Freedom of speech is a beautiful thing, but only if used intelligently.

Ann Coulter is an excellent example of not using it intelligently. I just watched a YouTube clip (God love the Internet) of her saying she has “nothing to say” about possible Democratic presidential nominee John Edwards, because she would “have to go to rehab for using the word ‘faggot.'”

First off, I’m pretty hard to offend, and the comment doesn’t offend me, it’s just that the humor’s lost on me. I thought political jokes were supposed to contain some slight semblance of intelligence. If Coulter really feels that all she can do against the Democratic Party for the time being is call them names, then she should probably remain mute. In a democracy, we are supposed to publicly discuss ideas and come to some sort of resolution that we all feel serves the common good. Name-calling is something that most of us learned by the age of 4 does not serve the common good.

Second, what exactly was Coulter trying to say with that “hilarious” joke? That Democrats are too PC and need to lighten up? That Edwards bathes far too often to be considered heterosexual? That she’s not afraid to “say something shocking” because she doesn’t let “the man” keep her down? If there’s anything worse than celebrities saying something stupid, it’s political celebrities saying something stupid. Take Kanye, for example. Sure, it’s debatable whether or not Bush cares about black people, but Kanye West’s statement pointed to racial tensions in our society that are still existent, and it is undeniable that they are there and need to be discussed. Coulter didn’t really point out anything. She just made me very depressed, knowing that someone like her can actually make money. Only in America …

“Irate” appears to be a commodity lately, quite heavily used in Republican media. Whether it be Coulter, the “ingenious” author of a book titled Godless about myself and others who didn’t vote for Bush, or Bill O’Reilly, a hack who invites guests onto his show so he can mock them and pick fights, all in an effort to promote “intelligent debate” in our society, I seem to be hearing a lot about this swelling anger in the media, and I don’t even have my cable plugged in. Angry, militant, ticked off, whatever you want to call it, I guess these people feel they have to compete with Howard Dean for making an ass of oneself in public.

Let’s be completely impartial-Ann and Bill aren’t capable of it, so I’ll take care of it for them. John Kerry, that was a mighty funny joke about the soldiers, and how “they can’t read good.” Could you possibly have proven yourself to be any more of a cranky old man for losing to Bush? What is so hard about shutting up, if you have nothing to offer that promotes the common good?

I still think that the anger is coming a lot more from the right. I don’t blame them. Bush doesn’t look so hot lately. His handling of Katrina should leave him up there with Carter for “lowest approval rating,” the whole Libby scandal can’t help anything and wars never make anyone popular, especially if no one believes that you either have any evidence, or know how to interpret it if you do. I guess Coulter feels that she needs to be in “attack mode” now, since she’s got nothing smart left to say.

Some might think this article sounds biased. It isn’t intended to be. I am merely exploring why the Republican media feel the need to be so petty instead of intelligent. If we could have intelligent public debate between parties, then we could resolve real issues, such as how to get out of the Middle East, find alternative fuel sources, etc. Instead, it’s incredibly important that I hear Coulter call someone a “faggot.” Please respond to this article, without name-calling. Disagree with me, even violently, please. Just no more jokes about rehab and homosexuality.

Marshall Johnson is a senior in the College of Arts & Sciences.