Is It So Hard?

So there I was, sitting in the stands of the night show at the Polynesian Cultural Center, waiting for things to get underway. Having been thoroughly luau'd about 30 minutes before, my body was moving quickly into full food-coma mode when I heard an oft-spoken piece of instruction preceding most performances: "Please refrain from using flash photography during the performance, as it can be dangerous to the performers."

I leaned over to the hot gal sitting next to me and whispered, "I wonder how long it will take for folks to ignore that?" Sure enough, the lights dimmed, the performance began, and the dancers and singers were greeted with a virtual strobe light coming from the audience.

Ushers began walking up and down the aisles with largely lit signs reading "no flash photography"...to no avail. It's almost as if the sign invited more flashes. I leaned back for a few moments in my chair, and pondered the scene before me.

A simple request was made. A portion of the scofflaws present may have not understood why a blinding light flashing in the eyes of Tahitians twirling and throwing flaming sticks might be dangerous - but there are always stupid people out there, and there's not a whole lot we can do about that.

But for those who either heard the "flash photography can be dangerous to the performers" warning, or simply chose not to concern themselves with the safety (or the audience's enjoyment) of the show, I was compelled to ask myself: Is it so hard to follow the rules?

This is a question I often asked myself during the last 10 years of working for a lawmaker. For those who haven't worked in the business of lawmaking, it's hard for you to grasp the excruciating amount of work that goes into crafting a law that is designed to protect people from themselves, and the selfish acts of others.

Let's take, for example, the school zone speeding laws. Rather simple, I think: "slow down when children are present." That really shouldn't require a law. It's common sense and courtesy. But noooooo, too many people like to think of themselves as the exception to the rules (again, there are people out there who are simply stupid, but there's not much we can do about that). But, because there are so many self-declared "exceptional people" out there, we've got to write laws that define when a school zone begins, where it ends, how slow you must go in it, and during what periods of time and season this speed limit will be enforced. Then we've got to outline the proper ways of enforcing this law. How large the fine should be? Can cops use photo radar? If so, does a cop need to be present? Do the cops need to put out signs some distance ahead of the zone warning people of the photo radar? What if the person driving the car does not own the car? Who's liable for the ticket? Who's insurance gets dinged? Then there's the court system, tracking the fine, setting the bail, processing the paperwork. Then we have to raise taxes to pay for all of this enforcement.

All of this (and more) because people out there think they are the exception to common sense rules. And even with all of this, people speed through school zones.

Multiply this scenario thousands of times over, and you wonder why we have so many laws, and our government is so huge. For every law that has been written, there have been hundreds of cases of people willfully (and knowingly) violating common sense, and putting other people at risk in the process. (Again, I must repeat, there are stupid people out there who just don't know they are violating common sense. But for those who aren't really stupid....)

Just as the photographers in the night show were asked to: 1) not do something; and 2) given a legitimate reason not to do it. Nevertheless, they continued to fire off flashes.

And, at the end of the day, I wonder how many of those flash pictures actually turned out. In a large, dark arena, shooting from a distance with flash at a stage that is blazingly bright...I wonder if any of those shots really turned out. Or, if they could have simply spent $15 bucks, bought the DVD of the performance, and contributed to the student-performer's educations.

Morons.

The one up-shot of all the flashes was that they kept my food coma from overcoming me.

da surfer - Laniakea Beach

Every surfer wants a pic of himself (or, herself) riding a wave. Perhaps its so they can prove to their future grand kids that they were once cool. Or maybe it's just so they can pin it up on their wall and remember the good old days. Regardless of the reason, it's usually a picture of the surfer getting barreled, riding the lip, or making a cutback turn. For me, it's a walk on a beach.

I'll grant you, I don't have any other pictures of me surfing (at least, none that I'll show any of you), but this one captures so much...to me. Perhaps it's not worth a thousand words to all 1 of you who may read this blog, but it's worth much to me because it involves many stories.

This is the North Shore. Just a few days earlier, the 1st heats of the 1st event in the North Shore's Triple Crown were held at Haleiwa just beyond the trees there in the mid-ground (above my head). The world's top surfers converged on that spot to secure the 1st jewell in the crown. The 2nd Event is to take place next week at Sunset Beach, perhaps 4 miles behind me (and the person who took the photo). The 3rd Event is in early December at Banzai Pipeline just 3 miles behind me.

Driving down from Laie, you can't see Pipe from the road, but you can see Sunset and Waimea Bay (a big wave surf spot) and they were remarkably flat. I was getting worried because this was my last day in Hawaii, and last (and only) chance to surf the North Shore. This is on every surfer's to-do list. It was not an option for me to come back from Hawaii without surfing it. I would have to have missed my flight, sleep on the beach, and hitch a ride back into town to get a flight back. But Laniakea looked great. All the others were flat, but Laniakea was firing.

Arriving at Surf and Sea surf shop in Haleiwa, I was given a stern warning about the dangers of surfing the North Shore, and the expense of replacing a broken rental board. I was already concerned about surfing a reefy spot, a new spot, on an unfamiliar board, with much faster and heavier waves than I was used to. This guy at the rental spot added to my anxiety 5 fold.

As is my practice when I get to a new spot, I spent some time sitting on a rock observing the scene. Where were the waves breaking? This was pretty easy because the waves all break at the reef (whereas in Oregon, the break moves with the sand bar). Where are the crowds of surfers? Predictably, they're at the primary break. There are a few, however, hanging out at a secondary break. It appeared that the primary break wave had a hard time connecting with the secondary break wave. And, there were a few surfers parked out at the secondary wave. That's my spot, I knew. I didn't want to get in the way of the locals on their wave, and I didn't want to get in the way of any pros who might be out there.

Localism is something big in surfing, but also big in life. Rule #1 in surfing is to respect the locals. I feel that it if I want to impose myself on the people who's backyard I am paddling into, it is my responsibility to prove that I am worthy. And since I knew I wasn't worthy, I took the secondary break, was quite happy with the hour or so I was able to spend out there catching a handful of waves with other haole tourists, and paddle back in to be with my hot fiance again, returning my rental board to the shop in one piece.

Ah, good times.

Conservatism & Liberalism

Like many of you, I'm sure, I've got a stack of old books from college that I paid way too much for at the beginning of the semester, only to be offered way too little in return at the end. Instead of selling the $70 books back for $5, I chose to keep many of them. And, in doing so, I have a stack of books that I haven't looked at since...except one. One that holds within the following quote:

"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the councils of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."

Edmund Burke, a British Member of Parliament during the period of the American Revolution, said this. His observation frames perfectly the battle between conservatives and liberals in America today.

I submit as both praise and condemnation of conservative thought, those who inhabit the spectrum of conservative thought begin with the premise that government, in all forms (except, perhaps, a theocracy), is bad, ruinous, tyrannical in nature, doomed and designed to rob from man individual rights, liberties, and freedoms.

Praise be owed to the conservative thinkers out there who seek to defend the rights of individuals to choose their own futures, their own fortunes, and, in some cases, their own failures. As French President Sarkozy reminded Americans during his speech before Congress (Nov. 7, 2007), in America "the only limits to what you'll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent. America embodies this extraordinary ability to grant each and every person a second chance." This first and rare second chance at success is due much to those conservative thinkers who seek to protect the right of the individual to pursue his own dreams unfettered.

Condemnation also be owed to those in that school of thought who are so reluctant to give up any rights owed to the individual, that they ignore the realities of the unchecked "men of intemperate minds" (Burke). To paraphrase slightly our English friend Mr. Burke, "It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that when morons repeatedly speed recklessly through a school zone, the government must write a law, hire cops, patrol streets, levy fines, employ a legal system with clerks, lawyers, bailiffs, judges, and restrict the freedom of not only said moron (with tickets, revocation of drivers license, and/or jail time), but also everyone else who might want to drive over 15 mph in a school zone...during the summer, when no children are in sight. This all paid for by money that was taxed from my wallet."

I submit as both praise and condemnation of liberal thought, those who inhabit the spectrum of liberal thought begin with the premise that government is an equal, if not better, tool of restraining appetites and passions than self-imposed discipline.

Praise goes to the liberal-minded thinker who recognizes the need for government to act as a check to men who do not put chains on their own appetites. Those who recognize that while the freedom of speech is dear, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is probably something government should seek to prohibit; that while the right to bear arms is indeed an individual right, lunatics and criminals (felons) should be prohibited from possessing such (however feeble it may seem to actually enforce these laws).

Condemnation goes also to the liberal-minded thinker who view government in all its blessed largesse as the answer to all of society's problems. If they're unemployed, give them money (as if the possession of money is the answer; "give a man a fish vs. teach a man to fish"); or, perhaps, making traffic move at 15 mph (on all roads) so as to prevent any chance of a fatal collision.

All told, however, few conservatives and few liberals are truly deserving of condemnation for their philosophy's sins because, for the most part, most conservatives allow and recognize the need to put SOME restraints on personal liberties for the good of the whole; and most liberals also recognize that simply giving things away and regulating individual liberties does not often (or ever) solve the underlying problem.

No, we who wander somewhere in what I call "The Realm of Reason" recognize that with the shifting character of the American citizen comes the need to adapt the government in order for society to exist (again, see Burke). Burke clearly defines the formula that balances the ability of man to restrain his own passions (exercise responsibility) with the need for government to do it for him. Without which, society cannot function.

We (huggers of the middle ground - both moderate conservatives and moderate liberals) are not deserving of the condemnation described above. That condemnation is laid squarely at the feet of the absolutist conservatives and liberals. Those who have departed from rational discussion on any issue brought before them (that, in the case of absolutist conservatives, would limit, in any way, individual liberty; or, in the case of absolutist liberals, leap at every opportunity to lunge government into every facet of our lives); these are they who deserve condemnation, for they are those who depart from "The Realm of Reason."

We must guard against these people. Observed Jay Winik, "In the vortex of this debate, once the battle lines were sharply drawn, moderate ground everywhere became hostage to the passions of the two sides. Reason itself had become suspect; mutual tolerance was seen as treachery. Vitriol overcame accommodation." This was written in the beginning pages of his book on the Civil War. (Winik thoroughly demonstrated, by the way, that it was Lincoln, REMAINING IN THE MIDDLE - and earning the scorn of nearly everybody - who kept this country together.) Those who hold the sentiments of vitriol and suspicion for those who have differing opinions (conservatives vs. liberal), are those who can bring us down. These are they who deserve condemnation.

With Burke's remark, then, we see a moral imperative. Man (and women, my dear ladies who are reading this) must be responsible. As Mr. Sarkozy suggested, "America's strength is not only material strength, it is first and foremost a spiritual and moral strength." Morals place chains on our passions. Morals teach us (as individuals) to help the poor so that government doesn't have to. Morals teach us to to be sober of mind, not reckless in deed, etc.

Morals also teach us that work is good, and sloth is not. Merely thinking moral thoughts is not enough. For those of us who squat in the middle ground (both conservatives and liberals), who look at the nutjobs not only on the other side, but also on our own side, and do nothing other than silently condemn them - we, too, are guilty of something. We are guilty of sloth. We are guilty of allowing the lunatics run the asylum.

The politicians who pander to the lunatics in their party (even if only in word, and not in deed) do it because those lunatics are generally the only people who donate to campaigns, volunteer to knock on doors, show up at rallies, spend time stuffing envelopes, making phone calls, and posting yard signs.

__________________________________

The Point (a few):

1) be responsible, so government doesn't have to do it for you (and thereby rob you of your freedoms).

2) be reasonable and respectful of those who are on the other side of the spectrum; they, like you, are helping to keep Edmund Burke's balance.

3) fight the lunatics on your side, and on the other side, by getting involved. Volunteer to make a few phone calls on behalf of a candidate (or cause) that resides within "The Realm of Reason." Don't allow the rare Lincolns of the world be viciously attacked from both sides because you won't speak up and do.