The Windsor Star from Windsor, Ontario, Canada • 11

fte Windsor Star, Wednesday, July 19, 1972 Letters to the editor der ooking ips An editorial from Canadian Grocer Open letter to the Sir: This is an open letter to the SW A from a Roseville Garden resident. I would like to reply to your statement over CKWW that we the people of Roseville Gardens refused your bus service. I feel justified to say that your next statement made it very clear who denies such service, when, you sir, consider a one block detour to serve us uneconomical and a waste of time. So again the consequence is not a devoted service to the people, but what we the customers can do for you. I assume that the resistance to your proposal to unclose our community to the industrial-zoned property upset your managerial presumption.

I believe your hurt pride outweighed your decision to reject a bus service to the Roseville Garden families who love their children's safety above daily traffic hazards. This unavoidable would result by making our park accessible to the industrial development. I also think that your new zig-zag puzzle service is more confusing and inefficient than our one-block detour. ARTHUR JOOS Technocracy teas 40 years ahead Sir: Congratulations! Join the club. Your two page editorial comments on Limits to Growth is timely, even though about 40 years late.

In 1932, Technocracy, a scientific, research and educational organization stated the same things but in the main was ignored by the public and the press. In spite of this. Technocracy continued its research, knowing that if its analysis were correct, time, as far as acceptance was concerned, would be on its side. Well, time is running out and if the people of this world want to survive they must make some fundamental changes in the way they live on this planet. Making the "fast buck" with no concern for the consequences is how part of our culture and social system.

Can we change this in the interest of survival? Your Windsor Star Is an influential force in our community and it will be interesting to observe whether it will be used to publicize a non-growth society as proposed by Technocracy and The Star's editorial of Friday or will it continue with the fast buck boys and the disastrous results. Happy landing! LEO N. PROBE Amherstburg pen among staple food and grocery manufacturers, and we could be in trouble. With the food-at-home price index running considerably higher than last year (as it must continue to do for some months yet) any widespread return to gimmickry in the food and retailing area, at the apparent expense of other forms of competition, would be disastrous in the present climate. Under open competition there can be no criticism of any above-board promotion plan that proves popular with the public, and get results.

The problem arises from the apparent inability of competitors to come up with competitive reactions that are different, that give shoppers a choice, not a copy. Prior to 1966, in welcoming the appearance of a few legitimate discount stores, Canadian Grocer warned that the industry could be headed for trouble if it could not shake off a slavish "me too" form of competition, among stores, among products. Trouble came, and the shake-up was tumultuous. We are still feeling the effects. Since 1966 the industry has been precoccupied with consumerism and government intervention more than at any time in memory.

Even now, in 1972, the Canadian Grocery Distribu-ors Institute devoted is entire Almost all brand leaders in the soft drink industry are now heavily into contest game promotions. They differ only in detail, for the most part, involving mixing or matching things found under caps and tin lids. It's the classic example of the kind of promotional gimmick that can spread like wildfire once one firm starts. For while nobody is likely to win much, once all are in it, at least total participation tends to reduce the chance of any major change in market shares if the contests prove popular. Apparently Pepsi Cola's Poker Caps promotion last year was successful enough to encourage the others to get in on the act this summer and Pepsi, Coke, Orange Crush, Seven-Up and Canada Dry are all in it now.

Unfortunately, this promotional spread is also a classic example of the kind of thing that brought the whole food industry, including retailers, into disrepute in the mid-sixties, when the so-called consumer revolt culminated in a prices commission investigation in 1966. Not that the soft drink episode is likely to cause much of a consumerist reaction. While the so-called fun-food business now runs into hundreds of millions, to date it hasn't been a sensitive area in hare-nosed consumerism. But let the same thing hap convention discussions to these topics. So it is time for another warning: Both national brand manufacturers and retailers -distributors should take a good hard look at what's happened with soft drinks and be very much concerned as to what could happen in the more consumer-sensitive area of high volume food and grocery products.

They should remember that it's not the promotion, but the spread that hurts. Retailers should 'resist me-too promotions in these areas whenever there is an indication that similar tactics may remove choice from the market place. And they should be especially concerned with the advertising of such promotions, which sometimes involves the store. Speaking to Ontario food brokers, A. C.

Jackson of Dominion Stores urged the word-of-mouth spread of the truth that "food is a bargain" in terms of proportion of income spent. Mr. Jackson backed his contention with figures, and it's true. But any wide-spread gimmickry in the merchandising' of staple food and grocery products makes it to tough to sell this concept to the public, including a growing number of "socialists" who don't really want to believe it anyway. Who needs account ability? Sir: My personal opinion on teacher accountability is that the whole debate is foolish and quite secondary to the problem.

Will it startle anyone to learn that every time a teacher is confronted by a student who acts as if he-she wishes to learn, that teacher is being held accountable at that instant and in a more effective pattern than any pseudo-psychological test can prove. In my own case, the entire business world holds me accountable every June; if there is an opening in my area and none of graduates show ability or aptitude for it, my entire year was ineffective. But the point is that the student has to demonstrate a desire to learn and, under t.e present system of "free and semi-compulsory education, that demonstration is not always present. The only point with which I can disagree is Mr. O'Reilly's opinion of the value of traditional values: since when has the teacher "taught" and especially without allowing the concurrent action of the learner The whole paragraph is a misinterpretation of the traditional teaching procedure in which a teacher aims at a reasonable goal for the year, encourages the best few to sail ahead, shows the majority in the middle how to do the work and tries (sometimes valiantly) to coax the few laggards to keep up to the average.

Believe me. humanism is not dead. Because if it were, totalitarianism would be complete, 1984 would be worse than Orwell dreamed; and you wouldn't be permitted to print such large sounding words as "amorphous" without permission, which would imply that you wouldn't call an institution more than 2,000 years old, a thing without shape or archtype (form). In the other letter (from Mr. Tomlinson), may I ask how the gentleman came to the conclusion that 1) Brian Kappler was "true blue" all the way, from the article mentioned, 2) Anti-communist gossip could hurt a democratically socialist party, 3) The public battle with the Waffle increased anybody's popularity (political infighting isn't pretty), (4) Mr.

Stanfield is not an informed critic (he's no Diefenbaker, but that does not mean that he is uninformed)? I. M. RHOADS RR 4, Woodslee Boies and arrows Mini-skirts is where it isn't Sir: Some people really have a lot to do with their time. I am referring to a letter that appeared recently in The Star, which condemned the wearing of mini-skirts in church. The writer of this letter, George Pulford, seemed to be on a witchhunt for all women who dress in such a "vulgar style" while attending church.

(I'm certainly glad that burning at the stake is out of date now!) Who is this man, or anyone else for that matter, to tell people what they can or cannot wear to church. Does he really expect women to wear ankle-long hoop skirts to church? The way he talks you'd think mini-skirts were the downfall of our century. I could see his point if women in miniskirts were parading and jumping and somersaulting in front of the church congregation but this just isn't so. To me, this whole subject is trivial and I can't really waste my time worrying about it. Yet Mr.

Pulford wrote an extremely long letter about this "evil" fashion. If only everyone put such zeal into drag rehabilitation and prison reforms, then society really would get somewhere. To sum things up, anyone, in my opinion, who criticizes other people to such an extent is both a self-appointed judge and a hypocrite. MRS. BERNADINE JOHNSTON Speakers come, speakers go not fit for deer Sir: I take pleasure in supporting the letter in your paper by Connie Kennedy on the proposed deer kill to kill deer with bow and arrow.

Have we gone back to the barbaric ages? We are bound to think the officials of the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests have done so if they allow the bow and arrow kill. Let us think for a moment at a deer blinded in one eye with an arrow, and the untold agony that many of these poor dumb creatures will suffer for so-called sportsmanship. If it is necessary to kill some deer, surely this can be done by sensible good rifle marksmen. If we must have archery, let it be at range targets, not at innocent animals. I trust your paper ia the name of humanity will do all it possibly can to stop this cruel method to be enjoyed by a group of people who have forgotten the pain it will cause poor innocent creatures and who call themselves sportsmen.

A. M. BAIRD Victoria, B.C. Problem isn't overpopulation Sir: Here we go again the dullards huddling under a collection of authorities with their solutions to our problems! The problem isn't over-population. People are assets, not liabilities.

The problem is the false parameters of our national boundries, nationalism being another Renaissance metaphor we have to rid our minds of. Shakespeare warned his contemporaries (It must come Humanity must perforce prey on itself Like monsters of the deep) of the ultimate consequence of their new found values if gone uncontrolled. He wasn't listened to. We're suffering the consequences. Similarly, today there are a few men talking sense and as per usual not being paid attention.

One of these is Bucky Fuller, asking us to think globally. There is no pollution problem either, he's telling us, only a recycling problem. Another is McLuhan, religiously telling us that every breakdown is a breakthrough. PATRICK O'REILLY Miss Uniroyal most liberated Sir: Uniroval uses women! Uniroyal exploits women'. Sell tires not women! So read sign displayed by local mpmhprs of Women's Liberation as they By Douglas Fisher he does for them must be hidden because as Speaker he must stay away from both partisanship and open advocacy.

We had minority parliaments after the '62, the '63 and the '65 elections. Marcel Lambert, the Edmonton MP, was the choice of the first minority Parliament. He had a terrible time as Speaker. Day after day his rulings were appealed by Opposition spokesmen. This was a device of obstruction, a consequence of Liberal determination to break up the Diefenbaker government, rather than any fault of Mr.

Lambert. The Liberals' turn to find a speaker came in 1963 and the House got Alan MacNaughton, a rather aristocratic corporation lawyer from Montreal. Mr. MacNaughton was not a poor Speaker but he had a difficult time through the period until the '65 election. He was not as quick nor as sure as one might have hoped and there is no doubt he was glad to move to the Senate after his experience with the Parliament of scandals.

Mr. Lamoureux had been deputy-speaker under Mr. MacNaughton. He first came into the House from Cornwall riding in 1962 with the repuation of being an able lawyer and a protege of Lionel Chevrier, then the Number One Liberal in Quebec. Mr.

Lamoureux is not a loquacious man. Perhaps "unassuming" is the first adjective one should use to describe him. One never really knew how well he w-ould do as Speaker although his work as deputy had been firm and assured. In the minority years from 1965 to 1968 Mr. Lamoureux gave superb chairmanship to the House.

Members were so anxious to have him continue that an agreement was reached that the official opposition would not contest his re Although one political scientist has based his scholarly career on being an authority on the office of Speaker, the question of the best method of appointment and ideal conditions for the office has never been a serious, continuous exercise for Canadian politcians. The problem with all its "insider" ramifications has popped up again as this 28th Parliament seems to be ending with the near certainty that the able incumbent, Lucien Lamoureux will retire from politics. Excellent speakers are rare, and there is general regret among members of Parliament that some way of retaining Mr. Lamoureux into the future has not been found. One must stress the "insider" aspect simply because the public can hardly appreciate how important a neutral, fair and intelligent speaker is to a functioning assembly.

Comparisons are invidious but the handful of MPs and reporters who have experience since the '40s with the House of Commons are in agreement that Mr. Lamoureux has been the ablest during that period. Rene Beaudoin may have been more deft at handling questions of parliamentary procedure. But he was almost literally destroyed by the pipeline furore of 1956 Black Friday and all that. Roly Michener, now the governor-general, warmed the House during his term as Speaker.

The Opposition trusted his neutrality and sense of fairness. He was an excellent incumbent but he did not have quite Mr. Lamoureux's quickness on procedural arguments. Mr. Michener was defeated in the election of 1962 by Ian Wahn in the Toronto constituency of St.

Paul's. He had the problem of all speakers. How does a speaker keep a claim on his constituents when almost everything election in Cornwall (the riding is Stor-mont-Dundas). Although the local NDP nominated and ran a candidate, this was a riding initiative and the MPs of the party had hoped there would be an acclamation for Mr. Lamoureux.

After his re-election in '68 Mr. Lamoureux continued as Speaker. He had been a personal acquaintance of Mr. Trudeau for many years. He made it clear in the first year of this Parliament that he would not be a candidate again with a view to further terms as Speaker unless he was either relieved of constituency responsibilities or given a better, open means of representing the constituents.

Since 1968, Opposition parliamentarians have hoped a means would be found to keep him there. The government, so far as we know, took no steps to do this. He has done no quiet lobbying, made no complaints which reached the public. The question one asks is why would the government not have taken steps to clinch his services, at least for another Parliament? My guess on the answer to that is simply that Mr. Trudeau, influenced considerably by Donald Macdonald (he was House leader for the first half of this Parliament) has never given the House a high priority in his planning.

Speakers come. Speakers go. You can always get another. I would also guess that Mr. Lamoureux has been privately agitated at the slackness of this Parliament, that he felt this government really didn't care about the tone and vitality of the House.

It is possible that the Speaker of the next Parliament will do a good job but it is hard to imagine any man matching the standards of Mr. Lamoureux. Duke Ellington came and went Sir: It was indeed ironic that on the evening in which The Star carried a report on the Newport Jazz Festival, including a glowing account of a sell-out concert given by the Duke Ellington Orchestra, the very same orchestra, one of the greatest aggregations in jazz history, appeared in concert at the Windsor Raceway. To my knowledge there was no advertising of this concert by the raceway and no mention of Duke Ellington's appearance in the entertainment columns of The Star. The concert was mentioned briefly in the sporting pages, as if Duke Ellington was the equivalent of some thoroughbred instead of the foremost composer in jazz and a highly-respected figure pre-eminent in the whole field of American music.

Those of us who managed to attend the concert were given a splendid 80-minute tour through Ellingtonia from his early Black And Tan Fantasy to a movement from one of his latest suites, Afro-Eurasian Eclipse. He even honored his visit to Canada by playing his own arrangement of a piece by Canadian jazz composer, Ron Collier. What a pity that the people of Windsor were prevented from honoring his visit by a shortsighted policy of non-advertisement. We should have been there in full force to hear this very important group in modern music. Brickbats all round to the Windsor Raceway for not making more effort to publicise Ellington's visit and to The Star's sports writers for not letting us know about it.

An appearance by the Duke Ellington Orchestra in Windsor with no review in your newspaper is indeed a massive piece of neglect on The Star's part. PETER STEVENS Enjoying sermojis by concentrating Sir: I would like to reply to George S. Pulford. His long tirade appeared in The Star July 12. The pollution Mr.

Pulford talks about exists only in the minds of people like him and all those who are akin in their attitude. If one wants (or desires) to be sexually aroused, long skirts, or even the absence of females will not prevent this from A woman's beauty is certainly not to be construed as evil intent. God made females in this way so the earth would be populated and God made man with sexual drive. The Pauline doctrine also tells women to keep silent in church and to ask their husbands later. Paul also states wives are to be obedient to their husbands not that I dispute the wisdom of Paul he was the greatest theologian I simply dispute man's interpretation of his books.

If short skirts comprise a stumbling block, then the one who stumbles could fall over a pea. If Mr. Pulford kept his thoughts on the sermon and not on the roundness of females be it in the form of shapely legs and round bottoms, he would not fill his mind with titillating ideas. If this recourse is impossible he could stay at home and listen to a sermon on the radio. E.

MILLER RR 3, Harrow Fischer fan Sir: It is a great reflection on the intelligence of Windsor people when The Star editorial can sneer at Bobby Fischer who, it is still possible, could become the only world chess champ the English-speaking world has produced. Win or lose he is internationally a man of respect and stature but not, it seems, in oh so smug Windsor. Shame. N. A.

WILTON paraded in front of a gigantic, bikini- clad statue promoting Uniroyal products. If Pat Noonan and her Front du Liberation des Femmes are truly interested in freeing the female sex they might start by destroying their mates' copies of Adam, Playboy, and other magazines which sex-ploit women to sell the products advertized therein. Ms. Noonan and company might also protest the use of female mannequins in stores to display everyhting from brassieres to fur coats. And why should they not proclaim their cause at international beauty pageants devised by advertising agencies to select women they can exploit to promote the articles they are hired to advertize? A liberated woman is happy, right? If so, the only liberated woman in The Star's photo of July 15 is the 25 foot, fiberglass Miss Uniroyal.

The others look as though their mates had just given away all their drugery causing electric dishwashers, mixers, and washers and driers, and handed them dish-mops, wooden spoons and scrub-boards in their place. LESLIE A. TURVEY BUMP iWtfl 9omiiG Wl00t MOCKING rlEA UIW A CAP- SUPPER THAT Letters to the editor must be signed by the writer and should include the writer's address and telephone number. Letters will be subject to normal editing. Photo copies and carbon copies of letters will not be considered.

Names will be withheld only for compelling reasons..