News from Lake Coulterville

La Coultera, who by dint of her brains, hard work, and pluck managed, somehow, to rise above the overwhelming obstacles placed in her path to go to Cornell and then the University of Michigan Law School, has—perhaps unintentionally—put herself into a trap.

To maintain her presence in the media, while decrying how she is ignored, she has to raise the ante. Just as Howard Stern or Jerry Springer have to keep pushing the envelope to avoid becoming tedious, so La Coultera can't rest on her well-established credentials as the Shock Jock of commentary. She has to increase the volume, the shrillness, the outrageousness. It isn't enough, now, to say the kinds of things that get one fired at National Review. It isn't enough to mock some of the widows of 9.11 (the ones who don't act as La Coultera demands). Ratchet up the animosity, the vitriol, and fire away, Gridley.

Evidently based on a reading of his autobiography that shows the same insight, sensitivity, understanding, and care she brought to reading Charles Darwin's works, La Coultera has pronounced her verdict on Obama and his first book Dreams from my Father. (The book has been out for awhile, but evidently she has just caught on that reading his book(s) might provide material for a column.)

Her conclusions? Obama is a two-bit Hitler. Dreams from my Father is best compared to Mein Kampf. Obama is a "lunatic" and "bonkers." He makes Jeremiah Wright look like Booker T. Washington.

These are valuable insights. Her quotes from the book are invaluable. When Obama expresses views that are remarkably similar to those of Clarence Thomas, Obama becomes Hitler, while Thomas is, of course, the poster child of the righteous. Perhaps this has little to do with, say, minor issues—e.g. the content of the statement—and a great deal to do with who states it.

I bet even at the University of Michigan Law School they introduced La Coultera to the argumentum ad hominem. Perhaps she was out getting a bikini wax the day that her professor added that it is a fallacy.

It is, finally, of interest to note that La Coultera frequently complains that "liberals"—i.e. everyone who disagrees with her—fail to read her books carefully or correctly. It is pretty clear that she hasn't read much pop psychology with equal care, as she might consider this "projecting." Today's trivia question: which book did she understand least? On the Origin of Species? Mein Kampf? Dreams of My Father? Or, in her analysis of Jeremiah Wright's remarkable claim that God does not, in fact, bless the intentional murder of thousands of people, perhaps it was the Book of Ezekiel she kinda sorta skimmed, rather than seeing that there, God does, in fact, damn a nation that carries out such an act.

I thank the good folks at FOX for providing the fair and balanced treatment that can, with a straight face, continue to promote La Coultera. To be fair (and balanced), she doesn't equate Obama with Hitler, but only because he is a "two bit" Hitler. Perhaps she would like him better if he were better at it? Say, a six-bit (75 cents) Hitler?

Perhaps we can start seeing a couple of those Christians who constantly worry about employees at Target being forced to say "Merry Christmas" come out and discuss the content of Wright's sermons—not just the sound bites—and the justice of comparing Obama to Hitler, and the value of this kind of approach as a model of Christian love.

Or is that too much to ask?