This Week's Column
I want my nail file back – the nice metal one that cost me $5. And my nail clippers – several of them – that I sacrificed for our national security.
Not to mention the wee little pocketknife I used to carry in the bottom of my purse because you just never know when you might need one, plus the little corkscrew I used to carry for the same reason.
But most of all, I want my dignity back.
That may be the hardest thing to find, crushed as it is beneath thousands and thousands of pounds of small knives, scissors, clippers and other sharp objects collected by our government from its citizens since the heinous terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Investigators deduced that terrorists used box-cutters or small knives that day to take over four commercial jets in midair and crash them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 people.
Since then, the Transportation Security Administration has been shaking down passengers, wanding little old ladies and rifling through kids’ backpacks in an effort to keep Americans safe in the air.
Now, though, the agency has announced that, starting April 25, it will allow passengers to carry knives on board as long as the blades are no more than 2.36 inches. TSA’s boss explained that the change will bring the United States into alignment with international rules and also allow airport screeners to focus on detecting bomb components.
In addition to wishing I could retrieve all those items I donated to TSA, I have a few questions.
For starters, if small blades weren’t safe then, why are they suddenly safe now? Or – just a thought here -- could it be that TSA officials knew they didn’t pose much of a danger but still wasted 12 years worth of time, effort and energy so the government would appear to be doing something about air safety?
I saw 'United 93,' too, and it was good; but most of us are not as brave and bold as the passengers on Flight 93.
As for the explanation that TSA wants to bring the U.S. into line with international rules, pardon my provincialism, but we were the ones attacked on 9/11, after all. Shouldn’t we get to make the safety rules and let other countries fall in line behind us?
Meanwhile, saying that airport screeners will now be able to focus on detecting bomb components implies that they haven’t been focusing on this in the past. What the heck have we been taking our shoes off and submitting to pat-downs for, then?
And, finally, there’s the suggestion being made by some news outlets that with locked and reinforced cockpit doors, TSA doesn’t have to worry as much about what goes on in the cabins.
Certainly, I am glad that our cockpits are now secure throughout every flight. But think of the havoc an unruly, drunk or deranged passenger with a small knife could cause, and the dangerous mayhem that might ensue.
I saw “United 93,” too, and it was good; but most of us are not as brave and bold as the passengers on Flight 93, which terrorists crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11. If small knives can be weapons, why compromise the safety of passengers even just a little?
We Americans have gotten used to leaving our sharp objects at home when we fly. We’ve become accustomed to chunking the contents of our pockets into trays and having our handbags and briefcases x-rayed.
It has been inconvenient at times, but we were told -- and we believed -- that it was for our safety. Now we can only conclude that either the ban on small knives has been a 12-year exercise in foolishness, or the TSA’s change of heart is going to be a brand-new exercise in foolishness.
Neither scenario instills much confidence in the agency that’s supposed to be protecting us.
How to get rich on the papal conclave
If only I hadn't gone with my heart and picked an American.
If only my brother Stephen hadn't had a hunch about a particular man from Milan.
If only certain renegade cardinals had prevailed in their assertion that, after all, the next pope didn't necessarily have to be Italian.
I could've been rich. But instead, the cardinals who assembled in Rome that summer of 1963 behaved just as my father had predicted they would.
Thus Giovanni Battista Montini of Milan became Pope Paul VI and I was busted. Clearly, my future did not lie in Vegas.
Daddy's didn't either, by the way. He was simply the oldest and wisest Catholic in the room as he convened our family conclave.
Laying the June 14 issue of Life magazine on the dining room table, Daddy explained to his Episcopalian wife and five Catholic children the process by which the cardinals would cast ballots until they reached a consensus. The idea, he said, was that they would be guided by the Holy Spirit.
At that point, Mama mumbled something under her breath and Daddy, though pretending to ignore her, was forced to acknowledge the reality that in the church's nearly 2,000 years of existence, the Holy Spirit had almost always picked an Italian.
Then, turning to Life's photo spread of the 82 "princes of the church," my father explained the rules of our little gathering: Each of us would place a quarter on the photo of the cardinal whom we believed would become the next pope. If one of the seven of us picked correctly, he or she would win the $1.75 pot; if no one picked correctly, the money would go in the collection basket the following Sunday.
We were welcome to ask him questions, do some independent research or use any other method we chose, so long as we made our selections before the cardinals secluded themselves in the Sistine Chapel.
Here's how I remember the bets going down: My sister, who was only 6, picked a man who looked friendly. At the ripe old age of 9, I decided it was time for an American pope. Daddy and my three older, wiser brothers picked from among the 29 Italian cardinals. Mama chose an Irishman.
On June 19, a Wednesday, all bets were in and the real conclave began. Forty-eight hours later, on the sixth ballot, the cardinals picked their man and my weekly allowance was gone. Or so I thought.
As it turned out, when the cardinals finished their business that Friday, Daddy did turn the jackpot over to our 13-year-old brother, Stephen; and then, on Saturday -- our allowance day -- he gave the rest of us children our usual 25 cents.
The point of his exercise, we gratefully realized, had not been to roll his kids for their allowance. It had been to have some family fun while learning a little about our church, our world and how God works among us.
What looked like a simple betting pool was a chance for us to talk about how people behave -- from a group of little children in Natchitoches, La., to a gathering of old men in Vatican City. In addition, it was an opportunity for our father to impress upon us that while we should always pray for God's guidance, we should also always remember that He leaves us free to screw up on our own.
Daddy did not use the P word -- politics -- but in retrospect, I see that he was introducing us to the fact that politics plays a part in everything around us, including spiritual matters.
Fifty years have gone by since my brother hit the jackpot, and another papal conclave approaches. My husband and I have not opened a family betting pool on Pope Benedict XVI's successor, however. With my parents and Stephen dead and our own children grown, we'd be looking at a 50-cent pot, which hardly seems worth the trouble.
Besides, with my luck, this would be the year I followed Daddy's advice and picked an Italian -- at which time the cardinals would elect history's first American pope.
Frances Coleman is a freelance writer who lives in Baldwin County. Email her at frances@francescoleman.com and “like” her on Facebook at www.facebook.com/prfrances. Visit her website at www.francescoleman.com.And “like” her on Facebook at www.facebook.com/prfrances.