KARL D. writes:

This story as reported in the Daily Mail had me pulling my hair out. A young couple had to be rescued at sea by the U.S. Navy. This foolish, foolish couple decided to take a round-the-world trip on their sailboat with their one- and three-year-old children aboard. The one-year-old fell ill and they had lost communications and began taking on water when they made a satellite call for help. To show you the mindset of these “parents,” the three-year-old had recently had Salmonella poisoning before they left and they were waiting for the child’s doctor to give her a “clean bill of health” so they could proceed on their trip! They are so astoundingly stupid and irresponsible on so many levels I can scarcely believe it. But don’t they fit the paradigm of the modern secular liberal? They are gods and goddesses who should be able to do whatever they please. Any kind of moral or even natural law is theirs to bend, challenge and break. To obey any of these laws is to oppress their humanistic given potential to be all they can be. If their children get hurt in the process? Hey, its sad and unfortunate, but even they can’t stand in the way of these modern gods. I truly hope the U.S. Navy charges them the thousands if not millions of dollars it took to rescue them. Though somehow I doubt it will happen.

— Comments —

Michael R. writes:

Perhaps Karl D. worries too much. We could consider the parents symptomatic of all that is good in the American character: rugged individualism, spirit of adventure yet not without foresight. After all, they were able to be rescued. I note their  eventual destination was/is New Zealand. Most likely they will arrive in my home city, Whangarei which has a delightful anchorage called the Town basin, close to the city centre and service facilities. 

I am frequently impressed by the size of the yachts that arrive here from all over the world and think the sailing community would have to be considered  very competent.

 Laura writes:

Around the world with two young children? That’s rugged selfishness.

They were rescued at great public expense.

Michael R. writes:

I was at a restaurant on Sunday afternoon down at our waterfront in Whangarei. I had  pizza (gulp) and coffee (gulp again) . A little girl, perhaps Swedish and about 4 years old, came off one of the yachts, went along the jetty then into our restaurant. The staff greeted her with smiles and her mother returned to their vessel with her. I thought that child will grow up resilient and not at all ignorant about life and danger.

A  few years ago I met an American woman doctor who had written a book about a family from her country, whom she knew very well having developed a great friendship with them over many years. They all were experienced member’s of the sailing community.  On a voyage to NZ and being about 2 days out ( from NZ) the family, with 2 children on board, was run down in the night by a South Korean freighter. The ship never stopped, apparently being on auto pilot and the bridge was unmanned. In the end only the wife survived a harrowing experience, her husband and children drowning. A local lawyer tracked the vessel down and undisclosed damages resulted, of course nothing would cover the  loss poor woman suffered. The book is called  Ten Degrees of Reckoning, by H.Rumberg.

I reread the story about the sick child that Karl D. posted and it seems the parents were experienced enough and prepared, sickness happens. Although there was a cost to their rescue the military would have been paid anyway.. Dealing with emergencies’ is what they do and I’m sure they relished the opportunity to serve the family in the way they did.   We could view the parents as selfish or we could say they were giving their children an opportunity very few parents give their children.

Both the United States of America and New Zealand were settled by people boarding sailing vessels and undertaking risky sea voyages with no guarantee they would arrive. With the best planning fire could still break out, capsizing and sinking’s were not uncommon,  disease was also a  frequent event. Ships were lost and nothing was ever heard of the circumstances surrounding their disappearance.  Planning, vision and commitment are human characteristics and we should expect to see them more often, the real pity is we don’t see more of it in today’s world, instead we see dependence and entitlement.   Don’t be too hard on your compatriots they are to be admired not admonished. I hope they eventually get down here, we’ll take all the Americans competent and brave enough to make the journey by sail. That’s not to say those arriving by jet won’t also be welcomed!

 Laura writes:

You suggest that Karl and I disapprove of sailing with children. Not at all — at least not in my case! What a great thing to be able to do as a family. But a baby and a three-year-old are just too young to benefit from a round-the-world journey. I bet they got sick precisely because of the strange conditions and disorientation, not to mention encounters with strange food. Little children are not interested in the world. They’re interested in the things right in front of them, and they need regular routines to make them happy and healthy. A trip to a park is a major journey for them. It doesn’t matter that these parents were prepared for sickness because they were creating the conditions for sickness. Besides, you can’t be adequately prepared for sickness in a baby when you’re in the middle of the ocean. Babies are much more vulnerable to sudden sickness. If they wanted to take them sailing, why not a more modest trip? The round-the-world thing strikes me as pure vanity.

Buck writes:

This pair reminds me of a couple that I knew in the early 70s. They had two young children and a dog. Neither the dog nor the children were taught anything about boundaries. I couldn’t stand being around them. They’d preach their free spirit and self-knowledge crap at every turn. The young mother was militant Montessori. If you reacted to their idiocy, they would go off on you about stifling boundaries and spirit crushing. I hope that their innocent children survived. They refused to lock their doors and only shut them against the cold. Their young, free-range Dalmatian was predictably killed in the heavy auto traffic that encircled their cheap, unfenced rental house yard, to shrugs of que sera sera.

Eric and Charlotte Kaufman are idiots. I’m sure that risking one or two dead children, weighed against the risk of constrained “rebel hearts” is not even a question to these hypocrites. They’re nothing like “rugged individuals.” They’re foolish, stupid and incompetent frauds. They knew damn well that the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Navy would rescue their dumb a***es when they got into trouble and sent their ping. Leave the kids and the satellite radio with grandma and go it alone. God no. That would forever stifle the kids and remove their phony excuses.

I just remembered this young woman. At least she didn’t pack a infant onto her bicycle. She actually was a rugged individual. She put only herself at risk.

( I hope that Michael R. is pulling someones leg. “Symptomatic”? )

Steve D. writes:

I think perhaps Michael R. doesn’t understand the meaning of the phrase, “rugged individualism,” at least as it applied to the American character. The Kaufmans are not some modern-day pioneer couple, taking great risks in exchange for the chance of a better life; they are entitled liberal children toying with their children’s lives in order to “fulfill” themselves.

It’s true that many Americans took their children with them when they crossed the “Great American Desert” in the earlier part of the 19th century; but the Kaufmans don’t compare to that situation. Rather, imagine some couple who toured the West in a Conestoga purely for fun, out of a “sense of adventure,” wandering around the prairies and badlands for seven years, the kids in tow, proud of themselves until the inevitable Indian attack; then they send out an urgent call to the cavalry. I doubt that anyone in that more enlightened time would have difficulty understanding or accepting the storm of condemnation that would be focused on the irresponsible parents. Today? Meh. After all, what’s really the difference between a toddler and a fetus? It’s not as if they have rights. And what else is a Navy for, anyway?

The Kaufmans gave a statement to the press after their rescue; this is from an AP article on the incident:

“We understand there are those who question our decision to sail with our family, but please know that this is how our family has lived for seven years…We are proud of our choices…”

In fact, the Kaufmans’ oldest child is three years old. In other words, for four years the “family” consisted of Eric and Charlotte Kaufman themselves, living like nomads before the first kid came along. They were unwilling to make any changes to their lifestyle to accommodate her, or her sibling two years later. They’re “proud” of their choices, no matter how badly those choices turned out in fact, because to modern liberals choice is a sacrament; one makes a choice, the more dangerous and irresponsible the better (this is called “courageous”), in order to prove one’s liberal sanctity. And then, when it falls apart, there’s always the state — and other people’s money — to come to the rescue.

We can only be thankful that the children are too young to pen the inevitable defense of their parents’ actions, claiming to be glad their lives were put at risk in such a brave, self-affirming way.

Karl D. writes:

I think Michael R. is viewing this story through romanticized lenses. These were not 19th-century pioneers heading West in a stagecoach to start a new life homesteading. These were selfish people off on a pleasure cruise. Even if their final destination was New Zealand  reports still say around the world), that is ridiculously far. This wasn’t a simple trip to Catalina or the like. It is also being reported this was a 36-foot-sailboat. That is very, very far from a yacht.

Buck writes:

There are people who intentionally risk the lives of their own children. In some cases they even long for tragedy. That sounds insane, both my saying it and that it could be true. I’m no expert on psychopathy, but I have seen it up close. We all know that it exists. I encountered it with a bewildering uncertainty and confusion. Over a short period of days my confused fear was realized. I rescued my infant son from the bottom of our backyard swimming pool. There is no doubt in my mind that he was allowed to end up there. Imagine trying to make that case.

I am convinced that to some, children are accessories; that some actually “outfit” themselves with children.

I can’t know if the Kaufmans are psychopaths. Do they express a sincere and appropriate empathy, do they actually feel an appropriate empathy? I don’t know. But, just going by the facts…

Psychopathy is said to be the most pleasant-feeling of mental disorders. They are also said to appear to have higher IQs and to be uninhibited by moral concerns, and often, to welcome their condition. They seem happy.

Judging from the Kaufmanns’ photos and reading what they’ve said, and knowing what they did and said that they will continue to do, they seem happy and undeterred.

Michael R. has an odd perspective on the mission of the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Navy. The Coast Guard was not created to rescue recreational boaters. That they spend much of their time doing that, even though it’s not there established mission, reflects on our collective mentality about such things. I hope that the purpose of the U.S. Navy doesn’t need explaining. The fact that everyone “gets paid”, regardless of what they are doing, doesn’t mitigate the risk, certainly not to the four who had to parachute into the ocean to rescue a sick one-year-old child, who, in the care of her father and mother, is in a relatively tiny boat which is taking on water in the middle of the ocean.

For God’s sake. The Rebel Heart has nothing in common with the Nina, the Pinta, or the Santa Maria, or with any one of the men, women and children aboard. The Kaufmanns are self-absorbed exhibitionist nihilists who used their children for props. This wasn’t just letting go during their child’s first bicycle ride.

Michael R. writes:

I am no romantic idealising a sea voyage but recognise some people are settler’s and other’s are pioneers, some people go down to the sea in ships and other’s just flop down on the settee.

If the USA  is the land of the brave then we should expect to see courageous activity emanating from there,  should we not?    The idea the parents were being irresponsible in taking their children doesn’t wash, from what I read the father was competent in seamanship, they are a family so of course they were going to take them. If it comes out the father was incompetent I’ll be his  harshest critic. Until then admonishment seems  a bit hasty.    People pack their kid’s into cars and drive across the country to go to Disneyland, the Smithsonian or to find employment, despite the possibility an accident or sickness could occur on the journey.  Statistics for recent years show annually around 34,000 died in motor accidents and 2.4 million were treated in hospitals following auto accidents in the USA.  Life is a risk and it is not without cost, whatever we do.

Although what they were doing was an adventure that doesn’t necessarily mean  this was the sole purpose of their trip. Many sailing families which arrive here subsequently apply for New Zealand residency and perhaps this was also in the back of their mind.  Psalm 107 talks of occasions when those who find themselves in trouble, even of their own making, find the real purpose of life becomes apparent.

It mentions those who wandered in desert wastelands  finding no way to a city where they could settle, their lives ebbing away. Then they cried out to the Lord in their trouble, and he delivered them to a city where they could settle. Other’s sat in darkness, held by  iron chains because they rebelled against God’s commands.  There was no one to help but when they   cried to the Lord he brought them out of the darkness and broke away their chains. Some became fools through their rebellious ways  and suffered affliction because of their iniquities, loathing all food and drawing near  the gates of death. Yet, when they cried to the Lord  He sent out his word and healed them, rescuing them from the grave.

And finally we come to those who  :

went out on the sea in ships;
they were merchants on the mighty waters.
They saw the works of the Lord,
his wonderful deeds in the deep.

For he spoke and stirred up a tempest   that lifted high the waves.
They mounted up to the heavens and went down to the depths;
in their peril their courage melted away.
They reeled and staggered like drunkards;
they were at their wits’ end.

Plain sailing is not guaranteed in life but it is a fact that in our need we draw closer to God than in our ease.  Recognising he is able to deliver us is not a blank cheque for irresponsible behaviour  but that life can be lived with purpose and without fear, knowing that as we  make our plans the Lord determines our steps.

Buck writes:

Michael R., it seems to me, is using “settler” and “pioneer” as metaphors for something that is missing in modern life, which leaves risk taking, simply for the sake of risk. A settler is someone who settles an unclaimed and previously uninhabited place, with a pioneering spirit. The pioneer goes first, without backup, without a life-line, and without a plan B.

If Michael believes that the pioneering spirit of our historical America has withered for lack of new frontier, I won’t argue with that. There are, it seems, unexplored regions at the bottom of the ocean. Perhaps right where the Rebel Heart is now settling.

Jill Farris writes:

Parents like this want to raise their children as polar opposites of the way they were raised. They are arrogant because they are “creative,” “free-spirited” and “fun.” They refuse to grow up, and, indeed, they are very “proud” of being different. In fact, I would say that that is their parenting plan and philosophy; throw out all the wisdom of the previous generations and trust in your own arrogance!

I’ve encountered the same mindset among many parents who appear to be good parents, living a nine-to five type of existence like many of us yet, they believe they are morally superior to those of us who use the word, “No” with our children. They lift their chins in disdain at our “authoritarian” parenting while their brats misbehave.

Years later, these are the parents whose lives are tied up in knots over their wayward adult children. They wring their hands and say, “But we did everything we could!!” and they look at our responsible, well-adjusted adult children and tell us we are just, “lucky.” Again, immature parents are not responsible for their own messed-up children.

I am sure the Kaufmans loved the media attention because it reinforced their own belief that they are special.

Please follow and like us: