Ann Coulter's anti-liberal/anti-logic/anti-common decency stance has made her one of America's most polarizing public figures (I imagine you can tell where I land on this issue). But sometimes, she crosses even the most basic boundaries of taste.

In this video clip from CNBC's The Big Idea... Well. First, she dreams of a world where the Democratic party looks like Joseph Lieberman -- you know, a second Republican party. Then, she cites an episode of Seinfeld to make a sweeping generalization about mixed-race couples in New York. Then, she tells host and practicing Jew Donny Deutsch that America would be a better place without any Jews. Because in order for America to be perfect, Jews have to be perfected. Which means they have to become Christians. Because Christianity offers a "fast track to Heaven." Because Christians are, in actuality, "perfected Jews."

Seriously.

A friend of mine got fired from her job a few weeks ago, and that night we tried to puzzle out why she was let go. After all, she was smart, responsible, punctual, and pleasant -- what could have inspired her boss's displeasure? We tried and tried to figure it out, but eventually just gave up. "Bitch be crazy," we muttered to ourselves. "Bitch be crazy."

Because sometimes, that's all you can say.

In this segment from CNN's "American Morning," two college students are asked to predict the '08 nominees for their respective parties. Republican Laura Elizabeth Morales picks Ron Paul, sending host Rick Sanchez into a near-apoplectic fit of disbelief.

Co-host Kiran Chetry tries to reign things in, explaining that while Morales has every right to prefer Paul, the question was about the likely nominee. But Morales just sticks to her guns, mitigating her choice with "idealistically." Well, "idealistically," I could hope that if I step in front of a bus, I don't get hit, but that does not actually affect my statistical chances of becoming a pancake.

Democrat Rachel Moore goes Morales one better and simply refuses to pick any candidate at all. She just blathers for a while about how anyone would be better than Bush, and all that matters is that some Democrat wins. She also can't be nailed down on the most important Democratic issue. In fact, when it comes to answering questions directly, Moore makes Morales look like a genius.

As a woman, I think it's great that "American Morning" found two college-aged women to represent the younger segments of the parties. But did they have to find these two?

In this "news" report from Shreveport station KSLA, we learn that if the US were attacked, martial law might be enforced. And if it were, it could look a little like the 1998 film "The Siege." Oh, Auntie Em! I may become frightened!

But wait -- KSLA has more for you to worry about than just a hypothetical military enforcement which follows a hypothetical attack and hypothetically resembles a largely forgotten Denzel Washington/Bruce Willis vehicle that was a critical and financial washout. Because, my friend, the clergy are coming.

It happened after Hurricane Katrina, and it could happen again -- groups of clergypersons, moving among us during a crisis, and telling us to stay calm. Well, to be fair, they'd also be telling us to shut up and do whatever the cops and soldiers were asking. And you know how and why they can do it? 'Cause they've got Romans. Romans 13, that is, the part of the New Testament that tells you to submit to the Man. Egads! No! Anything but Romans!

Yes, there are a couple of facts buried in the hyperbole -- gun confiscation after Katrina, revocation of the Posse Comitatus Act. What they have to do with the white-collared menace of the encroaching padre army, though, I couldn't tell you.

Next week: The shocking story of what could happen if all the Jews, Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists who are immune to the Vulcan Nerve Pinch of the New Testamant rise up and overthrow us all, in a manner to be illustrated with scenes from some movie other than "The Siege."

In this 1994 post-Desert-Storm interview, Dick Cheney is asked if UN troops should have invaded Bagdhad. His confident and emphatic reply? "No." And why is that? Well, he says:

1. If we'd gone in there, we would have been alone, without the support of other forces.

2. Once we'd taken down Saddam's regime, what would we put in its place? It's a volatile region, and if you destabilized the central government, you create the possibility of pieces of Iraq splitting off, either voluntarily or by the force of neighbors such as Syria and Iran.

3. While Desert Storm had a low-by-military-statistics number of casualties (146), as Cheney points out, those numbers were not small to the fallen soldiers or the people who loved them. So the natural next question becomes, "How many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? And our judgement was, not very many, and I think we got it right."

Um... Was there some kind of pod person incident sometime after '94 I'm unaware of? Where was this guy in March 2003? 'Cause this guy is all chatty and reasonable and cautious and forthcoming with information and whatnot. But here we are with the thousands of dead Americans and the Iraqi citizens getting blown up by car bombs every day, and I look at this interview and I feel like Adam Sandler in The Wedding Singer: "Once again, things that could have been brought to my attention YESTERDAY!"