Palin & Socrates

Image via Wikipedia

In a somewhat odd speech, Sarah Palin informed the public that she was resigning as governor of Alaska. With Sanford’s recent adventure, this has been a rather weird time for Republican governors.

Palin’s speech was certainly interesting. She seemed to be speaking without notes and apparently with only minimal preparation. On the positive side, she seemed to be saying what she really felt which is a rare thing in politics.

Not surprisingly, the response has been largely along ideological lines. The folks who dislike her are claiming that she is either getting out ahead of a scandal or looking to head down to the lower 48 to start her bid for 2012. Those who like her think that she is doing what is right for Alaska and that she is a victim of various malign forces (such as the media and the Democrats).

While I found her speech to be rambling and a bit strange, she did make a point that I found rather interesting. To be specific, she seemed to be claiming that being in politics had caused trouble and that in order to get things done, she had decided to resign. This made me think of Socrates‘ remarks in the Apology:

Some one may wonder why I go about in private giving advice and busying myself with the concerns of others, but do not venture to come forward in public and advise the state. I will tell you why. You have heard me speak at sundry times and in diverse places of an oracle or sign which comes to me, and is the divinity which Meletus ridicules in the indictment. This sign, which is a kind of voice, first began to come to me when I was a child; it always forbids but never commands me to do anything which I am going to do. This is what deters me from being a politician. And rightly, as I think. For I am certain, O men of Athens, that if I had engaged in politics, I should have perished long ago, and done no good either to you or to myself. And do not be offended at my telling you the truth: for the truth is, that no man who goes to war with you or any other multitude, honestly striving against the many lawless and unrighteous deeds which are done in a state, will save his life; he who will fight for the right, if he would live even for a brief space, must have a private station and not a public one.

Socrates’ view does have a degree of plausibility. Good people who get involved in politics seem to end up compromising away their good intentions or being unable to take action if they stick with their values. People who act outside of politics do often have a greater opportunity to avoid compromise and sometimes can get more done. It will be interesting to see what Palin does. Will she, for example, become a spokesperson for the pro-life movement? Or is this, as some have suggested, just a clever ploy to get lined up for 2012?

Another point worth considering is that Palin is actually acting in accord with the professed ideology of Republicans. One standard line that Republicans often use is that government is bad. Naturally, this caused me (and others) to wonder why they would be so eager to be involved with what they consider to be the problem. In this case, Palin is acting in a way consistent with that view: she is leaving the (alleged) badness of government.

As to why she is really leaving, time will be an indication. If she stays out of government, then it would seem that her speech was sincere. If she ends up running for another office, then the sincerity of her words can be called into question.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Krauthammer on Palin (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Palin Resigning as Governor (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Sitting duck? Palin wins dubious honor (msnbc.msn.com)
• Did Sarah Palin Resign as Governor of Alaska because she’s Pregnant? (VIDEO) (inquisitr.com)
• Sarah Palin resigns as Alaska governor (guardian.co.uk)

Happy 4th of July!

Image via Wikipedia

Happy 4th of July!

Life, liberty, and blowing stuff up…these are inalienable rights.

As always, be sure that you have the same number of fingers at the end of the day as you had at the start.

Also, be sure to think of all the oppressed people in the world and how those who deny them liberty really need to be blown up. Or at least sent to someplace like Antarctica.

Iran Cries Wolf?

Image via Wikipedia

Apparently a standard Iranian response to problems is to grab diplomatic personal. Recently, the Iranian regime seized some Britsh Embassy staff members. While most of them were released, the British claim that two of them are still being held. In order to justify this action, the Iranian government claimed that “British foreign office had said last March that there may be riots during the elections in Iran and they said that they should warn their citizens to be careful. What do these predictions mean? And then some people in the UK Embassy, who had a hand in the disturbances, were arrested and will surely be put on trial.” (CNN)

The mere fact that the British foreign office predicted riots hardly proves that they had a hand in stirring them up. After all, there have been clear signs of discontent in Iran for quite some time. Iran will need considerably more evidence to make a case against the British.

This sort of blame game is nothing new in Iran. Iran has long claimed that Western countries have been causing trouble within its borders. This sort of claim is often effective for the simple reason that the West (mainly the US and UK) have a clear and well known history of meddling in Iran. However, the fact that the West has meddled in the past does not prove that the current situation was influenced by Western meddling. In fact, the evidence seems to be that the dissent is primarily home grown. Certainly the US and the UK would be quite happy to see the current regime in Iran weakened or replaced. But this hardly proves that they have done anything recently to bring it about.

To be fair to the Iranian government, they might sincerely believe that the UK has been up to something. After all, they have plenty of past examples to draw upon and there is considerable motive for such interference. Also, it is not unreasonable to be suspicious. But, as noted above, without evidence these accusations seem to be just the playing of the blame game. This tactic can be effective and it allows the government to claim that the dissent is not legitimate and hence can be justly quelled because it is the result of foreign troublemakers.

The Iranian government does take some risk in blaming the West. While blaming others for problems is standard tactic, false charges can damage a government’s credibility-just like in the old story of the boy who cried wolf. If the Iranian regime is accusing the UK of something it did not do and is unable to present and credible evidence, people inside and outrside of Iran will certainly begin to have doubts about the claim and it might make it harder for the government to use such claims in the future. Then again, such tactics can be effective even without any evidence. After all, people often accept such claims based on how they feel about the situation rather than because of carefully considering the evidence.

By blaming the UK, the Iranian government also runs the risk of simply refusing to accept the reality of the dissent and disagreement in the country. Brushing off the legitimate concerns and worries of its citizens as the result of foreign manipulation might provide a short term advantage, but in the long term it will create even greater problems. Such concerns are best addressed early and in a peaceful manner rather than waiting for the dissent and resentment to fester and perhaps boil over at some point. While the folks in the government and military can use force and coercion to suppress changes in society, this comes at a great price and always results in an inferior sort of country.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Report: British embassy staffers held in Iran (cnn.com)
• Iran ‘arrests UK embassy staff’ (news.bbc.co.uk)

Michael Jackson

Image via Wikipedia

I was recently asked how Michael Jackson’s death affected me. I had to be honest and report that it really had not impacted my life. I did feel bad that he had died at such a young age, but I would feel the same about the death of anyone who did not deserve to die.

Sure, I like some of his music and I thought Thriller had a rather kick ass video (especially since it had Vincent Price). However, I am not related to him I never met him in person, and never even exchanged emails with him. As such, I have no meaningful connection to him that would warrant a powerful emotional response to his untimely death.

Obviously enough, many people who did not know him personally have been devastated by his death. This is, most likely, because they attached great importance to him and he was somehow very significant in their lives. Some people can form such one way emotional bonds to someone who would not know them from Adam or Eve. In my own case, I only form strong attachments to people I actually know and expect the attachment to be reciprocated. Otherwise, the relationship would seem to be something of an illusion and a fantasy. But, perhaps that is a harsh thing to say.

Speaking of fantasy, I did see clips of Al Sharpton talking about Michael Jackson. Oddly enough, he claimed that Jackson somehow paved the way for Obama and presented Jackson as a figure of great social and political significance. While I do agree that Jackson was a talented performer, it seems inaccurate to cast him as paving the way for Obama. Jackson did not, as an adult, have to smash down racial barriers to become a star. He also did not seem to do much to fight against injustice and social ills in America. Rather, he seemed to be a rather typical (if very odd) celebrity: he spent lavishly on himself (and to buy his way out of lawsuits). Yes, he should be praised and honored for his work as a performer but it is absurd to present him as someone who changed the political and social fabric of America. Of course, I am open to evidence that he did have such an impact.

Speaking of the absurd, I also saw the clips of Joseph Jackson trying to use the publicity of his son’s death to push his latest scheme. While people do grieve in different ways, anyone with a sense of decency would realize that a son’s death should not be exploited to publicize a scheme. Not surprisingly, there has been a great deal of criticism about his actions. While I do not know the man, this latest shameless act seems consistent with what has been said about his character. If these claims are true, it certainly explains a great deal about Michael Jackson.

Finally, it seems that  both Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are vying for a place in the spotlight gleaming down upon Michael Jackson’s death. While these two men might be honestly concerned about the families, one might suspect that they are primarily drawn by the publicity. But perhaps that is unfair. Or perhaps it is dead on.

I do, of course, feel sorry for Michael Jackson’s children. They lost their father and are now in the middle of a rather wild circus. I can only imagine just how odd their lives will be.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Al Sharpton Busts A Move At Michael Jackson Memorial (PHOTOS) (huffingtonpost.com)
• Michael Jackson dies (guardian.co.uk)
• Michael Jackson Mourners At Apollo Theater: Al Sharpton Makes Statement (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• Michael Jackson albums soar to top of charts (ctv.ca)
• Michael Jackson: The Death of Peter Pan (time.com)
• Michael Jackson: tributes to the King of Pop (telegraph.co.uk)

Windows 7

Image via Wikipedia

While Windows 7 is not due to hit the shelves until late October, Microsoft is offering a deal to people who pre-order upgrades now. At this time, owners of XP and Vista can buy an upgrade to Windows 7 Home for $49 and the Professional version for $99. People who bought a Vista PC recently can (or might) qualify for a free upgrade.

While this is cheaper than the usual Microsoft pricing options, there are some problems. The first is that there is, as of yet, no special price for updating to the Ultimate Version. So, if you have Vista Ultimate on your PC, then you must either pony up the full upgrade price or settle for a downgrade to get the “special” pricing. Also, if you do downgrade from Vista Ultimate to Windows 7 Pro or Home, then you’ll need to do a clean install. An upgrade that upgrades (Home to Pro) or stays the same (Home to Home or Pro to Pro) allows (in theory) an in place upgrade. The second problem is that Microsoft’s special price for the Pro version is only about $30 less than the price of a full version of Mac OS X (and you can buy a family license for up to 5 computers for slightly more). I’m not a big fan of Microsoft’s multiple versions approach nor of the significant price differences. Apple is much nicer to its customers: one (non-server) OS and one price, with an excellent deal for multiple licenses. Of course, Apple does charge a premium for its hardware, so I suppose they can be more generous with their OS. That is one reason why I have a PC (I really can’t justify buying  a Mac Pro). The other is that most PC games are for Windows.

I don’t plan on upgrading since my desktop PC is rather old (it is running XP Pro). Instead, I’ll just replace it in December (I want to give Microsoft at least two months to crank out the inevitable patches and fixes). After all, $100 is a good chunk of the price of a mid-range PC these days. Throw in the annoyance cost of upgrading an older PC (driver problems and so on) and it makes little sense to do anything but buy a new PC (or just not upgrade at all).

I do have a Asus EEEPC that is running XP. I did almost consider spending the $50 to get the home version, but that is $50 spent now and I wouldn’t get the software for months. Plus, it works fine-so why risk screwing that up? After all, I got it to be a simple, reliable laptop for travel and work.

Now, if you have been trying the Windows 7 beta and love it, then it could be worth it to do the early purchase. Especially if your current PC is under the cruel domination of Vista.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Some Vista users say they’re getting the Ultimate shaft (news.cnet.com)
• Windows 7 may get a ‘Family Pack’ (news.cnet.com)
• Not Everyone Is Happy With Windows 7 Upgrade Prices – Especially Ultimate Users! (lockergnome.com)

Iraq: Celebrations & Explosions

Image via Wikipedia

As American troops have officially left Iraqi cities (aside from advisers, trainers, and others) the Iraqi people are celebrating a landmark  as a (mostly) sovereign nation. However, the celebrations have been marred by bomb attacks and these show that things are far from normal in the country.

Of course, the United States has not left the country. While the cities are (mostly) devoid of US forces, we still operate numerous bases in the country. As such, Iraq still has a ways to go before it can be considered a truly independent nation. Of course, the US does maintain forces in other sovereign countries (Japan, Germany, and South Korea being a few examples), so perhaps the US will be there to stay for quite some time. This can be a very good thing for the host country: the US picks up a part of their defense costs and dumps money into their economies.

While there is a long way to go in Iraq, it is important to acknowledge the progress that has been made. The country is far more stable than it was after the invasion and there are some vaguely democratic institutions now in place. While the American forces deserve an incredible amount of praise, there is still the obvious question of whether the invasion was worth it. After all, we found no WMDs, Saddam was a minor threat, and Iraq had no real ties to terrorists groups (ironically, the invasion gave terrorists the chance to get into Iraq). So, after destroying a despotic but functioning government, losing thousands of Americans, losing untold thousands of Iraqis, and pouring in billions of dollars we now see a somewhat despotic and somewhat functioning government. Hardly the shinning democracy that was promised. Of course, it could have been much worse.

My view, which has been held since the beginning of the war, was that the war was a bad idea and that we had nothing to gain from fighting it or occupying Iraq. So far, nothing has happened to change my mind about this. I am, however,  pleased that the Iraqi people and the American forces were able to finally turn around the disaster that had been created and restore a significant degree of stability. The fact that this is something that we should not have had to do takes nothing away from the honor and sacrfice of the brave men and women who have literally helped save the day. But, such a terrible price Iraq and America paid for this (Iraq most of all).

Some might see this success as a vindication of Bush. That would, however, be a mistake. To use an analogy, to say that Bush’ s plans led to success would be like saying that a frat boy who threw a party that wrecked a house had a successful plan because other people came and rebuilt the house he broke. Obama, of course, does not deserve credit for the success either. After all, the majority of the work was done before he arrived in office. The credit belongs, of course, to the folks in Iraq and the Americans that made this possible.

Of course, the future is still uncertain. Iraq is still shaky and might well fall back into despotism or fragment into violence. While we are supposed to only be there until 2011, we might well be there much longer.

Related articles by Zemanta

• U.S. move a true test for Iraqi forces (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• U.S. military: 4 GIs killed in Baghdad (msnbc.msn.com)
• Iraqis to celebrate withdrawal of US troops (telegraph.co.uk)
• Violence Erupts in Baghdad as Deadline for U.S. Troops to Withdraw From Major Cities Nears (videocafe.crooksandliars.com)

Quick Thoughts

Although the world is awash in events, I don’t have the time to write a proper blog. I started teaching my summer class today and it was great to be back to that. I did teach a while after returning from my quadriceps tendon surgery, but that was at the end of the semester. It even seemed a bit surreal-hobbling about in a brace with my leg wrapped in bandages, talking about Kant, the ethics of video games, truth tables and liberty.

So, some quick thoughts:

Michael Jackson: Cool music, creepy fellow…too bad he’s dead.
Bernie Madoff: 15o years…will they keep his corpse in prison? If so, who gets to be his cell mate?
Iran: A tiny recount that will amount to nothing. Any hanging chads?
Billy Mays: Who will sell us our Oxiclean? Is that ShamWow guy out of prison yet?
North Korea: Still crazy, after all these years.
Firefighters’ Suit: 5 to 4 ruling goes against her, but shows she’d fit in just fine…at least in the 4.
Sanford: Should call William Shatner to negotiate a cheap one way flight to Argentina.

Easy Exercise I: Time

There are two types of people: those who like to exercise and those who do not. If you have read some of my other blogs about running and my recent quadriceps tendon surgery, you know that I not only like to exercise, I am a fanatic. Well, a reformed fanatic these days-I finally accepted the fact that I’m no longer an indestructible running machine. This blog is for the folks who are not crazy like me, the folks who think they really should get around to doing some exercise, but have a hard time getting started and sticking with it.

Most people talk about getting into shape and some even try to start exercising. But, it can be tough. Exercise takes time and it is, for most people, painful and unpleasant. So, the main challenge in sticking with exercise is overcoming those two main hurdles: time and pain. I’ll focus on time in this blog.

In addition to my (reformed) fanaticism, I am also lucky to have a job that allows me to fit in exercise quite easily. While I tend to work 50-60 hours a week, only 20 of those hours are fixed (12 hours of class and 8 hours in my office). So, I can easily fit in exercise. Most people don’t have such a flexible schedule.  I’m also divorced and don’t have kids, so that also gives me a great deal of time that married folks and folks with kids lack. But what if you don’t have such a flexible schedule? What if your week is packed with things that are keeping you busy? What can you do? Here are some ideas.

Television
Television is, in many ways, the bane of the body and the mind. It is so very easy to plop down with a bag of Cheetos and watch one reality TV show after another. Not surprisingly, people who tell me that they can’t find any time to exercise often have well used remote controls that are coated with Cheeto dust. While TV is thus often seen as the enemy of fitness, you can make it your fitness friend. While there are all sorts of fitness videos that you can watch, these would obviously interfere with your usual TV patterns. What works best is using the time you already have set aside for TV as exercise time as well.

The trick is to find an exercise that you can do while watching TV. Naturally, it has to be something that allows you to watch the shows while also providing exercise. Since people sit while watching TV, the most obvious exercise is to ride an exercise bike. These bikes are fairly inexpensive (although you can blow a fortune on gym grade equipment) and provide a reasonable amount of exercise. A treadmill is also a good choice, although a good one is more expensive than a decent bike.

The downside to exercising while watching TV is that most people find it difficult to keep up their workout intensity while watching TV. However, even lower effort exercise is better than no exercise.

Work
While some jobs provide plenty of opportunity for physical activity, most do not. For example, if you work 9-5 in sales, your main activity will probably be walking around the store. While working out seriously and building up a sweat is not an option at most work places, there are opportunities for exercise. Some of these are the obvious ones: take the stairs rather than the elevator and walk around at every legitimate opportunity. Some of these are less obvious. For example, there are some limited exercises that can be done while sitting down at work. These are mostly isometric exercises. If you have a lunch hour, you can get your lunch to go and go for a walk.

Getting to and from work also provides the opportunity for exercise. If you live close enough to work, then walking or biking can be a good option. In addition to saving you money, it will also improve your health. Of course, most people live too far from work to do this and most American cities tend to be very dangerous for biking. When I moved to Tallahassee, I thought I’d be able to bike to work year round. But, after several near death experiences (we did get bike lanes a while ago, but drivers use them as extra road space and a place to dispose of glass bottles) I finally gave up. Weather is, of course, also a factor. But, if you live in a bike and pedestrian friendly place, this is an excellent option.

Play
These day, many recreational activities provide little or no exercise. For example, playing video games or watching a movie do not do much for fitness. People do, of course, set aside time for entertainment. One way to work in exercise is to replace passive activities with more active activities. For example, rather than having the kids play a skating video game while the adults watch  sports on TV, the family could go for a bike ride, play tennis, or do some other activity that is truly active. If someone has time to play video games for hours, then they have the time to exercise. Yes, there are video games that purport to provide exercise opportunities. These are, of course, better than nothing. However, they are not better than doing real activities. While I do like video games, it always struck me as really odd that people would play games that involve things like skateboarding, soccer, running, or basketball when they could go and do these activities for real-thus having fun and also getting some exercise.

Should Sanford Resign?

While Jenny Sanford is far more concerned with her sons than she is with her husband’s career, it is unfortunate that Sanford was clearly not as concerned about his family. This seems to be indicated by the fact that he elected to go off to Argentina to see the other woman over Father’s Day weekend. That is, to say the least, rather ironic. He is, to say the least, a rather bad father.

Of course, being a good father and husband are not pre-requisites for being a good politician. Many successful leaders have been poor fathers and terrible husbands. While it is tempting to say that Sanford should resign because he is a bad husband, this would be unreasonable. After all, what matters is what he does as governor. To insist that he be fired over having an affair would be like saying that a mechanic or dentist should use his job because of an affair. While having an affair is not a nice thing to do, marital fidelity is not part of such job descriptions and hence failing at it is not a professional failing.

Of course, when Sanford took off for Argentina he failed in his duty as governor. He lied to his own staff and the people of his state. He left without taking the proper steps needed to ensure that the folks in the government knew what was going on. This sort of behavior was a failure of both judgment and duty. Thus, while the affair itself is not the concern of the people of his state, the fact that he effectively abandoned his office to have an affair made it their concern.

The question now is, of course, whether or not what he did justifies asking him to resign. On one had, his actions were erratic and irresponsible. If I just vanished from my job for a few days, I would be fired. That is true in most jobs. The same should be true of his job. Also, his actions are even more serious. If I vanished for a few days, the students would at most miss an exam and a few lectures. But, if a state governor takes off and there is a crisis, then that would be rather serious.

On the other hand, people do have lapses in judgment or crazy moments. As human beings, we make mistakes and do stupid things. If these mistakes have serious consequences, then we have to be held accountable for them. Luckily for Sanford and his state, the only crisis that took place during his absence was, ironically enough, his absence. As such, he lucked out and there was only minimal damage.  Since we do not punish people based on what might have happened but rather on what did happen this bit of luck works out in his favor. To use an analogy, if someone drives drunk, they could do a lot of damage. If caught, they are punished. However, someone who drives drunk without hurting anyone is not punished as severely as when a drunk driver actually kills someone. Now, if a disaster had hit the state while he was away, then he would be in far more serious trouble.

A good case can be made that Sanford should resign. He is old and experienced enough to know better and hence youth and inexperience cannot be used as excuses. He also occupies a rather high office, which makes his actions even more serious. While the affair is not relevant to his staying governor, the fact that he decided to vanish to have his affair is relevant. By acting in an erratic and deceitful manner, he showed that putting faith in him is not a wise decision. Spitzer had the decency to resign and Sanford should follow his lead.

That said, Sanford a case could be made that he should be allowed a chance at redemption. As noted above, people make mistakes. I’ve made them and I am sure you have, too. I have managed to overcome many of these mistakes (but not all) and certainly appreciated the chances for redemption. If Sanford can overcome the damage he has done, then perhaps he should be given the chance to rebuild the trust of the people of his state. This is, of course, analogous to the situation with his wife.  Interestingly, while his own values condemn what he did, those who share his values often find the idea of redemption from sin very appealing. So, if he can show that he is redeemed (or create the appearance that he has been redeemed) then he might be able to keep his career going.

My considered view is that he screwed up in a very serious way. That his failure did not have any serious consequences for the state was largely a matter of luck. As such, he needs to redeem himself, but should be given that chance. Of course, he did not betray me-I live in Florida. As such, whether to keep him or not is a matter for the people of his state (and his wife) to decide.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Image via Wikipedia

The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is an amazing bit of doublethink. One one hand, any homosexual who is honest about his/her orientation cannot serve in the US military. On the other hand, any homosexual who is discrete about his/her orientation and says nothing, can freely serve. So, the policy essentially says that it is okay for homosexuals to serve, provided no one says anything. That is, of course, rather weird.

A friend of mine recently presented his view of the matter. His approach was rather interesting and he looked at it in terms of practicality and human sexuality. He began by noting that the military does permit men and women to serve together, but still keeps the two sexes separate in many ways. Men and women do not share the same barracks areas and they do not shower together. The reasons for this separation is rather obvious: social norms about the mixing of the sexes and also the problems that would arise if young men were showering with and bunking with young women. In other words, it is a sex thing.

Homosexuals thus short circuit the system. Since a homosexual is attracted to his/her own sex, s/he will be bunked with and shower with the sex /she prefers. Allowing this would, of course, be on par with allowing straight men and women to shower and bunk together. As my friend contended, until human beings are able to deal with their sexuality, this will always be a problem. If men and women (well, mostly men) had an adequate handle on their sexuality, then men and women could freely mix. This would also permit homosexuals to be mixed in as well-after all, if men and women can be naked in the showers with each other with no problem, then homosexuals would be fine as well.

Sex is, of course, the problem. As noted above, the military handles the sex thing between men and women by keeping the two sexes separated in various ways. Thus suggests one rather awkward and jury rigged approach to the problem: gay soldiers could be separated out from the straight soldiers in the same sort of way. For example, there would be straight male showers and barracks, straight female showers and barracks, gay male showers and barracks, and gay female barracks and showers.  Of course, there are many problems with this approach. One obvious problem is that while the men who like women will be separated from the women who like men and the men who like men will be with the men (likewise for the women who like women). Naturally, putting the gay women with the straight men and the gay men with the straight women would not work well.

My own view is this. Since the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy went into effect, we know that a significant number of homosexuals have served in the military-mainly because some of them did tell. The main concern that people have expressed about allowing gays in the military is that doing so will create all sorts of dire problems. However, these problems do not seem to have ever manifested themselves. As such, homosexuals do not seem to be any more problematic than heterosexuals (and there have been plenty of problems between heterosexual males and females in the military). Thus, there seems to be little compelling reason to keep up the weird policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Of course, some people would argue that if gay soldiers told, then this would cause all sorts of dire problems. Many of these arguments are, of course, virtually identical to the arguments given against racially integrating the armed forces. Integration worked out well and there seems to be no reason why allowing gays to serve openly would be beyond the ability of the military to handle. After all, our soldiers are professionals and citizens of a democracy that endorses equal rights for all.

For the cautious, we could always have some gays agree to come out and serve openly. Then we could watch for any dire consequences. If these do not arise, then more people can gradually come out of the closet. If that continues to be fine, then the process can be stepped up. Folks who are against gays being in the military should be fine with this approach. After all, this would give them the chance to have solid empirical evidence for their views. The only reason to be against such a test would be the fear that their views are actually unfounded and are mere prejudice-rather than being legitimate concerns about how gays would harm the military.