There's Something About Ann

Ann Coulter's give-'em-hell style was on full display Monday evening. And a few meek gopher state souls didn't like it very much.

Ann Coulter spoke at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, and, in terms that should have surprised no one, she flung barbs at liberal icons, calling Senator Ted Kennedy "a human dirigible" and Senator Barbara Boxer "learning disabled."

I'm still cackling on that last one.

Coulter's style, though, is one that the hard Left just cannot handle. Perhaps that's because it's so similar to their own, and the idea of a two-way street on anything is a concept utterly foreign to them.

Climbing aboard the anti-free speech express, St. Thomas University president Reverend Dennis Dease wrote in the Bulletin, a university newsletter, that "although [Ann Coulter's] presentation may have been meant as an 'act' or a 'shtick' to entertain by provoking those who disagree, such behavior unfortunately contributes to the growing dark side of our culture - a disrespect for persons and their sincerely held beliefs. Such hateful speech vulgarizes our culture and goes against everything the University of St. Thomas stands for."

Sure, Reverend. Just ask Tom DeLay, or John Bolton, or Donald Rumsfeld, or the President's appellate court nominees, or the President himself, or heck, ask Ms. Coulter. They could all tell you a thing or two about what it's like to be on the receiving end of "hateful speech."

Seems to me that what the "dark side" needs desperately is exposure to the light. Ms. Coulter just happens to use a flamethrower. Sure looks like it works to me, judging from your reaction.

Get a load of this next graf.

Coulter was a guest of the school's chapter of the College Republicans and a student newspaper, the Standard. There is no word on whether or not the Reverend Dease will take action against those groups. [my emphasis]

I realize that the First Amendment has been largely repealed, but even so, it's still breathtaking to see such Gestapo tactics speculated upon so casually.

Oh, but that's not the punchline.

Dease, curiously, was not present at the speech he so sternly criticized, but relied on others whose tender sensibilities were offended by Ann's remarks.

"I am told by many people," he wrote, "that Ms. Coulter was unsparing in her vitriolic criticism of 'liberals' and treated in a sarcastic, disrespectful and mean-spirited manner any audience members who challenged her viewpoints."

Doesn't this just figure? Dease had his mind made up before Ms. Coulter ever arrived. Indeed, it isn't unreasonable to wonder whether any of his "sources" were actually present at her lecture. The various accounts of her speech don't seem to include any actual quotes from it, "hateful" or otherwise.

When preconceived notions rule all, golly, who needs to actually listen to what a member of the other side has to say? And, since what the Left really wants to do is silence voices like Ms. Coulter, preconceived notions are all they dare cite.

One offended attendee, Fr. Dease wrote, who "found both Ms. Coulter’s remarks and attitude to be appalling, had an interesting question. He understands the value of hearing 'controversial' speakers and debating issues, 'but where do you draw the line?' he asked. 'When do you say, We’re not going to invite this person to campus, especially if she isn’t going to respect others’ points of view?'..."

According to reports, he said he "heard from people whose views I respect suggest that her performance went far beyond the bounds of what is commonly accepted as civil discourse."

Ann Coulter does not suffer fools or their foolishness gladly. She's blunt and outspoken. She takes no prisoners. And she gives as good as she gets. Kind of like John Bolton after extensive external modifications.

But that doesn't translate to "hate," unlike, say, the wave of recent campus physical attacks launched against conservative speakers such as Coulter, Pat Buchanan, and Bill Kristol, or the destestable bloviations of the far-left professoriate, or the assassination fetish of the moveon/Soros crowd.

Let me put it in terms that a man of the cloth should easily understand:

"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye."

UPDATE: Here's real "hate speech"....