Reluctant Politician

This blog went live on this domain one month ago yesterday. Since then it has been seen more than 1,300 visitors. It has had more than 12,000 hits and visitors have read nearly 3,700 pages of my posts.

While these are not stellar numbers in the cosmic scheme of the world wide web, nonetheless I am proud that people from all over the world – Australia, Netherlands, Seychelles, Brazil, Romania & even one person in Iran –  have stopped by and taken an interest in what I have to say. Hopefully, many of you will continue to visit this site, and eventually I hope that some of you will feel comfortable in joining in the discussion with your own thoughts. Short. Long. Agree. Disagree. They all get equal billing here.

Your opinions matter. Voice them. If not here, then somewhere else.

Silence is the least productive form of change. Be informed. Be involved. Be heard.

The Supreme Court ruled today on a case that originated very close by me at the present time. The justices rejected a challenge which had been brought forth by a half dozen homeowners in the Florida Panhandle. The homeowners were upset that the State of Florida had performed a beach restoration in front of their residences thereby turning their oceanfront homes into oceanview homes. The homeowners also declared that the beaches had gone from being private property to public beaches. The homeowners felt that the state had illegally taken their property without monetary compensation.

Apparently Florida law had for years recognized beachfront property land rights – at least in some areas – as extending to the high-tide waterline – the beaches into public property. If that is indeed clearly spelled out in Florida’s book of law, then the residents do indeed have a case. However, to complain that the state rebuilt and widened their previously storm-battered beaches is beyond ridiculous in my opinon. Also, I feel that Hawaii’s view on beaches is the way it should be for all coastal states. All beaches are public property. There are no private beaches in Hawaii.

Nowhere in America should a citizen be kicked off a beach by a private landowner, unless that landowner lives on a private island with no public land at all. Beaches are an ever-eroding and evolving part of nature and should always remain in the public domain.

Feel free to read the original story which inspired this post. It can be found at the Pensacola News Journal website: http://bit.ly/alBFcT

Tanalee Smith, a writer for the Associated Press, did what I apparently was too lazy to do myself. Tanalee researched maritime law and dug deeper into the costs of rescuing Abby Sunderland – the focus of my previous two blog posts this month – and while expensive indeed, the tab is not going to Abby or her family.

The final cost of the rescue is not printed in the story, and likely not yet known – but it may easily eclipse $500,000. While Australia has borne the brunt of the cost via multiple aircraft missions, France – via the territory of the Reunion Island – is the one that has handled the diversion of ships to her rescue and to bringing her back to shore once again.

Tanalee’s article points out though that the cost is the responsibility of the rescuers to bear. I’ll reprint several paragraphs of the article here, but I recommend reading the full article at the weblink included below.

‘Many who questioned why Australia and France were footing the bill for an American teenager’s solo quest.

But the countries involved in the rescue effort have brushed off questions about the cost of the rescue and have no plans to seek recompense. Rescues at sea are a no-cost agreement under international conventions regarding maritime search and rescue operations.

“That’s not the way the law works,” Federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese told reporters on the weekend. “The Australian taxpayer at the end of the day makes a contribution. But we have to put this in context. If there was an Australian lost at sea we would want … every effort to be made to save that person.”

In France, Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero told an online briefing that Abby’s rescue was an international obligation to help those in distress at sea.

The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea was first adopted in 1914 in response to the Titanic disaster. Along with mandating the number of lifeboats and the notification of a ship’s routes, it also dictates that any ship in the area of a distress call will divert to assist that ship.’

One of the more interesting things I learned from the story is that Australia’s search-and-rescue region is enormous – 20.4 million square miles – covering nearly a tenth of the Earth’s surface. Yes, even as small as the Earth is in this vast cosmos, we’ve still got a lot of space down here.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100617/ap_on_re_as/teen_sailor

And so ends my coverage of a teenager’s failed attempt to sail around the world all by herself.

Yesterday evening I found myself in the middle of a discussion between two Australians regarding the Abby Sunderland story. Seems they both felt that a) Abby had no business being on the ocean at that age, b) she should be in school, c) her parents pushed her into it for fame and fortune, and d) the Australian government should not be picking up the tab for her rescue.

I’ve already covered my disagreement with their objection to Abby’s parents allowing her to attempt the voyage. I stand by my reasoning from yesterday and will touch on that again briefly.

As to their complaint about the cost of rescuing Abby. I thought it was quite admirable when the Australian maritime authority publicly stated they would not be seeking compensation for the search and rescue operation conducted at the far edge of Australian waters. I commend them on taking that stance despite having to charter private jets twice to reach her position.

“We’ll do whatever is required,” Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith told a radio station. ”As a maritime nation, we have these responsibilities and we always discharge them properly.”

Abby’s boat, Wild Eyes, is presently adrift in the Indian Ocean and has a value reported to be between $120,000 and $200,000. I’m almost certain that Australia would be awarded salvage rights to the vessel if it were to tow it back to shore. Perhaps with a new mast, the government could sell the boat and recoup the costs of the search operation. It would be a little bit tacky, but considering the other option being considered right now is to scuttle and sink the boat, I suppose it is alright.

The Australian people are considered by Americans to be one of our top allies. We appreciate the strong relationship and history of cooperation between our nations. We both broke free from British rule. We worked together in Word War II to defeat Japan. It is a bit of a disappointment to hear citizens of Australia disparaging that relationship over the rescuing of one lone experienced sailor adrift at sea.

Abby may be only 16 years old but she had already proven her mettle on the open sea. She sailed around Cape Horn and the Cape of Good Hope – daunting tasks for any sailor. She endured winds of more than 50 knots and waves cresting more than 30 feet. To quote her father, Laurence Sunderland. “This is like second nature to Abigail. She’s lived over half her life on yachts.”

I do not believe Abby would have been better off in school these past five months. There is no doubt she learned more about herself and developed greater confidence, mental toughness and focus then she would have learned in any high school classroom. She will be better prepared for college as a result.

Watch videos of Abby preparing for the voyage and it is quickly apparent she loves sailing and was amped about the voyage. After she came ashore in South Africa, ending her record-breaking quest, she repaired the boat and continued on her way. The journey is more important to her than the record.

Fame and fortune is quite fleeting in America. Sailing is not as big here as in Australia or New Zealand. The America’s Cup barely gets mentioned in sports media. The hardships Abby encountered have gotten her mainstream media coverage (although I don’t recall the same happening for her brother, Zac, when he completed his own around-the-world voyage last year). She’ll be on some talk shows in the future. She’ll write a book. There’ll be a straight-to-DVD movie release about the journey . However, recognition will quickly wane and, come the fall, she’ll be just another student in her high school.

The head of Yachting Australia, Phil Jones, has been quoted as saying Abby shouldn’t have been allowed to attempt the voyage. I wonder if Mr. Jones said the same when Aussie Jessica Watson went out on her own around-the-world sailing voyage? She completed the trip last month and was also 16 years old at the time she left port on the record-breaking quest.

You can be damn sure if Jessica had run into trouble anywhere near American waters, our Coast Guard and military would have spared no expense to come to her rescue. And we would have expected nothing but a simple ‘Thank you’ in return either. It is what we do every day. It is what all civilized nations do for citizens of the world. We help those in need and ask little in return. No matter the situation. No matter their nationality. No matter their age.