University of Colorado professor and author Ward Churchill wrote an essay in which (he) questioned the innocence of many of the people killed in the World Trade Center attacks, labeling them as "technocrats" and "little Eichmanns and was villified for his comments by many people. News commentator and author Ann Coulter, speaking about some of the wives of men who died in the 9/11 attack ,said, "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. ... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much ... the Democrat ratpack gals endorsed John Kerry for president ... cutting campaign commercials... how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy" and was praised by many of those same people.

Could someone please explain to me the difference in these two comments or commentators, both of which I find offensive (and both of which are protected by the First Amendment). I would really like to know how someone can find one comment offensive and not the other.

In the first instance, anyone killed is automatically off limits for criticism. Especially the case when the whole red, white, and blue incident justifies (?) our invasion of Iraq. Add to that the perception that all college professors and intellectuals are hated "liberals" and they become fair game for the harshest criticism.

On the other hand, the same people would naturally welcome the Ann Coulter's type commentary. These wives are #1: Still living , and #2: Kerry supporters, ergo ---- deserving of the most venomous condemnation. IMHO.

I say both are idiotic statments: the difference is that Coulter is much more widely lionized, sells a hell of a lot more books, and has more defenders on the right than Churchill does on the left. In fact, Churchill seems to have been a flash (and a dull one at that) in the pan, relegated to the occasional campus appearance. Coulter is on all the networks, all the time. More liberals are embarrassed by such talk from their "own" than conservatives -- from the evidence I see -- are by theirs. By definition, sort of.

More liberals are capable of embarrassment, IMO.