Andropov's Death To the Editors:

Soviet leaders, since they are not elected by their citizens, do not represent the will of their people but are just spokesmen for the Communist cause. It will take more than the death of Yuri Andropov [Feb. 20] to reduce U.S.-Soviet tensions.

Thomas C. Corrigan Branford, Conn.

How can the Soviet government, which claimed that Andropov had been suffering from a mere "cold," be trusted in arms negotiations when it lies to the world and its own people?

John Lightfoot Santa Rosa, Calif.

The so-called experts did not know how bad Andropov's cold was or even that his wife was alive. Yet these same bleeding hearts felt that President Reagan should have gone to Moscow to pay his respects to Andropov.

Bill Mellberg Park Ridge, Ill.

Andropov. Chernenko. The names may have changed, but the song remains the same.

Richard M. Guarnieri Lexington, Ky.

Fight for Lebanon

U.S. foreign policy in Lebanon [Feb. 20], as well as the world over, has been remarkably consistent. We support the wrong guys, who end up as losers. Perhaps the current Administration should be praised for keeping this brilliant tradition alive in Lebanon.

Moo J. Cho Kalamazoo, Mich.

You captured the current world crisis, and in particular the Lebanese situation, when you observed that "America has yet to find a way to use power discriminately and effectively." That is the heart of the issue. The same lesson needs to be learned by the U.S.S.R. The difference between the two countries, however, is that the Soviets do not care about using power humanely but prefer to exercise their strength through brutality. We are caught in a situation akin to the proverbial contest with the skunk. Both of us get covered by the wretched smell, but the skunk does not care. He thinks that is a powerful nation's natural odor.

J. Harold Ellens, Editor in Chief

Journal of Psychology and Christianity

Farmington Hills, Mich.

As one who has experienced so much kindness from the American people, I am horrified that the U.S. is shelling a small nation with which it is not at war. This is disgusting behavior.

Denis H. Stott Guelph, Ont.

I do not support our total involvement in the war in Lebanon. Yet the removal of our Marines from Beirut is a tragic mistake that endangers our position throughout the world. Pulling out of Lebanon without an effective contingency plan for continued influence in that region will cause our allies to lose confidence in our willingness and ability to come to their aid should the occasion arise. The Middle East is not the only hotbed of ideological turmoil. The effects of our actions in Lebanon will influence foreign opinion and weaken faith in us.

Elizabeth Kolaczia Santa Monica, Calif.

Leave Beirut alone. The side you support will inevitably lose. The deaths of your Marines and your American University president, Malcolm Kerr, should be convincing proof of the growing hatred Muslims feel for you.

Carey McDonald Kingston, Jamaica

Olympic Glory

Thank you for your delightful description of George Tucker, the one-man team from Puerto Rico [Feb. 20]. It is a pleasure to read about an amateur athlete at Sarajevo who embodies the correct meaning of the word amateur and who approaches the Olympics with joy rather than grim determination. George Tucker, you are my hero.

Sara Badger Vann Wuerzburg, West Germany

On or off his luge, Tucker has our gratitude for carrying Puerto Rico's flag and representing our beautiful island in the Games.

Marta I. Rodil San Juan, P.R

The 1984 Winter Olympic Games remind us once again that there is no such thing as an impartial judge. Each brings his own prejudice and bias to the competitions, probably without realizing it. I hope that this country will somehow let Judy Blumberg and Michael Seibert know that even though the bronze eluded them in their ice-dancing feats, they are brilliant gold to their countrymen.

Margaret Key Biggs Port St. Joseph, Fla.

Every fourth winter ABC makes a TV addict of me with its coverage of the Winter Olympics. Bringing the efforts of the world's finest youth into our homes is television at its best.

Kenneth Huber Bristol, Va.

Off in Space

Your article on the flight of the spacecraft Challenger [Feb. 13] gives me hope. We live on a medium-size planet attached to an ordinary star at the edge of a run-of-the-mill galaxy. Space technology is our key to a greater universe. Earth, as is amply demonstrated by the tragic events that are occurring in the world today, does not have room enough. Only space can unite and save mankind.

Atilla Karasapan Ankara

Stubborn Deficit

In your poll on how the public feels about reducing the deficit [Feb. 20], 44%, or nearly half, of the respondents were unaware that the inflation rate had fallen from 12.4% in 1980 to 3.8% last year. Yet an amazing 80% maintained that the level of inflation would influence their voting decision in the coming elections. This is paradoxical.

Gregory H. Schuchard Wauwatosa, Wis.

Turning On Nuclear Power

Nuclear power may be ill [Feb. 13], but it would be in this country's best interest to call a doctor, not an undertaker. We still must have a diversity of fuels to help meet our growing electrical-power needs: coal simply cannot do it alone. Industry and Government should make a concerted effort to address the problems that plague the nuclear industry. This would include correcting the inefficiencies and uncertainties that beset the licensing process, plant design, management and financing. Now is the time, given stabilized electrical demand, for these groups to work together to reshape the future of nuclear power in. preparation for tomorrow's needs.

James A. McClure

U.S. Senator, Idaho

Chairman, Committee on Energy and

Natural Resources Washington, D.C.

The problem with nuclear power generation in this country is that a complex and sophisticated technology has been entrusted to public utilities. Over the years, these companies have demonstrated a limited capacity to handle a complicated technology, and have seldom been required to operate their facilities in a cost-efficient manner. The logical approach to the issue would be to entrust the planning, construction and operation of nuclear power plants to firms like the oil companies, which have the resources, the skills and the organization to handle major technological projects. These companies could generate the power and then sell it to the utilities under a regulated formula that would guarantee the oil industry a return on its investment and a reasonable profit. The petroleum business is energy oriented and having it operate nuclear power plants would ensure the best interest of the public.

Paul Hirsch Natick, Mass.

Technology, Not Therapy

I was pleased by the interest shown in the behavioral technology developed by myself and Richard Handler [Dec. 19]. Unfortunately, Neuro-Linguistic Programming (N.L.P.) is not a therapy, as you called it; it never has been. N.L.P. is a behavioral technology that determines the components of excellence and then develops a system for transferring these qualities to others.

John Grinder Santa Cruz, Calif.

What to Teach

In his book Horace's Compromise, Theodore Sizer argues incorrectly that the study of a foreign language in American high schools is "largely wasted" unless there is an immediate use for that language [Feb. 20]. We have a crying need in this country for adults who know a second language. This is particularly evident in our diplomatic corps. Yet foreign languages can be learned most efficiently in childhood, when there is no immediate application for the skill.

Frank Holan Westminster, Va.

Goethe taught that we cannot really understand our own language unless we have learned another.

David M. Schrock Waynesburg, Pa.

Mass Executions

It disturbs me to think that a modern society like China would use a primitive solution, mass execution, for its crime problem. Now I notice that some of your readers [Feb. 20] express their support for this form of justice. How can anyone believe that all 5,000 of those executed in China actually deserved to die?

Julie Coast Tucson

Dear TIME: A Look at 1983 Letters

Anyone who doubts that a magazine can rouse the passions of its readers need only sift through a sample of TIME'S weekly mail. There was, for instance, the woman from North Carolina who claimed that she broke into tears five times while reading the Nov. 14 issue. Her "flood of anguish" started with an article on funeral services for Marines killed in Lebanon. It continued through the story on the 20th anniversary of President Kennedy's assassination ("I cannot relive those days without terrible pain"); the ordeal of Baby Jane Doe, the Long Island infant born with severe birth defects; an article on criminals who commit multiple senseless murders; and a picture of a Turkish mother and her five dead babies killed in a devastating earthquake. "My heart is breaking," the letter concluded, "but I'll keep on reading."

Not all TIME readers are so loyal or so laudatory, but those who write usually do so because something in the magazine has stirred their emotions. That was true more than ever in 1983. In all, 53,226 readers wrote to TIME last year, a 4% increase over 1982; four cover stories drew more than 1,000 letters apiece, a bench mark reached by only one 1982 story, on the rising fears about nuclear war.

For the overwhelming majority of these correspondents, the topics were weighty, the tone serious and the tempers high.

Anger, or at least spirited disagreement, is the most common impetus for a letter to the editor, and reader dissent surfaced early on--with the year's first issue, honoring the computer as Machine of the Year. This break with TIME'S tradition of choosing a living human as Man of the Year did not sit well with most of the 1,219 readers who wrote to us; 953 censured the selection. More than one called the choice "unbelievable." Other comments: "To glorify a piece of metal that could some day rule our lives is ludicrous" and "Byte your tongue."

Readers were indignant over TIME'S June 13 cover story "Los Angeles: America's Uneasy New Melting Pot." Most of the 1,170 letters attacked what was perceived as the article's "racial stereotyping" and "negative tone." The total was boosted by a letter-writing campaign by Korean Americans unhappy over the story's suggestion that their national group is looked down upon by other Asian Americans. Said a typical letter: "The article fosters prejudice toward immigrants and divisiveness and distrust among the various ethnic minorities."

The story that brought the year's largest response was the Jan. 24 cover on the death penalty. In all, 1,697 readers sent in their comments, and the overwhelming majority--1,009--sanctioned execution as an appropriate penalty for the most heinous crimes. "I, for one, have had enough of our totally inept judicial system and the money-hungry, word-manipulating attorneys who use it so well," said one reader. A number of correspondents claimed that the article was biased, ignoring the victims' rights in favor of the criminals', while a minority (273) argued, in the words of one reader, that "a civilized society, with a fallible justice system, should not impose irreversible sanctions."

TIME readers reacted in large numbers to the Nov. 7 coverage of the U.S. invasion of Grenada. President Reagan's military action was approved 323 to 231 among the 1,058 who wrote. Said a typical supporter: "What it all boils down to is that America is a little safer today because President Reagan had the guts to remove a cancer in the Caribbean."

Other Administration policies got mixed reviews. U.S. covert activities in Central America drew fire from the majority ("We should not be helping bloody, corrupt dictatorships"), as did President Reagan's arms policy ("He seems to be heading us toward nuclear death").

Readers took a more hard-line approach on domestic law-and-order issues such as gun control (most opposed it) and the castration of convicted rapists (most favored it). Yet when the lawbreaking gets closer to home, a more lenient attitude emerges:

most of the 477 letter writers who responded to the March 28 report on income tax cheating excused the practice as necessary and right.

A serious mood prevailed among those who wrote in 1983, yet the subjects that caught their attention changed in one dramatic way: stories on domestic political affairs drew 46% more letters than in 1982, while mail dealing with foreign news declined by 37%. The drop reflected a sharp and rather puzzling fall-off in letters about the Middle East, one of the hottest topics in 1982.

Among the feature sections, Religion, Medicine, Education and Video drew the most reaction. Of course, mail does not always parallel interest: the year's biggest seller on the newsstands, "Babies: What Do They Know? When Do They Know It?", drew a moderate 299 letters, only 14th highest for the year.

One subject that elicited a strong emotional response in 1983 was the press itself. TIME readers expressed support for the military's decision to bar press coverage of the Grenada invasion. And of the 965 readers who commented on the Dec.

12 cover story, "Accusing the Press: What Are Its Sins?", more than 500 sided with the press's critics. "For too long now," said one letter writer, "the news media have run helter-skelter past reasonable boundaries of responsible reporting, disrupting the lives and privacy of individuals and jeopardizing the security of this nation." TIME itself was not exempt from the general condemnation ("Shame on you for a cover story devoid of any mention of TIME gaffes and insensitivities"), though some readers praised the magazine for tackling the issue headon.

Wrote one: "Your review of the sins of the press is fairer than we had any right to expect."

Other TIME stories that got heated reactions included the Soviet downing of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (969 readers wrote, largely to condemn the action) and the National Council of Churches' new "de-sexed" version of the Bible. "Sixteenth century heretics were burned at the stake for smaller travesties. Where is the Inquisition now that we need it?"

asked one of the 262 correspondents.

Personalities always cause debate, and in 1983 former Secretary of the Interior James Watt, ex-National Security Adviser (and Watt's replacement at the Department of Interior) William Clark and Comedian Joan Rivers ("tasteless and cruel") drew the public's ire. Yet readers rose to defend celebrities they deemed badly treated--such as the late anchorwoman Jessica Savitch and Elizabeth Taylor ("Why do journalists feel compelled to constantly snipe at Elizabeth Taylor's weight?" chided one).

There were also some pats on the back. TIME'S 60th anniversary issue elicited 496 letters (ninth highest for the year), most in praise. "It is the events of my life passing before me," said a nostalgic reader. Nor was it surprising to find one section of that issue singled out for compliments: the highlights from 60 years of TIME'S letters to the editor.