I, for one, am astounded at the frothing level of Coulter-hatred I'm seeing from the mainstream media. I probably shouldn't be -- I should be used to it now -- but this sort of thing still always takes me by surprise.

Ann is at times too over-the-top for me. I really thought her comment about what to do about Afghanistan (kill them or force them to convert to Christianity) was unhelpful and un-Christian. I say "un-Christian" because Christianity has *never* believed in mass forced conversions -- not even during the crusades -- and Ann seems ignorant of that point. So she was rather useful to Christian critics, providing them with a ready-made parody.

Thanks, Ann.

More recently, I was able to read a few chapters of Godless. There were two or three points where I felt she stepped over the line of what is tasteful, useful, and civil. But I also found that she made a large number of very well put-together and well-documented cases for her stances. When she's in this mode she can be at points, frankly, brilliant. Not original, but she can pack a lot into a readable paragraph. If I could just excise the few cringe-worthy verbal excesses I saw, I would probably have been glad to give her book to liberal friends to see what their response would be. But those slips will let them off the hook, sadly: They can focus on her few moments of intemperance and ignore the factual elephants standing all around them.

Okay, now that I've spoken honestly about how I feel about Ann, warts and all, let me say what I think about the reaction to her.

Disgusting, hypocritical, and cynical. (Was that clear enough?)

Yes, Ann steps over the line. But her excesses frankly PALE compared to what I see coming from her opponents.

Let's recall that John Kerry sponsored and was present at a set of meetings which included calls to assassinate anyone who supported the Vietnam war. (He also personally imputed all manner of atrocities to the specific men he served alongside: that's slander, no?) He got a pass and a whitewash. Let us recall "Patriot Act", a piece of art in the shape of a stamp which depicted a gun held to Bush's head. If mentioned at all, it was defended as free speech. The UK's Guardian published an editorial which pled for assassination of our commander-in-chief. Though they eventually apologized, where was the media outrage? (Or is a respected newspaper held to a lower standard than an individual author?) And what of Ward Churchill's remarks? He was again defended on "free speech" grounds. (I also guess we also expect less from academia than Ann Coulter.)

Bill Maher said Christians had a neurological disorder. Senator Salazar called James Dobson "the antichrist of this world." Prominent Democrats frequently imply Bush deliberately or knowingly allowed 3,000 Americans to be slaughtered on 9/11 -- either for profit, or to help Israel. Democratic Party leader Howard Dean says Republicans want children to starve. And how many conservatives have been publicly slandered as "racist"?

And let's not delve into Howard Stern, nor ponorgrapher Larry Flynn, who was offen seen side-by-side with the Clintons, and venerated as a saint.

The media gets all aghast about an intemperate remark, taken out of context from the middle of Ann's book (it's milder in context), but completely ignores ad homen invective splashed across the covers of so very many liberal books -- like Franken's "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot", Moore's "Stupid White Men", or Cheney portrayed as a Hitler-for-oil on the European cover of Paul Krugman's anti-Bush screed, The Great Unraveling. (So much for the old civility in which political disagreements stopped at the water's edge.)

Odd, the silence on all that.

(I guess bad behavior is only bad if it's against your side?)

If it was wrong to say four specific women were profiting from, and appeared to be enjoying the attention their relatives' death brought them (though I got the same impression, having seen them on show after show after show, never with an opposing voice) (and ever notice Cyndi Sheehan's ever-present beaming, even joyful, beautific face?) then how wrong is it to call people "stupid", "idiot", "fat", "the antichrist" and advocate, you know, actually killing those you disagree with?

Isn't a call to homocide somewhat worse than a lack of decorum?

The hypocrisy boggles my mind.

So yes, Ann stepped over the line, and does so on occassion. The world would indeed be better without such remarks. But the media usually can't seem to notice when people in their own ranks drive tanks through that same line. At least conservatives condemn Coulter when they disagree. I'm still waiting for the same kind of reaction regarding Michael Moore, Al Franken, Paul Krugman, Cynthia McKinney, Cindy Sheehan, Harry Belafonte, or Ted Kennedy.