Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $19,036
22%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 22% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Sherman Logan

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • White is not right: Campus admins ask for help weeding out white people

    04/15/2014 4:04:30 PM PDT · 79 of 93
    Sherman Logan to SkyDancer

    Since the present consensus is that we’re all descended from Africans, go fot it.

  • Teacher removed for 'dangerous' science projects; supporters rally

    04/15/2014 2:38:21 PM PDT · 13 of 30
    Sherman Logan to Timber Rattler

    They must really freak out when they watch Mythbusters.

  • What Was Brandeis Thinking When It Invited Ayaan Hirsi Ali to Speak?

    04/15/2014 2:34:48 PM PDT · 16 of 23
    Sherman Logan to nickcarraway
    A surprisingly balanced article, considering the source, except for the last sentence or two.

    This struck me.

    Hirsi Ali had suggested in a 2007 interview with Reason magazine that "Islam, period" — not its radical or militant form — needed to be "defeated. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful."

    Since "Islam -period," not its radical or militant form, proclaims the need to fight until all others have accepted the rule of Islam, why can't the rest of us recognize the need to fight till "Islam - period" is defeated?

    Isn't Ali's position just the inverse of that of "Islam-period?"

  • Islamists kidnap 100 schoolgirls, who face living hell as sex slaves

    04/15/2014 12:07:21 PM PDT · 26 of 27
    Sherman Logan to Stand W

    Nigeria is split between a Christian south and a Muslim north.

    Aggressive action against Muslim “activist groups” risks antagonizing their co-religionists and increasing their support. Could eventually lead to civil war, so the government walks softly and carries a not very big stick.

  • In Defense of Empire

    04/15/2014 12:00:51 PM PDT · 5 of 9
    Sherman Logan to Lorianne

    Pretty good, balanced article.

    It should be noted that the benefits of empire have been enjoyed mainly by the groups you never hear about in history, the peasants who aren’t slaughtered by invaders. The losers in empire are often the local elites displaced by the imperialists. They lost their freedom. The peasants never had any.

    With occasional possible exceptions, modern empire has not been a paying enterprise. All the taxes and products extracted from Africa did not pay the imperialists a fraction of the money they spent conquering and administering it. South Africa probably excepted.

    Yet the modern world we take for granted exists largely because the USA fills the imperial role. And is roundly denounced for it.

  • Harry Reid on the Bundy ranch standoff: 'This ain’t over'

    04/15/2014 11:47:25 AM PDT · 5 of 29
    Sherman Logan to SeekAndFind
    Bundy’s theory, that land universally recognized for the past 150 years as belonging to the federal government really belongs to Nevada because it was never properly conveyed to the U.S., is DOA in court.

    The big problem with this theory is that the federal government took title to this land from Mexico by the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo in 1848. Nevada didn't become a state till 1864. Bundy's family didn't show up till 1877 or some such date.

    Any way you slice it, federal ownership has been around a lot longer than any of the other parties involved.

    Whether that's good policy is a whole other question.

  • High Road to Serfdom

    04/15/2014 11:42:50 AM PDT · 21 of 24
    Sherman Logan to Ohioan

    I fail to see what advantage is gained by honoring families rather than individuals.

    It’s an utterly losing cause, anyway. As Tocqueville noted in detail 175 years ago, family reputation over generations is not sustainable without governmentally or socially supported differential status. Since our Constitution specifically prohibits titles of nobility, I guess we’ll all just have to get along without them.

    Why should I despise an honorable man from a poor, or even perhaps criminal family? Why should I honor a pervert or thug from a family that produced good men in the past?

  • High Road to Serfdom

    04/15/2014 11:20:13 AM PDT · 19 of 24
    Sherman Logan to Ohioan

    I’m afraid we’re going to have to disagree on the family class thing. People should be judged on their own individual behavior and character, not that of their relatives or ancestors.

    Attainment of family wealth and social status, even for several generations, does not necessarily connote a family culture of integrity. As numerous families in this country, such as the Kennedys, and many aristocratic lineages of Europe demonstrate beyond all doubt.

    Personally, I try to treat all people with the same presumption of decency and honor until it is demonstrated that they deserve to be treated otherwise.

    Americans far too often make value judgments of others based on their perceived degree of financial success. My Dad taught me to believe that all honest work is honorable.

  • Parents are going to prison for a medical diagnosis that may not exist

    04/15/2014 11:10:44 AM PDT · 3 of 20
    Sherman Logan to Idaho_Cowboy

    Sometimes parents do lie. And sometimes kids get sick and then well for no apparent reason.

    Tough call. Probably why the law calls for evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Is there reasonable doubt in this case? Probably.

  • High Road to Serfdom

    04/15/2014 10:20:24 AM PDT · 15 of 24
    Sherman Logan to PieterCasparzen

    Probably true. However, I’m with Churchill.

    Democracy is the worst of all possible system of governments, until you take a closer look at the others.

    The ideal system is and always has been benevolent dictatorship by a truly wise man. Unfortunately, such men are rare, and even if you get one, he eventually dies. The chance of his being replaced by an equally wise and benevolent dictator verges on zero.

    Democratic republics (or constitutional monarchies, which are really crowned republics) have had by far the longest run in history of general liberty for their citizens.

  • High Road to Serfdom

    04/15/2014 9:45:15 AM PDT · 12 of 24
    Sherman Logan to editor-surveyor

    “Disinterested elite” was not meant as a criticism. Disinterested means “not influenced by considerations of personal advantage.”

    If you were familiar with the writings of the Founders, you would be aware that they viewed men who were involved in the struggle to make a living as unsuitable to be in charge of national affairs. Such men are by definition “influenced by considerations of personal advantage.” The Founders thought only men who had moved beyond this were capable of the necessary detachment from self-interest.

    That’s why Franklin retired from business before becoming involved in public affairs. That’s why Burr was so distrusted by the other Founders. He was a politician openly out for himself, of a type we’ve been familiar with for the last 200 years. But one that the others all still felt the need to at least pretend not to be.

    Revolutionary America was in process of transformation from a society with a traditional hierarchy, almost aristocratic (but without aristocrats) to the aggressive frontier POV that “one man is as good as another.”

    The Founders expected the role of the People in government to mainly have the judgment of picking out those who were better than they were. When politics quickly became a low jobbing trade, if there were any disinterested elites still in government, they mostly quit in disgust.

    I’m unclear what word you think rankles me.

  • Mourning Their Idiot: Liberals Are Seriously Exaggerating the Loss of Colbert 'The Character'

    04/15/2014 9:33:11 AM PDT · 24 of 33
    Sherman Logan to Dave346

    There are two kinds of satire, which I’ll call real satire and faux satire.

    Real satire takes on the ideals and pretensions of its audiences, puncturing them and showing them up.

    Faux satire is a lot more like a group of junior high girls mocking an outsider. “Let’s all show how clever and wonderful we are because we’re not like her!”

    It’s self-congratulation and (worse) flattery of the audience as commentary and comedy. I think I’ve handled possibly an hour altogether, in several attempts, of Colbert before having to change the channel in disgust.

    I assume the author of this essay is correct about the intellectual effort needed to maintain this pose over such a long period.

    Now what could have been REALLY funny would be if Colbert had played two characters: one liberal and the other conservative, on alternate nights. Which could have been true satire.

    But that would have defeated the primary charm of the show for its audience, self-congratulation.

  • High Road to Serfdom

    04/15/2014 9:04:09 AM PDT · 6 of 24
    Sherman Logan to OldNavyVet

    Our nation has been a democracy for almost 200 years now.

    The Founders’ original vision was of a government dominated by social elites, with the Senate and President chosen indirectly, filtered through the state legislatures, which themselves consisted of each state’s elites: wealthy, disinterested men. Only the House would directly represent the People. The whole system was based on the notion that the People would instinctively defer to the educated, wealthy disinterested elite who alone could be trusted with power.

    The Electoral College, for example, was supposed to consist of respected individuals chosen by their states to themselves choose the man THEY thought best suited to be President. THAT didn’t last long. The Electoral College functioned as intended only twice, for Washington’s two elections. Thereafter it increasingly became simply a somewhat inefficient method of registering the popular will.

    With the election of Jefferson and, especially Jackson, the notion that the government would be run by wealthy disinterested elites went out the window and was replaced by the idea that balanced interested groups competing for power would keep the country on an even keel. The People, possibly correctly, no longer believed in the existence of educated, disinterested elites who could be trusted to run the country.

    The last real vestige of a Republic disappeared with the 17th Amendment. The Electoral College can be considered such only if its function in practice is ignored. At the present it’s merely a way of differentially weighting effective individual votes by state.

    So, no, I’m sorry to say, we don’t have a Republic rather than a Democracy. Not any more. It disappeared in 1800, 1828, or at the latest in 1913.

    Interestingly, much of the history of the last 100 years can be seen as the attempt of a group that views itself as an elite with a right to power to get it back. IOW, a variant on the Founders’ original intention, though a very different type of elite than what they had in mind.

  • Teacher fired 'after she ordered six students to attack 7th grade boy who spoke back to her'....

    04/15/2014 8:46:34 AM PDT · 31 of 45
    Sherman Logan to MrB
    Fully within culturally accepted norms.

    I guess that's the case.

    I can envision myself, just barely, as part of a group beating somebody up, if I was sufficiently outraged at him for what seemed like good reason at the time.

    I absolutely, positively cannot see myself being proud later of what I'd done, much less recording it and posting it on Youtube as a brag.

    Proud of what? Their ability to do a 6x or 10x beatdown? What's to be proud of?

    (Shaking head in disbelief at the subculture of fellow Americans.)

  • Teacher fired 'after she ordered six students to attack 7th grade boy who spoke back to her'....

    04/15/2014 8:42:45 AM PDT · 28 of 45
    Sherman Logan to Zack Attack

    Well, I certainly had no respect for the PE teachers I mentioned, for them or their designated pack of jackals.

    Some adults were bullies as children, I guess, and take vicarious pleasure in subtly encouraging it as adults.

  • High Road to Serfdom

    04/15/2014 8:40:50 AM PDT · 3 of 24
    Sherman Logan to Academiadotorg

    The issue is one of equality.

    Democracy brings legal and hopefully social equality.

    Socialism attempts to take that a step farther and ensure economic equality. That is, of course, a step too far, and can never be achieved.

    Attempts to do so only result in the loss of freedom and of social and legal equality, without doing much to bring economic equality any closer.

  • High Road to Serfdom

    04/15/2014 8:37:49 AM PDT · 2 of 24
    Sherman Logan to Academiadotorg
    “Great danger lies in the policies of two powerful groups, organized capital and organized labor, which support the monopolistic organization of industry.”

    The US car industry for much of the 20th being a classic example.

    The UAW extorted massive wages and feaher-bedding from the companies. But they didn't care. Why should they?

    They only faced competititon from two other companies, each of which were forced to deal ith the same unions. And they could of course compensate by selling low-quality autos at high prices to the captive audience of the American people.

    A union, or a high minimum wage, or any other constraint on a business, is not in and of itself a problem for that business. As long as it has an assured market and competitors face the same constraints.

    It's only when a competitor doesn't face those constraints, or when an outside group moves in on the market, that a company is in real trouble.

  • Teacher fired 'after she ordered six students to attack 7th grade boy who spoke back to her'....

    04/15/2014 8:10:06 AM PDT · 23 of 45
    Sherman Logan to yefragetuwrabrumuy

    You are quite right. I had a couple of coaches/PE teachers in junior and high school who operated this way.

  • Judge: Feds can hide rationale for killing U.S. citizen

    04/15/2014 7:54:25 AM PDT · 45 of 46
    Sherman Logan to Sherman Logan

    Heck, speaking of allying with distasteful folks, almost the first thing we did as a nation was ally ourselves with the French, an absolute monarchy, though in general a fairly benevolent one, to fight a constitutional monarchy that was, aside from ourselves, the freest nation on earth.

  • Judge: Feds can hide rationale for killing U.S. citizen

    04/15/2014 7:51:08 AM PDT · 44 of 46
    Sherman Logan to Durus

    I think you’re confusing legal authority and moral authority.

    Under the 2001 Congressional Authorization to Use Force I think their legal authority is impeccably constitutional.

    With regard to their moral authority you may very well be right.

    However, it’s also not unreasonable to point out that we are (probably) supporting groups who are fighting Assad in Syria. He and his family’s regime have been undisputed enemies of America and supporters of terrorism for decades.

    There are no groups in Syria right now that most Americans would consider to be “the good guys,” with possible exception of groups with little support from any actual Syrians.

    So we have the option of just staying completely out of the mess there, or supporting groups that are more or less objectionable. The staying-out option, of course, leaving the territory fully open to Russian, Iranian or Chinese influence.

    We allied ourselves with Stalin for 4 years to defeat Hitler, and we supported creeps like Somoza for decades to defeat Communism. It doesn’t seem unreasonable that we might similarly support groups we don’t like in the Middle East.

  • Cliven Bundy's Cattle Battle: Harry Reid, China and Agenda 21

    04/15/2014 7:33:23 AM PDT · 19 of 42
    Sherman Logan to rktman

    For most of the western states, especially Nevada, the public land not sold off before statehood was public for a good reason. Nobody wanted to buy it. It wasn’t good for anything except running a few cows or sheep. And prior to statehood it wasn’t even any good for that, as there was no market for them.

    The state did not want title, because that would require them to control the land, which did not come anywhere close to bringing in the money from grazing fees and such to pay for it. The population of NV at statehood was probably under 20,000 and the taxpayers were perfectly happy to leave responsibility for this immense stretch of land with the federal government.

    The situation had been different in states farther east, where land generally went into private ownership because there were buyers.

  • Cliven Bundy's Cattle Battle: Harry Reid, China and Agenda 21

    04/15/2014 7:23:13 AM PDT · 16 of 42
    Sherman Logan to Texas Fossil

    It may or may not be constitutional for the feds to own this land. If it’s not, then title to the land presumably would revert to the state, which would presumably want grazing fees for use of its land, or possibly make it available for him to purchase.

    Besides the cost of the land purchase, Bundy would then be on the hook for ongoing property taxes and possibly be required to fence in his cattle. All of which is pretty darn expensive.

  • Judge: Feds can hide rationale for killing U.S. citizen

    04/15/2014 7:16:27 AM PDT · 42 of 46
    Sherman Logan to Lurker

    Limited information, but from what I’ve seen the kid wasn’t involved in 9/11, since he was probably something like 5 years old at the time, although it’s entirely possible he was planning to follow Dad into the family business. However, they weren’t shooting at the kid when he was killed, they were shooting at another guy.

    In almost any military attack, there is a good bit of risk of hitting bystanders. Our present methods of attack, such as drone strikes, actually cause a great deal less collateral damage than strikes of the WWII variety, when we’d destroy entire cities. Were the hundreds of thousands or millions of innocents killed by us during WWII murdered, or were they the unintended consequences of a battle that had to be fought?

    So the question becomes one of whether legitimate military targets should be able to effectively immunize themselves against attack by surrounding themselves with innocents. Does that strike you as a wise military policy?

    Osama was at home with a wife or two when the Seals raided. Should they have aborted the attack because innocents would be put at risk? In actual fact, a woman was killed during the raid, the wife of one of Osama’s associates. Was her death an improper use of force?

    As far as drone strikes or other military use of force on US soil, let’s imagine a Mumbai-style or Beslan-style attack here. Multiple heavily armed terrorists, ongoing murder of Americans, etc.

    Would it be improper to use military forces to counter a military assault on Americans? Why?

    Let’s further assume some or all of the attackers are or may be US citizens. Is there any reason the response to them should be any different than for an attack by a group we know consists solely of non-citizens?

    Which is not to say these powers are not dangerous to put into anybody’s hands, and that I’m not nervous with them where they presently are. Only that the purpose of the military is to protect Americans, and if a military-style assault is launched on American soil, it makes perfect sense to use military force in response.

  • Judge: Feds can hide rationale for killing U.S. citizen

    04/15/2014 6:06:46 AM PDT · 40 of 46
    Sherman Logan to All

    I realize a lot of y’all are disturbed by the image of an American president authorizing targeted strikes on American citizens overseas. You feel it should be unconstitutional or illegal in some way.

    The problem is that conservatives don’t believe in a Constitution that means what we think it should mean, we believe in one that says what it actually says. Which means quotation of the section that prohibits American military forces, at the direction of the Commander in Chief, authorized to do so by Congress, from attacking enemies if they happen to be US citizens.

    I don’t know of any such provision. Feel free to post it, if you do.

  • Judge: Feds can hide rationale for killing U.S. citizen

    04/15/2014 5:53:01 AM PDT · 39 of 46
    Sherman Logan to Durus

    Actually, the father was a naturalized citizen and an al Quaeda leader. He was the target of an intentional attack.

    His 16 year old natural-born American citizen son was killed as collateral damage in a later attack aimed at another terrorist.

    What does it take to be designated a terrorist? I suggest you read the congressional resolution authorizing use of force against anyone the President determines to be involved in the 9/11 attacks or planning similar attacks.

    I am probably as disturbed as you by the potential for abuse in such power, but I am curious about what you would recommend as an alternative process for waging war against terrorists. Or should we just ignore them till they attack us, and only then hit back?

    Collateral damage is a risk in any military operation. In WWII, at least in theory, we killed hundreds of thousands as collateral damage. Should we have never bombed Germany or Japan because such attacks inevitably involved the killing of thousands of perfectly innocent people?

    And, yeah, I think people who hang out with terrorists should run increased risk of death. Don’t want to be blown up? Don’t hang around with terrorists.

  • 3 Myths About Thomas Jefferson

    04/15/2014 4:38:30 AM PDT · 4 of 6
    Sherman Logan to Kaslin
    The first myth is that Jefferson was for big government.

    A brand-new myth to me.

  • Judge: Feds can hide rationale for killing U.S. citizen

    04/15/2014 4:33:54 AM PDT · 37 of 46
    Sherman Logan to Durus

    Please show me the constitutional requirement that military forces of the United States must inquire into the citizenship status of an active enemy of the Unites States before engaging him with deadly force.

    Does it make sense to you that any active enemy who holds US citizenship and manages to make it to an area of the world where they cannot be reached using traditional law enforcement means should be untouchable?

  • Judge: Feds can hide rationale for killing U.S. citizen

    04/15/2014 4:29:53 AM PDT · 36 of 46
    Sherman Logan to Lurker
    Show me where in the Constitution it specifies the wording of a Declaration of War. The US has been involved in hundreds of armed conflicts, it has formally declared war exactly five times. Were all the others illegitimate conflicts?

    (Nearly) unanimous Congressional Resolution: "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001"

    Notice the Resolution says "persons," not "non-citizens." This Resolution mirrors the congressional authorization to use force given Adams in 1798. A good many of the Founders being involved in its production.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_Further_to_Protect_the_Commerce_of_the_United_States

    BTW, anytime Congress decides to it can rescind its authorization.

  • Bundy Ranch Crisis is Reason to Ask "Who Actually owns America’s Land?"

    04/14/2014 7:05:44 PM PDT · 9 of 20
    Sherman Logan to MeshugeMikey

    I’d be interested in a historical review of the ownership status of this land and of the Bundy family relationship to it.

  • Was the Gospel of St Luke 'written' by MARY?

    04/14/2014 6:03:39 PM PDT · 27 of 46
    Sherman Logan to chajin

    Carpenter doesn’t generally mean furniture maker, it refers more generally to workers in wood producing buildings, ships, etc.

  • Judge: Feds can hide rationale for killing U.S. citizen

    04/14/2014 5:51:54 PM PDT · 27 of 46
    Sherman Logan to austinaero

    I said legal.

  • Judge: Feds can hide rationale for killing U.S. citizen

    04/14/2014 5:35:15 PM PDT · 19 of 46
    Sherman Logan to TurboZamboni

    If an American citizen can be legally and properly taken out by a sniper, as in a hostage standoff situation, then he can be legally and properly killed by a drone strike. The weapon used is immaterial. The legal issues are exactly the same.

  • Judge: Feds can hide rationale for killing U.S. citizen

    04/14/2014 5:32:00 PM PDT · 18 of 46
    Sherman Logan to Durus

    To arrest me, all they have to do is drop by the house.

    Do you have a similar procedure you’d like to suggest by which Awlaki could have been taken into custody?

    The guy was an open and avowed enemy of the United States, a leader in the group that launched 9/11, yet we’re not supposed to attack him in the same way we’ve attacked our other enemies for almost 250 years?

    Sounds to me like your argument is not with the method of attack here, or whether he’s a citizen or not, it’s with the president exercising his war powers as duly authorized by the Constitution and by Congress in a functional Declaration of War.

    AFAIK, these methods are only authorized for use outside the US, specifically in countries where the local authorities are not able to arrest and extradite. Their use inside the country, where other methods are available, would I suspect be neither wise nor legal.

  • Judge: Feds can hide rationale for killing U.S. citizen

    04/14/2014 5:22:05 PM PDT · 17 of 46
    Sherman Logan to Erik Latranyi
    September 14, 2001 by Act of Congress. House 420 to 1. Senate 98 to 0.

    That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

    One can make a decent argument that this functional declaration of war against "international terrorism" should be re-examined, that these powers are too great and should be subject to checks or balances, but one simply cannot claim that the President's actions aren't authorized by them in a fully Constitutional way.

  • Judge: Feds can hide rationale for killing U.S. citizen

    04/14/2014 5:12:26 PM PDT · 16 of 46
    Sherman Logan to Erik Latranyi

    Was Osama actively shooting at our troops when a commando raid attacked and killed him?

    Were any of the 9/11 hijackers shooting at Americans prior to their initiating the hijack? Should they therefore have been exempt from attack up until that moment?

    In your world, are is the US military limited to defensive action? We’re not allowed to attack the enemy?

    Has any military operation of the USA ever had anything resembling due process proceedings for enemies, or have they just been located and attacked as possible? Before attacking enemy forces in WWII, due we carefully screen thru them to make sure there weren’t any US citizens among them?

    OK, that last one’s a little hyperbolic. But the point remains. These guys are continuously plotting attacks on Americans. Doesn’t anybody else remember the first few days after 9/11, when we all assumed we’d have such attacks weekly or monthly?

    We haven’t had those attacks. Is that because they’ve lost the desire to kill Americans, or is it because our intelligence and military have disrupted their attacks?

    Can you define another way by which enemies of the United States, hiding out among the civilian population in distant lands, should be attacked? Should we invade Yemen, as we did Afghanistan and Iraq? What would that do, except cause the enemies to flee elsewhere?

    I find the process disturbing, but I see no other logical method of carrying the fight to the enemy. I also see no part of the Constitution that requires the President or military to treat citizen enemies of the United States overseas differently from non-citizen enemies. If you know of such, feel free to post it.

  • Judge: Feds can hide rationale for killing U.S. citizen

    04/14/2014 4:51:08 PM PDT · 11 of 46
    Sherman Logan to jwalsh07
    The military has NO authority to kill any US citizen who is guilty of nothing but having an asshole for a father.

    The military claims the death of the son was collateral damage in at attack aimed at another individual. This may or may not be true, but that is the claim. \

  • Judge: Feds can hide rationale for killing U.S. citizen

    04/14/2014 4:48:24 PM PDT · 10 of 46
    Sherman Logan to Farmer Dean

    I agree.

    However, while I don’t know anything about how such targets are selected, I suspect explaining the process in detail would give the enemy useful intelligence.

  • Judge: Feds can hide rationale for killing U.S. citizen

    04/14/2014 4:45:30 PM PDT · 9 of 46
    Sherman Logan to Erik Latranyi

    The Constitution does not specify due process for “citizens.” It specifies, in both 5A and 14A, that “no person” is to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process.

    Since military action is by definition the opposite of due process, the condition obviously does not apply.

    As I’ve said before, whether a given military strike is proper and legal is an entirely different question.

  • Judge: Feds can hide rationale for killing U.S. citizen

    04/14/2014 4:40:23 PM PDT · 8 of 46
    Sherman Logan to Erik Latranyi

    These were (or at least were claimed to be) enemies of the United States at active war with us. They were attacked in a foreign country under the terms of a congressional authorization to use force, the functional equivalent of a Declaration of War.

    Is there some law of war of provision of the Constitution of which I’m not aware whereby enemies aren’t to be attacked in their homes?

    As I said, I have no way of determining whether these were legal targets, but if they were what do you you think the procedure for attacking them should be?

    For some obscure reason, people get all bent out of shape by the use of drones. But a drone attack is no different in principle from a fighter strike, a commando attack like the one that killed Osama, or a sniper attack. If any of those are justified, then so is use of a drone.

  • Judge: Feds can hide rationale for killing U.S. citizen

    04/14/2014 4:28:50 PM PDT · 3 of 46
    Sherman Logan to Oldeconomybuyer

    It may not be a popular POV on FR, but I can find nothing in the Constitution or the laws whereby the military of the US is obliged to inquire into the citizenship of legitimate military targets before attacking.

    Whether they are actually legitimate and legal targets is an entirely different question, of course, and this sort of targeted attack is certainly open to abuse. But if they are proper targets, and they are American citizens, they are traitors as well as enemies, and I’ll lose no sleep over their demise.

  • Jury Selection Begins in Byron Smith Murder Trial

    04/14/2014 4:22:08 PM PDT · 22 of 25
    Sherman Logan to SamAdams76

    I think there are a LOT of crimes more despicable than breaking and entering.

  • Food Stamp Recipients Outnumber Women Who Work Full-Time

    04/14/2014 11:06:15 AM PDT · 15 of 50
    Sherman Logan to Responsibility2nd

    I don’t like charts like that one. They’re intentionally misleading. The real numbers are bad enough.

  • Food Stamp Recipients Outnumber Women Who Work Full-Time

    04/14/2014 10:46:03 AM PDT · 8 of 50
    Sherman Logan to SkyPilot

    Interesting that the increase was almost as steep under Bush as under Obama.

  • All the Presidents' Bankers: The Hidden Alliances that Drive American Power

    04/14/2014 10:38:30 AM PDT · 12 of 13
    Sherman Logan to bert
    Money or wealth and power go hand in hand. Always have and always will.

    Quite true. However, down thru history wealth generally grew out of power rather than power out of wealth.

    Only with the development of modern capitalistic rule of law societies did it become even possible for families to accumulate multi-generational wealth without the direct political power needed to protect it.

    Much of the history of the Left can be seen as a desire to return to that paradigm. They want the power so they can control and reap the benefits of the wealth.

    Many attempt by business to influence government can be seen as easily as extortion by politicians as bribery by business.

  • Jury Selection Begins in Byron Smith Murder Trial

    04/14/2014 10:20:26 AM PDT · 8 of 25
    Sherman Logan to Gumdrop

    Picked the wrong house.

  • All the Presidents' Bankers: The Hidden Alliances that Drive American Power

    04/14/2014 9:01:13 AM PDT · 5 of 13
    Sherman Logan to Yollopoliuhqui
    She unravels the multi-generational blood, intermarriage, and protégé relationships that have confined national influence to a privileged cluster of people. These families and individuals recycle their power through elected office and private channels in Washington, DC.

    Of recent presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Obama (arguably) did not grow up in an atmosphere of high privilege. Most were lower middle class or even poor for much of their childhood.

    If you like, we can consider them all as having been adopted into the ruling class, but such a class open to talent in this way puts a really serious dint in the author's argument.

  • WHY, HELL YEAH: 7 Stylish Ways to Decorate with Duct Tape

    04/14/2014 8:45:18 AM PDT · 12 of 13
    Sherman Logan to kingattax

    Uhh, don’t ever put duct tape on most finished surfaces and leabe it for any time at all.

    The adhesive will adhere to the finish, and when you finally pull the tape off the finish will come with it, usually unevenly. Getting the finish back to an even appearance is always difficult, and sometimes very nearly impossible.

    That’s precisely why they make masking tape that doesn’t adhere to finishes.

  • Lincoln’s Character

    04/14/2014 8:35:07 AM PDT · 9 of 25
    Sherman Logan to Telepathic Intruder

    Thanks for an accurate summation. Lincoln never claimed that the federal government was supreme in all areas. That didn’t come along till the Progressives of the late 19th century.

  • Lincoln’s Character

    04/14/2014 8:33:42 AM PDT · 8 of 25
    Sherman Logan to .45 Long Colt
    a fundamental comprehension that it was “a great moral wrong.”... “My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.”

    Would you care to explain how these two objectives are in conflict?

    Islam across a good chunk of the world today, and the Chinese and North Korean governments, are committing ongoing great moral wrongs. Not to mention great moral wrongs elsewhere in the world.

    If I recognize and point out these wrongs, am I therefore morally obligated to also wage immediate total war against them all?

  • UTAH WOMAN ARRESTED AFTER 7 DEAD BABIES FOUND

    04/13/2014 6:40:14 PM PDT · 17 of 31
    Sherman Logan to Psalm 73

    To be perfectly fair, being arrested and accused of multiple murders is likely to discombobulate anyone.