Wednesday, September 21, 2011


What is the definition of usery? 
  Oh, I know, you literalists and lawyers out there will tell me that I'm misspelling the word, that in definition it doesn't even apply here.  But, that word seems to fit for me.
  In life we have trade-offs.  For instance; at my work, I have the expectation that folks will come in to do good quality work and for that I will ensure the best environment I am able to manage.  In the end, we receive a paycheck and we all go home to put the beans on the table. 
  In that above example, I don't care if they are white, black, hispanic, oriental, martian, vulcan, or even heterosexual.  (The government requires a green card for all martians.)  All I ask: be on time, do good work, and treat your fellow worker with humor and respect.  Because, you see, we are making widgets, little plastic pieces of whatever.  The very things that are outside of their necessary attributes for making widgets - which don't play a part in doing their job - are of no concern to me.
  If I were to begin demanding a portion of their lives having little to do with the job be an assumption, there-in making their employment conditional upon continuing that assumption, I'd be a fool.  All I care about is that they show on time, do good quality work, treat their fellow workers with respect.  Well, I try not to be a fool ... and I'm occasionally successful.
  So, what is DADT?  It is that very thing that would make me a fool.  It says that my worker, who shows up on time, does good quality work, respects his coworkers, is only acceptable if I can maintain the assumption that some tertiary aspect is as all should be.  It says that his work and he are of no value to me outside the continuity of that assumption, which has nothing to do with the job.
 People say that the gay and the straight can't share a living space.  That the gay will hit on the straight, that the straight will beat up the gay, that it will be a morale problem.  But, guess what?  The story was the similar about allowing black and white soldiers to serve together.  Seems to be a non issue, now.
  People say that we need our military to be a shining example of the country as it goes into the battle zone and stands a sentinel and a monument to the country.  And yet, they have no idea that what is really shown is a willingness to devalue life, contribution, excellence, loyalty and strength for an image that is unreal.
  It is my understanding that the concept of DADT has ended.  At the moment, I'd like to hold that out as a hope and be happy.  I know little of it as I'm not in the military nor ever have been the citizen soldier.  But, I sure hope it is a good sign for a country far too willing to judge and hold a grudge. 


Scottie said...

Hello Randy. Love the post you made. Now I want to have a country where Ron and mine 21 year relationship can be officially recognized and celebrated, where our union is treated as honorably as any ones. Where all people are equal and are citizens, no, family together.

Hugs, Scottie

randy said...

Hi Scottie;
I have no right to these words, being fresh to the field, but I recall the frustration of blacks in their pull towards equality. I recall people using the words "have patience" and "it's getting better". But, the simple fact of the matter, it shouldn't need to get better and there certainly should be no need for patience.
We claim to be the country of freedom and of bravery. And yet, we are afraid to allow our citizens to be free.
I don't understand these things. It seems so obvious.
Hugs my friend;