Letters

WHO CHOSE GEORGE?

I know people who were born on third base and either got picked off or couldn't find home plate with a map. By contrast, leading Republican candidate George W. Bush [CAMPAIGN 2000, June 21] has made the most of his privileged situation. In addition, he can relate to the problems of small businessmen and those who have battled the bottle. He also takes the Bible seriously and has had executive experience as a general partner of the Texas Rangers and as Texas Governor. I think the W stands for winner. ROBERT B. BOOTH Madison, Ga.

Are Republicans so politically bankrupt that the best they can do is shovel money to a man who has less foreign-policy experience than Daffy Duck? KARL H. BREVIK Palm Desert, Calif.

We've already had one President Bush. Why would we want another? EDWARD J. WALSH Englewood, Colo.

Good job on Bush--the best I've read. For me, the key statement deals with his concern for former employees when he sold his company: he found jobs for all of them. How many candidates of either party would you trust to do the same? HERBERT NEUMAN Concord, Mass.

The biggest thing Bush has going for him is he's not Clinton. G.W. is no saint, but compared with Clinton, he's close. ROGER C. BURTON Sugarland, Texas

George W. doesn't have a chance of winning. The purpose of elections is change. Today we have a booming economy, low inflation, low unemployment and peace. Who wants change? FRED HOYT Sarasota, Fla.

No, no! Not again! How many Compassionately Conservative Republicans with no foreign-policy experience can we afford to have as President? Remember Ronald Reagan's jelly beans and cue cards? Now we have a telegenic, Teflon-coated, lightweight candidate who is known for having an office almost bereft of books. The core of Campaign 2000 is the candidacy of Bill Bradley. JOAN BAUER Pittsburgh, Pa.

Your article failed to mention Bush's stance on any issues. Why would voters want to select him over the other candidates? Your polls showed that 73% of those you asked want to know more about this candidate, but you did not supply the information. Without it, the article is relatively useless. EUNICE KASISKE Lugano, Switzerland

AN ISSUE FOR 2000

Global warming, tanker spills in Alaska, the Gulf War: the thread running through all these tragic events is America's dependence on oil. Will a former oilman from Texas, George W. Bush [CAMPAIGN 2000, June 21], lead America to a future of alternative fuels? Where does his allegiance lie? In all likelihood the presidential election in 2000 will be a showdown between Bush and Gore, and the emphasis placed on environmental policy will be a clear way to distinguish between the two candidates. Is the public informed and mature enough to understand the importance of moving away from fossil fuels and making it a key election issue? If the answer is yes, Bush will lose. ROBERT MUNRO Vancouver

NO ONE OWNS THE CENTURY

In response to your special issue on Heroes and Icons [TIME 100, June 14], I would like to point out that 100 years of American dominance in the fields of science, technology, entertainment and business do not make America the "owner" of the 20th century. Many Asian nations have come into their own in the past 100 years. This makes it our century, too, a period when we have fought for freedom and gained our independence. This century should stand as the one in which new independent nations were born in Asia. JEWELLYN DIZON Makati City, the Philippines

I greatly enjoyed General Colin Powell's tribute to the American G.I., but please don't forget the ordinary Russian soldier whose stubbornness and bravery overcame German military might in some of the fiercest battles ever fought. His contribution to the defeat of fascism must be worth noting. MARK FINLAY Hastings, England

Americans consider themselves "preservers of freedom." However, throughout this century, dictators such as Anastasio Somoza, Ferdinand Marcos, Augusto Pinochet, Fulgencio Batista, Mobuto Sese Seko, "Papa" and "Baby Doc" Duvalier and dozens of others were supported by the U.S. and its "G.I. Joes." Don't forget those who were killed by America's "heroes." CARLOS F. ST. SOARES Rio de Janeiro

In contrast to the times when hollywood stereotyped Chinese men as a bunch of Charlie Chans, Bruce Lee triumphed against the odds and showed the West a living, breathing Chinese superman. Lee represents the struggle of American minorities who are treated unfairly because of the color of their skin. WIBOWO SUMARDJO Auckland, New Zealand

THE TRUE BREW

Along with your article on the beneficial effects of soybean products [HEALTH, June 7], you showed a photo of little plastic packets of soy sauce. They contain the sensory equivalent of diesel fuel. This "soy" sauce is an American aberration born during World War II food shortages. Naturally brewed soy sauce contains wheat, soybeans, water and salt and is fermented and aged like wine. If the label reads corn syrup and caramel color, it's not the real thing. BARBARA TROPP San Francisco

CARDING TEEN MOVIEGOERS

It will be an all-time low in American culture if teenagers must show a photo ID to see an R-rated film [NATION, June 21]. Carding kids--or not allowing them to go into an R-rated movie without a parent--takes away the teens' illusion of control. Carding kids isn't going to make them less violent. It is simply going to make them more determined to get back the control they have lost. If that means walking into a school with a gun, they'll do it. In the opinion of this 12-year-old, the solution is to let the parents, not the government, decide what the child should watch. Who knows the youngster better, the parent or the government? JASON GUTIERREZ Pittsfield, Vt.

Your 17-year-old "First Person" writer Kate Carcaterra considers a violent film "a venting mechanism" for teen emotions. It's too bad she hasn't been shown other avenues for handling strong emotions in a mature way, such as communication and physical exercise, rather than relying on an entertainment form to handle them for her. ANNICK DOWNHOWER Arcadia, Calif.

Carding won't work: Kids will buy tickets for a G- or PG-rated movie, then sneak into another film. They do it now; they'll continue doing it. JAHNA MICHAELSEN Hollister, Calif.

QUESTIONABLE FILM RATINGS

The government's efforts to restrict youngsters' exposure to violent films are laudable [NATION, June 21], but two critical issues have been overlooked. Many movies that are R-rated [requiring that those 17 and under be accompanied by a parent] should be classified as the more restrictive NC-17 [barring anyone under 17]. Such uneven labeling makes a mockery of the film ratings. An R-rated film should prohibit any child under 13. Also, it's quite possible for parents to take toddlers and children to violent and explicit R-rated movies. Parents must be made more aware of just how badly young children are affected by viewing violence. However, in the interim we must not sit idly by condoning this deplorable treatment of children. ORLANDO B. DOYLE, PRESIDENT Impact Seminars for Youth Detroit

I am a 16-year-old, and it is clear to me that a vast majority of R-rated movies should not be rated so strictly. If there is more than one F word in a movie, it's R-rated, but even with a nude scene, Titanic gets a PG-13. That's ludicrous. Walk through the halls of any high school, and you will hear worse profanity and more sexually explicit conversations than in most R-rated movies. Walk across the street from the school, and you will often observe violence and drug use. The effect of seeing violence or hearing sexually explicit talk should not be pinned on Hollywood. It starts with parents. The kids copy the parents, and other youngsters copy those kids. Maybe we should start rating our homes and schools rather than our movies. NAME WITHHELD BY REQUEST Mount Vernon, Ill.

WARMTH ON WARMING?

Global warming [SCIENCE, June 21] occurs on a time scale that the average human being cannot relate to, and that's the reason for a lot of the public apathy about this issue. We say to ourselves, "It's so far off in the future." But remember, failure to take care of a problem in the early stages led to the Y2K situation. PAUL R. HERSHBERG Tallahassee, Fla.

American industries are making tremendous progress in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions without sinking our economy. Led by government-industry cooperation and voluntary programs, we are improving efficiency and creating the technologies of tomorrow right now. Industry is putting the environment first yet keeping the economy strong. GLENN KELLY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Global Climate Coalition Washington

There are policies that could reduce greenhouse emissions and at the same time boost economic growth and raise living standards. One such policy, called an environmental tax shift, would move a portion of the tax base away from income, wages and profits and onto pollution and fossil-fuel consumption. Tax shifts greatly reduce the economic costs of emissions reductions because they use market mechanisms rather than regulation to drive changes in behavior, and they also provide a way to reduce taxes on income and profits. M. JEFF HAMOND, DEPUTY DIRECTOR Incentives Program Redefining Progress Washington

RED ALERT: HOMOPHONES!

You warned about body piercing and noted precautions to be taken against infections in those who "can't resist a naval ring" [Personal Time: Your Health, June 21]. Isn't a naval ring something worn only by Annapolis graduates? Guess you meant navel. Ah, for a spell checker that warns about homophones! LARRY STOOKEY Rockville, Md.