Department Of Imagine My Surprise
It’s been a while since I received any income from my writing; thus, when I received the yearly royalty statement from the publishing company that publishes the play I’ve written, moiself was expecting the usual statement showing me the royalty I am owed. Brief explanation for the folks who are how-publishing-works–impaired: [1] depending on the contract, publishing houses/companies, particularly those specializing in plays for off-off-off-off Broadway (as in, for schools, church groups, community theaters), may keep payments in escrow and may not issue a royalty check until the royalties earned are above a certain amount (usually a very, very, small amount).
I’ve had a piddling royalty rollover with that publishing company for years, since the last time someone bought the script for my play. On December 28 my yearly statement informed me that a check for the June – December 2023 reporting period would be issued, and I received it in early January. So, although I have writing income to report for 2023, the amount…well, I’m sure if there were actual humans involved in reading my e-filing tax returns, the response I might receive when said reader(s) come across lines 1-9 on my 1040 form might be akin to
* * *
Department Of This Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things
After not having been to the coast for several weeks, [2] MH and I returned to see several “No Access” signs, posted at places which seemed to us to be bafflingly random.
I checked out some local news (social media) groups to find out more about the signs. Amidst all of the Seriously?/you’ve got to be kidding posts, someone noted
“(the signs) might have something to do with the lawsuit in Newport…
Municipalities/counties/state had an injury lawsuit exemption for recreational trails. Someone was hurt on a bridge, sued and won on appeal. The closures are happening in other places as well.”
Now, this first no access sign we saw was on nothing we’d previously considered to be a trail; rather, it was by a path, at the end of a street about four blocks from our house, which leads ~ 50 feet through dune grass to the beach.
That FB poster is (was?) correct, moiself thought: there’s a state law declaring that people who hike or bike or walk their dogs along the beach or prance through the forest or otherwise engage in recreational activities (“recreate”) do so at their own risk…I think? I found the statute:
ORS 105.682
Liabilities of owner of land used by public for recreational purposes….
(1) Except as provided by subsection (2) of this section, and subject to the provisions of ORS 105.688 (Applicability of immunities from liability for owner of land), an owner of land is not liable in contract or tort for any personal injury, death or property damage that arises out of the use of the land for recreational purposes,….
when the owner of land either directly or indirectly permits any person to use the land for recreational purposes,…. The limitation on liability provided by this section applies if the principal purpose for entry upon the land is for recreational purposes…
and is not affected if the injury, death or damage occurs while the person entering land is engaging in activities other than the use of the land for recreational purposes….
(2) This section does not limit the liability of an owner of land for intentional injury or damage to a person coming onto land for recreational purposes….
( excerpts; my emphases; Oregon public statutes )
Another local news group commentor wrote,
“The change came about after someone in Newport got hurt on a city-maintained bridge that was on the WAY to the recreational area and sued. This has had a huge ripple effect up and down the Coast (and probably throughout the state). Tillamook County closed two access roads to Oceanside, and at next week’s City Council meeting in Rockaway Beach, one of the key agenda items is whether to close all beach access….”
We looked for more information about this lawsuit and its effects in several news outlets. Here’s the scoop as per the city newsletter, Manzanita Today (1-8-24):
Manzanita Avoids Most Beach Access And Other Trail Closures After Court Decision
“A 2022 decision by the Oregon Court of Appeals and affirmed by the state’s Supreme Court, has forced some coastal cities to close all beach access trails….
The consequences of the court case will likely lead to a legislative fix in the upcoming short session of the Oregon Legislature, but many coastal residents
and visitors may wonder how things got this far.
Here are the facts of the case.
Nicole Fields [3] regularly walked her dogs on Agate Beach in Newport and used a city-maintained access trail to reach the beach. One day, as Ms. Fields returned from the beach with her dogs and a friend, she slipped on a bridge and seriously injured her leg. She sued Newport for damages. Newport tried to assert ‘recreational immunity’ under an Oregon law intended to encourage landowners to allow recreational use of their land. Ms. Fields argued that walking on the beach access trail to engage in recreational walking on the beach was not itself recreational. She was just crossing the city’s property to start or finish her recreational activity of walking on the beach. The court decided that a trial court must, in effect, determine what Ms. Fields intended while walking on the trail. Was that part of her recreational activity or did she intend merely to use the trail to get back and forth to the beach?
Thus, whether the City of Newport (and its insurer, CIS Oregon) ultimately prevailed, they would still incur the substantial expense of a jury trial. CIS provides liability insurance to many cities and counties, including Manzanita and Tillamook County. Because of that potential liability, CIS has recommended closure of all improved trails used to access any recreational area….”
WTF, if only.
“The consequences of the court case will likely lead to a legislative fix in the upcoming short session of the Oregon Legislature.” Yes, of course. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is…
“It’s your fault I tripped over my own feet!”
… that won’t prevent someone from suing when they fall-down-go-boom. Moiself understands the no-access signs from a liability point of view (one such lawsuit could wipe out funds for coastal towns and villages). Still, signs – and apparently, existing laws – mean nothing if someone is determined to sue others for their life choices and/or the random accidents that we are all at risk, from the moment we rise out of bed until we return to said bed at the end of the day.
That dog walker could have slipped on her own rain-slicked driveway, tripped over her shoelaces or down her own front porch stairs, or gotten tangled up in her dog’s leash….. But, whatever caused her fall, she did it on the pedestrian bridge, and then got around the law by claiming that she was not *yet* recreating, but using the bridge as a passageway to get to where she was *going* to recreate…
Artful, isn’t it? Congratulations to her scum-sucking ambulance chasing lawyer attorney for the legal and cognitive gymnastics on that one!
The city newsletter article went on to note that Manzanita’s Public Works Director attempted to limit the number of trail closures by inspecting and rating the condition of every trail within city limits. He made a chart of city trails, which he ranked in five numerical categories:
1. Poor (many hazards noted);
2. fair (some hazards noted);
3. average (few hazards noted);
4. good (no hazards noted);
5. excellent (no hazards noted)
MH and I were familiar with them all, and know that many of the “trails” on this list are just beach access points and undeveloped road crossings, rather than actual hiking trails. The chart showed “…the trails that will be closed and signed to warn users to walk at their own risk because of “possible hazards.”
MH beat me to the suggestion:
“Let’s find the most ‘dangerous’ trails and walk on all of them!”
And so we did. We girded our loins and, at our own risk, did all seven trails on the #1 and #2 (Poor and Fair) lists. Barely escaped with our lives, lemme tell ya.
Possible hazards.
It’s a world of danger out there. Some people should just never leave their house.
Be sure to have your lawyer’s number on speed dial the next time you leave your abode – something like this might be hiding behind the city trash can by the bridge on the way to the trail to the beach….
* * *
Department Of Things We Probably Will Not See Changed In The New Year,
But It Would Be Nice To Try, If Only To Please Miss Manners
( excerpts from “Miss Manners: What topic most grinds Miss Manners’ gears? Self-philanthropy.” Oregonlive.com 1-1-24 )
DEAR MISS MANNERS: You must receive a lot of the same, or similar, questions. I’m just wondering: What are the most-asked ones?
GENTLE READER: Well, they are not, as may be supposed, about which fork to use. That is a question posed only by people wanting to declare that manners are trivial. Such people tend to be consistent in not having any….
There is also a topic that always shocks Miss Manners but has become increasing prevalent: blatant greed.
People have gotten shameless about demanding money from family, friends and strangers alike. Even the ubiquitous gift registry, with its transparent whitewash, is giving way to the outright demand for money. Any occasion will do – birth, death and anything in between – as an excuse for begging.
It seems to Miss Manners that there are enough serious causes that need addressing before solvent people are justified in engaging in self-philanthropy.” [4]
* * *
Department Of Past Regrets Which Live In The Present
Moiself, after hearing a podcast in which a gay person spoke about not being out in high school due to a fear of being teased and/or bullied, had the following memory flash.
Dateline:
That would be my senior year in high school. I can’t remember which pep squad member asked me to participate in a short skit the cheerleaders were planning for an end-of-year, Senior class only, school assembly. I do remember being recruited with the we-need-someone-who’s-not-afraid-to-be-ridiculous-and-that’s-YOU enticement. I was told that, along with the cheerleaders, the cast of the skit would be three students: moiself; the school’s best drama student (male), and another male student. There would be no rehearsal, but we could get out of class early to prepare and thus, since the assembly itself took up one class period, we could skip two classes – sign me up, I said.
We three students were given “costume” guidelines and the skit scenario/outline. [5] Within the scenario we could ad lib the rest (we had no dialogue).
Brief skit summary: The curtain rose to reveal the auditorium stage, empty but for a bench at center stage, upon which sat a Dorky Boy. Dorky Boy (the drama student) was tall and skinny, clad in highwater pants, a short sleeved, plaid shirt and bow tie, wore thick horn-rimmed eyeglasses and clutched a lunch box to his stomach. A provocatively sleazily dressed girl (that’s moiself’s cue) entered from stage right.
My costume was a slit-up-the-side cancan skirt and fishnet stockings, tight fitting sleeveless top (comically stuffed brassiere), too much makeup…similar to this on the classy scale.
Sleazy girl strutted across the stage, past the DB. She turned back and begins to flirt with DB, but he was embarrassed/appalled and tried to ignore her. She sat down on the bench, he scooted away from her, she scooted toward him…after a few seconds when it looked as if she might end up chasing him around the bench, a Sexy Stoner Surfer Dude® swaggers in from stage left. SSS Dude had shoulder length, sun-streaked blond-red hair, wore mirror sunglasses, a Hawaiian shirt, a puka shell necklace, low-slung cutoff shorts which reveal his toned abs, and flip-flop sandals [6] SSSD did his own laidback stage strut toward the occupants of the bench. Sleazy Girl immediately turned her attentions toward the SSSD who, after giving her the once-over, exchanged looks with DB, and the two boys linked arms and pranced off stage. Sleazy Girl was flabbergasted, and flounced off stage in an indignant huff while the cheerleaders broke into a chorus of…I can’t remember the exact words, but the cheer ended with something like,
“gimme a Q and a U and a E-E-R,
Q-U-E-E-R is what you are.”
Really.
Yep. Of course, that was then and this is now. Still, doesn’t that count, as even a relatively mild case, of high school homophobia, no matter how unintentional (“it’s just supposed to be funny”)? I knew of at least four teachers at our school, and several students, who were gay (and not out, in the case of the teachers, of course), and later would know of other students I went to school with who were gay but who were not out at the time (even to themselves, in some cases). But I never thought of how they might react: I never considered that they might think the skit in any way was about targeting or even referring to them. Here’s how clueless about Such Things® I was, back then: I thought the joke was on the character *I* was playing! As in, she considered herself to be hot stuff, but the cool surfer dude found her so repulsively skanky he’d rather run off with the nerd.
Back to the future: I would like to ask one of those students what they thought of the skit. [7] Were they aware of their own sexual orientation at the time, and if so, did the skit make them uncomfortable, or hurt their feelings? Perhaps they don’t even remember it (it was three minutes out of four years of school), and if so, will it be *my* bringing it up that causes the discomfort? I have rarely recalled that skit in the decades since high school (I’ve rarely had reasons to do so); still, every ten years or so something sparks that memory, along with my regret for participating in something “comedic” that essentially amounted to punching down.
I don’t know who was responsible for the skit – was it a sketch the cheerleaders had been taught at cheer camp, or did they hear about it from another school’s pep squad? The head cheerleader was a girl I’d known since junior high, although not well – I knew “of” her more than I knew her (we hung with different academic and friend groups). We became better acquainted two+ decades after high school, and I was delighted to discover that she is one of the most life-positive, human rights-affirming, feminist, pro-woman, pro-people people I know – a person who would now renounce that skit (if she’d even remember it). Yet another example of how anyone can get caught up in the moment, in a “joke” that might not be so funny…. [8]
While such an organization was unimaginable when I was in high school, I did a search on the subject and, yee haw!, there is a GSA club in the Santa Ana school district (although, this is not their logo, and the club is now the QSA ).
* * *
Freethinkers’ Thought Of The Week [9]
“Religion tries to give us maps of sexuality that are no better than
a 2,000-year-old map of my hometown.”
( Darrel Ray, Sex & God: How Religion Distorts Sexuality )
* * *
May you make it a goal to avoid self-philanthropy;
May you update both the physical and emotional maps of your hometown;
May you accept the fact that life is composed of possible hazards;
…and may the hijinks ensue.
Thanks for stopping by. Au Vendredi!
* * *
[1] Which is most anyone with an EQ greater than their inseam.
[2] due to finishing up with The Kitchen Remo That Ate Our Brains®
[3] The person suing was not mentioned in all of the reports I read, but it is part of the public record now, and I must confess that a part of me wants her to be shamed for this. I’m sorry she injured her leg; I’m sorry for any person who inures themselves in any way, but sorry does not equal, “someone else’s fault/someone else pays.”
[4] My vote for term of the year…the year is young, I realize.
[5] To call it a plot would be too ambitious.
[6] The student they recruited for that role basically played himself. No wardrobe changes for him; he even had the puka shells.
[7] I’m thinking of privately messaging him, and asking for his feedback, which I will include in next week’s post, anonymously and if I have his permission.
[8] Sorry; no footnote here.
[9] “free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists.
No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.” Definition courtesy of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, ffrf.org
