Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $83,903
Woo hoo!! And now less than $4.1k to go!! Let's git 'er done!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Sherman Logan

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • It was victim’s fault for getting raped and murdered, man convicted in infamous Indian bus case says

    03/02/2015 1:05:19 PM PST · 25 of 36
    Sherman Logan to Mears

    A remark is stupid because it’s stupid, not because it’s from a newbie.

    Old farts can and do post stupid things.

    I have run afoul myself of the accusation that if you point out an accusation against Muslims is untrue, or even that Muslims aren’t involved, you’re “defending Muslims.”

    Don’t these idiots realize that the best possible way to discredit legitimate criticisms of Islam and Islamists is to post idiotic claims that are easily proven wrong?

    In the case in question, I’ve been unable to find much info on the religion of the parties, but I believe the young lady was Hindu and at least one of her rapists a Muslim.

    If anybody has actual evidence as to the religious background of the perps, I’m interested. Not just articles by people assuming they’re Muslim because they did such a terrible thing.

  • Conservatism as Counterculture

    03/02/2015 12:48:47 PM PST · 5 of 10
    Sherman Logan to Servant of the Cross

    Excellent article. Was going to post it but you beat me to it!

  • The Mass Murderer on Your $20

    03/02/2015 12:24:50 PM PST · 146 of 148
    Sherman Logan to BroJoeK

    Umm, the Declaration of Independence was written by a committee of five, not three, men. Those additional men were Robert Livingston of NR and Roger Sherman of CT. Meaning of course there was only one southerner on the committee, though he was obviously the dominant member.

    Yes, the Democrat-Republicans of Jefferson’s day saw themselves as the underdogs fighting for their life against the money power of the Federalists.

    Sorry, you have some good parallels, but I don’t buy the basic scheme. I learned a long time ago with Toynbee that centuries or millennia long schemes of continuity in politics are almost always more an illusion than reality. They’re generated by picking and choosing which issues are “important.” Surprisingly enough, they’re always the ones that support the scheme.

    I remember distinctly some nut-nut from a couple decades ago. If I remember aright it was one of the Larouche bunch. He found all political history for almost the last thousand years directly descended from the conflicts of the Neri and Bianchi (sp?) of Florence in Dante’s day.

    Well, of course, that’s just stupid. I once tried to figure out where the Cavaliers and Roundheads of the English Civil War would fit on our modern left v. right scale. Turned out they didn’t.

    The Democrats of 1860 were proudly racist (even in the North), pro-alcohol, pro-immigrant, in favor of the little guy, philosophically opposed to big business and big government and to expansion of government to build infrastructure.

    The Republicans of 1860 were somewhat less racist, anti-alcohol, somewhat anti-immigration, in favor of big business and the government funding infrastructure.

    Neither was really for big government on anything even vaguely resembling today’s scale. So who was conservative and who liberal, by the standards of the day? Or of today?

    To my mind the scale doesn’t fit.

  • Texas Ebola nurse says hospital failed her and her colleagues

    03/01/2015 4:51:26 PM PST · 45 of 52
    Sherman Logan to NoKoolAidforMe

    Duncan was presumably exposed on the 15th, entered the US on the 20, and began showing symptoms on the 24th.

    Given the usual progression of the disease, it’s unlikely he had a fever on the 20th.

    Now he probably knew he’d been exposed, though there is some question about that, and had he been honest about his recent medical history he would have been stopped before entering the country.

    But I’ve never seen any evidence at all that US procedures were not properly followed. Those procedures just wouldn’t have been effective at keeping him out.

    Now quite arguably those procedures should have been very different, but the government didn’t blow Duncan’s case off. They followed procedure.

    Just as, BTW, the screeners did on 9/11. Both cases were a case of inadequate policy, not failure to follow policy.

  • Texas Ebola nurse says hospital failed her and her colleagues

    03/01/2015 4:10:42 PM PST · 39 of 52
    Sherman Logan to NoKoolAidforMe
    There was a time that the US would not allow people with contagious conditions to enter the US.

    Mr. Duncan had no symptoms indicating he had a contagious condition when he entered the country.

  • Texas Ebola nurse says hospital failed her and her colleagues

    03/01/2015 4:07:54 PM PST · 38 of 52
    Sherman Logan to kaila

    Which brings up the interesting question of why they put inexperienced nurses on the most high-profile case in the nation.

  • Texas Ebola nurse says hospital failed her and her colleagues

    03/01/2015 4:01:01 PM PST · 34 of 52
    Sherman Logan to House Atreides

    Yup. I’m not even an expert in the field, but when my friend sent the poster to me I just couldn’t believe it.

    The poster is reasonably good direction for PPE in very light duty situations.

    Not adequate, to put it mildly, for one of the most deadly and infectious diseases on the planet.

    I must say these nurses didn’t exactly cover themselves with glory, doing dangerous and stupid things and then saying, “That’s what the managers told us to do.”

    While no doubt true, it’s not like it’s all that difficult to get information about PPE for Ebola. What, 10 seconds on Google?

    Also, as stated, I’m no specialist in the area. Probably neither are you. Yet both of us immediately spotted serious flaws in the instructions.

    Why didn’t the nurses? These are presumably intensive-care nurses with a lot more training in these areas than I have.

    BTW, I don’t know whether these were the directions given these specific nurses. I do know these were handed out at most if not all US hospitals and were up on the CDC website labeled as PPE for Ebola for at least six weeks while the whole mess was ongoing.

  • Texas Ebola nurse says hospital failed her and her colleagues

    03/01/2015 3:15:50 PM PST · 26 of 52
    Sherman Logan to House Atreides

    Found it!

    Posted it on FR at the time, and got something like a dozens responses even though CDC was quite literally instructing people to do things that would get them infected. Nobody here or elsewhere seemed to care. An amazing smoking gun and everybody missed it. A true urban legend, if you will.

  • Texas Ebola nurse says hospital failed her and her colleagues

    03/01/2015 3:07:10 PM PST · 23 of 52
    Sherman Logan to House Atreides

    I’ll try to find the link in Google cache, but CDC took down the webpage.

    But I can guarantee you the story is true. In CDC’s (partial) defense, the directions were not sent directly to this hospital, they were posted on their website.

    In their non-defense, they sent this poster to all hospitals in the US. A friend of mine who works at a hospital was tasked by the head nurse to take them around and give one to each nurse. He took the opportunity, on his own hook, to explain to them why the directions were not even close to being adequate.

  • Texas Ebola nurse says hospital failed her and her colleagues

    03/01/2015 2:00:38 PM PST · 4 of 52
    Sherman Logan to CorporateStepsister

    Sorry, but I’ve seen the original recommendations provided by CDC for dealing with Ebola patients. Following their PPE recommendations would almost guarantee contracting the disease. Among other interesting things, it recommended taking off globes first and then removing the rest of your equipment with bare hands!

    What they posted was a generic recommendation for how to wear PPE. Inexcusable negligence.

    BTW, the nurse may have gotten the best possible care, but she became sick because of the negligence of the hospital. Heck, they could have called me and I’d have suggested better protocols than what they told these women to do!

    Though it’s not like the nurses were kept isolated and unable to look up proper procedures for protecting themselves.

  • The truth about the Sound of Music family

    03/01/2015 1:21:35 PM PST · 72 of 119
    Sherman Logan to Hawthorn
    Austrians are Germans ethnically, linguistically and culturally, whether they like it or not.

    They live in one of the two main states formed from the German nation.

    Up to 150 years ago, Austria was the leading German state. It wasn't until Prussia won several wars that it took that position away from Austria, kicked Austria out of the German "nation," and became Germany.

    If the same criteria had been applied to the German nation that was applied to the Italian nation, then Austria would have been part of the German state.

  • The Mass Murderer on Your $20

    03/01/2015 1:12:53 PM PST · 143 of 148
    Sherman Logan to x

    Yes, the Democrats were the majority party, but their constituents were made up of people who didn’t believe themselves to be Insiders.

    This is not a question of who has power, it’s the question of how people see themselves.

    This is exactly why people today can think of themselves as speaking “Truth to Power” when they support what are actually the default positions in our society. They see themselves as outsiders struggling against the insiders even long after they’re in control, such as in our universities.

    It’s entirely a matter of perception, not of facts.

  • The Mass Murderer on Your $20

    03/01/2015 12:35:03 PM PST · 141 of 148
    Sherman Logan to BroJoeK

    I think we’re just going to have to disagree.

    From what I can tell, you want to paint a history in which there is significant moral and ideological continuity between the Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson, Jefferson Davis and Stephen Douglas and today’s Part.

    I don’t see it. The Democrats of 1840 or 1860 have almost nothing in common with today’s version.

    The only continuity I can discern in the party systems of pre-Civil War and since is this.

    The Whigs and later the Republicans have always been the party of those who are, or who see themselves as, or who wannabee, insiders in America.

    The Democratic Party has always been the Party of those who were/are or who see themselves as outsiders, not fully accepted as “real” Americans.

    Before the WBTS, this was (mostly) southerners, immigrants, Catholics, poorer people, etc.

    The position of various groups has changed over the years, and in recent decades the split I describe has kind of fallen apart, but I think the basic notion is valid.

    Republicans are American Insiders, Democrats are American Outsiders (even when they control the government, the media and the culture).

  • Those Google mapping chaps at it again

    03/01/2015 10:53:36 AM PST · 18 of 19
    Sherman Logan to Scooter100

    Google is doing trail mapping now, with people wearing, I guess, cameras something like that in the photo, walking down trails in National Parks.

    Kinda cool, actually. I looked up an old stomping ground in Arches NP.

  • Critics of Canada's monument to the victims of communism are wrong. Here's why

    03/01/2015 10:49:18 AM PST · 20 of 20
    Sherman Logan to albertabound

    That’s included in my non-too-expert demographic analysis.

    I simply don’t see any way you can have 140M in 1920, to use round numbers, kill 60M of them plus those who died in WWII, and wind up with 180M in 1950, again in very round numbers.

    Just doesn’t compute.

    I’m all in favor of denouncing commies, but let’s denounce them for the crimes they actually committed, not imagined ones.

  • Genghis John Kerry: ISIS is being defeated

    03/01/2015 10:01:26 AM PST · 6 of 9
    Sherman Logan to plain talk

    Would like to put in a partial defense of Kerry.

    ISIS is very bad and I’m all in favor of crushing them, if we can do so without too much trouble. But Kerry was talking about the number of people killed by war and other state and sort-state actions.

    That’s a very different question of whether a media-savvy bunch puts a few slick videos online of them doing horrible things. The beheadings so placed are in number I believe still under 100. That’s horrible for the beheaded and their families, but it kind of pales in comparison with the 1980 massacre of Islamists in Hama, with 10,000 to 40,000 dead.

    Or the Iran/Iraq War, with 1M to 2M dead. Somewhere around 250,000 of the civilians.

    When we rank ISIS as an existential threat, we’re believing their propaganda. They’re an irritant, which will be squashed whenever we decide to do so.

    Our problems are not ISIS or Islamists in general, it’s our own increasing tendency towards national suicide.

    “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves”

  • Walker Admits He’s ‘Changed’ View on Immigration

    03/01/2015 9:28:20 AM PST · 21 of 96
    Sherman Logan to gwgn02
    No he just wanted a Mexican consulate office in WI.

    A consulate office might, I suggest, help deal with some of the issues involving illegal immigration into WI, over which Walker at the time had zero control.

    IOW, is it possible that wanting a consulate office was an attempt to do his job of making his state run more smoothly rather than an attempt to expedite legal and illegal immigration into it?

  • The Mass Murderer on Your $20

    03/01/2015 8:41:19 AM PST · 137 of 148
    Sherman Logan to BroJoeK
    So, what happened in the 1850s was: suddenly, after all those years, such Northerners began to see slavery as not just some quaint Southern institution, but as a growing, expanding existential threat to them.

    I'm a little vague on why you think you need to say this, since it's pretty much what I said in my post.

    The point is that during the 1850s both North and South began to think of themselves as threatened by the other. The South a few years before the North, which is why they insisted on the various measures to protect, as they saw it, the future of slavery, from 1850 on.

    The irony, of course, is that by doing so they created the very opposition to the institution that they thought they were heading off.

    But I think the most relevant factor in the history of the 1850s, in many ways the most interesting decade in American politics, is that both sides of the emerging North vs. South confrontation wholeheartedly believed they were acting defensively against deep-laid plots of the other side.

    The truth, of course, is that while there were no doubt abolitionists and proslavery fire-eaters attempting exactly that, at the start of the decade they were all very much on the fringes. Only as the decade progressed did they move towards greater influence and eventually control.

    The Fire-Eaters, of course, got control of the South in 1860, the Abolitionists took two or three more years to get equal influence in the North.

  • The Mass Murderer on Your $20

    02/28/2015 3:26:20 PM PST · 135 of 148
    Sherman Logan to BroJoeK

    Thanks for the interesting reply.

    But, sorry, I don’t buy it. The Democratic Party in the prewar years was dominated by southern pols, not particularly surprising since the nation as a whole was so dominated. Just look at the statistics for presidents, supreme court justices, cabinet members and military officers.

    But the DP was not Servant of the South or of Slavery. It was a loose alliance of a bunch of state parties.

    Yes, the Democrats were not as group particularly hostile to slavery. Again, this is not surprising. For most of this period neither was the nation, even in most of the North.

    In fact, there WAS no North vs. South split in a political sense until southerners overreached themselves in 1850. For the previous 50 years the regional split had been North(east) vs. South vs. West.

    And the split was not entirely slave vs. free. MO, TN and KY were generally considered Western, not Southern states.

    It wasn’t until the Compromise of 1850, the Dred Scott decision, the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Bleeding Kansas that the country split decisively on slave vs. free lines.

    In fact, the decade of the 1850s were one of the most interesting and bizarre periods in American history, with several third-party groups popping up, some not at all oriented towards the slavery issue. The Know-Nothings, for instance, were big in parts of both North and South.

  • The Mass Murderer on Your $20

    02/28/2015 12:14:38 PM PST · 130 of 148
    Sherman Logan to BroJoeK
    Andrew Jackson merely reestablished the split between northern & southern political alliances, renaming the mostly southern party "Democrats".

    It's true that the Democratic-Republican Party split into pro-Jackson and anti-Jackson factions, after a while formalized as the Democratic and Whig parties.

    But they weren't initially particularly regional in nature. Both parties were well-represented in all sections till at least 1850.

    The demise of the Whig Party, unable to navigate the shoals of slavery politics, was one of the first harbingers of disunion. The last was the split of the Democratic Party in 1860 into three factions, each of which ran a candidate for president.

  • Critics of Canada's monument to the victims of communism are wrong. Here's why

    02/27/2015 9:51:10 AM PST · 16 of 20
    Sherman Logan to albertabound

    I quite agree Stalin killed 30,000 Polish officers. He killed a lot of people. But the claims of up to 60M just don’t fly. As stated, I suspect Lenin and Stalin between them killed somewhere around 10M to 15M.

  • Critics of Canada's monument to the victims of communism are wrong. Here's why

    02/27/2015 9:49:09 AM PST · 15 of 20
    Sherman Logan to Paid_Russian_Troll

    Thanks for the numbers. I’m sure Lenin and Stalin managed to kill some millions of people, but not the up to 60M I’ve seen estimated. Which is kind of sad, because I like anything that makes commies look bad.

    I suspect the Soviets managed to kill a total somewhere in the vicinity of the 12M the Nazis murdered. Keeping in mind that the Soviets had around 35 years to get their killing done in, with the Nazis on a rush schedule, with the great majority of their killing done in 3 or 4 years.

  • Critics of Canada's monument to the victims of communism are wrong. Here's why

    02/27/2015 6:22:57 AM PST · 12 of 20
    Sherman Logan to Paid_Russian_Troll

    Thanks. A 40M increase in population in c. 35 years at minimum means conditions were not all that bad for most.

    The actual numbers will probably never be determined, if only because it appears the commies either didn’t keep books as thoroughly as the nazzies or because they destroyed their records.

    What’s really interesting is to look back at the supposedly horrific oppression under the tsars. If I remember correctly only a couple thousand executions took place over the entire century from 1815 to 1914. The commies beat that total daily even during their first few months in power.

    AS far as birth control goes, I don’t buy that entirely either. Soviet population rose from 180M in 1951 to 293M in 1991. I believe that’s almost the identical percentage increase as in the US over the same period, 63% to 64%. And it’s not like USSR had many illegal (or legal) immigrants!

    To be sure, a LOT of this population growth was probably among Muslim and other minority groups. Not Russians, Balts, Ukrainians, etc.

  • The Mass Murderer on Your $20

    02/26/2015 6:39:55 PM PST · 99 of 148
    Sherman Logan to yarddog


    Oddly enough, that’s exactly how a Republican Congress and President could have constitutionally put slavery on the road to extinction.

    Just prohibit interstate commerce in slaves. Shut up in their individual little markets, slavery would have withered quickly, at least in the upper and border slave states.

    You appaently seem to think imposing a federal Slave Code on inhabitants of territories would have been an exercise of the Interstate Commerce clause. I’m curious why you think that’s the case.

  • Critics of Canada's monument to the victims of communism are wrong. Here's why

    02/26/2015 6:35:39 PM PST · 10 of 20
    Sherman Logan to Uncle Miltie

    I have reluctantly recently decided that the higher estimates of Soviet Communist murders must of necessity be exaggerated.

    Take the base population in 1917, deduct all those (supposedly) killed and the children they didn’t have because they were dead and those who died in WWII. The problem for the high estimates is that there are just way too many Soviets around in the 50s, when they were crawling out from under Stalinism.

    If conditions throughout USSR were as horrible and the number killed were as many as some claim, population would have fallen, a LOT, during this period, not risen from c. 140M to 180M.

    That’s similar to the US population increase over the same period, with the US having zero genocide and not very many killed in war.

  • The Mass Murderer on Your $20

    02/26/2015 6:14:01 PM PST · 97 of 148
    Sherman Logan to yarddog
    They were extremely wary of a strong Federal government.

    This is, of course, why they demanded the passage of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, specifically intended to override state laws making return of fugitives to slavery more difficult.

    The specific issue over which the Democratic Party fell apart in 1860 was southern insistence on a federal Slave Code using federal power to force slavery on occupants of territories against their will. When northern Democrats balked, southern Democrats split their party three ways, handing Lincoln the election.

    IOW, southerners didn't dislike federal power at all as long as they controlled it, which they did for most of the period from independence to the WBTS. In fact, in at least those two cases they demanded significant expansion of federal power.

  • The Mass Murderer on Your $20

    02/26/2015 5:51:15 PM PST · 91 of 148
    Sherman Logan to MikefromOhio
    The ONLY reason the British and French didn't side with the Confederacy was slavery, yet the southern leadership was too damned stupid to realize it.


    The South could have fairly easily had its independence simply by passing emancipation, even very gradual and compensated emancipation.

    One of the very best southern generals, Cleburne, pointed this out. The shock and horror of the southern elite at anyone even saying such a thing is astonishing. Despite his being one of their best generals at a time when good generals were despertely needed, Cleburne's career ascent stalled after his proposal. He stayed in the same rank until he died in battle.

    The reason the southern elite could not get their minds around the concept of trading emancipation for independence is that almost the whole reason they wanted to be independent was to protect slavery.

    Independence without slavery was pointless, in their eyes.

  • The Mass Murderer on Your $20

    02/26/2015 5:40:35 PM PST · 85 of 148
    Sherman Logan to C19fan

    I am not particularly a fan of AJ, but this part is just stupid.

    “Heroically breaking a treaty with the Creeks to slaughter them wholesale.”

    The Creeks attacked first, breaking the treaty, and in rather spectacular fashion.

    They captured Fort Mims, due to the idiocy of the defenders. (The commander had the slaves who reported the approaching Creeks whipped for spreading rumors!) The Creeks killed something between 250 and 400 whites, blacks, dissident Creeks. Many as usual women and children.

    The attack was more or less an episode in an ongoing civil war among the Creeks, but the whites in the SW can be forgiven for not being all that concerned about which Creeks were which after so many whites were killed.

    Fort Mims Massacre was August 1813. Jackon didn’t counterattack the Creeks till November. He was also at the time merely a militia general. Odd to saddle him with the responsibility for deciding whether to fight the Creeks.

    There are lots of reasons to disapprove of AJ, but breaking a treaty with the Creeks isn’t one of them.

  • ISIS is the most genuine Islam in the world

    02/25/2015 9:36:43 AM PST · 18 of 23
    Sherman Logan to elcid1970

    Quite right. Which is why if Muslims object to ISIS being the face of their religion presented to the world, they need to take the lead in squashing it.

    IOW, Muslims can redefine what Islam is, if they choose to. If they choose not to fight ISIS, then by default ISIS will define Islam.

    Their choice.

    In any case, it is idiotic for non-Muslims to think they have any input at all on “what Islam is.”

    Similarly, Jim Jones and others have claimed to be Christians, at least at times, and did some pretty horrific things. If today’s Christians did not strenuously oppose their activities, which we did, then non-Christians throughout the world would reasonably conclude that they were an accepted part of the Christian world.

    If Muslims don’t want Christians and other to conclude that ISIS and its activities are acceptable to Muslims, they’ll have to demonstrate that by their words and, more importantly, their actions.

  • ISIS is the most genuine Islam in the world

    02/25/2015 7:03:16 AM PST · 9 of 23
    Sherman Logan to Yashcheritsiy
    ISIS IS genuine Islam

    Sort of correct. It is certainly much closer to the original Islam of Moh and his immediate successors.

    Here's one way to think of it. Our Civil War was in essence fought over what the genuine America was or would become. Both sides had entirely logical reasons for their belief that their POV was that of the "real" America.

    Since neither side would back down, the only way to settle what "the genuine America" would be was the way it was settled.

    Same for Islam. Only Muslims can define what "real Islam" is and that definition will almost certainly be settled only by war.

  • ISIS is the most genuine Islam in the world

    02/25/2015 6:58:23 AM PST · 8 of 23
    Sherman Logan to Travis McGee

    Somme comments on your graphics.

    #1: During the period of Islam’s initial expansion, beheading, raping and looting were the standard military methods of the time. All armies used them. The Muslim armies just used them more effectively. To be sure, these aren’t military tactics at all, except for their peripheral benefits of terrorizing the enemy. Just as for ISIS today, they’re more along the lines of morale builders for your own troops and recruiting tools.

    $2: Your jihad graphic shows (I assume) every major jihad victory. Your Crusade graphic appears to show only the battles of the First Crusade, not even all those of the entire “crusade” period, which had battles fought in North Africa, Cyprus, Egypt, Constantinople, etc.

    To be fair, you’d have to also show all the battles by which the jihadis were forced out of Spain, the Balkans, Italy, etc.

  • ISIS vow to take over Rome and ‘throw homosexuals off of your leaning tower of PIZZA’

    02/23/2015 5:37:00 PM PST · 48 of 84
    Sherman Logan to SJackson

    Also briefly conquered Sardinia and controlled considerable land in the southern peninsula during the second half of the 800s.

  • ISIS vow to take over Rome and ‘throw homosexuals off of your leaning tower of PIZZA’

    02/23/2015 3:29:49 PM PST · 12 of 84
    Sherman Logan to 2ndDivisionVet

    FWIW, in the 900s and 1000s the Saracens from Spain attacked both Rome and Pisa. The Ottomans were in Otranto (South Italy) as late as 1481.

  • Wedding cakes and flowers used to ram Gay Marriage down our throats.

    02/22/2015 4:14:13 PM PST · 24 of 28
    Sherman Logan to OneWingedShark

    Actually, yeah.

    BTW, TMI.

  • Wedding cakes and flowers used to ram Gay Marriage down our throats.

    02/22/2015 11:57:57 AM PST · 16 of 28
    Sherman Logan to Sherman Logan

    Sorry for the double post. Not sure why that happened.

  • Wedding cakes and flowers used to ram Gay Marriage down our throats.

    02/22/2015 10:40:54 AM PST · 4 of 28
    Sherman Logan to walford

    I really, really wish opponents of SSM would think of a different metaphor than “ramming down the throat.”

  • Wedding cakes and flowers used to ram Gay Marriage down our throats.

    02/22/2015 10:40:40 AM PST · 3 of 28
    Sherman Logan to walford

    I really wish opponents of SSM would think of a different metaphor than “ramming down the throat.”

  • Justified or not? Tulsa sees rash of self-defense shootings this year

    02/22/2015 10:28:14 AM PST · 24 of 24
    Sherman Logan to VeniVidiVici

    You have evidence for that claim?

  • Pope's Shocking Hitler Youth Comparison (Pope blasts gender theory. Media blasts Pope)

    02/22/2015 10:27:22 AM PST · 21 of 22
    Sherman Logan to NYer
    Only shocking in the Captain Renault from Casablanca sense.
  • Justified or not? Tulsa sees rash of self-defense shootings this year

    02/22/2015 10:25:29 AM PST · 23 of 24
    Sherman Logan to jimt

    The person in question was not attempting to commit ADW at the time, he was attempting to flee after such an attempt, assuming the story told is true.

    To my mind, that makes it a question for LEO and the justice system, not one of self-defense.

  • Justified or not? Tulsa sees rash of self-defense shootings this year

    02/21/2015 3:23:00 PM PST · 16 of 24
    Sherman Logan to jonrick46

    Or fired at long range and got lucky.

    I don’t think either of us knows what happened. But I think shooting at someone should be done only for a darn good reason. And someone trying to get away is rarely that reason.

    Even if the law allows it.

  • Pope's Shocking Hitler Youth Comparison (Pope blasts gender theory. Media blasts Pope)

    02/21/2015 3:20:47 PM PST · 14 of 22
    Sherman Logan to NYer

    Seems fairly obvious that Genesis 1 gives an overview. Genesis 2 details. Don’t see any contradiction.

  • DOD Report Details Israel's Quest for Hydrogen Bomb (Obama releases intel on Israeli nuke program)

    02/21/2015 2:58:30 PM PST · 162 of 172
    Sherman Logan to fso301
    Obama officially recognizes Israel as a nuclear power/proliferator

    Is that not a simple recognition of reality?

  • Justified or not? Tulsa sees rash of self-defense shootings this year

    02/21/2015 2:53:59 PM PST · 12 of 24
    Sherman Logan to jonrick46

    Sorry, shooting into a car you know contains people other than the person you’re trying to shoot is only rarely justified. Never, if the car is driving away.

    I’m not in favor of adult males going after 16 year old girls, and I have no problem with it being illegal, but those who do are hardly pedophiles, which refers to attraction to pre-pubescent children.

  • Justified or not? Tulsa sees rash of self-defense shootings this year

    02/21/2015 2:18:21 PM PST · 4 of 24
    Sherman Logan to Lacey
    He told police he responded by firing at the back glass as the car sped away.

    To my mind, difficult to justify such a shooting as self-defense or Stand Your Ground.

  • Political Islam: The Jihad That Led to the Crusades

    02/21/2015 1:05:41 PM PST · 38 of 47
    Sherman Logan to Perseverando

    You may notice I referred to “the rest of the world.’ Muslim atrocities continued in the areas under Muslim rule. Due to their military weakness, however, and more particularly the civilizational self-confidence of Christians of the time, they didn’t bother people outside those areas, for the most part.

    Some points about the Armenian genocide:

    There is not much evidence that religious motivations were all that important to the planners of the genocide. The Young Turks were not a particularly devout bunch. Greeks and other Christians in the Empire weren’t attacked at this time. The motivations were probably more ethnic and political than religious.

    Most of the actual killing was probably done by local Muslim gangs, many of whom probably did have Islam as motivation, along with of course blood lust and looting. Most of them were Kurds, who are now our BFFs in the area.

    Your number of 2M is probably high. It’s unlikely there were 2M Armenians in the area for the Turks to kill. Probably more accurate estimates range from 600,000 to 1,500,000. Some accounts have the total number of Armenians in Turkey prior to the War as about 1.25M.

  • Political Islam: The Jihad That Led to the Crusades

    02/21/2015 12:42:04 PM PST · 37 of 47
    Sherman Logan to Ben Ficklin
    Nobody in Constantinople asked for the crusades.

    Not true. Alexis pleaded with the Pope and others for assistance leading up to the First Crusade.

    Didn't turn out perfectly well for him or his successors, but the Byzantine Empire certainly had a good bit of pressure taken off it for quite a while.

  • Political Islam: The Jihad That Led to the Crusades

    02/21/2015 12:05:45 PM PST · 30 of 47
    Sherman Logan to Perseverando

    Quite right. However, I think it’s entirely reasonable to note that Islam posed little threat to the rest of the world for about 200 years prior to 1979 and the Iranian Revolution, which revitalized Islam as a political movement.

    However, I was speaking specifically about Europe during the period in question. The Magyars were raiding from the East and the Norse from the North. In fact, I believe some parts of France were raided by Muslims, Vikings and Magyars, though probably not at the same time. :)

    Not to mention the quite literally continuous intramural fighting among “Christian” Europeans of the time.

  • Political Islam: The Jihad That Led to the Crusades

    02/21/2015 11:59:56 AM PST · 29 of 47
    Sherman Logan to Ben Ficklin
    But he doesn't mention that Crusaders didn't turn the land that they did capture back over to Byzantium.

    The area that the Crusaders were focused on, Jerusalem and its surroundings, hadn't "belonged" to the Eastern Roman Empire for closing on 500 years.

    The Byzantines had a much better case for some of the other territories, such as Antioch, the Crusaders glommed onto.

    The Crusaders had sworn to return conquered land to Alexis, but rightly or wrongly they believed they were absolved from that obligation because Alexis didn't support them as he'd sworn to do, abandoning them to what he thought would be defeat at Antioch.

  • Political Islam: The Jihad That Led to the Crusades

    02/21/2015 11:51:51 AM PST · 27 of 47
    Sherman Logan to Perseverando
    The Sack of Constantinople was entirely routine warfare for the time. Nothing happened there that the Byzantines hadn't indulged in regularly themselves, including in their many civil wars.

    Had the attackers not been Crusaders, supposedly fighting for Christ, nobody would have had any real right to object.

    BTW, the story of the 4th Crusade is a good deal more complex than is usually presented. Plenty of blame to go around.