Last Saturday, a young woman from Bend left Devil’s Lake Trailhead at 1 p.m. intending to summit both South and Middle Sister.
She was totally unprepared for being out after dark, even though she left with only about 5-1/2 hours of good daylight left. She had no emergency blanket or rations.
The 20-year-old is a runner and obviously very fit; she did something like 25 miles in rough terrain in the dark to get to Three Creek Road, where a woodcutter found her the next morning and gave her and her dog a lift into town.
A few months back, an experienced ultra runner got lost in the canyons and chapparal of San Diego County on a “short” training run. She was missing for days and nearly died. She copped to the fact that she had been in a hurry to get her training in and violated her own pre-run routine and emergency preparation.
Why do capable people do such dumb things, things that risk their lives and the lives of those who turn out to rescue them?
A book I read recently has some great insights into this phenomenon, which happens over and over and over again. It’s called “Deep Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies, and Why” by Laurence Gonzales.
There’s a lot to this book and any thumbnail necessarily gives it short shrift, but one of the basic points is this: The mind creates “emotional bookmarks” based on strong positive or negative experiences. Our mind goes to those when we make decisions and the emotional feedback we get overrides our rational mind, our good sense.
In the case of highly trained and capable athletes, the emotional bookmark flags the great feeling they get from their training, which can be downright addictive (in the chemical as well as the emotional sense). The desire to get out there and do the run, the trek, the climb, overrides the rational caution flags: it’s too late to start; I don’t have my emergency kit together; I’m not sure of the route.
We are all susceptible to this phenomenon; people whose skill and fitness have got them out of trouble in the past even more so than the average bear. We all like to think “Man, I’d never do anything that STUPID,” but the truth is, you just might, if the emotional bookmark grabs you hard enough.
There’s a lot in the book about the kind of mindset that gets people through survival situations, but the most important lesson in “Deep Survival” is to be aware of the tricks we play on ourselves that get us into those situations in the first place.
Slow down. Recognize when your desires — to just get out there, to make it to that peak, to try to beat the dark to get past that one last drainage — are letting you slide into a dangerous situation.
It’s important to understand that it’s not about smart/stupid. “I’m too smart to do that” is the kind of hubris that leads to unexpected trouble.
Great book; recommend it highly. Combine it with Gavin de Becker’s “The Gift of Fear” and you get a much better understanding of the interplay between thought and emotion that can literally mean the difference between life and death.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Remembering Chief Mouser
I was saddened to hear that Sisters’ former fire chief Don Mouser has died.
Chief Mouser had been running the fire service here for almost 20 years when I got to town and started reporting on fire department issues.
I always enjoyed interviewing him — interviews that often turned into conversations, salted with stories of the old days in the Sisters fire service.
Chief Mouser was definitely what you’d call Old School — but he laid the groundwork for what has become a very up-to-date fire and medical service.
He started out as a logger — which I think most of the volunteer fire crew in the early days were. They did what they needed to do in the way that seemed best to them — and some of those ways would curl the hair and melt the eyeballs of a modern-day OSHA type.
It wasn’t that they were deliberately unsafe — they just had to make do with what they had and the techniques and tools at hand at the time. Heck, they don’t even let firefighters ride hanging on to the outside of engines any more.
Chief Mouser was riding a significant wave of change. For much of his 25 year tenure, Sisters remained a small and pretty sleepy town, but change was in the wind. Modernization was a must. The Sisters-Camp Sherman RFPD acquired new equipment and enhanced its training and professionalism.
Chief Mouser was one of the leaders of the charge to bring Sisters up to speed with an ambulance service and EMTs, believing that the fire district had to care for the medical needs of residents and visitors as well as protecting them from fire.
I always got the impression that the Chief was progressive in his thinking when it came to the kinds of services and skills Sisters needed in its fire department. But I don’t think he much cared for the added administrative burden that seems inevitably to come along with modernization.
Maybe that’s why our conversations toward the end of his tenure so often turned to the old days and the old way of doing things. That’s the way it is with pioneers. They can look with pride on what has come from their labors, but nothing has quite the tang of being in the thick of it, when the tasks were simple but difficult, when the world was young and so much needed to be done.
Hats off to you, Chief. You were a good man and you did a good job.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Chief Mouser had been running the fire service here for almost 20 years when I got to town and started reporting on fire department issues.
I always enjoyed interviewing him — interviews that often turned into conversations, salted with stories of the old days in the Sisters fire service.
Chief Mouser was definitely what you’d call Old School — but he laid the groundwork for what has become a very up-to-date fire and medical service.
He started out as a logger — which I think most of the volunteer fire crew in the early days were. They did what they needed to do in the way that seemed best to them — and some of those ways would curl the hair and melt the eyeballs of a modern-day OSHA type.
It wasn’t that they were deliberately unsafe — they just had to make do with what they had and the techniques and tools at hand at the time. Heck, they don’t even let firefighters ride hanging on to the outside of engines any more.
Chief Mouser was riding a significant wave of change. For much of his 25 year tenure, Sisters remained a small and pretty sleepy town, but change was in the wind. Modernization was a must. The Sisters-Camp Sherman RFPD acquired new equipment and enhanced its training and professionalism.
Chief Mouser was one of the leaders of the charge to bring Sisters up to speed with an ambulance service and EMTs, believing that the fire district had to care for the medical needs of residents and visitors as well as protecting them from fire.
I always got the impression that the Chief was progressive in his thinking when it came to the kinds of services and skills Sisters needed in its fire department. But I don’t think he much cared for the added administrative burden that seems inevitably to come along with modernization.
Maybe that’s why our conversations toward the end of his tenure so often turned to the old days and the old way of doing things. That’s the way it is with pioneers. They can look with pride on what has come from their labors, but nothing has quite the tang of being in the thick of it, when the tasks were simple but difficult, when the world was young and so much needed to be done.
Hats off to you, Chief. You were a good man and you did a good job.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Hate crimes
This from CBS News:
Last week, House Republican Leader John Boehner objected to House passage of a bill that would expand hate crime laws and make it a federal crime to assault people on the basis of their sexual orientation.
"All violent crimes should be prosecuted vigorously, no matter what the circumstance," he said. "The Democrats' 'thought crimes' legislation, however, places a higher value on some lives than others. Republicans believe that all lives are created equal, and should be defended with equal vigilance."
Based on that statement, CBSNews.com contacted Boehner's office to find out if the minority leader opposes all hate crimes legislation. The law as it now stands offers protections based on race, color, religion and national origin.
In an email, Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said Boehner "supports existing federal protections (based on race, religion, gender, etc.) based on immutable characteristics."
I’m actually with Boehner on this one — until it comes to his rationale.
I’ve always thought “hate crime” enhancement was a crock. Motive is an element of guilt, but it shouldn’t be an element of punishment. A man who kills another man because he hates him personally has commited a crime every bit as heinous as a man who kills someone for racial or religious reasons. Hate is hate, murder is murder.
But Boehner’s rationale here is troubling. Mainly because he’s either a fool or a bigot (or both). Religion apparently is an “immutable characteristic” even though people can and do change their religion, sometimes several times. But being gay is not?
Personally, I’d rather see the whole idea of “hate crimes” scrapped.” But if you’re going to have such definitions, sexual orientation should certainly be on the list. And Boehner and his ilk need to get a clue.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Last week, House Republican Leader John Boehner objected to House passage of a bill that would expand hate crime laws and make it a federal crime to assault people on the basis of their sexual orientation.
"All violent crimes should be prosecuted vigorously, no matter what the circumstance," he said. "The Democrats' 'thought crimes' legislation, however, places a higher value on some lives than others. Republicans believe that all lives are created equal, and should be defended with equal vigilance."
Based on that statement, CBSNews.com contacted Boehner's office to find out if the minority leader opposes all hate crimes legislation. The law as it now stands offers protections based on race, color, religion and national origin.
In an email, Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said Boehner "supports existing federal protections (based on race, religion, gender, etc.) based on immutable characteristics."
I’m actually with Boehner on this one — until it comes to his rationale.
I’ve always thought “hate crime” enhancement was a crock. Motive is an element of guilt, but it shouldn’t be an element of punishment. A man who kills another man because he hates him personally has commited a crime every bit as heinous as a man who kills someone for racial or religious reasons. Hate is hate, murder is murder.
But Boehner’s rationale here is troubling. Mainly because he’s either a fool or a bigot (or both). Religion apparently is an “immutable characteristic” even though people can and do change their religion, sometimes several times. But being gay is not?
Personally, I’d rather see the whole idea of “hate crimes” scrapped.” But if you’re going to have such definitions, sexual orientation should certainly be on the list. And Boehner and his ilk need to get a clue.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Friday, October 9, 2009
You’re joking, right?
For a minute there this morning, I thought that the Saturday Night Live crew had taken over the Nobel Prize committee. It seemed like a pretty good extended riff on last weekend’s skit. You know the one. The one where President Obama cops to NOT GETTING ANYTHING DONE!!
Pretty funny. The Nobel Peace Prize. For talking nice.
CNN reports that “The announcement caught the White House off guard. One senior administration official said ‘we were quite surprised.’”
Well, yeah, I bet.
Because the president has NOT DONE ANYTHING to deserve such an award.
The nominations were closed 12 days after he took office. Talk about the triumph of style over substance.
This year’s science prizes went to men whose work transformed our lives, producing fiber optic technology and the basis for digital photography. I guess next year they should just award the prize to someone who can articulate an idea nicely. Why bother with actually producing a breakthrough?
For that matter, I'm working on a novel. It's not done, much less published. It's a really great idea. I think they oughta give me the Nobel Prize for Literature.
I don’t care what your politics are, anybody ought to be able to smell B.S. when they step in it. This is a travesty that should be rejected by everyone — starting with President Obama himself.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Pretty funny. The Nobel Peace Prize. For talking nice.
CNN reports that “The announcement caught the White House off guard. One senior administration official said ‘we were quite surprised.’”
Well, yeah, I bet.
Because the president has NOT DONE ANYTHING to deserve such an award.
The nominations were closed 12 days after he took office. Talk about the triumph of style over substance.
This year’s science prizes went to men whose work transformed our lives, producing fiber optic technology and the basis for digital photography. I guess next year they should just award the prize to someone who can articulate an idea nicely. Why bother with actually producing a breakthrough?
For that matter, I'm working on a novel. It's not done, much less published. It's a really great idea. I think they oughta give me the Nobel Prize for Literature.
I don’t care what your politics are, anybody ought to be able to smell B.S. when they step in it. This is a travesty that should be rejected by everyone — starting with President Obama himself.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Thursday, October 8, 2009
What are we supposed to be preparing for?
Had an interesting reaction yesterday to a story that we ran in The Nugget about Cache Mountain Traders and the “prepper” culture.
A fellow I ran into at the gym was a little freaked out by the premise, as though there was something off-kilter, weird about the whole idea.
“What are we supposed to be preparing for?” he asked. “Armageddon?”
My response was, “Anything.” The idea is to be prepared for any kind of trouble that rolls down the pike.
David Brooks’ column in this week’s Nugget points out some of the trouble that we face — the financial kind. (You can read it here, too: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/opinion/29brooks.html.
Brooks argues for a return to the kind of fiscal self-restraint that produced “sound economic values” that served as a counterweight to the “notorious materialism” of American culture.
Without those sound economic values, we face the inevitable result of affluence and luxury: “decadence, corruption and decline.”
Brooks’ argument is a moral one. I’d argue that the whole idea of self-reliance and preparedness should be considered a moral issue, too.
Ideally, each of us should strive to be physically fit and capable, financially fit and secure and emotionally and spiritually strong to take on the inevitable challenges that life flings at us. We should have the knowledge base and the material preparedness to weather storms, natural or man made.
You can come at these virtues through a variety of spiritual and cultural traditions. There is no need to attach a political agenda.
It is a mistake, I think, to scoff at those who take heed of the storm clouds on the horizon. It seems a strange reaction, given how bad things are and how much worse they could get.
But maybe it’s not so strange. “Fitness” of all kinds takes hard work and discipline. What Brooks argues for in his column would take a massive cultural shift from a sense of entitlement to a sense of responsibility — and political decisions that are unlikely to be made in the animal farm of the public arena.
Maybe it’s just easier to dismiss the calls for a return to old virtues as quaint at best, weird at worst. But I know who the people are that I will want in my camp when Big Trouble comes.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
A fellow I ran into at the gym was a little freaked out by the premise, as though there was something off-kilter, weird about the whole idea.
“What are we supposed to be preparing for?” he asked. “Armageddon?”
My response was, “Anything.” The idea is to be prepared for any kind of trouble that rolls down the pike.
David Brooks’ column in this week’s Nugget points out some of the trouble that we face — the financial kind. (You can read it here, too: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/opinion/29brooks.html.
Brooks argues for a return to the kind of fiscal self-restraint that produced “sound economic values” that served as a counterweight to the “notorious materialism” of American culture.
Without those sound economic values, we face the inevitable result of affluence and luxury: “decadence, corruption and decline.”
Brooks’ argument is a moral one. I’d argue that the whole idea of self-reliance and preparedness should be considered a moral issue, too.
Ideally, each of us should strive to be physically fit and capable, financially fit and secure and emotionally and spiritually strong to take on the inevitable challenges that life flings at us. We should have the knowledge base and the material preparedness to weather storms, natural or man made.
You can come at these virtues through a variety of spiritual and cultural traditions. There is no need to attach a political agenda.
It is a mistake, I think, to scoff at those who take heed of the storm clouds on the horizon. It seems a strange reaction, given how bad things are and how much worse they could get.
But maybe it’s not so strange. “Fitness” of all kinds takes hard work and discipline. What Brooks argues for in his column would take a massive cultural shift from a sense of entitlement to a sense of responsibility — and political decisions that are unlikely to be made in the animal farm of the public arena.
Maybe it’s just easier to dismiss the calls for a return to old virtues as quaint at best, weird at worst. But I know who the people are that I will want in my camp when Big Trouble comes.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Friday, October 2, 2009
So much for consequences...
Oregon running back LeGarrette Blount, suspended for the season after his postgame tirade at Boise State on Sept. 3, could be reinstated after all. Ducks coach Chip Kelly will discuss Blount's status after today's practice, and a release Thursday night from the school said Kelly's plan "could include Blount's potential reinstatement prior to the conclusion of the 2009 season.'' Blount has practiced regularly with the team for the past three weeks, mostly on the scout team. He has attended all the games. On Thursday, a letter of apology signed by Blount appeared in the campus newspaper.
Apparently, talent does mean a free pass...
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Talent does not mean a free pass
Small wonder so many people think Hollywood is out of touch with “mainstream” American values.
You have to be pretty far out of anything resembling the mainstream of culture to advocate that a man who admitted forcing himself on a 13-year-old girl should get a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Yet that’s what a lot of Hollywood luminaries are doing when it comes to Roman Polanski.
Polanski is unquestionably a brilliant director. “Chinatown” is one of the great movies of all time and his “MacBeth” left a searing impression on me in high school.
But he also did something very bad way back in 1978, and he skipped the country to avoid facing the music. He needs to come back to the U.S. and place himself before the court. If there was prosecutorial misconduct, as has been credibly alleged, that needs to be addressed — by the courts.
The fact that the victim, now in her 40s, does not want prosecution is irrelevant. It’s not her call.
The outcry to free Polanski is a reflection of the double standards at play when the rich and talented run afoul of the law. Nobody would be pleading for immediate release of some Joe who did what Polanski admitted doing.
The rich, powerful and talented cannot be above the law, or we have no justice at all.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
You have to be pretty far out of anything resembling the mainstream of culture to advocate that a man who admitted forcing himself on a 13-year-old girl should get a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Yet that’s what a lot of Hollywood luminaries are doing when it comes to Roman Polanski.
Polanski is unquestionably a brilliant director. “Chinatown” is one of the great movies of all time and his “MacBeth” left a searing impression on me in high school.
But he also did something very bad way back in 1978, and he skipped the country to avoid facing the music. He needs to come back to the U.S. and place himself before the court. If there was prosecutorial misconduct, as has been credibly alleged, that needs to be addressed — by the courts.
The fact that the victim, now in her 40s, does not want prosecution is irrelevant. It’s not her call.
The outcry to free Polanski is a reflection of the double standards at play when the rich and talented run afoul of the law. Nobody would be pleading for immediate release of some Joe who did what Polanski admitted doing.
The rich, powerful and talented cannot be above the law, or we have no justice at all.
Jim Cornelius, Editor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
