“And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave
proof…”
Hold that thought — at least until next year.
That was the message of countless mayors, governors, fire
marshals and legislators these last few months leading up to this
great nation’s annual orgy of pyrotechnic excess — the fourth of
July. Many officials would prefer that it not go off with
a bang this year, or even a few loud pops. And they are not
alone.
The New York Press’s George Tabb expressed genuine
dismay that Mayor Bloomberg — one of this year’s few
non-prohibitionists — is allowing fireworks displays on the Fourth
in a city where residents currently get the jitters over low flying
planes and cars that backfire. Sure, he used to love fireworks
displays, but “with every other smart New Yorker” Tabb will be
heading for the hills this weekend.
Nor is such firework-related Apocalypticism limited to big
cities or former terror targets. The extraordinarily dry condition
of much of the country has led many states and counties to
institute outright bans or to severely restrict the sale and use of
the naughty noisemakers.
Colorado issued a ban of the sale or use of all fireworks,
including the so-called “Safe and Sane” variety - e.g.
non-projectiles that don’t produce much of a boom. Even the
libertarian-leaning New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson considered an
outright ban and told the residents of his state to be very, very
careful. State and county lands have been declared off limits and
existing anti-fireworks laws in places from Los Angeles to Los
Alamos will be enforced with greater vigor than ever before.
The anti-fireworks crowd claim to be motivated by the real fear
that One Misplaced Match could do untold damage, and for many of
them that is no doubt true. But there’s also an another
undercurrent that seeps through in the news coverage of their calls
for restraint or an outright ban: the idea that, in an era when
safe and environmentally friendly laser shows are quickly replacing
fireworks ones, the use of fireworks is unnecessary and
irresponsible.
Well yes, concede fireworks proponents, but so was the Boston
tea party. College-age Pennsylvania writer Evan McElravy wrote
recently that he and friends will not “be hoodwinked by this
soft-headed, un-American tripe.” Possessing a “sterner constitution
for loud noises than those sissies back east” he claimed that
fellow Pennsylvanians will not be intimidated by the threat of
terrorists or wildfires. In perhaps the most memorable phrase of
the whole debate, McElravy said, “If we lose the right to get
plastered and burn our eyebrows off, the terrorists will have
won.”
In spite of it all, the pyrotechnic enthusiasts may carry the
day this year. Several states, such as Ohio, are allowing the sale
of fireworks as long as buyers promise to wink, wink, nudge, nudge,
detonate them elsewhere — in states other than where the
noisemakers were purchased. Many Indian reservations, being exempt
from the regulations of the nearby communities, sell all kinds of
wonderful explosive concoctions. In fact it may be that banning the
sale of fireworks in some localities creates a nigh-irresistible
financial incentive for the remaining dispensers to keep them
available.
Besides economics, fireworks have one other thing going for
them: a residual patriotic fondness. Even places such as Los
Angeles that are cracking down have allowed that youthful offenders
can be let off with a warning. And many police officers, as I have
witnessed in the past, are apt to turn a blind eye to an activity
that they themselves enjoyed as children and learned to connect
with love of country along with Mom and apple pie.
Indeed, in the ongoing war over fireworks, the rockets’ red
glare may prove brighter, and more resilient, than anyone
imagined.
