THE 25 MOST INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE IN THE U.S.

"If the people you've selected are those whose 'ideas and visions, tastes and beliefs' affect our lives, then where are we headed?" A. SPIRO SKENTZOS North Hollywood, California

I learned a lot from your selection of America's 25 Most Influential People, and I know most readers have their own ideas about who should and should not be on the list [TIME 25, June 17]. I thoroughly enjoyed reading about people such as William Julius Wilson and Stephen Covey. I was glad to see Robert Redford and Toni Morrison included. I even thought the controversial choices, like Louis Farrakhan and Michael Hammer, were O.K. too. They certainly are influential today. ELAINE PONDANT Carrollton, Texas

I don't see how these individuals of influence and power are changing the world. And why not include someone from the field of the environment? Is there nobody of influence or power working in that area, or don't you consider it one of concern? CHARLES HALL Ann Arbor, Michigan Via E-mail

You highlighted people from all walks of life and many different professions, but sometimes the truly effective individuals are the celebrities and sports heroes who are seen in the media, often too frequently. They are the role models for young adults and the spokesmen and -women of U.S. corporations. Your list included a few of these people, but not enough to represent the true situation. ANDREW CAGGIANO Tulsa, Oklahoma

If the people you've selected are those whose "ideas and visions, tastes and beliefs" affect our lives, then where are we headed? Granted, Calvin Klein has done as much for jeans as Martha Stewart has for domesticity. But are these people really more influential than our parents, civil and religious leaders or teachers? My high school journalism teacher, Elizabeth Spaulding, is retiring this year after achieving more than your 25 important people. She taught her students how to make their own beliefs, visions, ideas and tastes, and not just accept the status quo. Now that's truly having an influence on others. A. SPIRO SKENTZOS North Hollywood, California

Being influential doesn't necessarily make you admirable. I wish these people would use their influence in less selfish ways. The businessmen, at least, could reap untold benefits for themselves and their companies by doing so. MICHELLE GARDNER LaGrange, Kentucky

Your selection can only be described as bizarre. DAVID E. THORNTON Houston Via E-mail

Louis Farrakhan is America's most outspoken and unrepentant bigot. He is the constant companion of murderous dictators who rule terrorist, anti-American regimes, and is the head of a vast business empire whose dealings should be closely scrutinized for ethical correctness. The media have utterly abdicated their watchdog role in regard to Farrakhan and have granted him a wholly undeserved mantle of respectability. For evil to occur it is only necessary for good men to do nothing. When evil also gets good p.r., it's tough to beat. PETER T. KING, U.S. Representative 3rd District, New York Washington

Methinks Martha Stewart hasn't a clue as to what the average American homemaker does with her time. Most of us work either full- or part-time jobs just to make ends meet. How can we hire a staff to assist us in our attempt to be like her? She gives us all a complex, and I, for one, say, Boo! Hiss! SHIRLEY CASH Mount Jackson, Virginia

THE PRICE OF CHILD LABOR

It is deplorable that countless Third World children are being exploited in order to offer Americans consumer-quality goods at bargain prices [NATION, June 17]. We have to ask ourselves, Can we willingly sacrifice these children so we may benefit? Can we let ourselves be seduced by department-store sale signs, knowing that an inexpensive shirt, soccer ball, handbag or rug is making a child elsewhere pay a huge price? It is high time both companies and consumers here realize their double standard and start to change their attitude toward the Third World. KRISHNAN SRINIVASAN Coconut Creek, Florida

The U.S. apparel industry, like many others, has become global, but nowhere do responsible U.S. clothing manufacturers condone abusive labor practices or the employment of children. Unfortunately, sweatshop conditions do exist in the U.S. and around the world. However, the assertion by Labor Secretary Robert Reich that half of the 22,000 U.S. garment contractors are sweatshops paying less than the minimum wage is absolutely wrong. We are astounded by this irresponsible denunciation of our industry after the efforts we have made to combat sleazy practices. For a U.S. government official to stigmatize an industry that manufactures $50 billion worth of consumer products every year and contributes to the economic success of this country is astonishing. LARRY K. MARTIN, President American Apparel Manufacturers Association Arlington, Virginia

Manufacturers make their products in Third World countries because it is much cheaper to operate there: they can pay native workers much less than Americans, and they can use child labor, the cheapest kind in the market. When Americans get angry, they can change things for the better. In this case, Americans could refuse to buy the offending products and demand accurate information on the labels of everything they purchase. If you can have a label that says NOT TESTED ON ANIMALS, you can also have one saying NO CHILD LABOR WAS USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF THIS PRODUCT. And make sure it is true. IRMA PARDO Mexico City

In the Prairie Region of Canada where I grew up and live, child labor was looked upon as both a necessity and an asset not all that long ago. In the first half of the 20th century, many children of Canadian farm families--including my mother--were taken out of school so they could help in the developing agricultural economy. They were cheap farm laborers. To suggest that all child labor is bad is to embrace a type of political correctness that has not been thought through. Would the North American advocates who oppose all child labor prefer that the children in developing countries be hungry or that they be employed? The working conditions should be addressed, not the fact that children work. For many of these youngsters and their families, a child's job may be the most significant asset they have. Why take it away? KEVIN AVRAM Regina, Saskatchewan

Child labor not only ruins the future of working children but also damages the global economy. I am from a textile town and family in Germany, and have seen this industry decline here simply because we couldn't compete with children's wages in the Third World. In a global economy, companies will manufacture wherever wages are lowest. Now we need global unions to help establish and enforce the minimum wage and all other benefits workers should enjoy. Asian child labor and European unemployment are aspects of the same problem. It's an illusion to think otherwise. Neither difficult situation will be solved by politicians and unions who still think only of national interests or by consumers indifferent to the health and future of all children, in both rich and poor nations and families. JOHANNA BURKE Ganderkesee, Germany

Rarely has anyone remarked that working children are not all slaves; many of them work voluntarily and are a principal means of support for an often large family. Without the additional income, it is unlikely the family would even survive, let alone send the working child to school and educate him. The causes of poverty in countries where children need to work are overpopulation and a high population-growth rate. Low-cost labor is a principal competitive advantage for Third World countries attempting to improve their standard of living. Focusing on working children alone without addressing the issue of lost family income or lost national competitive advantage creates the impression that this is one more nontariff trade barrier being put up by consuming countries. SHANKAR VAIDYANATHAN Madras, India

NOT JUST HOMOSEXUALS

Scientists, by focusing only on the sexual relations of gay people, tend to suggest deceptively that oral sex may be a problem faced exclusively by homosexuals [MEDICINE, June 17]. I teach biology at a large community college, and most of the questions about the safety of oral sex are from heterosexual students who have probably switched to oral sex from other forms of sexual expression for its purported safety. It is important to inform everybody, irrespective of sexual orientation, that practicing oral sex isn't the easy way to avoid HIV and AIDS. RAGUPATHY KANNAN Fort Smith, Arkansas Via E-mail

THE "IT" GIRL OF THE '90S

Actress Liv Tyler is no doubt attractive, even talented [CINEMA, June 17]. She may be the new Grace Kelly or Audrey Hepburn, but right now her main claim to fame seems to be her "matter-of-fact ease with her sensuality." Famous actors like Kathy Bates, for example, or even Leslie Nielsen appear to be at ease with their sensuality. This is pointless, and as interesting as reading about the "quiet sexuality" of a turtle. RUTH SMETHERS Olathe, Kansas

TO OUR READERS

Some readers have objected to the cover of our special Olympics issue [SUMMER 1996], which shows world champion runner Michael Johnson posing on the stars of a flag. The bunting-and-flag theme of the cover was meant to evoke American pride and the patriotism of the U.S. Olympic team. We sincerely apologize to anyone who found it demeaning to the flag. It was not meant to be. By the way, we congratulate Johnson on setting a new world record in the 200 meters just after our issue came out.