Christopher Hitchens on Ayn Rand
r.d.ja...@gmail.com
when he said the following in regards to Ayn Rand and Objectivism. (My
transcript may not be perfect, but it's fairly accurate. No context is
dropped.)
{ From a 'YouTube' video -- Christopher Hitchens: "The Moral Necessity
of Atheism." -- Time frame: 61:00 (m:s) until 63:31 (m:s) -- URL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSmh03pL44o }
Questioner: [Partially inaudible, mentions Ayn Rand and Objectivism.]
Hitchens: "Yeah, I'm invited to be unpleasant at the expense of Ayn
Rand and Objectivism. Well, that's easy. Well, the novels, first, as I
keep trying to say that, you know, in my view, there's more morality
in a novel by George Elliot than there is in any of the four Gospels,
or of the four of them put together.
I care very much about literature as the place where real dilemmas,
ethical dilemmas, are met and dealt with. So to have novels as
transcendently awful as Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead, sort of
undermines my project.
And then, though I have some respect for the "Virtue of Selfishness,"
a collection of essays, and I've argued about them with the Chairman
of the Federal Reserve, as a matter of fact. (By the way, a state
Federal Reserve Bank is not part of the Libertarian program
[chuckles], though Mr. Greenspan seems a bit iffy about this self-
evident proposition.)
I don't think there's any need to have essays advocating selfishness
among human beings; I don't know what your impression has been, but
some things require no further reinforcement. {Audience Laughter.}
Lillian Hellman was once, in her declining years, talking at some
campus and she would peer out over the crowd with her very thick
glasses and there was a squawking question from somewhere in the back
[that] said [Hitchens speaking in a lispy tone]: "Ms. Hellman, why
haven't you endorsed gay rights?"
And Ms. Hellman, barely peering, drew herself up and said--I wonder
what word I'm allowed to use in this august company?--I'll quote her
directly then; she said: "The forms of fucking do not require my
endorsement."
{Audience laughter.}
I wasn't that much of a fan of Ms. Hellman, she could be a real bitch,
{audience laughter} but I thought that said it more or less all.
So to have a book strenuously recommending that people be more self-
centered seems to me, as the Anglican Church used to say in its
critique of Catholocism, a work of super-arrogation. It's too
strenuous.
Chris Cathcart
> In many ways I like Christopher Hitchens, so I was a little surprised
> when he said the following in regards to Ayn Rand and Objectivism. (My
> transcript may not be perfect, but it's fairly accurate. No context is
> dropped.)
>
> { From a 'YouTube' video -- Christopher Hitchens: "The Moral Necessity
> of Atheism." -- Time frame: 61:00 (m:s) until 63:31 (m:s) --
> URL:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSmh03pL44o}
>
> centered seems to me, as the Anglican Church used to say in its
> critique of Catholocism, a work of super-arrogation. It's too
> strenuous.
Hmmm. In a century that witnessed the horrors of Communism and Nazism
so gleefully embraced and covered up for by so many, you'd think it's
barely strenuous enough.
Lemme guess: much like with many otherwise good intellectuals,
Hitchens has a blind spot when it comes to understanding something
like Objectivism? I saw this same kind of silliness with Michael
Shermer, who mars an otherwise nice book (Why People Believe Weird
Things) with a muddled chapter on Rand and Objectivism.
r.d.ja...@gmail.com
making such subtle, erudite distinctions; he is typically very careful
intellectually. Yet he just dismisses the *VoS* as a "reinforcement"
for a kind of false-callousness so prevalent among the unthinking in
the culture today. Perhaps these conclusions were reached during his
Trotskyite years.
Fred Weiss
> In many ways I like Christopher Hitchens, so I was a little surprised
> when he said the following in regards to Ayn Rand and Objectivism. (My
> transcript may not be perfect, but it's fairly accurate. No context is
> dropped.)
>
> { From a 'YouTube' video -- Christopher Hitchens: "The Moral Necessity
> of Atheism." -- Time frame: 61:00 (m:s) until 63:31 (m:s) --
> URL:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSmh03pL44o}
>
> Questioner: [Partially inaudible, mentions Ayn Rand and Objectivism.]
And yet just a year later he wrote in the WSJ:
"At least two important conservative thinkers, Ayn Rand and Leo
Strauss, were unbelievers or nonbelievers and in any case contemptuous
of Christianity. I have my own differences with both of these savants,
but is the Republican Party really prepared to disown such modern
intellectuals as it can claim, in favor of a shallow, demagogic and
above all sectarian religiosity?"
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006649
At least a little more respectful. She is now an
"important...thinker", although it is odd that he describes her as a
"conservative", since he obviously knows better.
Look, I like Hitchens for any number of other reasons - as I do Anne
Coulter (who is even more virulently anti-Objectivist) - but he
doesn't strive very hard for consistency. He's a polemicist and a
great deal of what he says is for effect, so it is not surprising if
soon after he'll say something not entirely in accord with something
he had said previously. I doubt it bothers him much.
Hitchens is right and very out-spoken on some very important issues
and that counts for a great deal, offsetting some less attractive
views on some other subjects.
Fred Weiss
r.d.ja...@gmail.com
with what you excerpt, Hitchens does mention both Ayn Rand and Leo
Strauss as among the top 3 or 4, if not the top 2, "gurus" or
"authors" of the modern conservative movement. He emphasizes that
they're both non-Deists.
By the way, do you know where I would be able to get a copy of the
debate he reportedly had with Harry Binswanger and John Ridpath on
socialism/capitalism in the 1980s?
Ryan Jamieson
Atlas Bugged
news:1179145955.1...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Look, I like Hitchens for any number of other reasons - as I do Anne
> Coulter (who is even more virulently anti-Objectivist) - but he
> doesn't strive very hard for consistency. He's a polemicist and a
> great deal of what he says is for effect, so it is not surprising if
> soon after he'll say something not entirely in accord with something
> he had said previously. I doubt it bothers him much.
>
> Hitchens is right and very out-spoken on some very important issues
> and that counts for a great deal, offsetting some less attractive
> views on some other subjects.
The thing of it is, there are basics that matter. In the first instance,
Hitchens doesn't have a consistent and systematic philosophical framework -
he just tries to identify proper values in an ad-hoc sort of way. He hasn't
even attempted what Rand achieved. So he takes pot-shots at the edifice
Rand built.
But he has now come around to the basic views that Objectivisim puts forth.
He's obviously now grown to the point where he's figured out the primacy and
importance of his own life, and managed to generalize this to principle.
Since he's brilliant, he gets to this his own way and disses Rand.
But when he gets around to reconciling all his views and integrating them
properly, he'll come round to something close to Objectivism. He'll do what
he's done all along - he'll just say I thought about it some more, and now I
get it.
His dislike for the novels is understandable - they do display a certain
style that some find arch or pedantic. But he already accepts much of their
underlying message.
And the crap about VOS is insignificant. The term "selfish" is so flexible
and manipulated in current use that no two people are necessarily on the
same page when using the term. Hitchens is probably agreeing with the
message of VOS but simply defying Rand's insistence on defining the term
"properly."
The fact is that in language, it's a social-metaphysic - if most people
understand it a certain way, even if wrong, as Rand noted, that's still the
meaning for cash-value purposes.
Finally, he spent his formative years as a Brit. Can you ever shake that
off completely? Sure, guys like Reggie go berserkers, just like
religionists who get hit one day with the fact that it's all a fairy-tale.
But most folks kind of evolve over time.
Fred Weiss
> Fred: Near the beginning of the very talk I cite above, consistent
> with what you excerpt, Hitchens does mention both Ayn Rand and Leo
> Strauss as among the top 3 or 4, if not the top 2, "gurus" or
> "authors" of the modern conservative movement. He emphasizes that
> they're both non-Deists.
Oh, ok. I haven't listened to the talk.
> By the way, do you know where I would be able to get a copy of the
> debate he reportedly had with Harry Binswanger and John Ridpath on
> socialism/capitalism in the 1980s?
Good question. You could check with ARB or ask Harry (if you're on
HBL). Apparently Hitchens was much more avowedly socialist then and
Harry wasn't particularly impressed with him. Perhaps it was that
encounter which got Hitchens to look further into Objectivism.
Fred Weiss
r.d.ja...@gmail.com
such a debate took place and said he would like to get his hands on a
tape of it, if it's available. I'd check with Harry Binswanger, though
a couple years ago you might remember he kicked me off his list for
being a jerk, which was probably deserved. Let me know if you come by
anything.
Robert J. Kolker
> Coulter (who is even more virulently anti-Objectivist) - but he
> doesn't strive very hard for consistency. He's a polemicist and a
> great deal of what he says is for effect, so it is not surprising if
As was Ayn Rand.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> The thing of it is, there are basics that matter. In the first instance,
> Hitchens doesn't have a consistent and systematic philosophical framework -
> he just tries to identify proper values in an ad-hoc sort of way. He hasn't
> even attempted what Rand achieved. So he takes pot-shots at the edifice
> Rand built.
Edifice???? I would have said crude log cabin.
Bob Kolker
r.d.ja...@gmail.com
alone a certain modicum of respect. Anne Coulter? Can you really call
her anything but a "shock jockess" for the Neo-Cons?
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I may be peculiar in thinking that actually _We the Living_ and
> _Fountainhead_ are actually quite fine, underrated works of art that are
> not well understood in the academy, while finding the conventional
> wisdom's reaction to _Atlas Shrugged_ pretty much on target. I think
> that AS is an invaluable source for understanding her thought, and a
> rich source of *ideas*, but I never found that it worked for me as a
> novel. I sense a certain ungenuineness in it.
Think of it as Victor Hugo in an alternative history time-line machine.
Bob Kolker
Atlas Bugged
>> Coulter (who is even more virulently anti-Objectivist) - but he
>> doesn't strive very hard for consistency. He's a polemicist and a
>> great deal of what he says is for effect, so it is not surprising if
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:f29qov$57q$3...@victor.killfile.org...
> As was Ayn Rand.
But Rand was indisputably a *philosopher*. All controversy or disagreement
surrounding her consists in evaluating her philosophy.
It was presented as such, which by itself gets you some mileage, but no
matter how much someone dislikes or disagrees with Rand, complete dismissal
is simply unwarranted. Someone who says Rand was not a philosopher *at all*
is telling you more about the speaker than about Rand.
Hitchens, on the other hand, makes no claim to be a philosopher, he's just a
fabulously smart guy.
Bugged Predicts: Hitchens will eventually create or ally with a philosophy
per se, and it will either be Objectivisim or be something fundamentally
similar.
Matt Barrow
>
> Good question. You could check with ARB or ask Harry (if you're on
> HBL). Apparently Hitchens was much more avowedly socialist then and
> Harry wasn't particularly impressed with him. Perhaps it was that
> encounter which got Hitchens to look further into Objectivism.
>
Last I heard Hitchens is still an avowed Trotskyite.
I heard him debating Sean Hannity about the Bush tax cuts, oh, maybe three
years ago. He was literally screaming leftist/Marxist babble. Hannity
couldn't get a word in and the moderator couldn't get Hitchens to shut up.
--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Colorado Springs, CO
Matt Barrow
"Atlas Bugged" <atlasbug...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kl_1i.539361$mJ2.2...@fe10.news.easynews.com...
>
> Hitchens, on the other hand, makes no claim to be a philosopher, he's just
> a fabulously smart guy.
That's why he's a Trotskyite instead of a Leninist or Stalinist?
> Bugged Predicts: Hitchens will eventually create or ally with a philosophy
> per se, and it will either be Objectivisim or be something fundamentally
> similar.
He'll need some time in DETOX first.
Matt Barrow
"Fred Weiss" <fred...@papertig.com> wrote in message
news:1179149434....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Either this: http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=HB11M
or this: http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=CP01G
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> But Rand was indisputably a *philosopher*. All controversy or disagreement
> surrounding her consists in evaluating her philosophy.
Her interpersonal strife with such as the Brandon's also enters into it.
She had a rather authoritarian mode of operation for a lady who is
fighting for liberty.
Bob Kolker
Puppet_Sock
I think we should invade their countries, kill their leaders,
and convert Anne Coulter to Christianity.
Personally though, the "intellectual" nature of Hitchens
does not really count all that much in his favour IMHO.
That's because I've met and known a lot of them, and
they don't impress for the most part. I recall a discussion
with a university professor in which he was unable to
answer the following question: "When you make a
decision, who makes the decision?"
Socks
Robert J. Kolker
> Personally though, the "intellectual" nature of Hitchens
> does not really count all that much in his favour IMHO.
> That's because I've met and known a lot of them, and
> they don't impress for the most part. I recall a discussion
> with a university professor in which he was unable to
> answer the following question: "When you make a
> decision, who makes the decision?"
Define "you".
Bob Kolker
Reggie Perrin
> "Fred Weiss" <fred...@papertig.com> wrote in message
> news:1179149434....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> Good question. You could check with ARB or ask Harry (if you're on
>> HBL). Apparently Hitchens was much more avowedly socialist then and
>> Harry wasn't particularly impressed with him. Perhaps it was that
>> encounter which got Hitchens to look further into Objectivism.
>>
>
> Last I heard Hitchens is still an avowed Trotskyite.
"Hitchens has said he no longer feels a part of the Left, yet does not
object to being called a 'former' Trotskyist."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens#Where_he_stands_now
acar
> Someone who says Rand was not a philosopher *at all*
> is telling you more about the speaker than about Rand.
Rand considered an important philosopher and she created a
"philosophy". She also wrote a book on epistemology and many
philosophical essays. She was in demand as a speaker on philosophical
subjects. At one point she was the flavor of the day for an adoring
crowd. In summary she called herself a philosopher and was called a
phlospher, an important one, by many on her day and still today. Does
all that make her a philosopher? Considering the fact that anybody can
make any claim about his own work and about someone else's work, we
must find a way of settling the question objectively. The best
objective criterion that we have is far from perfect, but if we don't
use it we fall into subjectivity and we don't want to do that, do we?
That method is ... (all repeat after me, please) ... consensus.
> Hitchens, on the other hand, makes no claim to be a philosopher, he's just a
> fabulously smart guy.
He is a skillful an disarming communicator. That does not count as
much as the ideas that are being communicated. The manner of
presentation of the argument should not reflect value or lack of value
on the argument itself. How would the same argument fare from the
mouth of an unskilled communicator?
Great debaters are always like peacocks. They may or not be passionate
about ideas but are invariably more passionate about their own
performance. They come on shows and debates to show off. Hitchen's
book does not have anythng to say about religion that has not been
repeated ad nauseum in innumerable books and debates over centuries.
Nothing, you hear me, Bugged? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. By that
criterion it should be considered a boring book - an unnecessary
sacrifice of noble trees. I was also surprised to see that he is not
that good a writer, although he obviously tries to be.
acar
Rand considered herself ... etc
r.d.ja...@gmail.com
>
> Either this:http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=HB11M
>
> or this:http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=CP01G
Actually, I've seen/heard those debates already, as good as they are.
But Objectivist writer Robert Tracinski, in his May 5/05 edition of
"TIA Daily," similarly mentions Hitchens as one of the debate
participants against Binswanger and Ridpath.
"On the other side, former leftist Christopher Hitchens makes a
terrific argument, presented in a more disciplined and hence more
eloquent style than normal. His reference to Ayn Rand in this article
is amusing, since I first became aware of Hitchens in the late 1980s-
before his September 11 conversion to the right-when he defended
socialism in a debate against Objectivists Harry Binswanger and John
Ridpath."
I suspect this debate has to exist on tape somewhere; I'd be willing
to pay for a copy of it.
Atlas Bugged
news:1179152236.2...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Hitchens is a real intellectual and thereby commands by that fact
> alone a certain modicum of respect. Anne Coulter? Can you really call
> her anything but a "shock jockess" for the Neo-Cons?
That's my take. I'd see it as not a fair fight. Coulter is unarmed. Then
again, I could stand to see her shot.
John Alway
> In many ways I like Christopher Hitchens, so I was a little surprised
> when he said the following in regards to Ayn Rand and Objectivism. (My
> transcript may not be perfect, but it's fairly accurate. No context is
> dropped.)
[...]
On "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand...
> I don't think there's any need to have essays advocating selfishness
> among human beings; I don't know what your impression has been, but
> some things require no further reinforcement. {Audience Laughter.}
I heard this talk. The whole point is that it should be reinforced,
because it's good, not bad as is generally understood. He seems to
have missed that. Not to mention the fact that many people suffer
because they think it's bad.
...John
r.d.ja...@gmail.com
Hitchens interesting, even apart from the content of his philosophy.
They're in no particular order.
1. A sprawling, detailed command of social and economic history, as
well as (at least Western) intellectual and literary history.
Extremely well read.
2. Comfortable in the realm of physical science; attempts to fuse
findings of science (e.g., biological evolution) into his discourse.
3. Unmatched grandiloquence: a fluid, humourous, ascerbic wit combined
with wide-ranging literary and poetic sensibilities.
5. A "bad ass" degree of honesty and courage. He is who he is; he'll
say whatever he wants to say, rudely if required. He'll step up to the
plate with anyone.
Matt Barrow
<r.d.ja...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1179167609.9...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> "On the other side, former leftist Christopher Hitchens makes a
> terrific argument, presented in a more disciplined and hence more
> eloquent style than normal. His reference to Ayn Rand in this article
> is amusing, since I first became aware of Hitchens in the late 1980s-
> before his September 11 conversion to the right-when he defended
> socialism in a debate against Objectivists Harry Binswanger and John
> Ridpath."
Hitchens became a "Hawk", but he is still a Marxist/Socialist.
Ken Gardner
>> Hitchens is a real intellectual and thereby commands by that fact
>> alone a certain modicum of respect. Anne Coulter? Can you really call
>> her anything but a "shock jockess" for the Neo-Cons?
> That's my take. I'd see it as not a fair fight. Coulter is unarmed.
> Then again, I could stand to see her shot.
Hmm...I'm not so sure that I would mess with her if I was you.
http://talkwarrior.com/photox/ann-coulter-rifle.jpg
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/ann_coulter.jpg
Ken
Atlas Bugged
news:f2b58b$ahh$1...@victor.killfile.org...
Anything where a good body part will be up to the task, in this case, a good
eye.
Intellectually...well, I've read her screeds online from time to time. Try
to name someone on the conservative/Republican side of the isle with less
class and less brains.
No, McCain doesn't work because he has some class and his mind appears to be
just going, probably from age or alzheimers. Even the three dwarves still
trying to grasp this "Darwin" guy know what they're doing, beneath the
veneer of moron-hood.
Coulter is a very, very modest intellect trying to compete in a game where
she realized early on that she could only win by showing us her tits, i.e.,
shock-jock, as mentioned.
TommCatt
> they don't impress for the most part. I recall a discussion
> with a university professor in which he was unable to
> answer the following question: "When you make a
> decision, who makes the decision?"
When you ask such questions, who asks the questions? ;)
TommCatt
--
If some unemployed punk in New Jersey can get a cassette to make love to
Ella McPherson for $19.95, this virtual reality stuff is going to make
crack look like Sanka.
TommCatt
>
> Intellectually...well, I've read her screeds online from time to time. Try
> to name someone on the conservative/Republican side of the isle with less
> class and less brains.
> Coulter is a very, very modest intellect trying to compete in a game where
> she realized early on that she could only win by showing us her tits, i.e.,
> shock-jock, as mentioned.
Hey, go easy. Coulter is my gal. I have thoroughly enjoyed every
appearance she makes on TV. I like her spunk, I like her looks, I like
her "don't think you're gonna give *me* any shit, buster" attitude. I'm
secretly in love with Ann Coulter.
Oops. It *was* a secret...
TommCatt
--
People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer
to pick on rich women than biker gangs.
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Hitchens became a "Hawk", but he is still a Marxist/Socialist.
That might be true, but he is sitting squarely in The Camp of the Saints.
I generally do not inquire into premises as long as the conclusions are
true.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Hmm...I'm not so sure that I would mess with her if I was you.
With -her-???. Andy Coulter is a man.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Coulter is a very, very modest intellect trying to compete in a game where
> she realized early on that she could only win by showing us her tits, i.e.,
> shock-jock, as mentioned.
"Her" tits and "her" Adam's Apple
Bob Kolker
Atlas Bugged
Heh. It's like Republi-Ken's policy of voting for the least-evil of the
candidates. Coulter is physically attractive only in her context - let's
see, stick my dick in Karl Rove's ass? Pat Buchanan's? Oh, look, Anne
Coulter is on the menu! Thank you, sweet Jesus!
The minute you switch to any reasonable context - newsbabes, for example -
Coulter quickly starts looking pretty much like her personality suggests -
worn-out, wrinkled, bitter, a girl who worked her way up from white trash
and by her own efforts became still white and still trash.
r.d.ja...@gmail.com
gay porn stars.
John Alway
> Atlas Bugged wrote:
> > Intellectually...well, I've read her screeds online from time to time. Try
> > to name someone on the conservative/Republican side of the isle with less
> > class and less brains.
> > ...
> > Coulter is a very, very modest intellect trying to compete in a game where
> > she realized early on that she could only win by showing us her tits, i.e.,
> > shock-jock, as mentioned.
> Hey, go easy. Coulter is my gal. I have thoroughly enjoyed every
> appearance she makes on TV.
I'm with you on this one. Her religiosity is a major turn off, but
she is great at skewering liberals, and she's witty in the process.
I enjoyed this recent piece on the new president of France, for
instance:
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=180
excerpt
[quote]
"The smartest woman in the word sniped that she would 'create
alliances instead of alienation.'"
"Yes, it was spellbinding how her husband charmed North Korean
dictator Kim Il Sung and his sociopathic son Kim Jong Il by showering
them with visits from Jimmy Carter and gifts from love-machine
Madeleine Albright. And that was that: No more trouble from North
Korea!"
[/quote]
See, that's funny, and spot-on.
Btw, an aside, the new French president calls muslim rioters
"scum"! A miracle! See article above for details.
Bugged, in my estimation, is far too negative on some
conservatives, such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.
As to Hitchens, I always had an appreciation for him, since he was
one of the few leftists who would ridicule Bill Clinton, and he was
exceedingly effective at it. Since then, he's grown on me, because
more and more of his arguments make sense all of the time, and he
still has that razor sharp wit to go with it. However, unlike Coop,
I would never consider him a hero. He's too wrong on too much, and
he's far too polemical for my taste. I prefer system builders to
system destroyers as a rule.
...John
Chris Cathcart
> Heh. It's like Republi-Ken's policy of voting for the least-evil of the
> candidates. Coulter is physically attractive only in her context - let's
> see, stick my dick in Karl Rove's ass? Pat Buchanan's? Oh, look, Anne
> Coulter is on the menu! Thank you, sweet Jesus!
Oh, jeez, I dunno. What if the context is that Rove or Buchanan are
sufficiently squeaky clean, flushed out back there and they're wearing
a hood and their asses are shaved/plucked?
Mark N
> On May 15, 7:36 am, Atlas Bugged <atlasbuggedBYs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Heh. It's like Republi-Ken's policy of voting for the least-evil of the
>>candidates. Coulter is physically attractive only in her context - let's
>>see, stick my dick in Karl Rove's ass? Pat Buchanan's? Oh, look, Anne
>>Coulter is on the menu! Thank you, sweet Jesus!
>
> Oh, jeez, I dunno. What if the context is that [censored]
Wow, that's harsh. Coulter isn't *that* unattractive. In fact, I wish to
go on record right now as preferring Coulter to *any* man, no matter how
clean the man might be! Thank you. :-)
Mark
acar
>
> I wish to
> go on record right now as preferring Coulter to *any* man, no matter how
> clean the man might be! Thank you. :-)
You are contradicting yourself. It's the weight of Coulter's penis
that makes her voice nasal.
.
.