Alas, we’ve received our first Spring rainbow. It isn’t epic–it’s humble and modest, yet bold in stature. Unassumingly low on the horizon, but wide.

–Simon

Tales from Easement Acres
Alas, we’ve received our first Spring rainbow. It isn’t epic–it’s humble and modest, yet bold in stature. Unassumingly low on the horizon, but wide.

–Simon
Bloggers (and YouTubers) have a misguided perception that anyone cares what they have to say. I know this intrinsically as I write, and am well aware that few, if any, will ever read these words.
Regardless, most content “creators” operate under this fallacy, assuming that not only do people as a whole have the remotest semblance of interest in their thoughts, but that they should be paid for their troubles. Enter advertising.
But this is not commentary on the economic model of capitalism. This is commentary on ego–the way we use the word now, not the Freudian definition. In short: arrogance. I find it increasingly difficult to find web content devoid of advertising, regardless of the content’s apparent quality. And we are enabling this trend by democratizing ads–companies that provide advertising scripts freely–in a sense…adsense…as it used to be called.
The argument is old, that commercializing art devalues it. That may be true, but it doesn’t prove that that art is absent entirely. In fact, I would go so far as to say that exists in the same quantity as it always has, and now we have to tools to enjoy it without distraction.
For those who have yet to embrace ad-blocking, for whatever reason, a tool exists which goes beyond–element blocking. Yes, it is possible to selectively block any part of a web page that I find detracts from the quality of the article itself. For example, on one particular blog I frequent, I have blocked 19 superfluous and unsightly banners, ads, and columns promoting the site’s other content. One might argue that doing so is messing with the designer’s intended creation, but that’s nonsense, for the alternative is not viewing his content at all.
![]()
So really this is just an overly wordy recommendation of the browser plugin uBlock Origin.
![]()
Also check out Privacy Badger, NoScript, and Cookie AutoDelete.
Take back the web and enjoy it for what it should be: artistic and intellectual content.
–Simon
I’ve mentioned The Landscaper, our neighborhood stoner landscaper who doesn’t seem to concern himself much over his children’s blatant disregard for property lines. Our tenuous relationship as neighbors I had considered to be a cliché, owing to the old adage that “fences make good neighbors”. And seeing as I had landscapers in the family, I had never considered the profession in itself to be in any way related to The Landscaper’s sub-nominal personality traits. No one wants to be judged for the profession in which they arrived, if said profession was not the original plan. I can personally attest to that sentiment.
Liz and I had discussed hiring a landscaping company, as the 0.48 acres could be quite daunting to mow in the dog days of Ohio’s summer (during which I had learned to apply deodorant to certain body parts to which I had never previously considered applying deodorant). A 2 hour per week investment is right on the fringe of becoming non-trivial, yet I had faltered for 3 reasons: the cost of doing some simple mowing seemed unreasonable ($40? Fuck you. I’d hire a neighborhood kid for half that), they probably wouldn’t do the job to my level of expectation, and mowing is my primary source of cardio (otherwise I’d have to go jogging–fuck that). But something else nagged at my already-wavering conviction.
One evening, as I was driving home from work, I stopped at an intersection, dutifully obeying the rules of the road. A pickup, hauling a trailer of landscaping equipment, turned left towards me. In so doing, the driver yelled out to me, “Ur takin’ up the fuckin’ lane ya faggot!”.
The comment gave me pause. First of all, I was not taking up his lane. I had merely left the courteously bare-minimum space to my right so that if a car behind me needed to turn right, they could do so without me first having to vacate. Second, it was an extremely rude and offensive comment to make to a fellow motorist. At the time, I had simply ignored it, since the fellow obviously proved himself to be beneath contempt. He completed his turn without incident, proving that I had indeed left sufficient space, and I continued on with the rest of my day.
The encounter would have faded from memory, but Liz recounted a story of a colleague’s run-in with a landscaper–something about a collision and overblown tempers and threats of litigation. Then I recalled my mother’s stories about her former employer. Then I remembered The Landscaper.
Then this guy showed up at my door, soliciting his own landscaping service. I would have dismissed the encounter entirely, had he not had the audacity to then ask me whom I was currently employing. I told him it was me. He left immediately.

It might be a foregone conclusion, but landscapers are assholes. Were it not merely due to my aforementioned reasons, this conclusion itself is reason enough to deny additional revenue to these degenerates. No, I’ll continue to mow the lawn myself, and when I’m too old and feeble to manage the task myself, I’d gladly pay a neighbor’s son the equal of your their rate, just to deny them the revenue. Fuck you.
–Simon
A colleague recommended the Netflix original Black Mirror. So far, it’s be an incredibly disturbing set of Philip K Dickian-type stories involving humanity’s failures with using their own technology responsibly. And “disturbing” might be a bit of an understatement. I find them to be haunting, like the stuff my subconscious latches onto in order to feed me back nocturnal hellscapes.
So I found the show’s title to be aptly named, as I assumed it was an allusion to “through a glass, darkly”. Despite my growing aversion to organized religions, I can’t escape my exposure to it during my youth, and I had remembered the Bible verse.
![]()
Of course, I didn’t remember where exactly, so curiosity won out and I resorted to the Internet to fill in the information gap. Turns out it’s from Corinthians 13:12. I walked to the bookshelf and retrieved a bible (something we’re certainly not short on–there were 3 (why do we have 3 Bibles?)).
“For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face…” Wait, what? That’s not right. I shelved the Bible, scoffing at its translation. The power of culturally-significant prose can invoke strong contempt when modified, just as my copy of The Divine Comedy pissed me off when I realized it was a more contemporary translation. You can’t do that!
So I pulled out my copy of the Oxford Study Bible, complete with the King James’ omitted texts:
“For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; but then face to face…” That’s not right either. What the hell? The mystery deepened, and out of stubbornness, so too did grow my resolve.
Eventually, I found a site with the translation I was looking for, and as it turns out, the verse so well-known had been King James’. Go figure, that the version everyone knew was that of the most ubiquitous translation. But this begs the question: why were there so many different translations? The site I found offered over 20. I compared them:
My problem is that a text so important to people that they use it as a moral guide, maybe shouldn’t be translated so lightly. I realize that the attempt is to give an ancient writing modern context, but in so doing, we modify its very meaning. Stop it!
Maybe the glass was just dirty and needs to be Windexed.
–Simon
Earlier this year I installed a Ring video doorbell. And thankfully, the majority of its motion captures involve routine comings and goings, with a smattering of false triggers.
But then it captured validation to paranoia. One morning, as I left work, I noticed a plain white van parked in front of the house, with a simple label: “Sewer Inspection”. Now, the sewer line was indeed replaced prior to our purchasing the house, but according to the neighbors it had been done by a certain prominent company, and I know from casual observation that their vans are decorated.
Adding to the suspicion was that the man inside the van never approached the house while I was home, nor did he look up to meet my gaze as I was leaving. And a half hour after I left for work, the doorbell did its job and sent me an alert:

He also wandered around nowhere near the sewer line. Liz thought he might be looking to steal the edging. It does appear that he’s examining it.
Maybe it was a legit inspection, but nothing about it seemed right, and that usually means it isn’t. I think it’s time for more cameras.

–Simon