Boy, ya know, I send all those people to read his brilliant posts on constitutional law, and this is how he repays me! He thinks my post about the Randian grandeur of sex was mean-spirited, overly simplistic and betrays an ignorance of Rand's views on sex. To which I reply, "guilty as charged". But Timothy, it was a joke. I was just poking fun at Mercer's profoundly ridiculous invocation of the "Randian grandeur and meaning" of sex. The Marge Schott joke was really just a recycled joke I wrote about Madilyn Murray O'Hair a long time ago. And of course I know that people who like Ayn Rand actually have sex. I thought the outrageous exaggeration in the post was pretty obvious. Lighten up, my friend. I really wasn't trying to make a serious point, least of all about Rand's views on sex, of which I am blissfully ignorant. I was just having fun with Ilana Mercer's overblown and silly article with a response that was, admittedly, equally overblown and silly.
P.S. And if you'd turn on your comments, I could have said this on your blog instead of mine. :)