| Back to Black
If you go down to the woods today, it would pay to think about what you should say. To not allow a “visible” washing line when you live in the middle of nowhere is ridiculous.
In the wake of a recent spate of bear attacks on four people in Alaska that left two dead in different incidents, people are being advised that if they encounter a bear they should “stand their ground and talk firmly to the animal rather than run away or play dead”.
For me, this advice invites more questions than it answers. In particular, what is the best conversational topic and tone to adopt in such circumstances?
Perhaps, if the bear was male and its potential victim was too, it could help to be understanding. “Look, bear, I know your girlfriend has been asleep for six months and I know you’re thinking that she is probably faking it, but when she wakes up you need to talk to her about how her hibernation makes you feel.”
If it was a male bear and a female human, the assertive “Heat your own damn porridge, then” might work. Actually, it probably would not work, but by the time you’re within conversational range of a large bear in a forest, a suite of options is not available.
If it is a female-female encounter, maybe some sympathy on the work-life balance situation would be appropriate. The very best line, it seems to me, is “I’m going to shoot you”, but that is loose talk if you have no gun. If it was me, I suspect the conversation would go, “Oh God, oh God, oh God, oh God,” not that I am even a believer, but that would seem like an excellent time to become one.
If I end up buying property again in New Zealand, I hope to avoid buying anywhere with covenants. They seem to be becoming more common, but I don’t want someone else deciding what I may or may not do with my own home, with the implication that, without direction, I would do something tasteless that would lower the value of my neighbours’ property and frighten their canary. When it boils down to it, that is what covenants are about.
The other day, I saw an online ad for an acre of bare land on the Wharekauhau Country Estate on the south Wairarapa coast (tinyurl.com/ NZLWharekauhau). I do not mean to pick on Wharekauhau, which I am sure is a wonderful spot. But the ad said protective covenants were in place for the site, which “is embedded in the 5000 acre sheep station”. The covenants included “no nuisance pets” and “no visible clothes lines, etc”. I understand the concern about dogs, but surely sheep do not object to the sight of laundry. I suspect this is not an uncommon covenant, but to not allow a “visible” washing line when, to be frank, you live in the middle of nowhere is taking town planning to a ridiculous degree.
It so happens that I like washing lines. Here in DC, where everyone uses clothes dryers, I dry our washing on racks outside because it is more environmentally sound, the clothes and linen smell fresher and I like the domestic cheerfulness of it. If I was not renting, I would install a proper clothes line.
Covenants imply that no one else’s taste can be trusted so, for example, homeowners in alpine or rural settlements sometimes have a limited range of roof and house colours from which they can select; otherwise, God forbid, one of them might paint their house pink. And if they did? What would it do, exactly? It would imply that some people like different things from other people.
Rules are needed to protect people’s views, sun and privacy, but I, for one, neither need nor want protection from pink houses and washing lines.