Originally Posted on January 10th, 2008:When making tacos, too often do we rely on pre-packaged shells and ingredients. I can make a mighty-fine taco out of powdered seasoning and pre-packaged cheese and toppings, but nothing compares to doing it fresh. Here’s what you need:

• 2 tablespoons corn oil
  1 medium onion, chopped (1 cup)
  2 cloves garlic, chopped
  1 jalapeno pepper, stemmed, seeded (if you like it hot include the seeds) and minced
  1 1/2 tablespoons chili powder
  1 teaspoon ground cumin
  Kosher salt
  4 whole peeled canned tomatoes, chopped and about 1/4 cup of their juices
  3/4 pound lean ground sirloin beef
  1/3 cup chicken broth
  1/4 cup fresh cilantro leaves, roughly chopped
  Oil, for frying
  Dozen 5-inch corn tortillas, preferably white, or prepared taco shells

• Toppings:
  1/4 head romaine or iceberg, thinly sliced
  3 ripe medium tomatoes, cored and diced
  1 to 2 Hass avocados, diced
  1 1/2 cups shredded cheddar or Monterey jack cheese
  Sour cream, for garnish

Put the oil, onions, garlic, and spices in a medium skillet, season with salt and cook over medium to medium-low heat, stirring occasionally until tender, about 10 minutes. Increase the heat to medium-high, add the tomatoes, and their juices and boil to thicken, about 2 minutes. Stir in the beef and chicken broth, adjust the heat so the mixture simmers and cook until the beef is cooked through and the mixture thickens, about 15 minutes. Stir in cilantro, taste, and season with salt and pepper as desired. Transfer to a serving bowl and cover.

To make the taco shells: Pour enough frying oil into a small skillet so its about 3/4 of an inch deep; heat over medium to medium-high. Holding 1 edge of a tortilla with tongs, lay the other half in the oil, keeping it flat with a spatula. Cook until crisp, 30 second to 1 minute. Flip the tortilla over and repeat with the other half, holding the first side of the tortilla at an angle to make an open shell, cook for about 1 minute more. Transfer to a paper towel-lined plate to drain.

Originally Posted on January 9th, 2008:

Conan. Letterman. Gore. Santa. Smith. Spartans.

Beards. Throughout history they symbolized wisdom or leadership. In ancient Egypt, it was a symbol of authority. Growing a beard has occasionally been used as a form of dissent. When thinking of beards, one can conjure mental images of scholars and scientists, authors and philosophers. More recently however, the beard has been associated primarily with poverty, lumberjacks and software programmers. Well no more!

No longer are beards the sole domain of train-hopping hobos, union workers, pseudo-intellectual hippy-wannabe potheads and ZZ Top; they’re making a comeback! Beards for all! Why, even your Jr. High lunchlady’s beard is in style! Beard is a blue-chip stock, catch my drift?

To evaluate the impact that our manly tufts will have on the nation, let’s look at their benefits:

• Saving your clothes from stains by catching food before it lands on your snazzy threads.
• Giving babies something to play with.
• Lowering energy costs by keeping you warm during colder months.
• Protecting against the wind.
• Saving money on expensive facial hair trimmers.
• …
• Profit!

As it is plain to see, a beard wins in any situation. BEARD beats a royal flush. Vote BEARD for Congress! Got BEARD?  Viva la barba revolución!

Originally Posted on November 15th, 2007:

From pjstar.com:

CHICAGO: Judge issues preliminary injunction barring mandatory moment of silence

 

Posted on 11/15 at 12:34 PM

 

 

 

CHICAGO (AP)—A federal judge in Chicago has issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state superintendent from enforcing a new law requiring a moment of silence in Illinois schools.

Judge Robert Gettleman’s ruling came after atheist activist and talk show host Rob Sherman filed a lawsuit against Township High School District 214 in suburban Chicago, where his daughter attends school.

Sherman claims the new state law violates the U.S. Constitution. He says the injunction proves the law that went into effect last month “doesn’t have a prayer.”

The judge set the next hearing in the case for December 14th.

Yay, the good guys win one!

 Originally Posted on October 10th, 2007:

“The refusal to do assets tests on federal health insurance programs is why federal entitlements are exploding and government keeps expanding. If Republicans don’t have the guts to hold the line, they deserve to lose their seats.” — Michelle Malkin, blogger, as quoted in this New York Times article.

If that were the case, the Republicans deserved to lose their seats long ago. I’m not going to comment on the article, though it illustrates modern conservatives perfectly. Instead, I’m going to talk about my beef with the above statement.

For many years, the fundamental tenet of American conservative ideology has been small government. Back when I didn’t know much about politics and happened to be a staunch conservative (two conditions which I suspect are related), the mantra had always been “less government, more freedom.” What was the source of this unchecked government expansionism? Why, it was the liberals! The liberals were there to dictate your lives, tell you what is and is not moral, tell you how you should spend your money and make you feel bad for being an American! The right to privacy; that was the conservative way. The liberals, on the other hand, were the ones who wanted to know where you were and what you were doing at all times, or so we were told. In the 1990’s it was they who wanted to police the world, not the self-proclaimed “constitutionally grounded” conservatives.

The whole conservative “movement” marched to the beat of keeping government out of our homes, out of our lives, out of our checkbooks and out of our business. Especially those damn liberals.

But then again…: Conservatives on Privacy.

It is well known how conservatives fought to let the government in our bedrooms to tell us what we can and cannot do in the most private of situations with anti-sodomy laws. (Sodomy, in case you were wondering, has been defined by the law as anything from masturbation to oral or anal sex between straight or gay couples.) This has been going on for decades.

There are more recent examples. On December 19th, 2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales confirmed the existence of an NSA domestic wiretapping program which did not seek to obtain the necessary warrants as required by 50 U.S.C. sect;1802 (a)(1)(A) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (consequentially, it is not surprising that they’re also not enforcing 50 U.S.C. §1809 as a result).

I’m not even going to get into the “Real ID” and the hypocrisy of conservatives who complain about the “liberal” government wanting to know everything you’re doing.

I guess that throws conservative privacy out the window. It is selective at best.

It’s only wrong when the other side does it: Conservatives on Big Government.

Less than two months after the events of 9/11/2001, President Bush signed into law the USA PATRIOT Act, which has increased the powers of the government exponentially.

Meanwhile, the only part of the act President Bush repeatedly mentions is Section 203 or Title VII, which allows for increased sharing of information between law enforcement agencies. He leaves out the parts about granting the government the authority to seize property at its discretion in times of war (Section 106), the addition of judges in Washington (Section 208), the liabilities for unauthorized intelligence disclosures (Section 223), of which many have either been leaked from the white house or other high officials, or the apparent selective suspension of habeas corpus.

How convenient.

Additionally, they’ve created the Department of Homeland Security which, according to wikipedia, is the third largest U.S. government entity. One must question how this supports the idea of small government. With what so-called conservatives have supported in the last 6 years, they have absolutely no credibility when criticizing even a perceived expansion of government, nor government spending.

We’re saving them from themselves: Conservatives on Foreign Policy.

Afghanistan is justifiable, regardless of the long history of bad foreign policy that got us to this point. Iraq, however, was based on a lie told to us by a shady Iraqi defector, yet was presented to the world as strong intelligence supporting the claim that Iraq was not only in possession of weapons of mass destruction, but had a massive program in which it was continuing to produce them. With that, we invaded a country, unprovoked, and found out that what the vast majority of the intelligence community already knew: there were no WMD’s.

After that, we tried drawing connections between Iraq and 9/11, then to international terrorism, even though Iraq was not a fundamentalist state and simply did not have terrorists or a terrorism problem prior to the U.S. invasion. Even after such a claim was thoroughly debunked and the government admitted there was no link between them, the Bush administration and conservative journalists continued to propagate the lie. Why?

So instead we poised ourselves as liberators of a country that, while having a despotic ruler, were not occupied and did not ask to be liberated. Seems any excuse will do, won’t it? I won’t spin my web of theories as to what the horribly obvious ulterior motives might be, but if this doesn’t fall into the category of “policing the world,” nothing does.

The conservative response? They’re protecting us from the terrorists. Bring that up the next time one of them criticizes liberals for “wanting the government to take care of everything for you.” The blogger quoted above says providing healthcare for children brings a sense of entitlement? What part of the conservative-inspired belligerent American nationalism and the subsequent claims such as driving a gigantic gas-guzzling SUV as your god-given right (or something similarly petty) doesn’t reek of entitlement?

—————–

I’m just incredulous. Why do people continue to fall for this? Conservatives decry liberals for being in favor of big government, yet cheer the Bush administration for creating the DoHS! We already had agencies that took care of this, namely the INS, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the DoJ and police forces, and the National Guard. How can so-called conservatives chide liberals (or anyone who disagrees with them and is therefor labeled a liberal, regardless of their actual political alignment) for creating a never-ending bureaucracy when they have done exactly that.

Conservatives consistently deride the left for wanting to police the world, yet we are now in two unprovoked wars: Afghanistan, as a result of crimes allegedly committed by Saudi Arabian nationals; and Iraq, which, with what we know now, can not be justified as anything greater than a war of opportunism and profiteering! At least in Bill Clinton’s time, we invaded foreign countries who were committing atrocious crimes against humanity. Whether you think we should have partaken or not, no one can argue the comparative altruism to the gravely mis-titled War on Terror.

Not all conservatives can be this dense. If only they would look at what they claim to believe in and compare it to what they’ve supported. Would the two correlate with each other? Not likely. Could they really all be sheep that unquestioningly support whatever the Republican party is doing? Do they listen to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly to know what to think? How is it possible that all these people–or any group, for that matter–can be unified on every single issue? When I see that all these people from all different backgrounds have the exact same opinion about every topic, it is impossible for me not to question whether any of them think at all. That goes for Democrats and so-called “free-thinking” liberals, too.

To sum it up: Conservatives, you’ve lost your credibility and moral authority. Start supporting legislation and policies that correlate with what you claim to believe in or shut up and stop making everyone dumber by spreading bullshit. Some of you may need to re-evaluate your entire political philosophy, as I had to do when faced with the eventual disillusionment that comes with discoveries of learning. This is not easy to do, and most of you won’t bother because it is easier to be told what to think instead of figuring it out yourself. For this, I pity you and mourn your independence. For those of you who do know what’s going on yet deliberately piss in the proverbial pool, congratulations; you are successfully destroying America.

———————-

I’m aware that the average person, conservative or not, really doesn’t pay much attention to politics. That doesn’t necessarily make them dumb for their views. The problem is that even though many don’t bother with politics, they still carry the power to vote, and that scares the hell out of me.

The point of this blog, in a nutshell? I’m not particularly anti-Conservative or anti-Republican. I’m anti-bullshit. Next time I’ll talk about some other bullshit that has been bothering me for ages: the lie that America is–or ever was–a Christian nation, and the exploitation of religion as a political tool. See you next time.

Originally Posted on October 9th, 2007:

In Peoria drive-by shootings, you get shot with a semi-automatic weapon.  In Morton, they use blowguns.  That’s just how they roll.

Originally Posted on September 27th, 2007:I’ve been reading alot lately. I’ve had this insatiable desire to read everything I can get my hands on–I’ve even gone so far as to set aside $200 a month for books from Amazon.com. I never really read much other than the occasional political book or novel. Well, outside of countless computer-related books. Currently, I’m drawing from two sources for what books I’m reading.

The first list can be found here: http://als.lib.wi.us/Collegebound.html . This consists mainly of classic books and others that everyone ought to read. Before now, I’d read a few of them. I didn’t know what I was missing out on.

The second list can be found in the “Readings” portion of each class found here, at MIT’s Open Courseware, and mainly consist of political science-related books. Between the two lists, there are about 400 books I intend to read in the next three or so years. I even have private wish-lists for each of them on Amazon to keep track of it.

Here are my thoughts on the most recent books I’ve read:

1) The Diary of a Young Girl, Definitive Edition: I wish I would have read this when I was 14. I can remember myself relating to it at one time. It was difficult for me to get into at first due to the narrative style of it, but once I put myself in the shoes of Ms. Anne Frank, it was a real page-turner. I was enthralled in the book up until the rather abrupt end and even cried after reading the epilogue. I think this book could have the greatest impact among young teenagers, but is definitely a worthwhile read for all ages.

2) Go Tell it on the Mountain: This book had me for the first thirty pages or so, but became increasingly hard to follow due to the author’s shift from elegant descriptions to the common vernacular of turn-of-the-century African Americans. Once I finally got into the flow, it was difficult at times to know whose story I was reading, as there was not much of a warning before changing settings and perspectives throughout the book. About halfway through, it was easier to read. Definitely recommended for the insights into the trials and triumphs surrounding the circumstances of the human condition. It’s a reminder that the more some things change, the more they stay the same, as well as the emphasis on doing what you need to do in spite of everything else. I’d have liked the story to continue a little longer, mainly to see what becomes of John and Roy in the face of their father’s ways.

3) Fahrenheit 451: A friend of mine told me this was a good read, but was largely irrelevant nowadays. Actually, I found it to be quite the contrary, as the underlying theme of this book (as explained by the nefarious Beatty) can be seen happening all around us. While I doubt the government will place a ban on books, I certainly wouldn’t be surprised at a “V for Vendetta”-esque type of censorship coming about some day, what with how far the ideology in this country has shifted to the right. Either way, the basic premise is true in that people have chosen this path: entertainment has become more important than education. Opinion trumps knowledge. The hedonist is more revered than the scholar. You can see the effects of society such as those that affected the protagonist’s wife, Mildred, all around us. I’m sure everyone knows someone who is so detached from the world that soap operas, Oprah and Sex and the City are more real than world hunger or the war in Iraq. Thinking about it chills me to the bone.

————–

Next on the list is Hobbes’ Leviathan. After that I’m going to take it a bit easier with Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” and Rousseau’s “Basic Political Writings” before jumping into Aristotle’s “The Politics” and “The Portable Machiavelli.” I’ll post some reviews when I’m done with them.

In other news, I’ve decided to go back to school for political science. I have no real intention of becoming a lawmaker, but would definitely accept an academic position somewhere. My goal: Doctorate. I figure that by the time I’m done with my masters, I ought to be able to get some work as a research assistant or something field-related while completing my degree. I’ve read more than one of the colleges that offer it provide substantial funding to those seeking a doctorate, which gives me hope that it shouldn’t be too difficult to maintain the costs of living while living my dreams.

Wish me luck!

Originally Posted on September 12th, 2007:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hLMqYRK4wj2OXnWEJEgcEaxmURZA

Some things tend to press the “Irk” key on my mental keyboard. This is one of them. The article played out how I expected it to. My problem was with the following statement from General Petraeus:

“Needless to say, to state the obvious, I disagree with the message of those who are exercising the First Amendment right (to free speech) that generations of soldiers have sought to preserve for Americans.”

Really. A weaker man would be permanently brainwashed for how many times I’ve heard this statement repeated, as many seem to be. This is a classic defense of staunch military supporters–namely Republicans–for their belligerent acts of aggression upon the world. “We’re fighting for your right to disagree with us.”

What? Against whom? Are the Iraqis trying to take away my freedom of speech? Are terrorists? I thought we were fighting to find WMDs! Then, I thought we were fighting to stop the spread of global terrorism. After that, we were told that the whole reason we were over there was to liberate the Iraqi people from the clutches of Saddam Hussein. After we got rid of him, I was told we were staying there to ensure that Iraq stayed liberated. Now, nobody really seems to know why we’re there, but they sure as hell haven’t mentioned anything about fighting to save my First Amendment rights!

This is the same excuse I’ve heard for every unpopular military operation we’ve been involved in. Vietnam had nothing to do with our freedom of speech, neither did Panama, the Gulf War, the Korean War, Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Afghanistan or Iraq. In fact, I can’t seem to remember a single military conflict that involved even a remote threat to U.S. citizens’ freedom of speech since World War II and, arguably, the Cold War.

Why is this response consistently given as justification for any and all military action–provoked or not–against other countries? The answer to this is simple: it is a mechanism by which one party attempts to silence the opposition by invoking a false sense of pride-based patriotism and guilt for the purposes of curbing all constructive and intelligent discussion on the topic. It is an intellectually lazy distraction used by those without reasonable references or arguments to use in defense of their opinion or the people/issues they support.

Until I see the military fulfilling the other half of their duty to protect us from all enemies foreign and domestic by raiding Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court and corporate boardrooms to sift through and detain the real enemies of our liberty, I’ll continue to denounce that phrase as being little more than a jingoist tool of control.

That being said, let’s take a look at what our troops are fighting for: The price of oil, unsurprisingly, took 3 1/2 years to double in price, and has since remained at those levels. The defense industry has made billions and billions of dollars on this war. Companies such as Haliburton have been awarded exclusive, no-bid contracts for the war. Last I heard, we’re either building or trying to build a permanent military base in Iraq, thereby giving us a permanent military presence in the region. We have expanded the powers of the president to near dictatorial status. We’ve added a whole new department just full of goons while completely desecrating privacy rights in the name of “national security”.

Hm. Can’t say I’m surprised that “preserving the rights of Americans” doesn’t make the list. No sir, seems to me like the only people whose investments are protected and whose interests are served are government and corporate elites. If a single person can show me how we’d lose our freedom of speech by choosing not to partake in any of the aforementioned wars, I will humbly stand corrected.

It’s times like these that I wish I were a gambler. I’d put all my money on “not gonna happen.”

Originally Posted on August 29th, 2007:

I’d be surprised if no one saw this coming.

From PJStar.com (link):

Dorian LaSaine, who represents Rakiem Campbell, filed a motion last week in Peoria County Circuit Court seeking a change of venue for his client, who is accused of killing Katrina Kelley on July 14 by throwing the patio block over a fence on the Broadway Street overpass onto the car she was riding in on Interstate 74 below.

The numerous newspaper stories as well as coverage by the city’s TV and radio stations has meant people in the area know about the case and are likely to have already formed an opinion, LaSaine said Tuesday.

“Then we have the added additional burden of the unfortunate tragic death of the Bradley student,” the attorney said, referring to the Aug. 12 death of Bradley soccer player Sheridan “Danny” Dahlquist, who died after four of his friends set off Roman candles in his room. “People have been comparing the two cases and have formed their opinions.”

Yes, they certainly have. I’ve got my opinion: I think that if he did all those things, he ought to be deported. We’ll create a new country and call it “The Island of Id” and ship our less-than-stellar citizens there, where they can partake in their carnal and violent urges while leaving the rest of us in peace. Really, hear me out! Before making the Hitler comparisons, keep in mind that the French sent theirs to Devil’s Island, and the English sent their convicts here for about 150 years before shipping them off to Australia. Why we haven’t instituted a similar system boggles the mind. The U.K., U.S. and Australia turned out relatively fine. ¬_¬

See, that’s why I’m not fit for jury duty. Many people share this perspective. Can a motion to change the location of this trial be anything other than absolutely necessary?

If there is a single person out there who is disappointed by this outcome, someone ought to remind them that this is their fault. LaSaine is right, you know; people have made up their minds. The comments section beneath each related article on PJStar.com says it all, and the comparison between the way this is being handled with the way the Bradley case is being handled has drawn huge amounts of controversy and ire. The buzz in the Peoria blogosphere and subsequent commentary also support this claim. We’re all guilty of this, so there’s no sense in pointing figures or being outraged. I’m not.

In fact, this has actually brought forth in my mind an ethical dilemma. Obviously, in the interests of having a fair trial, mechanisms such as a change of venue are necessary–everyone seems to agree that, at best, it’s impossible to have a fair trial when the jury does not hold a neutral opinion. The dilemma that occurs in my mind is that while this serves the interests of fairness for the defendant, it does not serve the interests of those who were affected by it. It doesn’t serve the interest of the jogger who he attacked, nor the owners of the cars he torched, and certainly not the person he killed and their friends and family. The amount of fear and paranoia generated by this has affected the community, which is thereby also shafted by a venue change.

I’m certainly not of the opinion that this shouldn’t be an option. What troubles me about this particular usage is whether it’s more important to protect the principles of blind justice or the community affected by the crimes. Any ideas on this one?

Originally Posted on August 22nd, 2007:

I was listening to 89.9 WCBU yesterday on my way home from work when I heard something so ridiculous I could have driven off the road: our dumbass president was mildly criticizing the Iraqi government. It wasn’t so much that he was criticizing them that got under my skin, but how he was doing it.

In the interests of being “Fair and Balanced” (sarcasm) I’ve copied the quote from foxnews.com:

“The fundamental question is, will the government respond to the demands of the people?” the president said, without mentioning al-Maliki by name. “And if the government doesn’t … respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government. That’s up to the Iraqis to make that decision, not American politicians.”

Has anyone else noticed the irony of this situation? Is President Bush really chastising the Iraqi government about not responding to the “demands of the people?” Let’s talk about your approval ratings these days, Mr. Bush. That’s not even the worst of it. Here we have the man who forced a regime change upon Iraq telling the world that it’s up to Iraqis, not American politicians, to decide for themselves whether the government needs to go.

Then we have this turd:

“The Iraqis will decide,” Bush added. “They have decided they want a constitution. They have elected members to their parliament and they will make the decisions just like democracies do.”

Yes, they wanted it so bad that we had to go in and “liberate” them, right? This, coming from a man who has done more to undermine our own Constitution than any politician since FDR.

This is about as bad as a few months ago when the Bush administration threw a fit over China increasing their defense budget 17.8%. That brings the grand total of this grave threat’s defense spending to… $45 billion. When you add all supplemental funding, that’s less than a tenth of our total military spending for 2007, or perhaps even less than that according to some estimates.

The Bush administration may be losing support, funding and officials, but they’ve definitely retained the ability to bullshit the world with a straight face.

Originally Posted on August 14th, 2007:

I was having this discussion elsewhere, and felt the need to elaborate. You don’t need to go there to find out what was said, because I’ve conveniently rehashed the issue here. The discussion has to do with whether or not English is an important subject at school. My answer: absolutely! The main argument against this is that even someone who fails English as a subject will still know it “well enough to get by” in day-to-day life. They say the English language is adaptable–that words can mean whatever you want them to mean–because when a phrase or word is used often enough, it becomes integrated into the language itself. I agree in the sense that words and expressions are an adaptable part of the English language.

However, I think the rules should be observed.

Language is easily the single most important human construct in existence. The purpose of language is to convey a message or to express an idea. Clever expressions, similes, anecdotes and parables all assist in explaining a meaning, but even with these the rules should be followed so that the meaning of the message remains intact. For when the mechanism by which we communicate is crippled, the message is compromised as well.

Language can be a barrier as much as a facilitator, even when the language is the same. Here’s how I put it in the forums:

Suppose I want to convey that I’m hungry. I would say,”hey, let’s go get something to eat.” You would understand the meaning of that. Likewise, you would understand the meaning of slang (”grab a bite”, for instance) or a humorous adaptation such as,”the track is empty. I need to rebuild the poop train.” You’d also understand a simile such as “I’m going on empty, need to refill.”

You would not, however, understand “Zeegbarper quarter goofenhorfer blung revelation,” even if I was trying to say the same thing. This is why rules for language exist and why it is important to understand and abide by them. If we lose the means by which to communicate, nothing will get done, ideas will not be shared, meanings will be lost or misinterpreted.

If we are simply able to make up the rules as we go, the purpose of language is lost. There needs to be grammatical structure, proper spelling and proper punctuation. The example sentence above has none of these, as all the words can mean whatever we want them to mean, and the sentence structure can be whatever we want it to be.

There are a number of limitations people place upon themselves when they disregard the proper use of English, be it written or spoken. Career choice is the major limitation, but speaking and writing in poor English may not have as large of an effect on this as the common response to it: indignation.

Yes, indignation is the number one response we have to the butchering of our native language. Following that is a perceived inferiority towards the offender and then, sometimes, ridicule. This is common among all cultures, including the German, the French, the Spanish, Italians, Russians, etc., not just our own.

Think of the last time you talked to a non-Americanized Chinese or Indian over the phone or in person, and the frustration and indignation you felt when you couldn’t understand them clearly. Or perhaps you mocked the person to their face or laughed about how they spoke behind their back. That’s what I’m talking about. You’ve been there. Against you, that person didn’t have a chance. It didn’t matter how smart they actually were; you either treated them as being inferior or perceived them as such. Or, on the opposite end of things, perhaps you treated them with too much care because you thought they wouldn’t be able to understand you at all.

Why?

Because of the way they spoke. Because of language. It is a prejudice we all have and there is no escaping from it. For instance:

why people dont find a darn job instead of holding up people,attacing people on the street,stellin at food stores,,get a job lazy azz people in peoria.the cop should of shot him,,one less lazy person in peoria

That was written by someone known only as “why this don’t suprise me” in response to this article on pjstar.com. I don’t know about the rest of you, but judging by what this person wrote, their grammar, punctuation and spelling, I’d say they’re a god damn idiot, wouldn’t you? Is it true? Who knows, doesn’t matter, look at the way they write!

This is why you get spelling/grammar trolls on forums and websites who would rather decry the poor spelling and shitty grammar of someone than listen to what they have to say or engage them based on the merits of their argument. The trolls aren’t any smarter. They simply know that if the person is perceived as stupid it won’t matter what they say. Honestly, how often do we genuinely listen to people we think are stupid? (Hint: the answer is “never”)

That’s my case for it.