Environment vs. Safety

This year 1 person has drowned at Mavericks, Sion Milosky, and another came very close, Jacob Trette; resurfacing the long drawn out issue of personal watercraft (PWC) use in the Monterrey Bay National Marine Sanctuary since 2003. Trette was rescued by a PWC that was illegally out in the water that day and those present during Milosky's death claim that this vehicle would have saved his life.

The history of this controversy dates back to the '90s there was a wave of environmentalism created the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that brought forth the idea of banning PWCs in what we now call the Monterrey Bay Sanctuary.

This issue was a hot topic in 2003, 2008, and today. I could not find when the law was officially passed but the current law states that "PWCs are allowed at Maverick's in the months of December, January and February whenever the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issues a high surf advisory." But sometimes while waves can reach up to 25ft, this might not be considered a surf advisory. You can check out the rest of the rules and regulations of the Monterrey Bay National Marine Sanctuary at its website.

Described on Frank Quirarte's blog, a well known surf photographer at Mavericks, the controversy is between the Surfrider Foundation in San Mateo County and local surfers. The Surfrider Foundation is concerned about harming marine life in the sanctuary and point to a number of problems with inexperienced PWC operators and emission problems of the PWC models at the time.

Local surfers, often sponsored by large companies like Quicksilver and Ripcurl, believe that it is an issue of safety and that lives could have been saved if these vehicles were allowed in the water.

It is great to see the Foundation, during the last decade, be so successful in protecting Monterrey Bay but maybe they have gone a bit too far with their resources.
Quirarte points towards larger issues: oil spills, commercial fishing, and garbage to name a few, that the Surfrider Foundation should be focusing on instead of going after surfers. I think the Surfrider Foundation is walking a fine line between supporting surfing and strictly the environment. Although, its mission statement

"the protection and enjoyment of oceans, waves and beaches through a powerful activist network" definitely leans more towards protecting the oceans for the broader public rather than surfers in general.

Taylor Paul, from Surfing magazine, suggests finding a middle ground where professional and qualified operators are allowed to drive PWC during big wave surf sessions.

Many could say that the environment should precede those few who want to put themselves in dangerous situations but what has changed is the environmentally friendliness of today's PWC.

Now, Paul does mention that with our State's budget crises there isn't a lot of money to go around and offers a solution where Surf Comapnies who have a vested interested in the sport should step in a pay for the equipment, training, and supervision of operating PWCs during heavy surf conditions.

I totally agree. Even if there were no sponsors--because there are individuals who feel that large corporations tarnish the sport-- I believe that these companies have some sort of social responsibility to protect those individuals that are pushing the limits of surfing and enhancing its image which directly effects these companies.

Prince!

So I admit it. I'm not embarrassed. Last night I went to see Prince at the LA Forum.

Some of my buddies had an extra ticket and dragged me along--this was their 3rd straight week in a row to see Prince. At first I was skeptical, I didn't really know any of his songs which would definitely be no where on my itunes (at least then they wouldn't) but, how can you not go when tickets are $25. Plus, I always imagined him as the wierd Michael Jackson type and he might be gone tomorrow.

And although Prince is a short little guy in some sort of elaborate jumpsuit (depending on the song), this guy rips on the guitar. And it was such a wierd experience that it was awesome. When I say wierd I am referring to the crazy girl with the larger than life afro that opened for him to his band on stage. He also played 3 encores after the show. It's always cool when artists are good to their fans.

I am officially a Prince fan. Maybe when I see him play next week I'll get to meet him; stranger things have happened.

The Tijuana Dentist

A day trip to Tijuana, Mexico for some tacos or churros? Definitely. Surf trip to Ensenada? Of course. Taking your car to the mechanic 10 minutes south of San Ysidro? If it's cheap, why not. Crossing the border to get your teeth looked at? I don't know about that.

I have one buddy of mine who has been down there to get his teeth fixed but he's kind of a strange guy so I didn't pay much attention to him.

But maybe it's way better than we think. At least the writers of The Real Tijuana think so in How to Choose a Dentist in Baja California.

Apparently dentists are better trained and regulated according to the Asociacion Dental Mexicana  with 5,000 certified dentists just in Tijuana. Although be aware that there are others who aren't regulated.

A few interesting things that I learned are that dentists in Tijuana often take cash but also U.S. dental insurance as been known to work and that the scope of practice is much larger. All sorts of procedures can be done in the same office along with non-dental ones as well; "tummy-tuck, Botox injections, and porcelain veneers all at the same time."

Plus, it was noted that "your Mexican dentist will spend more time with you, answering your questions and putting you at ease, and will take extra pride in the painlessness of their work." Apparently it's a cultural thing.

Although cultural differences can cause problems. My favorite examples they gave were:

"Every Halloween...one of the most successful practices in Tijuana decorates its waiting room in north-of-the-border macabre, going so far as to play sound effects of women being tortured over the sound system. Only gringos might think that the screams were coming from patients inside. Nor are people in Mexico put off by realistic anatomical images or by cartoon drawings of teeth in pain: on the contrary, as they walk between the roots of a molar in order to enter a building, they are reassured that they’ve come to the right place."

But don't worry, these guys all speak English!

I think what this writer is pointing out that Baja California is a great option for healthcare, not just to save some money (which you inevitably will) but in order to get quality care that might be hard to come by in the States.

Either way, it was a very informative article but I still don't think I'm ready for this.

Newport Lifguards

I just got this email forewarded from the San Diego Lifeguard Association (SDLA)

Friends,
I am reaching out to ask for help on behalf of the Newport Beach Full Time Lifeguards.
The City recently presented a plan that cuts the full time lifeguard staff by +50%: from 17 to 8 positions. This will affect the quality and safety of the lifeguard services in Newport Beach for years to come. The City Manager, Dave Kiff does not seem to share our concern as noted in the Daily Pilot and an ABC7-TV interview:
"I don't think the city's taxpayers should have to fund someone's choices to go swimming in January or December when the waves are rougher, there's more risk…," said Kiff.
As a professional lifeguard, a 20+ year city resident and a parent of 3 children who use the ocean year round, I find his comment abhorrent and misleading. The apparent disregard for life speaks for itself. I believe his comment is misleading in that the City's Taxpayers do not pay for beach safety services. Revenues from the beach users, including beach parking, citations and TOT (bed-tax paid on weekly rentals) are more than sufficient to cover the beach safety service and have been increasing even in the down economy.
Here is just a glimpse into what the proposal entails:
• Junior Lifeguard Supervision Cut by 50%: the proposal has the Junior Lifeguard Captain position eliminated and replaced by a non-Safety person. This will affect the high standards of this self-funded program and could lead to a future reduction in participants to maintain supervision and safety ratios.
• The cuts will affect Peak Season supervision and patrol of the beaches: The proposal calls for only three full time lifeguards daily to staff, manage and supervise 70 seasonal lifeguards.
• Fall through Spring there will only be 3 lifeguards on duty per day: to respond to all emergencies, beach & marine calls and EMS for the 7 miles of oceanfront. Any sick days, vacations, injuries, or training would require overtime backfills costing more money.
As professional Lifeguards, we believe that these cuts are not in the interest of the City, the taxpayers and the visitors to Newport Beach. We see Newport Beach as a world-class destination that should have safe and clean beaches. Our priority is to provide safe beaches and protect lives in this year round destination that we call home...

Mike Halphide
VP Newport Beach Lifeguard Management Association
www.newportbeachsafety.org
mhalphide@gmail.com
nblifeguards@gmail.com

This is horrible, a big mistake, and Dave Kiff's comment is completely wrong.

Yes, if an individual uses common sense they should come to the conclusion that in the winter there are larger waves so it's more dangerous, and that they should re-consider entering the ocean. I also agree with the opinion that it's someone's decsion to enter the ocean and put themselves at risk.

But, the fact is that the average person is unknowledgeable, ignorant, and even stupid about the ocean. And because the city has the duty to protect its citizens, we must provide adequate security and personnel to staff our beaches. Another concern are accidents that are sometimes unavoidable, that can happen to the most experienced people. Lifeguards need adequate staffing to be able to respond to these emergencies.

I don't know how many rescues Newport lifeguards made last summer but I am sure the number is very large.

Also, 3 lifeguard supervisors for 70 seasonal lifeguards is ridiculous. The City is trying to put more responsibility on the shoulders of seasonal lifeguards that have no where near the experience that these year round supervising lifeguards have. Plus, throughout the day, these seasonal guards should be receiving training to improve their lifesaving skills and with only 3 supervisors, that is very unlikely to happen.
As a lifeguard, I've seen many people put themselves in dangerous situations without even realizing it. Another problem is that when people do go to the beach they "check-out." By "checking-out" I'm referring to how people come to the beach to relax and have fun and they become less perceptive and aware of their surroundings as they normally would be.

One great example is when people walk on the beach (they could be talking on their cell-phone) and they stop or set up their towel right in front of a lifeguard truck. I mean, come on, you would never do that in the street but on the beach people aren't expecting it and therefore are oblivious to it.

Most people at the beach don't know how to swim very well or are completely without knowledge about swimming in the ocean. And many will even enter the water drunk. Many people just don't know how to be safe (cutting the Junior Lifeguard Program budget won't help either) and it's unethical to let them put themselves in situations that can be harmful to themselves.

If you disagree with my opinion I'd like to hear why.

Fat Kid Falls in Water

Ok, so this is old but I wanted to show how globalized and connected out society is today.

This is of a kid from a small town in Mexico. Everywhere I've been (Sweden, Hong Kong, and Spain to name a few places--also, I'm not trying to location drop, it just proves my point here) my friends and the people I have met have all seen this video.

Although embarrassing, what a way to internationally claim fame.

Is There Ever A Free Lunch Or In This Case Wi-Fi?

I'm a student and have no money for wireless internet or any type of internet for that matter. This entire semester when I have had a project to do, I would walk the two blocks to my neighborhood Starbucks. There is only one, but there is also a Coffee Bean right across the street.

It's great  because you can get free wireless internet. But are you supposed to buy something as well?

Obviously, I know it's the unspoken status quo to purchase something, otherwise I wouldn't have posted this but is this something I should feel guilty about?

Over 4 months, I think I've bought 3 cups of coffee and I'm here about 3 days a week. I don't even want to think of how much money I would have spent if I bought something everyday. It would definitely equate to a significantly smaller amount of consumed burritos and beer over the past 4 months.

While there is no sign and no one telling me to purchase anything; I've begun to wonder if what I am doing is wrong. Even as I write this, I'm inside me free wireless internet provider adding to my number of blog posts.

I don't think I'm doing anything wrong because I'm the only one here and not taking space away from anyone. But if I was the owner I guess I would be pist.

For all I know the employees are always giving me the evil eye and I'm just oblivious to it. That's how serious of a blogger I am, oblivious to my surroundings.

What do you guys think?

Kookmeyer

I had one of those boards. Weird......

Wilbur Kookmeyer

Surf Knowledge

My last post wasn't the only one that referenced Tetsuhiko Endo, surf editor of theintertia.com.

So who is this guy?

A professional surfer? Surfboard shaper? Legendary lifeguard? Paddleboard champion?

Nope, just a surfer and a good writer who grew up in Columbus, Ohio. He claims to be an average surfer, I'm sure he could kick my butt in the water but let us just say that he's no pro.

I just wanted to point out that when it comes to surfing, we all have an opinion and you don't have to be a professional, although experience does help.

So when you kookmeyers out there want to give up surfing, don't.

I've met a lot of people who have told me that they won't surf because they won't be good. That's stupid-- a lot of times beginners or people who didn't originally grow up at the beach have more fun than seasoned surfers. They can also find certain insights into the sport that people who have been surfing for decades might have forgotten.

Surf Pros

Do you still dream about meeting your sports hero?

Well, the article written by Tetsuhiko Endo today goes one step beyond that and brags about as surfers, we don't just have the chance to meet our suref idol (which is way easier than any other sport), but we actually get to surf with them.

Endo makes a point in saying that athletes that volunteer spending time playing ball or whatever sport they play with kids is not the same as actually practising with them.

First, meeting them is so much easier. In basketball for example, players have tight security, retreat back to their large houses, or if they do go out, go to expensive clubs that only other celebrities can get into.

In surfing, a fan can approach their surfing idol almost at anytime and ask for an autograph or photo. Plus these contests are held all over the world. I remember taking a photo with Kelly Slater in Bilbao, Spain when the surfing World Tour stopped just 10 minutes from my house. I was so excited when one of the photographers, a fellow San Diegan, told me to just walk up to Slater after he finished his heat.

No big deal right?

What about when I "saved" who I think was Slater's sister (or could have been girlfriend) when I brushed this crazy looking spider off her back. I know, I'm a little star-stuck just writing this post but you can call me a hero if you want.

Second, referring specifically to Endo's article, you can go out in San Diego, a relatively less star studded area unlike the North Shore or Todos Santos on a big day, and many times run into professional surfers.

I swear I see Joel Tudor, former ASP Longboard World Champion, out everytime I surf Blacks, which, granted isn't very often since I'm living in LA at the moment but still is cool everytime.




Joel Tudor

Yes, you can say this isn't that impressive since Joel Tudor is from Southern California but so are several of the baseball players that play for the San Diego Padres. And how many times do you get to throw a ball around with them?

This sport is awsome.

But while I agree with Endo, I think he is wrong in saying that surfing is the only sport you can hang out with the pros. While a little more difficult, you have snowboarding and skiing, rockclimbing, kyacking, and probably the easiest out of these sports, skating. I'm ignoring skimboarding because it's close enough to surfing but obviously it's different (just go to Newport and Laguna-- are these the same place?).



skimming



Scripps Going Off

I love this place.

Sunscreen Protection

I just came across this very interesting article written by Brian Guadagno about sunscreen. As a lifeguard during the summers this is extremely important and I'd thought you'd ought to know this information as well.

What I didn't know was that UVA protection is not regulated by the FDA, only UVB protection. UVA is the SPF number on the bottle. That means that the SPF and UVA protection could potentially be misleading to consumers.

I usually use a mixture of regular sunscreen (Nuetrogena) and zinc products (usually Headhunter). Works well everytime, although when you're in the sun as much as I am, you still get burned because you don't always remember to apply more sunscreen.

When you start using zinc, it's funny becuase you can start "painting your face."

Exerpt from the sunscreen article I found:

"How To Choose Sunscreen Effectively
1. Choose Broad Spectrum UVA Protection. Don’t let the term “Broad Spectrum” on the label make the sale. Look deeper. There are 18 FDA approved active ingredients in sunscreen that provide protection. While many of these offer UVB protection, only four offer UVA protection. Look for UVA active ingredients: Avobenzone (Parsol), Mexoryl SX, Titanium Dioxide, and Zinc Oxide. Of these four, Zinc Oxide is the only single, broad spectrum active. Zinc Oxide physically blocks the entire range of UVA & UVB. Look for Zinc Oxide percentages to be over 18%.
2. Use SPF 30(+), beware lower or higher numbers. It is a widely accepted that SPF 30 is the benchmark needed to provide adequate UVB protection. In controlled testing, SPF 30 sunscreens filter 97% of UVB rays while SPF 50 only filters 1% more at 98% and SPF 100 would only offer 2% more at 99%. In real life applications, it is very unlikely that filtering more than 97% of UVB rays is plausible. Furthermore, extremely high SPF claims may provide a false sense of security while possibly doubling the amount of chemicals needed in the formulas.
3. Choose “Very Water Resistant,” a proven track record, and use caution with spray on products. The term Very Water Resistant is regulated by the FDA. It represents a sunscreen’s ability to remain effective after 80 minutes exposed to water, while Water Resistant refers to 40 minutes. Waterproof and All Day Protection claims are misleading. A product that is Very Water Resistant will likely offer better sweat resistance. Ultimately, a Very Water Resistant sunscreen that has performed well for you in the past is a wise choice in the future. Use caution with spray or powder sunscreens, the applicators expel excess amounts of chemical ingredients which may be inhaled and pose a potential safety hazard."

There it still a lot more useful information in this article so check it out.

Too Much Violence (Long Blog Post #2 Suckaaaaaaas)

On February 15^th in San Luis Potosi, Mexico there was an attack—believed to be by Mexican cartel members—on two U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents. This is one of many drug-related violent attacks in the last 5 years.

In 2006, the Mexican government, under the direction of President Felipe Calderón, declared war on the Mexican drug cartels that had previously been left alone—these cartels deal with drugs, arms, and human trafficking, a multi-billion dollar industry. Also, those involved in the drug trade, police officers, as well as innocent by-standers have been blackmailed, terrorized, kidnapped, tortured, and brutally murdered. It is estimated that about 35,000 people have been murdered since the Drug War began.

Is what being done by the U.S. and Mexico effective in combatting these drug cartels? How many people must die before we win this “war”? The legalization and regulation of the drug trade is definitely a way to reduce drug related violence occurring in Mexico, but unfortunately it is still not considered a viable option by those in power.

Currently the U.S. has contributed to the Mexican war on drugs through the Merida Initiative, spending $1.5 billion for equipment and training of Mexican forces. The New York Times stated that in 2010 a new strategy was developed that focused more on training than on providing equipment. This initiative expired at the end of last year but is likely to be continued by the Obama administration with a reduced budget.

The Mexican government is focusing on a new law enforcement structure that began to eliminate local police forces that tended to be controlled by these drug cartels.

Today in Mexico there is rampant police corruption, people are being murdered every day, and the drug cartels have more weapons than those working for the government. You just have to look at the news. Last August, the Mexican government had to fire 10% of their federal police force due to corruption.

I don’t believe that encouraging this war is beneficial. Gil Kerlikowske, of the Office of National Drug Control Policy admitted last May that the war on drugs as been going on for 40 years and not much progress has occurred.

But the U.S. government still naively supports this war.

Hilary Clinton gave an interview with Mexican journalist, Denise Maerker, on Jan 31, 2011 about the Mexican war on drugs. I found this excerpt especially interesting and would like to point out some flaws in her viewpoint.

QUESTION: In Mexico, there are those who propose not keeping going with this battle and legalize drug trafficking and consumption. What is your opinion?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I don't think that will work. I mean, I hear the same debate. I hear it in my country. It is not likely to work. There is just too much money in it, and I don't think that – you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped. They can’t be given an even easier road to take, because they will then find it in their interest to addict even more young people. Mexico didn’t have much of a drug problem before the last 10 years, and you want to keep it that way. So you don’t want to give any excuse to the drug traffickers to be able legally to addict young people.

There are a few things I see wrong with her answer.

First I would have to agree with Reason Magazine that Clinton clearly misses the idea that drug traffickers make all the money that they do because the selling of drugs is illegal. With regulation they would be forced to find another means of revenue. A study by the Rand Corporation shows that the legalization of marijuana in the U.S. could “eliminate all of the profits the Mexican drug cartels currently make,” which would be a 15-26% reduction in their revenue.

Second, the idea that legalization will increase incentives to addict young people sounds far-fetched. One would think that those selling drugs would have the same level of incentives as long as there is “so much money in it.”

In fact, if drugs were legalized I believe that drug use would increase very little. From my experience, although I have never done so, it is fairly easy to get a hold of drugs whether they are legal or not, hence legalization won’t increase the number of users significantly.

Now there is some change of opinion in Mexico and there are those in favor of drug legalization.

Former Mexican President, Vicente Fox, argues that drug legalization is a good thing. He says:

"We have to take all the production chain out of the hands of criminals and into the hands of producers… I believe that violence against violence doesn't work. It only unleashes more violence and a conflict of the size we have in Mexico… It is not only in people's income, in investment, but also in the collective psychology.”

Fox refers to legalization in both Mexico and the U.S. This former Mexican official brings up a very important point. “Violence against violence doesn’t work” and the 35,000 deaths so far is too high. Something else needs to be done.

But what does the recent attack on the U.S. immigration officers have to do with these overall decisions (besides the fact that any death should be a cause for concern)?

The motives for the attack are still unknown, but if it was a planned attack, one of the motives might have been to escalate the current Mexican war on drugs even further.

Janet Napolitano, the U.S. Homeland Security Secretary, said, “let me be clear: any act of violence against our ICE personnel or any DHS personnel is an attack against all those who serve our nation and put their lives at risk for our safety…We remain committed in our broader support for Mexico's efforts to combat violence within its borders." I think the last time we heard a patriotic statement like this, was when U.S. forces went into Afghanistan; they still haven’t left.

I find it ironic that the continuation of this war on drugs and the anti-legalization sentiment benefits the drug cartels themselves; it keeps them in business.

With the deaths, the corruption, and the continuous drug trade, not to mention the human trafficking, I think Mexico and the United States need to take another course of action. It would seem that those in power, like Hilary Clinton, do not understand the reasoning behind legalization and it is definitely an option that these people need to reconsider.

Despite my views, I will admit that legalization will not solve our societal problems of drug abuse nor will it completely wipe out the existing drug cartels. But it would make an impact and reduce the drug related violence that has been devastating Mexico since 2006.

Rip Curl Search

The next contest for the Rip Curl Search in 2011 is.........

Ocean Beach, San Francisco!

This is going to be sic because the conditions are hopefully going to be big and cold. This is definitely one of, if not the coldest places these surfers will compete in this year. I hope I can go and watch.

Surfline offers more details about the event but basically, it will be held in November and it seems to be very minimalistic."There will be no PWC assist. (At least as of right now, PWC will be on hand for rescue only.) No skatepark. No music festival. No local trials. No backup venues."

I guess they're predicting that it's going to be so cold, that no one is going to want to stick around any longer than they have too.

Anyways, it's nothing unusual but I like how the contest organizers are working with the local surf community in SF. I guess they're going to employ all of the locals' businesses to carry out the event (catering, security, etc.).

No more Mavericks Surf Contest?

 

Big Mavericks

Surfline reported two days ago that the primary sponsor, Barracuda Networks, just pulled out of The Jay at Maverick’s Big Wave Invitational. On top of this the family of Jay Moriarity, for whom the contest is named after, is requesting to remove his name from the title as well.

Many people, including Cyrus Saatsaz from Inertia.com, believe that the future of the contest is “uncertain” and that there may be no sponsor willing to step in.

I agree that it may be hard to find a sponsor because of the slow economy and the fact that the contest will no longer officially be dedicated to Jay—giving it more importance than a regular contest. But I don’t think there is anything to worry about. There are enough eyes and attention on that place, as well as a group of very dedicated surfers that live there and will make it happen.

I wish the contest would still be dedicated to Jay because I think it is important to remember the few who do pass away while surfing or doing a related activity. I never knew him, but I remember reading about his death in 2001, my very first Surfer Magazine, and I am sure that I knew someone that knew him. I am absolutely convinced that in the surfing world, the theory of 6 degrees of separation is completely true, but that's an entirely different conversation.

Background

For those who don’t know, Mavericks is a surf spot located in Half Moon Bay, California and is known for its huge, insane, and cold conditions during the winter. And when I say huge conditions, I mean 30-50 foot waves. This spot as been influential in surfing innovation because this is where surfers pushed the limits of paddle-in surfing, in relation to the size of the wave, after years of big wave tow-in surfing.

 

Paddle-in Surfing



Paddle-in surfing is where a surfer catches a wave by paddling, while tow-in surfing is where a surfer is towed into a wave by a personal water craft (PWC).

 

Jay Moriarity, the surfer who the contest is dedicated to, was a surfer from Santa Cruz who was known for charging Mavericks at a young; at 16 years old, Jay made the cover of Surfer Magazine for a wipeout he had there. At a young age he was a respected surfer at Mavericks.



Tow-in Surfing

In 2001 Jay drowned while in the Maldives, a group of islands in the Indian Ocean, and later The Jay at Maverick’s Big Wave Invitation came about. This contest consists of 24 surfers invited to participate along with 17 alternates. These surfers are from around the world and are known for riding large surf. The contest is not held every year, only when the surf is big enough.



Jay Moriarity



 

Out of the Boat Swim

I am the treasurer of the non-profit organization Out of the Boat Swim.

 

It reaches out to an orphanage in Tijuana, Mexico and kids in Peru with the goal of making every home a "safe place to play and grow and… build[ing] a strong foundation of water men and women.”

We were founded by San Diego Beach Lifeguards and also work on developing a relationship with the Tijuana Lifeguards as well. I have been involved, in Tijuana, as a surf instructor and raising money to put these kids through swim lessons. It’s an amazing experience.

I encourage anyone and everyone to get involved by contacting me (on this blog) and by checking out our website: outoftheboatswim.org

Procrastinating and Science Fiction

So I'm a dork when it comes to television shows. I just started watching Stargate Universe and it's pretty good. I think I'm addicted to it, especially when I can watch it for free on Megavideo.

Basically 30 or 40 people get stranded on an alien spaceship that is travelling billions of light-years away from Earth and we get to see what happens.

Check it out here or the trailer

If you have ever seen the original series, Stargate SG1, Stargate Universe is a little darker and focuses more on character development. I also don't think it's as corny or cheesy as the original or the 1994 movie but that always added to the entertainment. So I don't know if it is an improvement.

Good for Her 2

Cori Schumacher, Longboard champion, has written about why she is boycotting the Women’s World Longboard Tour:

My decision to boycott this and other World Longboard Tour events this year, is an attempt to use the platform I have to focus attention on the significant movements of the ASP World Tour, surf companies who are currently doing business in China, and those who are in the process of moving their manufacturing there.

She goes on to discuss China’s One-Child Policy and “‘single-minded pursuit of economic growth’” that has created large inequalities specifically for women as well as censorship, low labor standards, and oppression of its citizens.

While her intentions are good I think she’s going about this the wrong way. And by boycotting the World Tour, she is doing nothing but hurting herself. I’m all about taking a stand for what you believe in and she is definitely in a position to be heard, but she can be so much more affective while still competing.

Here are two reasons why what she is doing will not be that affective:

First, if these surf companies want to competitively survive in today’s market, they have to move their manufacturing to countries that provide lower costs. If they don’t, competitors from these exact countries can come in and wipe them out with cheaper products. I don’t think the U.S. Government will be in a hurry to be protecting the U.S. surf industry anytime soon.

Second, this issue is obviously bigger than just the surf industry.  There are many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) fighting to make changes in China and in other countries as well. They are making improvements but very slowly.

The problem is money. Almost every policy enacted by a government is influenced by it; without money there is very little support. There are labor standards in the WTO, but they are not always upheld because it hurts the end economic goal.

As I said in my previous post, Good for Her, women’s surfing is relatively small and I don’t think her boycotting will gain much support from surf companies. If anything, she should be working with them (sponsoring, competing, etc.) to make the sport even better. The key to influencing these large surf corporations are the consumers not the surfers. Short of Kelly Slater and a few others, many of these guys can just be replaced. There are so many unknown talented surfers out there. Plus, she can donate her winnings to organizations that have more power.

All that aside, I respect her a lot for standing up for what she believes in. If we all did that than there really would be change.

Amazing, Perfect, and COOLD

Santa Cruz :)

More on Artificial Waves

If you don't remember I wrote about an artificial wave that was created in Spain a couple months ago.

Now there is something even cooler being developed. The First Continuous Circular Wave Pool has been completed, in Poland.

The implications are huge. If you surf, think about a wave that goes on forever!

And I couldn't even tell you about the even greater non-surfing benefits from something like this. I'm assuming this could lead to another source of clean, efficient energy for the world.

Sex on the Roof and the Consequences

How can I not comment on this?

In case you live under a rock and don’t know what I’m talking about or haven’t seen the photos, go here. I have no idea what they were thinking. If you’re going to have sex on the roof, do it at night when you won’t get caught. And if they wanted to get caught, I don’t know how anyone could believe that it would end any way but horribly.

I’m more interested in the consequences and what happened afterwards. Not for that Kappa Sig or for that particular house (they are slowly destroying themselves), but for the Greek system at USC. From what I have heard from various sources is that the Row is on an unofficial social probation. DPS will be cracking down significantly on any social function held on weekdays, more so than ever before.

Many are saying that this afternoon delight that occurred last week was the “straw that broke the camel’s back” and was among many other Greek related problems going on—that’s why the entire Row is being punished.

I think that this is ridiculous. The entire Greek community should not be punished for the actions of a few individuals, especially when being Greek had nothing to do with this recent situation- nor did Kappa Sigma endorse what happened. In this same way, one could ask, why isn’t the administration punishing all USC students with brown hair because this individual also has brown hair? Obviously this is an exaggeration, but it proves my point.

It’s not fair and the USC administration is using the Greek system as an escape-goat to deter worse publicity. I definitely don’t condone the other things that have happened lately-- especially that email from Kappa Sigma which was very messed up—but it’s not right to punish those of us who are proud of our school, behave respectively, and just want to have fun during the week.

Good for Her

There was an article in The New York Times about the current Women's World Longboard Champion, Cori Schumacher.

Cori is taking a stand for women. Currently, she's "boycotting" the Women's World Tour because a contest on the Tour is being held in China where women don't have many rights. But that's only part of what she's done. For years she has competed without sponsors. She's done this to create an image for herself that she feels comfortable with and that promotes women's professional surfing in a good light.

Some of the complaints about the Women's World Tour is the low salary and poor contest locations. It's hard for women to make a living from professional surfing. Also in general, there is still a lack of respect for women in the water.

First I think that it's super cool that an article about surfing was in the New York Times. Surfing is definitely a sport that doesn't receive the publicity it deserves. Although some would argue that less publicity is better; the beaches are crowded enough.

Second, its always good to see star athletes willing to risk their success and careers to fight for something bigger than themselves. I think in almost every sport, surfing included, women have to fight for equal respect and credibility when compared to men. It's been a problem in our society for a long time but I think that  we're making strides to change this.

One of the problems is that at the moment, there is just not as much money in women's surfing as in men's. It's unfortunate for these large surf companies because in fact, there is a lot of money to be made. People need to be more exposed to the sport and given opportunities to learn how to surf.

More on Kelly

So Kelly Slater has won 10 World Titles. What's next for him? We already saw him win the Quicksilver Pro in Australia but just because he is doing so well doesn't mean he should continue.

There is a debate on whether or not Slater should retire from professional competition.

Matt Warshaw, former editor of Surfer Magazine, wrote an article for the New York Times about how he thinks Slater should "do the thing that virtually every other sports legend, from Ali to Armstrong, has been unable to do. Go out on top." He has the mentality that a "perfect" 10 is "perfect" for a reason and Slater should retire as a successful surfer.

In contrast, Chas Smith believes that because Slater is so talented, even beautiful, that he should never retire from professional surfing.

I've never been a huge fan on debates on what an athlete should do for their career. Its hard to believe that an athlete would choose the desires of the public over his own, making this discussion pointless. The only people that should care are the ones competing against Slater. But what they want probably won't be in the best interest of a competitor that continuously claims all the glory and cash prizes from contests.

Right now he still is competing and I don't think he's going to stop in the near future. One thing Slater has in common with other great athletes like Michael Jordan for example is his unwillingness to quit. Just like Jordan, he retired and came back because great athletes have a personality that won't let them quit. Just look at Brett Favre, a great quarterback who held on until the very end of his career.

This no quit attitude is very inspiring and even though it might be nice to see an athlete retire while he is still on top, I don't think its possible. Slater's personality won't allow it.

I don't think Slater will retire from the World Tour until he can no longer perform at the same level he is performing today. And if he does he will most likely return like many others before him have done.

Kelly Slater

Kelly Slater on March 8th, 2011 won the Quicksilver Pro.

I think that its unbelievable that at age 39, he's still dominating the World Tour. Unlike others of his generation, he's been able to keep up with the younger more innovative surfers of today.

The types of airs and tricks that these younger guys do are insane but Slater continues to do better than them in contests.

I believe that part of his success comes from 2 things. He is more experienced than the younger generation when it comes to competing and his drive to dominate the surfing world is unmatched. I recommend reading Why Kelly Slater is the Greatest Athlete of Our Time to gain a better idea why he is so successful.

But, I disagree with the claim of "greatest athlete of our time." I think comparisons between sports are very difficult if not impossible given the specific circumstances of each sport. What Micheal Jordan did in basketball is very different and hard to compare with what Slater did in surfing.

Natural Disaster

The earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan a few days ago are terrifying to think about. CTV News reports that the magnitude of the earthquake has been measured to be between 8.9 and 9.0 depending on who you ask. And the death toll could be close to 1,700 people.

I am very thankful that all my friends who have family in Japan are ok. There were several days when my friends did not know if their family members were alive because lines of communication were cut off.

The tsunami also hit other areas. In the U.S. five people were reported pulled out to sea in California and Oregon. In addition there was flooding in areas like Hawaii and Latin America.

The SF Gate reported that in Northern California there was significant damage to harbors and boats. Crescent City and Santa Cruz each have 18 and 17 sunken boats respectively. Plus, both cities are expected to need significant environmental cleanup from other damaged boats leaking fuel and oil.

Crescent City is in the northern most part of California and right next to the Oregon border.

This isn’t the first time a tsunami as hit California. The Great Alaskan Earthquake in 1964 caused tsunami waves up to 21 feet in Crescent City and 11 feet in Santa Cruz. Even though the threat of tsunamis is considered to be low in California, it is something to be concerned about.

I’m starting to wonder if we are actually prepared for this in Southern California. But the other day I did notice a tsunami evacuation sign that’s been near my house ever since I’ve been there. I guess we do have a plan. Unfortunately, I don’t think many people are aware of it.

U.S. is not a business, strictly speaking

There’s an interesting and humorous conversation involving the affect of the elderly on the U.S. economy. More specifically, it is trying to hit on the fact that opponents of healthcare reform can't look at U.S. policy strictly as a business because it isn’t one. If we were purely a business we would "euthanize 70 year-olds and harvest their organs for auction." Matt Yglesias shows from this exaggeration that "the problem with this isn’t that it wouldn’t work, it’s that it would be wrong, morally speaking."

If that's the case, we should all be thinking about a way to fund these healthcare reforms instead of trying to not pass them at all.

Austin Frakt points out that government intervention in supporting the retired is inevitable because no one has the incentive to do so themselves. Referring to Yglesias, he agrees that ethics to indeed hinder U.S. policy. Hence the redistribution of wealth falls on the government for healthcare through taxes. In a real business there wouldn’t be a redistribution of wealth to those that don’t pull their weight.

Rather than increased taxes, Ezra Klein offers the alternative of increasing the labor supply by increasing immigration. With more workers paying social security we could offset the "costs" from the elderly.

I completely agree. There seems to be a large amount of illegal immigrants already working in our country, why not make them pay taxes and become part of the system officially.

I thought that this was a unique way of thinking about our economic problems. Maybe those opposed to healthcare reform should think more ethically in light of this and start searching for ways to fund it rather than not pass it.

Lucha Libre Taco Shop

I was watching an old Man vs. Food episode in San Diego where they ate at Lucha Libre Taco Shop. This place is located in Mission Hills and has definitely deserves recognition. I went there this weekend and ordered the Surfin California.  Not only is it a California burrito but also has shrimp. Absolutely unbelievable.

Fighting at a Surf Contest

Last Saturday Sunny Garcia and Jeremy Flores were disqualified from the Burleigh Breaka Pro for fighting. Surfing Magazine says that "Flores states he was intervening when a local surfer was in a verbal argument with Sunny Garcia’s son. The three headed for shore when Sunny came running down the beach to intercept them. He’s then seen assaulting the surfer in the water, punching him several times." Here's the video.

The cameraman who took this footage was also assaulted by Garcia has well.
With Garcia's image as a tough guy I'm not surprised something like this happened but he needs to chill out. I'm leaving Flores out of this because he wasn't strangling anyone in the water. This isn't the tough neighborhood he grew up in; it’s a surf contest in Australia. I understand the need to protect your son but there's no need to chokehold someone because of an argument. Its actions like these that give surfing such a negative reputation.

Unemployment Extension

2/16/2011

Over the next 5 months, millions of people will be losing their unemployment benefits. These benefits are different for each state but are based on guidelines from the Federal Government. Those who have used up all of their benefits, the “99ers,” are waiting on 2 bills to be passed in Congress to change the current Unemployment Extension Tier System.

They are called the “99ers” because they have been unemployed for up to 99 weeks and no longer receive benefits from the government.

The 99er-aiding Amendment would add another 14 weeks of unemployment benefits to the first tier of unemployment.  The second bill, the Americans Want to Work Act of 2010, would add an additional fifth tier to the employment system, thereby adding an additional 20 weeks of unemployment benefits.

The current Tier System is very confusing and differs according to each state, but the standard is 26 weeks of benefits from the State. The Federal Government also offers 4 tiers of emergency unemployment benefits which are extensions once the 26 weeks are all exhausted. A person can go from Tier 1 to Tier 4 which gives them up to 79 weeks of benefits while searching for a job—people are eligible for the third and fourth tier depending on how large their state unemployment is. These benefits come from our taxes.

Is this extension a good idea? Or are we prolonging the unemployment process, allowing people to take advantage of our assistance programs?

Nobel Prize winner, Paul Krugman, claims that those against the extension are "a coalition of the heartless, the clueless, and the confused."

He believes that an extension on unemployment benefits will have trouble being passed because people are misinformed about what these benefits do; they believe that there is a large disincentive to find a job—which is  untrue—and that increasing the budget deficit is a bad thing to do. Krugman believes that by spending money, increasing the budget deficit, we can turn around our “depressed” economy. By not doing so, we are being “cruel” to the unemployed.

He goes onto say:

What’s limiting employment now is lack of demand for the things workers produce. Their incentives to seek work are, for now, irrelevant...anyone who thinks that high unemployment in the first quarter of 2010 has anything to do with workers getting excessively generous benefits must not get out much.

And the truth is that unemployment benefits are a good, quick, administratively easy way to increase demand, which is what we really need. So right now they have the effect of reducing unemployment.

David Moberg uses data from the Congressional Budget Office and Labor Department that says that “for each dollar spent on unemployment benefits, the gross domestic product grows by roughly $1.90 to $2.00.” He also shows that the $65 billion increase in government spending will be offset by this increased consumption and really only will cost $26 Billion.

All of this these recommendations have roots to Keynesian economic theory. These people believe that government spending can affect overall aggregate demand of an economy and its output. They also believe that recessions are economic failures that the government should fix.

Basically Krugman and Moberg believe that these unemployment benefits encourage job growth and national productivity at a relatively low cost to the nation. But with these arguments, why are people still in opposition to these extensions? Let’s look at 3 reasons including some economic theory that can be used in opposition to extending these unemployment benefits. Maybe those in opposition of extending unemployment benefits aren’t as confused as Krugman claims.

First, according to the Real Business Cycle Theory, government intervention has only a small effect on the economy.

Government intervention that tries to increase GDP through consumer spending effects the economy less significantly; the level of consumption is actually determined by business productivity. In 2004 Finn Kydland and Edward Prescott received the Nobel Prize for demonstrating that changes in economic productivity affect GDP, consumption, and investment (either by consumers or the government)—not the other way around. This supports the Real Business Cycle Theory.

This would contradict Moberg’s claim of offset government spending through increased consumption.

Second is the concern of how to pay for these extended benefits. The typical alternatives are to increase taxes or cut spending from other areas. It seems likely that taxes would be chosen since Obama has already proposed large budget cuts that have angered many people. Even if taxes aren’t increased now, according to traditional debt financing, taxes will be increased for future generations to pay off this debt.

In response to Krugman and his increased spending, Josh Hardwick says that if taxes are increased, now or in the future, there is a disincentive for others to work and small businesses to grow. This causes a decrease in available jobs and an increase in unemployment.

This can be explained by looking at a labor supply and labor demand graph.

While there is a temporary increase in taxes, business owners have a reduced incentive to expand their business; they’re forced to shrink their demand for employees (labor supply) in order to pay the same amount in taxes as before.

At the same time a reduction in labor supply decreases workers’ wages. With a decrease in wages, workers are less likely to enter the workforce because their free time as risen in value in relation to the time they would spend at work (a decrease in labor demand). This is called the Substitution Effect.

Finally, there is evidence that unemployment benefits create a significantly large enough disincentive for people to actually take jobs.

Thomas F. Cooley and Peter Rupert refer to a recent Beveridge Curve from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This graph shows the relationship between current unemployment and job creation. Over the past year unemployment has remained constant while the number of jobs created as risen. They claim that this is caused by an inefficient market system and that workers are becoming pickier.

Tarheel Red points to 2 important studies, both in Denmark and Pittsburgh.  Just as unemployment benefits were about to run out, the “return to work rate” miraculously spiked upwards. These studies suggest that people will do what is in their own best interest. When unemployment benefits give workers more value than a potential job, most workers will choose the benefits.

Plus, the longer someone is out of the workforce, the more their skill set declines. I would imagine that it is very unlikely for someone that has been out of the work force for a year (52 weeks) let alone 99 weeks, could perform as well in their respective profession as when they left their job. Keep in mind that those in school gaining new skills are not counted as unemployed.

To be honest, I can see why people are in opposition to this extension. There are widely held economic theories and behavioral studies that support it. That’s why the debate between Classical and Keynesian economists has gone on for decades.

And continuing to extend these benefits can’t be a self sustaining policy. By increasing unemployment benefits in order to increase GDP, we are basically paying ourselves through higher taxes. Eventually benefits will end and these people will have to accept the jobs that are already being created.

Taking all of this into consideration, I would still have to agree with Krugman and extending the unemployment benefits because this recession is nothing like we’ve ever seen before. Classical Economic Theory can’t explain everything that is going on in the economy and perhaps government intervention is the way to go. Just by doing nothing, unemployment is very high (no, the market is not self-correcting itself) and because those receiving unemployment benefits will be consuming everything they receive, it makes sense that consumption and output will increase.

Even if there is a chance it could be a wrong move, instead of doing nothing, I would rather help out those suffering from unemployment.

**Update 4/1/11: “The Federal extended unemployment benefits… will continue through 2011” with 99 weeks in states with high levels of unemployment. But, there is no fifth tier. The 99ers are receiving no more benefits.