The first six words of the article "Civility in public discourse is important" immediately reveals Chavez's opinion. Clearly stating your opinion is the first step in writing good literary works. She is "taking a shot" at the over sensitive people who blame uncivil language as the reason for the shooting in Tucson.
Chavez uses the word 'bellicose' as political examples. "When we say a candidate 'took his best shot,' we don't mean he aimed a gun at his opponent. Nor does 'firing a shot across the bow' mean anything more than issuing a strong warning." She indicates that those phrases with bellicosity are not meant to be taken in a threatening manner. She believes these phrases were recently misinterpreted and they should not have been, for these phrases make expressing oneself easier. Her opinion wasn't about original meanings of those words, it was about how people can use those phrases appropriately. I think she uses the word 'bellicose' to distinguish between the words that may seem hostile, but mean different things, and some words that really are offensive.
I think Chavez is telling readers that people should be less sensitive about phrases that should not be taken offensively, yet are. By using the example of person being forced to resign, she accurately demonstrates how people overreact without doing their homework, as niggardly clearly was not offensive.
She also mentions, "But words themselves aren't the problem -- it's what is behind the words that matters", to show how we can be offensive and hurtful not with poor language choices, but rather with tone and context. People are misinterpreting tone and it is causing more grief than it is worth. Besides, it is our choice to make effective argument, even with the words that are not necessarily belligerent.
I agree with Chavez's notion that it's our own desire to decide the meaning of sentence, not the words. 'One rotten apple spoils the barrel'
