I've heard all the stories on Ann Coulter's latest, and I've processed my opinions on the matter. As has been repeatedly pointed out, EVERYTHING Ms. Coulter has said has been absolutely, 100% accurate regarding the way we treat the families of victims of horrible acts. If they climb into the political arena by choice, they're fair game. They should have known what they were getting into.

The problem most people seem to have with Ms. Coulter was the way she chose to drive home her point. Terms like "The witches of East Brunswick", and "harpies" don't sit well when the reader chooses to reflect on the fact that Ms. Coulter is, in fact, referring to someone who lost a loved one. I certainly never would have chosen the phrases Ms. Coulter chose, nor would a number of writers.

But I'm starting to think that it is I, not Ms. Coulter, who is in error on this one. You see, I would have ended my comments on this particular issue, effectively, qith a question mark. Ms. Coulter chose to end hers with an exclamation point. And in doing so, she was MUCH more effective.

Before criticizing Ms. Coulter, you hav to ask yourself: would the American public have been so incensed had Ms. Coulter used the same words in describing someone who DIDN'T lose a family member in such a tragic way? Now, at first glance I tend to think I would, but on the other hand, I don't hesitate to chuckle when someone calls Al Franken a snivvelling politically correct airhead, or refers to fellow bloggers in a less than charming way for their own personal foibles; why would I suddenly take offense when someone slams these "victims du jour".

The thing to remember about each and every one of these "targets" of Ms. Coulter's comments is: they are NOT "victims". We, as a society, tend to CREATE victims (see sidebar article on the "cult of victimhood") because, frankly, victims make great press by eliciting sympathy from the public. These women lost their husbands to a tragic incident, sure, but that doesn't make them above reproach, as Ms. Coulter has pointed out, any more than I am above reproach on my comments about the CPS system simply because I have lost two brothers to it. If you choose to enter the debate, you choose to take on everything the debate entails.

And what of the hundreds of other widows of 9/11? Do the opinions of four New Jersey shrews (sorry, having a "Coulter" moment) matter more than those of the other women? We don't profile women who support the war effort in Vanity Fair for the simple fact that those women truly seem to be in the majority; for every magazine you could publish on the women who oppose our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, you could likely publish ten, if not a hundred, from women whose views are equally valid. But nobody wants to do that; that would go against politically correct Hollywood.

I learned many years ago that compromise is often for the weak. While there's a time and place for some areas of compromise, we've become far too deluded into believing it is always necessity. And civility and diplomacy fall into the same arena. Sure, you can be diplomatic and civil when deciding what kind of pizza you can order for lunch, but when the topic revolves around questioning the character of our troops and our leaders, it is fair and sometimes necessary to be less than civil; or at least to meet your opponent with as little civility as they expressed to you. Though I am no apologist for the Bush Administration, I will certainly respond with less than cordial phrases to those who would call our leader a "killer" and a "terrorist".