April 14th, 2005 at 11:45pm Posted by Bill
… and I hope you’ll agree that this is really more about stupidity than politics. In any case, this isn’t a very humorous post (unless you can laugh at bureaucracy in action).
Lighters have been banned in checked luggage for years, and now (as of today) the TSA has also banned them in the cabin of airplanes. We’re told that the idea behind the lighter ban is that “terrorist groups could use lighters as a weapon to control or take down an aircraft.” While this was indeed attempted by Richard Reid on a trans-Atlantic flight in 1991, he used matches in his failed attempt to set his “shoe bomb” alight.
Keep in mind that you are still allowed to carry matches (up to four books) with you on the plane. But, only the standard “strike the matchhead on the attached rough strip” kind, not the “strike anywhere” kind.
Of course, just like every other normal-thinking person, I’m all for better security on board airplanes and in the passenger area of airports. We should be restricting items that do pose a real threat, like the obvious guns, knives, weapons, etc. If the lighters are likely to be used by terrorists for harm, then they should also be banned from the cabin. However, matches should also be banned, for the same reason. And not just the strike anywhere kind, but ALL matches (I mean, what is that all about, distinguishing between the two kinds? They can both light a fuse, right?)
And don’t try to tell me that the only reason Richard Reid wasn’t able to light his shoes was that he fumbled with getting the matches to burn, and had he been in possession of an easy-to-use lighter, he may have succeeded. That argument is a bunch of crap. If that is the justification, then what we’re saying is that we’re gambling passengers lives on terrorists’ unsteady shaky hands.
It makes it seem as if the ban on lighters (fully three and a half years after Richard Reid’s infamous terrorist-wannabe episode) is nothing but an attempt to keep up the appearance of keeping the nations skies and airports safe.
We shouldn’t do things just because they make us feel all warm and comfy and good about ourselves, we should do things that are actually going to be effective, and that don’t have stupid loopholes in them.
Your thoughts?
Entry Filed under: Serious
5 Comments Add your own
1. Thabo | April 14th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Well, maybe the justification is that lighters contain fluid that is explosive, and can explode from striking another object. Have you ever tried throwing a lighter hard out of a third story window? Makes a pretty nice little firecracker. So maybe you could stick one in a dude’s mouth and jack him really hard in the jaw and that could conceivably kill him. Then again that would probably just burn his mouth up and piss him off. I agree, seems like a pretty unlikely candidate for a terrorist weapon. The thing is, for a terrorist weapon to be effective, it has to strike fear into the heart of the person you want to force to do something, and lighters arent’ very intimidating.
2. Tabitha | April 14th, 2005 at 3:42 pm
i think you are partially correct bill. it seems like only after something goes wrong do they start to ban something. i mean, look at the bus and train systems. there isn’t crazy security governing what you can and can’t take on the bus, there aren’t metal detectors or anything like that at all. i think it is partially because nothing has happened yet to cause people to be afraid to walk down to the corner and take the bus to PSU. but once there is a coordinated terrorist attack on the bus system of a large, important city and something like the movie “speed” happens and enough white people get killed, then something drastic will be done. i’m not saying this is right or wrong, i am just saying that seems to be the pattern.
so as soon as someone pulls a mcgiver and creates a bomb out of some pop tarts and a plastic straw, those will be banned on airplanes as well.
“sorry kiddo, the bomb response unit will have to take that pop tart away before you can board the plane.”
3. Kathy | April 15th, 2005 at 9:02 am
We have discussed this at length and I agree with you. If they are banning lighters it is just right to ban matches after all the light too. And, it seems the only time they ban anything someone has to get hurt or crazy enough to hurt others.
4. Gabriel | April 19th, 2005 at 4:24 pm
You know thas funny?
I was just trying to think of a way to turn a pop tart into a bomb… I mean, when you toast those things, that filling gets pretty darn hot…
But yes, I agree… There are so many of these stupid “banned” items, that it makes no sense. I heard a report (or read one, or somethign like that) about a guy on a flight to Portland who took an empty soda can, and carefully and quietly twisted-ripped it in half, and then folded the pieces into a pretty strong and sharp “knife”… he showed it to the stewardess (in an attempt to show the airlines where they were making mistakes, NOT to take over the place), who with the help of others, wrestled him to the ground, and then had him arrested and banned from that airline…
Now… Does it make sense at all to punish those who helpfully point out our shortcomings?
See ya…
5. Epigone | April 25th, 2005 at 7:39 am
“We shouldn’t do things just because they make us feel all warm and comfy and good about ourselves, we should do things that are actually going to be effective, and that don’t have stupid loopholes in them.”
There are good reasons to do completely ineffective just-for-show things. Inspiring confidence in the unthinking masses isn’t all bad. And what if we don’t currently have anything effective to do? If politicians do nothing, they feel like they’re not doing their job.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed