Rebel Heart's wife has her say

[UFO]

Originally Posted by Exile

Funny, but it says to me that the UK is increasingly interested in censorship. But us Yanks are often a bit sensitive towards that sorta thing.

LOL - Really? Its American Tech companies that are censoring everything that does not agree with the prescribed narrative. Wakey Wakey USA

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Oh such a fun discussion…

I continue to stress that this article is not about the questionable preparations this couple did to go cruising. The issue this article addresses is the increasingly over-protective parenting we’re seeing in our societies, and the related impacts on parents and kids who buck this damaging trend. Whether you think these parents are bad, or fame-seeking, or whatever, is irrelevant to the broader point.

Perhaps only if you read it in isolation Mike. I'm not all that familiar with the details either, but from others that followed the saga more closely this couple has a history -- at least in the eyes of some -- of trying to exculpate themselves from responsibility for their own mistakes. So to the extent that's true, the article could be deemed as rather self-serving. That doesn't necessarily take away from the rather eloquently written thoughts about what I agree is a real problem of over-protective, risk-averse modern parenting. And whether this particular couple is guilty of going too far in the other direction is debatable.

As for Fox being right wing, I’m rather amused to see people pushing back on that notion. Any unbiased viewing of the channel will reveal a clear right-of-centre bias. I do find their main news people to be pretty good journalists. Shepard Smith, Chris Wallace, Bret Baier all seem very good and pretty even-handed.

Not sure I've read any pushback on whether Fox is right-of-center. Seems pretty obvious. More like how far right and how it fits into whatever categories people see to put it in. I think Fox does, believe it or not, actually present a wider diversity of views than their left-of-center counterparts like CNN & MSNBC, but I can't confirm that one. In the US, a quick Google search reveals that they have been well out-pacing their cable news competitors (viewership & ratings) for many years now, but the nightly network newscasts still dominate. Given Fox's long-time dominance in the cable news arena, however, it might be a stretch to call them anything other than "mainstream," at least in the US.

But the larger point of the discussion I think is that media bias, like any other, is both inherently subjective and always relative. So while I may not argue about broad generalizations like Fox being right-of-center, when you say "any unbiased viewing . . . will reveal a clear right-of-centre bias," any such evaluation necessarily depends on one's own bias, along with how that bias may skew where they believe the "center" actually lies.

A better example perhaps is The Economist. I've heard some conservatives quite emphatically deem it (slightly) left-of-center, while some liberals just as emphatically call it well to the right. As a UK publication, the reality may be that it reflects the "center" of UK politics which one could say are to the left of the US, but then also to the right of W. Euro continental powers such as Germany & France. I guess the point is not to assume consensus on where political bias falls on a spectrum since it's not amenable to objectification. That's why when Gord posts a chart purporting to do just that, there will always be those who push back.

And for the record, I like to get my news from RT, Al Jazeera as well as the BBC, CBC, NYT, WSJ, Economist, National Post, and many others. I find a diverse group of sources is the best approach, especially on controversial stories.

Agreed. While individual selections may differ, I don't see any other way of getting to some level of unbiased "truth" (if you will) then devoting your reading or viewing to a broad spectrum. In these days of hyper-partisanship on all sides, I for one haven't been able to find any truly objective, fact-based sources. Everyone has an agenda it seems, and of course want to increase their viewership by making their news . . . shall we say . . . "entertaining?" There's no better way of doing that, of course, then telling people what they want to hear.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by UFO

LOL - Really? Its American Tech companies that are censoring everything that does not agree with the prescribed narrative. Wakey Wakey USA

That's somewhat debatable, but in any event US tech cos. don't reflect the majority of public sentiment and the overall culture. That's why there's been a degree of rare bipartisan support in the US Congress for pushing back on such practices, to the extent that's what's going on. It's also why there seems to be a general revulsion against the intolerance & censorship that we're seeing on college campuses. There's a long American tradition of addressing bad ideas by allowing them to be aired so that they will then be countered with good ideas. Censorship & suppression usually only benefit those in power, and runs counter to long-entrenched American (but not exclusively American) ideals about civil liberties and preserving individual freedoms.

[UFO]

Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Google and Amazon to name some of the major players are all up to some serious censorship which is being backed up by the major payment gateways refusing their services to certain entities/individuals. It's almost irrelevant that the US public sentiment does not agree with it as they seem almost powerless to stop it, the fact is its happening.

Originally Posted by Exile

That's somewhat debatable, but in any event US tech cos. don't reflect the majority of public sentiment and the overall culture. That's why there's been a degree of rare bipartisan support in the US Congress for pushing back on such practices, to the extent that's what's going on. It's also why there seems to be a general revulsion against the intolerance & censorship that we're seeing on college campuses. There's a long American tradition of addressing bad ideas by allowing them to be aired so that they will then be countered with good ideas. Censorship & suppression usually only benefit those in power, and runs counter to long-entrenched American (but not exclusively American) ideals about civil liberties and preserving individual freedoms.

[Nicholson58]

We have been cruising the Caribbean for three years now and prior to that, the Great Lakes. We had the great pleasure to buddy boat with three other boats last season including two boats with children. The kids were the most well adjusted, self assured, kind and competent young people we have ever met. They added so much to our collective days. The continuous wonderment and discovery were shared by all as we explored the islands.

I was appalled at the vitriol in the press over Rebel’s misfortune by a bunch of vultures. These were, to a soul, ignorant of any facts of the matter. They simply grazed on the carcass of the unfortunate, with nothing constructive to contribute.

I hope To meet Rebel Hart on the water some day if they choose to continue the dream.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by UFO

Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Google and Amazon to name some of the major players are all up to some serious censorship which is being backed up by the major payment gateways refusing their services to certain entities/individuals. It's almost irrelevant that the US public sentiment does not agree with it as they seem almost powerless to stop it, the fact is its happening.

Public sentiment, if sufficiently united, is never irrelevant. Except in countries with autocratic govts. that is. In the US, the public may not be able to stop it on its own, but their representatives in Congress may be able to.

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/google-...isan-onslaught

This goes well beyond allegations of censorship and involves potential anti-trust violations, but the fact that presidential candidates are jumping into the fray is worrisome. As is the justification from some critics that these cos. are allowing "the spread of misinformation and hate speech." Not sure how such concepts are defined, but we should be careful what we wish for. With partisan politics in play, we may just be replacing one form of censorship with one that could be far more insidious.

[UFO]

[QUOTE=Exile;2902495With partisan politics in play, we may just be replacing one form of censorship with one that could be far more insidious.[/QUOTE]


You have hit the nail on the head there Public outrage will not stop the censorship, just morph the form or controlling body of it - At the end of the day censorship is still censorship.


What I also find concerning is how the huge rise of political correctness is killing the freedom of speech, with every armchair warrior ready to jump up in outrage at the slightest thing, often repeating the corporate/political dogma in their justification - Its all very clever getting the population to self censor.


Anyway enough thread drift for today

[Dsanduril]

[Rant]

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm more with Charlotte on this than not. I butted heads more than a few times with RH and am of the opinion that, in the end, the proof was in the pudding. I think it's a bit silly to complain online about the same types of treatment they gave others, but with regard to parenting I find myself in general agreement.

I really take exception to calling their choices "idiotic" or equating them with child endangerment. That is a very slippery slope. There are places in Alaska, or Montana, or even California where medical help can take just as long to respond as the time it took for RH to get help. Should people there not be allowed to have children? What about the helicopter parenting (of which Charlotte was speaking) that has resulted in an entire generation of Western children (and young adults now) with poorly developed immune systems that are the result of overly sterile living? Isn't that child endangerment? And yet that seems to be the exemplar that is held up in chastising RH.

This discussion isn't new, I was 13 when I started cruising >40 years ago and the general consensus was that it was irresponsible of my parents. The Dashew children were 4 and 6 at the same time and off cruising with their parents. I still know friends that were born on cruising boats and grew up there. I babysat some of them before they were toddlers. It's not for everyone, but to call it idiotic ... (I couldn't figure out what to put here without being overly offensive and outside CF's rules myself).

What I find Charlotte doesn't address is the medical care preparation and plans they had in place. While I find Singularity's overall tone offensive, most cruisers know that dehydration is a serious risk, young or old. For people without a lifetime of exposure to tropical diseases it is a very real risk. Every boat I've ever sailed on has carried IV bags and equipment, including pediatric, to deal with hydration and electrolyte problems. And more than one person who knows how to use them. It's not that hard or expensive. Did RH have those aboard and the knowledge to use them? Without some basic information along those lines how can you judge their level of responsibility? Is it less than that of suburban parents who have a child with allergies but don't carry an EpiPen because they can't afford the obscene prices thereof?

[/rant]

[tomfl]

Truth be told I got into a flame war with Rebel Heart way before he left on the fateful voyage. He made some inaccurate claims about composting heads that I, along with several others, noted as mistakes on his parts. The details related to him having way too much liquid in the composting head which is a huge no no.

His bullheaded attitude was obvious. The reason I point this out is that poor sanitation seemed to be something tolerated on his boat (dirty diapers in the galley sink is wrong on so many levels) and a likely cause of illness on the boat.

But as important as it is to keep a boat clean it is more important for a boat to be seaworthy. Softness in the deck, especially where turnbuckles are is even a bigger no no than dirty diapers in the sink. Getting hit by a gust with the main sail up and compromising the standing rigging due to not adequately repairing the soft deck around the turnbuckles is not a risk prudent sailors would take. Adding infants to the mix is asking for disaster.

As others have noted the helicopter parent/let the kids run wild is not an either/or; there is a happy medium. I have seen some cruising kids that turned out well; and some that did not turn out so well. My take is how well kids turn out is more a function of the parents than if they are cruising or not.

I am not so sure taking infants to sea in a boat that is not seaworthy and where required hygiene is ignored is the sign of good parents.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

[Rant]

SNIP
What about the helicopter parenting (of which Charlotte was speaking) that has resulted in an entire generation of Western children (and young adults now) with poorly developed immune systems that are the result of overly sterile living? Isn't that child endangerment? And yet that seems to be the exemplar that is held up in chastising RH.

SNIP
[/rant]

Not sure keeping dirty diapers in the galley sink is the solution to cure poorly developed immune systems.

[weavis]

Guys.

We the moderating team for Cf point out time and time again that 90% of threads get closed due to a diversion from the topic to political and heated commentary.

STOP IT.

You all agreed to the CF rules upon accepting membership. Let us loosely stay within the discussion of the original premise of this thread leave out swathes of information about the earning power or political connections of news purveyors.

Or else yet another thread will bite the dust.

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by tomfl

Not sure keeping dirty diapers in the galley sink is the solution to cure poorly developed immune systems.

Couldn't agree with you more, although all I've seen in that regard is third hand. I have no knowledge that that actually happened.

I just take exception to calling them idiots for taking their children away from 'civilization' and was giving a specific example (well researched and documented) of how a 'civilized' upbringing can also fail children. There are so many ways it can happen. Poor hygiene, at sea or on land is one of them.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

Couldn't agree with you more, although all I've seen in that regard is third hand. I have no knowledge that that actually happened.

I just take exception to calling them idiots for taking their children away from 'civilization' and was giving a specific example (well researched and documented) of how a 'civilized' upbringing can also fail children. There are so many ways it can happen. Poor hygiene, at sea or on land is one of them.

Given Rebel Heart's response to the thread about how he maintained his composting head it seemed clear to me there was a problem. I have had the same composting head since 2012 and never had an issue. But I have a strict procedure on it's use and how I maintain it. I know guys who have conventional heads and the ones with few problems follow a similar routine.

It is easy to find threads at CF with horror stories about joker valves. But my point was not about a possible hygiene issue. There was clearly a problem with a soft deck and turnbuckle failure which precluded the boat from sailing.

My experience has been that a disaster like this one is not the result of a single thing but a combination of mistakes. Poor hygiene, prior illness, unseaworthy boat, mainsail up/unreefed at the wrong time, maybe no one on watch, not paying attention to expired satphone, and probably more.

I have no problem with those who cruise with kids; but I am also sure it is not the end all answer. The first cruising kids I met were when my Dad bought a boat in the Bahamas and I flew over to Marsh Harbor to help him sail it back. The owner had four kids, the oldest 20 rest in their teens. Every one could not wait to get off the boat and live on dirt.

To me there were too many warning signs that Rebel Heart was not ready to leave. My go to rule is 'I would rather be in port and wish I was at sea than be at sea and wish I was in port'.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by tomfl

Truth be told I got into a flame war with Rebel Heart way before he left on the fateful voyage. He made some inaccurate claims about composting heads that I, along with several others, noted as mistakes on his parts. The details related to him having way too much liquid in the composting head which is a huge no no.

His bullheaded attitude was obvious. The reason I point this out is that poor sanitation seemed to be something tolerated on his boat (dirty diapers in the galley sink is wrong on so many levels) and a likely cause of illness on the boat.

But as important as it is to keep a boat clean it is more important for a boat to be seaworthy. Softness in the deck, especially where turnbuckles are is even a bigger no no than dirty diapers in the sink. Getting hit by a gust with the main sail up and compromising the standing rigging due to not adequately repairing the soft deck around the turnbuckles is not a risk prudent sailors would take. Adding infants to the mix is asking for disaster...

I remember some of the discussions engendered by yourself and others in the build-up prior to their departure. I had impressed on me the opinion that perhaps the male partner in the venture was a little bit over-optimistic and a little macho in the preparations for their adventure.

However, as with most in-depth analysis at termination of operations, it becomes a post mortem scenario.

A lot of the commentary here is based on personal opinion regarding child rearing and what is correct and not correct. The pointing fingers are done because of the outcome of certain events, and they in themselves are NOT inevitable in every case.

So what do we know?

1/. That boat preparation and subsequent faults that contributed to not being seaworthy existed.
2/. That a strongly independent and bullheaded approach to embarking on this journey was in evidence. In itself is a male trait yet needs to be tempered with a willingness to take advice from experienced and professional Maritimers.
3/. That children were taken on this voyage.

As a medic with 37 years of experience in many countries, I find it is not within me to criticize number 3.

It may be a preference of mine to question the decision to do the trip in a hurry to fulfil a personal desire and may have contributed to the neglect of proper preparation on the vessel, but each parent must take responsibility for raising their child as they see fit. I don't think the charge of "poor parenting" can be laid at their doorstep, rather a series of decisions that led to a situation occurring which required a rescue being requested.

We must not forget that medical treatment was sought and obtained in Mexico, and the subsequent release of the child from medical oversight in itself was an indication that all was well. Sometimes relapse occurs, but not always. In hindsight, given that the journey was to continue, it might have been prudent to have obtained certain medications that would have helped in "the event...", however, it did not happen.

I'm going to ignore questions pertaining to sanitation, there is not enough information or detail to comment on.

Was it wrong for them to take children on the trip? I don't think so. I see young children thriving aboard boats from an early age with no problems. Health issues arise from time to time and they need to be dealt with as and how possible. A well stocked medical kit and the ability to use it is a prerequisite.

There are many things that observers are not privy to. We will never know all the details, and to a large extent, self-justification will be the human response.

I cannot find it in me to criticise a family going to the sea.

I can, however, find an issue with the preparation not being as good as should have been given the interaction between Rebel Heart and the entire membership of Cruisers Forum, and a potential life-threatening ego that prohibited some good judgement being displayed.

This family will have to overcome/endure the public opinion of their adventure, and the lesson the male partner will have to learn is that he did not do his part of the job properly.

The rest is what it is.

[Pelagic]

Sticks and Stones may break your bones, but social media will drive you crazy!

That is the Catch-22 with sharing, researching and opening up ( ad infinitum ) within a world of incognito opinions.

If you disagree with someone, you can be labeled ignorant and if you do it too vehemently, your reputation becomes bullheaded.

Those traits follow you like and albatross and when setbacks eventually occur (big and small).... This just proves the critics point about your shortcomings!

In social media, we often write and listen in "Litotes" to emphasize our ideas or criticise them.

That is our failures ....and we should keep it in mind when dissecting the words of Rebel Heart!..
.... I would love to have them and their children onboard as my guests and just forget about all the past drama!