Empty homes and the homeless

I have a comic somewhere, a Wizard of Id in which the King is sitting on his throne.  Someone walks up and says "Do something about the homeless".  Second panel, another person says "Do something about all these empty buildings".  Third panel, the King thinks "They make it sound so easy."

The truth of that comic resonates with me.  I think it could be that easy.  Whether a private individual did it, or a corporation, or even the meddlesome government.  If a building sits empty why can we not give it - yes, GIVE IT - to the homeless.  They can live in it and therefore no longer be homeless.  If it is not up to code, they can be given funds and/or time to fix it.  Or - here's a radical thought - the codes can be relaxed.  Our ancestors lived without running water or electricity.  Even in an era where "Welfare Apartments" have dishwashers and central air, it is possible that someone might find a Little House on The Prairie preferable to a Van Down By the River.

If it is a larger structure, say an abandoned factory, it could be made over into apartments.  Or even a tent city with a roof.  Yes, there are shelters, but I've been told that sleeping under a bush in the park is safer than a shelter.  By someone who was homeless.

If the buildings are beyond help, they should be torn down.  Plain and simple.  Empty buildings are unsafe and ugly.  Stop arresting the homeless who squat in them.  Give them the place, help them fix it up, and everyone's happy.  Well, everyone but God Money.  God Money can go take a flying leap.

The Pledge of Allegiance

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.  

This was the original Pledge of Allegiance.  It wasn't until later that the word "to" was put in front of "the republic".  Even later, they changed "my flag" to "the flag of the United States of America".  Even after that, the much discussed "under God" was added. Some claim that adding "under God" made it a prayer, and therefore a violation of Separation of Church and State.  Now that you've had a history lesson, let's move on.

I am an agnostic-bordering-on-pagan.  I do not engage in the blind patriotism or mindless conformity implied by the Pledge.  But I also do not take issue with kids saying it every morning in school.  They have no clue what a pledge really means.  We aren't cognizant of the ramifications at that age, so the recitation of a bunch of words means nothing.  It holds no sway over them and no one - including any reasonable god - is going to hold them to it.

Saying the Pledge will not make him an American Patriot if he goes home to adults who want to overthrow the Commie Kenyan.  Reciting "Under God" will not make him a worshiper of anything he doesn't see worshiped by those he respects and loves.  You want your kid to be a patriot and worship a god?  Practice what you preach.  Talk to him - kids are not stupid. 

"But he's just a child.  He can't understand."  You just proved my point. 

Respecting the Dead

I find it very strange that, given my interest in history and genealogy, I don't hold a graveyard in the same high regard others do.  Or maybe I should say a grave.  Yesterday my sister and I drove past a cemetery where a friend was buried and she asked if I wanted to stop.  I said no and she told me how she stops whenever she is in the area to see him.

I get that she doesn't mean that literally.  I, too, have stopped to see my loved ones that way.  And I love a cemetery.  I think of cemeteries as tangible history.  I could wander one for hours, even if none of my people were buried there.  But I do things others consider disrespectful.  I walk across the graves and sit on the headstones - when I'm dead, you may feel free to do the same to mine.  I've been given grief for taking a shortcut through a graveyard instead of driving on 'real' roads.  

What I do see disrespect in is the folks who 'walk' their dogs in the graveyard.  The ones who take things off the graves - flowers, trinkets, whatever.  The difference is simple - these things are important to someone.  To steal from someone or poop on what is important to them is blatant disrespect.  You know perfectly well you shouldn't do it and you also know you'd be angry if someone did it to you.

I suppose that's the difference. I suppose it all goes back to the Golden Rule.

Anyway, it is odd.  I love a graveyard, the older the better.  But I also don't understand the problem when a cemetery is abandoned.  Clearly, whoever loved these folks has moved on.  The cemetery has outlived its purpose - to comfort the living.

Anyway, it is odd to love history and genealogy, yet not to buy the idea that a graveyard is sacred ground.  Each individual grave is sacred ground to someone, yes, but that's an entirely different matter.

Religious Dilettantes?

From "The Ancient Cliff Dwellers of Mesa Verde" by Caroline Arnold: "Religion was part of the everyday experience and influenced all aspects of Anasazi life." 

That line struck me as funny.  A religion is a system of beliefs, after all, and should influence all aspects of your life and be a part of your everyday experience. If it doesn't and isn't, it's not really a religion.  Not yours, anyway.   

Religion in this sense is not defined by where or how you worship, by the name you call your god, or even by the label you allow society to put on you.  I know lots of "Christians" who fornicate and see no sin in it. "Catholics" who use birth control despite the Church's prohibition.  "Mormons" who drink coffee or soda pop.   Your true religion is not inside a building or a book or some other person.  If you think it's a sin and you still do it, that is the true hypocrisy.  You will answer for it, to yourself if to no one else.  

You rise in the morning and go about your day. Certain ideals are more important than others.  There are things you feel you must do and things you feel you must not do. That is your true religion, no matter what label you or society puts on you.  And it does influence all aspects of your life and is a part of your everyday experience.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I must go outside and hug a tree.  

Are Stereotypes really that bad?

Does any rational human being really believe stereotypes?  I know nobody who actually thinks all lesbians hang out at Home Depot or that every black person on the planet loves watermelon.  At least, not that I know of.  I joke about stereotypes because I find the entire thing ridiculous.  I'm mocking the very idea that anyone, anywhere, takes them seriously.  Who watches Mythbusters and really expects Grant to suddenly go all Ninja on Tory?

My favorite example is Speedy Gonzalez.  He steals cheese because he is a MOUSE. His record of petty theft has nothing to do with his being from Mexico.  In fact, if I were a Mexican guy, I'd find Speedy a compliment.  He's a go-to guy with all the senoritas in love with him.  He's clever and resourceful.  How is he a negative?  Why is it bad for them to make Speedy Gonzalez cartoons?

Stereotypes often have a basis in reality, too, like it or not.  Historically, tribal societies from all over the world celebrate music and athletics... and yes, those things do filter down through the generations.  Food stereotypes have historical or cultural roots.  If you don't believe me, look it up.

Yes, a stereotype can be a bad thing.  But a word is not automatically an insult, not even the "N" word.  Look at the big picture before you get upset.  Ask why.  I'm in therapy for my persecution complex and I get this concept.  What's the excuse for society at large?

Don't be an Ashley Carter.

Many years ago, I picked up a couple books at a yard sale.  They were "Taproots of Falconhurst" and "Scandal of Falconhurst" by Ashley Carter.  I eventually read all the Falconhurst books and was confused.  Did Ellen get freed and later murdered by Ransom Lightfoot, or did she die in the slave uprising on Falconhurst?  Why did one book contradict the others?  Just what was going on?  I sorted them out finally, not by the chronology of the story, but by publication dates, and what I discovered was this:  The series had three authors, two of which sometimes worked together.  These two quit, or died, or were abducted by aliens, and Ashley Carter took over.

I can't begin to describe how angry this made me and still makes me.  Not that another author took over, but that he ignored the established reality of that world to suit himself.  Using the works of the first two, I could have made a viable timeline, family tree, and maybe even a map.   For example, the character of Ellen was the young master's (ahem) favorite.  She came to the plantation as a teenager, bore many children, and was killed in a slave uprising.  I don't remember if her dalliance with a fellow slave was included in the Onstott/Horner books, but if it was, she was forgiven.  Ashley Carter, however, decided that Ellen's dalliance resulted in Ellen's being freed and sent away, then murdered.  WHAT?!

I can't imagine doing this to another author, but it seems to be fairly common and even accepted practice.  I argue all the time with my fellow Protoculture Addicts about Jack McKinney's novelizations of Robotech.  I just read a 'prequel' to Jane Eyre that did it - and has gotten good reviews.  There is an official Dracula sequel, written by some kin of Bram Stoker's, that does it.

Now, let me clarify.  I am not talking about works that take a "what if" approach.  I am not talking about alternate realities or reboots.  They don't claim to take place in the same reality as the original and promptly contradict it.    Play in the worlds of others if you like, but respect the creator of that world.  Don't be an Ashley Carter.

I guess I should mention my writing.

I've mentioned in my profile that I write fiction, and it's been suggested to me that I post some of my stuff here.  I don't know that I'd post anything big, but some of my shorter stuff is possible.  I have been known to crank out poetry, usually from the depths of depression, and have written (as mentioned in my profile) a few bits of fan fiction.

As a general rule, I don't care for fan fiction.  I've seen too many pornographic, badly written ones.  By badly written, I refer to both the story and the writing itself.  I don't care for explicit sex - a personal preference, I know - and I'd like all the spelling and punctuation to be correct, and I really do not want characters acting unlike themselves.  I once stumbled across one in which Harry Potter was coupled with Draco Malfoy.  My brain still hurts.  

Most of what I write is ostensibly romance.  I've gotten grief from jerks because many of my characters are Cherokee and I'm not, but I don't see a problem with it. Gene Roddenberry was not an alien, after all, and  I  research like a madwoman.  In fact, my current project is stuck at the moment on a very trivial bit of research, something I could fudge on.  Cindy could quite easily say "I think the place has been abandoned."  It's not even important to the story!  It's a bit of back story for a secondary, maybe even tertiary, character!

Anyway, I've already completed "Ghosts", in which Danny and Megan take their Internet friendship further.  There are literal and figurative ghosts running around.  The current project (Seventh Son) is actually a prequel to "Ghosts".  It's about Danny's mother connecting with her Cherokee roots. In the process, of course, she meets Danny's father.  I've got ideas for more Stillwater Farm stories, too!

I've been told my best work is a piece called "Regrets", which I may post here.  Some of my readers have clamored for me to fill in a twelve year gap between the main story and the epilogue, but I'm stuck.  Olivia won't tell me about those years.  (And if you've read "Ghosts", this is the same Olivia.)  I wrote another I'm hoping to expand into a Stillwater Farm novel, but I am really unhappy with the resolution.

That's what I write, besides this blog.  What I write seriously, anyway.  ;-p