Cartoonist Peter Bagge did a funny one-pager about Ayn Rand for the December issue of Reason.
Peter Bagge comic about Ayn Rand
Leave a comment
More items
Live-action CGI version of Smurfs in the works?
Someone's apparently developing a live-action CGI motion picture adaptation of the Smurfs. It gets weirder: John Lithgow is rumored to be cast as Papa Smurf. First the Chipmunks, now this atrocity? (via Steven Leckart)... More.
Happy birthday, LSD
"LSD was first synthesized on November 16, 1938 by Swiss chemist Dr. Albert Hofmann at the Sandoz Laboratories in Basel, Switzerland." (Thanks, Mike!)... More.
What the $*@&#! is the Nephroid of Freeth?
I'll give you a hint: It has absolutely nothing to do with Star Trek, Star Wars or Dr. Who. (To my knowledge. Fanboy schooling commences anon.) More commonly called Freeth's Nephroid (which makes it sound less like a tentacled devourer of souls and more like a little boy's pet monster), it's actu... More.
Pfizer abandons property it won in Supreme Court housing battle
Remember the June 2005 Supreme Court eminent domain ruling that gave Pfizer Pharmaceutical the right to bulldoze a housing neighborhood in Connecticut to make way for a $300 million private development project? Some of the homeowners didn't want to give up their homes but Pfizer took them to c... More.
Library workers fired for colluding to keep graphic novel from being checked out by 11-year old girl
Two workers at a Lexington, Kentucky public library were fired after it was discovered that they had teamed up to keep a copy of Alan Moore's The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: The Black Dossier out of circulation. According to the story, Sharon Cook, 57 and Barbara Boisvert, 62, basically ... More.
RSS Feed
I hate Ayn Rand
P.S the captcha is $18-million energy... *cough cough*
Furious objectivist rebuttals in 3... 2... 1...
This is a pretty good analysis, I think. Except for that last panel. I'm sure there are violence-advocating extreme leftists out there. But I've hung out with a pretty heavily lefty crowd since college and I don't know a single person who has unironically worn a Che shirt since they were 18, ever looked to Mao's Little Red Book as a life/philosophy guide, or advocated violence to achieve their political ideals. In fact, the lefties I know are generally both vociferously anti-Ayn Rand and vociferously anti-violence. So, yeah. There's that.
why is the 19-year old version of the cartoonist in what looks to be a 1960s married couple sitcom bed with the lady wearing poofy grandmother pajamas? Maybe I went to the wrong college.
It seams to me (a leftist) that if a revolution succeeds in overthrowing capital and the state using less violence than the state and capital presently employ, than the use of violence as a tactic could reduce the total amount of violence in the world.
Thus if you are truly opposed to violence, you may support violent revolution.
Nice hippie strawmen Bagge's got going on there.
@3: I was kind of shocked by that as well. The American left is very largely anti-violence (but sadly also milquetoast as well).
I've encountered a couple of SERIAS un-ironic Che/Marx fanbois. No one took them seriously though.
Chuckle worthy heh.
Well, then. I'm under the impression that Che iconography -- including cinematic -- still sells pretty well. And Anita Dunn has infamously quoted Mao as a philisophical guide -- not obviously in a humorous or ironic way.
I agree that espousal -- or not -- of violence is critical. If you hate me, it makes a huge difference whether you think the state - or the KKK, or some vigilante group - should exercise force against me or not. I'd be a lot more happy to live and argue with people who just hate me, but don't want to have the state attack me.
Maggie,
Try refusing to pay your taxes, and see what happens. The use of physical force to achieve some sort of political ideal is a common feature of almost every modern political ideology. (Including Objectivism, to a more limited extent--a point which could stand as an anarchist critique of Rand and Bagge, but would hardly exonerate your "heavily lefty crowd" of friends.)
People might not be particularly forthcoming about their willingness to use physical force to coerce others. They might also dress it up with euphemisms, but it's still there. Decent political theorists, I think, start with the insight that any government is inherently violent, and then proceed either to argue against government, or argue for certain kinds of violence. All else is wishful thinking or willful evasion.
Che iconography, especially on T-Shirts and so on, seem to sell extremely well around here. I seriously doubt whether 99% of the people who buy it though have any idea who or what it represents.
Back when I was in college, we had a wannabe Marxist who was famous for buttonholing professors' kids who'd come to the student center game room to play pool, dragging them over to the jukebox and making them listen to the Clash's "London Calling," because it was "really important that they hear this." But that was about as close to violence as he got.
He also used to claim that as a boy he'd seen the tanks of the oppressors rolling through his home town, but eventually we figured out he was from rural Illinois.
Perhaps all the Che shirters are being ironic (although I'm not so sure as you seem to be about that -- if irony was intended, wouldn't wearing a shirt featuring a *fascist* be more ironic for a leftist?), but still -- Rand may have been an unpleasant asshole and a hack novelist who stole all of her ideas that were worth anything from Nietzsche, but she didn't kill anybody as far as I know -- unlike Che, Mao, and other "ironic" idols.
"And Anita Dunn has infamously quoted Mao..."
And the infamous quote was: "You fight your war, and I'll fight mine."
oooh. scary.
I'd never wear a Che shirt but it's a bit rich calling him a mass murderer. Fighting against murderous regimes ought not be considered a crime.
When you consider the war that the person Anita Dunn is quoting was fighting and the 40 million dead because of it, it's a little disconcerting.
Anita Dunn might not have been quoting ironically, but she was actually quoting a Republican quoting Mao: "The Mao quote is one I picked up from the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater..."
And neither Rand critic or enthusiasts seem to mind violence if it supports their cause, as far as I can see.
How about the way he earned the title, "Butcher of La Cabana"? Or do you also support tracking down and killing anyone that disagrees with you politically? But he really wanted kids to learn to read, so that's ok.
Yay, Che!
Ban Rand!
(Just in case I'm wrong that the Randians couldn't possibly hate me any more than they already do.)
How about the way he earned the title, "Butcher of La Cabana"?
He got the title because he didn't have the PR machine that Bush had. You're fulminating.
When taken in context, it's not disconcerting at all: http://mediamatters.org/research/200910150044
i'll need to see a lot more than a few sentences in a single interview about how Dunn views Mao before i believe that she approves (or is ambivalent about) of Mao's killing. that's a stretch i'll leave to the likes of Glenn Beck.
That's not fair, SKR - you're calling out of facts is harshing his truthiness...
Che wasn't *just* a revolutionary that fought against murderous regimes.
Regardless, according to some (internet) lefties a soldier that kills another soldier in combat is a murderer as well, and the moral thing to do is to lay back and let him shoot you. These types typically also believe in a absolute/objective/universal (pick one) morality.
From what I can tell, the case for him being so murderous and "killing anyone that disagrees" with him politically is motivated more by political hatred than by fact. I'd be willing to change my opinion if the facts were clearly spelled out but most of the facts cited to establish him as "Butcher of La Cabana" seem to me very dubious.
Are there any groups out there that are absolutely unwilling to resort to violence period? I seriously doubt it.
The main problem with Ayn is that she's a terrible writer. I'll take my extremist libertarian philosophy from Robert Heinlein, thanks. The Moon is A Harsh Mistress is an excellent example. I still won't agree with it, but I'll enjoy the heck out of reading it.
From Johann Hari writing for Slate:
"[In Altas Shrugged,] the abandoned masses are described variously as 'savages,' 'refuse,' 'inanimate objects,' and 'imitations of living beings,' picking through rubbish. One of the strikers deliberately causes a train crash, and Rand makes it clear she thinks the murder victims deserved it, describing in horror how they all supported the higher taxes that made the attack necessary."
I'm pretty sure that's Ayn Rand advocating violence right there. She also wrote glowing praise for serial killer William Hickman, lamenting when he finally got caught. In any case, we should not mistake one broken woman's psychopathy as philosophy by which to govern.
Usually funny comics have punchlines. This one had a liberal strawman, complete with arrows pointing at his accessories and labels telling us why we should be laughing at the caricature.
Also did anyone else find it ironic that in an effort to distance himself from Ayn Rand he calls her dismissive, moralistic, and righteous, but then adds dismissive and moralistic generalizations of liberals?
Libertarian:
Someone who looks out from the Empire State Building observation deck and thinks he's 1,200 feet tall.
Bagge's point in the last panel was not that hippies advocate violence, but that Communism's founders espoused violent overthrow of government, while Rand did not. That ignores that very few on the modern left still like the idea of Communism, of course. It also ignores the fact that any philosophy that includes taking back power from oppressive governments (other than perhaps a Gandhian approach) will require violence. And that makes Bagge a critic of Thomas Jefferson, who wanted a revolution every 20 years, and all the Founding Fathers, who got where they are due to violent overthrow of government.
Slightly off topic, but I think the author of the comic is assuming that atheists can't or don't have morals, which is most definitely wrong.
Bob the Angry Flower objectivisim
http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif
http://www.angryflower.com/objectiv.html
ZOMG! A CHE T shirt!
MURDERER!
If ONLY Che had been given Spanish translations of The Thoughts of Chairman Rand, he'd have realized the Inerrant Truths of Capitalism and the Free Market!
And HIRED professional thugs to kill all those people. Selecting the lowest bidder, of course, in order to minimize his expenses and maximize his profit.
The "Che killed people!" meme is a tired one- so did a host of people fighting civil wars and nationalist conflicts. What Guevara did at La Cabana is deal with the business of executing people who were imprisoned for being traitors and spies. This was during a period in Cuban history analogous to the French Reign of Terror- only Guevara and the like were actually trying to avoid mass killing and factionalism. Did he kill people? Undoubtedly. Were some of guilty? Most likely? Were some of them innocent? Most likely. Would things have been worse in Cuba without the executions at La Cabana? Maybe. No matter which way you cut it Guevara doesn't look good, but it doesn't necessarily make him a monster, nor does it completely diminish his role in fighting repressive regimes. However I do ask we be consistent. By current US standards, signing off on the execution of 200 people (who may or may not be guilty) with a hard heart isn't mass murder- it's Texas.
/With apologies for inconsistent punctuation and typos. Should've previewed.
No, I think he is saying that it is a bit odd for an atheist to believe in absolute (dare I say objective?) morals -- which Rand seems to have done. Most atheists realize that different people have different moral beliefs and are okay with that.
Oh, and of course, swallowing the whole Free Market BS leads to insane crap like this:
The Scourge of Public Libraries, wherein the author compares being on a waiting list for a movie from the public library to a "Soviet Breadline".
So the defense of Che is say that he wasn't any worse than Robespierre? That's a new one...
Most atheists realize that different people have different moral beliefs and are okay with that.
You've been a commenter at BB too long to get away with that fantasy.
How do you figure Rand didn't advocate violence when she advocated letting the moochers die?
I found this article about her beliefs to be scary: http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm
Not really. Are we supposed to gasp in horror at Veni Vidi Vici because it was originally used in the context of the murdering of the people of Pontus?
I don't think so. Stop jumping at shadows. I really doubt you'd have the same objection if someone in the GWB administration said it.
I used to love Bagge's stuff, but he's really become a hidebound old fart hasn't he?
The difficulty in the violence-to-reduce-violence theory is that you never actually know how much violence you're going to be causing when you tip the cart over. Most people starting wars or revolutions seem to bet that it'll be much, much lower than it winds up being.
From #28: ' From Johann Hari writing for Slate:
"[In Altas Shrugged,] the abandoned masses are described variously as 'savages,' 'refuse,' 'inanimate objects,' and 'imitations of living beings,' picking through rubbish. One of the strikers deliberately causes a train crash, and Rand makes it clear she thinks the murder victims deserved it, describing in horror how they all supported the higher taxes that made the attack necessary." '
Johann is, in fact, quite wrong about this, if he's referring to the crash that destroys the Taggart Tunnel; while all the passengers are indeed shown as adhering to poisonous ideas, the crash occurs because 'normal' workers are too terrorized by the system to speak out against a dangerously underpowered train going into a poorly ventilated tunnel, because if they spoke out, they would lose their jobs and be blacklisted.
I don't get your point -- how is it a fantasy? For example, I don't know of any atheists who want to force Muslims or Mormons to drink beer. Where we get annoyed is when people want to impose their self-imposed rules on the rest of us without a argument that doesn't involve "God's will".
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
/surprised no one's posted this yet
Do a search for an image of the "objectivist tree".
(my humble contribution to the internet...)
But he wasn't worse than Robespierre, not by a long shot. He was definitely hard-hearted about it, but tamping down revolutionary violence was a real concern for both him and Castro. I'm not saying he was a saint- I'm just saying he wasn't a monster (and certainly not by the standard of the right-wingers who hate him so), there's an important distinction there.
I now love Bagge's stuff *because* he's a hidebound old fart.
I like his Founding Fathers comics better than his Reason stuff, I'll admit.
I don't get your point -- how is it a fantasy?
The slightest tangential mention of religion in a post and there's an avalanche of angry atheist comments screaming about sky wizards and murderous holy wars. Atheists are just as cranky about wanting to control other people's thoughts as religionists.
I have to say that at least as far as the Internet is concerned that seems true. I don't know if that means too much, since the most obnoxious people tend to be the loudest voices and have the most unequivocal ideologies. I see your point, a certain breed of Atheists give religion way too much credit for violence and stupidity. They're always trying to pin every ounce of misogyny, violence, and repression in society on religion- then they have a big circle-jerk where they all discuss how "reality-based" they are. Meanwhile the realities of such things are frequently much more nuanced than simply being the fault of religion and the religious. It's childish and stupid and one of the big reasons stopped reading atheist blogs recently. Of course it's not all Atheists who are like this, but I'll be damned if being "unapologetically critical of religion" hasn't become code for "let's be douchebags whenever someone expressed the slightest hint of religious leanings anywhere." The Francis Collins affair cemented this in my mind. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the religious (who are a majority) are being persecuted and hounded by the eeeebil Athiests at every turn- but being in the unpopular minority doesn't mean you get carte-blanche to act morally superior all the time without getting called an asshole.
Thank you #47. You've made my day.
I'm going to go buy a Che shirt.
Unless I can find one showing Frank Lloyd Wright giving Ayn Rand a jolly good caning.
Jonathon, that is kind of hilarious. You're saying atheists are, in general, completely tolerant of everyone's morality as long as it doesn't involve any divinity. Thats exactly like the Taliban are completely tolerant of anyone's morality as long as it complies with Sharia law.
It is quite possible to be an atheist and believe in an objective morality.
Among the many failings of Objectivism, I've always been most struck by its failure to ever account for children. When must they become Randian supermen and how?
Rand spoke more about the role of cigarette smoking in Objectivism than the role of child-rearing.
-- MrJM
Or perhaps a Left 4 Dead–style zombie apocalypse t-shirt, with a tenacious Ayn Rand shotgunning a horde of zombies, i.e., poor folks, socialists, and other assorted non-fascists? That would be cool.
Speaking of zombies, where the RandBots at?
sorry about the twitter url... won't happen again.
One of the best summaries of what is wrong with Ayn Rand is Scott Aaronson's take: http://scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=386 He makes a good case that in many ways the most serious problem with what Ayn Rand is not what she says but what she does not say.
I'm sorry, but you have me mistaken for a Republican. I hated the Bush administration and the wars they started. I think almost everything they did was horribly wrong. If he had laid praise on Mao, I probably would have thought,"that makes a little more sense." And then criticized him for praising one of the most despicable humans to walk the earth.
I think the numbers were a little higher in Che's case, but yeah that's pretty disgusting too. Do you wear a shirt with the governor of Texas' picture on it? Because that would be pretty messed up.
Sure, as long as it was Ma Ferguson!
OK, I'm in for one of those too!
I don't think it is so strange for an atheist to also be a moral absolutist. The "live and let live" attitude that you ascribe to moral relativism may be caused by a belief that a huge swath of human action doesn't really have anything to do with morality at all. Because of this they will be tolerant of a wide variety of action. However this doesn't necessarily have to be because they are morally relativistic. They may, for instance, only deem the initiation of violence as the only immoral act because it is an attack on the one thing that is "you". Your body is the one object that no one should ever be allowed to take away from you against your will. An atheist that believed something like that would seem very tolerant of other people's moral beliefs until the issue of violence and theft comes up.
The ideas and ideals of this rand are kind of stupid and ironically hardly can stand a real objective scrutiny. You know, anyone can name their is as "the-total-know-it-all-I-am-right-about-everything-ism" but that does not really mean anything is reality. She only demostrates intellectual counter reaction to certain things, not anything ideologically or philosophically lasting concept. In the end of the day all that she wrote is really empty when taken out of the context that it was written.
@Antinous and robulus
Merely pointing out the lack of evidence for many religious beliefs (as many atheists do) is not the same thing at all as saying that the beliefs are immoral. Pointing out that the Emperor has no clothes is not the same thing as attacking him for indecent public nudity.
@SKR
There is something to that -- some people do have a much smaller set of actions that they deem immoral -- although both Marx and Rand had about as large and complicated moral systems as the major religions.
Yeah, the last panel is all to typical in Libertarian intellectual dishonesty when it comes to dismissing any criticism of failed free market ideology. Pathetic red-baiting of any person who may disagree with the ridiculous selfish fantasy that is free market ideology. I wish I had a buck for every Libertarian white guy (let's face it) that has resorted to telling me that I obviously love Che and Mao and North Korea when faced with criticism of their views. Tell them that you are pro business, but also believe that there needs to be a strong support for the public good, and they get quickly confused. Most of the lefties I know are more about a Scandinavian model than any kind of "red" program. This is hard for them to accept. At this point desperate babbling usually boils down to regurgitations of Cato Institute talking points about marginal tax rates and desperate bumper sticker slogans. God forbid Bagge actually confront legitimate critics of Randian/Friedmanian/Free Market ideology, it's so much easier to conjure up goofy college age liberal types when it comes to making a point.
Too bad, the guy can be genuinely funny and insightful.
@Antinous
That's an absurd argument. Complaining is one thing, actually trying to control someones beliefs is another. I've not seen any atheist trying to pass legislation forcing others to follow their beliefs. I wish I could say the same for the religious.
I've not seen any atheist trying to pass legislation forcing others to follow their beliefs.
Let me introduce you to the USSR and PRC. And many of their client states.
@Antinous
Just one of the reasons that Marxism has been called a religion. The USSR didn't attack religion for the benefit of atheism; they attacked it because it was a competing faith to Marxism.
You're scraping.
No. Not at all. There is pretty much a one-to-one mapping of religious ideas to Marxism -- the final victory of Communism is basically the rapture -- and just like religion, they had major issues with science. Just like how evolution was seen as "unchristian", both relativity and genetics were "unmarxist".
'Live and let live' ethos?
:/
My dear mother, who taught children with health problems for a living, recommended I read Ayn Rand in high school. I was given a disclaimer though - she told me not to bother with any of her extended rants and speeches (which made Atlas Shrugged a much easier read, lol).
Overall I find her work uneven, but to this day The Fountainhead is one of my favourite books, maybe because I found it had more story than philosophy. And I loved the story.
I think growing up in the fifties and early sixties was what led my mom to Rand's work. She had a grand choice of three careers in those days: teacher, nurse, or airline stewardess (that was the 'exotic' option). But here were books written by a strong-willed woman who did what she wanted, who didn't submit to stupid men; books filled with 'strong' characters (men and women) who carved out a place in the world for themselves and found pleasure in working hard and holding themselves to high standards. Not much wrong with that.
That's what attracted me to The Fountainhead - kooky philosophy aside, it's kind of a cool, dramatic (I love teh drama) book about an artist who lives by his own rules. And that's what I liked about it. Women of my parents' generation probably felt that much more strongly.
Still.. she did end up being a teacher. But it was her choice, dammit. :-P
"I've not seen any atheist trying to pass legislation forcing others to follow their beliefs."
Because there are... 2 atheist politicians? Maybe more, but certainly they aren't a powerful political group.
I have heard prominent atheists call for the destruction of religion. If you need examples I'm sure I can dig some up. Didn't 'Religulous' end on that point? The 'how to destroy it' plan is on the nebulous side. That could change if more atheists get voted in.
I'm an atheist. But I used to be very religious so I try not to be a dick because I didn't become an atheist by having internet posters call me stupid and call for the eradication of my faith.
Come to think of it, that's what turns me off most about Rand's philosophy. The weird elitism of it... 'you're with me or you're wasting your life.' Ugh.
"But I used to be very religious so I try not to be a dick because I didn't become an atheist by having internet posters call me stupid and call for the eradication of my faith."
erm.. not meant as a dig at anyone. Just a general point.
Three posts in a row. Must be stoned.
Actually, coming from someone responsible for forced collectivization, re-education camps, mass starvation and the deaths of some 30 million people, it *is* a scary quote.
"Let me introduce you to the USSR and PRC."
PRC has restrictive religious freedom but they haven't legislated mandatory atheism.
"Didn't 'Religulous' end on that point?"
The entire end speech is on the IMDB Quote page. Maher does argue for the destruction of religious but not by force.
"Because there are... 2 atheist politicians? Maybe more, but certainly they aren't a powerful political group. "
Shhhh... it would probably be inevitable if there was an atheist majority.
"Action Philosophers" did it first and better.
Attempting to justify economic apartheid by telling those responsible for it how great they are for standing up for buzzwords is absurd.
Yeah, this isn't one of Mr. Bagge's best IMHO. The "Buddy and Lisa" stuff is fantastic, though. Watching that group of cartoon fuckups turn out (for the most part) just fine over the past 15 or so years has been very enjoyable.
Please, please don't ever claim that the ideas of Ayn Rand and Friedrich Nietzsche bear anything more than the most twisted and superficial of similarities. It's a disservice to Nietzsche that perpetuates the false stereotypes of Social Darwinism, Nazism, and so forth that have done his reputation as a philosopher incredible damage.
Nietzsche was a sophisticated, visionary philosopher of history, aesthetics, mind, religion, etc. who in many ways was to the 20th century what Kant was to the 19th. If indeed Rand read Nietzsche, she grievously misread him. He advocated active nihilism, an ethos of destruction and transformation that rejects the absolutism of reason, the binding of the will within a falsely absolutized morality, and the ascription of any transcendental meaning to the world. Notions, obviously, that are assumed without comment by Rand.
The woman was *not* a philosopher. Her 'philosophy' is just assumptive ranting about her articles of moral faith without rigorous argument.
I'm most definitely a Lefty, and I loath Rand. But this is funny.
I think I was about 16 when I wrote a paper that trashed Atlas Shrugged. My English teacher mentioned that she showed it around to other faculty members.
This was before I actually knew anything about Ayn Rand as a person. I'd be much more more harsh now.
The moon is a harsh mistress.... ugh I wanted to claw my eyes out each and everytime I've attempted to read it. The horribly nonsensical defense of libertarianism (not only does it simplify libertarianism to near preschool levels, it totally doesn't understand human motivation at all), the mysogyny, the stilted dialogue and flat characters. I hated it so much... that flames... flames from the sides of my face.
@ HereticGestalt ,
If you think Nietzsche is so great, how do you explain the fact that you think Nietzsche is so great? Haha sorry but what am I missing?
Jonathan, Karl Marx never killed anybody either. George Washington, on the other hand, killed lots of people (and owned slaves!). I assume you and Peter Bagge therefore prefer Marx to Washington.
Ayn Rand herself idolized William Edward Hickman, an infamous sociopathic con man, kidnapper, and multiple murderer. There's evidence in her journals and other writing that it was Hickman's sociopathy that attracted her to him.
Jonathan said "Marxism has been called a religion"
Aye. Marx is nae true Scottsman.
I've always considered Rand to be a positive influence on my personal philosophy. Okay, her writing was full of melodrama and one-dimensional characters, but each was only there to illustrate to specific point. I still believe strongly in her basic premise that reason, purpose, self-esteem, and capitalism are the highest of the more pragmatic set of values.
But for Pete's sake, even at 15, one glance at the back cover bio was enough to put this into context: Communist takeover bad, American industrial revolution good. My first thought on reading her thoughts on individualism and self-sacrifice was: "If she were growing up today, she'd be rabidly anti-corporate".
Don't get me wrong there were plenty of flaws, omissions, and wrong conclusions there, but she had one point to make, and I think she made it well. I still think of her explanation of the artist ("demands a price few can afford- Understanding") as a great truth, if not a complete one.
And if you subscribe to the view (as I do) that the purpose of great art is to incite a reaction that inspires the beholder to think about and/or debate the subject, then has she not proven herself?
Also, Richard Dawkins.
Why is the 19-year old version of the cartoonist in what looks to be a 1960s married couple sitcom bed with the lady wearing poofy grandmother pajamas?
Because those poofy sleeve nighties were still common pajama styles through the 80s even (Bagge is 52 now, and would have been in college in the last half of the seventies)
Furniture and clothes, especially for starving college students of the age 19 who are still snagging stuff from home, and thrift stores., are often cheap and old.
@Avram
Who is comparing Marx to Washington except you? Much like Rand, Marx was an ineffectual dreamer who harmed nobody personally -- I have no beef with the man. He did spawn some pretty murderous followers, and *those* I have a beef with. I have yet to see Rand's Che, Mao, Lenin, or Stalin.
Che vs. Washington is the correct comparison since both were revolutionaries and killed people. Except Washington's fight against British soldiers was in the service of a country so successful that people now die trying to get in. Che's fight against civilian "traitors" in La Cabaña created a country so unsucessful that people die trying to get *out*.
Instead of reading Ayn Rand at age 19, he should have waited until he was older.
And "Atlas Shrugged" is a better book that "The Fountainhead" (pictured in the comic). "The Fountainhead" is just a prequel to "Atlas Shrugged".
I highly recommend reading "Atlas Shrugged".
(I had to read it for a class while working on my Master`s degree. I started the book being a skeptic, but ended up enjoying it. And have recommended the book and given it as a gift to many.)