On A Collision Course With A Lighthouse

Most people have heard or read the urban legend where a US naval ship is pitted against Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland. It’s an old story, more parable than epic tale with multiple variations, that has been floating around for over 100 years in one version or another. The most commonly cited version, for folks living in an actual cave, runs thus:

Actual transcript of a US naval ship with Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995. This radio conversation was released by the Chief of Naval Operations on 10-10-95.

Americans: "Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collision."

Canadians: "Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision."

Americans: "This is the captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course."

Canadians: "No, I say again, you divert YOUR course."

Americans: "THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN, THE SECOND LARGEST SHIP IN THE UNITED STATES' ATLANTIC FLEET. WE ARE ACCOMPANIED BY THREE DESTROYERS, THREE CRUISERS AND NUMEROUS SUPPORT VESSELS. I DEMAND THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR COURSE 15 DEGREES NORTH. THAT'S ONE-FIVE DEGREES NORTH, OR COUNTER MEASURES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THIS SHIP."

Canadians: "This is a lighthouse. Your call."

My readers are astute enough to recognise that the story is a metaphor for the dangers of an inflexible attitude, self-importance and hubris. Some commentators also use the story to illustrate the importance of situational awareness.

For me, the story has always been about changing course. If the data you are collecting – and you should be collecting data – does not indicate that you are moving towards your goals, a course correction is required. The only ship that steers directly into a lighthouse is one captained by an pillock.

I try not to comment on politics, religion or gender issues, which is why my blog often appears to have been written by a self-obsessed half-wit. I don’t comment because these issues have become so fraught in the modern world where a significant chunk of the population has lost the ability to separate the individual from the opinion. A world where people are way too quick to jump to conclusions about the motives and intent of other people of whom they have no true knowledge and where facts are too often confused with opinion. Most of the ideas – including all of medical science - that we accept as facts are really just opinions as there is very little – apart from mathematics and possibly some of physics – which we can actually prove. We certainly cannot prove racism, sexism, ageism, ableism or any other ism including man-splaining. Although I do feel as if I have suffered woman-splaining in the past.

Now that the Voice vote is over, surely a relief to both sides of the political spectrum, the inevitable dissection of the vote has commenced. This has ranged from outright calls of rampant racism and a voter body with the IQ equivalent to their shoe size, to more nuanced opinions trying to unravel the complexity of the issue. In keeping with my self-obsessed half-wit status, I’m not even going to attempt to explain why the yes vote, which started with a majority crashed to an unwinnable position over the course of a year and a bit. What was frustrating to watch was the absolute inability of the yes campaign to change course despite the obvious and repeated evidence that the ship was heading for a lighthouse.