Although Mr. Richard Cheney, former Vice President of the United States of America in the time of "W." was characterized as a "hard-liner" on Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan and Iran), should he be considered a tough "man's man?" Does tough-talking backed by the muscle and blood of several hundred thousand soldiers constitute the essence of manliness? Could there be any possibility that a snarling, fang-baring dog wasn't actually up to a flesh-and-blood fight?
Mr. Cheney was known to hunt with other macho men, such as Justice Scalia and various "good old boys." The fact that he shot one of the latter "accidentally" was seen as further evidence of manliness. You got the feeling that he would have been a good soldier in places like 'Nam.
Some have wondered, however, if Richard Cheney might be psycotic. In wartime such a personality could be overlooked.
These thoughts welled up in my mind as I listened to one of the commentators on my traffic radio station of choice. The commentator was trying to make a favorable statement in regard to homosexual openness among applicable military men. As the public had recently been reassured on this issue by General Mullen, who stated that his entire military career had been served amid homosexual soldiers, a little reenforecement might serve to end this discussion once and for all. Presumably, this was the impel for the radio commentator to embark on the subject of "gays" in the military. [Leftist avoid the term "homosexual" as much as possible, since this term was thought to generate "rawer" images of this "different kind of love."]
Was it "tongue-in-cheek" that caused this commentator to use Richard Cheney as the final nail in the coffin of military homophobia? I can't say.
After setting the matter skillfully by stressing signature examples of Mr. Cheney's toughness (typically, something like bomb them, torture them, occupy their country, enslave them, etc.), this commentator then revealed that Richard Cheney had pronounce open gayness in the military compatible with a strong, disciplined group of fighting men (or women). This was an issue that was, in effect, a non-issue to the former vice president.
If this most macho of high executive officials saw no problem with open homosexuality in the military services, so long as it accorded well with military procedure and discipline, why should the lesser breeds of American citizens? This was the "thought for the day" offered by this clever commentator.
What he did not relate to his listeners was that Richard Cheney's wife wrote "potboiler" novels using a pen-name. They have been described as rather torrid descriptions of lesbian romances. Nor did this commentator mention that Mr. Cheney is the father of a lesbian woman, who has taken a woman to bride/groom. This couple have adopted a child - possibly two.
Personally, I believe that this sort of background influenced the former vice president in his pronouncement on gays in the military more than any well-considered argument.
Mr. Cheney was known to hunt with other macho men, such as Justice Scalia and various "good old boys." The fact that he shot one of the latter "accidentally" was seen as further evidence of manliness. You got the feeling that he would have been a good soldier in places like 'Nam.
Some have wondered, however, if Richard Cheney might be psycotic. In wartime such a personality could be overlooked.
These thoughts welled up in my mind as I listened to one of the commentators on my traffic radio station of choice. The commentator was trying to make a favorable statement in regard to homosexual openness among applicable military men. As the public had recently been reassured on this issue by General Mullen, who stated that his entire military career had been served amid homosexual soldiers, a little reenforecement might serve to end this discussion once and for all. Presumably, this was the impel for the radio commentator to embark on the subject of "gays" in the military. [Leftist avoid the term "homosexual" as much as possible, since this term was thought to generate "rawer" images of this "different kind of love."]
Was it "tongue-in-cheek" that caused this commentator to use Richard Cheney as the final nail in the coffin of military homophobia? I can't say.
After setting the matter skillfully by stressing signature examples of Mr. Cheney's toughness (typically, something like bomb them, torture them, occupy their country, enslave them, etc.), this commentator then revealed that Richard Cheney had pronounce open gayness in the military compatible with a strong, disciplined group of fighting men (or women). This was an issue that was, in effect, a non-issue to the former vice president.
If this most macho of high executive officials saw no problem with open homosexuality in the military services, so long as it accorded well with military procedure and discipline, why should the lesser breeds of American citizens? This was the "thought for the day" offered by this clever commentator.
What he did not relate to his listeners was that Richard Cheney's wife wrote "potboiler" novels using a pen-name. They have been described as rather torrid descriptions of lesbian romances. Nor did this commentator mention that Mr. Cheney is the father of a lesbian woman, who has taken a woman to bride/groom. This couple have adopted a child - possibly two.
Personally, I believe that this sort of background influenced the former vice president in his pronouncement on gays in the military more than any well-considered argument.
