But there was one thing more daunting than just the physical aspects of the book: it’s reputation. Many of America’s greatest capitalists claim this (and other books by Rand) as one, if not the most, inspirational books they’ve ever read.  It has the reputation of being anti-liberal and pro-business.  Would reading this book make me cast off my leftist tendencies?  Would I stop valuing nature as itself and only value my use of nature to make money?  Would I become what GQ recently coined an “Ayn Rand Asshole?”

I guess the answer is yes, no, and sort of irrelevant.  I’ve never fully subscribed to a liberal sensibility and I’ve never been that anti-corporate, so this book didn’t really change my mind in any real way.  Yes, large corporations do bad things and when I see and read about their terrible, amoral use of the environment, it angers me.  But I’ve always understood that companies are in business for one thing: to make money.  They might say they want to create a better world, cure diseases, or make your life better, but their number one reason for existence is to make money. Period.

But I digress. Atlas Shrugged follows the story of railroad company and a steel company, both led by our main protagonists, Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden, and how the government is basically running the world out of business in the name of social progress.  We see the progression of the policies starting to take effect, slowly watching the smartest businessmen disappear, companies get nationalized, the railroad no longer functioning, etc.  Of course, it’s much more epic and detailed than I could (or want to) possibly summarize here.

The book is all Good vs. Evil.  The Smart vs. the Corrupt.  The Human Mind vs. Governmental Control.  That is to say that everything in the book is black and white, with no shades of gray to be found in Rand’s ideology.  That’s probably her point, summarized in a 50-page speech by (spoilers) John Galt, a mysterious character who turns out to be the ultimate hero of the book, freeing mankind to once again live free.

The lack of perspective of either groups of characters is my biggest complaint about the book, though admittedly it wouldn’t have been nearly as interesting or thought-provoking if the characters sat down and tried to work it out.  That’s what we need in our real-life government.  Business shouldn’t be allowed to do everything it might want without some type of check on that power.  But it also shouldn’t be suffocated, as Rand slowly describes, as innocent government policies led to more control until business dies.

My favorite passages come near the end of the book when things are getting bad for the Evil government-types and at one point we find one of the most corrupt individuals on a train belonging to our hero’s railroad company.  The train breaks down and the Evil man demands it be fixed.  Unfortunately, there are no parts left (companies that made things that the railroad would need for repair are out of business); there are no smart men left (they quit when they just can’t take it anymore); there is nothing that can be done to get the train going again.  But that isn’t good enough for our Evil and corrupt man.  He demands that it be fixed and just doesn’t possibly understand that it can’t be.

When you’ve killed man’s ability to work and make money, you’ve killed his spirit.  And man cannot live without his spirit.

Also, I must say it was an incredibly interesting book to be reading while the debate was raging over health care reform.  Characters in this book could easily replace our modern day politicians and they would have been saying the same thing, specifically regarding socialism.  The book paints a scary picture of what happens when free enterprise is taking over by the government, just as many Republicans were doing during the debate in Congress.

But as I always say, it doesn’t matter if it’s smokey room in Washington or a board room in New York City, it’s all businessmen in suits looking out for only themselves and controlling us, the masses.  But as least in Washington, we get a vote on what color tie they are wearing.

The people whom I was arguing denied that global warming either existed and/or is man-made.  They think the entire “green” movement is a scam to make money (yes, right, as opposed to the poor oil companies that have existed nearly entirely without regulation in order to maximize profits, it’s a small start-up solar energy company that is greedy).   They even think that compact florescent light bulbs are harmful (a quick Google search debunks this in literally seconds).  I always knew people of this opinion were around, but this was my first true face-to-face (well, not literally) confrontation with them.

At first, it just pissed me off.  With the hundreds and thousands of independent studies and, in some cases, concrete factual data, how is it possible that anyone could deny global warming exists?  They all spouted the same “climate-gate” scandal over and over.  I argued that while some shady business did seem to occur, it cannot negate all that we now know about these environmental issues.

When I finally took a step back, I calmed down a bit and thought, Do these people have a point?  Is it valid to just say that climate change doesn’t exist by just saying (or wishing) that it doesn’t?  If there is record snowfall in Washington DC, how could it possibly be warming?  These people kept stressing using common sense to me over and over.

My common sense, however, leads somewhere entirely different from theirs.  It’s simple. My common sense tells me that humanity has grown in unprecedented ways in the past century or two.  There are more people on this Earth then at any point during human history.  Each person uses a certain amount of energy/oil and produces a certain amount of garbage.  Thus, due to the large number of people on Earth (or if you just want to think of the USA, the argument still holds), we are using the most energy and oil and producing the most amount of garbage in human history.

The question this leads to: Can the Earth handle this immense use?  To take one small, tiny example: The more people there are, the more housing we need for them.  That means wood for building which leads to increased deforestation.  That means the oil used in shipping the building parts (not to mention the oil used during transportation).  That means the energy used to light and heat the house.  And that is before people even move into the house.

My common sense tells me that no, eventually the Earth won’t be able to handle it.  Natural resources will dry up.  There won’t be any more forests to cut down.  There won’t be any more fish in the sea (we are already getting near that point for many bodies of water).  And what happens when we run out of oil?  Our entire economy and thus our entire life is based around the use of oil.  Look around your house: oil was used in the creation and in the transportation of every single good in your house.  Every piece of clothing you own.  Every piece of food that you have in your fridge and pantry.  (I challenge you to find one item in your house that you can track from pure creation to your house.  I have tried to find something and failed many times and I buy as organic and local as possible.)

My common sense tells me that if I can do anything to lessen my tax on this Earth then that is a good thing.  Using less energy.  Buying vintage instead of new.  Walking instead of driving.  That doesn’t mean you have to live off the grid, because common sense tells me that I still want to live my life: I still want my MacBook Pro, my iPhone, my Xbox 360, my Netflix, my Trader Joe’s hummus… I don’t want to give any of that up.

My common sense tells me that arguing with people about climate change is futile.  If you want to deny it, fine.  You are wrong, but fine.  However, common sense should tell you that if you are alone in your home, you don’t need every single light on in the house.  Plus, you’ll save money.  Which is probably/unfortunately what it’s all about anyway.

So, instead of outright dismissing the email, I wanted to take a look at each of the issues, find out to what degree they are true, and what I think of them.  It will take a bit of time to really delve into each point and do enough research to form a response, so I might not make it through all 27 points in this first point, but I will give it my best shot. Here we go…

1. Offended the Queen of England

This refers to Obama’s gift of an iPod to the Queen of England, which was a followup to a gift set of DVDs to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.  It seemed that many Brits were up in arms over that initial DVD gift, especially when it was discovered that the American DVDs wouldn’t work on British DVD players (all DVDs are marked with a region code which make them only compatible with one region).  This move was seen as a bit of snub to Brown and the UK, especially considering Obama was presented with a very thoughtful gift of a piece of the HMS Gannet, a warship that has a special tie to the White House: the Oval Office desk is made of the Gannet’s sister ship.

Beyond that criticism of the DVD gift gaffe, there isn’t much reaction to the iPod gift to the Queen.  Stories note that the gift also included a well-received rare autographed songbook of legend Richard Rodgers (showtunes being one of the Queen’s favorite genres of music), that the Queen actually already owns an iPod, and that the iPod itself came loaded with videos of the Queen’s many visits to the US.

What this boils down to is that right wingers in America were upset by both of these gifts and attempted to “apologize on behalf” of the US by writing into several leading British papers.  Admittedly, British politicos did seem a bit snubbed by the DVD gift, which does seem a bit insensitive when compared to the thoughtful gift we received.  However, there is nothing that I could find saying the Queen was in any way offended by her gift, insensitive or not.  Right wingers were the ones who were “offended”, not the Queen.

2. Bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia

Back in April, Obama allegedly bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.  The White House denied it, but YouTube footage certainly makes it look like a bow.  Right wingers were up in arms over this, as a bow apparently represents giving away our power.  Left-wingers were happy with this, as a bow seems to indicate mutual respect for Saudi Arabia.  But the White House denied that it was a bow, so then what?

I think the issue here is that this deals more with the fear of Islam and the Middle East.  It should be noted that Saudi Arabia is our ally.  President George W Bush held hands with King Abdullah while walking around his Texas ranch and greeted him with a kiss during every visit.  If Bush can kiss and hold hands with the King, I’m pretty sure that right wingers can take a deep breath at this one.

Honestly, the bow itself does seem a bit out of place, if it was indeed a bow, but there is no specific State Department protocol dealing with bowing.  I tend to wish that it was a bow in a few ways, but if Obama says it wasn’t, then who is he lying to?  Why would he lie? “King Abdullah, I’m going to bow to you now and give you sovereignty over the USA, but I’m going to deny it in the press.  Our little secret. Shhhhhh.”

Our relationship with the Muslim world is tenuous, to put it mildly.  We are fighting the extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan, but to some Americans, we are simply fighting all Muslims, whether they are willing to confess to that opinion or not.  And that is a wrong opinion.  When you lump devout, religious Muslims with the fundamentalists and the ones who wish “Death to America”, you only confuse the reason we are fighting the War on Terror to begin with.

3. Praised the Marxist Daniel Ortega

This point isn’t even slightly true.  The only news article I could find about this was one from Fox News, and even they don’t support this point.  Obama “endured” a 50-minute speech at a conference, jotted down some notes, and when asked what he thought of the speech, coldly said, “It was 50 minutes long.  That’s what I thought.”  He continued by slightly rebuking Ortega.

Also interesting is that the US is considering cutting aid to Nicaragua, where Ortega serves as President.  Important to note: cutting aid.  In 2006, under Bush, a $175 million aid package was awarded to Nicaragua.  Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are considering cutting $64 million of this aid.

I don’t think this point has anything to do with “facts” or even Ortega himself.  I think right wingers want to believe that Obama is a Marxist and nothing will convince them otherwise.  I could rename this point “Obama Praises Marxist Abraham Lincoln” and I don’t think they would see the error in that statement.  Just because Obama doesn’t wear a cowboy hat and clear brush on his ranch for half of the presidency doesn’t make him a Marxist.

Have any of them ever heard of the Patriot Act?  Or the National Security Agency?

After 9/11, the Bush administration and Congress ushered in a huge overhaul of security in this country.  The Government has already “taken over”, if there is such a thing.  They can listen into any cell phone conversation that you have, without any type of warrant.  If anti-government types are afraid of Big Brother, he is already listening to their conversation.  But of course they weren’t anti-government then.  Just now.

Health care costs have skyrocketed to a point that is beyond control.  If you have great health insurance, that is excellent for you.  You aren’t paying for it.  Your employer is.  If you make $50,000, your employer probably has to pay an additional $20,000 for your benefits.  And that’s if you don’t get sick. That’s great for you, but bad for your company.  Why do you think companies can’t hire more workers?

Ugh.  But who cares about that, right?  Obama is trying to kill your grandma and Pelosi is trying to make you pay for your neighbor’s abortion, so let’s concentrate on that.  Argh.