that the U.S. raise at least a substantial part of the wool used by its citizens. . . .
While we were 75% self-sustaining as far as wool was concerned prior to the war, we must now import more than 70% of our requirements. . . . We are following a dangerous path in permitting ourselves to become dependent on any foreign power for a material as basically and vitally necessary as wool.
Since climatic and labor conditions make wool raising in this country far more expensive than it is in other wool-raising countries, the wool-raising industry in this country must be maintained either by protective tariffs or by subsidies. . . .
The components making up the total cost of finished textiles are raw wool, labor, dye-stuffs, chemicals, machinery and buildings. Since all of these items are much higher in this country than anywhere else in the world, the wool textile industry that converts raw wool into finished cloth also needs protection.
An industry as essential as this should not be used as a pawn in the establishment of Reciprocal Trade Agreements. While the program may sound wonderful in theory, it is not "reciprocal" in practice. How can there be reciprocity, when we are dealing largely with countries whose economies are managed, whose currency is pegged, and who are, furthermore, largely bankrupt.
CURT E. FORSTMANN
President
Forstmann Woolen Co.
Passaic, N.J.
This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.