Welcome to the rant of the day. Today, boys and girls, our topic will be freedom of speech…and how it’s NOT just for the liberal elite.

When did it become wrong, in this country, to form one’s own, original opinion?

Now…it can be argued that it’s all been said/thought/done before. And it probably has. But does that mean that one individual’s exercise of reason and thought to progress to individual conclusions are invalid simply because they do not fall in with the accepted school of thought of the day?

Where did all this come from?

I happened to catch Ann Coulter on the Today show being interviewed by Katie Couric about her book “Slander”. (A book I haven’t read, but probably will, now that I know of it.) The book apparently deals with the unbalanced portrayal in the media of liberal and conservative viewpoints (alleging that the media is skewed toward the left….YA THINK???). Katie wasn’t too happy that she was labeled the Eva Braun of liberal media. (I take that to mean she is the poster girl meant to give an insidious regime a good public face…like Adolph’s girlfriend is supposed to have done? Someone correct me or enlighten me here.) The today show apparently repeatedly referred to Ronald Reagan as an airhead. (There was some wrangling over who said what and how many times…but I tend to believe the idea that the phrase was uttered…or at least aired…MORE than one time. Which is, *I* think, the point.) Coulter contends that Today’s use of that phrase was, at best, a misleading PARAPHRASE of something another writer had said. Or…written. Or…something. I’m too lazy to pin it down until I read Coulter’s book.

Anyway…back to MY point. So…I watch this interview. I see Katie Couric admirably managing to put aside her obvious ire at being so publicly portrayed in such a distasteful manner…and, again, admirably grilling Ann Coulter about what are perceived inconsistencies in her book. I also witnessed (oo. Maybe I shouldn’t oughta use that there phrase “witness”. I might be seen as some sort of right-wing religious fanatic “witnessin’ t’ all th’ people o’ th’ earth.”)…er…SAW…I also SAW…Coulter responding with reason, and a determination to stick to the point…and not allow herself to be quoted out of context. Have you ever heard of the phrase “caught between a rock and a hard place”? They WERE the rock and the hard place, the discussion stuck between them. These women, both, are veterans of pundit-land. It was like watching a fencing match of two well-trained opponents. Feint here, attempt disarm there, lunge here, backpedal, attack… Oh, what fun. I don’t think anybody won. Well…maybe Coulter did. After all, she got the publicity for her book.

Curiosity piqued…I went on a little Google-trek of “Ann Coulter”. I found some of her articles and read them. I like many of the things she has to say. In FACT, without further research, I was inclined to say she was the ‘radical-conservative’ I had always wanted to style myself.

(I coined that phrase, radical-conservative, myself…whether anyone else had or not…in 1987, in high school, when we were being taught the bare bones of right vs. left, conservative vs. liberal ideologies. Supposedly, you have liberal on the left, conservative on the right. Then, on the far right ya git yer conservative REACTIONARY…that guy that digs the bomb shelter, stocks it with guns, and joins the Brothers of Freedom and the Amer’c'n Way Militia group. On the far left, supposedly, you have what are called RADICALS. They, supposedly, go out and attempt social change openly, perceiving the status quo to be unacceptable, by marching and petitioning, and being politically vocal. Whether these definitions are right or not…THAT is what I got out of high school civics and, at the time, what I used to form the basis of my personal political leanings. Hence…radical-conservative. I rather wanted to be someone who could retain conservative values…but to constructively promote change to have the freedom to pursue those values. 15 years later, I know a little more and realize they’re all the same, just different rhetoric, different fanatacism, and both sides are rife with zealots and brainless rabble rousers. Right. Lesson over. We move on.)

I decided she was the me I had, for a split-second, thought I might want to be, before I made choices, allowed my brain to atrophy, and moved on and became Frog Princess Belly Dancing Housewife Extraordinaire.

In my Google-trek, I also found many articles, even entire websites, devoted to debunking, discrediting, or just downright criticizing Ann Coulter, and her opinions and articles.

It’s interesting to note that very few of these dissenters with the Coulter point of view actually DISPROVED any of her viewpoints or ideas…they simply criticized them. She has been labeled racist, mean, and other, less palatable things. Everything I’ve read so far, though, has not actually SHOWN that she is racist. Nobody has shown, anywhere, that she actually thinks people whose skin is a different color than hers are not her equals. (I am going to GUESS, here, that she is willing to accept as an equal ANY person, regardless of skin color, who can reason and make valid conclusions once given all the information.)

So…why is she bad and evil? Why is it wrong to have an opinion, now? Why is it unacceptable to take information, process it, and come to INDIVIDUAL conclusions?

Is it because Ann Coulter is a woman on the right? Is it because she has broken the mold of simpering, brainless, docile right wing woman that the left has so gleefully exploited all these years? (What? She has a brain, is a lawyer, and is outspoken? One of us, correct? Huh? Right-wing? But…she can’t be right-wing. They’re all brainless automatons who follow their men around baking pies. She IS right-wing? Oh. Well. She must be an evil bitch, then. Eviscerate her.)

Then again, maybe I don’t give the people who don’t like her enough credit. They probably bestow that same rabid hate upon male conservatives as well.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not all conservative myself. I am, however, disgusted by the collective liberal mentality of…”love everyone, tolerate everyone…EXCEPT anyone that doesn’t fall in line with OUR agenda, because THEY are wrong and WE are right and THEY can’t be tolerated. But…love everyone else…and tolerate everyone else. Yeah.”

So I’m left with no answers to my original questions. Why is it so WRONG for people…individuals…to have personal opinions…no less, EDUCATED personal opinions? (I mean, we aren’t talking about someone who never graduated high school. Or even college.) And since when should free speech be silenced in THIS country? reference here

Apparently, web sites and national publications should no longer publish more than one viewpoint. And the current viewpoint of choice is the ‘touchy-feely’ sort, where everyone can come away from reading feeling all warm and fuzzy and loved, rather than coming away thinking, forming opinions and either agreeing or disagreeing. (I mean, I believe there are some things that don’t need printing. Graphic descriptions of baby mutilation, and other useless information can be left out. But opinions? Come on, people.)

Good lord. Need we all be spoon-fed what sort of opinion we should have?

I prefer to read things that might be a little provacative…and then use my brain to decide if I agree or not.