Is this next year going to be worth the risk?

Dec. 27, 2004

It was one of those little one-sentence stories that pops up on the bottom of the CNN Headline News newscast. There was just enough info to make you say, “What?” or “You gotta be kiddin’ me.” So I checked it out and found out it was so:

Australian cowboys may, in fact, be required to wear helmets instead of traditional cowboy hats following the death of a cowhand falling from a horse.

More details (pretend you’re seeing on a the “crawl” just underneath the pretty face of a CNN anchor, if that helps): The New South Wales state government has charged a ranch owner with breaches of safety, fining him $72,000, and ordering him to provide “:equestrian helmets.” Cowboys and farmer’s cooperatives are fighting the safety laws, saying substituting helmets would increase the hazards of sun sroke and skin cancer. “The stockman’s hat is an icon of Austrailia,” a leader of the cowboys says. “You can’t replace it with an ice-cream bucket on the heat. Being a bushman myself, we’re not going to wear anything that doesn’t look good.”

OK. Picturing rough-and-tumble cowboys wearing skateboard helmets is a bit of a tickle, but hidden in the midst of this story is the concept of acceptable. risk. The cowboys -- including the one who was fatally injured -- understood and accepted the risk that accompanied getting on a horse and herding cows. Accidents from out of left field are one thing -- and, yes, they are plentiful, tragic and many should be examined for cause -- but this specific possibility of injury caught no one by surprise. It was an acceptable risk.

We understand this. We analyze the concept of acceptable risk every day on several levels of our lives.

We understand that if we elect a fireball new governor, we accept the risk that he might call for an examination of Utah’s liquor laws. Well, some Republicans didn’t understand that risk, but most did.

We take the risk that if we re-elect the president, he can catch us by surprise and clean house, wiping out nearly his entire cabinet. We run the risk of losing Colin Powell and keeping Donald Rumsfeld. Oops, you lose.

If we settle in a soft couch and grab the remote, we take the risk that “Return to Gilligan’s Island,” or “The Swan” might be on. Boy, and we thought sitcoms were bad.

If we get strapped into a dentist’s chair in December, we take the risk that only country-western Christmas carols will be piped in, furthering the torture. If we go shopping in a overly-busy mall the week before Christmas, and we make arrangements with a wife and daughter to meet them at what one would think would be an easy-to-figure-out location, we take the risk that the location will be forgotten or confused or watches will not be watched and someone will be left waiting in a cold car for, oh, say, 90 minutes. It’s a risk.

OK. Maybe those last two were a little too personal.

If we feel a hard sneeze coming on and we decide to hold it in and not make a big public noise, we accept the risk of injuring a body part. Now, this didn’t used to be an issue when I was, ahem, younger, but one day last week I tried silencing two sneaky sneezes and strained a before-undiscovered muscle in my abdomen and tweaked a shoulder blade. It’s a risk. Be warned.

If we rent a DVD these days, we take the risk that it will be the “unrated version.” What’s this all about? Movies are no longer movies, no longer subject to ratings scrutiny once they are on DVD? Who’s idea was this? Looks like just one more excuse for the Left Coast to the push the envelope and push it right into your home. Be warned.

It you get excited about doing genealogy, you run the risk of finding stories about all of your relatives, not just the good ones.

If you eat pastachios too fast, you run the risk of woofing down that nasty one the comes along every so often.

If you try not to offend anyone, not a single, solitary soul, you run the risk of satisfying no one. Maybe you heard that Denver officials recently changed the traditional Christmas Parade to a Holiday parade, citing concerns of not offending those who might not be Christian. No nativities or wise men or carols of Bethlehem allowed. Now, call me crazy, but in a city the size of Denver I suspect the non-Christians probably know that Christians celebrate Christmas. They are probably used to it by now. Christians hear about Ramadan and Hannukah and even the Chinese New Year and most don’t feel the need to stop it or change the celebrations. I guess some decision-makers’ policies of non-offensive behavior still confuse me sometimes. Isn’t understanding our differences what diversity is all about?

Finally, you just get through one year and, be danged, if you don’t run the risk of starting another one.

But, it’s an acceptable risk, don’t you think?