Friday, November 30, 2007

Keith Karr vs The Little People

There are existant cosmic parallels in this event. I shall explain.

Was Mr. Keith Kerr in fact a Brigadier General? According to Ericka Anderson's article:

According to Col. Bill Campenni (USAF, ret), one of President Bush’s squadron mates in the Texas Air National Guard, there is no such thing as the California National Reserve of which Kerr claimed to be a former member.

Campenni told HUMAN EVENTS that Kerr is not even a retired Army General.

“He retired as a California Army National Guard colonel,” said Campenni. “It is common at Guard retirement ceremonies to give an honorary promotion to colonels to the STATE rank of Brigadier General…[but] it has no meaning other than a fancy certificate for the wall and use of the title at local Guard functions.”

Campenni said the rank of general is not federally recognized and the title can not be used or the rank worn outside the state.

So, Colonel Kerr was given an organization title of certificate at his retirement. And Colonel Kerr might have devised an abbreviated form of address in re the "California National Reserves".

I thank him for his service to our country.

The military guys and gals KNOW who is gay and who is not. This is as true today as it was in my Dad's time (WWII, Korea). It's never been some huge secret.

There are ton of rules in place regarding male/female sexing in the military. Ya hear anyone complaining? Run afoul of those regulations, and those penalties are steep.

Don't ask/Don't tell is a regulation, too. Here's the deal, some straights also engage in oral sex and buggery. So, there's no regulations specifically against those (unless it is non-consensual, of course). So how to write regulations concerning the gay world, so that sex does not become a free for all, a priority over the work at hand in the military.

Col Kerr's question of the GOP Candidates at the CNN YouTube debate, made him look like a fool:

“why do you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians?”

His certificate title (Brigadier General) coupled with this question hurts more than supports gays and lesbians in the military, and brings up the idea that during his entire career in the military, he never noticed straights alongside him. Were straights invisible to him? Or was he always and only in a "gay only" structure within the military. Were gays given preference in promotions so they could all be together?

Assured Col Kerr had to have even remotely been aware that male/female sexing was an intermittent problem regularly occurring and safely dealt with and because of existing regulations. Assuredly, one would think, he'd heard through grapevines of who got pole-axed because she was caught diddling so-and-so's wife or husband, maybe both at the same time?

One would think, and I assuredly do, that Col Kerr's question posits that during his career NO ONE outside the gay community and gay mil KNEW he was gay. Are these the professional men and women in the military he's referring to in his question? Did he resent having to keep his lip zipped?

Shwang, Col Kerr! Don't Ask/Don't Tell is the exact umbrella over straights in the Military. The only time anyone is punished for "non-regulation", uh, sex among the "little people" (ye know.. the lives of those you don't pay much attention to) IS because someone talks about it. Tells someone else, and the telephone lines of gossip and distraction from work..... GROWS. Someone has to tell or complain for it to become an issue within the military structure.

Same goes for the gay military community.

And here you are being treated the same, and instead make it clear that you are not like those "little people" who've known who and what you were and were professional, anyway. They knew the rules and understood, even if you were so caught up in worrying someone would find out.

The homophobia is in your own eyes.

Anyone, anywhere sexing "unregulations-wise) in the military carries the same strain of isolation and worry that you have. And they've worked just as hard to keep it "quiet" as YOU have, and to cover their tracks. And they have served honorably looking over the shoulders to see who might be watching or tracking their "activities" -- just like you have.

Now to the feminists: As my military retired dad would say: "Crimey, if the military had wanted you to have a family, they G**D*** would have issued you one! Stop that B*tchin'!"

I've been around straight/gay military all my life. All of it. Never have served, myself, tho.

Let me go back to Col Kerr's abusive ("when did you stop beating your wife") question, one last time:

“why [do] you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians?”

Yes, the majority of the military is straight. These are the invisible professionals who served for, under, alongside, above the gay Mr. Kerr. And these are the same invisible professionals given absolute respect by Republicans but not Democrats.

Is it possible, Col Kerr, your gayness was far important to you than it was to anyone else?

And why do you, Col Kerr, think that your sexual preference and selection behavior permits you to treat others with such disdain and derision?

Could it have been that retirement certificate-elevation to Brigadier General which gave you such airs?

No comments: