Additionally: the author does not support O'Reilly's (or any "Randian" for that matter) politics.
That the author (a great writer) would use Rand (an awful writer) as the strawman here indicates he's never read her work (it sucks, fyi) and is only reacting to what he thinks it is.
Say what you want about Rand's political views, it's clear that the author doesn't understand them... implying that he doesn't understand O'Reilly's either.
The first half of the article was an interesting historic lesson for me. The last half of the article, less so.
That the author (a great writer) would use Rand (an awful writer) as the strawman here indicates he's never read her work (it sucks, fyi) and is only reacting to what he thinks it is.
Say what you want about Rand's political views, it's clear that the author doesn't understand them... implying that he doesn't understand O'Reilly's either.
The first half of the article was an interesting historic lesson for me. The last half of the article, less so.