Advertisement
 
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsLetters

The movie 'Atlas Shrugged'; a proposed 'fat tax'; the safety of nuclear power

April 16, 2011

'Atlas' on the big screen

Re "It just wouldn't be shrugged off," April 10

I was 15 years old when Ayn Rand's novel, "Atlas Shrugged," was published. I have read and reread it many times since then. I have also read Rand's other works and those about her.

To bowdlerize "Atlas Shrugged" to fit the Christian "tea party" tastes is just sickening. I am sorry to hear that her work that clearly, proudly and freely stated Rand's principles — atheism and passionate sexuality as well as a free-market economy — are diluted in the film adaptation. The movie sounds so washed out that it will not really be recognizable.

Your article lists many of the people who have credits in the horror film genre. I'll bet Rand would agree that this version of "Atlas Shrugged" belongs there too.

Rosella A. Alm-Ahearn

West Covina

Weighing in on 'fat tax' idea

Re "Should there be a 'fat tax'?," Editorial, April 11

It costs taxpayers when Medicaid provides additional care to someone who consistently decides to make unhealthy lifestyle choices. However, once government attempts to save us from ourselves by legislating the food we eat, what will be the cost to our liberty?

If we tax people's unhealthy food choices because those choices cost us more, we lose something of ourselves as Americans. I think Thomas Jefferson said it best: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

One might argue that insurance companies already have unfair, discriminating costs. Recall that we have freedom not to do business with these companies; we do not have the same luxury with our government.

Dustin Turner

Redondo Beach

A tax on gluttony? Great! We must stop subsidizing unhealthy habits. Next up: superstition. No more subsidies for people who worship an imaginary being. Ending tax breaks for churches will bring in millions.

Then we'll go after greed. No more handouts for people who make money by having money. They'll have to pay the same tax rate on investments that we pay on wages.

Hey, wait a minute. It's greed, not gluttony, that's causing healthcare costs to skyrocket. Joe Sixpack's cheeseburgers may cost us later, but it's Charles Fatcat's stock profits that are killing us right now. To paraphrase the old joke, what part of "for-profit healthcare" don't you understand?

If we're taxing sin, let's start at the source: greed. It turns out the greedy have money to spare.

Garrett Soden

Playa del Rey

Sure, obesity can cause increased healthcare costs and is usually caused by personal decisions. But there are also unfortunates who inherit the genetic propensity to store fat in their bodies. Should they also get taxed?

Non-obese alcoholics also make personal decisions that increase healthcare costs. And what about the personal decisions of those who engage in unprotected sex that can lead to high-cost abortions and sexually transmitted diseases? Should they be taxed?

We don't need a new czar to decide who is too fat or who is too skinny. Americans are not animals in a cage who eat and drink what the zookeeper provides. We demand our unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that includes a candy bar or two.

Richard J. Stegemeier

Anaheim

Costs, benefits of nuclear power

Re "Why nuclear power is still a good choice," Opinion, April 10

As a famous neoconservative defense chief once observed (in another context), it is the unknown unknowns that create the most difficulty. For nuclear power, the specter of unknown unknowns induces different reactions in different quarters: For the public, an understandable NIMBY reaction that makes nuclear siting difficult. For the industry, fear of unknown costs.

This fear was largely eliminated by the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, which assures that the over cap costs for unknown unknowns will be passed to the taxpayers as soon as they become known knowns in the wake of a nuclear catastrophe.

The newfound improbability of this grotesque scenario is welcome news. Now the industry and its insurers won't mind if we repeal this law.

Curtis Selph

Lancaster

Mark Lynas notes some unintended and unfortunate consequences of environmentalists' political activities: increased global warming, for example. He neglects to mention that the greens' successful effort to paralyze the Yucca Mountain repository for radioactive waste has forced utilities to store spent fuel rods in on-site ponds. With what consequences? Fukushima, anyone?

Noel Corngold

Pasadena

Lynas' rational approach should be a lesson to us all. Other than a few zealots, we who work in the nuclear field truly understand the tradeoffs and downside of the technology. That is what drives the continuing effort to learn from the mundane problems that never make the headlines but force us to make changes.

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|