| Pages:
1
2 |
MadHatter
International Hazard
Posts: 1339
Registered: 9-7-2004
Location: Maine
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enjoying retirement
|
|
Sparklers
Sorry to revive an old thread but I feel this is important. I just received an order of
sparklers that I plan to use on Labor Day. This is for the SUPERVISED kiddies in my community.
There was a letter in the package from The Fireworks Alliance(TFA) concerning the actions
of the CPSC and other notorious U.S. government agencies. The wankers are really hard
at work in more ways than I had previously thought.
It seems, in addition to the CPSC, the National Fire Prevention Association(NFPA),
and the Center for Disease Control(CDC) want to ban ALL consumer fireworks - even
SPARKLERS ! I'm not surprised at the CDC's position - after all they want to ban firearms
calling anything they don't like a 'disease'. IMHO, they're the 'disease' ! Get back to
fighting AIDS, cancer, and other real diseases. Dispense with your political opinions
and get back to being doctors ! You'll get more respect that way. Otherwise, CDC and their
ilk will be recognized as nothing more than political hacks for their power mad masters.
From opening of NCIS New Orleans - It goes a BOOM ! BOOM ! BOOM ! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
|
|
|
quicksilver
International Hazard
Posts: 1820
Registered: 7-9-2005
Location: Inches from the keyboard....
Member Is Offline
Mood: ~-=SWINGS=-~
|
|
Well, this gets back to the concept of blaming the object for a behaviour. I have said this so many times before but I believe it bears
repeating...... The gun does not jump off the table and shoot someone, the dope does not dive into your veins, the chemicals do not conspire to make a
weapon, etc, etc. the object is blameless but the object is a powerful symbol! And symbols are easy targets for vote-hungry politicians.
Some people will feel more comfortable looking at CERTAIN objects as blameless and not others ("Guns are made for one thing: to kill", etc) but that
is intellectually dishonest. Objects are not thinking beings. But as symbols of evil they make a great target because they are safe for politicians to
attack. The challenge is to see through the vote-grabbing rhetoric and rise above party politics. Both the Right & the left use this technique.
Usually the Left attacks guns and the Right attacks drugs. Both attacks are foolish as the objects are not responsible for the actions of people. We
MUST begin to take responsibility for our actions and stop looking for scape-goats. History has proven time and again that we cannot legislate
morality. What we eventually do is hide behind attacks on inanimate objects. We do so because that is a safe thing to attack.
With all the politically correct speech we are imposed with, we are scared to death to be direct in addressing behavioral issues in society. We have
become nations of victims. Whining and puling that we are blameless and that if the object had not been available we would have not behaved in a
dysfunctional manner. This is not an American problem or a EU problem; this has become a common-place issue in most of the developed world.
It's the easy way out; the coward's way to address a challenge; a leadership cop-out. And really the only way to address it is both Right & Left
to drop the attacks and start demanding that people become responsible for their actions. In reality, such a move would alienate certain voting
blocks. As those people have been weened on that type of thinking - they will most certainly think they are being abandoned.
To deal effectively with the "objectification" issue we will need a great degree of resolve. A child's anthropomorphizing of a stuffed animal is as
silly as believing that any object is responsible for any behavioural outcome. It's simple common sense.
|
|
|
tito-o-mac
Hazard to Others
Posts: 117
Registered: 30-6-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I don't see why fireworks are restricted or banned in several countries. There's nothing dangerous about them, and hey, you can't restrict one's
pleasures!
|
|
|
sparkgap
International Hazard
Posts: 1234
Registered: 16-1-2005
Location: not where you think
Member Is Offline
Mood: chaotropic
|
|
"There's nothing dangerous about them..."
Ah, I'll have to disagree there. In the hands of an idiot, *almost anything* is dangerous.  Not *that* dangerous in the hands of people like most of the members of this forum, but nevertheless, nanny states, as it seems now,
always cater to the lowest common denominator of the populace. Tsk.
sparky (~_~)
"What's UTFSE? I keep hearing about it, but I can't be arsed to search for the answer..."
|
|
|
The_Davster
A pnictogen
Posts: 2861
Registered: 18-11-2003
Member Is Offline
Mood: .
|
|
Chemical and engineering news had an article on this issue recently. I'll borrow and scan it on monday if not before.
Said some good and bad things including(quotes from memory)
"amateur chemists do not need more than one pound of oxidizers per year"
"I agree that acess to chemicals used for pyrotechnics and explosives by young people does increase their interest in science"
|
|
|
chloric1
International Hazard
Posts: 1141
Registered: 8-10-2003
Location: GroupVII of the periodic table
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stoichiometrically Balanced
|
|
Just watching science channel and heard something that caught my attention. A biologist who specializes in geckos ,who allows his grade school age
daughter to help in his lab, said "ALL children are naturally scientific and curious. Not all children become scientists because they are discouraged
because science is made too boring technical etc.." He forgot to mention that kids are taught scientific pursuits are antisocial and weird! 
Where are we going to be in 30 years? In time it might be more advantageous to move to a third world nation because they might have more liberty by
this time.
Fellow molecular manipulator
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
