What speaks louder than actions?

One of my mother's favorite expressions was "Actions speak louder than words".  Not a bad point to make, generally, but she tended to apply her own interpretation of your motivations to your actions.  A teenager doesn't go to her brother's Little League games... does she hate her brother?  A woman stops speaking to her sister after the sister comes out of the closet... is she a homophobe?  So, I say unto you, actions may speak louder than words, but motivations speak louder than actions.  Ask the teenager and the sister what their motivations are and you might be surprised.

One of the most important questions you can ask is "Why?"  One of the first things cops look for in a crime is motive.  I did a previous blog about how the context of a "racial slur" can affect its meaning, which is another aspect of motivation.  Why did you get out of bed today?  That may seem like a simple question, but it isn't.  But I digress....

A few examples from my own life:

My brother's daughter is named Laura.  My grandmother, who was named Lura, thought the baby was named for her.  No, Laura's mother simply liked the name.  It's even possible that the mother didn't know my grandmother's name.  The action seemed to be an honor, but once motivation enters the picture, it becomes simply a phonetic coincidence.  There are namesakes in the family, but Laura simply isn't one of them.

I have two brothers who live outside the Cincinnati area and a sister who still lives in the area.  They are all three rabid Bengals fans. Why? I really can't tell you.  For me to say "Because it gives them a tie to home" would be just as wrong as brother-hate or homophobia in those first scenarios.

Both my parents had a bad case of thinking they were not important to the kids because we never came around.  They assigned it to an active dislike of them - never mind that we all worked and most of us had families of our own.  This is the sort of situation that I'm most concerned with.  Should I be offended that someone doesn't have the time or energy to visit me?  Particularly if they have no interests in common with me?

One of my favorite things is Benefit of the Doubt.  I found a little girl wandering up the road one day - wearing nothing but a shirt.  Thankfully, my optimistic view was validated.  She'd simply wandered out of the house while her adults were sleeping.  If I see a little kid not properly secured in a car seat, I remember the time I was given the choice between hauling a toddler that way or letting him ride with a drunk person.  (This does not apply to people who apparently have a trampoline for a backseat.)

There are, of course, cases in which the motivation is quite obvious.  Had the teenager in my first scenario established a pattern of brother-hating behavior, then I'd agree that she hates him.  Had the sister in my homophobe scenario been known to gay-bash, then the homophobe assumption works.  Motivations are all part of the bigger picture.  Can you think of a more benign motivation for them?

Let's talk about sex

My niece saw a woman breast feeding in public and her reaction was less than enlightened.  I have no problem with breast feeding in public, for two reasons. One, providing nourishment is the primary role of the breast.  It is why mammals have breasts.  Any secondary purpose is just that - secondary.  Skin can provide sexual pleasure, but societies that insist on covering every bit of it are considered backward and even sexist.   Two, it is unfair to women to make them cover what men can flaunt - even men no one wants to see.  A breast is a secondary sexual characteristic - medical definition there - just like the beards and body hair men have.  (Yes, I am advocating that women should be allowed to be topless in public.)

Of course, this hypocrisy isn't limited to the breast-feeding debate.  Or even to breasts themselves.  Our entire culture is obsessed with sex.  Look at our advertising, our pop culture, even our Snobby Literature.  (Read some Shakespeare.  Damn!)   But then look at our real life.  Children are not allowed to have a penis or a vulva - they have cutesy names for those parts like "PeeBug" or "Lolly".  We explain, in simple terms at first, how digestion and breathing work, but sex is taboo.

How many molested children could have been saved by the simple knowledge that these are ADULT actions, and therefore should not be done to or by kids?  We teach them to report "Bobby punched me" or "Suzie stole my allowance", but not this violation.  Because we don't want our children to know about sex.  That's just plain stupid.

I am a prude.  I think you should wait for marriage.  I regret having had sex.  That said, I also know that the sex I had did not kill me or even make me sick. What passes for Sex Ed in most schools is a lesson in biology followed by IF YOU HAVE SEX YOU WILL GET AIDS AND DIE. We don't teach Driver's Ed by screaming IF YOU DRIVE YOU WILL WRECK AND DIE.  In every other area, we teach moderation and caution.  This can be done with sex.  It is not the job of the schools to teach morals or religion.  If you don't want your child to have sex for moral or religious reasons, it is your job to teach them that.

I'm also a borderline nudist.  But that's a whole 'nother blog.

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?