More CNN failure to report

CNN's apparently too busy (as of 10:35 pm tonight) plastering stories about the crooked Republican Congressman (yes, he should have received more time as far as I'm concerned; he's an embarrassment to us all) and how the US was forced to release the names of prisoners kept as Gitmo (see my thoughts on those turds below) to report on something a bit more sinister and close to home.

Today at the University of North Carolina, an Iranian jihadist purposefully and deliberately drove a rented Jeep through a mass of students hanging out on campus. They weren't on the street, the weren't crossing the road - they were kicking back between classes.

I heard this story on the news on the radio this afternoon. You know what the lead point of interest was on ABC news? That an SUV drove into a mass of students. No word that an Iranian thug was behind the wheel. No word given whatsoever that this was a deliberate terrorist attack. Zip. Zero. Nada. Apparently, the evil SUV drove itself as they are apparently prone to do in the liberal's eyes. That is, unless they are being chauffeured around in one.

Now I want to ask you a question. What if, instead of an SUV driven by a crazed jihadist, this was an incident involving a white guy and a gun? Say some white kid at college got fed up with his grades and went on a shooting rampage? Think THAT would have made headlines?

Hopefully, the dickhead behind the wheel will be summarily executed as an example of what happens to terrorists in our country. I'm not counting on it, but that would be nice.

Bush arrives in Pakistan and is welcomed by riots

Now, wouldn't this be nice:

Local jackasses protest and otherwise make fools of themselves prior to and during a Presidential visit.

Said local jackasses' government happens to be the recipient of large, enormous, gigantic funding and support from the United States. Also, said local jackasses recieve massive amounts of aid from the United States in response to earthquakes, tsunamis, and other local disasters.

President returns home and immediately cancels any and all support for said country. Spend the money here in the United States, or at least have the common sense to give it to countries that support you and your policies.

I think we've made good headway in getting $30 million back from the terrorist Palestinians. I hope that's only a start.

More on the dead Enzo

Dude, something strange is afoot at the Circle K.

Force feeding = torture

Note to terrorist assholes. Yes, I'm talking to you punk - feel lucky that you are in Gitmo and that the 'fish isn't taking care of your sorry ass. After your measly brain has been sucked dry of any useful intelligence, out to the back of the barn you go and a bullet in the head you will get. Or, if I don't feel like wasting ammo on a turd such as yourself, then perhaps just hanging from the nearest tree by the neck until you are dead.

After which time you get fed to the pigs.

Stop bitching about your "inhumane" treatment in prison.

Air Support

Now this is how you should be fighing a war against radical Islam: with boobs!

Clancy must be patting himself on the back

I read this story this morning and all I could think was: "Didn't Tom Clancy write that book?"

Sheesh. It makes you wonder if anything else he's written has happened or not....

I'm Using teh Internets!!111

I was at the range the other day (pictured left: JR thinking), thinking about how I could save some money to buy more guns and ammo. I already have Verizon FiOS (that's fiber optic Internet service) that's pretty darned fast, and I read about Vonage. Called 'em up, axed a couple of questions, and next thing you know, my home phone is gonna be over the Internets!

For the cost of shipping ($16.45), I got my home phone service switched to Vonage, and they shipped me a LinkSys router/VoIP converter. I got it today.

I plugged it in, connected my phone base station to the outlet on the router, pressed the button on my phone, and started dialing and talking. It was literally that easy.

I phoned several of my peeps, and it was great. On Monday, my phone number switch to Vonage will be complete, and I will be a creature of the Internets. Vonage service has a bunch of cool junk, and I can monitor and configure my phone service on their website. I can even listen to voicemail, of which I'm notified via e-mail.

It's nerd heaven.

Happy Texas Independence Day!

On this day in 1836, Texas became a Republic. Disputed pseudo-factoid: By treaty with the U.S., the Texas State flag is the only flag in the Union that is allowed to fly at the same height as the U.S. Flag.

The new Bond and the cult of the Castrato

Good God man. Could they have picked a bigger wanker for the new Bond? First, as mentioned here at the Tattler, the new Bond-boy gets sea sick and scared of his introductory boat ride. Then it comes out he's afraid of guns. In his first fight scene, he gets his teeth knocked out. And now, the poor lad gets sunburned and is "moaning to his assistants that he's got prickly heat."

What a puss.

Upon further reflection, however, I wonder if the new Bond is a sign of the times? The old Bonds - most notably Sean Connery and Pierce Brosnan - were rough and tumble heartthrobs capable of doing whatever it took to get the job done; whether that job was to bed the foxy secretary of the evil villain to discover his secrets or to beat the snot out of a lower level bad guy to find out the location of the secret entrance. The old Bonds weren't afraid to shoot someone if they had to in order to complete the mission and they were capable of operating in any environment in the world.

Today's Bond looks like he has trouble wiping his own ass, can't fight, can't drive, can't shoot, can't swim and can't handle outdoor work. He strikes me as one of the new Castrato - neither masculine nor feminine, and unwilling or unable to offend anyone or take a strong position on anything for sake of not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings.

The old Bonds were what every man wanted to live up to - strong, handsome, smooth with the ladies, tough and reliable in a pinch, and capable of solving his own problems.

The new Bond? He gets the prickly heat.

An Open Letter to Illiterates (a repost)

Okay, so semi-literates. Why? Because as a nation, our grammar and spelling is pathetic. We want people who live here to read, write, and speak English, but we can't use the language properly ourselves. So, as a service to all good Americans, I am now going to provide you with a brief grammar tutorial.

First off, let's address the difference between "loose" and "lose." If something is all dangly, or is easy to get into bed, it's loose. If you don't win, you lose. Moreover, the non-winner is the LOSER, not the "looser." If you lose something, it's lost. If you loose something, it's been set free. Got it?

Next, "to" and "too." I'll skip "two," because if you're that stupid, your lips are moving anyway - stop reading now. "Too" much of a good thing, not "to" much. "Let's go to the movies, and rob a 7-11, too." Is that too hard to understand?

Apostrophes. Why are they such a mystery? First off, there are contractions - the combination of two(!) words, like "there is" = "there's" and "are not" = "aren't." Next, we have the possessive versus contractive. JR's take (that's possessive!) on this is that people don't look at the context. Here's a simple test: if there's more than one, it's plural, and doesn't require an apostrophe. If the sentence mentions something that belongs to the noun, then it's possessive. "A shooter's ability is measured by shooting"(that's possessive). "There are reasons that shooters don't face each other when shooting." (that's plural). Here's a full rundown on plurals vs. possessives. Most of all, when it's plural, don't use an apostrophe. For example, when you have a cheesy sign made inviting people into the Smith's house, that's correct. However, your family is referred to as the Smiths, not the Smith's. Or, the bathroom is for "Employees Only," not for "Employee's Only." Employee's only what? Criminy.

Their, there, and they're:
There = at or in that place.
Their = the possessive form of they.
They're = the contraction of "they are."
They're there for their own reasons.

Here's another thing I see a lot, and this is a hard one, so pay attention: "its" is the possessive form of it. "It's" is the contraction of "it is" or "it has." If you can replace "it's" in your sentence with "it is," or "it has," then your word is "it's;" otherwise, your word is "its." There's no such word as " its' " A simple rule to remember: it's its, not it's!

Finally, your and you're is another one I see a lot, and the one that is most egregiously abused. I'm confused by this one, because it's really not difficult to keep the two straight. "You're" is a contraction of "you are." "Your" indicates ownership or possession. As in: "You're a sanctimonious grammar nazi and I hate your guts."

That's all for now. I feel better.