Noise Pollution Debits

According to generic web searches, a riding mower with blade engaged emits between 87.7 and 95.4 decibels.

According to the CDC’s Occupational Noise Exposure whitepaper, the foundation for OSHA standards, the maximum allowable time that should be spent in such an environment at this sound range is 4 hours to a mere 37 minutes and 48 seconds.

Consider the louder end of this range.  A neighbor mowing 50 feet away at 95 decibels would drop by roughly 24 decibels to a perceived volume of 71 decibels–approximately the sound of a normal talking voice.

So, if you’re one of these lawn-riders, for the duration of your landscaping endeavors, your neighbors hear the equivalent of some guy in your face going: “Blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.”

And if you’re also of the persuasion that you should mow at a slow meandering pace to maximize the possibility a passerby will notice that you have the means to spend a couple thousand dollars on a luxury power equipment item, you’re extending your exposure time.

And, if you’re also one of those aging men who think it’s cute to hold your young son/grandson while piloting your luxury power equipment item at a slow meandering pace, you’re also exposing him to unsafe noise levels.

Point being, you’re annoying your neighbors and likely damaging your multiple peoples’ hearing.

And you’re a douche.

–Simon

Plywood Palace

Over the years, I’ve made a few notes about The Landscaper.  He was…an interesting neighbor.  First there was an issue with his delinquent children leaving beer cans in our yard.  Then our ongoing irritation with his kids cutting through our garden.  And the little spat about backyard fires (and his wife, The Harpy, screaming obscenities as me).  And their dog which they let crap in our yard without cleaning up (I’ve even seen their son intentionally goad the dog over here to crap).  But in the end, it became obvious that The Landscaper wasn’t mean-spirited.  He was just negligent.  A bad neighbor perhaps, but a decent person.

The Harpy, on the other hand, was patronizing and condescending, when and if she ever made an appearance outside at all, going so far as to call The Landscaper home when she found him joining us at our firepit for some beer and chatting.  From afar, of course.  She didn’t walk over.

They ultimately separated.  And from the rumor mill, that’s putting it lightly.  Something about drugs and alcohol and a restraining order.  All unverified claims of course, since the information was through other channels.  The point being, our neighborhood representative of that property was no more. All was quiet for a time.

Then began the construction project.  Initially a quaint foundation, through the dedicated and noisy efforts of an Old Redneck, and lots of Fleetwood Mac, it grew to become an enormous plywood box.  Granted I was none too thrilled, but I ordinarily stay out of confrontations unless the matter is more serious.

The matter became a little more serious when The Motorcyclist paid us a visit.  Another neighbor with whom we initially had a strained relationship, over whom I was perhaps a little overly-critical, we had since settled into a general truce after the whole fence and surveying matter.  But now he was angry, though not with us thankfully.

He was miffed with the Plywood Palace, and expressed his desire to drive down to city hall and protest.  Taking a more rational approach, and now with the understanding that the matter was bothering more than just myself, I submitted an inquiry to the city’s Planning commission, detailing which zoning statues the structure appeared to violate, and asking if it had a permit.  At the time, I figured this approach would bring some peace to a neighbor, while also curbing the construction’s efforts to complete an unsightly monstrosity for everyone to have to see on a daily basis, instead limiting its height to something more reasonable.  And as an added bonus, it was still in their own best interest to have the paperwork in order before they inevitably tried to sell the house.

What I didn’t expect was the city’s immediate response to dispatch an inspector.  I saw the truck arrive and some measurements being made, the insistence of The Landscaper’s former wife that she had approval for it (which I have since searched for and doesn’t exist in the public records), and some other discussion taking place before I quietly excused myself.  Shortly thereafter, construction ceased.  The Planning Commission’s representative responded to me that they were “working with the homeowner now to ensure everything is being done up to code.”  Fine by me.  If the city deems it acceptable, than who am I to object?

Re:
5607 Red Coach Rd
Dayton, OH  45429

Hello, I’m writing to inquire on any recent permit and inspection filings for the above address, with regards to an accessory building.  Specifically, my concern is regarding Section 9.39 of the City of Centerville Unified Development Ordinance pertaining to Accessory Buildings and Use Standards, General Provisions, restrictions 1, 3, 5, and 6.  The structure in question appears to in violation of these statutes.

I haven’t seen the owner (nor am I certain of who that is), and I’d hate to see the structure advance to completion, only for a zoning issue to arise later.  Others have begun grumbling about the project, so I feel it’s better to bring this to attention now rather than later, and save the owner additional inconvenience.

If the structure has been approved, then please disregard.  Thank you.

Yours,
Simon

Some time later, The Motorcyclist stormed over again.  He had apparently gone to city hall anyway, more than once, and was delivering the message that the Planning Commission was to review the case in an upcoming meeting.  If we had objections to submit, we needed to get those in.  So I sent another message, reaffirming that I didn’t feel it acceptable to approve a structure in violation of published zoning statutes post facto, but if it were to be brought into compliance with these statutes, then that would of course be perfectly reasonable.

Re:
5607 Red Coach Rd
Dayton, OH  45429

To whom it may concern,

I recently wrote to inform of an accessory building under construction at this address.

It has since come to my attention that this accessory building is undergoing a review, pending a final decision to grant special approval.  I also understand that any final commentary prior to this decision should be addressed to this email.

As a neighbor of this address and resident of Centerville, I object to the granting of any such special approval.  

I have no objections to the present zoning statutes that regulate these structures, as they clearly maintain the safety, function, and aesthetics of the neighborhood.  And I fear that granting this structure special approval will undermine the spirit of these rules, as well as send a precedent for their future exemption.

To be clear, I would have no objections to the building were it modified to comply with all city zoning requirements.

Thank you for your time,
Simon

The meeting took place, and the motion to grant special approval was denied.

https://www.centervilleohio.gov/home/showpublisheddocument?id=40957

Following that, construction continued, but the height of the structure was first reduced to a perfectly acceptable and pleasing 12′.  In fact, pending completion, it looks very nice.

But The Old Redneck, true to his namesake, had to say something.  Those personality types operate on old honor codes, codes which require responsive action to a perceived personal slight, codes which on some level I still wish existed, except they tend towards premature violence.

But his honor code fell short when he formulated his comment to be completely passive-aggressive.  Old codes don’t work so well in civilized life.  Nor do they carry much weight when directed towards a much younger man wielding a large axe (he chose his moment of confrontation to coincide with me chopping wood).  And since there’s also little honor in taunting an old man from afar while on my own property and holding a weapon, I dismissed him and resumed my task at hand, ignoring additional attempts to re-engage until, disgruntled, he stomped off inside.

There’s lessons to be had on both sides here, though I had a good idea how it would end.  Your house might be your castle, but it’s governed by the city.  And if you think city rules don’t apply to you, it’s unwise to also refuse any active and positive relationship with your neighbors, going so far as to show overt disregard; because while involving the city in the matter wasn’t intended as petty revenge, it sure was satisfying nonetheless.

–Simon

Tactical

I have a strong disdain for anything marketed as “tactical”.  Here’s why:  tactical = meant for harming people = not meant for anything reasonably practical that you might actually use the item for.  Are you really prepping for the inevitable murder, or just making too much money that drugs and hookers aren’t doing it for you anymore?  Here’s some tactical examples:

Tactical firearm = AR-15.  Not practical because you can’t hunt with it (and you sure as hell shouldn’t).  A .223 is good for shooting people and some varmints, and if you hunt the latter, be a little more sporting and get a bolt action rifle.

Tactical knife = anything with serrations or an aptly-named tactical point.  Good for stabbing people and opening field rations.  Not effective at skinning animals or carving wood.

Tactical flashlight = overpowered and strobe function.  Too bright to maintain night vision and extraneous modes not useful for anything beyond blinding people.  And my favorite–the hard nub on the butt meant for bashing skulls.  I can’t even stretch my imagination on that one.

So, is there any reason to actually buy something tactical, if you’re not military/police?  I will tell you: probably not.  To do so is to believe that a weapon’s primary function should be to shoot people, presumably under the belief that doing so will become necessary under a societal collapse, and that roving bands of raiders will come to take your food.  I argue, however, that you’d be much better off buying a weapon whose primary function is to shoot animals (you know, to acquire food), with the understanding that it can still be effective for defense situations (are you really going to get off 12 shotgun rounds?), and can even be modified for that purpose were the need to arise (swap barrels/magazines).  See?  Survival first requires you to feed yourself, and a tactical weapon therefore will be of much less value.  If you don’t have any food to steal in the first place, no one’s going to come gunning for you.  And if they do and you shoot them, you still don’t have any fresh meat (cannibalism aside).  Sure, you might now point out that all your prepping supplies preclude the need to hunt, and you might be right, at least for the short-term.  But thinking long-term, you still need to hunt.  And thinking short-term, you’re not going to be able to defend yourself against a band of much younger men with more guns just because you bought the tactical variant.

Although, if you plan to be one of the roving raiders yourself, tactical weapons make more sense.  Then by all means, buy tactical, you sociopath.

I’m guessing we have video games to thank for the tactical obsession, because for a lot of people that’s their first encounter with a gun, albeit virtual, and so don’t know otherwise; and the fact that most shooting in games is of the people variety; and modding guns in games with tactical loadouts is just plain fun, too.

Google “tacticool” for more examples.  Yes, there’s an internet community of people laughing at you and your gun.

Okay, I had to get that out of the way.  Thanks for listening.  Now for the real post: I bought a gun.

Specifically, I bought a Remington 870 Express Ultramag.  12 gauge, wooden stock (no tacticool synthetic).

They grow up so fast

Why did I buy this?  Well, because I hunt.  The old single shot break action 20 ga. that dad bought me when I was 16 has certainly bagged its share of woodland creatures, but it did have some limitations.  Range was one of the bigger ones (I’ve been know to sprint across open clearings to make a shot).  Using anything smaller than #6 was pretty ineffective beyond 10 yards, and steel shot was nigh impossible.  #7 1/2 works for skeet, but squirrels don’t shatter if you accidentally drop them.  I also considered trying some waterfowl this year too.  So in order to be effective as well as humane, I wanted something more powerful.

I also wanted Remington over Mossberg.  Personal reasons there.  I won’t get into that flame war (I don’t care if the US military uses Mossbergs.  I’m not shooting people, remember?  Also, the military’s decision to use a particular weapon design doesn’t necessarily equate to reliability.  See the early deployments of M-16s in Vietnam, for instance.)

But I admit, I did mod it.  I didn’t tacticalize it, but I did make some additions.  Hunting-related additions, not tactical additions, to be clear.

Buttstock shell holder
Rifle glow sights
.715 vented choke

And tacticality aside, I keep it stored with 00 buck, so I can still shoot roving raiders if needed.

–Simon

Femme Credibilius

In these contemporary times it often feels as though I’m being force-fed feminism.  It is, understandably, a product of modern social/economic/technological circumstances coming into conflict with our stubbornness to change, and is, within reason, a required means to achieve true egalitarianism.  To this there is little argument.  But why then do I find it frequently so off-putting?  I am a modern man, a Millennial in fact, with rather liberal views.

To resolve the internal conflict, I decided to meditate heavily on the subject, and I believe that the anxiety is not a result of the goals themselves, but rather the execution.  I will explain via corollary, specifically through the means by which one of my generation explores our present culture: TV and video games.

Firstly though, I’ll cite the Bechdel Test, as it’s both appropriate for this topic as well as a very straightforward method by which to analyze the relevance of female characters in media.

In summary, a movie doesn’t represent women in any meaningful way unless [paraphrasing mine]:

  • The movie has to have at least two women in it,
  • who talk to each other,
  • about something other than a man.

I’ll use this as the foundation to my own test (Moorhead Test?), because in response to a sudden desire to pass the Bechdel, women are being cast at an exponential rate, many times inappropriately, with the results often patronizing if not downright jarring and unbelievable.  So I will attempt to assist the entertainment industry with their shortcomings.  Here’s my test:

A female character isn’t believable unless:

  • Her behavior is in line with the authority that the position she occupies would normally require of a man,
  • who also is in an age-appropriate position,
  • who realistically possesses the skills required for said position,
  • and whose dialog is not intentionally condescending to male characters and male viewers.

I will elaborate on these points, then provide a good and bad example for each, to show where we have succeeded and where we have horribly failed (with the assumption that you, the reader, have similar media tastes and are familiar with the referenced characters):

  • If a female character doesn’t behave in a manner that the position she occupies would require of a male counterpoint, then the question is: why is she in that position?  If we wouldn’t believe a man in that same position would act similarly, then the female casting hints at motives other than including a qualified female candidate.
  • If a female character is too young for the position she’s playing, then the casting indicates sexual motives.
  • Drawing from the first two criteria, if a female character does not or could not possess the skills normally required for the casted position, then the casting is patronizing.
  • Regarding condescending dialog–this appears, like, a lot.  I assume it’s there to stroke female viewers’ egos, they way they loved to do in 90s sitcoms.  Or, again, it’s just downright patronizing, the way we used to use the term “homemaker” to imply being a stay-at-home wife was just as rewarding as having a career and women didn’t need to pursue the latter.

Hopefully you’re following me and not looking for reasons to be angry.  The point is that properly casted female characters don’t generally even raise an eyebrow amongst the intelligentsia, but too often they are indeed miscast for what I’m assuming is simply an attempt to increase female audience size or show how “progressive” the creators are trying to be.

Here’s my examples:

Category: TV

Good

Show: The Expanse
Character: Chrisjen Avasarala
Actor: Shohreh Aghdashloo
Role: UN Deputy Undersecretary, later UN Secretary General

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bad

Show: Star Trek: The Next Generation
Character: Diana Troy
Actor: Marina Sirtis
Role: Counselor

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Failure reason: Acts annoyingly flirtatious and dresses inappropriately for a professional (despite what the above image might indicate, she spent most of the series not in a Starfleet uniform!).  Makes several amused comments about the silliness of male honor codes.

Category: Movie

Good

Movie: Terminator 2: Judgement Day
Character: Sarah Connor
Actor: Linda Hamilton
Role: Mother of John Connor/Terminator Survivor/Cyberdyne Destroyer

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bad

Move: X-Men
Character: Storm
Actor: Halle Berry
Role: X-man/teacher

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Failure reason: Acts juvenile with her short temper, and what is she teaching at that school exactly?  Why did Xavier leave her in charge?  Also: bad delivery of poorly-written dialog.

Category: Video Game

Good

Game: Halo Series
Character: Dr. Halsey
Actor: Jennifer Taylor
Role: Forerunner Tech Scientist, ONI (creator of Cortana and SPARTAN program)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bad

Game: Mass Effect
Character: Ashley Williams
Actor: Kimberly Brooks
Role: Gunnery Chief

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Failure reason: Lengthy banal backstory with no value, a clear insert for a love interest, tells stories of her sister’s bad experiences with men and her beating them up.  Alien racist, but no clear interest as to why.

I ask you then, oh content creators, can we not please consistently create believable female characters?  Ones that are professionals in their fields, and not just walking curves/love interests/man haters?  Give us a reason to believe their existence is justified in the roles they’ve been cast, and then work on their personalities and backstories?

Perhaps your problem is that you lack women on your writing staff?  Maybe hire some, but make sure they pass the Moorhead Test first.

–Simon