**I don't know if it was tongue in cheek or not. Have to see the context of the original column. Standing alone though... it looks bad. She's entitles to her opinion. And NR is entitled to drop her. This is America! There are plenty of other places to express her opinion. I never cared too much for National Review anyway. **
Well said! Whatever happened to the right of an employer to fire anyone they wish? What ANN wrote I took as an emotional reaction to the loss of a dear friend (maybe more than one dear friend). Her airline security rants sounded more like Valley Girl whines than focusing on the meat of the matter.
I like her but NR has the right to do what it wants. So her column moves over from NRO to WND or Newsmax.com? Big deal! It's not the end of the world. She ought to be exploiting her assets by appearing more on television anyway. After all, she isn't *always* going to look that good so she had better line up a good-paying regular gig while she can.
NR isn't worth FReeping because, frankly, they aren't worth much of anything anyway.
I believe it was tongue in cheek also. Did anyone read her Sept 6 article on Andrea Yates. If that is any indication, she is perfectly capable of tongue in cheek prose, that's for sure. Unfortunately, we appear to be going hyper sensitive already to any criticism of Muslims or Islam, even if it's justified. Isn't it interesting to find some of the lefties shielding a RELIGIOUS movement from "hate speech" when they engaged in brutalizing a religious movement in thier own community for so long(Christianity)? Anyway, I'm wandering off topic....
glory