[R]eflecting on the other loss to journalism widely subjected to elegaic remembrance in recent days, I couldn't help thinking: Didn't Ann Coulter learn everything she knows about toxic political rhetoric from Hunter S. Thompson?

At bottom, Thompson wrote passionately, honestly, and well. A rare trifecta, indeed. His gonzo journalism is an obvious antecedent for political blogging and an unobvious precedent for Charlie Kaufman's Adaptation. If Thompson is fairly credited for these developments, perhaps his bitterly expressed contempt can fairly be blamed for the acceptance of Ann Coulter's deranged diatribes.

Is it intellectually honest to celebrate Thompson and condemn Coulter? Absolutely. Thompson was fundamentally honest; Coulter is fundamentally dishonest. Thompson, though his milieu was fictional memoir, created facts within his fiction consistent with the truth of the events he witnessed. Coulter presents, withholds, and arranges facts in such a way as to mislead. Thompson's writing was in constant opposition to power, with great service to personal freedom. Coulter's typing is in constant support of the powerful, with a commitment to demonizing liberals in a manner that borders on fascistic.