And you have never said anything in anger?
She didn't sound like she was joking.
Some people use humor in dealing with anger. In this case, one ought to look not so much at the words, but the intensity in which they were said. She's a writer for crying out loud, and hyperbole is a tool of the trade. She has always been a bit 'irreverant'. That does not change simply because she is expressing outrage at the unjust death of a good friend. Get a grip.
I turned off the radio. I couldn't believe I heard a writer I admired say something like that.
Even if your interpretation was accurate, and I have no reason to believe it is, you would let a single uncharacteristic outburst affect your respect and admiration of someone you previously held in high regard? If so, you would not be much of a friend and wouldn't have any if you were held to the same standard. This may seem like an overly harsh condemnation of what appears to me to be a somewhat self-righteous attitude on your part, but for you to take an 'incident' and turn it into a conclusion about her overall character is way out of line.
Have you never regreted something you have stated?
You bet I have! There have been many times when I have hit the "Post Reply" button and wished I could take it back. But even when I have said things I regret, I am not a high-profile pundit who influences millions.
Some people use humor in dealing with anger. In this case, one ought to look not so much at the words, but the intensity in which they were said. She's a writer for crying out loud, and hyperbole is a tool of the trade. She has always been a bit 'irreverant'. That does not change simply because she is expressing outrage at the unjust death of a good friend. Get a grip.
I can understand outrage. Simple "outrage" would have been simply leaving it at "Kill their leaders" and "destroy their cities," which would have been enough to make sure they wouldn't be a threat, but she went the extra step and suggested forced religious conversion, and like I said earlier, that concept is un-American and proven ineffective.
If the part about converting "them" to Christianity was "humor," was the part about "killing their leaders" and accepting the idea of massive civilian casualties intended to be "humorous" as well? Are we to believe that in the middle of an angry rant about dealing justice to the rats that killed one of her best friends among thousands of others, she took a mid-sentence break for a little Torquemada-inspired levity a la Mel Brooks' "History of The World, Part I?" Sorry, ctd, it doesn't pass the smell test.
Hyperbole and irreverence have their time and place. At the moment when the country is weighing ways to retaliate for the deadliest act of war in the country's history is not one of those times, and a nationally syndicated column published mere days later is not the place. Because Ann is a superb writer, I tend to think that she's aware of that fact, and actually meant every word she wrote in her anger and grief.
Whoever it was that first shouted "Fire!" in a crowded theater (it must have happened somewhere at least once in order to create the metaphor) must have thought it was the grandest of jokes until someone got hurt.
Regarding the statement about "swarthy males" -- that was nothing in comparison. It's silly that that was the last straw for Jonah.