I know this is what he and a lot of others want to think, but for most of his examples, just like his example of stupidity vs learning disability, there are actual and reasonable grounds for the name changes. PTSD vs shell-shocked, for example, isn't a case of trying to be 'less offensive' - shell shock was an informal term coined by soldiers to describe a range of experiences and symptoms, and combat stress syndrome, PTSD, etc, were developed by professionals who wanted to make an actual diagnosis (to me, shell shock sounds a lot less harmful than PTSD, because I'm not 80 years old). It's a case of people with more expertise and knowledge than Carlin trying to create concepts that are actually useful. You could call it 'murder crazy' if you want to be 'raw' but that doesn't get us anywhere. This is the problem with Carlin's thesis - he brings in terms that he doesn't understand, describing situations that don't affect him directly, and tries to cram it into some 'old white man post-relevance get off my lawn syndrome' (OWMPGOMLS).

I know that a lot of people agree with what they see as his underlying point. I'm just saying that his examples here don't support that point.

I don't understand what the republicans are so afraid of. Gays and lesbians are in the military. Nothing will change if this bill is passed, other than a change in civil liberties. Gays in the military will not become open in the military on any noticeable scale. Hell, it's not o.k for a soldier who has been in COMBAT to say that his experiences troubled him for fear that it would make him appear weak. When someone does admit combat stress he would be ostracized and cast out as being a fag; That is, when I served. If a homosexual admitted to being such, he/she would be verbally berated by peers and leaders, downgraded in their duties and their lives would be a living hell. Any gay or lesbian thinking about signing up should ask their recruter how they should handle it. They would tell them to never mention it again or risk total alienation. Bottom line, nothing will really change. I do agree with the bill. I think that it sets a precedent that they are equal and should not be descriminated against, especially since being gay or lesbian will not effect their performance despite common stereotypes. I have never seen a feminine male or female in the service. It takes a certain attitude to be willing to do what they do. Wow, that was the first almost positive thing Iv'e said on this site in a while. fells kind of good not to hate everything.

General Patton would famously beat up soldiers who claimed combat stress...