Tales from Easement Acres
It’s been a while since I visited the Wisconsin cottage, owing mainly to petty family on the in-laws side and arguments over continued ownership. I don’t much care myself, but it’s important to Liz, and we were invited up by some of the more amicable ones. And the kid likes swimming.
And I like fishing.
And the kid got an ear infection. It was a busy week.
–Simon
It’s no surprise that here in America, land of the two party political system, much of our legislation is based on simplified dichotomy. The “us or them” mentality makes identifying threats easier, as we don’t have to waste our precious brain power on trivialities such as long-term consequences; be it financial (Social Security) or environmental (climate change); letting us preserve it instead for more important matters like my fantasy football picks.
There are of course some who over-analyze issues, but you don’t hear much from them because instead of shouting over presumed injustices on the internet, they’re instead locked into quiet introspection. They might join the online community occasionally, but as their input is based in logic rather than emotion, it’s uninteresting to read.
So defines Premise 1: the loudest people, whether digitally or corporeally, represent those of the most extreme opinions.
However, in order for a technologically-modern large society to exist, the laws of such a society must still seek a general compromise, else all will devolve to total collapse or dystopia (which always leads to a later collapse once the orgies and drugs run out).
Ergo Premise 2: the correct form of legislation is that which lies between the extremes, if the goal is societal preservation.
And here are two recent policy events to drive the point:
Everyone legally allowed to possess a firearm in Ohio can now carry that firearm concealed without needing to first acquire a permit. Constitutional open carry is of course already allowed, so this will remove ambiguity when interacting with law enforcement, eliminating a potential felony charge fabricated by our not-so-popular police force, and removing the individual interpretation over personal rights. Win for the Left, right?
Well no, because it reduced restrictions on guns and any such loosening of gun restrictions is bad.
Okay, well what about the Right then? Any restrictions on guns is encroaching on constitutional rights–don’t tread on me and such–, so this is good, right?
Nope. The Right’s mad because it let more people into their club without having to pay.
Conclusion: no one’s happy.
Rowe v. Wade established abortion limitations and guarantees, preventing local legislation from banning it outright, but also restricting allowable timeframes and conditions. So a state couldn’t prevent an abortion in the early stages, but they could limit later stage abortions to consider the mother’s health, and late stage abortions were more or less prohibited as at this point there was an ethical obligation to carry the child to term. The Left was happy, since abortion access was now guaranteed.
No, they weren’t. These were still laws on a woman’s body, and any such laws are a violation of an individual’s autonomy.
And of course the Right wasn’t happy, because any abortion is murder and therefore wrong.
Conclusion: no one’s happy.
In these two examples, no one’s happy. But since “no one” represents only the extremists (Premise 1), then what they are are truly moderate policies. And moderate policies, being compromises, are requirements for societal health and longevity–preservation (Premise 2).
Therefore, these two policies, one accused of Right-wing agenda and the other Left, are in fact neither, and good policy decisions.
(The repeal of Rowe v. Wade was neither moderate nor of benefit to society, as it violates this principle.)
And there you have it: my commentary on contemporary political issues, which includes my thoughts on the policies, without actually including my personal beliefs. Do I feel either of these is wrong? I’ll never tell, and you shouldn’t know, because that’s the wrong way to govern large populations.
–Simon
2 years prior, Liz planted garlic. We then harvested that garlic the following summer.
This year, that same garlic patch sprouted again. Apparently, not all of the seed garlic had been harvested. I’m new to garlic growing, so I’m uncertain if this is expected growing behavior or not. Regardless, we sure did get a nice bundle, however unexpected:
Maybe the trick is to grow in patches and harvest every 2 years. Or maybe it’ll come up again on its own. Dunno. Plenty of cooking to do in the meantime!
–Simon
I like the concept of naming one’s home, but never fully jumped on board with the idea. And I think it comes down to the fact that the names fail to recognize the place itself. Instead, when I hear someone mention a named plot of private property, it’s for the sake of status. Such is the case with celebrity locales, HOA neighborhoods, crappy apartments that try to sound better than they are, and sports arenas (which are really just sponsor plugs). Sometimes small businesses choose a name that reflects the space, but more often opt for a more descriptive name which references what that business does.
So how would I choose a name for my small estate?
In order to avoid making it about me, I should refrain from explaining what I do with the property in the name. Our love for dogs prompted some cutesy thoughts, such as “Whippet’s Run” or “Feisty Fields”. But, the dogs are transitory inhabitants. Also, we’re a somewhat sarcastic family. The name should have a bit of snark, and reference what will always be here, devoid of the goofy romance with which people try to make you believe that they live in a British cottage overlooking Dover. No, this is a contemporary abode in a neighborhood with well-funded public amenities, and the standard homeowner/municipality friction that always accompanies such developed areas. The name should allude to that fact.
It needs to be an honest name with snark that only calls out what the property itself is and the type of place in which it resides.
Welcome to “Easement Acres.” Call before you dig.
–Simon
I worry that as I age I become a little too right of center. I started out pretty far left, then as a younger professional I leaned moderate. And now, as I approach middle age, I’m starting to have some unsettling dissonance as the boat tips starboard.
Cognitive dissonance, that is–the concept of having to rationalize one’s thoughts and actions so as to avoid an aneurysm when those thoughts and actions threaten the identity and worth of the self.
And part of identity is demographic.
So it stands that I feel a little twinge of ire for the general accusation of the irrelevancy of white man.
***
I wrote previously about the Bechdel Test, and gave it its due credit, but found it too concise for a more thorough look at the evolution female characters in media. I offered some more in-depth analysis, and concluded that the problem was essentially introducing female characters for no other reason than to have female characters (a similar conclusion).
When the character itself lacked depth, then the character distilled down to a simple juxtaposition of gender: in other words, she exists simply to avoid having another male character. But when the character had proper depth, gender became far less relevant. So if you create a character in a position of power and authority who’s believable as a person, then gender isn’t important. If you fail in this task and cast a female in this same position just for that sake alone, then it’s painfully obvious.
No really, check out that post for some examples:
Checking demographic boxes off the list doesn’t make your product a celebration of diversity. It’s a lazy attempt–pandering to a larger audience for your own gain, and insulting to everyone.
And it’s getting worse.
Now we’ve moved from simply failing to represent women by creating good female characters, to attempting to represent them by swapping the demographic of an already existent character that’s been previously developed out.
And now that’s been extended to race.
And this is being done in franchises that already have demographic diversity.
In the latest Dune movie attempt. Liet Kynes, Chani’s father, is now a woman. No explanation. There’s the Reverend Mother, Jessica, Chani, Irulan, Alia, and later that girl who could control worms or something, not to mention the entire Bene Gesserit and Honored Matres sisterhoods. There is already a large selection of important and powerful female characters. If you wanted more female power, their influence could be adjusted a little with creative license for the movies. But to take a minor character and inexplicably change the gender just to add one more?
And from what I’ve seen so far of the Halo TV series adaptation, the Keyes are now black. They didn’t turn Locke white, or Halsey male. No, their demographics remained untouched. They just reduced whiteness/maleness…a little. To keep it from becoming too prominent I guess.
My point is that this isn’t a zero-sum game. You don’t have to rob one demographic to give a consolation prize to another. Rather than change canon, you could just flesh out more and better characters across broad demographics. That would actually celebrate human differences without implying that there’s too much of one or that one is better than another.
Shouldn’t that be the real goal?
–Simon