At the last Republican debate, moderator Wolf Blitzer asked the slices of white bread assembled on stage for a show of hands: Who would be in favor of openly gay soldiers serving in the U.S. military? Not one hand went up.
So much for compassionate conservatives.
What is it with conservative Republicans and gays? I suppose you could say their reaction is based on fear, ignorance, dat ol’ time religion and their desperate attempts to keep their political careers intact. Whatever their reasoning, these gung-ho support the troops guys are actually hurting the military.
Since the somewhat addled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” mandate was passed in ’93, more than 58 Arabic linguists have been given the old heave-ho by the government. 11,000 more of our military, many in high-skill, critical jobs have also been told “don’t let the beaded curtains hit you on the way out.”
Is it any wonder that our Armed Services are lowering admittance standards just to get boots on the ground? I mean, we’re deep-sixing a lot of really smart people because of their sexual orientation. Who needs a soldier who can speak one of the Arabic tongues when we can scoop up a couple of hundred new recruits who speak Pig Latin or are good at gang signals?
How absurd is all this? Professional homophobe Paul Cameron, on The Daily Show, told Jason Jones: “Guys don’t want to think about other guys, other fellas, ogling them in the shower or whatever.”
Pushing that train of logic further, Jones replied: “I know I’d rather die in a terrorist attack than suffer through an uncomfortable shower with a gay.”
Not quite getting the sarcasm, Cameron replied: “Yes.”
Excuse me while I allow my head to explode.
This somewhat skewered view of the gay population actually
made it into the Pentagon, which, back in ’94 and, again, in 2001,
wanted to develop a “gay bomb.” Edward Hammond, of Berkeley’s Sunshine
Project discovered through a Freedom of Information Act request, that
the Air Force’s Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio asked for $7.5
million dollars to develop this non-lethal but too-sexy-for-its-shell
weapon. Said a report: “One distasteful but completely non-lethal
example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also
caused homosexual behavior.”
Said Hammond: “The Ohio Air Force lab proposed that a bomb be developed
that contained a chemical that would cause enemy soldiers to become
gay, and to have their units break down because all their soldiers
became irresistibly attractive to one another.
“The notion was that a chemical that would probably be pleasant in the
human body in low quantities could be identified, and by virtue of
either breathing or having their skin exposed to this chemical, the
notion was that soldiers would become gay.”
And, so, the battlefield would collapse into chaos, with manly man love
and hot girl on girl action stretching for miles. (Or, as Rick Santorum
has worried, it might even sink to “man on dog” action. “Lassie?
Where’s Timmy? Oh, never mind. Sorry, girl. It’s that danged Air Force
gas.”)
Clearly, our government’s best minds are still reading Bazooka Joe comics and laughing out loud at the word “pee-pee.”
Just as clearly, they just KNOW that gays are horny 24/7 and will even
go after glazed doughnuts if desperate enough while we heteros prefer
watching re-runs of “Saved By the Bell.”
Among the other mind-numbing non-lethal weapons proposed by the shallow end of our governmental talent pool?
Attack bees! After the U.S. hides numerous beehives in the combat area,
enemy troops would be sprayed with bee pheromones. The bees would be
attracted to the smell and envelope the enemy. Talk about a sting
operation.
Yet another similar plan would attract voracious rats. I’m assuming the
enemy troops would be covered with garbage shipped in from Staten
Island.
Another bomb would cause “severe and lasting halitosis.” While that
wouldn’t exactly stop the enemy troops in their tracks, it would
curtail their dating.
Probably the best from these brightest was the “Who? Me?” bomb
developed, on and off, since 1945. Based on the old adage “He who smelt
it, dealt it,” it would simulate mass flatulence in the enemy ranks.
(Operation: Whoopee Cushion.) The government put the kibosh on this one
because “people in many areas of the world do not find fecal odor
offensive, since they smell it on a regular basis.” In short, this bomb
wouldn’t work in D.C.
To my gay bretheren out there, it’s obvious that there’s no way you’re
going to sway these bigots morally, spiritually or intellectually. All
you can do is make them seem more primitive than they already do
themselves.
I have a suggestion. It’s risky, though. From this day forward may all
gay people, organizations and newspapers banish the word “gay” from
their lexicon. Done. Finito. After nearly forty years, it’s clear that
the adjective just isn’t working. Replace “gay” with “happy” and watch
‘em all squirm.
What stalwart, thrice-divorced Republican politician is going to come out against a bill allowing “happy marriages?”
What warmonger will deny “openly happy” soldiers the right to serve our country?
Plus, think of the fun at birthday time when all the right-wingers are
forced to sing “Happy Birthday” to their kids or grandkids? Sure, they
could change the words to something along the lines of “A very splendid
birthday to you.” But, that would sound so…gay.
Same deal with the word “queer.” One of its synonyms is “remarkable.”
Use it instead. See the pained expressions of the pick-up truck laden
as they yell: “Hey, you guys look remarkable!” Or “I’m not going into
that remarkable bar.”
Very soon, the very small minds of the very large mouthed will wither
to chick pea status, their owners never quite understanding why their
words no longer pack any punch.
Writings 
At the last Republican debate, moderator Wolf Blitzer asked the slices of white bread assembled on stage for a show of hands: Who would be in favor of openly gay soldiers serving in the U.S. military? Not one hand went up.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
