Althouse: "I don't feel sad when over-privileged children who think nothing can touch them attempt to subvert the awesome and fearsome powers of nature."

June 10, 2010

"I don't feel sad when over-privileged children who think nothing can touch them attempt to subvert the awesome and fearsome powers of nature."

That's one opinion.

UPDATE: Saved!

299 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 299 of 299

Christy said...: Doesn't Social Services take kids from white trash parents for a lot less endangerment than this?; 6/11/10, 10:54 AM
John said...: "Doesn't Social Services take kids from white trash parents for a lot less endangerment than this?"

+1000. If she had been fat and homely and riding an ATV without a helmet, people would want her parents in jail. But since she is rich and cute, everything is just fine.; 6/11/10, 10:55 AM
Andrea said...: Geraldo is a vile pustule on the backside of the already diseased body that is journalism. Nothing he says should be taken for truth, that that includes the fact that fire is hot and water is wet.

Getting back to my point: yeah, I'm sure you all condemned the son's voyage just as much as you condemned the daughter's and for the same reasons. I base that upon the equal number of complaints here about the son being allowed to sail alone at such a tender age. Oh wait.; 6/11/10, 11:10 AM
Leland said...: From what I've read, this young lady seems fairly bright. Yeah, sailing is dangerous, and I think lots of people don't realize how inadequate they are in actually "taming" the ocean. Mankind doesn't have the power to control the ocean, certainly not a 16 year old girl.

At the same time, I'm having a hard time finding were Ms. Sunderland or her family didn't prepare for this event. I think she could just as easily been dead, but lots of sailors turn up dead all the time. At issue is really whether she should have risked her life at such a young age. I simply think she, and her parents, did a good job of minimizing those risks. Other than that, I think young people should experience some level of risk. Our tolerances of such vary, I'm sure.

When my daughters turned 16, there was a story of 3 girls in the local newspaper. They went to my daughters' rival high school. One of the girls were given the keys to a brand new sports car, that then used to race other cars are residential streets. The car ended up wrapped around a tree with 2 of the 3 girls dead. Those parents were stupid. Those girls took unnecessary risks. Those girls and parents are like many parents, in the US, who do the same every year. That same summer, my daughters volunteered at the local hospital. They seemed less interested in racing cars, but otherwise travelled the same roads as those other girls did.; 6/11/10, 11:10 AM
Andrea said...: "Doesn't Social Services take kids from white trash parents for a lot less endangerment than this?"

1) No.
2) Since when do we approve of what
"Social Services" or any other government agency does? Well, excluding John -- but he's established himself as our resident killjoy and nanny-to-the-world.; 6/11/10, 11:12 AM
former law student said...: It is virtually impossible to find a small boat at see. That is why so many of them go down. And why cross ocean sailing is so dangerous.

This depresses me, because when a large ship is sinking, the crew leaves it to get into -- a small boat. Given the futility of doing so, why even bother?

Yachtsmen still carry flare pistols, don't they? Can they not alert planes to their existence by shooting up a flare?; 6/11/10, 11:18 AM
John said...: "When my daughters turned 16, there was a story of 3 girls in the local newspaper. They went to my daughters' rival high school. One of the girls were given the keys to a brand new sports car, that then used to race other cars are residential streets. The car ended up wrapped around a tree with 2 of the 3 girls dead. Those parents were stupid. Those girls took unnecessary risks. Those girls and parents are like many parents, in the US, who do the same every year."

I completely agree about those girls with the sportscar. But don't you have any understanding of the danger involved in cross ocean sailing? It is of a completely different order of magnatude than drving a fast car. No amount of preparation can reduce it to anything but a very risky endeveor. It doesn't matter how prepared you are, if you get hit by a rogue waive, or get hurt, who are probably going to die. Even supremely prepared, this girl was in more danger sailing alone in the Indian ocean, than those other girls were in in that sportscare. The only difference is, she got lucky and they didn't.; 6/11/10, 11:21 AM
Anonymous said...: "The Indian Ocean didn't care how special she was when it tossed her boat over."

Precisely.

To let a 16 or 17 year old child attempt this borders on madness. It's not a matter of the child's gender. It's a matter of risk and the potential costs of failure.

Anna Salter wrote about a hiking vacation she took in the Sierras. Park rangers had placed a large sign at the trailhead: "The Mountains Don't Care."

Neither do the oceans.; 6/11/10, 11:24 AM
John said...: "This depresses me, because when a large ship is sinking, the crew leaves it to get into -- a small boat. Given the futility of doing so, why even bother?"

They carry transponders that the search planes can home in on. And many seaman die every year. Commercial fishing is the most dangerous profession there is. And it is not just because you can fall over board. It is because if your ship sinks at sea, you are in a lot of trouble. Also, even if they find you, if you are out of the range of a helicopter, you are going to have to wait until a boat can get there to pick you up.

Althouse commenters are usually quite sharp. But they are mind numbingly stupid about this subject. Do you people honestly think that being on a small craft alone in the open ocean is not a spectacularly dangerous place to be?; 6/11/10, 11:25 AM
Anonymous said...: "The Indian Ocean didn't care how special she was when it tossed her boat over."

Precisely.

To let a 16 or 17 year old child attempt this borders on madness. It's not a matter of the child's gender. It's a matter of risk and the potential costs of failure.

Anna Salter wrote about a hiking vacation she took in the Sierras. Park rangers had placed a large sign at the trailhead: "The Mountains Don't Care."

Neither do the oceans.; 6/11/10, 11:26 AM
TWM said...: What's the saying? Oh yes . . . God protects fools and children. In this case he protected the child and her foolish parents.; 6/11/10, 11:41 AM
bagoh20 said...: "Do you people honestly think that being on a small craft alone in the open ocean is not a spectacularly dangerous place to be? "

Then don't do it. But your sensitivity to risk is not the gold standard to which all must submit. The world is too dangerous for you. Stay in the house and pray for a meteor-free day.; 6/11/10, 11:44 AM
ken in tx said...: For all you naysayers, she ain’t your kid. I think we have gone too far toward telling other people how to raise their children. You raise yours. Let them raise theirs. They are a sailing family. It is none of your business.; 6/11/10, 11:44 AM
GMay said...: Well, how young is too young to do this sort of thing then? I'm not really buying into this human spirit thing because the only barrier she's breaking is a pretty damn meaningless age barrier.

And seriously, restricting underage children from attempting one of the most dangerous feats in the world is hardly keeping them in "bubble wrap". Our society draws all sorts of lines based on age. What other age restrictions shoud we be looking at doing away wan why?

(And if you're the only one bringing sex/gender/whatever-we're-s'posed-to-call-it into the discussion, you're probably the only one with the problem. Jus' sayin'); 6/11/10, 11:47 AM
GMay said...: "For all you naysayers, she ain’t your kid. I think we have gone too far toward telling other people how to raise their children. You raise yours. Let them raise theirs. They are a sailing family. It is none of your business."

Ok, here's the first one who's all for lifting any sort of age restrictions whatsoever in our society. Anyone else?; 6/11/10, 11:49 AM
GMay said...: substitute 'with' for "wan" two posts up. Not sure what the hell that's all about.; 6/11/10, 11:51 AM
John said...: "Then don't do it. But your sensitivity to risk is not the gold standard to which all must submit. The world is too dangerous for you. Stay in the house and pray for a meteor-free day."

Yes because thinking that sailing alone in the open ocean is really dangerous means that I am afraid to leave the house. You are making an astoundingly stupid argument. Further, if an adult wants to do it, have fun. But this girl is not an adult.; 6/11/10, 11:54 AM
Known Unknown said...: When I was 16 I conquered my fear of driving like a bat out of hell in a big block Chevy, and I was an idiot.

Um, that's a big block Chevrolet you were driving.; 6/11/10, 12:15 PM
Christy said...: Andrea, I'm no fan of social services and the intrusion of the state into how people raise their kids. This strikes me, however, as just the sort of situation where they tend to insert themselves in less affluent homes. My interest is social justice, although not as most define it.

A part of me is proud of the child, a bigger part disapproves of taking such risks for a non- productive goal. Then again, if she dies it's not as if she leaves dependents. Ambivalent, I am.; 6/11/10, 12:16 PM
Andrea said...: "But don't you have any understanding of the danger involved in cross ocean sailing?"

What? You mean it's not like going down to the mall? Well hell, that changes everything. How could I have been so wrong! Jail the parents.; 6/11/10, 12:19 PM
former law student said...: Blame it on Robert Manry. From an article about the harrowing solo 2005 voyage of Steven Callahan:

Forty years ago this week, Plain Dealer copy editor Manry reached Falmouth, England, in a 13½-foot sailboat. Manry wrote about his 3,200-mile trans-Atlantic voyage in a book named after his boat, “Tinkerbelle.”

Callahan was only 13 years old at the time of Manry’s trip. Soon after he began sailing, Callahan borrowed the book from the public library . . . and was swept away.

“It just captured my imagination. I could just put myself onboard. I thought, ‘Oh man, I could do that,’ ” the 53-year-old Callahan said by phone last week.

I read that book, too. Never bought a boat, though.; 6/11/10, 12:20 PM
MadisonMan said...: Um, that's a big block Chevrolet you were driving

Thank you for not saying Chevy.

Sincerely, GM Corporate.; 6/11/10, 12:23 PM
traditionalguy said...: Christopher Columbus was a risk taker at sea like no one else, and he did it to prove he was right and to reap rewards from it. He was a great sailor, thank God for that. So the Sunderland family may be descended from The Admiral of the Ocean Seas, or may be just terrible Scots-Irish warriors that will foolishly risk death on a chance to win something, and usually do win. Courage cannot be over estimated. It is the sine qua non for a good life here and in the next world.; 6/11/10, 12:26 PM
former law student said...: tradguy -- the Vikings aka Norsemen aka Normans were the adventuresome seafarers, not the Celts so much.; 6/11/10, 12:30 PM
Henry said...: The awesome and fearsome power of nature is subverted! Hooray!; 6/11/10, 12:33 PM
John said...: If you people think it is a-ok for her to sail alone around the world, what about other things? What if she wanted to become a prostitute? That is less dangerous. And she would be able to save money for college. Would everyone here be game for her parents letting her do that? If not, why not? Or what about a porn actress? yeah, the law says it should be illegal. But if we think 16 year olds are competant to risk their lives, why shouldn't they be competant to choose to have sex on camera for money?; 6/11/10, 12:35 PM
Andrea said...: You're right, John. Sailing around the world is the same thing as being a prostitute. The little hussy.; 6/11/10, 12:39 PM
John said...: "You're right, John. Sailing around the world is the same thing as being a prostitute. The little hussy."

Andrea, you really are not very bright are you? You seem to be having a hard time grasping arguments.

The point is not that sailing around the world is the same thing as being a prostitute. The point is that if you have the capacity to make an informed decision about one of them, then you have the capacity to make an informed decision about the other.

If you are going to say a 16 year old can make an inforced decision to weigh the risks of sailing around the world, then I don't see how you could say she can't also make an informed decision about being a prostitute or drinking beer, or doing drugs or any number of other activities that would normally shock the conscience when done by a 16 year old.

If you want to engage in the discussion, fine. But at least try to understand what the arguments are before you respond.; 6/11/10, 12:43 PM
GMay said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/11/10, 12:44 PM
Andrea said...: Telling me I'm stupid is a great way to get me to want to talk to you further! You know, I'm going to try that on people in real life. I'm sure it will give me a big boost in the "people skills" area.; 6/11/10, 12:46 PM
John said...: If you don't like Andrea, make better arguments or at least understand mine before attacking them.; 6/11/10, 12:49 PM
Andrea said...: If I don't like myself I should come up with better arguments? What?

By the way, "come up with a better argument" is a loser rejoinder. It's like "your argument is stupid because I disagree with it." Once you've reached that point you clearly have nothing to say. Just accept the fact that I disagree with you that all females should spend their lives inside padded boxes being fed by tubes so they won't get hurt. I know it makes you sad that you can't stop us from going outside. I'll just have to live with the hurt I caused by disagreeing with your perfectly reasoned and not at all panicky and overblown rhetoric. I think I can do that.; 6/11/10, 12:55 PM
John said...: Andrea,

It is not that you disagree with me. It is that you don't understand what I am saying. Nowhere on this thread did I ever advocate keeping females in padded boxes. You are entitled to your opinion. Who knows maybe you are right. But, at least try to understand the arguments instead of just creating strawmen where none exist.; 6/11/10, 1:04 PM
Michael said...: John: Your posts have revealed you are a scold, angry, sexist, class conscious, and dumb. You appear to be out on the idea of sailing around the world and think that the girl's parents are evil (ie rich) and should never ever have let her sail away alone. We get it.

Go back on your porch and yell at the kids on skateboards.; 6/11/10, 1:09 PM
bagoh20 said...: "But if we think 16 year olds are competant to risk their lives, why shouldn't they be competant to choose to have sex on camera for money?"

One is dangerous and the other is dangerous and offends our moral sensibilities. I assume you don't want your daughter to prostitute herself regardless of how safe it is or how old she is, but I doubt you would have a problem with her sailing around the world if it was safe, like on a cruise ship.

The analogy is just not valid.; 6/11/10, 1:11 PM
Michael said...: John: And by the way, you might want to look up the concept of "straw men" argumentation since that is the very thing you used when you raised the prostitution matter. It is a devise of rhetoric. Well know by the educated and been around for thousands of years.; 6/11/10, 1:11 PM
John said...: "John: Your posts have revealed you are a scold, angry, sexist, class conscious, and dumb."

Sorry Michael but you can't use terms like "class conscious" and "sexist" unless you know what they mean. Now run along the adults are talking.; 6/11/10, 1:11 PM
Big Mike said...: @John (with an upppercase 'J'), I'll echo what Andrea said, and I'm going to stand on my comment posted at 10:39.

The parents were, clearly, in a position to judge her skills and maturity, to evaluate the ability of her boat to handle extreme conditions, and to weigh the risks. And although the girl ran into bad luck with the weather (or at any rate didn't have especially luck with the weather) she survived, vindicating the parents' judgement.

Calling other commentators "stupid" just because they don't agree with your biases is, well, stupid.; 6/11/10, 1:24 PM
bagoh20 said...: This really comes down to where we draw our line on risk / adventure. Apparently we have a wide range of values on it. Some people would never do this regardless of age, experience, etc. Others would try it after a one hour sailing lesson. Not many of those around for a reason.

This girl is my line. I wouldn't go any riskier or younger, but if she was my daughter and she desperately wanted it and was as capable, I would, with great trepidation, say: Go for it." And I would accept the consequences without regret.

We are not all the same and that's just fine. If we were we would likely have not survived regardless of which alternative level of risk we developed.

Besides, someone has to stay home with the children. Sorry, I couldn't resist.; 6/11/10, 1:26 PM
Michael said...: John: Well, I'm off for a run. I'm 65 years old and it is 90 plus degrees outside right now, but I think I am good for ten miles today. A bit hot for that do you think? Probably should stay inside shouldn't I? I think I'll go for it, John, because sitting here reading your drivel is depressing and because, John, because I can. You?; 6/11/10, 2:01 PM
Andrea said...: Mr. Lonely wins the comment thread!

Seriously... "One is dangerous and the other is dangerous and offends our moral sensibilities."

Not to mention, prostitution is illegal, but sailing a boat isn't -- at least it isn't yet, though if the Johns of the world had their way...

Heh heh. The "Johns."

Okay now, you adults get back to talking. I'll be over here playing with my Barbie dolls.; 6/11/10, 2:03 PM
Andrea said...: Michael: you're so selfish. What if you collapse in the heat and someone tries to pick you up and they sprain their shoulder? Did you ever think of that, huh? What a world, what a world...; 6/11/10, 2:04 PM
chickelit said...: I'm glad she's safe. My only question to whom should the rescuers send their bill?

When I was hospitalized last year, I got an ambulance bill and paid it promptly.; 6/11/10, 2:05 PM
Leland said...: John,

Why do you choose "prostitution" or "porn star" as the best analogy to compare to a 16 year old girl doing something dangerous?

It's dangerous for young boys to play football. More than one dies every year in the endeavor. I'm with Andrea, it's dangerous to send kids to the mall by themselves, but it is done everyday. But all that danger is due to various risks that many reasonable people can and do mitigate on a regular basis.

Now most of us are avoiding the issue of age and sex, because we are looking at the training and preparation to mitigate the risk. Hoosier Daddy has a complaint about the age, and I fully respect that argument. I respect it, because he admits his disagreement without telling others to fuck off or that they are stupid. He also doesn't build stawmen arguments. Primarily though, he just admits that there is not sufficient risk mitigation that a 16 year old can take. That's a sound argument in my book.

But hey, keep dismissing everyone else as children (like you did Andrea), and we can then turn your strawmen against you. For instance, we could ask Andrea at what age does she think it would be acceptable for you to be a porn star or a prostitute?; 6/11/10, 2:06 PM
Michael Haz said...: When she was 15, my now-30 year old daughter was dropped off at the end of the northernmost road in Ontario with a group of nine other girls and a 23 year old woman who was their trip leader.

They hiked and canoed their way to Hudson's Bay, then canoed up Hudson's Bay to a village called Arviat, where they were met by a float plane on a pre-arranged day. They carried thirty-five day's provisions on their backs.

No GPS, just maps, compasses and their own skills. My daughter, and the other girls on the trip, had been building their skills through a summer camp program since age nine; taking increasingly challenging trips each summer.

Were we worried? Yes, of course we were. Were we sure of her skills? Again, yes; we had seen them demonstrated time and time again.

Young people need challenges that test their abilities, their strength, their ability to plan, their self-reliance.

Had my daughter asked to make the sailing trip that Abby did, and if I had full confidence in her training and abilities, I most likely would have said "Yes".

Two asides: First, after her adventure in Canadian Wilderness, my daughter spent her remaining high school and college years utterly immune to peer pressure. She had been innoculat4d by her journey.

Second, in my community we are mourning the death yesterday of an 18 year old who drove through a stop sign, hit another car, and died in the accident. This occurred two days before he was to graduate from high school.

None of our children live lives free of risk.; 6/11/10, 2:17 PM
John said...: "Primarily though, he just admits that there is not sufficient risk mitigation that a 16 year old can take. That's a sound argument in my book."

That is exactly what I am arguing. This is inherently extremly dangerous activity that a 16 year old is unlikely to be able to either fully appreciate and consent to and is, despite claims to the contrary, is unlikely to have the skills to properly conduct. This is not owning a fast care or playing football. It is a different risk entirely. One cannot be compared to the other.

As far as insulting people, I never insulted anyone until the people on this thread accused me of being some fat lazy person who is too much of a wimp to take risks. I am a combat veteran. I have heard my fair share of shots fired in anger and bullets go crack as they went past me. I know plenty about risk. And plenty about death by experience.

And I think anyone who thinks there is anything noble or laudable about a 16 year old kid going out on the ocean alone and getting herself killed is a fool. Everyone on here talks such a good game about risk and death and living the good life. Yeah, well I will wager few if any of them have ever actually faced real risk or seen the consiquences of that risk not paying off. Forgive me for laughing at such people.; 6/11/10, 2:22 PM
John said...: Michael,

Good for your daughter taking a hiking trip. But that is nothing compared to sailing around the world alone. Going off with a skilled, mature guide into the woods for a few days, while laudable, is not sailing around the world alone.

Good for you for letting your daughter go. But, your reality check just bounced if you think that what your daughter did in anyway compares to what this girl did. The two experiences and decisions are entirely different.; 6/11/10, 2:24 PM
Michael Haz said...: John,

You have apparently never gone hiking for extended periods in polar bear country.

Nice try.

My name appears at the top of each comment I make. You might consider dropping your vale of safe anonymity when you comment about peoples' children; especially when you introduce prostitution into a conversation about a teen-aged young woman.

Or perhaps you don't have as much courage as a 15 year old girl.; 6/11/10, 2:31 PM
Alex said...: Michael Hasenstab - what I find the most despicable is people like you who trot out their progeny in public forums like this to make some kind of self-righteous statement. Fuck off.; 6/11/10, 2:34 PM
John said...: "You have apparently never gone hiking for extended periods in polar bear country."

I have done it in Grizzley country in Colorado. And if your daughter hiked bear country without a fire arm, her guide was stupid. And no one is talking about your daughter. Good for her for her experience. But she didn't make the news when she did it. What she did, while I am sure fun and rewarding, was not sailing around the world alone. The level of risk involved was in no way comparable. I don't think you were irresponsible at all for letting her do it. But, so what? We are not talking about the same thing as letting her sail around the world alone, unless she was up there unarmed, in which case she is lucky she wasn't eaten.; 6/11/10, 2:34 PM
Michael Haz said...: Alex - You are an anonymous coward.

If you want to tell me to "fuck off", then do it to my face, using your real name.; 6/11/10, 2:40 PM
Andrea said...: Sad. John has just dissed the plot of one of my favorite childhood books: The Lion's Paw. It's about three kids, two of whom have run away from an orphanage, setting sail in a boat to find a rare shell. I don't remember the ending where the girl decided to become a prostitute, though. I haven't read it in a few years.; 6/11/10, 2:41 PM
Alex said...: Michael Hasenstab sounds slightly psychopathic.; 6/11/10, 2:41 PM
John said...: Yes Andrea, because life is just like a children's book. We can run around the wilderness as children and nothing bad ever happens. The big bad wolf always gets eaten never us.; 6/11/10, 2:43 PM
Andrea said...: Michael: Alex is a troll who likes to play different sides off the other. Just ignore him.; 6/11/10, 2:43 PM
John said...: Something tells me Micheal would have been the first one to file a law suit if a polar bear had eaten his daughter. It would have been everyone else's fault but his.; 6/11/10, 2:44 PM
Andrea said...: "The big bad wolf always gets eaten never us."

Hmm... I've never heard of anyone eating a wolf, it's true. Are you telling me those books were all fiction??? It's like my whole life has been one big lie!; 6/11/10, 2:45 PM
Leland said...: As far as insulting people, I never insulted anyone until the people on this thread accused me of being some fat lazy person who is too much of a wimp to take risks.

I don't know about others, but what I do know is you insulted me. I never referred to you as fat or lazy or a wimp. Indeed, I'd have a hard time arguing with you that I'm not fatter or lazier. I may have misread you; in fact, I know I initially did misread you (and perhaps you did not notice).

Anyway, I think we are moving to better ground. I won't say agree to disagree, because I think, when you stick with arguments like this last one, you should disagree. Personally, I think we would all do better with more parents like the Sunderlands, or even the Hasenstabs. I'd even accept your parents, that let there child do something as dangerous as joining the military to serve others. Such parents should be thanked, not ridiculed as idiots.; 6/11/10, 2:48 PM
Leland said...: Alex is a troll who likes to play different sides off the other. Just ignore him.

Yep; 6/11/10, 2:49 PM
John said...: andrea,

Do you have any idea of risk? Have you ever been in mortal peril in your entire life? Ever been alone in a dangerous place? Ever been closely connected with the death of someone taking one of those risks? If so, I would like to hear how you sqaure your cavalier attitude with those experiences. If not, you are just talking out of your ass.; 6/11/10, 2:49 PM
Leland said...: Something tells me Micheal would have been the first one to file a law suit if a polar bear had eaten his daughter. It would have been everyone else's fault but his.

Now John, to what do you base this claim?; 6/11/10, 2:50 PM
John said...: "I'd even accept your parents, that let there child do something as dangerous as joining the military to serve others."

I joined the military as an adult. My parents had no say in it. And I don't think 16 year olds should be joining the military. Moreover, as someone pointed out above, a 17 year old can join the Navy, but they don't let him sail around the world alone. What this girl did is much more risky than almost anything you do in the military short of close combat.; 6/11/10, 2:51 PM
Alex said...: Do you have any idea of risk? Have you ever been in mortal peril in your entire life? Ever been alone in a dangerous place? Ever been closely connected with the death of someone taking one of those risks? If so, I would like to hear how you sqaure your cavalier attitude with those experiences. If not, you are just talking out of your ass.

Big difference if it's voluntary or by accident. The former are adrenaline junkies, pure and simple.; 6/11/10, 2:53 PM
Joe said...: Doing spectacular things at 16, 17 or 18 shouldn't be a big deal, but it is because society is so intent on worshiping the "teenage" experience that teenagers aren't allowed to grow up.

In years past there were medal of honor winners younger than 18 (including Jack Lucas--look him up.)

Why is it madness for a 16-year-old to sail solo in the Indian Ocean, but not a 24-year-old? Simply assuming a 16-year-old doesn't have maturity for this that or the other thing is condescending. Good grief, my wife's grandmother gave birth to her first child at 14. I'm not advocating this by any means, but were our ancestors made of stronger stuff, or have we just become a nation of cowards?; 6/11/10, 2:56 PM
Michael Haz said...: Andrea - Thanks. I understand that John and Alex are trolls. My point remains, however, that they (and other trolls) are cowards who are fearful of posting their vile comments under their real names.

That makes them less courageous than that wonderful fifteen year old young woman.; 6/11/10, 2:59 PM
John said...: "condescending. Good grief, my wife's grandmother gave birth to her first child at 14. I'm not advocating this by any means,"

Why not? if it is condescending to say a 16 year old should not sail around the world alone, it is double so to say that a 14 year old shouldn't have children.

Yeah, people used to do things when they were younger. But that was because they had to not because it was a good idea. And yes we do coddle our children too much. But there should be a sane middle ground between helicopter parents and putting them out on a boat alone in the Indian ocean, so they can do "great things".; 6/11/10, 3:01 PM
Leland said...: Good for her for her experience. But she didn't make the news when she did it. What she did, while I am sure fun and rewarding, was not sailing around the world alone.

I wonder if this is John's real issue? It's not the risk, it's the news of it.

Because if it is really the risk, then this is interesting:

And if your daughter hiked bear country without a fire arm, her guide was stupid.

So, a fire arm makes the difference? What about a satellite phone, an emergency radio, stored food supply, and of course, the ever important training. A fire arm would be meaningless to Ms. Sunderland in the Indian Ocean. But she had plenty of other equipment to make her trip as safe for her as it would be for Ms. Habenstab to safely backpack. And apparently both knew enough to employ that equipment properly to keep safe.; 6/11/10, 3:02 PM
John said...: "Andrea - Thanks. I understand that John and Alex are trolls. My point remains, however, that they (and other trolls) are cowards who are fearful of posting their vile comments under their real names."

My real e-mail adress can be found on my profile. And stop calling people cowards. You know nothing about anyone on this board. You have no idea what people have done or not done. It is funny how people on here who think this is a good thing are so quick to call anyone who doesn't a coward. As if those who appreciate the nature of risk must somehow never experienced it when reality seems to be the opposite.; 6/11/10, 3:03 PM
John said...: "So, a fire arm makes the difference? "

In bear country, yes it makes a huge difference. But it is of course not the only thing you need to survive. So the rest of your post is just irrelevent.; 6/11/10, 3:05 PM
John said...: "But she had plenty of other equipment to make her trip as safe for her as it would be for Ms. Habenstab to safely backpack. And apparently both knew enough to employ that equipment properly to keep safe."

If you are confronted by a bear, especially a grizley, brown or polar bear and do not have a firearm, you are in a lot of trouble. The sattilite phone will not help you. And just because you survive something, doesn't mean you made wise choices. Sometimes even fools get lucky.; 6/11/10, 3:07 PM
Andrea said...: "Do you have any idea of risk? Have you ever been in mortal peril in your entire life? Ever been alone in a dangerous place? Ever been closely connected with the death of someone taking one of those risks? If so, I would like to hear how you sqaure your cavalier attitude with those experiences. If not, you are just talking out of your ass."

That's got to be the dumbest thing I've ever seen in print. Because I (according to John, anyway) haven't been "at risk or closely connected with someone taking risks" I have no right to have an opinion. Oh excuse me, a "cavalier" attitude.

John, you have no idea what I've experienced in my life, you have no idea who I've known and what they have experienced in their lives, and I have no intention of telling you, because quite frankly it's none of your business, and has no bearing upon this discussion OR upon what OTHER people do with their lives -- which I'll remind you now are THEIR OWN to run, not yours. You have no right to tell me what attitude to have. You decided to attack me personally because my "attitude" doesn't meet with your approval. Well tough shit.; 6/11/10, 3:12 PM
Andrea said...: "You know nothing about anyone on this board. You have no idea what people have done or not done."

That comes from John, who just finished lambasting me with "what risks have YOU run, little lady?" That's pretty funny.; 6/11/10, 3:14 PM
John said...: "That's got to be the dumbest thing I've ever seen in print. Because I (according to John, anyway) haven't been "at risk or closely connected with someone taking risks" I have no right to have an opinion."

You have every right to an opinion. But if you haven't actually faced such risks, it just makes your opinion not particularly well founded. It is very easy for you to say how great risk taking is. You have never done it.

"John, you have no idea what I've experienced in my life, you have no idea who I've known and what they have experienced in their lives, and I have no intention of telling you, because quite frankly it's none of your business, and has no bearing upon this discussion OR upon what OTHER people do with their lives -- which I'll remind you now are"

TRANSLATION: No John I have never been in any danger in my life but I won't admit that so I will just lash out at you instead.; 6/11/10, 3:17 PM
former law student said...: Now I'm wondering just what sort of firearm will stop a grizzly in his tracks. Nothing that would use a handgun cartridge, I'm thinking.; 6/11/10, 3:17 PM
John said...: "That comes from John, who just finished lambasting me with "what risks have YOU run, little lady?" That's pretty funny."

I didn't say you haven't. That is why I asked you. If you have, I would like to hear about it. And why you think in light of your experiences, what this girl did is still okay.; 6/11/10, 3:17 PM
John said...: "Now I'm wondering just what sort of firearm will stop a grizzly in his tracks. Nothing that would use a handgun cartridge, I'm thinking."

A 12 gauge shotgun at close range.; 6/11/10, 3:18 PM
Michael Haz said...: FLS - .44 magnum. Not properly aimed, it will break both of your wrists.; 6/11/10, 3:20 PM
John said...: Even then it is very tough FLS. There are lots of stories about people killing the bear at close range and the bear still taking their head off before they died. The best thing a firearm will do is make a ton of noise when you fire it in the air and run the bear off. The game wardens use shotguns filled with blanks to run bears off from places were people are.; 6/11/10, 3:20 PM
Alex said...: FLS:

Elephant Gun; 6/11/10, 3:30 PM
Andrea said...: I don't have to prove myself to you, John. You aren't the boss of me. You are not judge and jury of my life. You are nobody.

And you know, this is the internet. All that you can be sure of here is that someone has an opinion. I could tell you that I have gone skydiving and waterskied over Niagara Falls when I was eleven years old. How would you prove that wasn't true? I could claim to have been a covert operative in Afghanistan (code name Shiloh). I could tell you my parents finally let me leave the house without a helmet when I turned fifteen. How would you prove the truth or untruth of these statements? You can't.

On the internet no one knows you're a dog. So the whole "back up your arguments with personal experience" doesn't mean anything here because anyone could make up anything about their life in meatspace. I mean, I could be typing this right now using a pencil strapped to my forehead because of the injuries I received rappelling down Mount Ararat to rescue some archeologists who got trapped by an avalanche. Just think -- you could be arguing with a handicapped person? Aren't you ashamed?; 6/11/10, 3:37 PM
John said...: Andrea,

You are right, you could lie. But why? Why not just tell the truth and answer the question? I see no reason not to take you at your word. And if you haven't ever been in danger, maybe you should ponder why someone who has (and if you don't believe me go ask people who have) might not think this is a very good idea instead of just accusing everyone who doesn't of being a coward.; 6/11/10, 3:40 PM
Alex said...: I've been to the summit of Mt. Everest 20 times, but I won't show you the photos. Nah nah nah.; 6/11/10, 3:42 PM
Andrea said...: Oh wait wait wait -- I get it... John thinks that my saying we shouldn't prevent sixteen year old girls from doing something dangerous because it makes us worried and uncomfortable is the same thing as claiming there is no danger involved in sailing the ocean alone. Sorry. It's hard for me to follow that sort of thought train. I tend to stay on the tracks, not go off the rails.

Anyway, laters, my children. I have to go off to work, which involves a thirty-five minute drive on hilly country roads and a drive back at night on an interstate full of speeding trucks. But there's no danger involved in that, no danger at all.; 6/11/10, 4:01 PM
Andrea said...: Or... am I??? You'll never really know, will you?; 6/11/10, 4:01 PM
The Scythian said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/11/10, 4:15 PM
Cousin Bob said...: BTW, has anyone seen "Jeremy" around here lately?

And does Althouse, like, eat this for food or something?; 6/11/10, 4:25 PM
The Scythian said...: "BTW, has anyone seen 'Jeremy' around here lately?"

No, but if you go into your bathroom, turn out the lights, look into your mirror, and say, "Jeremy, Jeremy, JEREMY!" he will soon appear.; 6/11/10, 4:33 PM
bagoh20 said...: Who has taken what risks is irrelevant. I've lost 3 friends in the last year to my preferred sport. I still do it and so does everyone I know in the sport (Hang gliding). That insight does not change a damned thing. The facts are simple. The risks are calculable. You take them or not. In my opinion a 16 year old and her parents, if of sound mind and reasonable intelligence, should be free to decide such things for themselves without some strangers telling them how to fulfill their lives because they don't approve. Mind your own business. Nobody is forcing you to take risks because they believe it's right. Give them the same respect.; 6/11/10, 4:53 PM
The Scythian said...: John wrote:

"+1000. If she had been fat and homely and riding an ATV without a helmet, people would want her parents in jail. But since she is rich and cute, everything is just fine."

I don't know about ATVs, but I know there are plenty of teen motocross riders out there. I don't follow the sport at all, but I know for a fact that there are professionals who take their lives in their hands as young as 13 (with their parents' knowledge and consent, of course).

The same is true of plenty of other potentially dangerous sports and activities. For example, my grandfather was a boxing instructor. I showed interest in the sport and some aptitude at an early age. I started training and sparring in the 4th grade. I was nine years old.

My regular sparring partner was about a year older, and he was already boxing competitively.

I didn't think that this was child abuse then, and I don't think it is now. I think there are a lot of busybodies who want a say in raising children that they are not paying to raise.; 6/11/10, 5:07 PM
bagoh20 said...: If John is a troll, then I say well done dude. 300 comments on this story? I suspect Althouse is behind it.; 6/11/10, 5:24 PM
Michael said...: Andrea: I'm back from my run without a stumble!!! Pretty risky behavior, but there you are.

I see that John has weighed in on bears and guns (clearly his opinion is worthless unless he has actually shot one of the beasts) even going so far as to suggest a trusty 12 bore for horribilis horribilis. John, what sort of cartridge would you recommend? The 12 gauge at close range might work but the type of shot will matter and you will have to answer the question correctly or you will be on some messy ground with me since this is a topic with which I am pretty familiar. Probably more familiar than you are with 40 foot sailboats which you characterized somewhere as a single person sailboat. And while we are on the topic of shotguns, 12 bore to be precise, do you have a style or model that you like to tote?

FLS: Many people carry 357 Magnums in bear country, usually loaded with hollow points. Might not work as well as the 12 gauge, unless of course you put the wrong kind of shell in the 12.; 6/11/10, 5:39 PM
bagoh20 said...: Whenever threatened by a bear I always just crap in my pants. They hate that.; 6/11/10, 5:42 PM
Michael said...: Crapping works great. Better to run down hill however as bears have foreshortened front legs making that an awkward maneuver. I have never been told what to do at the bottom of the hill, however, so I would reserve the crapping until then.

I have always attached bear bells to my pack but I am now told that it might piss them off. You could ask John, of course.; 6/11/10, 5:50 PM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Whether this was too risky or not depends on the individual.; 6/11/10, 7:16 PM
Leland said...: Anybody remember JFK Jr?; 6/11/10, 7:27 PM
bagoh20 said...: "Anybody remember JFK Jr?"

Yep, after hearing about the crash, I went out that day and signed up for pilot lessons and took my first flight. I don't know why. It just got me thinking about it and I was hooked. Got my license and I'm still here. JFK Jr. took a foolish risk and is an example of how age is of little help. I know teenage pilots that would not have made those mistakes. It's about competence and judgment and some young people just have more of both than their seniors. It can be tested for and proven to determine risk.
We are not all equal.; 6/11/10, 7:52 PM
Unknown said...: Put me down as another mom who's sick of the whole idea of "helicopter" parenting. What I really see and hear in many of these comments is not so much that people believe her parents were wrong to let her attempt to circumnavigate the globe, but in reality, they are simply falling victim to "class envy". So many of the comments refer to the cost of the rescue efforts, and "spoiled rich brats". I find that very telling. I really do believe that as this young lady was obviously raised around sailing, it is the right of she and her parents to choose how they wish to live. Frankly, like it or not, folks, they're paying big bucks for all kinds of services and contributing far more to our society - helping to keep people employed - than your average $45K per year schmuck who is living beyond their means and envious of those whose choices in life have made them wealthy!; 6/11/10, 8:50 PM
JAL said...: The dad is a shipwright and the family business is a yacht management company wherein they apparently maintain, repair, Captain (dad), rig, buy, sell etc. yachts.

According to a website, he has logged more than 120,000 sea miles.

I am not commenting on the wisdom of what this kid is doing or the parents, just that this person, this girl, are not weekend sailors.

(And Geraldo is the exploiter.); 6/11/10, 10:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Hoosier Daddy --

"a reckless act"

Reckless acts are a necessary thing.

The world is careless in its treatment of you and you must be reckless about it or spend a lifetime in fret.; 6/12/10, 10:46 AM