I was wrong
about the term "homicide bombing." My commenters convinced me. I stand corrected. I still prefer the term "terrorist bombing," but I understand now why "homicide bombing" isn't as redundant as it seems at first. Thank you for enlightening me.
I do not understand, though, where some commenters got the idea that I was saying the term is the "most important" issue around. Since when is the fact that I post about something an indication that I think it rates a 9 out of 10 on the "importance" scale? What, you think that just because I post about Hoops and Yoyo I think they are more important than the horrible things in the news?!? Of course the actual killings are the important thing! Of course the murder of innocent people is a much more urgent issue than what we call it! I was just saying I was annoyed!
Since when is this "all I can find to talk about"? Didn't I recently post a whole rant about all the evils in the world that are making me crazy? Evils, real evils, not just annoying things? And since when is it my responsibility to blog about everything important? There are other, political, bloggers who do a much better job about that than I do. Just because I'm not posting about something regularly doesn't mean I'm not thinking about it. It's not as if this blog has a mission statement to the effect that it represents everything I think is worth talking about.
Sheesh. Some of you need to take a valium (Rivka).
Also, the reason my last post stayed up so long at the top is simply that I haven't had time to write a new post, OK? I do, in fact, have a life outside of blogging, believe it or not.
Where is that valium?