Two great op-eds on the Christmas Day crotch-bomber, the latest in a slew of inane, fruitless attempts to create mild havoc that are foiled by absolutely none of the massive security apparatus that we’ve ereected to make ourselves feel safer.
For your consideration:
In my boyhood, there were signs on English buses that declared, in bold letters, “No Spitting.” At a tender age, I was able to work out that most people don’t need to be told this, while those who do feel a desire to expectorate on public transport will require more discouragement than a mere sign. But I’d be wasting my time pointing this out to our majestic and sleepless protectors, who now boldly propose to prevent airline passengers from getting out of their seats for the last hour of any flight. Abdulmutallab made his bid in the last hour of his flight, after all. Yes, that ought to do it. It’s also incredibly, nay, almost diabolically clever of our guardians to let it be known what the precise time limit will be. Oh, and by the way, any passenger courageous or resourceful enough to stand up and fight back will also have broken the brave new law.
and Bruce Schneier:
Despite fearful rhetoric to the contrary, terrorism is not a transcendent threat. A terrorist attack cannot possibly destroy a country’s way of life; it’s only our reaction to that attack that can do that kind of damage. The more we undermine our own laws, the more we convert our buildings into fortresses, the more we reduce the freedoms and liberties at the foundation of our societies, the more we’re doing the terrorists’ job for them.
So, who do you think makes better points? (Please, read both op-eds. They’re worth it.)
Bookmark on Delicious- Digg this post
- Recommend on Facebook
- Share on Posterous
- share via Reddit
- Share with Stumblers
- Tweet about it
4 comments
Matt Goerzen says:
30 December 2009 at 11:27 am (UTC -5)
“Once a society starts circumventing its own laws, the risks to its future stability are much greater than terrorism.” — Bruce Schneier
“The fault here is not just with our endlessly incompetent security services, who give the benefit of the doubt to people who should have been arrested long ago or at least had their visas and travel rights revoked. It is also with a public opinion that sheepishly bleats to be made to “feel safe.” The demand to satisfy that sad illusion can be met with relative ease if you pay enough people to stand around and stare significantly at the citizens’ toothpaste.” — Christopher Hitchens
They’re both right, really. This endlessly idiotic penchant governments seem to have to want to be seen to be doing something — no matter how useless or invasive — to stave off election losses bothers me. And we seem to be growing a generation of frightened child-like adults who are too overwhelmed to say “we deserve better.”
Take away the restrictions and instead teach passengers how to subdue a terrorist. If I see a guy trying to light his pants on fire, chances are I’ll do something about it.
Colin says:
30 December 2009 at 12:20 pm (UTC -5)
Any society that is willing to deny its rights to preserve its liberty deserves neither.”
- Some guy whose name I can’t remember and whom I have misquoted anyway.
thebanana says:
31 December 2009 at 9:16 am (UTC -5)
Not too badly mangled. That was a quote from Ben Franklin I believe.
Grant Hamilton says:
31 December 2009 at 10:07 am (UTC -5)
I actually think they both make good points, but with slightly different angles. Perhaps I’m pulling back the curtain here, but I only included the word ‘vote’ to make sure people would read both links and comment. I think it’s an important discussion for our society — why are we cowed like sheep into safety-first queues that seem right out of Orwell?
(aside: many “quotes” that we remember have been mangled from the original phrasing to make them better stand-alones.)