Gifts From The Sea

I was standing on West Cliff Drive the other day, watching the sunset sink into the ocean as the waves pounded the shore in great booming breaks. Always dramatic and beautiful.





And this dramatic setting was the backdrop for a human drama in miniature. Or so I would like to think.

As with most epic stories, it started with a body-board.

No, not a body bag, a body board. You know, like a surfboard, but for those who prefer their surfing to be horizontal. That is indeed the technical definition of body-boarding, by the way.

Caught in the surf, being pounded and flipped back and forth, was a blue and white board, whose owner had clearly been taken by Poseidon, or whoever the equivalent god of surfing would be. Kelly Slater?



Yes, I know, it is a very small object to make out in the picture, but isn't that just so true of life? We are all just a body-board subject to the oceanic whims and currents of life.

I watched the board as it slowly but surely got pushed further up the shoreline with each wave, only to be submerged and pulled back by the receding water.

As I was watching this, a young boy on a skateboard was standing nearby, also sizing up the board, and sizing up me. I moved on a few feet, then stopped again, fascinated as I watched the board tumbling through the surf, wondering if it would get lodged behind a rock and stay on shore. The kid was also wondering the same thing. He went a little further on and descended a rock outcropping towards the sand. I think he continued to glance at me, as if he was wondering if I was going to go for the board myself.

At long last, the board was left on the sand. The kid took off his shoes and socks, left them on the rock outcropping, and trotted across the sand to retrieve it.

I could be totally imagining it, but he seemed to be walking very casually back from the water's edge. Specifically casually. Han telling Chewie to fly casually, that kind of casually. Like he wasn't sure that I wasn't going to challenge him that he didn't own that board. He took his time putting on his shoes, and spent a lot of time up at the clifftop again, taking his jacket off, putting it on again, turning the board over and examining it, as if expecting someone to say, "Hey, that's my board," so he could say, "Just retrieving it for you, sir. Here you go." Finally, he tucked it under one arm and skated slowly off to the north.

He probably just couldn't believe his luck. Sometimes the ocean taketh away, and sometimes it giveth. I'm sure that's exactly what the kid thought, too.

Christmas Specials: No, Not The Ones At Walmart. The Animated Ones

When I was in first grade, I assumed I was a Christian, because I lived in the United States. You can understand my confusion. This was before I really knew what being a Christian meant. My parents took me to church for a few weeks, presumably to humor me. Of course, then I got my first loose tooth after one of the services and lost all interest in church.

Nevertheless, around this time of year, I am rarely happier than I am right now, with a glass of egg nog, a lit-up, heavily decorated tree, and A Charlie Brown Christmas on DVD.

There is something beautiful about the classic animated specials, regardless of your personal religious bent or lack thereof. The stories, of course, are rooted in the same poetry that suffuses the best Christmas music--"Silent Night" is one of my favorite songs ever. Beyond the content, which speaks to the ability of humanity to aspire to virtues of sacrifice, forgiveness, love, and higher meaning, there is something warm and reassuring about the bright colors and harmless and heartwarming stories of shows like Charlie Brown or Mickey's Christmas Carol.

Yes, it's true that the specials are sponsored by "big eastern syndicates", as Lucy hints to Charlie Brown. Still, they're fun, and that's the important thing.

I would say my all-time favorite is an easy pick: A Charlie Brown Christmas.

After that, I guess I would pick: Mickey's Christmas Carol; the Garfield Christmas special which is never on anymore; the Winnie the Pooh special; and Charlie Brown again.

Please note that I very specifically excluded the Star Wars Holiday Special from the list. Granted, it is only partially animated, but that's how much I wish to disavow that show.

What are your favorite animated specials, and why?

Oh, Canada

Canada must be concerned that the previous Administration had tilted so far to the left that the country was in danger of tumbling off the continental shelf. That's the only explanation for the sudden extreme surge to the right, with the withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol and the banning of veils at the oath of citizenship ceremonies.

Of course, one might ask if I can criticize them over Kyoto when the US doesn't even adhere to the protocol. Of course I can; I am not my government, and I've criticized the US too.

The gist of it is that Canada says the Kyoto Protocol does not successfully solve the problem of climate change, at least not to the extent that it offsets the economic costs to industry. The implication is that the Kyoto Protocol is just a bunch of words, just pomp and circumstance.

If they are making this argument, then why would they stress the importance of being able to see the face of someone taking the oath of citizenship? If Oaths and Accords do not have inherent value guaranteeing success, why make the oath of citizenship sacrosanct enough to request someone sacrifice an important element of their personal religion? Do they ask Christians to make some sacrifice acknowledging Canada over Jesus?

A couple clarifying points: I do not agree that women should have to wear veils; I think it is also quite reasonable that they need to verify their identity at some point in the application process, to remove the veil so it can be confirmed they are who they say they are. But during the public ceremony, when they are simply saying words to signify the completion of the application process, what difference does it make?

If your ceremony is about the values of openness and equality, if you are asking Muslims to sacrifice their veil, what are you asking other applicants to sacrifice? You know, to keep things equal.

Surfing

Santa Cruz is surfing. And I never realized until I moved here exactly why people love to surf. Not that I surf or will surf--I'm too afraid that that water will swallow me forever--but the spectacle is amazing.

There seems to be an art, a subtle interpretation of where the wave is going so you know how to prolong the ride. And there are the nuances by which people swimming out and surfers rolling in know how to avoid each other. And there is the not so subtle element that surfers are throwing themselves directly into the power of the ocean, trying to harness it for a thrill or deflect it as a test of prowess.

There is poetry to it, but probably it can only be fully expressed by a surfer.

There always seems to be as many spectators watching from the cliff tops as there are surfers. You watch mammoth waves begin to swell far from shore. You watch a surfer riding the peak, pursued by the wave itself even as he rides it, and you anticipate the moment when it catches him, sweeps him off his feet, but then he is turning across the face of the wave, balances and slides away into quieter water, upright and victorious.

Holidays Are Here Again

As Decembers go, mine has been quite emblematic. We watched A Charlie Brown Christmas last night, while I drank egg nog. We've decorated a tree, and enjoyed a fire in the fireplace--albeit gas-powered--while I drank egg nog. We have drunk a lot of egg nog, while I drank egg nog.

This has always been one of my favorite times of year. Not because I'm religious, mind you: religion and I mix about as well as sauerkraut and hot chocolate, if the sauerkraut were poisonous and tended to spontaneously combust in the presence of chocolate. No, it has been a favorite time of year because of the routines and the rituals.

Every year on Christmas Eve, Dad and Rosie and I would drive around town to see the Christmas lights all over town while Mom created a treasure hunt for the two gifts we would open that night. The treasure hunt was made up of clever clues that we had to unriddle, each one leading to the location of the next clue. And of course, there was the annual reading of How The Grinch Stole Christmas, reading the actual Dr. Seuss storybook, all red and green and sparkly, with rich and vibrant illustrations.

And there was always the annual tree hunt, when assorted families gathered up Willow Creek Road at the home of the Goheens--Stephen Goheen is my dad's friend from college--and then we all set out in pickup trucks along the snowy, icy logging roads up to the top, armed with axes and saws, all set to cull a tree to bring inside for pagan celebrations to worship the approaching end of winter and turning of the year. Or, you know, Christmas celebrations, depending on what floated the individual's boat.

What are your favorite aspects/memories/rituals for this time of year, with or without egg nog?

From The Papers: An Amateur's Reactions To Other Amateurs' Reactions; Or, Trawling The Letters Page

I've often wondered about the sort of people who write letters to the editor, myself being one of them from time to time. There is a spectrum, of course, from liberal to conservative, articulate to incoherent, thoughtful to screeching. In today's Santa Cruz Sentinel, however, the four letters seem to come from the same cross-section of humanity, all with the same target, the Occupy Santa Cruz movement.

The letters range from the irritated to the outright hostile, bordering on sanctimonious. As with many letters to the editor, I think every individual letter speaks more to the individual writer than the issue being addressed. These letters feel somewhat selfish, like each person, rather than addressing a solution for the larger issues raised by the Occupy Santa Cruz movement, is simply trying to vent their own visceral reactions and collect their 15 minutes of fame.

My harvesting of their letters as fodder for this blog is in no way the same thing. I mean it.

So the Occupy movement is certainly a controversial one. In the main, I sympathize with the causes associated therein, such as reforming Wall Street and the banking/lending processes that put so many people in bad situations, and the need to re-examine our economic practices that create such disparity in terms of wealth in this country. Such an examination should, of course, be taken from the microscopic--so to speak--to the macroscopic to view how the US operates in the global economy. There are, however, a few problems that have emerged during the Occupy phenomenon, which have distorted the message and allowed critics traction. For instance, there have been issues with violence and anarchy attaching themselves to what should be a peaceful assembly. And in Santa Cruz, for example, there is controversy over the fact that some individuals, ostensibly independent of but in sympathy with Occupy Santa Cruz, took over an empty building that used to house a bank.

Let's look at the letters, for a snapshot of how some local people view the movement. I'll summarize and offer my thoughts on each letter. Bear in mind, these are my subjective responses to the letters.

One gentleman suggests that protesters go to the residence of the person they have a problem with and block their street and mess up their area, and not the parks. First of all, I'm not sure if the person is serious or not, but there is no one residence, and no one person for the protesters to focus on. They are protesting an overarching issue in society, which requires a public venue for their right to assemble and express their feelings. Here we run into the question of public property, and whether an Occupy movement is impinging on the rights of others to use that public property by staying there for an extended period. That is always a grey area, and I don't have an answer, but I would tend to argue for the rights of people to peacefully assemble in a public area without restriction, until health and safety issues develop. The trouble is, the longer they stay there, the more likely issues are likely to occur, from homeless merging with the campers, to the natural flaring of tempers and other conflict. My perception of Occupy Santa Cruz is that it has been fairly well managed and controlled, both by the protesters and the city.

The gentleman also makes another claim that just makes no sense to me. He says the college students at UCSC who occupied a building on campus should not pay tuition and not attend any classes for 90 days. I don't understand his point on this one, saying that would accomplish something other than chaos. If they protest the higher tuition rates, certainly not paying is one option, although in the present system, higher education does require resources, and students should pay for their fair share if they are going to partake of those resources. But my understanding of the UCSC protest was that it related more to the pepper-spraying at UC Davis than anything else. This confusion perhaps speaks to the somewhat unfocused nature of the protest; or maybe it argues against the presence of a single movement, but rather many separate, related but independent protests.

Another letter writer complains about a photo of the UCSC police chief interacting in a jovial fashion. Apparently the letter writer would prefer the police take a hardline with student occupiers. Apparently the letter writer considers an act of civil disobedience to be an unforgivable crime. Never mind that the building being occupied was a university building, and therefore public, funded by the public and by tuition. Do the students have a legitimate right to block entry to a building, to deny workers entry? Maybe or maybe not, but it would not be as black and white an issue as this letter-writer suggests. It is a sensitive issue, especially in light of the outrageous pepper-spraying at UC Davis, so I say that any effort to find a harmonious resolution between the police and the protesters is to be commended.

Another writer sneeringly advised the "Occupiers" to walk around the Earth in five years, to broaden their focus and "'Occupy' a progressive place, the next turf you step to as you travel." First of all, you can't walk around the Earth. There are all these vast bodies of water that get in the way. You might have heard of them. There's one right next door. Second, I find it interesting that he says they should go to a progressive place, as if Santa Cruz were not progressive. I haven't lived here long enough to form a conclusion, but my impression has always been that it is progressive, as measured by the number of men who feel free to play the bongos while overlooking the ocean.

The point that really raised my eyebrows and hackles about this letter, though, was that the man said the Occupiers should realize that search for "fairness" is childish, because it doesn't exist, 'never has, never will.' He seems to imply that means that we shouldn't make an effort to make things more fair. That seems the more childish attitude to me, either from someone who has benefited from unfair actions, or by someone who is so insecure and paranoid that they want to deny any possibility of making things more equitable.

The last letter is the most complex for my reaction. A man says that all the persons who are illegally inside the otherwise empty bank building should be arrested for breaking and entering, conspiracy, and burglary. He says if convicted, they should lose their 'right to vote.' Why he put 'right to vote' in quotation marks is beyond me, but it makes him look like a jerk. Which he probably is.

He is right that the people who broke into the building should be responsible for cleaning up any damage they did. In this case, a empty building is not necessarily a public space, in the sense that a park is public. The question of the inherent right to private property is far too complex for me to argue over, so I won't do so, but I would say that the letter writer is overreacting. The building is empty; what is the property owner doing with the building that makes it so much more valuable empty than it would be as a symbol of political expression? Another question would be if this was a bank branch for one of the institutions that received a bailout by taxpayer money. Bailouts mean that the taxpayers have a stake in the institution until the taxpayer money is repaid in full. Furthermore, losing the right to vote over utilizing the right to free speech and freedom of expression seems overly harsh. A visceral reaction, rather than an objective reaction.

To be fair to all these letter writers, they did not hide behind the anonymity of the Internet. Internet postings can be unbelievably venomous, such as those of the brave, good people who posted comments about wanting Barney Frank to die of AIDS; and that was on a message board at SI.com, which should be about sports and fun and games. That was almost enough to make me give up liking sports, just because sports would be guilty of association with some pretty awful people.