Godless

It's the title of a book by Ann Coulter that seems to be getting a lot of attention lately. Seems pretty provocative, as she uses "godless" to describe the political left.

My curiosity to see the book came about when I saw a segment on TV, then heard another on the radio where Ann was invited to defend her book against liberal critics. Both times I sort of expected the liberal critic to dispute the basic assertion that they were "godless". I was surprised when neither did.

OK, so maybe they wanted to take issue with some of the statements made in the book. But they only had a problem with one specific line, which says something about the women in New Jersey (called the "Jersey girls") "enjoying their husbands' deaths". What a mean and insensitive thing to say, they sniffed. It sounded kind of mean and insensitive to me, too.

But was that all they had to say about the substance of the book? Apparently. Because the liberal talking heads didn't want to get into anything else in the book itself, but instead talked about how it was "divisive". It only deepens the chasm between conservatives and liberals. It's mean-spirited.

So I got my hands on the book. And I read most of it last night. These are some general observations.

Those who want to say it's mean and divisive may not have read the book. Because the remark about the Jersey Girls, taken in context, was just the conclusion Ann reached after telling their story of opportunism. Other than that, the closest she comes to "personal attacks" are a jab or two at Michael Moore's weight, mentioning that Ted Kennedy is a drunk who got away with drowning a young woman, referring to the "moonbat" Cindy Sheehan, and rehashing Bill Clinton's sexual misbehavior.

Otherwise, the book is just full of examples of bad liberal ideas. Furlough programs for convicted murderers, rapists, and pedophiles who do it again as soon as they're released. Outrageous examples of judicial misconduct. Misuse of tax dollars on meaningless featherbedding pet social projects that create more problems than they solve. Shunning and even firing scientists from academia who dare to present results that refute liberal beliefs. News people who don't care about the actual story, but choose to "report" only Democrat talking points. Attacking anyone who disagrees with abortion on demand or partial-birth abortion.

Ann is generally known as the right's answer to Michael Moore. I suppose she is, in the sense that she's anabashedly partisan and doesn't seem to care much if she offends people on the other side.

On the other hand, Michael Moore is a propagandist. In the pure definition of the term, his business is to distort and make up facts to support the message he hopes to market to the masses. The question is, if Ann uses actual facts without distortion or lies to present her message, can she fairly be compared to Moore?

When Farenheit 911 came out, conservative critics quickly responded with all sorts of factual refutation on nearly every point he tried to make. If Coulter used the same propagandist methods with "Godless", why doesn't her opposition try to make their own point-by-point refutation of her supporting facts? Could it be because they can't?

Interesting book, though. I'd recommend it to anybody, regardless of political persuasion.