In the May 12 edition of the Saratoga News there was an article on page 11 by Grant Shellen titled "Neighborhood cleanup more than upkeep—it's neighborly." We appreciate the article; however, there is an error. I do not give out phone numbers of residents. It does not make sense for me to give out people's phone numbers, as a lot of our residents have unlisted phone numbers. I follow the policy of the Social Security Administration. If someone asks for a neighbor's phone number, with the requester's approval, I will call the neighbor and tell them that a neighbor wants to talk with them. And if they want to talk with them, I will give them the requester's phone number.

Marvin Becker

Mellowood Drive

Substantiating claims
of Pearl Harbor attack

For follow-up and clarification to my letter of May 26, substantiation of my comments about Roosevelt's knowledge of impending military action can be verified in books by Gen. Albert C. Wedemeyer, Wedemeyer, Reports!, published in 1958, and Robert S. Stinnett's outstanding work, Day of Deceit, published in 2000. Stinnett spent 20 years assembling data and information wherein all military bases on the Pacific Rim were notified of impending strikes against the U.S. with the notable exception of the Pearl Harbor commanders, Kimmel and Short, who were the fall guys but since have been reinstated and cleared of their presumed negligence. Additionally, there are any number of books on this subject available since Wedemeyer's revelations.

It must be remembered that prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, the isolationists outnumbered the interventionists 10 to 1, and I personally recall the great reluctance on the part of Americans getting involved. All of Roosevelt's actions at that time were to assist Great Britain in every way possible but short of entering the war due to America's isolationist attitude.

Allowing Japanese military to make the first strike was exactly what he needed to get the U.S. charged up for war. He knew this and allowed it to happen. Then and now I agreed with Roosevelt that we had to come to the aid of Great Britain, but how? Pearl Harbor did it for him. And American patriotism was never more intense than at that time. The last thing Germany wanted was for us to enter the war. We could overwhelm the Axis nations with men, material and fortitude, and Hitler knew it.

This country did not underestimate Japanese military potential, and there certainly was not racism involved. Newspaper men and women scattered throughout the Far East were well aware of an impending war with Japan. Even Amelia Earhart's flight and subsequent crash scared the Japanese into accusing us of spying on them. Whether she did or not, I don't know. For those on the scene, it was no surprise of a Japanese attack.

I am not suggesting President Bush in any way knew or facilitated 9-11, but that action by terrorists precipitated the war we are in now, and Carl Heintze is correct in saying the patriotic zeal is not there. I stand by previous remarks.

I will not address the other comments about the legitimacy of the war in Iraq. It is clear no amount of discourse is possible with tortuous logic.

W.E. Sirvatka

Glasgow Drive

Double standard works
against women, not men

Before you read this, please know that I'm a fan. I read your articles all the time, and I normally follow what you're saying. This week, however, I didn't get it (Dick Sparrer's "The old double standard is rearing its gray head," June 9). The double standard works against women, not men. You made it sound like it's bad for men. (It's a different debate if you talk about how double standards really are bad for everyone.)

The reason women dye their hair and get all those treatments is because society doesn't let them age normally. If a woman has gray hair, she's old. If a man has gray hair, he's distinguished, meaning it's OK. Women have no choice but to try to look younger because they aren't appreciated when they're old.

Men can successfully cover their gray hair with a natural color. It's when they choose the black shoe-polish dye that wouldn't look normal even when they were young that they look ridiculous. Looking at all the Ronald Reagan photos the last few days, I don't believe that he didn't dye his hair at his age. No one ever comments about it, though, because he looked good.

The only thing I know for sure in my 40-year-old dyed brown-haired head is that it's OK to do whatever I need to do to feel younger, and I'm old enough to not care about what other people think. Same with other people. If you feel young in your car, more power to you. If you need to dye your hair to feel young, who cares. As long as you don't make me feel old when you drive by in your sports car with your young girlfriend and snub me because I haven't had a chance to dye my hair and put on my makeup because I'm more concerned with the important things in life like my family.

OK. I'm done. Have a good day. Keep writing those good articles.

Lisa Baumann

Los Gatos

Conservatives, liberals
won't be able to agree

And so, Mr. Diaz (Letters, June 2), I suppose you are not a liberal, but a conservative or independent with well-researched opinions—excuse me, I mean facts. You obviously have super-secret information that the rest of us are not privy to because you so factually state that there are no Al Qaida in Iraq. Can I read your report? Can I speak to your resource? I'm fascinated.

I contend that no matter how we protest to the contrary, that conservatives are likely to back the president's view and military decisions and liberals will find evidence that rebukes the same. However, you are right about patriotism; you made that point and moved on to a more contentious statement and lost the war just as I was about to back you.

Belinda Heerwagen

Wildwood Way