There are already gays in the military right now. This isn't a debate about whether they can serve, it's about whether they can serve openly. What's the difference between straight guys currently showering with closeted gay guys (which at least some likely know are gay) and straight guys showering with guys they definitely know are gay? The straight guy's own self-consciousness.

I guess you're just going to be disappointed when they don't segregate the showers and barracks.

You may not be aware the gays are a 100 times better at controlling themselves than straight people are. We're used to living in a world of 90% straight people. The hardest change will be that straight soldiers might actually have to adhere to the rules regarding dating and sexual harassment. And straight males won't be able to blackmail females that turn them down by reporting them for being gay. (Many aren't even gay, it's just impossible to prove you're not gay once you've been reported.)

Then all heterosexual males will then get the full opportunity to bed down and shower with females.
They aren't sexual preditors either.

Regardless if anyone agrees or disagrees with openly gay people serving in the military, this IS a problem that must be addressed. As I've pointed out before….. Gay men and women have the right to defend their nation. That's fine. But there are many internal issues, besides your “sensitivity training” that must be accomplished to make it a go.

There were no personal attacks and no profanity was used.

Can someone tell me what's wrong with the comment under review?

In the end though I think sh*t sandwiches are one of the flaws of democracy since it is a method to try to appeal to as many people as possible unfortunately as our founding fathers learned when drafting our first legislation it does not make you sound coherent or intelligent but it passes and it works until it breaks(all created equal/slavery insanity for instance). I see a “fix” but its the states rights melt the fed to a tiny unimportant thing track which also means the US would begin to rank behind Europe for power and prestige which would limit many of our choices but to be honest I think we pay to high a price to be the global super power and from my view it really only benefits the top .01% anyway. For the rest of us it just distorts our nation our laws and our morality further and further. Put on top of that that pols are creating laws to please Dems Reps and the business community and you get what we have in the current legislation an icoherent giveaway too all three that we will all pay for. In a grown up world I prefer your method but you are correct that it would float like a lead balloon. The only enemies we seem to fear more than those attacking us with bombs is those in the other party which I think is a pretty dangerous state of affairs but it has a long history.

Gays have to abide by the same rules of conduct straights do. They've already been working on this. The repeal will most likely include a time table for the military to follow and it's up to them to prepare and carry it out. And it will likely include training and rules for conduct. Congress legislates, not the military.

1. Temporary nationalization, in order to kill off the current monopolies and start from scratch.
2. Dual layer: nationalize family doctors, but free up the private market using Wyden's approach and repealing McCarran-Ferguson.

The question is what is the fix? I see two valid options that are polar opposites to actually bring down costs, single payer which would cost a fraction of what it costs us now or nothing. When I say nothing I really mean it though, take away the AMA's ability to say how many DR's we will have every year and gut every regulation while nuking the health insurance industry and start from scratch, after 5-10 yrs of extreme pain and trauma we would then be able to pay out of pocket without the market being twisted and true free market principles would be brought to bare. Problem is that neither of those two options are being offered by either side and the “nothing” approach would be attacked from left and right and of course the electorate would never support either. Its depressing but if we want things to change little the current approach seems to be the only option short of doing nothing which looks basically the same with zero safe guards for consumers but Wyden's amendment which I support will switch it slowly from employer to employee at least.

History back to 1900s from PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/history.htm

A more insurance-based view:
http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?page_id=1647

It doesn't go back far enough, but a graph medical increases. I want one that goes back much farther:
http://theglitteringeye.com/?p=9326

An inflation-adjusted graph of federal health costs, back to 1940:
http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/faculty-rese…

which is part of a large group of inflation adjusted graphs from this page (well, I found some interesting):
http://oregonstate.edu/cla/polisci/faculty-rese…

2. I have to disagree with you on this one. Many things were put into place prior to Nixon that helped to end the Gold Standard. But Nixon put the final nail in the coffin in 1971. He didn't cause it, but he ended it.

3. Yeah… Who can possibly argue with that.

Three current nightmares Nixon can be thanked for.

1. Our current health care system
2. Ending of the gold standard
3. China

Nixon?
1. Our current health care system started during World War II, and has in the making for a long time. Nixon had a part in the HMO stuff, but it's a bit much to blame him for burning down the house when he was just throwing one more log in the fire.
2. The gold standard effectively ended in 1913, with the Federal Reserve Act. Unless you can show that he voted for that, his part couldn't mean much.
http://www.historycentral.com/documents/Federal…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act
3. Well, yeah, that one I can't argue with.

1. Our current health care system
2. Ending of the gold standard
3. China

I don't.

* * *

“as long as the Democratic party remains sold-out to the ACLU, gays, and humanists”

The extremists within these groups are among the most apathetic, disgusted, or angry Dem voters now.

As I wrote much earlier this year, when Obama was tardy on a favored gay issue that militants wanted resolved in their favor promptly (as if it were a condition of Obama's election and legitimacy in office): Now you know the “back of the bus” feeling that the Religious Right is subjected to, after the election, until shortly before the next!

(CLUE: Obama may offer some lefty groups a sop or two next year, to squelch the apathy and get 'em turning out this time to vote.)