Somebody has to pay the nanny

CommerceNewsTODAY

RSS Feed

Email Alerts

Facebook

Somebody has to pay the nanny

Posted by

Mark Beardsley

in Opinions

Wednesday, June 23. 2010

Comments (11)

By Mark Beardsley

It was a relief to read Friday morning, June 11, that 16-year-old sailor Abby Sunderland was alive and well. She’s the kid who attempted to set a record as the youngest woman to sail solo around the world. Her boat became disabled in a storm on the Indian Ocean and, for some time, she was out of contact with the world.

It also happened that I was working on a Commerce budget story, looking at all the depressed revenue figures. I couldn’t help but ponder the amount of money spent to rescue Sunderland.

Among other costs, the Australia Maritime Safety Authority chartered a commercial jet for the search. The head of that agency indicated he would not seek compensation, but given all the talk of government funding cuts, one must ask: Is it appropriate to ask the state to finance the rescue of high-risk adventurers?

Conservative commentators like to use the term “nanny state” for a government that seems to express too much interest or concern for its constituents’ well-being. It’s often employed in discussing proposed regulations about nutrition labels on fast food or fat content in baby formula, for example.

Their rational view is that Americans can look out for themselves. I’d put it another way; Americans should look out for themselves, but we see time and time again that Americans are prone to make lousy decisions in a vast array of areas. Sadly, a huge number of American adults need a nanny ...

Now, take Sunderland. If we were to conduct a pole asking whether a 16-year-old should be allowed to attempt a solo sailing circumnavigation of the world, upwards of 95 percent would say “no,” and most would say “hell no.” I wouldn’t let my then 16-year-old drive solo to and from Athens.

However courageous, resourceful and experienced she is, the odds of a rescue or rescue attempt had to be high. This family, in addition to putting their child at risk, also put the taxpayers of various nations at risk.

The first priority is to get the kid back to safety. But should the public be on the hook for rescuing people who engage in risky adventures, from mountain climbing to cross-ocean solo sailing? Is it up to Australia or Indonesia or America to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to rescue someone whose adventure went predictably bad?

Our hearts rightly tell us when a child is in danger that there’s no cost that’s too high, but I’d be happier if those whose recklessness or risky behavior got them in trouble were required to pay compensation for their rescue.

Even nannies get paid.

Mark Beardsley is editor of The Commerce News. He lives in Commerce.

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 chan7 on 06/24/10 at 11:47 AM [Reply]

The same thing can be said for these ILLEGAL BORDER CROSSERS.Sure they are brave to cross the desert heat and risk being caught but there again why should the American citizens and TAX PAYERS be on the hook for their Anchor Babies,Education,Health Care the list goes on...

#1.1 Anonymous on 06/24/10 at 11:33 PM [Reply]

"Anchor babies" are children! what kind of monster can look at an innocent child with that kind of anger?

#1.1.1 chan7 on 06/25/10 at 07:25 AM [Reply]

I can and about 70% of the American people!

#1.1.1.1 Anonymous on 06/25/10 at 04:19 PM [Reply]

well then you probably need to see a therapist because you have serious emotional problems. how would you feel if your children were attacked? or your brothers and sisters were victimized by THEIR OWN government. Probably not too good.

#1.1.1.1.1 chan7 on 07/02/10 at 07:45 AM [Reply]

If you can't feed them then don't breed them!

#1.2 Anonymous on 06/26/10 at 07:01 PM [Reply]

a message to someone who I'm sure is a very good "Christian" written by someone much more eloquent than I am:

“Thus, as we think from a Christian point of view about the plight of illegal immigrants and their families, our goal should be that each one has the opportunity to live a fruitful, abundant life. How could we want anything else for these human beings who are made in the image of God? Yet here’s where we come to a problematic assumption that is often not expressed, even though it is made by people on both sides of the immigration debate: It is highly unlikely that undocumented workers and their families will be able to live truly fruitful lives in their own countries. The realities of poverty, political oppression, economic injustice, poor education, and poor medical care, just to name a few, make it very difficult for millions upon millions of Hispanics to flourish in their homelands. Their only hope of a fruitful life is in the United States. So they come to this country, making large sacrifices and braving many dangers, because they expect a better life here. And, for the most part, if they can make it here and settle, they will have a better life … as will their relatives back in the homeland, who receive money from their kin in the United States.”

#2 Joe Christmas on 06/25/10 at 11:47 AM [Reply]

Chan7 needs to read the 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States. If he can read. It says all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States. If as I suspect he is just a bigot that wants all people that don't look like him to go away then trying to explain this to him would be a waste of time.

#2.1 chan7 on 06/25/10 at 01:50 PM [Reply]

I've read it ! It also says that our borders are suppose to be secured from invasion too but that hasn't been happening either.I am just tired of working to support everyone else....I guess I'm a racist also since I didn't agree with the health care bill and I dot care for the cap and trade bill either!

#2.2 CC on 06/25/10 at 04:21 PM [Reply]

I love the comments that Joe Christmas leaves on this site! And his reference to Faulkner.

#3 Bishop on 06/28/10 at 09:04 AM [Reply]

Other than the first reply, I don't know how everyone turned this story into a story about Illegal Border Crossers or racism. No, we shouldn't have to pay for Mexican's to have babies in America, but that isn't what the story was about.

Mr. Beardsley's story was about the family of the 16 year old who was told before she boarded her boat that she wasn't experienced enough, that conditions were not favorable and not to go but still went on a solo trip around the world and had to be rescued at the expense of the taxpayers.
BUT how different is this story than the JFK Jr. plane crash? He wasn't licensed to pilot the plane under the conditions and when he crashed into the Atlantic, the taxpayers paid for the search.
Who should be responsible for the rescue or search…the captain/pilot, the family, the insurance company?? NO, it shouldn't be the taxpayers who pay for the recklessness of others, but we get to do it every day.

#4 Joe Christmas on 06/28/10 at 10:39 AM [Reply]

Thanks CC. I didn't know anyone still read Faulkner. The real Joe Christmas didn't know if he was black or white. If anybody cares the name of the book is "Light In August".

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment: E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.

Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
Phone*

What is one plus zero?
: Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry
: Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

Community

Commerce Community

Somebody has to pay the nanny

CommerceNewsTODAY

Somebody has to pay the nanny

Recent Stories

Recent Comments

Sister Sites

Archives

Community

Keyword Tags