All sexual conduct is from free will. Likewise, in a society where food is readily obtainable -- what we eat as adults is free will. What we watch (or do not watch) on tv is a product of free will. Some men are faithful to wives in marriage, some are not. Those who are not choose not to be. What that "university" inherently is teaching is that no human could actually be a Roman Catholic Priest who follows the rules (unless born with no sex drive -- something not really possible). People choose to have sex before marriage -- it is not preordained. Many men are attracted to women who are not a spouse (and may be the spouse of another) -- does that mean that men have no control over sexual behavior. Many 13 year old boys know that...

Back in the 1980s, I learned that Katyn did not happen. War mongering racists lied about that -- and pretty much the United States and the Soviet Union have both done bad things, though the US is worse because it favors big business. Literally, this was the "official" viewpoint of the person who was in charge of social studies at my high school (who was an open Marxist). This mindset also had teachers passing around mandatory petitions for children to sign in favor of a nuclear freeze. We have a president (and an administration) that pushed the lies about communism (usually in the form of denials about abuses and atrocities) back in the 1980s -- but most of us forget that.

The military is nothing more than a pc lab. Regulations and Judges will enforce the pc rules we are putting into place now for generations. Good people who know better will allow it to happen because they do not want to lose a career (house, wife and children too). You cannot question the wisdom of allowing women to serve on subs without signing on to the fact that you will never be promoted beyond captain. You may even lose your career. Also, you are not allowed to question preferential treatment -- if you do, you are a racist. Pretty much it is like our public universities -- certain viewpoints are not allowed.

I'm not sure that what people did at age 16-17 qualifies as real 'merit.' Most people (myself included) take the SAT at 16 and 17. Most of the Supreme Court candidates went to very, very good schools -- but had little real world legal experience. Kagan had no real trial or appellate experience until becoming solicitor general. Some people acquire a lot of experience between ages 20-35 (and they have high IQs too) -- yet because they went to a non-elite school -- opportunities are limited.

Good point Tea Party. Likewise, most in PC America would think it is far worse to threaten to burn a koran than perform a female circumcision. "Feminists" decry those who speak out against gender norming tests for the police -- but are silent when a 10 year old girl is forced to be the 10th bride of a 70 year old man. They believe we should spend money on footbaths for muslims -- but not mention the history of Christianity and how it impacted Western Civilization. Even nearly 30 years ago, my public school had mandatory courses on learning about islam -- but no such course about Christianity (even thought it is very tied to history, irrespective of what somebody might personally believe).

If our goal is to really have a 'fair' military we ought to change more than DADT. First, we passed the ADA to protect the disabled -- people with disabilities should be given the opportunities than non-disabled have in the military. Also, we should be fair regarding age. Irrespective of age (whether 15 or 70) if a candidate can pass physical test (we may need to make it "fair" like the tests which now have gender norming) and an intelligence test, they should be allowed to join the service. People should be allowed to serve in the military as long as they want (no manditory discharge for those who are 60 or 40 years of servive -- no age or time restrictions at all). Doing this would make our military much more reflective of...

There are a lot of people who are in prison serving long sentences and their guilt and level of responsibility is in question (part of the reason many people on death row have been released in the past decade). Conservatives learned what a corrupt DA can do when they noticed what Mike Nifong tried to do to completely innocent Duke lacrosse players for political gain. Many 18 year old otherwise decent kids have been caught with a certain weight of drugs in their car -- and have served decades in prison. Pollard is actually guilty -- and he made a premeditated decision to repeatedly engage in behavior damaging to our country. There are thousands of more deserving candidates for clemency than Pollard.

I could not help but notice the comment about pain meds. The fact is that we have had more and more government control over them over the past decades. Most doctors will not prescibe them out of fear. We do allow dangerous drugs like Vioxx to be passed out for pain -- though expensive, dangerous and ineffective. Our society did actually survive (and thrive) when we allowed heroin and cocaine to be obtained via Sears catalogue. People certainly misbehave when drinking alcohol -- but why is it that the government "needs" to control alcohol use by people who are not causing trouble? We don't do a very good job solving many crimes (most burglaries are unsolved for example) -- yet many conservatives are fixated on creating more crimes...

We lost and it is probably all over. The DADT policy is similar to allowing women on subs. That is, it is the "fair" thing to do -- but isn't the military supposed to protect us (and not "be fair"). DADT is way different than a racial issue for the military. DADT actually made sense (it probably was unwarranted to discharge people just because of pre-military behavior or what orientation they may have). You are expected to behave by a whole new set of rules in the military (including not engage in adultery). Really, homosexual conduct is now favored ahead of being a hetero swinger. Serving in close quarters with people creates an inherent problem if sexual tension is allowed to exist (and it will exist with women on subs with...

Can't we all just get along? While maybe people should not be killed for drawing a cartoon of the prophet, can't we agree that they should go to prison for a reasonable period of time (like 5 years or so). Certainly, Theo Van Gogh should not have been killed for his movie making and writing -- but maybe he should have been prevented by the government from creating anything that might offend muslims. While some may believe that female circumcisiom is bad -- isn't there a happy medium? Maybe a partial circumcisiom? Maybe forcing a 10 year old girl to marry is going too far -- what about a 14 year old? It probably is going too far to execute somebody who converts from islam to Chrisianity -- why not either amputate a non-dominent...