Ann Coulter says there’s “a growing body of evidence that radiation . . . is good for you.” So that’s all right, then!
I’m relieved now. Everyone in Japan may not be equally relieved, but I’m glad she’s here to tell us these things. “Don’t worry,” I picture Historical Ann Coulter calling to the Titanic passengers. “Water is good for you!” “No, it’s cool,” I see her yelling to the residents of Pompeii. “This is the sort of experience some tourists would pay good money for!”
I’m not expecting much from her. She’s a provocateur. And radiation hormesis, the idea that some radiation can be beneficial, is an interesting theory, as is the fact that some people go underground to be exposed to excessive levels of radiation because they think it has health benefits. Other people just drink acai juice and go jogging, but to each his own, I guess.
But she called the piece in which she proclaimed the benefits of radiation “A Glowing Report on Radiation.”
That’s just cruel and unusual. And sort of contradictory.
You can’t have your puns both ways, Ann! You can say that radiation isn’t harmful. But it seems wrong to title the piece in which you make that claim “A Glowing Report.” That’s like writing a paper saying “No Need for a Jaundiced Outlook On Jaundice” or “Don’t Get Choleric About the Effects of Choler.” It’s practically a Tom Swifty.
Besides, you know you’re on the edge when Bill “How’d The Moon Get There?” O’Reilly is telling you that you need to be more responsible.
And after that pun, I’m terrified of what she’ll say next. “I didn’t mean to cause a big reaction,” she’ll say. “Everyone keep cool. Let off some steam. No need for this to be a radioactive issue.”
I know the English language isn’t well-equipped for this sort of thing. It’s a minefield of unintended puns that lurk, menacing, behind every corner, waiting to cause embarrassment. But in this case the pun was intended. And it wasn’t enriching at all.