Population Statistic: Read. React. Repeat.
Saturday, January 31, 2021

Like a lot of other George W. Bush legacies, the catchall phrase “War on Terror” is getting 86ed by the Obama administration:

During the past seven years, the “War Against Terror” or “War on Terror” came to represent everything the U.S. military was doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the broader effort against extremists elsewhere or those seen as aiding militants aimed at destroying the West.

Ultimately and perhaps inadvertently, however, the phrase “became associated in the minds of many people outside the Unites States and particularly in places where the countries are largely Islamic and Arab, as being anti-Islam and anti-Arab,” said Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

Now, he said, there is a sense that the U.S. should be talking more about specific extremist groups - ones that are recognized as militants in the Arab world and that are viewed as threats not just to America or the West, but also within the countries they operate.

Semantics, but they do count. It doesn’t change the focus — no “war on the War on Terrror” for the irrationals to bitch about, although they will anyway. It will be harder to rally public sentiment without a nice, neat sound-bite label.

by Costa Tsiokos, Sat 01/31/2009 07:16 PM
Category: Politics, Wordsmithing
| Permalink | Trackback | Feedback (1)

There’s a good deal of furor over Nadya Suleman, the California woman who gave birth to octuplets this week — especially after it was revealed that she already has 6 other kids, and is, according to her mother, “obsessed” with having children.

Outside of the ethical issues associated with churning out babies at a production-line pace, I’m wondering if Suleman isn’t more obsessed with the experience of carrying and birthing babies, than with the actual end results. The claims of her “obsession” brought to my mind the concept of orgasmic birth, i.e. the pleasurable sensation the mother’s supposed to feel while giving birth.

Yeah, the orgasmic birth thing is mostly midwifery claptrap, and in fact advocates all-natural childbirth, versus the in-vitro and c-section procedures that Suleman went through. So it’s not an exact match. Still, she’s bypassing having sex to get to the impregnation stage, and the repetition of the process hints that she can’t get enough of it. I’m guessing that she’s happier when she’s pregnant than when she’s not, and derives pleasure from that state.

I know I’m speculating based on flimsy evidence. Just thought I’d toss it out there. Frankly, I don’t care what this lady does one way or the other. But since everyone else is nattering on about it…

by Costa Tsiokos, Sat 01/31/2009 03:49 PM
Category: Women
| Permalink | Trackback | Feedback (1)