WILL HE RUN?

I BEAMED WITH PRIDE AS I READ ABOUT former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell [Cover Story, July 10]. He is witty, charming, handsome, distinguished, sensitive to others, eloquent, lavishly talented and possessed of a great sense of humor. He is our Mr. America. Who can find a reason not to support Powell for President? ELWOOD WATSON Orono, Maine

I DON'T WANT TO PREJUDGE POWELL AS a presidential candidate, but we should learn from our past experience. The U.S. suffered under Ulysses S. Grant, and stood still for eight years under Dwight Eisenhower. Military duty in command positions is not the appropriate training for political office. Politics is the art of building consensus among diverse special interests rather than the art of commanding others. The presidency should be the culmination of a career in civilian government service rather than a prize for a beloved military hero. THEODORE M. UTCHEN Wheaton, Illinois

WHAT A JOY IT WOULD BE TO VOTE FOR A candidate I actually want in the White House instead of settling for the lesser of two evils . Please, General Powell, run! LAURA FRANCIS Austin, Texas

I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO GENERAL POWELL, ''Now it is incumbent on you to run for President, whether you run as Democrat, Republican or independent. History rarely forgives a budding promise thwarted before it has fully bloomed." SULTAN AKBARKHAN Jersey City, New Jersey

POWELL IS A POSITIVE ROLE MODEL FOR all of us, black and white. That is why I hope he resists all efforts to thrust him into the race for the White House. The election process has become dirty and boring, an affront to the intelligence of the American people. No matter how good a person Powell is, once he enters the political arena there are those people, politicians and journalists, who will go to extremes to destroy everything he stands for. What they cannot dig up, they will make up, and in the process we will lose a wonderful human being we can look up to and admire. JON MYERS Indianapolis, Indiana

A PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURATION WITH Powell taking the oath of office could mean another "Camelot" for America. ESTEB SALES ESTADILLA Verona, New Jersey

THE U.S. PRESIDENCY HAS BECOME A thankless, ineffective job for egoists. Intelligent, well-respected, highly capable, no-nonsense, truly compassionate candidates shouldn't stoop to apply. Powell deserves better, much better. SYBIL FREEMAN Decatur, Georgia

NOT ONLY COULD COLIN POWELL BE America's first black President, he could be the country's first independent President. George Washington, the first President of our country, did not seek the office. He was persuaded to preside over the Constitutional Convention because he realized he held the key to creating a new nation. Powell, not unlike Washington, holds the key to changing, for the better, the country he has fought for. He could overcome many problems that are a result of our two-party system. Powell says he wants America to live as a family. He should run for President, so that his wish for an American family will be one step closer to reality. ANTHONY LOUIS CIUCA Blacksburg, Virginia

GENERAL POWELL, FOR AMERICA'S SAKE, can you afford not to run? DARLENE J. CARROLL Minneapolis, Minnesota

CLOSE CALL FOR MUBARAK

YOUR COVERAGE OF THE ASSASSINATION attempt on President Hosni Mubarak [Egypt, July 10] failed to provide an objective insight into the violence gripping Egypt. Your conclusion prescribed a Band-Aid solution for Mubarak: choose a successor and name that person vice president. The political turmoil in Egypt and Algeria, being intertwined, is symptomatic of a single underlying cause: the ruthless suppression of democratic rights by an authoritarian regime clinging to power.

While in Algeria the junta brazenly ignored the popular vote in democratic elections, in Egypt the dictatorial regime of Mubarak, who has been in power for 14 years, launched massive pre-emptive strikes against similar rising political forces in the form of Islamic movements. This initial action led to cycles of violence by the government and opposition. The long-term interests of the West will be served not by inventing an Islamic bogeyman in another sovereign nation and propping up authoritarian regimes, but by pressuring these so-called allies to begin to practice unadulterated democracy along with a spirit of open dialogue and accommodation. NAZRE SOBHAN Forrest, Australia

THOMAS' JUDICIAL APPROACH

JACK WHITE'S ASSAULT ON SUPREME Court Justice Clarence Thomas [Dividing Line, June 26] was notable for its meanspirited effort to demonize Justice Thomas. White seeks to reduce Thomas to a curiosity and thereby minimize the importance of his contribution to the Supreme Court. Any fair person who has read Thomas' decisions is forced to admit that he has emerged as an intellectually vigorous voice on the court. His writings this term, like those of previous years, have articulated a robust judicial philosophy that properly respects the text and history of the Constitution and show due sensitivity for the policymaking role of the democratically elected branches of government.

At the root of Thomas' judicial approach is the principle that the original understanding of the Constitution determines its interpretation and application. Not only is his vision faithful to the Constitution as a written document, but it also limits the freedom of judges to import their own philosophies into constitutional law and allows the Legislative and Executive branches to make the policy calls. White calls Thomas' conclusions in the recent desegregation and affirmative-action cases the result of "twisted reasoning and bilious rage." Anyone who knows the Justice and his optimistic outlook, his ready smile and laugh and his gregarious and vivacious personality recognized this as nonsense. Moreover, it cannot be a mere coincidence that the court gradually has moved toward Thomas' positions on affirmative action, voting rights, school desegregation and the separation of church and state, belying the picture of a seething Justice.

Apparently, your columnist views black opinion as nearly monolithic and thinks that because Thomas is black, he must represent the views of liberal civil rights organizations. It is demeaning and condescending to try to lump the diverse members of an entire community into one orthodoxy and deem only one view authentic. No one would suggest that Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer must reflect "Jewish views," or that Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy must represent "Irish opinions." Moreover, the Supreme Court is not a representative body; its members are appointed for life so that they may act as neutral, dispassionate umpires in the constitutional disputes of our day. That is precisely how Justice Thomas is carrying out his duties, and he is doing so with distinction. ORRIN G. HATCH U.S. Senator, Utah Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee Washington

IN RESPONSE TO THE OPINION PIECE ON Clarence Thomas, I would note it's good that the Rev. Wyatt Tee Walker, a former aide to Martin Luther King Jr., and other African Americans have finally recognized Thomas for what he is, but where were they during the confirmation hearings? Many prominent blacks were well aware that Thomas was unfit to follow in Thurgood Marshall's footsteps; very few had the temerity to come out and say it. If Justice Marshall could see who is occupying the seat on the Supreme Court that he held so honorably, he would be spinning in his grave. JUDY LIND Riverdale, New York

DIFFERENT VIEWS OF THE CANYON

AS A FIVE-YEAR RESIDENT OF THE GRAND Canyon, I would have found your story "Crunch Time at the Canyon" [Environment, July 3] almost laughable if it weren't for the distortions that will hurt our tourism-based economy and probably cost some locals their jobs. The people who are trying to scare visitors away from their national parks are the same ones who told us that if we shut down our logging, mining and ranching, we would benefit from tourism. The environmental alite are spreading stories designed to keep average Americans out of their playgrounds this summer. Perhaps people should show up and teach the environmentalists how to share. SCOTT LIKER Grand Canyon, Arizona Via America Online

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ONCE AGAIN required to sacrifice in order to compensate for the folly of investors. Shortsightedness is about to cost us our national parks. How long will it be after the 200 parks and monuments close before they are sold to private investors? Americans should stand up for their public lands and for the right to enjoy them. The value of these lands was encapsulated by John Muir in Our National Parks when he wrote, ''Thousands of tired, nerve-shaken, overcivilized people are beginning to find out that going to the mountains is going home; that wildness is a necessity; and that mountain parks and reservations are useful not only as fountains of timber and irrigating rivers but as fountains of life.'' SHERI A. MCDONIEL Dubuque, Iowa aol: SAMcDoniel

EVERYONE SEEMS TO AGREE THAT REDUCED budgets, overflow crowds concentrated in small pockets and old facilities are having a significant impact on visitors to the national parks, particularly the Grand Canyon. However, your report spoke of air tours of the area as being part of the problem. We think they are part of the solution. Last year more than 2 million people visited national parks and other federal lands by air. More than 40% took flights over the Grand Canyon. These visitors left no footprints and no debris behind. They simply flew over, enjoyed and left the area without touching a thing.

In 1988 the Federal Aviation Administration established a special federal air regulation to help restore the "natural quiet" to the Grand Canyon. This was done with the support of the air-tour industry. The new requirements confine aircraft to strictly defined and narrow flight corridors. Today 92% of park visitors report that they are not adversely affected by aircraft sound in the Grand Canyon, and backcountry park visitors report seeing or hearing only one or two aircraft a day. The contention that visitors can't enjoy the park because of the "noisy aerial onslaught" is without factual basis. DAN ANDERSON, President National Air Access Council Alexandria, Virginia

NATO AND LESSONS LEARNED

IN SUMMING UP THE MOSCOW SUMMIT between Clinton and Yeltsin [The POLITICAL INTEREST, May 22], Michael Kramer quoted me as opposing the immediate extension of NATO membership to the countries of Central Europe on the grounds that "We've got time. If it's really 'Weimar Russia,' then we're only at 1932. NATO can enlarge when the threat gets real." The quotation incompletely expresses my views. The democracies did not resist Hitler in the 1930s until it was too late to avoid a terrible war. But a better indicator of how the West would respond to the kind of Russian misconduct that would justify the expansion of NATO is the experience of the cold war. Having learned the lesson of the Hitler era, the democracies responded promptly, firmly and effectively to a series of dangerous Soviet initiatives: the forcible imposition of communist regimes in Eastern Europe, the Korean War, Sputnik and the invasion of Afghanistan. I believe the West would act in a similar manner to protect the new democracies of Eastern Europe should these countries be threatened by renewed Russian imperialism. Because they are not currently threatened, there is no need to expand NATO now. MICHAEL MANDELBAUM, PROFESSOR Johns Hopkins University Washington

WAS IT JUST A PLOY, HUGH?

BRITISH ACTOR HUGH GRANT NEEDN'T fret about being the naughty boy of the week [People, July 10]. The spectacle of an African-American hooker caught in a sex act with a wealthy, white rising star is a Hollywood press agent's dream come true. The bottom line: "Please spell my name correctly, H-U-G-H G-R-A-N-T.'' FRED GERHAUSER San Carlos, California Via America Online

BACK FROM THE DEAD

THE STORY ON ISSUING RECORDINGS by departed musicians, "Old Rock, New Life'' [Show Business, July 10], correctly raises very pertinent and ethical issues, not only about the quality, type and direction of posthumous material, but also about exactly who should benefit financially from the vast sums of money that can be generated. However, one thing advances in recording technology cannot do is alter the physical characteristics of these dead artists. Jimi Hendrix was considered by many to be a great left-handed guitarist--perhaps the greatest--during his all too short span on this earth. But your photograph shows him playing the guitar right-handed. JOHN PEACOCK Fenwick, Canada

WHAT'S APPROPRIATE ON THE NET

WE ALL SHARE DEEP CONCERNS ABOUT children's access to obscenity and other harmful materials on the Internet. In the rush to protect children [Cover Story, July 3], however, we need not unnecessarily chill online speech between consenting adults or set up a government agency as censor of the speech carried over computer networks. I have sponsored an alternative legislative approach to study ways to empower parents, not the government, to decide what is appropriate for their children to access on the Internet. Rather than stifling the continued development of the Internet with censorship, we should encourage the marketplace to develop services, software and the technical means to enable parents and other computer users to control the information transmitted to their home or business computers. PATRICK J. LEAHY U.S. Senator, Vermont Washington

I'M 15, AND HAVE BEEN ONLINE FOR A couple of months. I in no way feel endangered by the material available on the Internet. Senator James Exon would have you think that the instant a kid goes online, he or she is bombarded with nasty pictures and messages from perverts. Sure, there's pornography on the net, but so far none of it has been forced upon me or any of my friends who are online. Which leads me to ask if Exon has ever been online. If he has, he would realize that there is no need for protection. Think of it this way: snakes can be dangerous, but they don't necessarily come after you and attack you. MATT GUTBERLET Baldwin, Maryland Via America Online

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT DOESN'T OWN THE Internet in 1995, and it shouldn't. Adult material in an area frequented by today's youth is a mistake and requires attention, but with all the social problems in America that the government hasn't figured out how to solve--gang violence, drugs, welfare, unemployment--the last thing the feds should be doing is snooping in people's living rooms to see what's on their hard drives. MARK HARRIS Cincinnati, Ohio Via America Online

OF COURSE THE INTERNET SHOULD BE rid of all its disgusting cyberporn, and those purveyors--and collectors--punished to the full extent of laws (to be quickly written). It is, after all, horrible for innocent children to see unnatural images of naked human bodies. How better for them to watch tens of thousands of natural images of murder and mayhem on television and in the movies. RANDY WILSON Santa Monica, California Via America Online

IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT EXON HAS IT IN for technology. The net is not print or broadcasting; it's a whole new medium with its own rules. Parents need to take responsibility for what their children do. They need to realize that the Internet is a community just like any other-and that every community has its share of bad guys. Parents should supervise what their children do and take the necessary steps to lock out things they find objectionable. Technology is the answer, not red tape. The fact that a politician who has outlived his usefulness is writing up bills that have a 1984 ring to them is no reason to blacklist the Internet. JON O'BRIEN Schaumburg, Illinois AOL: JonCOBrien

AS A 16-YEAR-OLD WHO BELIEVES THERE is a problem with cyberporn, I would still say that cyberspace has been a great benefit to me. I met a girl on Prodigy who is also 16, and we talked for a while online, got to calling each other on the phone and finally, I went to her sweet-16 party and met her face to face. We fell in love at first sight. I know there are other stories like mine that prove cyberspace is not all perverts, psychos and child molesters. Good things can come of it. DAVID KIRSCHNER Coral Springs, Florida Via America Online

SURELY NO ONE CAN WHOLLY CONDONE the excesses of pornography on computer networks described in your article. I applaud none of it, yet does anyone-legislator, watchdog, censor or myself-have the right to remove this material from the Internet? The decision by an adult to view cyberporn rests with the individual alone, and it does not matter by which medium the pornography is conveyed. Access to the net should be open. HERB MAYNARD Napier, New Zealand

CORRECTION

OUR ARTICLE ON LOCAL EFFORTS TO oppose ultra-conservatives [Politics, July 10] included a quote from Ken Blalack stating that he helped lead the campaign for school-board recall in Vista, California. While Blalack's group, the Organization of Mainstream Activists, is active against the religious right, Blalack was not involved in the Vista recall. The credit for that successful campaign belongs to Barbara Donovan and the Coalition for Mainstream Education. In addition, a photograph and caption with the story indicated that Blalack had denounced book banning in Vista. This action took place in La Mesa-Spring Valley, California, not in Vista, where book banning was not an issue.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR should be addressed to Time Magazine Letters, Time and Life Building, Rockefeller Center, New York, N.Y. 10020. Our fax number is (212) 522-0601. Our E-mail address is [email protected] Correspondence should include the writer's full name, address and home telephone, and may be edited for purposes of clarity or space. Time is available both on America Online and on Time Warner's Internet home page, Pathfinder: http://pathfinder.com

Subscription Renewals? Gift Subscriptions? Address Changes? TIME is ready to make time for you! Call toll-free 1-800-843-TIME