A 77-year-old Minneapolis man was determined to fight off four armed robbers recently. He was so determined that he fended off the criminals with a sledgehammer.
[…]
“I grabbed this sledge but he didn’t know I grabbed it because I acted like I was going into my pocket. I slipped it over I turned it around and I knocked the gun out of his hand,” Krier said.
He said he used his combat training from 1958 to fend off the attackers. Krier said the sledge hammer hit the robber in the hand.
“The gun went in the alley and the guy hollered,” said Krier.
Krier then chased the men.
“Then I grabbed another sledge and I went out the door and they ran out the alley,” Krier said.
One 77 year-old man fending off four men with a sledge hammer is nothing but pure badass. I’m proud of the fact that men like this live in my state.
During last night’s debate there was a great argument between Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann on foreign policy. Dr. Paul totally obliterated the idea that we need to go to war with Iran, something every other candidate is chomping at the bit to do:
Some excellent facts were made by Dr. Paul. The most obvious is the fact the terrorists in the Middle East aren’t coming here because they hate our way of life, if that were the case they would also be striking Switzerland and Sweden. Unlike our country, neither Switzerland or Sweden have a foreign policy built upon imperialism. In fact Switzerland, because of their neutrality, is the only channel of communications that exists between the United States and Iran.
I also love the fact he brings up the drone captured by Iran. While the other candidates were berating Obama for asking Iran to return the drone Ron Paul asked why the drone was even being flown of Iranian airspace to begin with. That is the million dollar question.
Bachmann than falsely claims there are reports stating Iran is only months away from developing a nuclear weapon. Again Dr. Paul explains that this isn’t true and that no evidence exists of Iran being anywhere near developing a nuclear weapon.
Then Dr. Paul brings up the Cuban Misslie Crisis. We didn’t perform a preemptive strike on the Soviet Union when they parked nuclear weapons in Cuba, instead Kennedy called up Kruschev and talked. Through conversation we reached a compromise where the Soviet Union would remove their nuclear weapons from Cuba and we would remove our from Turkey.
I’ve been saying that a nuclear armed Iran is the biggest boogeyman put out by our government. First of all Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon, second if they eventually build one they will still lack a delivery system that can get it from their country to ours, and third we’re so far ahead of the game that our anti-missile defense system (which we’ve also given Israel so don’t worry about them) that it’s practically impossible for Iran to leapfrog ahead of us. We also encourage the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons by constantly threatening invasion. The leaders of Iran aren’t stupid, they realize the only countries that get any form of respect from the United States are nuclear armed countries. They also saw what happened with Libya where we encouraged them to stop development of nuclear weaponry, they listened, and we ended up killing them.
The more we rattle sabres with Iran the more they’re going to want nuclear weaponry. Looking at a map it’s pretty easy to see that Iran is now surrounded by American military bases. Iranians also still remember that little incident in 1953 where we toppled their democratically elected government and replaced it with a brutal puppet dictatorship. After 26 years they finally booted our puppet out and the new regime has been using anti-American sentiment caused by our last action in that country to both cement their own power and prevent an easy overthrow by our forces again. We should all stop and remember that the only reason extremist Islam was able to overtake that country was because we decided it was a good idea to eliminate their democratically elected government in the first place.
After a Good Samaritan helped her pay off the layaway bill she’d accumulated to buy Christmas gifts for her grandchildren, Lori Stearnes planned to collect her paycheck Friday and head to Kmart anyway.
Her new plan: Pay the stranger’s kindness forward by using the money she’d budgeted to instead support somebody else.
“It just gives you a warm feeling,” said Stearnes, 53, of Omaha. “… With all the things going on the world, just to have someone do that is so, I don’t know, it’s hard to put into words.”
At Kmart stores across the country, Santa seems to be getting some help: Anonymous donors are paying off strangers’ layaway accounts, buying the Christmas gifts other families couldn’t afford, especially toys and children’s clothes set aside by impoverished parents.
Fuck yeah. It’s always nice to read stories about people helping other people out without the coercive force of government being involved.
Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson will drop out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination and instead seek to run as a Libertarian, according to the Independent Political Report.
The switch, which has been rumored for weeks, is set to be announced Tuesday.
I don’t blame him, the Republican Party has treated him shittier than they’ve been treating Ron Paul. Johnson has only been invited to two of the debates as far as I know and gets not mention anywhere. At least the Libertarian Party will let Johnson speak and now they won’t have to relegate themselves to running a former spook like Bob Barr.
Security research company and prominent antivirus software vendor Kaspersky Lab has announced its intent to withdraw from the Business Software Alliance (BSA) because of the Alliance’s support for the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA, also known as H.R. 3261).
The Business Software Alliance (BSA) and the Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) are the software industry’s two biggest trade groups. Since both groups have strong anti-piracy stances, neither directly opposed the Stop Online Piracy Act. Both expressed interest in working with Congress to design the law.
[…]
“Kaspersky Lab is aware of the public controversy and debates sparked by the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Kaspersky Lab is occasionally mentioned in the discussion as a member of the Business Software Alliance (BSA), which supports the SOPA initiative,” a statement from the security company said on Monday. “Kaspersky Lab would like to clarify that the company did not participate in the elaboration or discussion of the SOPA initiative and does not support it. Moreover, the company believes that the SOPA initiative might actually be counter-productive for the public interest, and decided to discontinue its membership in the BSA as of January 1, 2012.”
Good on you guys, I hope other software companies follow suit.
The city of San Francisco recently passed an ordinance banning the inclusions of toys with meals that don’t mean arbitrarily selected nutritional standards (standards so high that public school meals don’t even meet them). This ordinance was a swipe at fast food joints that provide toys with kids meals and like all such ordinances this one ended up being entirely pointless:
It turns out San Francisco has not entirely vanquished the Happy Meal as we know it. Come Dec. 1, you can still buy the Happy Meal. But it doesn’t come with a toy. For that, you’ll have to pay an extra 10 cents.
I’m not usually a big fan of McDonald’s (although I fully admit their fries are fucking awesome) but in this case I just want to find the person who came up with this idea and give them a huge fucking high-five. It fills me with joy to see, what was likely, hours of debate between worthless bureaucrats culminate into absolutely nothing. With a very simple change of policy McDonald’s was able to take this new piece of red tape and render it completely meaningless.
Oh, bonus points for coming up with a solution that does some additional good:
(though adults and children purchasing unhealthy food can at least take solace that the 10 cents is going to Ronald McDonald House charities)
That’s just rubbing salt in the state’s wound and I admire it greatly.
Got that? 35 freakin’ miles on a charge. The rest of your trip takes place courtesy of a tiny gasoline motor that gets less-than-fantastic mileage, mainly because it’s trying to power a vehicle that’s too large for it. You’ll save $7,600 in fuel costs over five years! It’s right there on the sticker! Too bad it costs about $25,000 more than any other comparably sized vehicle, so it will take you more than 15 years TO BREAK EVEN.
Let me state this as clearly as I can: If you buy this car expecting to save money, you are a fucking moron.
You’re not saving any money whatsoever – at $46,000, the difference between the Volt and a Civic/Corolla/Sentra/any other comparably sized gasoline engine car in gas mileage is negligible. Even with gas at $4 a gallon and and an annual commute of 20,000 miles, the gasoline-only car getting 25 MPG would cost you $3200 for the year. Even if the Volt were 100% free, it would still take almost 10 years of driving to offset the cost differential.
People generally have a hard time calculating cost-benefit ratios. That is to say people will look at the initial numbers as see that buying a car will save them some $7,600 in fuel over five years but will then fail to crunch the numbers of the cost difference in fuel between the expensive vehicle that uses less gas and the cheaper vehicle that uses more gas.
I purchased my Ranger before fuel costs started going up and when I saw the prices jumping I calculated out how long it would take me to break even if I traded in the truck for something more fuel economical. My Ranger has a 4.0L engine and gets roughly 17.5 mpg. I compared it to something that go 30 mpg at $4.00 a gallon gas and found out I wouldn’t break even until I had driven the car about 100,000 miles. In other words the cost-benefits ratio was piss poor and therefore buying a more economical vehicle was pointless as it would take ages for me to recover my costs.
Also I wouldn’t be able to piss off the enviro-nazis if I drove an economical car and somethings are worth the additional cost.
When you bring up the idea of a private police force people generally cringe in disgust. For some reason our society has found healthy and ration self-interest, or making profits from your labor, to be a thing of disgust. Unlike those who cringe every time the idea of private police forces is brought up I actually want those tasked with protecting me to do so for selfish reasons like profit. Why? Because people do far better work when they know they will be rewarded for their effort.
Several towns, including one here in Minnesota, have started hiring private police to take on a majority of patrolling duties. Why would somebody consider doing that? Simple, private police are cheaper than the public ones:
Now, in an effort to save money, the city with a population of 2,600 is making a controversial move few others have done: Starting in January, it plans to employ a private security company to patrol its streets.
Foley is believed to be the first town in Minnesota to replace its police force with private guards, according to the Minnesota attorney general’s office.
Not only is the town likely to save money but there is another huge benefit:
Leoni said GSSC security officers go through extensive training comparable to police officers. They will carry firearms for their own protection and not to enforce laws, he said.
[…]
Swanson wrote that private security employees may carry a firearm but can use it only in self-defense. Private guards do not have the authority to make arrests other than citizens’ arrests, cannot pursue fleeing suspects, make DWI arrests or even traffic stops. There’s also the issue of whether self-incriminating statements or evidence taken from a suspect by a security officer could be used in court, she wrote.
The private security employees can carry firearms but can only use them under the same circumstances any other private individual can, in self-defense. One of the things that sickens me most about modern police forces is their apparent willingness to employ deadly force in situations where such violence isn’t justifiable and being granted immunity because they’re employees of the state. Private security employees have to obey the same laws as private individuals which is a huge step in the right direction in my book.
I’m looking forward to seeing the results of this experiment. My guess is the experiment will end with the town saving money and the rate of unnecessary police violence dropping. I also predict crime in general will be reduced as the private police must either do a job that satisfies their customers or face unemployment. The profit motivator is a great one as is directly connects a person’s performance to their reward so that better performance means more reward. Rational self-interest is healthy and one of the most powerful motivators that exists for any species.
Applicants to carry concealed weapons in Wisconsin will no longer have to complete four hours of training, after a Republican-controlled legislative committee voted Monday to do away with the requirement that had been assailed by the National Rifle Association as being too strict.
The rule mandating the successful completion of at least four hours of training was put in place by Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen’s Department of Justice in advance of the law taking effect last week.
[…]
“There’s no reason why we have to micromanage how people obtain their concealed carry permit,” said Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend. Other states with no minimum training requirements haven’t had any problems and “there’s going to be no problem in the state of Wisconsin either,” Grothman said.
Senator Grothman states is beautifully, states lacking training requirements haven’t had any issues with the issuance of carry permits. The idea that training be required to exercise a Constitutionally guaranteed right is absurd. Has anybody ever advocated a requirement of training be completed before exercising the right of free speech? I’ve never heard anybody claim those wishing to protect themselves against self-persecution only be allowed to remain silent if they’ve passed a training program.
Why should those eligible to own firearms be restricted from carrying them?
It appears the tradition of nullification is alive and well in regards to the federal Health Insurance Company Enrichment Act. Ohio joins the rapidly growing number of states that have voted against allowing the government to dictate what you buy:
On the eve of the 213th anniversary of the passage of Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, laying the intellectual groundwork of nullification, the people of Ohio exercised their power and nullified the insurance mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Ohioans passed Issue Three, a constitutional amendment to preserve their right to choose their own health care and health care coverage. Preliminary returns indicated a wide margin of victory, with more than 60 percent approving the amendment. The amendment makes it illegal for any local, state or federal law to require Ohio residents to purchase health insurance, effectively nullifying a key component of the PPACA.
“This signifies that state level resistance to federal power is not just an old idea relegated to history books,” Tenth Amendment Center executive director Michael Boldin said, “It’s something that’s alive and well right now.”
Ohio became the tenth state to reject the insurance mandates in the PPACA.
Good on you Ohio. There is no justification that allows the federal government to determine what you will and will not buy. While the lack of justification hasn’t stopped the federal government from dictating that all Americans buy into Social Security it’s still nice to see a line in the sand drawn somewhere.
The idea that you have to buy health insurance under threat of punishment is disgusting and I’m not sure how the American public put up with the passage of such legislation. While those who support the legislation say it’s important to ensure all Americans receive quality healthcare they are mistaken in what this bill really enacts. It doesn’t enact quality healthcare, it enacts violence by putting a gun to the head of every American and demanding they buy health insurance.