How about this, then: The article defies logic. There are a couple reasonable connections given between Rand and the modern world (e.g. the note about the doct

How about this, then: The article defies logic. There are a couple reasonable connections given between Rand and the modern world (e.g. the note about the doctors), but the rest of the connections are so tenuous or ill-framed, she might as well be explaining the economic genius of The House at Pooh Corner. Merely listing a character name followed by a real-life name doesn't cut it. By 2000, that 1 percent was paying 37 percent, and "Atlas Shrugged" sales were at 120,000. By 2006, the top 1 percent carried 40 percent of the burden. Obviously, increased sales of "Atlas Shrugged" leads to legislation increasing taxes on the rich, because Randian lobbyists are at home, reading. Or -- just guessing, here -- this correlation is meaningless and should be omitted? This one takes the cake: Of all American governors, Arnold Schwarzenegger of California is the one who most resembles Rand’s outsized characters. [...] Yet Schwarzenegger seems to be missing the Rand gene. His policies are all pain and no growth. Either he resembles something in the book or he doesn't. Why claim both?