Jordan Romero of Big Bear California set a new record as the youngest person to reach the summit of Mt. Everest. Reported by the AP, an article on CBSnews.com reports that all are happy and proud of Jordan and his latest achievement. But one has to wonder how the story would be playing if the headline had read, “13 year old dies attempting to reach summit of Mt. Everest.â€
As sensational as the idea of a 13 year old mastering the highest mountain in the world is, the facts are that hundreds have died attempting the same feat. According to an internet site called Mount Everest History/Facts, 120 bodies remain on Mt. Everest to this day. This begs the question…is it ok to allow a 13 year old to do such a potentially fatal thing?
How would our society react to a parent allowing a 13 year old to drive a car around town. Or how about allowing one to carry a gun around or smoke and drink. Fortunately the answer was settled a long time ago. And that answer is that we do not allow it. And that is because we determined that a 13 year old does not posses the mental capacity to make such decisions. And because it is impossible to ensure that all parents will abide by the same tenants of common sense our civilization has recognized as right, laws have been made to ensure children are protected from certain potentially harmful activities.
So, should Jerome’s parents be charged with reckless endangerment of a child? It certainly does not look as though anyone wants to pursue that. But I’m betting that if Jerome had died or had been seriously injured, it would be a very different story.
It just goes to show how childish we are as a species. As long as the result is positive, we can forgive the intent. We see it in our laws. For instance the difference between murder and attempted murder. If you attempt to murder someone and succeed, you’re punishment is severe. But if you fail and your victim survives, you’re punishment is far less severe… why? The intent is the same. How is it logical to have very different punishments for what is for all intents and purposes the same crime. It’s the same thing here. Because the boy came back alive and well it’s a great accomplishment. But if he had died, his folks would probably be under arrest right now.
*************
Devin Barber, Politics Correspondent
Devin’s column, “Left Of The Right†published weekly or more to Gather Essentials: Politics is a Blue Collar Democrats take on current political news.
Devin was raised by proud Roosevelt Democrats. Being the son of parents counted among the throng of Americans displaced by the Great Depression has given Devin a deep rooted passion for causes dealing with the poor and the working class.
You can find all of Devin’s columns at LEFT OF THE RIGHT
You can keep up with Devin’s postings and his Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click here: Devin Barber and then select the orange “Connect†button on the left-hand side of the page.
You can find Devin and other Political Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other politics experts at Politics.gather.com.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 36
The individual should be always under the control of the Expert and subservient to the morals of the State.
What Pogo said.
for Ed: There is a world of difference between a family abdicating parenting to a two-year-old tyrant, and a (presumably-) affluent parent indulging his own fantasies of significance by empowering his 13-year old. You probably know as well as I do that if one loses the rules game to a two-year-old, you've lost the job.
No, the point here is the sanctimonious tone that one always finds in the illiberal gushing of current liberal touchstones--'child endangerment,' 'Jews to Germany,' and the like. In sum, you guys are just the flip side of the 'tea party' straw-man argument you create. If you can't spur each other on to greater intolerance, you feel lost.
Allowing children to make life and death decisions for them selves is irresponsible.
Further, if I had a truly gifted child, who wanted nothing more than to play piano in Carnegie Hall, should I stop her because she might embarrass herself? Or a son who was a gifted skier. Should I make him stop skiing?
As a society, we should make laws that keep people from injuring each other and to protect the defenseless. That's our social contract. But just the same, when and if extraordinary circumstances occur, such as a gifted climber or somesuch nonsense, are we flexible enough to recognize the exceptions.
A tough question you've posed. I wish it were as black or white as some of the posters here think it is...
If a dad takes his kid to Everest, you don't think he is going to do all prudent steps to insure his safety? And what you don't get is that the fact that there might remain some risks are balanced in his mind by the benefits of facing those risks. Same with oil drilling, flying in an airplane, scuba diving, and a zillion other endeavors that free people might undertake despite the zeal of progressives to legislate everything. Grow up.
Does the fact that his parents couldn't tell their kid to wait till he was older to do this negate their responsibility to do so? I don't think so. Why do you?
In the one case you want to protect the offspring and in the other case, not.
The other problem is this comment seems to agree totally with what Ken S had to say, and I am rethinking my position.
And I agree with the rest of your comment. It's a slippery slope when adults put kids at risk -- where does it end?
For me, this looks a bit silly. Can't we come up with things that mean more, if we really want to risk our lives? There are plenty of ways to risk your life to make the world a better place. Risking your life to climb a rockpile? It's so limited.
There are some thirteen year olds that are perfectly capable of this- obviously most are not, and most never will try. It's none of our business really; it's not child abuse.
It's tempting to have the nanny state there to prevent every accident- I understand how you feel.
Sure, it's the parents' right to decide what is best for their child. But when they don't want to take the responsibility for the child's safety or security, don't they also give up their right to make those decisions?
As usual, the left, in this case Mr. Barber, failed to report all of the facts. This young man is not only trained in mountaineering, he has scaled 6 of the worlds 7 highest peaks, Kilimanjaro at the age of 9! His dad happened to be present at the time, a helicopter paramedic, who also trained him to be a top-level mountaineer. He was also accompanied by his dads girlfriend, also an experienced mountaineer and three sherpas. This young man has all the qualifications needed, as evidenced by his successful climb.
Katherine Blanc, a Big Bear resident, is putting together a photo essay-style storybook about Jordan, beginning with him looking at the school mural, that inspired him, of the world's peaks.
"It's a fascinating, sometimes harrowing, and very exciting story," she said. "He's trying to inspire kids to put down video games and go outside and set goals, big ones. He wants to inspire others."
Let's talk about some other remarkable young people shall we?
She started teaching school at 17, then went on to be a nurse in the civil war. Her name? Clara Barton, founder of the American Red Cross.
He was a land surveyor in the pre-revolution American wilderness, you know with wild animals, indians and the like, at the age of 15. His name? George Washington.
He joined the U.S. Navy at the age of 8 and was given command of a captured British whaling ship at the age of 12! He went on to be vice-admiral and then admiral and served his country on active duty for life, an honor that only 6 other naval officers hold. His name? David Glasgow Farragut.
We have been turned into a nation of sissies by all the what if's and maybe we shouldn't. I am glad that the nay-sayers weren't around when we had dreams of landing on the moon or building the Panama Canal.
This young man should be celebrated for his accomplishment, and now maybe, after you know the rest of the story, it might change your mind. It's irresponsible journalism not to report ALL of the facts, not just the ones that will slant the opinion your way. Shame on you Mr. Barber.
All the training and preparation in the world isn't going to save you if Everest decides to kill you. This article was not about whether the kid is a good mountaineer. It's about whether a 13 year old should be allowed to make such decisions.
And for your information the kid and his dad were nearly taken out by an avalanche. the other point was regarding the peculiar human behavior of treating something like this one way when everything turns out ok and another if it didn't.
A few anecdotal stories does not prove anything except that there are always exceptions. There was a young teen ager who lived here in Spokane a few years ago. He was allowed to decide for himself to become a street thug who picked a fight with the wrong guy who shot him in the face with a .38. That kid never saw his 18th birthday. But I guess that's just they way the ball bounces huh?
...sigh!
B. Hanson Jun 7, 2010, 10:12pm EDT
Good thing he doesn't need the nannies permission! And I will celebrate when he tackles the Vinson Massif in Antarctica, he will still be an accomplished young man, and you sir, you will still be a 2 bit hack, semi-reporting (your twisted facts) for a no name website. And as far as the young man that was given the choice to go down a bad road to become a thug instead of a positive one that cost him his life, well that is truly negligence.
“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”-Winston Churchill