From: Pete BEAULIEU ('62)

Sandstorm Extra that might be political

Re: Political ? Extra

Re: Clouds, Bombs and Bombers

A moment of introspection here. . . is it acceptable to be "proud
of the cloud" of yesteryear, but politically too sensitive to
have an attitude about today’s fluctuating(and politically
sensitive) gas prices, and gas taxes? This septuagenarian writer
does not endorse the Day's Pay mascot theory, but also does not
endorse the proposal that this theory should no longer be
discussed. In another context, commenting instead on the
contingency of man, one Karl Marx famously ruled that: "this
question is not permitted to socialist man."

On the too-hot domain of historical inquiry, our Sandstorm
readers did not object three years ago to my entry (immediately
below), and an enlightening dialogue among disagreeing and yet
agreeable graduates followed for several days. Are we all getting
too old for this, like the self-appointed political guru John
Rawls who in his best-seller academic tomes proposes that
political discourse must now be confined to only immediately
pragmatic topics, i.e., to those things that simply do not matter
that much to anyone.

    Sandstorm March 2011:  [Actually 3/18/11 - 
http://alumnisandstorm.com/htm-archives/2011/2011-03-Mar.htm#18]

      "It is possible that our second thoughts on the bomb
      and the Bomber logo will stir up some rebuttal. Fellow
      Bombers of whatever opinion should know about a key
      writer on one side of the debate. I happened across his
      book in a used book store last summer.

      "Gar Alperovitz (previously Legislative Director in the
      U.S. Senate, and Special Assistant to the Department of
      State, etc. etc.) gives us "The Decision to Use the
      Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth" (Harper
      Collins, 1995) – some 800+ well-documented pages based
      on interviews, correspondence, and especially recently
      declassified material from the period of decision.
      Example: General Spaatz, responsible for B-29 missions,
      was opposed and refused to drop the bomb on verbal
      orders. He insisted on something in writing (p. 345).
      General Eisenhower and Admiral Leahy were also opposed.
      According to Alperovitz it is hard to still argue that
      a million lives were saved by the bomb -- that invasion
      was even necessary as the only alternative action -- or
      that the war was expected at the time to continue for
      more than a few months. So, how did the decision
      actually get made or happen? Better read the book.

      "A sad sidenote (not in the book) is the fate of the
      USS Indianapolis which delivered the first atomic
      warhead to Tinian Island for final bomb assembly. The
      mission was so secret that when the ship was sunk a few
      days later, its SOS was dismissed as an enemy decoy.
      Three hundred were killed and 800 ended up in shark
      infested water. Only 300 were rescued."

Another good read, required in many high schools, is the eye-
witness New Yorker correspondent John Hersey's "Hiroshima"
(1946). What ever happened to the spirited discourse that I
remember from Daddy Dewald's American Government high school
class? More than the mascot, the gym is named after this iconic
coach and genuine teacher. Leaning back in his swivel chair, he
sometimes tied off a required three-minute oral report with a
blunt rejoinder, and always with his exaggerated inflection for
more: "questions . . . comments . . . reee-ports?" This to the
embarrassing and yet edifying discomfort of the isolated speaker,
including myself.

-Pete BEAULIEU ('62)
****************************************************************