CSotD: Rules to live by
Skip to comments
Timing is everything in humor. No, wait, timing plus writing is … no, timing, writing and evocative artwork …
Never mind. Loose Parts cracked me up this morning, largely because I recently got caught up in discussions of an utterly ridiculous "Whatever happened to patriotism?" story that was, as in nearly all these cases, just someone getting their knickers in a knot over nothing.
The gist of the story is that a public housing complex in Wrentham, Mass., got complaints about people flying flags on July 4, apparently in violation of an association rule against displays of private material on common property. (See above cartoon.)
At that point, idiots took up the job, starting with someone apparently in undeserved authority, who sent out a memo stating that it was against the rules to fly the American flag. Nothing about bird baths, sun dials, garden plots or giant inflatable Patriots players. The rule, according to this snippy, please-let's-have-a-riot memo was that you couldn't fly the American flag.
Which touched off an almost-perfect storm of outrage.
Which was then perfected by nitwit coverage by Boston's CBS-TV affiliate, which reported on the outrage without bothering to find out if there was any basis for it. (The linked story above is actually the follow-up to their act of passive stenography. Apparently, we don't "correct" stories anymore; we simply paper over them using the same URL.)
The quote on the video from the guy who compares it to prayer in school (which is legal) and saying the pledge in schools (which is not only legal but required in most states) was instructive.
I'm not going to put this on the equally-paranoid level of claiming Polish troops attacked one of our radio stations, but, after awhile, you have to wonder if there is someone purposely pulling these strings or if it's just a case of idiot reporting in place of thoughtful journalism.
Which I guess is a way of saying that we've always had unhinged morons spouting ludicrous conspiracy theories, but they remained local and deservedly obscure until collecting clicks became more important than informing the electorate.
Getting back to Dave Blazek's cartoon and the topic of association rules and covenants, there was another reason the topic was at the top of my consciousness.
I used to cover new residential construction in Colorado Springs, and ran into covenants and association rules all the time.
The major difference between the two is that "covenants" are in the deed to a house you own, while "association rules" apply to condos, townhouses and other places where you only own the interior of your home, or in rental communities where you don't own your housing at all and have to abide by the landlord's rules.
And I was trying to remember if the covenants in the Mountain Shadows neighborhood of Colorado Springs, which forbade asphalt T-lock shingles, required shake-shingle roofs or also permitted southwestern tile.
During the Waldo Canyon Fire, it occurred to me to wonder how long fire-retardent chemicals hold up on cedar shakes, and what difference it might make if sparks fall on a shake, rather than tile, roof. (At this point my lawyer would like me to state that I may be mis-remembering the entire covenant and am not a fire-prevention expert in any case. And that T-locks would likely be worse than either.)
This also reminded me that while, for the most part, I wrote about places where the covenants or association rules would keep you from planting a vegetable garden in front of your townhouse unit, painting your house Pepto-Bismol pink or putting up a fenced play area for your kids, I once did an article on a less upscale community where the covenants were that you couldn't have tires on your roof and you were forbidden to keep goats.
And where, driving through the place, I had to agree that they probably needed to get those in writing.
And this final footnote to how much I like this cartoon: I suspect association rules and restrictive covenants are most often enforced in communities where the residents are constantly popping their heads up to see what's going on out there and making annoying, chattering noises.
And then there's this:
While I liked Harry Bliss's cartoon for the brand-name reference he put into it on purpose, I was equally amused by what may have been an unintentional commercial shout-out.
My dog Vaska has a very good friend named "Bailey" who is sometimes referred to as "Brown Bailey" to distinguish her from "Yellow Bailey."
These dogs, and many, many more, appear to have been named for "Bailey's Irish Cream," a revolting beverage that has been popular since before the Falklands War, when Irish support for Argentina caused a major boycott of the stuff in Britain that actually had significant impact on the Irish dairy industry.
Their motto: "Anyone old enough to be buying this stuff is too old to be drinking it."
Consarnit, I remember when we used to name our dogs "Brandy," but now we use that name for our daughters, much as Hemingway's granddaughter, Margaux, was named for the wine upon which she was conceived.
In fact, I was just talking about that the other day with my son Thunderbird …
Comments 8
Comments are closed.