the importance of grammar

why is the word genocide in single quotation marks in the headline of this story?

it's not like this lawmaker is the first person to call it genocide. and the use of quotation marks makes it seem like he's the only one calling it that.

it IS genocide. it's not "genocide" (please visualize extra-exaggerated finger quotation marks there) by any stretch of the imagination.

apparently the gov't is considering invading iran now, or something (i was reading during the daily show the last few nights and may have missed key points). hello, if you want to fuck with other countries, can't you go intervene in a place where people won't get as mad about it? stopping genocide is generally a good idea, in my opinion. better than invading countries and starting wars for no reason whatsoever . . .

i'm also vaguely dismayed not to see more people speaking out about what's going on in sudan. these promises of "never forget" are great, but only if you use the memories to prevent evil crap from happening again.

i guess people will always hate each other though, and always find someone else to blame for everything that's wrong in the world. maybe it's not actually possible to stop genocide--i haven't seen much in the history books to suggest otherwise.

sorry, i swear, i will stay on topic next time! but you guys know how i am about misused apostrophes and things. :) these misused quotation marks are just as annoying, at least from my current political perspective. :)