Malkin’s site, a Teen-Sailing-Alone Survey
was opened for readers to express their opinion about Abby Sunderland. The majority of comments that have been posted are commonsensical. But a significant minority are contemptuous of the idea that if a 16 year old wants to circumnavigate the globe on her own, she should be prevented from doing it. Here are four examples of the latter:
On June 12th, 2010 at 9:05 pm, kmasitti said:
Really? LaShawn, our kids can’t do ANYTHING anymore. No dodgeball, it’s too dangerous, they have to wear helmets when they ride a bike, merry-go-rounds in playgrounds and seesaws have been outlawed. Kids are lazy and dependent on their parents because we are afraid to let them ride their bikes past the corner or ride the bus. We are turning our kids into a bunch of whiny pansies. It’s one thing to be safe, but we are going over board (no pun intended). If my daughter were an accomplished sailor, I would worry, but let her do it if it meant that much to her. She had a phone, computer and everything she needed to stay safe and she did stay safe, ok so the boat broke and she didn’t make it, maybe she can try again next year. Yes, I am a parent.
On June 11th, 2010 at 4:26 pm, Ron C said:
What a load of crap on this thread. Teens are subject to far more danger going across town in a car than this very experienced young lady is at sea.
But, apparently so called conservatives now days are little different from the liberals—they would control what you can allow your children to become, particularly if they think that there is some degree of risk.
Bah … I’m ashamed of the fascist dolts on this thread.
On June 11th, 2010 at 3:29 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:
I personally think she’s more than capable of doing this. It’s her passion, and she’s following it. Age has nothing to do with it and sometimes neither does decades of experience.
Just ask Steve Fossett—who, after flying around the world in his balloons and crashing in the ocean a few times, ends up dying in the Reno/Tahoe area after taking off in a single engine plane. And yet, he was a very experienced pilot.
Things happen, and they can happen to the most experienced to the least experienced. If you don’t take chances in life, then you might as well spend the rest of your life sheltered within your own home.
I commend this young woman for doing this, and she as more than well prepared for the adventure. Just take a look at her vessel, her equipment, her training, the number of rescue beacons, food, the air tight compartments, the emergency equipment, radar, sat phone, etc.
Her mast broke. Could happen in Lake Michigan and she could drown 200 yards from shore. Would that make it any better?
Give me a break.
On June 11th, 2010 at 2:50 pm, single stack said:
Reading the comments on this thread is helping me to understand why America is in the shi**er. They are one long litany of cowardice-and these are right wingers!
America became great and powerful because Americans had courage, fortitude and a sense of adventure. Not anymore. The scourge of liberalism has pussified us and turned us into a risk averse bunch of wimps. NASA is a good case study of what we have become.
I applaud Amy Sunderland-and her parents-for having the courage to dare to make a dream come true.
We need more people who are willing to look Death in the eye-and spit.
A reader writes:
I only caught part of Savage’s commentary on Abby Sunderland and must have only heard the faux praise because soon after you posted that I read the other reader’s explanation that he was being sarcastic. In retrospect, some of what he said was too absurd to be sincere, but maybe I didn’t pay close enough attention at the time. Or else my sarcasm detector is broken. :-)
Several things about Abby Sunderland caught my eye. She is young, blond and attractive like most of the clueless white female narcissists who feature in your posts about liberal society being the factory for the production of dead white women. Also the last person you’d want to fall into the hands of lecherous Somali pirates. And she has the audacity to talk about another voyage right after a foreign government bailed her sorry ass out at considerable expense to taxpayers. Her parents claim they aren’t wealthy and thus can’t afford to pay for the rescue costs. If that is so, what are they doing belonging to a yacht club? Sailing isn’t a cheap hobby for the plebs.
When I first went to Abby’s Wikipedia profile I was surprised to learn that she comes from a family of nine with a tenth on the way. My immediate assumption that they’re Evangelicals was confirmed a second later when I scrolled down. I’d be shocked if they aren’t the pro-open borders invade-the-world-invite-the-world kind. Her parents and especially her mother seemed limp-wristed, soft-headed imbeciles like most of the white “Christians” I meet nowadays. They need several hard smacks upside the head. Her father’s quote, “We are born-again Christians, and we don’t make any decision just based on feeling or even on sound knowledge,” is only half true.
D. from Seattle writes:
It seems to me that the four commenters from Malkin’s site, whom you quoted disapprovingly, want to have it both ways.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 14, 2010 12:36 PM | Send
They complain about kids riding bikes with helmets on, or how dangerous it is for kids to ride across town in a car, but then, instead of addressing these issues, i.e. promoting bike riding without helmets, or making riding across town safer, they promote something that has nothing to do with those issues, namely a solo sailing trip around the world. So how exactly does Abby Sunderland’s adventure make countless other kids less lazy and dependent on their parents? Pardon me if I fail to see the connection.
Another commenter says: “I applaud Amy Sunderland-and her parents-for having the courage to dare to make a dream come true. We need more people who are willing to look Death in the eye-and spit.” Uh, no: if you’re going to look death in the eye and spit, then why do you need all the safety equipment, rescue beacons, satellite phone, GPS, massive rescue effort, and all that? Why don’t you just look death in the eye, and if you die, oh well, the risk must have been worth to you.
I guess you have to be a liberal to want it both ways, to want to have riskless risk for entertainment purposes only, and not even realize the absurdity of your position.