Anti-Terrorism and the Death of the Chemistry Set

An anonymous reader writes "A recent unfortunate casualty of anti-terrorism laws is the home chemistry set. Once deemed the gift that saved Christmas, most Slashdotters probably remember early childhood experimentation with one of the many pre-packaged chemistry sets that were on the market. Unfortunately the FBI has decided that home chemistry sets are a threat to national security and they are rapidly disappearing from the market entirely. Those that remain are shallow boring versions of the old kits."

Comments

just taking care to take care.

[yagu]

You do know the government is just trying to take care of us, right? Heck, I got the warm fuzzy long ago when Claritin-D, technically an OTC drug would only be sold from behind TC, and then only if you present picture identification, and even then you could only purchase enough to take one a day for ten days! Of course, if it isn't in stock when you want to purchase, you're out of luck... but you're being taken care of. (If you didn't know, the government was/is protecting us from the proliferation of meth labs with this inane process... not that I've noticed much evidence meth labs have disappeared. I have been a lot more congested though.)

Surprised chemistry sets didn't go this route long ago, what with their potential to put together explosives approaching that of a couple firecrackers combined! Warm fuzzies.

I hate to rant about good intentions, but these don't even smell like good intentions any more. Terrorists couldn't care less about chemistry sets.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[Original Replica]

The reason we see such an erosion of our freedoms is that Freedom and Trust go hand in hand. Some of that trust is to be responsible (gun safety), and some of that trust is to respect life and civil society (not a terrorist). That trust is gone, not only between the government and the people, but between neighbors. We wouldn't need all of this "think of the children" shit, if neighbors actually knew and trusted each other. We wouldn't have the highest prison population in the world if the government trusted the people.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[Secret Rabbit]

I disagree. I think that terrorists very much care about chemistry sets.

They care that they aren't offered and they care that people are pissed about it. They care about kids having less and less of a chance to educate themselves and they care that kids curiosity isn't being fulfilled nearly as much. They definitely care. They care that the US is becoming a more and more demoralized nation and the educated are having to fight less and less fights that matter and about more and more like this. They care that the people that think are being distracted and rendered useless. Because with them out of way, and with the idiots that are in power today, the current situation will favour them more and more and...

Take care of the thinkers of tomorrow, take care of the thinkers of today and take care that the terrorists are very very happy about this.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[captainwisdom]

Bull, the chemistry sets were dumbed down long before 9-11. Anti-terrorism has nothing to do with it. It's all about chem-set manufacturers getting sued (by armies of trial lawyers) and the liberal nanny state "protecting" our kids.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[weighn]

if the government trusted the people. why should the government treat it's people any different from the way from the people treating the government?
What goes around, comes around. OK, I'm confused. Don't you guys, the shining light of Global Democracy, have a saying regarding governance "By the people, for the people"?

Re:just taking care to take care.

[ArcadeNut]

Good thing you didn't write it small like John Hancock did on the Constitution!

Re:just taking care to take care.

[GuyverDH]

Don't forget, that now even Jr. High School students in the US are being asked to declare their Majors so that they can be narrowly channeled into their chosen field of study.

Sorry, you wanted to be a mechanic, no home economics for you. Or, oh... too bad you selected accountant, now you can't get that particle physics minor you so badly wanted.

Today's government wants all knowledge compartmentalized so that no one, and I mean no one, outside of the government can get the clear picture of what's going on.

Want to get into a hobby? It had better be along the lines of what you went to college for, otherwise they'll start to watch you on suspicion of being a terrorist. Showing an interest in an activity outside of your major, oooh - watchout, you've made the FBI's watch list again.

Jack of all trades are a dying breed. Specialization guarantees that the government is the only entity that really knows what's going on, just the way they want it to be.

Just think, if the government had started down this path 20 years ago, most of us would be specialists who grunt when someone talks about something that we didn't go to school for. Or worse yet, we'd call the cops if someone tried to teach us something outside of our specialty.

This is how periods of history like the dark ages start. By restricting knowledge so that the masses are not allowed to be fully educated, you guarantee that knowledge will begin to stagnate (only when certain types of knowledge intermingle with others are truly radical discoveries usually possible), and eventually disappear, sometimes forever.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[myth_of_sisyphus]

I was at the pharmacy when an old codger asked for some Claritin for allergies. He was obviously stuffed up.

The pharmacist asked for a CA driver's license. He said he doesn't drive anymore but has his VA card. She wouldn't sell it to him. Said she had to put the CA driver's license number in the database. No other's allowed.

A veteran of WWII or perhaps Korea couldn't buy a fucking harmless medication because he doesn't have the right ID? I couldn't fucking believe it... Was he going to go back to the old-folks home and set up a meth lab with a box of Claritin? Jebus fucking H goddamn shit.

(This country disgusts me more and more. We should storm something in Guy Faulke's masks. )

Re:just taking care to take care.

[Opportunist]

I'd say the catchphrase of the US feds today is rather "Do as I say, don't do as I do".

Re:just taking care to take care.

[Marful]

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of Human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - Colonial America sympathesizer William Pitt, British House of Commons, November 18, 1783

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

"Doctors have been caught using poisons, and those who falsely assume the name of philosopher have occasionally been detected in the gravest crimes. Let us give up eating, it often makes us ill; let us never go inside houses, for sometimes they collapse on their occupants; let never a sword be forged for a soldier, since it might be used by a robber." - ancient Roman educator Marcus Fabius Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, II, xvi

Re:just taking care to take care.

[ArcherB]

Surprised chemistry sets didn't go this route long ago, what with their potential to put together explosives approaching that of a couple firecrackers combined! Warm fuzzies.

I hate to rant about good intentions, but these don't even smell like good intentions any more. Terrorists couldn't care less about chemistry sets.

Right! Terrorists couldn't care less about chemistry sets. The Feds know this. First, chemistry sets were not banned, they were neutered. They were neutered long before 9-11. It has nothing to do with terrorism. It has everything to do with liability.

I understand that it's cool to bash the president and blame Bush for everything. However, this is not one of those cases. This isn't Bush's fault. If anything, it's John Edwards, or at least lawyers. Chemistry sets are hard to find for the same reason that slingshots are hard to find, because they can be dangerous in the wrong hands, kid's hands.

The people that are banning "dangerous" chemicals in chemical sets are the same people that forced MacDonald's to stop asking you if you wanted it "super sized", and the same people that are trying to ban you from smoking in a bar, or your car, and in your home, and outside... and so on. It's the same people who make planters put a label on a bag of peanuts that says, "danger, contains peanuts". It's the people that mandate seat belts and motorcycle helmets. These people are not conservatives (although there are some conservative nannies that say I can't drink beer in a bar after 2:00am). Nope! These are the same people that say things like "We are going to take things away from you for the common good".

Googling "nanny state chemistry set" took me to this article from the NY times. It's in response to an op-ed piece about the removal of chemistry sets. The article date, May 13, 1999. About 2.25 years BEFORE 9-11 and BEFORE the War on Terror. So, please, stop blaming this on Bush or the War On Terror. This was happening long before any of that!

From TFA:

[Author's Note: This article is primarily a result of my frustration in trying to acquire a few hundred grams of potassium carbonate for an electrolyte solution.] I understand the author's frustration, but he should really know who's at fault before he passes blame. If banning chemsitry sets were about keeping dangerous chemicals out of the hands of terrorists, then Clorox bleach, Windex, and pool chemicals would have been banned with it.

Sorry, but TFA is just plain wrong.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[Jarjarthejedi]

There are still 100-in-1's out there, they're no less common (where I am) than they were when I was kid and first got one of them. Boy was that a lot of fun.

Chemistry kits can be a lot more dangerous than a lot of other toys, give one of those old ones to a kid who doesn't know what they're doing and whose parents are too busy to spend any time with the kid and they're liable to injure themselves. That's the main reason they've been going out of style, it's pretty hard for little Johnny to hurt himself with a My First (Plastic with rubber spring tip) Hammer, or Pong, the Board Game (Seriously, can anyone here tell me they wouldn't buy that if it was a reasonable price?), but with a Chemistry kit there's probably a few ways they can injure themselves at min, and the law of probabilities shows how, no matter how low the probability of any kid hurting themselves is, some kid will, and some parent will sue.

I mean, just look at what the article itself says, the author admits to having to evacuate his house because he was making free chlorine gas. Now tell me, what are the odds that any modern parent would just let something like that slide vs. suing the company for damages?

Home Chemistry kits are going away, but not because of Anti-Terrorism laws. There are plenty of chemicals that you can get without a background check that will do some fun things, but they can also be quite harmful to you and since every toy has to be made so that little Johnny slow can use it without any chance of hurting themselves. I mean, you can make Thermite without using a single background-check needed ingredient (my friend did it once for fun, pretty cool), so why isn't that in the 'pathetic' chemistry kits? Oh right, because no parent would trust their kid with Thermite and would most certainly sue if their kid could make it and hurt themselves.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[Garridan]

Read the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. The people have zero reason to trust the government. The government exists to secure our rights, and it is the duty of the citizens of any democracy to keep an ever-watchful eye on the government. Damn right we don't trust the government. Love your country, love your fellow man, but for shit's sake, watch your back.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it really ironic that The Current Administration(sic) decided on muslims as their scapegoat..
Until the 13th or 14th century BC, Islam had the best and most prolific scientists in the world. For example, Ibn al-Haytham (965 - 1039), is responsible for the modern theories of optics as well as the modern Scientific Method, with an emphasis on quantification and reproducible, observable results.
The decline of science in medieval Islam was due to many factors, but probably the most significant was the political maneuvering of the Ash'arites. They held that humans were personally incapable of accurate moral reasoning, and must therefore look to the Qur'an for moral guidance. They specifically mistrusted reason and evidence, following certain truths and ignoring others.

why do i find all this ironic?

Dogma. As you said, this is how dark ages begin.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[kcbrown]

They care that the people that think are being distracted and rendered useless. Because with them out of way, and with the idiots that are in power today, the current situation will favour them more and more and...

If by "them" you mean the people who are in power, then this comment is spot on. If by "them" you mean those most people think of as "terrorists" then those "terrorists" are idiots of the worst kind.

Why?

Simple: because the government in charge of an oppressive police state is even more interested in power and control, and less interested in what anyone else thinks, than the government in charge of a democratic republic. And the more interested in power and control a given government is, the more such power and control it wants, which means it will attempt to expand and exert control over ever larger regions. Including the regions the "terrorists" inhabit.

If the "terrorists" think things are "bad" now, just wait until they're dealing with a government that really doesn't give a fuck about what they or anyone else thinks. As in at all. With a democratic republic, the "terrorists" at least have a chance of getting through to that republic's government through the people it governs. With a fascist totalitarian state, they have no such option at all.

Fascist totalitarian states have no trouble with steamrolling over anyone they want. Including "terrorists". They won't think twice about it, and they won't listen to anyone's argument against it, except those who are at least as well armed as they are. And that ain't the "terrorists". Against a fascist totalitarian U.S. (which isn't there yet but is really close now, I think), that's damned few countries, actually.

So if the aim of the "terrorists" is their own destruction, then they are well on their way towards accomplishing their goals.

In other words, the terrorists haven't won. They've lost. And so have we. The only people who have "won" are those who are already rich and powerful.

"Terrorists". Bah. Fucking morons...

Re:just taking care to take care.

[catalina]

Vin Diesel is a fairly hip, and current Hollywood type, and we all know that TinselTown is full of drug users?

Re:just taking care to take care.

[bladesjester]

"By the people, for the people"?

I prefer the following quote by Thomas Jefferson - "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."

Also "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security are deserving of neither." which is attributed to either Jefferson or Franklin, depending on where you find it.

Both are very very applicable to the current state of affairs.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[orkysoft]

You misread the GP's entire post. It has nothing to do with explosions, just with the fear of them.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[fredklein]

so that they can be narrowly channeled into their chosen field of study

I was just reading a short sci-fi story in which the government used this exact thing to keep scientists in the dark. They were allowed to do work in nothing but their own little area of expertise. The government had a time machine, but kept very tight control over it. A scientist in a vaguely related field (gravity optics?) has a chance encounter with another scientist, and they discuss their work. One of their uncles is a Technical Writer, and he has a basic/good understanding of many different fields. Together, they work on creating their own time machine. Turns out the original machine was a fake all along, but they end up building a real one. The government arrives to shut them down, fearing the consequences of a machine that can look back thru time (people would 'playback' the goodtimes over and over, or voyeuristically watch other people. Then there's the fact you can set it to look back just a fraction of a second into the past, and effective have a real-time spying device.) But the uncle mailed copies of the plans to every other technical writer on the planet....

Re:just taking care to take care.

[spoco2]

Oh dear god... so, as long as all you nut-job Americans have guns, it's all ok.

What a complete load of shite. Try looking at a whole lot of other countries without firearms being as stupendously prolific as they are in your beloved US of A... they're not all totalitarian regimes you know.

you're not safe because you all have guns, and if you think you can sit back and let things happen just because you're packing heat, my god you're so very, very wrong.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[starX]

(This country disgusts me more and more. We should storm something in Guy Faulke's masks. )

Alternatively, you could, I don't know:

1) Write your representative.

2) Write your senators.

3) Organize an issues based campaign

4) Vote for someone who shares your point of view on an issue

5) Run for office yourself.

Look, all of it perfectly legal, and just as important, actually has a chance of succeeding. If you storm a federal building in any mask, you're just going to wind up dead or in prison.

Or does that sound like too much work? Would you rather piss and moan about it on Slashdot? Might feel good for a moment, but it's all sound and fury signifying nothing.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[Technician]

They care about kids having less and less of a chance to educate themselves and they care that kids curiosity isn't being fulfilled nearly as much.

With the internet, the kids curiosity is being fulfilled more often than not. The problem with the internet isn't the lack of information. It is the dilution with distractions. Kids are more likely to spend time on myspace than on one of the science pages. There is more information online now than was ever accessible when I was a kid.

The internet is the great equalizer. I remember the old chemistry sets of the 1969's. They were pretty boring with a few things that changed color and kept matches from burning and such. Online the high power learning is great. I can now find the information to build rockets from Salt Peter and powdered sugar, how to mix explosive gasses (Spud guns propane air mix), create fun reactions (Mentos and coke) (sodium and water) and lots of other fun stuff I couldn't do with the chemistry set of the 60's. Some stuff that is too dangerous or illegal to do yourself, there are online videos for your enjoyment. There is more info in the following links than is in most chemistry sets.
http://www.burntlatke.com/
http://www.jamesyawn.com/candyrocket/
http://eepybird.com/dcm1.html
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_kind_of_liquid_is_in_instant_cold_packs
http://www.humeseeds.com/stump.htm
http://www.ufomind.com/area51/articles/1996/popsci_9604/
http://theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/
http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Stories/011.2/
http://fullygeek.com/2007/01/20000-pounds-of-sodium-dumped-in-lake/

Without a chemistry set, but with internet, I can find out where to buy components to build fireworks mortar shells, buy local explosive components (Nitride and oil) and such. It was the internet that taught me where to locally buy small amounts of Ammonium Nitrate and Salt Peter with no questions asked.

A trip to the hardware store is now an adventure as I read the ingredients on the packages.

I have learned more online than I could have ever learned from a chemistry set from the 1960's Not all is illegal or dangerous. Some is a lot of fun.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[sheepweevil]

How about you stop spreading FUD and give some evidence to your claims. The vast majority of college students change their majors at least once. I wasn't asked by anyone what my major would be until junior year of high school, and I wasn't asked to make a concrete choice until I actually applied to colleges Senior year.

too bad you selected accountant, now you can't get that particle physics minor you so badly wanted. One of the reasons most accountants don't get particle physics minors is that there is no overlap between the two subjects, so the minor would probably require another year of college; most accountants aren't that interested in particle physics in the first place.

Showing an interest in an activity outside of your major, oooh - watchout, you've made the FBI's watch list again. I am a Computer Science/Software Engineering Double major, and I am president of our University's Chess Club and an avid Rock Climber. Since neither of those have anything to do with CSC/SE, where is my name on the Terrorism lists?

Re:just taking care to take care.

[nephridium]

The "terrorists" (if you like to go ahead and put them all into the same category like the government does) care for what is happening on they own turf much more than what is happening in a far away country. It's just that you've been made to believe that their sole reason for blowing up stuff is because "they hate your freedom"(tm) and your way of life, while in the case of most Arab terrorists they are usually much more pissed off at the presence of American (and other foreign) bases, companies and soldiers on land that they deem to be "Arab" land. They couldn't care less about what's happening half way around the globe.

It's actually more or less the same all over the world - most people don't care about what's happening half way around the world (most of the time they don't even know about what's happening in neighboring countries) - at least, it seems, until someone from half way around the globe comes over and makes a big explosion (or more), then apparently people start "to care". With the right media direction this can be converted to a general sentiment of "Well, if the come over and blow stuff up here, we'll go over and blow stuff up there!" - rinse and repeat...

Re:just taking care to take care.

[DavidTC]

Have fun in your little made-up universe where the government comes to round you up and you manage to fight it off.

In the real world, fascism is when the corporations and governments work as a single entity, and you can wander around with your fucking gun all you want. In fact, you'll have to wander around, because the government/corporations took your house and your car, and no one will hire you.

At which point you'll be arrested, not as some big anti-government hero by jackboot thugs, but for stealing bread to live on, by a perfectly normal cop who's just doing his job, a job that absolutely no one except you disagrees with, so when you shoot and kill him you're getting the electric chair and no one thinks you're a hero at all.

There are different types of totalitarian governments, and assuming a fascist one operates like a communist one is faulty. Fascist governments don't put troops in the streets...they work with corporations to make sure 'the wrong sort of people' do not have any economic power, and do not have anywhere to peddle their ideas.

Modern fascist states don't even bother to kill those people, and pretending they're going to show up in some stormtrooper outfit and start a gun battle with you is insane. They'll show up with a court order to evict you from your home because you failed to pay your mortgage, because pressure came from the top at your company to let you go. Or they'll just sue you and ruin your finances.

America is not a bunch of tiny castles where, as long as you can hold off the invading armies, you will be fine. The idea that that is how the world works is astonishingly naive. Almost all the population of America lives in housing they do not fully own, they get food from places they do not control like the supermarket, they require operating in society for money to obtain said food and shelter, a society where economics are controlled by some very large players that can crush them like bugs.

And a fascist state isn't going to 'assume control', you asshat. There's not going to some insane coup, there's a going to be a slow change, which has, in fact, already happened, or have you not looked at the telecom immunity stuff? That's classic fascism. The government breaks the law, the government gets private companies to break the law, the government gives said companies huge amounts of cash, the government attempts to make such behavior legal retroactively. We've got government officials and AT&T officers leaping back and forth between each other in an incestuous loop. Your government spying on you, sponsored by AT&T. It's not 'totalitarian' yet, as evidenced by the fact Democrats managed to stop the immunity, but it is fascism, at least the start of it. (And the same thing's happened with Blackwater.)

Oh, and before you start ranting about gun control some more, be forewarned I'm against it. I'm just not stupid enough to think that the US government being slowly corrupted by business is something that can be fought off with gunpowder. Guns are useful to deter crime and to deter invasion. They aren't useful against a corrupt government in any meaningful way.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[jabberw0k]

Sounds like "The Dead Past" by Isaac Asimov. Recommended.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[dgatwood]

You're forgetting the best Jefferson quote of all:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

This tends to be the eventual result when a government goes down the path of tyranny (or at least what a significant portion of the population believes is tyranny).

Re:just taking care to take care.

[Usquebaugh]

You small minded, ignorant fool.

Freedom has nothing to do with trust. Freedom is that which you grant yourself. Nothing can take your freedom unless you capitulate. Of course you can debate that without life freedom is meaningless but life without freedom is not worth living. I mean true freedom not some legally imposed cage that you deem large enough.

The government should continually live in fear of the people. It only exists because the people allow it and fund it. The current state of affairs in the US is one of the saddest in recorded history. A country built on the ideals of freedom and liberty is being destroyed. Not as Orwell predicted by an over bearing state but rather as Huxley predicted because the citizens do not care about anything except being entertained. The collapse of Rome will be nothing compared to the implosion of the United States.

Understand this, the current situation is preciseley because the government does not fear the people. They have shown themselves to be cowards and sheep afraid even to ask questions let alone think of answers. Think back to how Bush et al obtained power. Think about 10% of the population owning 90% of the wealth. Think about what the constitution says of government and how government has undermined the constitution at evey oppurtunity. Trial without peers, lawyers, due process, habeous corpus. etc. etc.

And you, parrot some trite shite you probably heard on PBS. Freedom and trust go hand in hand, I'd call it moronic except morons know better.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[dragonturtle69]

You make some very good points, especially with regard to fascism in our current society. Unfortunately, I do not see much that can be done to prevent it from growing. Infotainment keeps some political candidates out of the spotlight while promoting others on both sides of America's political aisle. This pre-selection leads to low poll ratings for some. At least Leno had Ron Paul on the Tonight Show, though for a much lesser amount of time than Tom Cruise.

With regards to guns, once the common populace had a chance as they had some parity in weaponry. Nowadays, peaceful protest with lots of cameras and satellite feeds is the best hope to get the point across and not end up dead, as a convict. Hunting rifles just are not a match for the current weapons employed by law enforcement let alone the military.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[turing_m]

Or you could do what actually works and use your own media network to influence people, systematically evaluate which candidates will vote the way you want them to, and fund/advertise the more pliant ones.

You just need a few billion dollars to get the ball rolling. Good luck.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[McFadden]

I think your comment indirectly says it all. America, land of liberty, where it's dangerous to buy a child's chemistry set, but an enshrined right to buy a gun.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[mcrbids]

You just need a few billion dollars to get the ball rolling. Good luck.

That's just poppycock. Your ability to be effective starts at a much, much, MUCH lower resource level.

About 15 years ago, I produced a cable-access TV show, covering a local group of uber-conservative strict-construction constitutionalists. It was a dour but informative show about what your rights actually are when arrested, when fighting "city hall", as it were. We produced it weekly for about 2 years, and the effect it had on the local community was simply astonishing. One thing led to another, and before long, we had a real, live, grand-jury indictment over a death in the local county jail. We actually placed in the local Nielson ratings. (mind-blowing for a show produced on about $10 / week budget) The local Sheriff, who'd been in office for a very, VERY long time, ended up losing his position.

Another example of "small power" is Black box voting started by an angry housewife. (Yes, house-wife) Starting as just a mom, she is, today, the most vocal force today supporting our right to a fair, verifiable count of your right to vote.

It doesn't cost billions of dollars to change the world. It costs somebody giving a damn and refusing to back down.

It's been said before, and I'll say it again:

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. What have you done?

Re:just taking care to take care.

[MrKaos]

Not as Orwell predicted by an over bearing state but rather as Huxley predicted because the citizens do not care about anything except being entertained. The collapse of Rome will be nothing compared to the implosion of the United States.

Especially with China patiently waiting for it to happen.

Yet Another Benjamin Franklin Quote (YABFQ)...

"In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, -- if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."

The corporatisation of America has played a big part, the question is, Is there a way back? What will make the average person decide to stand up for their freedom when all they have to do is vote, not die or fight, just understand the issues and vote. War used to be a thing the entire nation had to make a sacrifice for, now it's a distraction funded by other countries in the form of loans.

Clearly your comments illustrate that you are a rational person, with the ability to sense reality for what it is. That is why you will be one of the first sentenced to sedition and shot. Of course that reminds me of YABFQ...

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[MrKaos]

The devil is in the detail, I agree with your sentiment though totally appropriate today.

* Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

o This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document, which uses an archaic form of "s": "Thofe who would give up Essential Liberty to purchafe a little Temporary Safety, deferve neither Liberty nor Safety." Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson is the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

But just as relevant and far more recent is something John.F.Kennedy said

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

He knew back then how afraid governments and the power elite are of a population properly educated and motivated, which is why both are being disassembled today.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[NeilTheStupidHead]

What will make the average person decide to stand up for their freedom The cancellation of American Idol, Survivor and the rest of the 'reality' programming tripe I fear.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[arodland]

OK, I'm confused. Don't you guys, the shining light of Global Democracy, have a saying regarding governance "By the people, for the people"? Yes. It's a fantastic lie and pretty much always has been. Democracy, as practiced in the real world, isn't a way to give power to the people. It's a way to give token power to the people, in order that those in positions of real power can draw more and more of it to themselves without also drawing complaint.

I mean, really, just look at the awesome power of the voting public. In a country where two-thirds of the population feel that the "leader of the free world' is doing an unsatisfactory job, we have the power to

• Elect a bunch of incompetent nitwits (and some as-yet-undiscovered evil bastards) to the legislature to replace a crop of more competent types, on the grounds that an ineffective government will at least screw you more slowly;
  
• Suffer quietly for years, waiting for the opportunity to choose from among two carefully-groomed replacements, one of whom is hopefully more acceptable than the current leader -- at least, to 50.01% of the people (less if you factor in the "electoral college" system of electing a US president which says you really only need the support of twenty-some percent of voters to win),
  
• But given a field that narrow, we can't expect to find anyone we support on a broad range of issues. Instead, it's critical to rabidly focus on a single hot topic.
  
• Bah, who am I kidding? It's not about issues, it's about character.
  
• And by character, I mean the right clothes, a winning smile, and never giving a frank opinion within earshot of a tape recorder. Oh, and I hear lapel pins are a biggie.
  

A method that would allow us to choose between more than two players would, of course, be too complicated for us wielders of Ultimate Democratic Power to comprehend, as would the possibility of making choices directly related to the issues at hand, instead of merely choosing the least-undesirable candidate and hoping that he or she likes reading your letters. (Referenda don't solve the problem that many things shouldn't be legislated, but should instead be defined by custom and upheld by the community, but that gets even further afield...)

Re:just taking care to take care.

[DynamicPhil]

This is the friggin' best post I've read in a long time.

The only thing I'd like to add is some general tips on What-to-do(TM)

Get involved. Write your congressman about invasion of privacy. Sponsor EFF. Develop that über-safe anonymizing program, make it widespread.

Get Informed. Read stuff (for example Naomi Klein "The Shock Doctrine"), get unbiased news (NOT FOX!), analyze what's being done rather than what's being said. Ask questions (who benifits from this?)


You need to overcome the denial of what the parent post said about fascism. Just saing "I't ain't so", instead of asking "how do we fix this" - that's a path down a very dark road. Do Something!

Re:just taking care to take care.

[hachete]

really this is off-topic. The GP is referring to guns making you safe in a conceptual sense, as in Free. You have all the guns you want but that hasn't stopped any administration from suspending or, in Bush's case, destroying habeas corpus or tapping phones or whatever else illegal bullshit they're doing under the cover of executive privilege. In other words, unless you actually use the guns against the government you're pretty much a paper tiger, and, as another poster said, just another arsehole gun-owning nut-job.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[ajs318]

I hear this argument all the time: that guns in private hands are necessary in case a Bad and Evil Government ever take power. And all the people who lost their lives needlessly are just collateral damage and the death toll would be so much worse if a Bad Government got in.

I'm sitting here on the other side of the Atlantic and I can only wonder, just how bad does your government have to get before you actually use those guns for what you say you wanted them for?

Re:just taking care to take care.

[Minupla]

My wife went home to the states a couple of weeks ago (she ran away to Canada) for a visit. While down there she got sick. Just a sniffle, so ran down to the local pharmacy for something to unstuff her system.

"Could I see some ID please?"

"Um, sure..." *hands over her Canadian photo ID*

"I'm sorry, it needs to be US ID."

Her brother had to buy her decongestant for her using his ID.

Moral of the story: Don't get sick while visiting the states. It's against policy.

Min

Re:just taking care to take care.

[Dr_Barnowl]

In addition, knives penetrate ballistic armour more easily than bullets.

A bullet has a fixed kinetic energy, once it's dissipated, that's the end of it. A knife has an active arm behind it, applies pressure to a much smaller cross section which cuts armour fibres easily, and has a progressive effect - once it's cut a small way, it can cut some more.

They also don't run out of ammunition, aim more easily (as you point out), and because they are used at melee range, choosing your target for maximum damage is also much easier.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[labnet]

I agree DynamicPhil, best friggin post all year.
Hitler was a hero before people realised it was too late.
America has only just started on the road to true fascism. First there will be the economic crash, and the enusing chaos and poverty.
Thats been in the works since the 60's when the USA went off the Gold standard and became a fiat currency.
You embraced globalisation, and your manufacturing has disapeared.
Notice whats happening to your infrastructure, your dollar, your mortgages.
Terrorism is the biggest con yet. USA does not have a terrorism problem. 9-11 was not done by Arabs with stanley knives.
9-11 was the excuse to take away your freedom.

Dynamic Phil is right, go make some noise.... but you know what.... it won't happen. While the general populace has food in their bellies and their mind numbing TV, nothing will change.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[Attila Dimedici]

You have the power to choose between more than two. It's called the primaries. Pick a party, get involved, pay attention to local politics, when in doubt, vote the In's out. That is the formula to make a difference. Oh yeah, even if your guy is the greatest, vote for his opponent after at the very least his second term. No matter how good they are, legislators should be replace at least every other term. Legislators are like fruit, keep them around too long and they start to rot.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[beckerist]

Wow I've been waiting to find someone to ask this to for years, finally a relevant forum:
When I was in my pre-teens, no more than 11, I was given a chemistry kit for hobby purposes (a tricky little way my parents could pull me off the NES: SMB, Jackal and Duck Tales were the best!)

One day, little ol' me decided to add a few more ingredients to the chemical stew I was in the process of trying to change colors, and for whatever reason I happened to grab the Clorox from my mom's laundry room. I have no idea (and this is what I'm asking help on) what was originally in the Chemistry kit box that would do this, but instantly upon pouring the Clorox in the mixture (that was already brown) started emanating a very translucent, greyish smoke. It was INCREDIBLY smelly, and when I told my mom she forced our family to evacuate the house, and the fire department had to come.

Again, they never told me what I'd done (in the hopes I'd never do it again) but I've always been curious... Who DOESN'T want an "instant stay at a hotel" button? :-) Any insight?

Re:just taking care to take care.

[tgd]

Hmmm, anyone know the steps to turn meth back into pseudoephedrine Hcl? Its pretty easy to find meth these without needing an ID, wonder if you'd go to jail for turning it back into an OTC drug?

Re:just taking care to take care.

[mapkinase]

I am glad FBI discovered the sinister chemical plans of terrorists. Apparently the thickening plot started long time ago:

In the history of science, the etymology of the word chemistry is a debatable issue.[1] It is agreed that the word "alchemy" is a European one, derived from Arabic.

Arabic. Do I have to spell it for you?

1. Introduce unsuspecting Westerners to chemistry
2. Make sure it becomes popular
3. USE THE CHEMICAL KITS TO BLOW UP OUR FREEDOMS!!!

Re:just taking care to take care.

[fprintf]

Gotta love the right to "bare arms". Be careful, though, because when you start to bare other more naughty bits you can get in trouble with the constabulary.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[hackstraw]

TJ: The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Slashdot guy: This tends to be the eventual result when a government goes down the path of tyranny (or at least what a significant portion of the population believes is tyranny).

I know this is controversial, but I believe that McVeigh to be a patriot/tyrant who actually was better for the people than its popularly believed. Kinda like how parasites/plagues are good for a population. Its complicated.

With the Oklahoma bombing thing, its interesting that there are absolutely zero changes in anything that specifically led to that bombing. Its just as easy today to get rental vans, diesel and fertilizer than it was before this incident.

However, today, its much more difficult to travel on a plane or to buy a chemistry kit.

Now, lets think about what is different here. The government can implant tyrany and fear into more people via travel restrictions and chemistry kits than they could ever do with rental vans, dieslel, and fertilizer.

So, in summary, the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks were a net gain for the government, and the Oklahoma terrorist attack was a net gain for the people.

Kinda screwed up, now isn't it?

Re:just taking care to take care.

[Jason Levine]

I agree that the drug protections have gotten out of hand. When my wife and I want to buy some Sudafed for our four-year-old, we are required to sign our names in a book to "prove" that we're not going to turn it into crystal meth. Now I'm no expert in Sudafed-Meth conversions, but I would guess you would need a *TON* of children's Sudafed to make any significant crystal meth. Buying one package wouldn't do it. And what protection does a signed name in a paper book prove? Do all of those names get typed into some computer system by someone? If not, and we were running a crytal meth lab, couldn't we just pharmacy hop to get all of the Sudafed that we needed? Perhaps if someone was buying four or more bottles at once, I could see putting their name in a computerized database, but not writing down their name in a paper book for the purchase of one bottle of Sudafed. That law was obviously just passed to show voters how their incumbant is "doing something" about a problem regardless of whether that something is useful or not.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[dogzilla]

"The reason we see such an erosion of our freedoms is that Freedom and Trust go hand in hand. "

No - the reason we see such an erosion of our freedoms is that the so-called American People are a bunch of overfed, sackless sheep who have never experienced hardship, don't know the meaning of the word sacrifice, and as a group are rapidly becoming the stupidest people on earth, yet cling to this myth of individualism and strength in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Twenty or Thirty years ago I would have said that the American People should fight to regain their lost power. Today, it's clear that giving the American People any kind of power would be the biggest unmitigated disaster possible - they are simply unfit for anything but slowly rotting into an undifferentiated mass of flesh-colored goop on their couches while watching mind-controlling HappyNews(tm) on their hi-def televisions, stuffing their faces full of overprocessed food and farting in surprise every time a neuron fires. But at least they all have the right to buy automatic weapos. How many wake-up calls does this country need to ignore? Bush, Iraq, Katrina, the Patriot Act, Obesity epidemic, DMCA, Religious intolerance, Columbine, worst race relations in generations, etc. ad nauseum. Americans are the biggest pussies in the world - they can't even talk about a single one of these problems anymore, much less begin to address them.

It's only a matter of a generation or two before America becomes irrelevant at this rate. I wonder if anyone will notice.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[GooberToo]

and even then you could only purchase enough to take one a day for ten days!

It's far worse than that. If there was ever a law which proves how fucking stupid our government representatives are, it's this law. It seems they can't understand the most basic of math. You can purchase roughly 20 pills to cover 30-days. Most people who are on this type of medication REQUIRE at least one pill per day. I'm fairly sure most any grade schooler can figure out that people are shorted 10 pills per month. But our government is so fucking stupid that can't figure that out.

And yet it gets worse! If you have children, you now have to split those 20-pills between all the people in your house.

Let's take a typical family. Two adults and two children. Two adults can get 40 pills per month, maximum! If you have four people that need to take those pills, him, now each person only gets 10 pills per month. Hmmm....30 days...ten pills....our government is totally fucking dumb and that can't even do the most fundamental of subtraction.

And all the above ignores the fact that some doctors actually want some people to take TWO pills per day if an infection is starting. Now that means the one person is able to fight back their infection to only have it come back a vengeance five days later, for the following 25 days and likely wind up going to the doctor for a prescription, which could have all been avoided if it were not for the fucking morons making these laws.

In other words, this law is requiring people stop buying over the counter medication and forcing people in droves back to their doctors for medication which requires little to no participation from a doctor. Several doctors I've spoken to about this problem are most annoyed because they are often unable to treat patients because they are booked treating patients which should never have be in their offices in the first place. And all this ignores the financial burden it's forcing onto to people who have little to no insurance coverage for prescriptions.

Literally, our government is making people sick and making them pay more money and wasted time (which for many means loss of money) for the privilege of paying more money for both a doctor visit and prescriptions.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[Mr. Slippery]

You have the power to choose between more than two. It's called the primaries.

No. Primaries are part of the problem.

Officially, the US is not a two-party system, we are a no-party system. Political parties have no official role under the Constitution. The Democrats and Republicans are private organizations. If they - or the Boy Scouts or the ACLU or whomever - want to get together and put forth candidates, fine; but they ought not be allowed to use public resources to do so, and ought to have to play by the same ballot access rules as everybody else.

Primaries and other special treatment for parties are gross violations of the equal protection clause.

No primaries, no party affliations on ballots, no Congressional (or state legislative) rules that recognize party lines. Let's elect men and women, not parties. Add instant-runoff voting, and we could actually start to get decent candidates.

Do I expect to see this? Not anytime soon. We're going to have to fall even farther before real change is possible.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[Akaihiryuu]

Somehow, I doubt "terrorists" are making explosives with chemistry sets anyway. But they must be making them with child chemistry sets, because it's not like you can make them from common household chemicals available in any grocery store...oh wait, you can. Sarcasm aside, this is just plain stupid.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[Crayon Kid]

I mean true freedom not some legally imposed cage that you deem large enough.

There's no such thing as "true freedom" in practical terms. All freedom is limited to boundaries you agree to, if you want to live in a society. I mean, you probably agree not to exercise your freedom to go around killing people, in exchange for a reasonable assurance that others won't do it either, right?

Re:just taking care to take care.

[UserGoogol]

Big government is a fair price to pay for the freedom to not know your neighbors.

In order for people to really thrive, people need to be able to choose their social relationships. The existance of community takes away from this. In an idealistic "old timey small town," everybody knows everybody, and if you don't want to be known, then too bad. Furthermore, communities mold people's values. Rather than people having their value system to be created by choice and rationality, there is this big mob of groupthink, where you do things simply because that's what is done within your community.

A vital function of government is to make it possible for people to be antisocial. If life was just one big happy family, we wouldn't even need government. People would live in these little anarchist communes, and when conflict arose within the community it would be dealt with. Government allows people to say "you guys suck, I'm gonna do my own thing" without being banished from society.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[babblefrog]

WTF? It's the "War on drugs" that is filling our prisons, for the most part. It doesn't have anything to do with immigration.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[DavidTC]

I know what fascism is, I'm using it the way it was originally used by Mussolini, where there is almost no distinction between businesses and governments, but, unlike communism, the partnership is used to funnel huge amounts of money to corporations. It's basically the opposite of communism, instead of the government controlling the means of production, corporations control the means of governance.

You're apparently using it to mean 'totalitarian' or 'authoritative', which is just silly, we already have words for that. Those can be anything from a dictatorship to communism to fascism. All those are non-democratic, all of them differ as to who is in charge and what their goals are. (And all those 'goals' take second place to 'protecting the regimen'.)

And the term 'Islamofascism' is just a silly name. Islamism has almost none of the traits of fascism. It is also anti-democratic, so it's authoritative, but it's theocratic authoritative.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

He could get a non-driver ID.

I don't even live in California and it took me less than 10 seconds to find it:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm

Re:just taking care to take care.

[PachmanP]

Let's elect men and women, not parties. Add instant-runoff voting, and we could actually start to get decent candidates.

I vote for parties. With kegs and scantily clad women.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[dubbreak]

..where it's dangerous to buy a child's chemistry set, but an enshrined right to buy a gun.

Well if you don't have a gun, how are you going to protect yourself from the terrorists?

Offtopic, but more seriously: why do americans insist on owning guns? My canadian family lived in the US for a couple years and our friends and neighbours were amazed we didn't own a single gun, either there or "back in canada". The response was always, "How are you going to protect yourselves?"

Seriously, do some research. In a home invasion you are more likely to harm yourself or be harmed by your gun than scare off an intruder. Our neighbour in her 70's kept a handgun (loaded!!!) in her bedside table. Do you seriously think she could protect herself from an invader using that gun? My bets are at least once a grandchild found the gun and handled it, but she never used it for even target practice.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-gun. I love going out and doing some target practice with various gauges of guns, but I don't need to own one to do that. I have friends that own many guns, but they hunt, collect old guns or belong to target shooting groups. None of them own guns to "protect themselves", it is all for sport.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[oatworm]

Y'know, I repeatedly read stuff like this, and it really makes me wonder about the logic behind it. Let's take 30 years ago - that'd be 1977. Over-processed food? Well, they didn't have Whole Foods back then, that's for sure. Organic food only existed in Height-Ashbury. Canned food was still cheaper than fresh. Doesn't get much more processed than that. Right to buy automatic weapons? Heh - Americans haven't had that... well, probably ever. Iraq? How about Vietnam? Casualties were a bit higher in that one, to put it mildly. Patriot Act? How about Watergate? Heck, if you go back another 20 years, you can even throw McCarthyism into the mix, which makes the Patriot Act look like a summer picnic. As for the obesity epidemic, it only exists because we actually have an agriculture infrastructure that is so efficient that we have to pay people not to grow food. DMCA only exists because we actually have the technology now to render copyright moot and the copyright holders don't like that much. Religious intolerance... oh yeah, 'cause we all know that religious tolerance was absolutely top notch in the past. Columbine... yeah, kind of hard to beat kids shooting each other, though I seem to remember guns being a perennial problem in school back in the '80s. Worst race relations in generations, though... oh my. Sorry, but you don't get to claim "worst in generations" unless people start writing songs about strange fruit growing on their trees. I honestly don't remember the last time my neighbors have organized a "lynch the darkies fer sleepin' wit da white womens" session - that's probably because they never have.

But, hey, you and everyone else like you is absolutely right - things were totally better in the good ol' days...

Re:just taking care to take care.

[orgelspieler]

I actually don't consider McVeigh a terrorist, since his target was a government building. I don't think he's a hero or a patriot, but I don't think terrorist is the right word. He didn't even try to shoot the cop that arrested him.

I think the reason the government has been able to get more political capital out of the 9/11 attacks was because it was easy to frame it as an us-versus-them sort of thing. With McVeigh, he was "one of us" or "home-grown," so it was harder for them to get everybody whipped up into a frenzy.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[ArcherB]

Somalia and Afghanistan have a great many guns, however I don't know of anyone who would consider them models of public safety. Public safety seems to me to be far more dependent on a healthy society where economic mobility is available, public institutions like courts and schools function, and resources like water and food are plentiful. Of course, you're correct that all societies have firearms available at some level, and they can be useful for self-defense, but if you suddenly need to use one, it doesn't make any sense to say that you're in a much safer society.

Even in places like Somalia and Afghanistan, you are safer with a gun than without.

I own a gun, and I learned to use it properly in the military. I've shot recreationally since I was a teenager. I recognize that they are just a tool, and that good or bad intent lies behind the trigger, not in it. I also acknowledge that it is your right to arm yourself and provide for your your own defense. Of course, all rights entail responsibilities, such as the obligation to learn to handle a gun safely, and to learn the legal ramifications of its use. That said, I'm glad that you don't own a gun, and I wish you would stop trying to be an advocate for them, because your post makes you sound like you don't have the emotional maturity to own a water pistol.

I too was in the Military. I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all invaders, foreign and domestic. My point was not to defend firearms, but to defend the Constitution and the people who take advantage of it.

Also, I hate bigots. I ate people that apply prejudice and stereotypes to anyone. It is no different to call Americans with guns nutjobs than it is to call Mexicans fruitpickers or black people porch riders. All three are equally repugnant and I will stand up against the racists who think that way, even if people like you assume that it shows emotional immaturity on my part.

Yes, I could have put it a bit more gently, but racists, bigots, and elitists put me in a rage. Unfortunately, it showed.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[sumdumass]

Your probably not going to get a good bomb with the fertilizers available over the counter today. You might get a poof or something but nothing compared to what you could get with fertilizers purchased with a chemical license.

Yes, most of the god stuff going on farm fields are licensed and controlled for the most part. now taking it from a farmer might be easier then attempting to buy it from an authorized source.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[RexRhino]

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security are deserving of neither."
I find that quote especially tiresome. Can't you intellectual giants think of any instances where this is just flat wrong? I can. The idea is that a state is either moving towards authoritarianism, despotism, and totalitarianism, etc., or they are moving away from it.

I am sure you can think of lots of "important" situations, where our "benevolent" government needs to restrict our liberty "for the good of everyone". The trouble is, once you decide there are exception to liberty, everyone has their pet issue that they think liberty should be sacrificed for. In the same way you may be paranoid about say firearms, or recreational drugs, or free markets, or whatever, some people are paranoid about terrorism. It is unreasonable to think that the government will choose to address only your fears, and choose to ignore the fears of others. You aren't special, and in a Democracy, you are just one of tens or hundreds of millions who want the government to address whatever it is that you are terrified of.

You are either the type of person who supports an expansion of the police state, or you are the type of person who supports rolling back the police state. But if you think the police state is going to restrict liberty only in ways you approve of, you are delusional. The Patriot Act is the price you pay for gun control. The War on Terrorism is the price you pay for the War on Drugs. When you give the government the power to monitor your bank accounts so it can tax you to pay for the social services you approve of, you also give government the power to monitor your bank account to make sure you aren't a "supporting terrorists".

You are either more afraid of terrorists, criminals, buisnesses, etc. than the government... in which case you support the police state, and you accept the good with the bad. Or, you are more afraid of the government than terrorists, criminals, buisnesses, etc., and you are willing to accept that there might be slightly greater amount of risk that goes along with liberty. You make your choice, but don't decieve yourself that you can have your cake and eat it too.

I find great amusement in the fact that you're quoting a slavemaster in regards to the importance of liberty. The people who are against free speech, or the right to own weapons, or the right to keep what you earn or to own property, always like to point out that the early American advocates of these rights owned slaves. What they don't like to point out, is that slaves where denied free speech, denied the right to own weapons, and denied the right to keep what they earned or to own property, because such rights are incompatible with slavery.

The slave owning founding fathers where racist in that they wanted to deny blacks the same rights that they wanted to give to whites... But they at least they understood that if you don't have free speech, the right to own property, the right to arm yourself, that you are a helpless slave. They understood that gun control, censorship, and taxation and confiscation where tools that you used in order to control and exploit the people you wanted to enslave.

The fact that the American founding fathers where hippocrites and racists does not change the fact that they had a clear understanding of how restricting liberty is a tool of exploitation. The fact that so many so-called "progressives" or "advocates of social justice" want the government to implement policies that were designed 500 years ago so that slave masters could better exploit their slaves, means that those people are either ignorant to the facts of history, or secretly want to enslave people.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[pudge]

Most of what you wrote is incorrect, all that anti-coporation bullshit, that broadly translates as "avoiding fascism means having more government control over our lives." I won't bother addressing that, but there's something else you addressed that you got wrong, that many might not have understood.

... have you not looked at the telecom immunity stuff? That's classic fascism. The government breaks the law, the government gets private companies to break the law, the government gives said companies huge amounts of cash, the government attempts to make such behavior legal retroactively. First of all, it is extremely questionable whether any law was broken. But let's assume it was. It is utter nonsense to hold the corporations responsible: they did what the government told them to do. If Bush broke the law (including asking the telecoms to break the law), then impeach him. I'll enjoy watching you twist logic to show how he broke any law, but regardless, that is the proper way to deal with it.

It's not 'totalitarian' yet, as evidenced by the fact Democrats managed to stop the immunity, but it is fascism, at least the start of it. Shrug. Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller -- who, for the record, was the ONLY Congressman to raise objections to the warrantless wiretapping before it was made public -- sponsored the immunity, for the reasons I gave above. So you're telling me Rockefeller sponsors fascism here, while he was the only one to object to it before? I disagree a lot with Rockefeller, but I have always believed him to be intelligent and principled.

(And the same thing's happened with Blackwater.) Exactly, and the point's the same: where Blackwater has followed the law and its imposed regulations and rules, it should not be held liable while it is doing work for the government. If they go beyond their legal restrictions, then they should be. Same thing with the telecoms.

It's utter nonsense to say we should hold anyone responsible for doing what the government told them they could do, when there's someone much more obvious and culpable to go after: the people who told them they could do it.

Re:just taking care to take care.

[mesocyclone]

And just exactly is how does Blackwater fit into your fascism theory? Do you see them running around the US doing evil?

They are a large security firm, hired by the government and many other organizations to help in dangerous areas, such as Iraq. They engage in lethal violence as part of their business, Legally (in spite of some misleading news reports). Furthermore, the government has used private companies for diplomatic and other security for a long time.

Exactly how is Blackwater immune to the laws of the US?

There's nothing fascist about them.

As for the start of fascism, I suggest again you look at history, because by your definition we have been in the start of fascism for most of the existence of the US.

Companies in tight with government? Check out the 1800s. Companies breaking laws with impunity... I don't know of any examples today, but there were times when this was certainly a popular passtime.

Wiretaps used to be routine without warrants or probable cause - did you know that?

Only 50 years ago, police did not have to "read people their rights." Evidence could not be thrown out if it was obtained improperly.

When we fought the civil war, Habeas Corpus was suspended by that evil fascist, Lincoln. Lots of companies were in bed with the government (can you say war profiteers?)

In World War II, we drafted millions of men, and we sent Japanese to concentration camps. The government spied on whomever it wanted to. It censored what it wanted to, and Hollywood produced only what censors allowed (and that censorship lasted into the 60s), and most of what it produced was propaganda under the direction of army captain Ronald Reagan.

In the Vietnam War, we drafted hundreds of thousands of men. Oh, and we had private companies involved in that war also. Do you see a draft today?

Companies used to hire private security firms to bust unions with violence. Don't see much of that these days.

So if you are afraid that we are becoming fascist, it might help to show the trend in that direction, since history appears to run against you in that regard. We are becoming more free, and fascism is inconsistent with freedom. The most likely way that our freedoms will be restricted, and fascist government will grow, is through environmental extremism, which confers upon its practitioners a moral authority to "do whatever is needed" to "save the earth." Corporations will be happy to join the government and profit from that, just like they now do with the absurd ethanol program. For example, Enron was in favor of the Kyoto treaty because of the money it expected to make from the carbon "offset" trading.

BTW... you say you don't watch the news. well, the news made a big deal about Blackwater after the incident where Iraq alleged misbehavior by Blackwater diplomatic security during a firefight. Congress is making a big deal.

Unfortunately, the wiretaps (which were ONLY on international calls) were also big news, since the mass media hates the current administration and will do anything (including crippling its anti-terrorist efforts) to hurt Bush. Some of these news stories have seriously damaged our ability to fight our very real enemies. So fear not, the populace is overly aware of the "dangers" they face from the administration. ..............

You may not have noticed, but we are in fact at war, with people who have vowed to kill us by the millions, and have tried numerous times. Cry all you want about Blackwater and AT&T. They are a small part of a huge, long term war, and they are hon our side.

Perhaps you don't see the threat, but the convergence of Islamofascist ideology (Al Qaeda's and Iran's - both forms) and modern technology, makes terrorism far more dangerous than it has ever been before. 9-11 showed how 19 people could turn civilian technology into weapons of mass destruction and kill thousands (and try to kill a lot more). Al Qaeda has attempted to procure nuclear material and biological weapon

options

[stoolpigeon]

The death of a certain type of chemistry set. There are a pretty wide number of sets available including the specific kit mentioned in TFA (Chem C3000) and the reviews there both mention the difficulty in gathering some of the materials necessary to doing the expirements. I don't think it is just terrorism though. Terrorism, a litigious society, the war on drugs - I think any one alone would have probably been enough, and we've got all three.

I wonder if this might signal an opportunity for some entrepeneur to develop a virtual chem lab. It's not exactly the same, but at least it would give kids an opportunity to learn and explore. It could also offer features you wont find in any real chemistry set. Nice graphics showing what is going on on a much lower level. A virtual professor to help out and explain. Tools and materials that are too expensive or that really would be too dangerous.

Re:options

[glavenoid]

A virtual chem lab is a great idea that I never would have thought of. A quick googling yielded several results that I'm off to check out right now.

I had several chemistry sets as a kid and spent many, many hours conducting experiments, often to my own harm (poisonous gases, chloral hydrate, etc...:-) High school chemistry almost got me arrested, and led in part to my expulsion from public school. Now, I'd like to get back into it, even if only for the theory, and as such a well designed virtual lab would suffice. Thanks for the idea, stoolpigeon!

Re:options

[Anonymous Coward]

The summary has nothing to do with TFA. The FBI isn't banning anything -- the only mention is that some states require a background check to purchase chemicals, which the FBI performs.

Wimpy chemistry sets are nothing new -- it's an overly litigious society, not law that's at fault. I had one in the 80's, that looks a lot like the Discovery Chem-X 1000 on Amazon. Everything had child safety caps, nothing explosive or pyrotechnic, nothing more than slightly toxic. Most of the experiments I remember had to do with color or phase changes.

Re:options

[jlarocco]

No offense, but that's pretty lame. Chemistry sets are fun because they're hand on.

This is just getting ridiculous. I can go down the block and fill my car with 30 gallons of highly flamable/explosive gasoline, but chemistry sets are off limits because they contain a few ounces of potentially dangerous chemicals? Our government is officially retarded.

Re:options

[ArcherB]

I had several chemistry sets as a kid and spent many, many hours conducting experiments, often to my own harm (poisonous gases, chloral hydrate, etc...:-) High school chemistry almost got me arrested, and led in part to my expulsion from public school.

And this is the problem. It's not terrorism that is causing these things to disappear. It's the fact that we've become a nanny state, and it's not conservatives that are the cause! You can't get toys for your kids that may have pointed edge. You can't get toys for your kids that may fit down a wind pipe or break off into sharp pieces. This isn't because of GW Bush, it's because of lawyers. Any time a kid gets hurt by a toy, the company gets sued into oblivion, whether it was the company's fault or not! It becomes cheaper to settle out of court for $100,000 than it does not fight it out.

Chemistry sets are hard to find for the same reason that sling shots are hard to find. It's not because they present a terrorism threat, it's because they are dangerous. The first time some kid mixes something that he wasn't supposed to makes an explosive, corrosive mixture that "puts an eye out", the company that made that kit gets sued. If it were about terror, this would be an article about how hard it is to find good pool chemicals!

It's the same nannies that want to tell you that you can't smoke in your house, or you can't have a big mac or supersize your fries. These people don't usually tend to be conservatives. It's happens to be the people that say things like, "we are going to take things away from you for the common good."

Re:options

[carlos92]

Next thing we know cars will have the fuel tank locked and only a government official will be able to extract gasoline from your car.

Re:options

[SageMusings]

My personal feeling is good chemistry sets are hard to find because....people aren't buying them. They cannot compete with an X-box or Playstation. Don't forget today's children have incredibly short attention spans and scholarly pursuit is the hallmark of a pariah in many circles.

In short, I think it is simple economics. If kids developed a craze for chemistry, manufacturers would most assuredly find a way to sell advanced sets, lawyers be damned. If we can give johnny a hunting rifle (we can), we can give him a Bunsen burner. All you need is demand. Also don't forget many parents today are the same mouth-breathers you sat next to in class years ago. Why would these people seek science toys for their kids when many barely got out of high school?

Re:options

[causality]

The first time some kid mixes something that he wasn't supposed to makes an explosive, corrosive mixture that "puts an eye out", the company that made that kit gets sued.

Sure, lawyers profit from this and politicians talk a big game about how much they care about your safety. And do you know what is at the root of this, the one factor that allows all of the rest to happen? Parents -- specifically, parents who either don't want to do their job or don't know how. A kid who uses something like a chemistry set under the supervision of his parents, who take the time to instruct him in what is safe and what is not and why this is so, and show by example (the only correct way to do so) how to be responsible and how to correctly manage something that could be a danger if mismanaged, and show the kid what it means to have a healthy respect for things, is not going to blow the house up and is not going to lose an eye. If this means keeping the chemistry set under lock and key to make sure that this happens, then so be it, but that probably won't be necessary because a child who is treated this way is likely to respect his parents for reasons other than "they might punish me" and will appreciate this kind of instruction and trust.

Chemistry sets aren't the only casualties in this stupid attempt to shift the burden of raising children from the parents to the society at large by trying to neuter every last thing and remove all potential for any harm and honestly, I'm sick of it. Whenever I hear about a child getting hurt with, say, fireworks, my first thought is not "damn those evil fireworks"; it's "where were the parents when this happened?" No matter what you do, shit happens to some degree, but it's amazing how preventable almost all of these incidents really are and how reluctant most people are to admit this. I realize that having and caring for children is a very tough job, but that's not a reason to force everyone else to suffer, it's a reason to not have them until you're prepared to be fully responsible for them.

Re:options

[Tablizer]

I wonder if this might signal an opportunity for some entrepeneur to develop a virtual chem lab.

"Java applet kills family dog; news at 11..."

all the fun stuff

[User 956]

Those that remain are shallow boring versions of the old kits.

What, no more ammonium nitrate, sodium pellets, and hunks of magnesium? Ah well, there's always mail-order.

Re:all the fun stuff

[Z0mb1eman]

Ah well, there's always mail-order.

Well... no, there isn't really. A good friend of mine who IS a rocket scientist (aerospace engineer, anyway) is a long-time rocket hobbyist and is now tinkering with propulsion systems in his garage. Don't get him started on ordering hobby rocket engines above a certain size, any kind of fuel ingredients, and even certain parts from the States over the last couple of years (we're in Canada, and apparently you can't find a lot of this stuff locally to start with).

And by extension

[Wylfing]

All knowledge shall follow. Knowledge is terrorism. An informed public is a dangerous public.

Re:And by extension

[Derek Loev]

As much as I want to disagree with what you said I can't bring myself to do it. The only "real" experiment I've done in my Chemistry class this year involved baking soda and water. I envy the older generations who actually were able to conduct real experiments and learn something useful.

Re:And by extension

[Gryle]

The more I read about the state of science education, the more grateful I am to the teachers I had over the years. My chemistry teacher poured his heart into teaching his students, not just about chemistry, but how to educate themselves. He would routinely have us design experiments to verify or explore something we had learned in class. For the final, we were given a week to identify twenty unknown chemicals using the lab techniques we had learned and a stack of reference books. Sadly, he was "retired" by the school district after using some choice words in his description of and arguments against one of the school board's more asinine proposals

Then there's the Internet

[ayelvington]

Check out http://www.unitednuclear.com/ and build your own. Amazing stuff your mother wouldn't let you have. a

It totally makes sense now...

[machinelou]

Mr. Wizard wasn't interested in "educating" youth, he was trying to build an army for his own jihad!

Today, Chem sets and model rockets

[nurb432]

Tomorrow, knowledge. Dangerous times ahead.

Seems the terrorists have already won, with a minimal expenditure of energy/effort. I still wonder if this was the plan all along, to just nudge the civilized world into self destruction on its own, or just an unexpected side effect worth exploiting. Either way its the same result, but i am curious.

Re:When's it going to stop?

[RLiegh]

Why not just throw everyone in jail now, so we don't have to worry about terrorists running loose in the streets?

Patience, patience. We're getting there!

Chemistry

[bloosqr]

Its interesting, this was the subject of the first episode of "Wired Science" a new PBS episode. I can not agree more w/ the premise. The unfortunate part of what makes it even worse I think is due to terrorism/columbine etc even looking up this stuff will get scrutiny that wasn't really the case back when we were all kids. As an example of this I get the impression that from the press "peroxyacetone" is now unfortunately used by terrorists all the time (in fact that was the absurd uncomprehensible basis for the "no liquids" on planes).

What was interesting about the Wired Science show was that show bemoaned the fact that chemistry sets are watered down but the show had a chemist talk about how dangerous using nonlaboratory conditions to run one of the "old school" experiments were.

The irony of it was in this show that was going on about "dangerous" chemicals was that "dangerous" chemical was actually NI3 one of the standard things kids used to make all the time.

On a personal note, I was one of those kids who was a total pyromaniac in high school / middle school, we eventually grew out of it of course, but we pretty much made everything one could easily get a hold of and then some. All of this was done in using "household" chemicals (and some ordering from chemical supply companies). The practical upshot of being a complete pyromaniac in was I ended up getting my undergraduate degree in chemistry/CS and getting a Ph.D. in chemistry and now am a faculty member (in physics randomly enough). At the end of the day it was "blowing stuff up" that made science cool, perhaps a little dangerous, perhaps even foolhardy but the fact that you could do so much w/ everyday chemicals sparked that interest in science, atoms and plain old tinkering ..

Amateur Rocketry RIP

[SirDrinksAlot]

Amateur Rocketry is now dead too. I remember going out to pick up a couple engines and found out about the new (impending) restrictions. The government pretty much handed the terrorists their victory and hobby science is one of the victims.

Re:Amateur Rocketry RIP

[thegrassyknowl]

Amateur rocketry was dying anyway. I remember trying to buy rocket engines when I was a bit younger (~10 years) and you already needed to provide photo ID with your current address on it. I gave up on that day, as did a lot of people because you can't even find rocketry supplies in the local model store anymore.

virtual chem lab

[nurb432]

Sorry, thats far too sterile to really learn anything.

Until you burn your fingers on a hot beaker, or smell the reults of your last failed ( or successful ) experiment that catches on fire or cracks the bottom out of your flask, you never really learn. Its all theory without that sort of 'real' experience..

Re:virtual chem lab

[bh_doc]

If anything has even the remotest chance that something catches fire, eventually it will, and a dumbass will try to sue the manufacturer for it. Guaranteed.

Re:virtual chem lab

[Pingmaster]

I can't agree with that more. I love tinkering with electronic gadgets, as a kid I used to take apart RC cars and make stuff with the motors. One of the first lessons I learned was to check for short circuits when I burned my fingers connecting a wire to a shorted battery terminal. I learned to wear safety goggles, and to pour chemicals carefully when I splashed a chem set experiment in my eye (that stung!). I learned to cut away from myself when I sliced my finger open while building a model car. You can't learn that sort of stuff from a virtual chem/electronic/modelling program. Besides, at an age where you learn best by getting your hands dirty, clicking a mouse just doesn't cut it.

The excuse that 'Terrorists' use the chem sets for bombs and chemical warfare is ridiculous. If they are used for malicious purpose, it's more likely from your average neighbourhood punk kid making a smoke bomb or something similar. People wanting to cause REAL harm will be busy getting Ammonium Nitrate (fertilier) and Diesel (makeshift ANFO, a powerful explosive), or gunpowder, or Javex and Drano (cheap and easy way to get mustard gas) and causing all sorts of deadly havoc that way. one must wonder if DHS took the anarchist's cookbook a little too seriously..maybe next week, they'll be banning 3.25" floppies because you can embed match heads in them to cook floppy drives..

Re:virtual chem lab

[anandamide]

Until you accidentally break a kilogram bottle of TiCl4 while unloading it from your friend's truck, creating a giant cloud of opaque white fumes, you'll never really learn... how to explain things diplomatically to your Dad.
Now *that* was a chemistry set! Sigh.

Not a terribly new issue...

[Pedrito]

I was lamenting the passing of the hobbiest chemistry sets long before 9/11. You can still get them in various places and you can get a fairly wide selection of chemicals from a number of sources, including e-bay. Hell, I even bought some concentrated (70%) nitric acid off of e-bay not more than a year ago.

That said, the decline in hobby-level chemistry sets, as I mentioned before, began with the rise in the "new American Dream." You know, the one where you sue somebody for a million dollars. Liability for selling chemistry sets is, without a doubt, astronomical in these days of knee-jerk litigation... Nobody in their right mind would sell something to children that they could easily kill or wound themselves with, quite easily...

From my own personal history, when I had a chemistry set as a child, it came with glass tubing and an alcohol burner. You used it to heat the tubing and bend it into shapes to connect beakers and what have you together... Well, not being old enough to know better, and not patient enough to wait for the tubing to cool down on its own after bending it, I decided it might be best to cool it off in some water. I consider it fortunate I didn't lose an eye when the glass exploded. And that didn't involve any chemicals... Not that the stuff they provided was terribly dangerous, but it's dangerous enough that it's simply not a viable business anymore, is my point...

I've still got mine

[hammarlund]

I sure do. It must be 40 years old now, but I've still got my Lionel-Porter Chemcraft Chemistry Lab. I'm afraid to open the small chemical bottles to see if they're still good. I've got 17 of them, a Porter alcohol burner, a couple of test tube and the Adventures With Chemistry book, copyrighted in 1958, and filled with experiments. Apparently this was produced by the Lionel Toy Corporation.

The closest thing to terrorism I could find was Experiment 344 - Proteins Contain Sulfur: Mix some egg white with a smalll amount of Calcium Oxide (No. 20) to make a dough. Put this mixture in a test tube and heat. After the mass turns brown, cool it and fill the tube 1/4 full of water. Shake and pour off the brown liquid into another test tube. Add 2 measures of Sodium Bisulfate (No. 7) and heat to boiling. Remove fromthe heat and smell for hydrogen sulfide gas. This smell is like rotten eggs.

I had some fun with that one.

They were already idiot-proof!!!

[brxndxn]

WTF are the dumbed-down chemistry sets now?

The old ones were dumb enough. When I got a chemistry set when I was small (something like 60 chemicals), I got bored of all the pre-drawn experiments and decided to experiment myself. I mixed pretty much every goddamn chemical together.. BLUE liquid! yay.. Then, I put some in a test tube and heated it.. and OMG.. it boiled!!! and then.. it smelled like crap! Yay chemistry.. It was like they formulated the entire set to be as unexplosive as possible.

Fucking nanny state...

I would've attacked the issue of terrorism the exact opposite. I'd tell everyone to grow some balls, carry a fucking gun, ask suspicious people questions, and be vigilant. And.. everyone can carry whatever the hell they want on a plane. I'd like to see a terrorist just try to hijack a plane when who knows how many people are armed...

Don't ban chemistry sets.

Tinkertoys Next?

[Nom du Keyboard]

I can only believe that Tinkertoys will be next.

They burn if ignited.
They can cause physical injury if someone is stabbed with one, or has a hub thrown at them from close range.
They can be assembled into a gun that might look too realistic if viewed under poor conditions.

Got to get rid of this stuff now. Leave the kids ignorant of any toys that might actually teach them critical thinking by doing.

The culture of fear isn't only in chemistry

[Belacgod]

The thought behind this is the same as the one behind Germany's banning of certain computer security tools, and the assaults on cryptography. Dangerous tools exist in every important field, and those with no fear of falling behind will always want to ban more and more. We need another Sputnik moment to galvanize the angry reactionaries to demand more science instead of demanding more childproofing.

Misleading title, again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet again we have the same people who accuse the government of fear mongering using their own similar tactics to put a political spin on things. Anyone with any knowledge of the subject knows for a fact that chemistry sets started going safe long before 9/11 or terrorism.
 
How about those who supposedly hate modern day administration fear mongering try to not be a bunch of hypocrites and admit that this has been a long time in coming, probably before many slashdotters were even out of high school.

Re:Misleading title, again.

[SixFactor]

Oh, this is beyond the misleading title. This is more like stirring the pot, and rasslin' up some FUD. The funny thing is, the blog cited by the the anonymous reader does a decent job of attributing the difficulty of obtaining chemicals not just on the government, but on more economic factors, like liability concerns on the part of the chem set manufacturers and sellers. The money quote:

If a ladder manufacturer is under a constant barrage of liability suits, imagine the torrent of litigation directed to those giving a child a set of potentially dangerous chemicals. Its a CHILD, for God's sake. [Oh, I'm sorry, for a minute there I was waxing Democrat.]

Further, if you follow the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) link that's found on the blog, you'll find significant criticism of the ATF's enforcement of the Safe Explosives Act, which apparently has been less than effective. From the link:

The SEA was implemented to enhance public safety by expanding the ATF's licensing authority to include the intrastate manufacture, purchase, and use of explosives.2 The SEA also expanded the categories of "prohibited persons" to be denied access to explosives from four to seven. The new prohibited persons categories are aliens (with limited exceptions), persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the military, and individuals who have renounced their United States citizenship. These categories were added to the pre-existing categories of prohibited persons that included felons, fugitives, users of and persons addicted to controlled substances, and persons who have been adjudicated mentally defective or committed to mental institutions.

In addition, the SEA required that proprietors, owners, and corporate officers of companies that manufacture, sell, or import explosives submit fingerprint cards and photographs to the ATF with their license applications. It also mandated that the ATF inspect licensees' manufacturing and storage facilities at least once every three years. Finally, the SEA required the ATF to conduct background checks on all licensees, as well as all employees who have access to explosives as part of their work (Employee Possessors).3 In order to identify all prohibited persons, the ATF entered into an agreement with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to perform these background checks.4

The SEA did not change the explosives types subject to the ATF's licensing authority,as defined in 18 U.S.C. 841, and it did not increase the number of explosives under the ATF's control. Most notably, it did not extend the ATF's regulatory authority over ammonium nitrate or other common chemicals that, when combined, become explosives.

But hey, the usual emotional (help! help! I'm being oppressed!) response was obtained.

Re:Next

[Versatile Dinosaur]

The Bible is already under threat. The democong would love to ban it. In the new "liberal totalitarian" state, only the Qur'an will be allowed.

Why would terrorists need a chemistry set...

[drspliff]

When you can buy fertiliser, sugar and petrolium by the tonne.

Oh noes, their going to blow up an air plain with some iron filings, potassium permanganate and some magnesium! Or use the test tubes to start up a methamphetamine lab!

Do you know why I cringe when I hear these stories? Because their going after the wrong thing with the wrong tactics, chemistry sets have long been a way to inspire kids about the stuff, some just don't get it, but others get an opportunity they otherwise wouldn't have to kickstart the process and get the interested and passionate about physics/chemistry at an early age.

Personally I'd rather see biochemistry sets/guides for kids, grow your own bacteria and such (I found it much more interesting than chemistry), but with the "threat" of anthrax breaking out any minute now I don't think they'd be politically correct (just as it seems limiting chemistry sets is "politically correct" in the US).

The sorry thing is, it's going to take you a long time to get these implicit rights back after the initial knee-jerk reaction.

Seems similar to the RIAA

[webmaster404]

Seems similar to the RIAA and MPAA, something that Could be used to "pirate" music or make explosives we should ban!!! Be it BitTorrent, or chemistry sets, the only one that loses is the consumer, next I guess they will ban the internet or the selling of computers because as we know you can learn things that are illegal on the computer and you can rip CDs to put on your MP3 Player 111 *shift* !1!

man those were the days

[circletimessquare]

dissolving ants in hydrochoric acid, pouring bleach into ammonia and giving myself chemical pneumonia from chlorine gas, setting the house on fire with burning trails of isopropyl alcohol, fiddling with the mercury drops i squeezed out of that weird battery

heh

Re:man those were the days

[fyngyrz]

pouring bleach into ammonia and giving myself chemical pneumonia from chlorine gas

That's the stuff that burned out your ability to use capital letters, eh? I knew there had to be a reason...

Re:I've still got mine-CHEMICLES DECAY

[Nom du Keyboard]

I'm afraid to open the small chemical bottles to see if they're still good.

Yes, chemicles decay. It's just like food. Leave them around too long and they go rotten. They probably decay to atoms, which if left untouched decay to protrons, neutrons, and electrons. Leave those alone and they'll decay to quarks. Yeah, you've got to stay away from those old chemicles.

Dynamite decays too. Becomes to unstable that you look at it wrong and it can go off with a big bang! Avoid chemistry sets with dynamite in bottles.

Back in my day

[Caity]

I remember getting a chemistry set when I was a kid (mid-eighties I suppose) and I think the most exciting thing I managed to do with it was to make some clear liquid turn red, then clear again.

It was rather disappointing when compared to some of my experiments with Things Found In Every Kitchen...

My (all girls) high school chemistry teacher expressed a lot of dismay at the changing laws about what chemicals she was allowed to show us. The education department provided these videos of "safe" demonstrations of the various properties of dangerous things that they were supposed to show us in lieu of a live demo. She'd show us the video... then swear us all to secrecy and produce an ancient brown jar of [sodium|sulfur|some other now banned chemical] from the bowels of the school's ancient chemical safe and repeat a fair portion of the experiments for us.

Sometimes it's good to go to an old school ... we only had to evacuate the building once (lesson learned: sulfur + fire = bad).

I'll never forget a particular class during organic chemistry. We'd made some crappy alcohol and were distilling it and she told us about how at university she and her classmates in the chemistry department used to have massive cocktail parties using the pure ethanol stock.

Re:Back in my day

[Dunbal]

I was lucky enough to study A-level chemistry in the UK. Despite the fact that I sold out and went into biology (medicine), I used to love chemistry. Our teacher (master) demonstrated the thermite process live. I've seen what happens when you put metallic lithium, sodium and potassium in regular water, etc. We got to play with a LOT of transition elements, making all the pretty colors with the various salts. And of course, organic chemistry was a riot.

Poor kids. Chemistry really is fun. I guess those who really want to learn can. As far as I know they haven't banned the elements yet.

Re:Inaccurate Title

[riprjak]

I dunno, building explosives and detonating trees in the sandhills and mailboxes in the neighbourhood kept me happily grounded for a lot of months when I was a kid. And since fireworks werent available readily in Australia when I grew up, we used chemistry sets to make it all...

And now kids are denied that joy! I wouldnt be the Engineer (and safety nazi) I am today without those experiences.

Once again the terrorists win a strategic victory against western society, yet another one given them with the explicit aid of a western government. In WWII we hung people for giving aid and comfort to the enemy...

err!
jak.

Drano, chlorine, fertiliser, thorium & antifre

[xixax]

Fertiliser already requires photo ID and valid reason. When our car's radioator was serviced the antifreeze was changed for a new blue liquid, while I haven't investigated, I'm betting it's a non ethylene glycol formula designed to be less useful as a precursor. I can't get thoriated gas lamp mantles and the "non radioactive" ones are feeble. Chlorine and sodium hydroxide aren't that far down the list anymore.

Answer

[Morosoph]

why should the government treat it's people any different from the way from the people treating the government? Because the Government exists for the people. It has no other purpose. Asymmetry follows from that.

Re:Answer

[SamP2]

Can you elaborate how exactly "assymetry follows from that"?

The government is nothing but a representation, by and for the people. If the people are the bunch of fearmongering neighbor-haters, so will be the government. Of course, the government has more power, so the problems are much more noticeable, but in the end it just acts like an amplifier - garbage in, (much louder) garbage right back out.

Maybe the people should start looking for the source of the government problems in their own behavior, rather than just pointing fingers (finger-pointing is another people's feature brilliantly represented by the government)

Re:Answer

[cHiphead]

The framers of the US constitution were keenly aware that in a democracy, sometimes the tyranny of the majority would threaten the few and added protections as such, but failed to build strong enough protections into it for when the tyranny from a few would threaten the majority, as we have now.

Re:Answer

[glittalogik]

If you have a bulletproof vest, but the bullets start ignoring it for the sake of making holes in you, it ain't bulletproof.

Re:Answer

[R3dsh1ft]

I've always wanted to ask the people in Washington - The President, the Senate, the House - What happened to our representative government? Why is it that none of our elected officials are acting on our behalf, as is their purpose? We elect people, and are then subject to what they think needs to be done, instead of acting on the concerns and wishes of their constituents. It's not right.

They succeeded.

[dreemernj]

The terrorists have successfully attacked our imagination.

Well, just like the Lawn Dart and the steel dash

[WheelDweller]

There are a lot of things that have changes. The Lawn Dart was the original version of the game college kids now use beanbags to throw into distant circles, usually holes in a wood box; I forget the name. Oh, no...it was a nearly foot-long object with about 1/2 of it metal, flung downrange to a yellow, tubular target. I'm sure someone, somewhere got hurt on them, but not if they were using them carefully. They weren't really sharp, outta the box.

And steel dashboards used to be the rage; I remember the one on our 1963 International Travellall was nothing but a flat plate, screwed to a rounded metal dash, and you could swap out gauges with your International tractor, if need be. It was very cool; huge, as fuel was cheap before the Carter Administration, came with a tailgate, an electric glass rear window, and plenty of room around the engine to work, under a hood that held itself up with springs. I'm amazed the danger of this rolling house-o-horrors didn't strike us on the salesfloor. :)

But things change; they have to. I can remember dozens of times hearing about a friend or relative mixing sodium and water because the effect was "cool". And probably the most popular effect was making stink bombs. But I suppose like the erector set before it, it's time had to come.

Now that GI Joe is becoming some watered-down blue-helmeted dweeb, when he was once a huge man-doll with a huge Jeep and weapons, I don't think the change in the toys seems to have followed the politically-correct crowd, too. And just for the record: No Conservative nor Republican was the source of this nonsense. Say what you will, "PC" is from the mouths of grown-up hippies.

Sorry, guys; you would have loved a childhood in the early 60's and 70's.

Not sure if this is accurate...

[PortHaven]

I've seen this trend for a while, and it predates 9-11.

I believe the issue is more of a "legal" than "security" issue. I think the high risk of lawsuits is what's killing these kits. In the old days, if you let your kids be unsupervized and they started eating the chemicals - you were considered a bad parent with a stupid kid. Now days, parents tell the kids to eat the chemicals in hopes of a winning lawsuit so they don't have to work anymore.

How many classic toys have gone the way of the dino because of our stupid frivolous legal system and lack of responsibility culture. I mean, Burger King/McDonald's (one of the two) had these flying princesses. They spin, their wings fly out and they whirl into the sky like helicopters. "Recalled and banned!" Why? Because they're uber dangerous. The fly toy might just land on the child's head. We can't have that. (Not like a baseball isn't a 100x more deadly - but we're not going to ban those.)

Bah...this plan deserves to be turned into an intergalactic entranceway.

Maybe this is why

[Anonymous Coward]

In Texas - you need to register to use lab apparatus like condensor, flasks etc whereas you don't need to register for handgun - http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/criminal_law_enforcement/narcotics/pages/chemicalsapparatus.htm
I have used half the apparatus mentioned in the above list.

No wonder home chemistry sets are dying. The priorities are messed up.

Just an afterthought:
Do we sue the gun makers when people get shot.....
My head just exploded.

Best currently available set

[michaelmalak]

Some brief web surfing turned up Chem C3000 as being the best available. The glassware to chemical ratio is much higher than the sets of yore with racks and racks of little bottles of chemicals. I remember chemistry sets used to be advertised by the number of chemicals -- now it seems to be the number of "experiments".

Idiotic Summary

[E 99]

If by "anti-terrorism laws" the summary means fireworks regulations, anti-drug laws, and most especially product liability laws and precedents, then it is somewhere on the sane side of reality. TFA didn't have a single example of an anti-terrorism law that impeded the sale or manufacture of chemistry sets. Paranoia strikes deep.

I call bullshit

[swordgeek]

Are chemistry sets getting crappier? Of COURSE they are! When I was growing up in the 1970s, the best I could get was a pale imitation of the ones my dad had in the garage. Now we're a generation along, and the ones I had look like danger waiting to be used. It has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with the obsessive culture of safety.

TFA is a big, steaming pile of shit. Read it carefully, and you'll find there's not a single 'explanation' of why things are the way they are that holds water.

It's just a grumpy twit with a computer. Nothing to see here.

Stick it to 'em!

[loimprevisto]

I really would have liked to mod a few things in this discussion, but I figured most folks would like to see this link:

http://onlinebooks.110mb.com/tm%2031-210/31-210-contents.htm

Hmm... I'm not sure how to change the displayed text of a link with slashcode, the document is TM 31-210, Improvised Munitions Handbook. Lots of fun projects that will work even for the 'chemistry impared', as long as you stay paranoid about safety (as you should any time you're making explosives or acids!).

Tyranny of the minority

[SamP2]

The "tyranny of the minority" you refer to can mean two different things.

If you refer to the rich and powerful controlling the country, then it is called an oligarchy and is nothing new. The US constitution specifically tried to address one form of oligarchy, although the success at preventing less overt forms is debatable. In particular, you must be very careful about the means and ideology you choose at fighting oligarchy, or you might end up following this guy. Also see this proof that we'll be fucked no matter how we act.

On the other hand, you could be referring to the vocal minority problem, which, true, was not addressed in the constitution because they were not a problem at the time, but thanks to which we now live in the wonderful world of (insert-continent-here)-Americans, whites-first-is-racism-but-blacks-first-isn't, and inability to ever get anything done except through force.

not much learning there

[r00t]

The kid isn't learning chemistry. The kid just mixes up random crap, hoping for something exciting to happen.

Even with an old-style set, interesting reactions are rare. If you are "lucky" enough to get one, you might get hurt... but you don't really learn the chemistry behind it. You aren't learning about orbitals, ions, electronegativity, and all those other things. At best you learn that mixing two items, of which you understand nothing, will do something beyond just sitting there.

Pretty soon, you run out of chemicals. The useful ones run out first.

That's not much education, and not even much entertainment. That's just lame.

Re:not much learning there

[Alchemist253]

You are missing the point. I AM a chemist. I probably understand orbitals and electronegativity better than most on Slashdot, but I do not fault chemistry sets for not being so directly educational.

At the age when kids would use chemistry sets (I started when I was about eight), so much underlying information is absent that it is unrealistic to teach real chemistry. You can't truly understand orbitals without quantum mechanics, which in turn requires linear algebra and multivariate calculus. So don't bother! When I played with a chemistry set I didn't understand pH or activity coefficients, but I still appreciated acid-base reactions. Nor had I ever heard of redox reactions or the Nernst equation, but electroplating was cool. Chemistry sets inspired me to study and learn at the meager level I could, and as I grew older and more knowledgeable they undoubtedly played a role in me going into science - and into organic chemistry in particular (with its heavy emphasis on experimental research).

Chemistry sets are motivators, not educators. They have historically done for chemistry what "Star Trek" has done for physics.

I've NEVER been asked for ID when buying Claretin

[alizard]

Straight loratidine isn't a problem. It's the version with ephedrine (Claritin D) which is one of the precursors for meth that's behind the counter. Whether or not regular Claritin would have worked for the guy or not is something I have no idea about. The regular product works just fine for me, and there's a bottle of the generic in my bedroom right now.

This needs a mod-up- mirrors doctorow.

[plasmacutter]

I understand this statement skirts the edge of the bottomless pit that is sexism, but it makes good points about the disappearance of the american middle class and needs a mod-up.

cory doctorow talks about how the dot-bomb era politicians sold us out .. and have irreversibly put us down the path toward the third world nations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgXwmXpaH2Q

(watch it all)

How To Solve: Legalize Drugs, Terrorism is...

[adatepej]

...already illegal. And, oh yeah, make it legal for adult human beings to make their own firecrackers a safe distance from other humans. If you blow someone up, that's illegal, though. That'll punish people who hurt others, while leaving us free to do chemistry (or make firecrackers and do drugs). Making meth in your apartment? Illegal. Making it in your home on 20 acres? Legal. Now we can buy Sudafed again.

Did you know that the ingredient in Adderall is amphetamine? So... they make the 8 year olds take amphetamine, but the 30 year olds have to show their ID to take Claritin, for the fear that some other 30 year old (or 8 year old) might actually get his hands on some methamphetamine. (Of course, the 8 year old is already on amphetamine, so...)

We could even do drugs while making firecrackers with our chemistry set -- a safe distance from others. Why? 'Cause we're adults in what would be (and should be) a free country! We could even take some pills to die if we were sick (rather than have the Congress investigate just how mushy and/or non-existent my brain-dead brain is because of some Christian dictum that is unapologetically introduced into the dialogue by successful politicians into the political process in our supposedly secular country to limit our freedom. It's absurd. They won't stop -- whether it's guarding the state (unsuccessfully) at the expense of essential liberty, or imposing Christian morality through legislation, they just don't quit.) ...And if someone got blown up? Well, it'd happen. It'd be a lot rarer than the deaths from stress and boredom whatnot that are brought on by the stress of living in an unfree and increasingly police-state-like world, I'd wager. But it'd happen. You know what? It would be sad. And if someone else did it to him, we'd put him in jail. Sure, we could've stopped every single other person from making firecrackers, but then we wouldn't have our freedom. And, to top it off, the people who really wanted to blow people up -- which is most of the people who'd blow people up even if it were legal to make firecrackers -- are going to do it even if it's illegal to possess the necessary equipment. Guess what? They don't care -- cause they were going to do something illegal (and truly criminal) anyways.

So... what are we left with? A world without freedom AND with the same problems. A couple more fingers on hands, but no fewer terrorists and a lot more exploding meth labs. (More than the roughly ZERO you'd encounter if we legalized drugs for adults. We could stop giving serious drugs to kid, too. Or at least stop letting government controlled public schools force relatively healthy ADD kids to take drugs. Basically, if the medicine the government thinks that what a kid needs is speed, the problem isn't serious enough that they should have the power to force him to take amphetamines!! Feed the kids speed, and don't let the adults get at decongestants that could be used to make speed. Brilliant.)

Has anyone else thought of this, or was it just me?

It seems like they think that because the world is dangerous, we must reduce freedoms to try to mitigate that.

How odd! It's not practical (because we barely put a mark on the danger factor) and it's hateful towards everything I thought decent adult human beings were about. Namely FREEDOM! Freedom, to live this -- you do remember, it's the only one we get? -- life. One try. And someone else is going to tell me how I must spend it if I want to live outside of a cage. Thanks. Do not pass go. Do not collect two hundred dollars.

This is America, WHAT HAPPENED TO FREEDOM!

"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

We've really f'ed it up, people were so inattentive and complacent, that they let the government take our freedom. Unbelievable. And now they have the technology to do it.

Why couldn't I have been born 150 years ago???? I could've used drugs for 70 years, and mad

Re:Mod Parent Up

[zmollusc]

Is that how it goes in the states?
UK Gov : We are nice and want to sort everything out for you.
People : Hey, the media say you are nice! You got my vote.
UK Gov : Hurrah!
People : Hey, everything is still crap.
UK gov : Look at picture of us being concerned whilst we line our own pockets.
People : Things aren't improving.
UK Gov : We will pay our friends a load of tax money to look concerned and talk on tv about the high level of concern.
People : Nobody is actually doing anything constructive.
UK gov : STFU! Look, a circus! And bread!
People : Ooooh! Cool!

the govt's coming to "take care of you"

[ChristTrekker]

In other words, unless you actually use the guns against the government you're pretty much a paper tiger, and, as another poster said, just another arsehole gun-owning nut-job.

But when you do, you're labelled another domestic terrorist gun-owning nut-job.

Awfully hard for freedom-lovers to stand up against that kind of PR, thanks to the rabidly anti-gun media.

guns are an equalizer

[ChristTrekker]

You miss the point. My 87-year-old arthritic grandfather is still dangerous with a gun. Any would-be burglars or government freedom-grabbers would do well to be afraid of him. If he only had a knife...well, easy pickins.

news?

[ChristTrekker]

get unbiased news (NOT FOX!)

Your mistake is thinking there is such a thing as an unbiased news source. Tip for you: they're all biased. The real thing is exercising a little discernment and critical thinking!

Re:Good point, bad attitude:

[FozE_Bear]

There is something to be said for "fear of assassination". Remember, on of Hitler's first acts of power was banning guns. Knowing that flaming nut-jobs can't have easy access to guns is a comforting thought for tyrants.

You'll get the society...

[my_left_nut]

that the least common denominator requests of itself. Doesn't matter what the reason is, fear of terrorism, product liability, or in the case of human biology, religious fanaticism.

Why am I not surprised that more and more complex chemistry and physics innovations now come from non-US citizens. You take away the tools for those things, and someone else who has them will gladly pick up the slack.

As an example, when we made stem cell research here in the US difficult by cutting governmental funding for it, the South Koreans seemed quit happy to pick up and run with the ball. As a result we will need to play catchup when those restrictions are eventually removed. By then, US based companies might not have the brainpower to do that. We'll need to try and import brains from elsewhere, or just write-off an entire industry. And that's just a single example among many.

These symptoms, along with the looming spectre of not-so-cheap liquid fuels are what convince me that the US will devolve into a "developing country" status within the next 10-15 years. It'll be interesting to hear the cry of anguish that the least common denominator-types let out when that day finally arrives.

At that point I'll bet that a hearty "I told you so" just won't be cutting it.