WHO SPEAKS FOR KIDS?

You ask, "who speaks for kids?" the answer is, Everyone should [NATION, June 3]. Would we rather pay for effective schools or ineffective prisons? Obviously, schools that work. Would we rather pay for free immunization or long-term medical care? Again, the answer is obvious and apolitical. Applause for Marian Wright Edelman and the Children's Defense Fund! LITA LINZER SCHWARTZ Wyncote, Pennsylvania

The longer the media, including TIME, continue to hold up the likes of Edelman and Hillary Clinton as icons of child protection, the longer it will take to help the children who need it. This country does not require a government to raise its children, nor does it need re-heated, polarizing programs from the '60s. It does need to recognize and learn from the vast majority of parents, from those at all levels of society who put their children first every day. Co-opting children into yet another special-interest class with a march on the capital is exploitative and counterproductive. DEAN PAYNTER Salt Lake City, Utah

Edelman has long been my personal hero. No one would argue with the fact that the needs of all children are increasingly not being met. Where we get mired in the muck of politics is in finding solutions to the problems. My first commitment is to my own children, then to the kids in my neighborhood and extended family, then to those in my children's schools, then to youngsters in the wider community. If we can all think of ourselves as casting a stone that makes ripples in a pond, we can make a difference in our Stand for Children. PAULETTE HANSEN Columbia, Missouri

When I was five years old, I was removed from my home and for 11 years endured the pain and loneliness of foster homes, group homes, other institutions and even homelessness. Yet today I hold a doctorate and work for a major philanthropic foundation. If children's advocates and policymakers don't know what to do for children, I do: provide them with connectedness, continuity, dignity and opportunity. These four powerful factors can nurture children and youth by giving them meaningful and caring relationships with adults, a positive legacy, respect and the possibility for a life filled with potential. These principles should be the international standard for making decisions for all children and adults. No longer should we expect children to navigate without a map, steer without a rudder or seek without a friend. JOHN R. SEITA Kalamazoo, Michigan Via E-mail

Childhood is when we learn the morals that guide our lives. A concerted bipartisan effort to focus on children's issues would eliminate most of the inane haggling that now goes on. It is not a Republican or Democratic issue; it's a national one. If we don't teach morals to our children, we will soon become a nation without morals. DAVID L. KUTZ San Francisco

Only when politicians ask parents to take responsibility for themselves and their offspring will we see positive change. Until then, parents will be looking to the government to provide what they are supposed to: food and shelter, immunization, day care, attendance at school and the teaching of values. It's too bad that somewhere along the line, America as a society has told parents that it's O.K. to dump their responsibilities. WILLARD P. SPRINGER Manitowoc, Wisconsin

The major enemies of children today are missing fathers, illegal drugs, tobacco and alcohol abuse, the collapse of authority and a popular culture that inspires antisocial and destructive behavior in children. The war we must wage for our children requires more than simply pouring money into programs like Head Start. There is a component of morals and values to it. The sooner we can reach a consensus on what those morals and values are, the quicker we will begin saving our children. STEFFEN W. SCHMIDT, Professor Department of Political Science Iowa State University Ames, Iowa

Even though love of children is supposed to be as natural as breathing,we seem to be totally disconnected from them. It is hard to believe that we live in a culture in which adults have to be convinced that supporting children is in their own best interest. American adults suffer from a core of loneliness that is expressed in a poverty of heart and spirit, all of which our children inherit. Youngsters need more from us: love. O. FRED DONALDSON Hemet, California

Edelman has in mind bureaucratic expansion and invasive control over individual American lives. If she, Hillary Clinton et al. were truly interested in improving the lot of children in the U.S., they could begin by championing the downsizing of government and the end to runaway social programs. Because of the irresponsible spending of self-serving politicians, every child today is guaranteed a lower standard of living than that of previous generations. KATHERINE PINKERTON Novato, California

AN ADDITION TO THE FIRST FAMILY?

The fact that ol' Hillary and Bill Clinton are contemplating having another child is not a surprise [Nation, June 3]. It is simply an election-year ploy to boost their images, to make voters forget Bill's tainted past and Hillary's Whitewater woes. Maybe their Hollywood friends believe what they say, but I doubt the American people will. ANN FINN Ridgefield, Connecticut Via E-mail

If Hillary Clinton were to have another baby in her late 40s, as I did, would she severely reduce her responsibilities as First Lady? I quit being an attorney to enjoy my treasure fully. Would Clinton send a message to women led astray by strident feminists that it is O.K. to be "just a mom" for at least part of your life? And would she experience the delightful relief of leaving the stressful workaday (or political) world for the truly enriching and rewarding world of motherhood? Go for it, Hillary, and good luck! BONNIE PACKER Palo Alto, California Via E-mail

Gee, five months before the election, the embattled President and First Lady are hoping they'll have another child, and are allegedly considering adoption, perhaps of a youngster with special needs. There is only one way for the Clintons to dispel the notion that this blockbuster revelation is just political pandering of historic proportions. They should adopt a special-needs child before Election Day. MICHAEL D. PARANZINO Rockville, Maryland

WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE

In your article "A Shot Across Earth's Bow" [SPACE, June 3], you noted that our planet narrowly escaped a devastating collision with a mountain-size asteroid, but you didn't portray the destruction in terms most people can comprehend. Two-thirds of the large asteroids heading toward Earth would strike oceans, not land. Had asteroid 1996JA1 collided with any of our oceans, a tidal wave of Noachian-flood proportions would have deluged every province of the planet. The survivors, should there have been any, wouldn't know what had happened. Perhaps they would refer to an act of God that cleansed the planet of a sordid past. Thank God there are prudent souls working to protect us from such an event. ROBERT D. BROWN Lincoln, Nebraska Via E-mail

JERUSALEM, CITY OF FAITHS

I found Johanna Mcgeary's review of Karen Armstrong's Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths [BOOKS, June 3] enlightening and logical in spite of the "never-ending" religious family feud in that city. Armstrong, in her history of Jerusalem, rightly says true holiness never triumphed in the Holy City. The best solution to the dispute over which religion shall reign is a three-seat throne overseen by NATO. In addition to monitoring the government, NATO could provide peacekeeping troops that would be charged with guarding the ruins of the Temple, just in case soldiers of one religion tried to rebuild it overnight. DEBRA MOSE Marksville, Louisiana

DR. DEATH IS DIFFERENT

Wilfrid Sheed does a disservice to objectivity in discussing the celebrity of Dr. Jack Kevorkian [ESSAY, June 3]. The right-to-die movement in America today aims to end suffering at the request of the sufferer, and to compare it with Hitler's euthanasia ignores the obvious difference: "at the request of the sufferer." If the person suffering is able to think and communicate his or her wishes, that is a different scenario from the issue relating to Hitler in war. DAN CARLSON Pennsville, New Jersey Via E-mail

THE BLESSING

Your article on same-sex marriage outlined the arguments for and against it [LAW, June 3]. But isn't it time for churches and synagogues and all the faiths to provide for a "blessing of friendship"? We already bless hounds and foxes, pets, boats and all sorts of things; why not bless two people who are devoted to each other, no matter what their sexual orientation? Isn't it time for the state to acknowledge "life partners" and give them all the legal and social benefits others have? And if any of these life-partner relationships prove to be less than lifelong, the divorce proceedings could be the same as for married couples. (The Rev.) Frederick J. Hanna Baltimore, Maryland

CLINTON'S CIVIL RELIEF ACT

When I heard that Bill Clinton might seek protection from Paula Jones' lawsuit under military law as an "active duty" Commander in Chief [Nation, June 3], I thought one of Jay Leno's joke writers had gone berserk. DON A. ELLIS Overland Park, Kansas