Today on Blogcritics
Home » Satire: Spokespersons Say Military Not Ready for Diversity

Satire: Spokespersons Say Military Not Ready for Diversity

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Dismissing pleas of retired military generals and admirals to repeal the incomplete sentence that is law, “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” gainfully employed military spokespersons remain opposed to gays serving openly in the military, citing “sexual tension” and “disruptions to good order, morale, discipline and unit cohesion.”

Speaking on condition of anonymity, Elaine O’Honey of the Center for Military Readiness and Army Sergeant Major Brian Cojones pointed to history’s precedents, saying the introduction of non-whites and women into the military has already chiseled away enough at our national pride and mission readiness, and that allowing gays would effectively remove the cornerstone of the great institution that is the United States’ military.

In an interview that quite possibly ended in violence, Brian became visibly agitated when he was told gays already serve — even though they’re not allowed to do so openly without threat of discharge.

Brian: “That is a lie. Saruman the White has ever been our heterosexual friend and ally.”

Interviewer: What?

Brian: Forget it. Listen, it’s an issue of how much bathroom counter space the military can reasonably afford every service member and still maintain good order, morale, discipline, and unit cohesion. We’ve already used up too much counter space letting in blacks and women. It’s a fact that whites use sunscreen and blacks use lotion. That’s twice as much space for no good reason. It’s a fact that women also use moisturizer and makeup remover. There went the rest of the available space. Now gays? They spend more money on beauty supplies than men and women combined.

Interviewer: Gays are men and women.

Brian: Whatever. Where are we supposed to put all that product?

Interviewer: Is counter space really an issue in combat?

Elaine: If I may, what Brian is trying to say is that we’ve already compromised our mission readiness enough by allowing serious deviations in our recruit criteria. Black soldiers have been making fun of the way white soldiers dance for years. Latinos haven’t helped matters. By the time they get into battle, the rhythm of our core soldiery is off kilter.

And as a woman, I can tell you it is unreasonable to expect men to control themselves around us, as evidenced by the number of times our guys have been hauled to the brig for “conduct unbecoming.”

Interviewer: But isn’t sexual assault a crime of hate and anger rather than behavior motivated by sexual urges?

Elaine: No.

Interviewer: So you’re saying that because you think men can’t control themselves around women, they should not also be expected to control themselves around gay men?
Elaine: Or gay women. And gays cannot control themselves around anyone at all. Only straight women can control themselves.

Interviewer: So Brian, I have a report here that 104 retired military generals and admirals have called for an end to the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. What is your response?

Brian:
Do the math. One hundred and four men divided by two is fifty-two couples who, after being rightly discharged from the military, found some downtime between protests of Proposition Eight to fire off a letter.

Interviewer: They weren’t discharged. They’re retired.

Brian:
Exactly. Everyone knows that once you retire from the military, you move to the bottom of every list, including the list of people whose opinions we give a crap about.

Interviewer: But how is this evidence that any of the retired brass are gay?

Brian:
You know what ‘brass’ is? Something gays use in their redecorating projects. Enough said.

Interviewer: So, in summary, would both of you say your position is that we should not only ban gay personnel, but also all non-white, non-male persons from the military?

Brian: I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said of gays in the military, “There is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity."

Interviewer: He was talking about slavery.

Brian: You mean ‘gayvery’.

And that’s when the interview quite possibly ended in violence.

Powered by

About Diana Hartman

Diana is a USMC (ret.) spouse, mother of three and a Wichita, Kansas native. She is back in the United States after 10 years in Germany. She is a contributing author to Holiday Writes. She hates liver & motivational speakers. She loves science & naps.
  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Funny how every nation in NATO allows gays in the military with no problem…except for Turkey and America. Even Israel does, too!

    For anyone who thinks gays can’t serve in the military and fight just as well as anyone else, I recommend reading ‘Xenophon’. I really didn’t expect what I found….

  • Cannonshop

    Glenn, while dumping the “No Gays” rule does make sense, using the collected forces of continental NATO as an example is kind of like pointing to Srebenice as an example of European “Peacekeeping Skill”.

    The U.S. military tends to emulate Successful doctrines and methods. Pointing to European militaries for your example is counter-productive unless you remove all examples with the exception of Great Britain-whose forces are being reduced to a non-expeditionary posture under the current administration.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    All true, Cannon, but the incompetence and spinelessness of the Europeans has nothing to do with the mixed sexual orientation of their soldiers.

    Dave

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    What was inexcusable was that gays in the military began concentrating on the essential positions like field translators and battlefield analyse and though their commanders objected to their being discharged, they were anyway causing shortages, and possibly casualties; especially with the sudden lack of translators.

    Take a look at a well trained heterosexual male soldier with three kids and try to say this out loud with a straight face…

    “Yes, I can see him as a defenseless virgin while some fag has his way with him.”

  • Cannonshop

    #4 Jet, you owe me a keyboard, and a cup of coffee, and possibly my right lung for that…

    But, I’ll point something out to you just the same (and to keep the insanity going) the justification they gave us had to do with the pervasiveness of homophobia in the eighties and nineties, and the danger an openly gay was feared to be in in barracks-particularly during basic-training.

    This probably was the stupidest justification imaginable, but it was good enough for TRADOC during the debates leading up to the Clinton Era’s “Don’t ask-don’t Tell” half-ass compromise.

    The other problem is one that is going to have to be solved at the level of Congress-only Congress can change the UCMJ to permit gays to be sexually active. WHy? because “Sodomy” is a five-year-in-prison offense, and is defined so broadly that a guy getting a blowjob from his wife can be charged. By definition, a sexually active gay man is performing a Felony under military jurisdiction.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Performing a fel…ony, Cannon?

    Freudian slip there?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Sorry about the other lung.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Kinda illustrates the ridiculousness(sic) of the situation doesn’t it?

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Actually the male ego has completely screwed with what comes naturally for some time. In most species the male is more beautiful than the female, examples: Most birds; cardinals, peacocks, bluejays, fish; swordtails guppies. Animals like the lion etc.

    Only humans consider females more beautiful than males and they’re completely wrong.

    Honestly, the hetrosexual male human flatly refuses to admit it, but they’re afraid/no make that terrified, of becoming an admired/and or sexually harrased sex object in the way that they’ve done with women!

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    There’s a reason why Lassie was played by a male collie every appearance he/she made, see my previous comment, and I forgot to mention our national symbol the Bald Eagle.

    In nature the male is over the top beautiful to attract a mate, while the female is plain so she can blend into the backround why tending her young.

    It’s nature…
    except for humans

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Re 3/4, My pleasure Cannon… well; maybe I should rephrase that…

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    “Only humans consider females more beautiful than males and they’re completely wrong.”

    No idea what your point is here. Humans are different in lots of ways from every other species. Cats, contrary to many websites’ claims, do not write on the Internet in poor grammar.

    “In most species the male is more beautiful than the female”

    In the eyes of humans, sure, they might be subjectively “prettier.” And to ducks, humans with webbed feet might be more attractive. So what?

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    You know what, I’m going to chuckle at that and leave it alone… you’re just not worth it any more.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    In some species (birds of paradise, moose) the male is more extravagantly decked out than the female (‘pretty’ is an anthropocentric term). In a few (some spiders, for example) it’s the opposite. In others (magpies, humans), the two sexes look about the same. There are good evolutionary/environmental reasons for all of these.

    It basically comes down to what you have to do to get to breed. Male birds of paradise have such exotic plumage because it helps them demonstrate their virility to a prospective mate. Male sealions do not, but use their size and weight to demonstrate their fitness.

    Male black widow spiders are smaller and drabber than the females because the object is to get in, deposit your sperm and get out again without being detected and eaten.

    Humans look about the same because back in primeval Africa the prime objective for poor defenseless homo erectus was to make babies as fast as possible before the leopard got you. Fancy decoration would have been both superfluous and dangerous.

    It’s not nature that causes modern human females to grow their hair long, don bright clothes and wear make-up – it’s culture.

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    ……well I guess that’s another way of putting it… forgive the pun

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    C-shop –

    Glenn, while dumping the “No Gays” rule does make sense, using the collected forces of continental NATO as an example is kind of like pointing to Srebenice as an example of European “Peacekeeping Skill”.

    So Germany’s military is sub-par? Switzerland’s? What about Israel’s? And England’s military had significantly less problem in Iraq than did ours – true, they did have a less problematic area…but they were certainly more successful at quelling the violence than we were.

    They’re not part of NATO, but they have no problem with gays in the military.

  • Clavos

    Male black widow spiders are smaller and drabber than the females because the object is to get in, deposit your sperm and get out again without being detected and eaten.

    Sorta like some human relationships…

  • Clavos

    It’s not nature that causes modern human females to grow their hair long, don bright clothes and wear make-up – it’s culture.

    True, but nature has also given them certain physical characteristics that, in addition to their utilitarian raison d’etre, are also signals to the libidinal part of male brains. e.g.: breasts, hips and buttocks that are prominent, indicate a probable good candidate for mating.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    What about Israel’s? They’re not part of NATO, but they have no problem with gays in the military.

    Very true. In the Israeli army it doesn’t matter if your are gay or not. The main issues are, can you shoot straight, and are you willing to kick Jews out of their homes at your commander’s orders (hint, hint – developing story in pending).

  • Cannonshop

    #9 Jet, I know guys who actively try to achieve what you’re saying hetero males are terrified of. Where do you think things like:

    Cologne
    sleeveless tee shirts
    Open neck shirts
    certain brands of $300+ leather pants
    Silk shirts
    Corvettes/Camaros/Lotus (or is the plural “Lotii”?) and other goofy sports-cars,
    expensive haircuts
    Tooth caps
    hair plugs
    Hair Club for Men
    Various brands and types of face-shaving equipment
    Scented soaps
    ummmm…Gym Memberships.

    Lots of stuff like that. Old Spice? Body-sprays?

    Most of this shit sells because it has an image of attracting females and making them want to mate. The most expensive stuff just off the list I came up with here? is (censored) useless.

    Guys go to extra-ordinary lengths to attract Females (or, if they’re gay, other males-a gay friend once told me he only had a gym membership because it was a great place to scope for pickups. Made sense to me-I know “I” liked ogling gals at the gym when I was single…)

    I think most single (and many Married) men agree-it’s better to be treated as a sex object than to be treated like an Automatic Teller Machine/credit-card transport.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Um, C-Shop –

    Care to comment yet on how wussy the German, Swiss, and Israeli gay-inclusive militaries are?

  • Cannonshop

    Why, Glenn? The Swiss and the Israelis are pretty good guys. The Germans? mmmmnotsomuch. They used to be, but they’ve been “Eurofied”, as shown in the former Yugoslavia conflict. It’s got NOTHING to do with including gays, it’s got EVERYTHING to do with quality of units. Britain and Israel both allow gays, but they’re both competent and successful forces-and if you’re talking about letting Gays in, they’re GREAT examples of why you should.

    But…

    If you’re bringing up the Bundeswehr, better not mention how well they’ve done in the few times they’ve deployed since 1945, or you’ll have a negative argument. Same goes for Belgium and Denmark, and France.

    In MY opinion, Glenn, the sections in the UCMJ that would throw gays in for…well, for ‘acting gay’ is stupid, outmoded, outdated, and should be removed. Lots of good guys get flushed by getting caught, and it’s bad for the Services when they lose good men.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Thank you, C-shop

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    I thought those tight white pants with the bell bottoms in the navy were becuuse of gays in the military, if they go, what happens to their sense of style?

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Jet!

    HEY! NOT cool,dude! I RESENT that! C’mere, wog, and lemme introduce you to the proper use of a brine-soaked, salt-encrusted, rat-tailed shillelagh!

    Yeah, the bell-bottoms DO look gay…but that’s the price we enlisted unwillingly have to pay to abide by tradition. Blame the English – we got it from them, and you know THEIR sense of style. Come to think of it, I’ve seen lots of similarities between the English and Japanese when it comes to strange styles and tolerance of eccentricities…go figure.

    But if you want a good laugh, keep a weather eye out for sailors in cracker-jacks (that’s the unofficial name – the ‘official’ one is “dress whites”) and you’ll eventually see someone who wasn’t paying attention and is wearing bright red underwear. But sometimes that isn’t by accident….

  • http://jetspolitics.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Oh great, now I’ve got this whole village people thing going in my head, thanks a lot…

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Young man, there’s no need to feel down. You started it, Jet!