|
Tuesday, 26 September 2006 14:57 |
 John North, Editor & Publisher
Schools close, as do many businesses, and some people are virtually paralyzed with fear of leaving their homes.
Weather predictions of even a hint of snow seem to cause many local residents to shift into survival mode and crowd into local supermarkets to hoarde food and supplies.
The irony is that the winters around Asheville are truly mild, with rarely a significant snowfall.
Regarding
unfounded fear, one of the funnist stories I have read recently was
headlined "Even safety czar thinks British are too risk-averse."
The story,
published in the Sept. 13 edition of The New York Times, appeared below
a picture showing the new James Bond (Daniel Craig) arriving by boat to
a press conference last year ÇƒÓ wearing a life preserver.
The scenario
proved to be a huge disappointment to the general public. Why would a
nearly invincible character harbor such mundane safety concerns,
especially considering some of the harrowing scrapes that he has eluded
in the Bond movie series?
The story goes
on to describe aspects of todayës British society, wherein the pendulum
seems to have swung to an extreme of caution and safety, even in trying
to avoid litigation. This truly is a venture into the realm of the
patently absurd.
Some examples
include a prohibition against cooking with eggs without adequate
training, which, in turn, has resulted in a ban on selling homemade
cakes at fairs ÇƒÓ out of fear that they might contain salmonella.
Other exercises
into what some call "political correctness gone mad" include a sensible
ladder-use campaign prompted by a "Falls From Height Program," a
requirement for schoolchildren to wear protective goggles when playing
outside ÇƒÓ to avoid injury from nuts falling from trees and a schoolwide
ban on wearing bandages out of fear of potential latex allergies.
Ultimately, the
situation is so absurd that Bill Callaghan, head of the British Health
and Safety Commission, declared that he is concerned that the fears are
asinine and that his countrymen are too risk-averse.
Whatës more,
Callaghan urged his fellow Britons to "get a life," noting that it
seemed to him as if nobody does anything for fun anymore. He lamented
that everyone says itës the governmentës fault ÇƒÓ the so-called "nanny
state."
So this brings
us back to James Bond arriving by boat, ensconsed in a life jacket.
Worse, during a celebration marking the 200th anniversary of the Battle
of Trafalgar last year on the Thames River, the actor playing Lord
Nelson was required to wear a contemporary life preserver atop his
vintage admiralës outfit, utterly spoiling the effect.
Safety is an
important issue, but, as Callaghan (dubbed "the nanny-in-chief") has
pointed out, the British are over-the-top on this one.
Perhaps the
British need to ponder Aristotleës advocacy of the golden mean, wherein
moderation is often seen as the wise course to happiness.
Of course, even
moderation can be taken to an extreme, but I think that being totally
risk-averse marks a fear that borders on obsessive-compulsive behavior
and eventually will result in a dysfunctional society. I would say the
same about the other extreme ÇƒÓ recklessness.
Still, one must
admit that the situation is humorous and probably not that surprising
to most Americans, who stereotype the British as prim, proper and a bit
eccentric.
Maybe the
British should look to the example of Henry David Thoreau, the great
American rugged individualist, who advocated living oneës life boldly ǃÓ
and letting the chips fall where they may ÇƒÓ without safety goggles.
|
