Rand’s philosophy

harmful to America

Re: the April 18 guest column “Enemies of the free market seem blind to Rand’s simple code.”

Ironic that Jim Douthit’s defense of Ayn Rand’s “non-sacrificial morality” appeared on Good Friday, when Christians remember the ultimate sacrifice made for others by Jesus Christ.

Rand rejected faith and religion. How can Paul Ryan and conservatives follow this philosophy? “Non-sacrificial morality,” synonymous with selfishness, for which Vladimir Putin is the poster child, is a world without heroes, no firefighters going into burning buildings, no Oskar Schindlers, just lists of the undefended and abused.

Douthit rails against regulations on business that ended the laissez-faire economics of the robber barons — laws that brought about workers rights, the 40-hour work week, the rise of the middle class and made America an international leader.

Too many laws have been put into effect by Rand conservatives directed at individuals, invading bedroom and family, making it harder to vote or to have access to the best schools. There is harm and danger for America and the world in her philosophy and in the efforts of those politicians who impose it.

Bruce Seligmann

Scientist, Tucson

How can anyone

root for a team?

It is very difficult to understand why anyone would be a fan of any college or professional sports team today. Sports are supposed to be played for the fun of it, but today it is all about money.

How can a fan be loyal to a team consisting of players who only care about the money they might receive for playing? The players quit school for the money, the players switch teams for the money, so their loyalty is to the money only and the fun is all gone.

As a result, the genuine fan today can only be receptive to sports at the high school level.

Richard Winkler

Retired Superior Court judge, Rodeo, N.M.

Grazing doesn’t use public land wisely

Re: the April 23 letter to the editor “Who are the real terrorists here?”

Putting the labels the senator from Nevada placed on this dispute aside, the Bureau of Land Management public range lands are just that, public.

The BLM administers federal public land; we all own it. The collective “we” are a very diverse group with different wants from our public lands, so we have agencies — such as the BLM — and laws that govern how these lands will be managed.

Allowing cows to graze for 20 years for free is not one of those uses. How can that behavior be held up for praise?

Karol Simas

Retired, Tucson

‘Grapes of Wrath’

column was lovely

Re: the April 24 column “Why ‘The Grapes of Wrath’ resonates 75 years later.”

Leonard Pitts’ column about John Steinbeck’s classic novel was beautifully written and drove home an important point.

I’ll never forget the night more than 20 years ago when I finished reading the book and sat up crying until dawn about how unfair it was. To this day, the image I have of that stunning final scene in the book when Rosasharn gives the only thing she has left to the dying old man haunts me.

The book is as relevant today as it was 75 years ago. Perhaps it is even more relevant in an age of technology and instant access where we can see gross excesses and extreme wealth, earned without any discernible talent or contribution to the world, flaunted in our faces every day.

All this while in Tucson, 1 in 4 children don’t know where their next meal is coming from.

Judy Harper

Teacher, Oro Valley