Obviously, these are people of a great nation who are going places and doing things, even though they have a philosophy of obeisance to a supreme dictator—a philosophy that is abhorrent to us but one that we cannot ignore. How do you understand such a dilemma? It beats me, but as a former newspaperman, I can't help but say that this article is one of the best I have ever read.
I greatly enjoyed your article on sport in China. I believe that we can learn at least one thing from the Chinese. For the most part we Americans put more emphasis on the outcome of a sporting enterprise than on the process of building it. The Chinese, on the other hand, do not think there is much importance in who wins or loses. Instead, they believe that by improving their bodies, they are advancing the socialist revolution.
I am thoroughly against the infiltration of politics into sports. But like the Chinese, I believe that we should rind more significance in the experiences and personal growth that go with participating in sports. The outcome has no bearing.
The sports particular people participate in, what they seek from them and their attitudes toward their opponents and themselves often lie beyond the level of understanding provided by official studies of a country. William Johnson's beautifully written article on China gives us an insight into more than three-quarter billion of our fellow inhabitants of this globe. Thank you for it.
J. WALTER DICKSON
At the Rate We're Going, Goodby Fish (Sept. 24) is an excellent article on the plight of our fisheries. The evidence presented by John R. Clark and William Brownell is only the tip of the iceberg. The scientific literature is filled with scholarly studies bearing out the findings presented. Yet the big power companies insist on more studies costing thousands of dollars when the money should be going for closed systems as advocated by Clark and Brownell. Thanks for letting scientists have their say.
RICHARD K. WALLACE JR.
Department of Marine Sciences
University of Puerto Rico
Mayag�ez, Puerto Rico
Robert H. Boyle's article is a Vonnegutian description and prediction of a life in our not-too-distant future in which man will be perhaps the only species able to exist on this planet outside a zoo. But it also points indirectly to the paradox of present land use. In a time when rising taxes are a crucial issue, is it necessary to spend so much money and cause so much havoc with the environment to bring new lands into production (as in the case of the California Water Plan) while at the same time subsidizing other farmers for keeping their already productive lands out of production? It seems the taxpayers are being billed twice for the same goods.
As one who fishes the Delta at least 100 times a year, I know the spots where fish once were caught. I have a fast boat, and in one day I can fish the Sacramento, the San Joaquin, the bays, sloughs and lakes. But I was out for 10 hours yesterday and not one fish. My sum total from September '72 to September '73 is one sturgeon and three striped bass. What industry has failed to ruin, thirsty Southern California has destroyed. I am nearly 67, so my tears are for the young who will never know the thrills of hooking a "keeper." They are gone, as is much else in this time of too little, too late.
J. P. GARVIE
I have to agree with Mr. Boyle: the situation is getting completely out of hand. Man uses nature's resources as though there were no tomorrow. I am presently living in Ohio but am formerly from Norwalk, Conn., on Long Island Sound. As a boy I spent many summer days catching bluefish, striped bass, etc. But I know now that when I move back to Connecticut my fishing days will be numbered. As long as this country keeps up its materialistic ways, things will continue to get worse.
I just hope that the people who live inland also will read this excellent article, for if the situation is to be rectified, it will take a joint national effort.
Tom Landry is not quite the innovator you make him out to be in your scouting report on the Dallas Cowboys (Sept. 17). That "nice piece of flimflam" he perfected, a flanker in motion toward the ball, has been used successfully at Harvard since 1971 when Joe Restic brought his multiple offense with him from Canada. So when Landry uses a quarterback-in-motion play for the winning touchdown in the Super Bowl, you'll know where he got the idea. It worked for us against Yale two years ago.
JOHN L. POWERS