Dear Editor:
The February 16 issue of the Westerner carried an article by Chris Ladner supporting amnesty for draft dodgers. I am absolutely opposed to granting amnesty to these people.

Those who ran out on their country are not "lovers of peace," as Mr. Ladner claims, but cowards. A true lover of peace would not run. If I found it against my conscience to serve in Viet Nam, I would not run. I would be willing to go to jail, and I would want to go to jail for my beliefs. Thoreau once wrote that when a society requires an individual to become an agent of injustice, the place for the just is in jail. If the draft dodgers were truly "lovers of peace" and believed the Viet Nam War to be unjust, they would be willing to go to jail. Unfortunately, they are not, and that is why they are not "lovers of peace."

Some have suggested that we should be as generous with the draft dodgers as Abraham Lincoln was. For once, I am in agreement with the liberal bleeding‑hearts. The following is President Lincoln's stand on amnesty for draft dodgers: a Civil War draft dodger once petitioned Lincoln for amnesty. Lincoln told him that he would grant him amnesty if the draft dodger spent one day in jail for every day he spent running from the army. This is the course we should follow, and we should be proud that President Nixon is following this courageous and historically correct course.

Mark Thompson


Dear Editor:
Last Friday night at our last home game all the parents of the senior members of the cheerleading squad and of the basketball team received recognition and thanks from our school by receiving mums.

We would like to thank our parents for all the rushed dinners, taxi service, and making sure we get to practices and games.

We hope this can take the place of the mums, because even if they did forget, we didn't.

A Few Members of the Pom‑Pon Squad

Dear Editor:
My reaction to Richard Glitz's letter in reference to the "antiAmerican statements" on page one of a recent Westerner:

First of all, I do not think that you should call any form of dissent anti‑American because dissent is truly what founded our country. Our founding fathers were, in fact, radicals.

Secondly, it seems to me that you do not know Senator McGovern's policies. He was never going to give everyone $1,000 but was going to insure everyone up to $1,000 and later dropped that idea after his economists told him what proposals could be realistically workable. And this decision, may I add, took place before a formal statement of this proposal. (He never said anything about walking on water, either. You must be confusing him with Jesus Christ . . .

We've gotten our "peace with honor," but where is the honor? As for the President "starting the South Vietnamese on the road to self‑help, etc." the South Vietnamese only know now how to run and hide. They're tired of fighting and tired of the whole situation. They probably couldn't care less what the agreements are as long as it all stops. They're just as good as dead anyway in the long run, since they are such a small, vulnerable country to begin with.

No, I have not forgotten that Richard Nixon is the President. I wish I could forget. Henry Kissinger is a sharp guy, but he's working for the wrong man.

You're all‑American and that's fine. I don't know if my way is right, but I don't think you should say that any way is "un‑American," especially any type of dissent.

Annie McCabe
Marillac High School


Dear Editor:
(In regard to the letter in the last issue of the Westerner, whose author chose to withhold his name.)

Dear Cynic:
You are all the one who is confused. War is, perhaps, an appropriate time for you to practice your cynicism. But the war is over. Soldiers and POW's are coming home to rebuild their lives. It's not only their beginning but our beginning of peace in the world. Isn't that what everyone has marched, rioted, and prayed for? Don't you see that cynicism does not belong now?

Roxanne Miller