Support Nancy Nord, Contact Congress

The Consumer Groups behind the CPSIA have been trying to get Nancy Nord fired for a very, very long time.
The New York Times article from 2007 documents attempts going back to October of 2007.

A recent press release indicates they're still trying:

Consumer and Science Groups Set the Record Straight: Landmark Product Safety Law Makes the Marketplace Safer

Organizations Urge President Obama to Appoint New Leadership at the CPSC

Statement From A Coalition of Public Interest Organizations

In recent weeks, a number of misleading statements about the testing requirements of an important new product safety law have appeared in the media, on blogs and on other Web sites. While we have urged the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to promptly address reasonable concerns that have been raised regarding compliance, and provide better information about the new law, our organizations all agree that the law is fundamentally sound and essential to ensuring a safer marketplace. At the same time, we urge President Obama to appoint new leadership at the CPSC to help implement this important new consumer safety law.

They have been posting documents to the internet at some length, 'setting the record straight' by missing the point altogether, talking in circles, avoiding the substantive issues CPSIA's opponents have brought up, mispresenting facts and arguments, and making statements I don't even think make sense:

The CPSIA is a strong consumer protection law that already provides safety regulators with the authority they need to ensure the safety of consumer products, especially those designed for children. For example, it has strengthened the agency’s scientific integrity by making it easier for employees to anonymously report threats to the agency’s science, and encouraging CPSC scientists to publish in peer-reviewed journals.

Is there a word missing there? How do you anonymously report threats to the agency's science? How is the science of the agency threatened?

And speaking of science, precious little seems to have been used in writing this law in the first place. Swarovski Crystals, for instance are a choking hazard for a small child (or anybody who sucks on them, really), but the lead is bonded to the crystal itself- there is no evidence that sucking on it, touching it, rubbing it like Aladdin's lap, or swallowing it poses a threat to health- other than the threat of swallowing any object this side, whether it be an organic lima bean, a pebble, or a bead. Chewing it would be dangerous- because it's glass, not because chewing it would release the lead. In fact, they couldn't get the lead out using an acid bath.

While the state Attorney General in California was forced to submit to the science and acknowledge that lead crystals posed no lead threat to children, no such reliance on science is apparent in the CPSIA as written by Congress:

In 2006, the California Attorney General settled a lawsuit brought in his state alleging exposure to lead from jewelry. The court approved settlement agreement as well as the later legislatively enacted Californian AB 1681 established limits for lead in metals and several other components, with stricter standards for jewelry intended for children 6 and younger. Significantly, in recognition of the limited risk of availability of lead from crystal, the settlement agreement standards as incorporated under California AB 1681 allows the continued use of crystal without limitation in jewelry not intended for children. For children 6 or younger, up to 1 gram of crystal may be used in such jewelry. Swarovski crystals also meet the ASTM F963-03 standard on lead availability for toys.

It's also interesting to me that not even California treated 12 and 1 year old children as equally at risk of lead poisoning from sucking on a necklace under the law. The CPSIA is quite unscientific, and irrationally, does view 12 and 1 year olds as equally threatened by a an overall buckle with lead in it. I don't particularly want my 12 year old's over-all buckles and jewelry to contain lead, but it is unreasonable and unscientific to suppose that her health is threatened by these things in the same way a one year old baby's would be.

And this next bit- it is no longer possible to call it merely misinformed:

Safety testing may impose costs on small businesses that were not already testing their products, but the testing costs have been exaggerated.

Crafters and small businesses have sent David Arkush and others professional quotes and estimates they have received from approved testing agencies (when they could get estimates- several companies said they weren't interested in the testing business of a crafter with only a few items)- and they run far more than 50 dollars.

No, actually, the only misinformation on testing costs has come from these groups, and possibly Congress Critters. David Arkush keeps saying testing only costs about fifty dollars, but while cottage industries are begging him to share where he gets that figure so they can have their products tested at that facility with blue-light special prices, he's been rather coy about sourcing his claim.


Where is this testing facility that would test these lead-free baby booties for only fifty dollars?

In fact, the above crafter did request estimates the first week in December of 2008. Most of the estimates she received came with an expiration date- the estimates were good for less than two weeks. Following the law of supply and demand, it would follow that now, swamped with requests for testing from tens of thousands of companies (estimates are that there are 46,000 micro-businesses effected by this law, so I am not sure where Diane Feinstein gets her strange 15,000 products number from), prices have undoubtedly gone up.

These Consumer protection groups seem not to understand what the law says or how businesses work. Curious Workmanship does not make one item, a baby bootie in only one style using only one color with only one component in one size. Few toy companies, if any, in fact, manufacture only one item using only one component in only one size, one style, and one color. Furthermore, if Curious Workmanship manages to get three pairs of booties from one ball of yarn and then goes to the store to buy a new ball- the testing must begin again.


But US PIRG, Public Citizen, the Consumer's Union, and company are giving the public misleading information by giving out information that would only apply to a business that produces a strictly limited monoculture of boringly homogenous products. Bouncy balls could come in only one size, one color, and one component. Shirts could come in only one color, one fabric, one size, and could have no other components such as thread to sew seams and hems, facing, buttons, contrasting lining, a tiny applique alligator. We could all dress our children in fraying togas, tied on by fraying rags ropes made by the monocolored material of their togas.

The fifty dollar estimate even then is a low-ball- there may be one or two testing companies with charges that low, but they would be unable to fill orders for all the thousands of micro-businesses needing it, and they would be forced to close or go to the more expensive companies- if, indeed, the testing companies are willing to take on a micro-business's order. Many have plainly told potential customers it isn't worth their time to work with a company with only a few different products.

So while PIRG implies otherwise, each item must be tested, each size, each color, each component, and two different colored yarns are seen as two different items requiring two different tests.

Happy Panda Baby called several labs and got different estimates- she explains them in detail on her blog. She's looking 675 dollars for a onesie. It's hard to believe that PIRG is really completely unaware that the way this law is written more than one test per completed item is required. It's hard to believe they haven't received the many estimates crafters have sent them.

Curious Workmanship found that testing would cost her 37 percent of her annual revenue (not profit, gross income). That's simply outrageous. If she were permitted to test components only, and not have to retest the same items because she uses them to make a pair of booties for a 12 month old instead of a 6 month old, or because she used the same brown yarn to make cowboy boot booties instead of birkenstock booties (as the law now stands)- then it would only be 1/5 of her total income.

Other options- go out of business, or pick one style, one size, and one color and devote all her business efforts to marketing a boringly monotonous bootie that nobody much wants, and she still has to test each new batch of yarn all over again.

These are the signatures on that letter, these are the people who are telling the world that testing is only around fifty dollars, and that this preposterously unwieldy law is fundamentally sound:
David Arkush, Public Citizen, (202) 454-5130
David Butler, Consumers Union, (202) 462-6262
Rachel Weintraub, Consumer Federation of America, (202) 387-6121
Nancy Cowles, Kids in Danger, (312) 595-0649
Celia Wexler, Union of Concerned Scientists, (202) 331-6952
Liz Hitchcock, U.S. PIRG, (202) 546-9707

Pay attention to those names, they come up again and again (see the 9th comment, about page 23 here, for instance)
The National Resources Defense Counsel and Public Citizen filed suit against the CPSC last December because the CPSC did not wish to make the phthalates testing requirements retroactive. David Arkush couched his objections in this fashion:

"Selling millions of toxic toys to kids is not the way to dispose of them, as the law clearly states," said David Arkush, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division, which, along with NRDC, lobbied Congress for stronger product safety rules.

"It's not only immoral - it's illegal," Arkush said. "It is horrifying that the federal agency charged with protecting consumers is telling the industry it can dump chemical waste on toy-store shelves."

But these toys were not actually 'chemical waste,' they were only technically chemical waste- 'in word only'- due to Congress' terming all toys guilty until proven innocent- if the toy hasn't been tested and certified, it is deemed a hazardous substance, but this has no bearing on whether or not it actually has any phthalates in it. Incidentally- that's from Public Citizen's Offical Press Relief. It is deeply disturbing to me to see how many news articles in the mainstream media simply inserted paragraphs from that release without question, and making it seem as though they had actually interviewed Arkush, when it appears he simply interviewed himself and put it in the press releases. The media is lazy, and it hurts us all.

There are many materials and items we can know are inherently lead-free- the fabric industry has testified that they soaked textiles in a lead saturated solution and dye, and it still came out beneath the lead limits- and furthermore, lead makes a very poor mordant for dye, so there's no incentive for even the greediest sociopath to use it.

What was that about inflammatory misinformation?

Nord has been a thorn in their flesh since at least October of 2007, according to Us PIRG:

# Today, the Senate Commerce Committee, by voice vote, approved a strong version of S. 2045, the CPSC Reform Act (our joint release with other consumer groups; chief sponsor Senator Mark Pryor's (D-AR) release). We'd testified in support of the bill earlier this month.
# Meanwhile, Speaker Nancy Pelosi D-CA) and Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) both called (AP, Reuters) for the resignation of acting CPSC chief Nancy Nord, following a New York Times front page (that helps!) reprise today of a story first broken by the Washington Post's Annys Shin last week, that Nord had sent the committee a letter opposing most of the reform bill.

They were very pleased with the bill altogether, including:

The CPSC Reform Act of 2007.... includes provisions giving State Attorneys General the ability to enforce CPSC regulations and includes protections for individuals in companies and safety agencies who blow the whistle on wrongdoing

.

Mark Bennet at Defending People takes a look at that beefed up enforcement and penalty issue:

Violations of Section 2068 are now punishable by up to five years in prison, instead of one year, and a fine of up to $250,000 (section 3571’s maximum felony fine), instead of $50,000; a person need not have received notice of noncompliance before criminal penalties apply; and there is now strict liability under section 2068 — violations that are not willful and knowing may result in huge fines.

He doesn't even try to explain all the ways in which you could get yourself into trouble with this, although he does post the relevant excerpts of the law. Take a look, and if you're in business, take a deep, deep breath.

Nancy Nord was right to oppose most of this bill. She is, in fact, one of the best allies common sense has had in this issue. She has truly risked her career to fight this messy, counterproductive, job security for litigators and consumer protection interests boondoggle. Help her out. Write the President and your reps telling them what a great job she's done working with a lousy law, and you want the law fixed, and you don't want to see Congress and consumer protection groups acting in a vindictive manner towards her strong voice of sanity.

If you are a member of one of these consumer groups, write them and ask why they are supporting legislation that devastates small businesses without improving safety for children, why they are opposed to rewriting this very poorly written law, and why on earth they keep telling people testing is only fifty dollars.

It's not over yet. The Shop Floor notes:

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement act also empowered state attorneys general to enforce the CPSIA’s provisions, so an ambitious AG could still wreak havoc by targeting manufacturers of children’s products, or products used by children, or products that may come in contact with children. To which the CPSC says, “The Commission trusts that State Attorneys General will respect the Commission’s judgment that it is necessary to stay certain testing and certification requirements and will focus their own enforcement efforts on other provisions of the law, e.g. the sale of recalled products.”

That’s placing a lot of trust in the restraint of politicians.

Bottom line, the CPSC’s action provides no legal protection for manufacturers of products requiring testing and really just confuses the issue.

Let’s get moving, Congress.

Senator Orrin Hatch is also now calling for Senate Hearings on the CPSIA- I wish he'd been there objecting to it and voting no along with Senators Coburn, DeMint and Kyl, but better late than never. Write him and thank him for his support; write your Senators and tell them you want his efforts and those of Jim DeMint supported.

Walter Olson also reminds us that when the dust settles and the confetti has to be swept away, we still have a fight ahead of us. He offers a lot of link-love to those who have wrotten about the topic. Meanwhile, he credits the genuine grass roots movement behind the fight against this poorly written piece of legislation, the usefulness of social media.
It made me a limited convert to Twitter. I am there and there to stay, but I won't be twittering what I had for breakfast, my naptimes, or my shopping expeditions. It's a very useful source for pooling links and the latest events in specific topics.(I'm DHMrs on Twitter if you want to know).

The LATimes has a fairly evenhanded article on the CPSIA and the stay. I particularly like the accuracy of this paragraph:

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act was passed by Congress last year after dozens of toys were recalled. It called for manufacturers to test products by Feb. 10 and for retailers to dispose of products that had not been tested by that date.

Not 'toxic' products, not products known to have dangerous levels of lead and phthalates- merely products that haven't received a very expensive report card.

Larry Mestyanek, owner of Los Angeles company TAG Toys, thinks the stay will save him $50,000 in testing fees. He's been fielding calls from customers every day asking whether his toys have been tested and whether he can explain the law, so he appreciates the reprieve.

But it's too late to save money for Albert Lee, owner of boys clothing manufacturer Monster Republic in Los Angeles. He said he has been rushing to test his clothing since he heard about the law in mid-December. It cost him "a solid month of worry and stress," plus a few thousand dollars, he said.

He can't get that money back. He can't get his time back- none of us can. This system didn't 'work.' The CPSIA stole from citizens; it stole time, money, peace of mind, and creativity, as artists left their drawing boards and plans for new ideas and projects for their small businesses and devoted hours to fighting this mess.

The money Albert Lee spent on testing is money he no longer has to invest in new products, equipment, or hiring employees. It's money that won't be going to make his business better or more productive. He sells clothing- which has a very low risk of containing lead (a few metal fastenings sometimes do), so that money wasn't spent on making anybody safer. Depending on where he got the testing done, it may not have been money spent in the US (there are more testing companies in China, and the closest testing company I know of would be Texas. Lee is in California).

Public Citizen's Congress Watch ominously warns:

There have been instances where children’s clothing has been recalled due to high levels of lead, such as pajamas with lead-laden decals, skirts with lead-laden grommets, and overalls with lead-laden snaps.

But they don't tell us the context we need to assess this information- how many 'instances'? Three? Or six thousand? Something in between?
How did were these levels discovered? Did a ten year old actually get sick or suffer in anyway because an overall snap or the grommet on a skirt had lead (which must be ingested or inhaled or enter the blood stream through an open cut to harm you)? Did somebody else discover this, or did the company themselves discover it through testing and issue recalls?
When did this happen? Twenty years ago? Two? Last month?
Were these grommets in skirts for 1 year olds, who might suck their clothes, or were they in skirts for 12 year olds, who wouldn't?
What does 'lead-laden,' a very scary and emotionally laden term, actually mean in terms of science? 601 ppm (the new limit is currently 600 and goes down to 300 in August), or solid lead?

We don't know- but we can make an educated guess that it was not any of the more dramatic scenarios. Here's why.
They provide no links or sources for those clothing recalls, although in a later point about why small businesses can be just as dangerous as big businesses, they do provide hyperlinks to actual recalls to back up their assertions (although they seem to be completely unaware of how their links actually support the claims of small crafters- none of these recalls are American made, two are from China, and one was a recall of 14,000 items, something no crafter could manage to produce in a year, and another of 450 items, which few of the crafters would meet).

And because at the end of this release, they explain why resale stores, thrift shops, consignment stores are not going to be hurt by this bill:

It should be noted that the CPSC did not include clothes in its list of high risk items. Clothes make up the lion’s share of products sold at second-hand and thrift stores. Therefore, although the CSPC did not state it as clearly as it should have in order to aid second-hand and thrift stores, it has indicated that it does not intend to go after second-hand or thrift stores for civil or criminal penalties for selling products like clothing that may violate the new standard.

Emphasis theirs.*
This is a tacit acknowledgment that clothing is not a significant threat to health- even if it has a lead grommet or buckle.
Do I want my children's clothing to have lead buckles, snaps, or grommets? No, but I think it's important to acknowledge that this seems to be an emotional desire rather than one based on objective scientific information about what is and is not a threat to their health.

*Incidentally, it appears this stay puts thrift shops right back where they were before this exemption. This law cannot be fixed after the fact with wrangling about exemptions and so forth. It needs to be fixed at its source- the law itself and how it is written.

And, finally, this sort of statement makes me crazy:

It was not Congress’s intent to put thrift and second-hand stores out of business, and while the CPSC’s January 8th press release could have done a better job of communicating this fact, the agency enforcement likely will follow this Congressional intent.

Nobody EVER has argued that it was Congress's intent to put thrift shops out of business. I do not believe thrift stores or small crafters were even on the radar- I doubt very much any members of Congress shop at second hand stores (or even know where any are), nor do they understand how micro-businesses work, if they even understand what they are.

Nearly all the problems in this law have to do with the unintended consequences of a badly written bill. We cannot rely on this Commission and the next one and the fifty states Attorneys General to interpret intent in precisely the same way. We cannot rely on fifty politicians, which is essentially what the AG is, to be equally reasonable and full of common sense. Whatever the 'intent' of Congress, this bill does too many things Congress did not intend- so it needs to be fixed at the Congressional level- where it started.


And here we have somebody suggesting that Nancy Nord is the one without brains who needs to be replaced.
Nancy Nord has been doing a find job. IT's time for Congress to fix their mess.

Grandparents, 46 and 59, Deemed 'Too Old' To Raise Grandchildren

So the children were removed and placed with a gay couple:

‘This happened because the family is Scottish and working class,’ said a woman who, until recently, was a senior social services manager in the Edinburgh department.

‘Any social worker who, for example, presented the black parents of a black child with the kind of ultimatum that the family of Stewart and Fiona were given, which risked the child losing contact with cultural and family ties, would be sacked.

‘Political correctness is a big issue in local government, especially in social work. I am not aware of any official quota system, say, to ensure a percentage of adopted children go to gay parents.

But if you ask me, could it be happening informally in certain areas that like to be seen as progressive — and that usually means the big urban authorities? Then, yes, I believe it is more than possible.’

Recent figures suggest almost 3,000 drug addicts in Edinburgh have children at home who are at risk of abuse or neglect. In Edinburgh, it seems, drug addicts are thought to make better carers than loving grandparents.

The grandparents in question have seven children of their own. Two of them, aged 15 and 13, are still at school. Their 17-year-old also lives with them, while the rest of their children, who are all older, live away from home. All are making their way in life.

Social services got involved in their lives for two years, and for reason I can't fathom, the grandparents eventually gave into social services, and allowed them to take the children for adoption. They were promised they would still be involved in the childrens' lives as their grandparents.

They weren't happy upon being told the children were going to a gay couple- they believe the children would be better off with a male and female parent- and when they went public with it, social services told them they'd just blown their chance for any future visits.

The Consumer's Union On the Stay

Here:

The Consumer Product Safety Commission today granted a one-year stay of testing and certification requirements for certain products to be regulated under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. According to the agency, the stay provides "some temporary, limited relief to the crafters, children’s garment manufacturers and toy makers who had been subject to the testing and certification required under the CPSIA." Not included under the stay are, among other things, the ban on lead in paint and other surface coatings, the standards for full-size and non full-size cribs and pacifiers and the limits on lead content of metal components of children’s jewelry.

In a statement, Consumers Union said: "We would have preferred the CPSC to use its authority under the law to grant specific exemptions for products that pose little or no health risk. This stay of enforcement for one year goes beyond what would have been necessary if the CPSC had addressed the concerns in a timely manner. Nevertheless, it does preserve the most critical intent of the law -- to protect children from dangerous products -- while leaving time to sort out implementation issues."

I would have preferred that Congress use its authority under the Constitution to address only those things that the Constitution permits. Barring that, a distant second best would be not to bother including products that pose little or no health risk to begin with.

This stay of enforcement for one year goes beyond what would have been necessary if Congress had written a decent bill in the first place.

You know what would make even more sense? IF the self-appointed, self-anointed consumer protection groups were genuinely interested in consumer protection and child welfare issues they would not center their efforts on amassing power unto themselves, and they would not expend so much time and money wining and dining Congress Critters and pushing for more laws that mainly operate as job security for the legal classes.

They would direct all their efforts to education, to informing parents and other consumers, to buying air time and writing, to amassing and then sharing the information to assist consumers to make informed decisions rather than having their options sharply funneled into the limited options Consumer Reports and their bedfellows think are acceptable for the rest of us.

And they would have been personally devoting time and money to getting inner city kids clean drinking water and new paint in their domiciles, where the lead threat really exists.

Stimulus, Deregulation, and Big Business

This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus
Payment. This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.


Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.


Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.



Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up.


Q. What if I use the money to pay my taxes?
A. The money goes back to the Govt. and they give it to someone else.


In light of the above, we offer the following helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by spending your stimulus check wisely.
Remember:

*If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.
* If you spend it on gasoline it will go to the Arab nations.
* If you purchase a computer it will go to India.
*If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala (unless you buy organic).
*If you buy a car it will go to Japan.
*If you purchase useless crap it will go to Taiwan.

And none of it will help the American economy. Our officials are telling us that we need to keep that money here in America. You can keep the money in America by:

*spending it at yard sales and thrift stores
*going to sports games
*spending it at craft fairs and local artists
*spending it on prostitutes & porn
*purchasing large amounts of domestic beer and alcohol
*purchasing tattoos-they are always a heartwarming way to say I love you.

The above seem to be the only industries still primarily home grown. Buy American and let's start spending! I'll meet you at the liquor store.

Law-making and lawyering seems to be another home-grown industry, but it's one I'd like to see us need less of.

Here's something I really cannot understand. Many of those who hate deregulation, also object to Big Business and Corporate Bogeymen and McDonalds taking over the world (okay, I really didn't enjoy seeing McD's on the street corner in Japan, either.)

But the increased size of Big Government and regulation they favor brings with it, by force, an increased size in Big Business and it regulates the little guy out of the market.

Increased regulation only hurts small businesses. The more regs you have, the more lawyers you need to help you understand them, to make sure you're obeying them, to find people who aren't, to defend and prosecute the accused, to wrote more regulations to explain the previous regulations, to lobby to protect your interests when new regs are being written- and who can afford all this? Who can afford the constant testing, updates of equipment- often redundant and unnecessary, other than large corporations? If you truly favor small business, decreased regulation would be the way to protect a climate that nurtures cottage industry instead of squelching it.

Who is hurt by this need for a barrage of legal advisors and equipment that must be replaced before it's broken (televisions, gas pumps etc?

Small, micro=businesses. Mom and Pop stores. Small farmers. Consumers, who can't pay Aunt Betty to decorate the living room if she doesn't have a license. Local, hand-made, home-grown, cottage industries. Big Government, increased regulations- these things are frustrating to large industries but they can usually (not always) work around them, and in a few cases (the railroad and ferry industries at the turn of the century) they use them unethically to their advantage. Deregulation favors small businesses who can't afford the legal team necessary to maneuver the maze of regs. The growth of government with increased statutes and regs really hurt the little guy.

See more here for the sort of thing I mean. I think he makes a very valid point- that increased regulation creates a playing field where only those with big bucks can compete, or even function, in the market place. But I also think his research missed a few key points.

He claims that corporate interests lobbied for this bill, and as proof he offers the fact that several toy companies who had never had lobbiests before hired some to lobby congress in 2007 and 8, and also:

Carter Keithley, president of the Toy Industry Association—of whom Mattel is the biggest member—told this columnist “we were early proponents of adopting mandatory laws to require toy testing.”

I think it's true that regulations help bigger businesses in the end, but I also think the author didn't look far enough back in this story- it appears to me Mattel and Hasbro started lobbying for regulations so they would have some influence in a move that was going to affect their businesses after it became obvious this was a train they could not stop.

This is a PIRG report dated October of 2007. They say several things, including that the CPSIA announcement is
"our joint release with other consumer groups; chief sponsor Senator Mark Pryor's (D-AR) release). We'd testified in support of the bill earlier this month"

They are gleeful that Pelosi was calling for Nord to resign since "Nord had sent the committee a letter opposing most of the reform bill"

PIRG also chortles that the industry lobby (that would be the toy industry) has been ineffectual at blocking this bill:
"The industry lobby, while fierce in its press statements, couldn't muster any actual support for votes against consumer protection today. Maybe their next strategy is to try and prevent the bill from ever coming to the Senate floor. That seems doubtful..."

I suspect they hired the lobbyists first to stop the bill, as PIRG, the bill's earliest and staunches supporter, says they tried to do. After all, they'd just had a serious public relations fiasco with all the toy recalls. When they could not stop it, they switched gears, seeking to at least have some say in the regulations they would have to follow.


When a toy company spokesperson told 'this columnist' they were early supporters of regulation, that isn't saying how early. Before PIRG? I doubt it. I would also bet that was a public relations oriented statement, because PIRG has been framing all those who object to this bill as either shills of the big toy companies or as toy companies who care more about profit than about making sure children have nontoxic toys.

The Equuschick actually originally felt like complaining about the weather.

But it wouldn't be very nice to you all if The Equuschick wrote an entire post about her rather petty complaints so she shall tell a funny story instead.

Well, it is sort of a funny story. No, it is a funny story in a very "Yeah, that sure sounds like The Equuschick" sort of way.

The Equuschick is a rather disturbingly goal-oriented woman with very little sentiment and lots of cold calculation.

What this actually means is that things that other people do out of their deep wells of love and gratitude and all those other beautiful emotions, The Equuschick usually does because she sits down and asks "What will get me what I actually want?" And then she does it.

If she wants an appropriate emotion, she has to map out steps A through D and follow them to achieve the goal because she rarely gets up in the morning full of love and joy for all humanity. She recognizes love and joy for all humanity as a noble goal and she tries to aim for it in her calculating way following the methods she has found most reliable.

What this actually means in her personal life is that having once decided that she was going to get married I felt that having a good marriage would be what she wanted next in life. She doesn't do passionate romances. It was more like,"And now, Life Goal Two: Have Happy Marriage. Formulate Plan 2."


Of course this one is a little different because like most goal-oriented people, The Equuschick is accustomed to goals that eventually get checked off the list. Works in progress are particularly challenging for her because she always likes to achieve the point where you say "Check! And done."

Haha with marriage until you're dead. But then again, it keeps The Equuschick busy. She does like to be busy.


For instance, having read Created to be His Helpmeet and labeled Shasta as definitely a Mr. Command Man, The Equuschick was all properly aware of the need to be a submissive and long-suffering wife and to keep her mouth shut and let Shasta learn things his own way while she remained merely pretty and supportive. (Yes, slight sarcasm there.)

For one thing, having Shasta and The Equuschick get together was one of those little evidences of God's sense of humour because keeping her mouth shut and being merely pretty and supportive comes about as naturally to The Equuschick as sky-diving.

For another, though the principle works very well and on many occasions, like every other principle it is not appropriate for all occasions. The trick is to find the happy medium.

Shasta may be a Mr. Command Man but he is a Command Man who does sincerely want his wife to be happy. And therefore, if something is driving The Equuschick up the wall and she says nothing this isn't very fair to either party. Moreover, it seems be some form of wisdom to recognize The Equuschick's own inherent humanity. It is all very well to talk about letting things go and moving on but if something bugs her and she says nothing for a month she will only explode with no apparent explanation. Pick your battles sure, but acknowledge that some will have to be fought.

And last but not least, if Shasta had wanted to marry a dumb blonde he could have married a dumb blonde. But he didn't and therefore often asks The Equuschick questions that he fully expects her to answer honestly and intelligently.

But when that happens, the part she can't seem manage is the tact.

And so today. He asked me The Equuschick a very direct question and what followed in her head and came out her mouth is very hard to describe. The weirdest thing about it was that it came out with absolutely no emotion and never did she harbor any hard feelings.

The Equuschick first immediately answered with a quick "Of course not, no." This was supportive. But no sooner had she said it then she realized it wasn't honest. Dishonesty is injustice. So the "No" was immediately followed by an "Actually, that's not true."

And then The Equuschick proceeded with a quick and direct answer to the direct question. She was honest, clear and concise, completely unemotional, and as to the point as a carving knife. It was all over in about fifteen seconds.


There was a moment of silence from poor Shasta and then, "Well, okay. That was a little mean."

"Oh, dear," The Equuschick said. "I'm sorry! I promise I wasn't trying to be mean. I'm not mad!"

"Well, it sounded mean."


More abject apologies from The Equuschick and then "Are your feelings hurt?"

"Naw," he said. "I'll be tough and get over it."

Thankfully he did too, though perhaps he'll be more cautious the next time he asks The Equuschick a direct question.

Tact. Tact. Moving on to Goal 3...

On the CPSIA Stay

Blogged about earlier....
Read it here.
Down at the very, very, bottom of the important stuff:

"The Commission trusts that State Attorneys General will respect the Commission's judgment that it is necessary to stay certain testing and certification requirements and will focus their own enforcement efforts on other provisions of the law, e.g. the sale of recalled products."

As several people have been pointing out, the Commission's wink and a nudge promise that they aren't interested in small crafters and cottage industries isn't very helpful because people prefer to be legal; and this law put a lot of power into the hands of each state's AG.
Does this disclaimer tacitly acknowledge that the state AG doesn't have to abide by the Commission's stay?

REad Jim DeMint's proposals.

Let him know you appreciate him.

Contact your Senators and tell them to back up DeMint on this issue. Pay attention to the self appointed nanny groups- they will be fighting this, and they will argue that only they really care about the children.

Keep in mind, US PIRG already has a lawsuit pending requiring the CPSC to enforce the law as written- and Feinstein and Boxer are involved, too. It's not over. But this stay and DeMint's proposal to propose a bill are the two best things that have happened in this battle yet.

Don't let them get away with the sanctimonious back-patting. 'Helpful' would have limited itself to those products and sources known for lead- painted imported toys, and lead jewelry. Oh- and drinking water and substandard (often public) housing.

Testing blankies for lead levels doesn't protect anybody but testing companies, because blankets don't have lead.
Testing books doesn't protect anybody but testing companies because books do not have lead.
Testing every color of yarn in a pair of rainbow colored baby booties and then testing the booties again doesn't protect anybody but testing companies.
Testing three identical shirts separately because they are three separate sizes doesn't protect anybody, because they do not suddenly have lead in them just because the are a size four instead of a size two. Except the testing companies.
Putting a microscope company out of business because the scientific equipment they sell for school children just a year or two short of their teens happens to have a dot of lead on a lightbulb does not protect anybody. It hinders education. 10 year olds do not pull lightbulbs out of their microscopes and suck them. 2 year olds are not given microscopes to play with.

I suppose all this redundant, duplicate, expensive, and unnecessary testing MIGHT help self appointed watchdog agencies as well.

Do you suppose there was anything in the stimulus bill to cover replacing old lead pipes and worn paint in public housing in D.C.? That might actually help a few children.

Just before hitting publish, I saw this post on twitter- Walter Olson, author of the fantabulous Forbes article and blogger at Overlawyered also notes that this stay does not leash the fifty attorney generals. If any of them are in league with PIRG, Public Citizen, et all....

Off to read.

Oh, and read more here,
It's a link to the 19 page text of the stay.

Fresh Air Fund

The Fresh Air Fund, which we have blogged about before, is accepting applications for camp counselors as well as hosts. They are only in a few eastern states, which limits the number of readers who could be hosts, but if you're 18 by June 20th and have at least one year of college, you can apply to be a counselor.

And they're always accepting donations.

Testing Delayed for a Year

From Etsy:

We are so excited to announce that the Commission has voted for a "Stay of Enforcement of Certain Testing and Certification Requirements of CPSIA" — which means that the burden of lead testing and certification has been suspended for a year while they take more time to review the rules and plan enforcement! All of your hard work has paid off (for the time being at least!). You don't have to pay to do the certification and testing, though you are still liable if your products are found to have lead. We are so pleased that artisans and vintage sellers got their voices heard. Your hard work is not over; we must continue to play a role in advocating for small business people throughout the coming year.

"The action taken today provides breathing space to get in place some of the rules needed for implementation, but it should not be viewed as a full solution to the many problems that have been raised." —U.S. Consumer product Safety Commission

You'll find the press release below:

CPSC Grants One Year Stay of Testing and Certification Requirements for Certain Products

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission voted unanimously (2-0) to issue a one year stay of enforcement for certain testing and certification requirements for manufacturers and importers of regulated products, including products intended for children 12 years old and younger. These requirements are part of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), which added certification and testing requirements for all products subject to CPSC standards or bans.

Significant to makers of children’s products, the vote by the Commission provides limited relief from the testing and certification requirements which go into effect on February 10, 2009 for new total lead content limits (600 ppm), phthalates limits for certain products (1000 ppm), and mandatory toy standards, among other things. Manufacturers and importers – large and small – of children’s products will not need to test or certify to these new requirements, but will need to meet the lead and phthalates limits, mandatory toy standards and other requirements.

The decision by the Commission gives the staff more time to finalize four proposed rules which could relieve certain materials and products from lead testing and to issue more guidance on when testing is required and how it is to be conducted.

The stay will remain in effect until February 10, 2010, at which time a Commission vote will be taken to terminate the stay.

The stay does not apply to:

*

Four requirements for third-party testing and certification of certain children’s products subject to:
o

The ban on lead in paint and other surface coatings effective for products made after December 21, 2008;
o

The standards for full-size and non full-size cribs and pacifiers effective for products made after January 20, 2009;
o

The ban on small parts effective for products made after February 15, 2009; and
o

The limits on lead content of metal components of children’s jewelry effective for products made after March 23, 2009.
*

Certification requirements applicable to ATV’s manufactured after April 13, 2009.
*

Pre-CPSIA testing and certification requirements, including for: automatic residential garage door openers, bike helmets, candles with metal core wicks, lawnmowers, lighters, mattresses, and swimming pool slides; and
*

Pool drain cover requirements of the Virginia Graeme Baker Pool & Spa Safety Act.

The stay of enforcement provides some temporary, limited relief to the crafters, children’s garment manufacturers and toy makers who had been subject to the testing and certification required under the CPSIA. These businesses will not need to issue certificates based on testing of their products until additional decisions are issued by the Commission. However, all businesses, including, but not limited to, handmade toy and apparel makers, crafters and home-based small businesses, must still be sure that their products conform to all safety standards and similar requirements, including the lead and phthalates provisions of the CPSIA.

Handmade garment makers are cautioned to know whether the zippers, buttons and other fasteners they are using contain lead. Likewise, handmade toy manufacturers need to know whether their products, if using plastic or soft flexible vinyl, contain phthalates.

The stay of enforcement on testing and certification does not address thrift and second hand stores and small retailers because they are not required to test and certify products under the CPSIA. The products they sell, including those in inventory on February 10, 2009, must not contain more than 600 ppm lead in any accessible part. The Commission is aware that it is difficult to know whether a product meets the lead standard without testing and has issued guidance for these companies that can be found on our Web site.

The Commission trusts that State Attorneys General will respect the Commission's judgment that it is necessary to stay certain testing and certification requirements and will focus their own enforcement efforts on other provisions of the law, e.g. the sale of recalled products.

Please visit the CPSC Web site at www.cpsc.gov/about/cpsia/cpsia.html for more information on all of the efforts being made to successfully implement the CPSIA.

It will be interesting to see how Congress and Consumer Groups respond to this. Congress has been telling constituents that the CPSC has 'full power' so we'll see.

Consumer Groups may sue- one did before in regard to the phthalate testing when the Commission wanted to make it only apply to products produced after Feb. 10th. But should they object, I suspect the publicity will be useful.

CPSIA, moving forward!

Update Below:

Senator Jim DeMint (R) SC, has announced he's introducing legislation next week to reform CPSIA!!

And, for what it's worth, an anonymous commenter on the CPSIA blog-in post suggested several steps to take. Here's one:

Find a Democrat on the Energy & Commerce Committee (House) or on the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation (Senate) to pressure Waxman. Waxman is the only one that can make a real overhaul. Democrats are the only folks with enough power to force a powerful Democrat like Waxman to budge. My contact went person by person with me through the roster of people on the Senate side, and he offered me advice about the personalities, interests of each.

He recommends lobbying these Senators (all Dems on the Committee on Commerce):
Rockefeller (Chair, WV)
Inouye, HI
Kerry, MA
Nelson, FL
Cantwell, WA
Pryor, AK
McCaskill, MO
Klobuchar, MN

-----------------------------

Did the CPSIA just issue a Stay of Enforcement? Is this a small reprieve?? Or is this yet to be voted on? And, once voted on (presuming it's favorable), will Congress let the CPSC have that full authority they keep telling us they have, or will they smack them down as they did with the retroactive issues? Ah, see Kathleen's post here to see her explanation.


Want to give a presentation to your library on the CPSIA?

Exciting stuff is happening, check back for updates, and flood your Senate with requests that they support Jim DeMint's bill.

My son...

...just came in dressed in full military/law enforcement regalia- toy weapons strapped to every part of his body, badges, and an interesting combo of law enforcement and camouflage dress up clothes.


He told me, in a very deep and important sounding voice, "I'm with the ABC Agency!"


Oh. And what does that stand for? Some sort of literacy police?

No.

My son is the sole founder and member of the Addle Brained Cats.

He left snickering, wildly delighted with himself.

Preacher Jokes

Two preachers from two different religious groups were traveling together and engaging in a somewhat strong, though friendly, discussion of their theological differences.

A storm of rain coming up, the travelers hurried forward to a little village just ahead of them. They took shelter in a store, or small shop, where several farmers had gathered in out of the rain. The preachers were unknown to the company, but the shop-keeper, seeing that they were cold and wet, set out a decanter of wine upon the counter, and pressed them to take a glass.

"You are the oldest, Brother Smith," said the other, "help yourself first."

Smith went forward, and, filling the small wine-glass, drank it off.

"Why, Brother Smith!" said his friendly companion and rival, who had watched his opportunity, "you have been boasting for an hour past that you observe the Book more strictly than other people. I am surprised now to see that your practice does not accord with your profession, for you have just violated the plain injunction, that in all things, whether we eat or drink, we should give thanks!"

" I admit, my brother," said Smith, " the correctness of your teaching; but I think that among strangers, and on such an occasion as this, we may enjoy the good things of the Lord without making a display of our piety before men. I hope, though, that you will be as careful to observe all the commandments. Drink; you will find the wine good."

His companion, pouring out a glassful, set it down on the counter, and reverently closed his eyes; but Smith, seizing the glass unobserved, emptied it at a mouthful, and quietly replaced it on the counter. The other man took up the glass to drink; but, finding it empty, turned, amid the laughter of the crowd, and said:

"That was some of your mischief, Brother Smith, I know."

"Yes;" said Smith, "and you have now let these good people see how your churchmen just half way obeys the Book. We are told to watch as well as to pray, my brother. You prayed well enough, but you neglected to watch, as the Scriptures command, and have lost both your wine and your argument by your disobedience."

Jim Wallis Vs Dorothy Day

Jim Wallis is among those who believe Christian charity is best expressed through the Federal Government. Dorothy Day founded the Catholic Workers in the thirties.

Thanks to David for sending me this article comparing and contrasting the two views. I do lean more towards Day's version, and I have always found Wallis' view well intended but terrifying.

I don't agree with every jot and tittle in the article, but I did find it very thought-provoking.

Lead Crystals and Toys

Lead Crystals:

Recently, there has been an increased regulatory focus on potential human exposure to lead from various consumer products, including jewellery. Crystal has unique properties. The crystal manufacturing process creates a matrix which inhibits the mobility of lead. In other words, lead is bound into the structure of the crystal. Because of this structure, lead crystal poses no significant risk of excessive lead exposure to human health via surface contact (hand to mouth), mouthing or even ingestion. Indeed, Swarovski crystals have been tested under a variety of test methods for extractable lead. Test conditions and procedures do vary, but lead levels are well below regulatory limits even when the crystal is tested in an acid solution to maximize the release of lead.

Most authorities considering lead in crystal have concluded that limits on total lead should not apply to crystal. In 2006, for example, the California Attorney General settled a lawsuit brought in the state alleging exposure to lead from jewellery. The court-approved settlement agreement, as well as the later legislatively enacted Californian AB 1681, established limits for lead in metals and several other components, with stricter standards for jewellery intended for children 6 and younger. Significantly, in recognition of the limited risk of availability of lead from crystal, the settlement agreement as well as California AB 1681 allows the continued use of crystal without limitation in jewellery not intended for children. For children 6 or younger, up to 1 gram of crystal may be used in such jewellery. These same standards were adopted in the state of Minnesota. Similar bills are pending in other states, but some states are considering or have adopted new limits on lead that do not include an exemption for crystal.

Therefore you are in no danger in touching crystals. This is also the reason that there are no specific recommendations about touching or using crystal, however, we do not recommend that crystals are put in the mouth, swallowed, choked on or inhaled under any circumstances, or are used as children’s toys due to the small parts hazard.

One place where crystal companies saw that 'increased regulatory force' was California- where Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, and Henry Waxman hail from. It is my understanding that the politicians and their politican allies, the consumer protection groups, lost in court. I cannot help but think that some of this regulatory nonsense in the CPSIA is their revenge.
As mentioned before, I have a grudging respect for Feinstein, although it's lessoning. I consider Boxer and Pelosi intellecual lightweights and Pelosi completely off balance. It terrifies me that she's third in line for the Presidency (and I think Biden is in the early stages of dementia, and I am not kidding about that. I really, seriously, do. He reminds me exactly of my dad before we realized he was not just getting more wanderingly loquacious, he was losing his mind. Um... what was I saying?).

I don't really think they understand science much. I am not an expert, either, but then, I don't make rules from my lack of understanding that other people have to follow or risk jail.

Congress, in the persons of the above named politicians, have an unnecessarily adversarial relationship with business- with anybody, really, who doesn't promote their reelection (term limits, people, term limits)- and this causes them to act like bullying thugs to prove some sort of point and gain political points without actually accomplishing anything.

Banning Swarovski Crystals from jewelry made for 12 year old girls may make Congress feel proud and it may make them look good to an unwary public, but it accomplished nothing towards making those children safer.

Actually, very little of what Congress did made children any safer.

Mattel turned themselves in to the CPSC when they discovered lead in one of their toys. They and other large toymakers then implemented sweeping changes and controls of their own to prevent the same errors from happening again- BEFORE the law changed. Not even big, bad, Corporate Toymakers WANT kids to die from their products. Even if they were not run by people who are also human beings who have the same tendencies for good and bad as other human beings, it's also really bad for business.

Meanwhile, the most serious thread to children from lead is in their domestic drinking water and substandard public housing.

It kind of reminds me of people who insist on regulating homeschoolers to 'save the children,' while public schools are graduating illiterate kids with diplomas (or deplomas, as one high school grad put on a job application)- if you really care about the children, start where the biggest threat is.

2 percent of the population MIGHT be helped by regulating homeschooling (actually, they wouldn't be helped, they'd be injured, but that's a different blog post), while at a minimum, over 25 percent of the population would be helped by making sure ever kid who graduates can read and understand what he's reading (the people they come into contact with will also be helped).

Lead in all toys was a small threat- and it was and is largely limited to paints and jewelry (metal jewelry, not crystals), affecting few children, and the problem was already being addressed by improved testing and safety measures within the companies.

Lead in water supplies and public housing- this is a much greater threat, affecting the lives of far more children (and teens and adults as well)- if Congress and consumer interest groups cared as much about actually helping people as they do about solidifying their own power, we'd have seen more action in these areas.

Comparing Meat Prices

My weekly frugal hacks post is up- and it's kind of related to some of the discussions we had here a week or two ago about spam, tuna, chicken, and comparing meat prices.

While you're there, take a look at the forums for some useful frugalities.

Vintage Handkerchief

This is another of the vintage items I photographed last night- this series actually turned out satisfactorily to me. Except for that funny mark that look like a watermark in the form of a quotation mark- I have no idea what that is.
I made that top picture the background on my computer desktop. I like it very much.

Do my eyes deceive me, or is that a pink and white daffodil?
I like the scalloped edges of this hankie.


The whole thing- I think I've mentioned before how happy symmetry makes me? I just find it deeply satisfying to contemplate symmetrical designs- the more complex, the better. This is what appeals to me about William Morris patterns (there's one at the top of this blog).

Vintage Dessert Plate

I took a series of photographs of a few vintage items I intended to list to sell online tonight, but hit several glitches:

For one thing, I have trouble getting the photographs focused sharply, as I think they should be.


Then I had trouble getting an angle that didn't make me want to ask for a neck rub.



Then there's a problem with the venue where I intended to sell. I've been posting in the forums there for a few days while we set up plans at home to close the booth at the antique mall. Today my husband and son-in-law and first born girl when there and took everything out (including several shelving pieces that had been attached to the walls.

While they were gone, somebody in administration at that venue accused me of being a sock puppet and a troll (publicly) and then abruptly deactivated my account. There was never any private message, never a question (I had said several times in the forum that I intended, most likely, to start selling soon), never an opportunity to defend myself, no questions asked- just abrupt deactivation.

It took me several rounds of emails to get it up again, and then, it is conditional. It is against the rules, I am told to post to the forum without buying and selling. Okay, I still want to know if it's their policy to deactivate accounts without any discussion first (I've asked three times, and they never answer that question. LIke emailing your congress critter about the CPSIA). But I'll play, I think.


I call this saucer the bird saucer, by the way. "Why?" asks the FYG, reasonably enough. "There's only one bird, and the plate is all covered in flowers. It's a flower saucer, not a bird saucer."
"I know," I say. But I like this bird, faded as he is.

So.... I head over to the venue to start opening a store. I have to give them my credit card number, real name, and address, which isn't really a surprise, but I have this sort of prodding sense of discomfort in the back of my mind. What is my recourse if the same person takes a dislike to me or something I've said again, and deactivates my account? I like the vintage stuff. I like describing it. I don't enjoy taking pictures and loading them. How will I feel to lose my work with no warning? Why won't anybody answer my questions about this policy and how it happened? Did I mention that last night a different admin person had directed considerable traffic this way by linking to this blog as a helpful source of info on the Blog in?

Isn't it funny how you can hardly see that silly little bird, he's so faded, but he's my favorite part of this very scrumptious looking plate?

When I have that hard to describe, but very nagging feeling, I have learned it almost always pays to listen to it. So I backed out of the seller set up windows and went to read a few of the forum posts.
Remember- my account was deactivated without warning, and eventually, I was told it was because it was against the rules to post comments without having a store or buying stuff (I had bookmarked some things to buy for an upcoming birthday season in my family).
And the first post I came across in the forums was one where somebody asked another poster why she was there, since she didn't have a shop set up and hadn't seemed to buy anything.

Hmmm.

She explained her reasons, which were almost identical to mine.

Hmmm.

I went and looked. She's been there since mid 2007.

Without getting her account deactivated.

Hmmmm.

I clicked through to a different thread. Found a very nearly duplicate situation.

Hmmmm.

Warning bells start clanging.

Clearly, somebody at venue has a personal issue with something I've said (you can read it here)



And do I want to give this person access to my personal information and credit card?

I suspect not.

And then the battery on my camera died, anyway.

Issue by Issue vs Partisan Politics

In another forum I've been reading about the CPSIA, it has been a common practice to blame President Bush for the mess. Once, I even saw somebody blame Palin for something a Democrat wrote, because it was incoherent. At no time when this occurred did anybody say anything about Partisan Politics. Gradually, facts began creeping into the discussions, however, sourced, documented links as several of us learned them. And then people took umbrage at the partisan finger pointing and insisted it served no purpose to say that it was the Democrats who wrote and sponsored the bill.

It's not, you see, that I think Bush was a marvelous President. I didn't vote for him, and I did not vote for either of the main party candidates this term. I just like accuracy, and I think facts are useful things. So I said:

When I first started reading about this here, people were consistently blaming the Bush administration for the CPSIA, and I didn't seen any objections about finger pointing then. I even saw Sarah Palin dragged in once, and she has nothing to do with it. I do wonder if any of those now asking that political party not be brought up are some of those who were fine bringing it up when you thought Bush was solely responsible.

I think it's counter-productive and ineffective not to be aware of who wrote, promoted, supported, and shoved this bill through and who objected to it- if you don't know that Democrats wrote and pushed the bill through when they were in control of Congress, then you won't know that their letters saying 'not us, this bi-partisan bill is all Nancy Nord's problem now' are self-serving and less than honest with you, and if you don't know that they just overturned house rules in place since 1994 that permitted the minority party *some* influence, then you don't know that basically all a republican can do for you is write letters and harass Democrats in power like Waxman- that's not totally useless, but you need to know how DC works right now to know how and where to effectively address complaints.

I think it's kind of funny that finger pointing and polarization are bad things when people are pointing out these facts:

1. It was a Democrat bill written by Democrats, sponsored by Democrats, pushed through in a Democrat controlled Congress, President Bush did oppose it (you can look that up in the New York Times), as did Nord. Yes, he signed in the end- but it was a veto proof majority, it would not have mattered if he hadn't signed it.

2. The 106 co-sponsors are, all but five, Democrats. This is also a matter of public record. One of those five Republican sponsors is Ted Stevens, criminal from Alaska.

3. While Republicans caved, largely because I think they are weasels and also because they were intimidated by the media and the consumer protectionist groups couching this in terms of "you don't care about the CHILDREN!" but mostly the weasel issue- it remains a fact that the only politicians who ever voted against it (14 in all) were Republicans (and yes, 10 of those caved and voted in favor of the final version, and we're back to the weasel issue, only Kyl, Coburn, and DeMint showed any backbone, Ron Paul MISSED the final vote and it makes me want to spit that his office tells people he's the only one who voted against it. He did not vote against it where it really counted).

4. There are Special Interest groups that pushed this through and are writing letters to Congress saying that the only reason anybody could have to object to this bill is because they are greedy profit-mongers who don't care about children- and it may not be pleasant news, but these groups are Democrat supporters, groups who consider themselves Progressive. You can go to US PIRG's website and read it for yourselves. I've posted a list of them here before.

This knowledge does not *solve* anything, in that it's an immediate fix, but I do believe accurate facts are a useful tool, and this knowledge does make you more informed and better armed to frame and direct your letters and calls in a way that they do the most good.

example of counter-productive remarks based on bad information: "Dear Nancy Pelosi: How could you let Bush do this to me? You should have stood against him."

Result: Nancy laughs, knowing that it's a Democrat bill and she helped push this through over Bush's objections and at the time boasted openly about forcing businesses to lose existing inventory (see the WSJ story about Pelosi's Toy Story). She's not going to view the authors of this sort of letter as knowledgeable enough to listen to.

"Dear US PIRG- I am writing to ask you to help small cottage industries fight this dreadful bill or I will have to go on Welfare"

US PIRG LOVES this bill- they boast about being responsible for it on their website, and they, frankly, do not give a darn about your cottage industry, and they don't have a problem with you going on Welfare.

You have to know your enemy in order to know where to direct your arguments and how to frame them- and you can be in agreement with Pelosi, Waxman and US PIRG on 9 out of 10 other issues- but that does not make them your allies on THIS issue, and THIS is the issue under discussion.

I would not call this partisan politics. I would call it being informed.

What I would call Partisan politics would be the mindset that would sweep these facts under the rug and pretend they are irrelevant BECAUSE you agree with Pelosi and Waxman and US PIRG and Public Citizen 9 out of 10 times.

We all have a bias. It's important not to let that bias cloud the facts-
Here's my bias- I dislike politicians. I am a libertarian who thinks everybody who has served more than one term is a rascal and should be sent home to the real world to remind them how it works. Yes, I know that's not happening.

Meanwhile, I arm myself with the knowledge of who wrote and supported this bill so I can detect the self serving lies when they tell them to me, and so I can frame my arguments in terms that they will understand.

For instance- when writing a Republican, I WOULD talk about the injuries to small business and entrepreneurs, and the thousands of people out of work, and the burden to the welfare system.

When writing to the consumer protection groups and the Democrats, I would focus on the unnecessary redundancy of testing, on the fact that banning lead from products that never had lead and CANNOT have lead isn't really protecting children, that when ALL the recalls for lead in children's products were from:
children's jewelry
paint
and ONE screen print, it would have made more sense and been of more use to the children to focus efforts, manpower, and funding on those issues (and then address the water supply and old paint in public housing, as it's a FAR bigger threat to the safety of children)

Accurate information is an important tool in this campaign.

Within an hour my account was deactivated- without warning, without discussion, without question.

CPSIA and On Demand Printing

Fairly academic discussion and comments here. You know what amazes me? How often people start with the assumption that if the government passed a law, it must be reasonable.

FLDS, January 29

Betty Jessop, Carolyn Jessop's oldest daughter, grants CNN an interview here.

Two things stood out to me- the disconnect between Carolyn's claim to have no contact and her acknowledgment that she does, in fact, have contact (seen also in Brooke's article, when Betty texted her mother and asked her what she had to do with the raid, scroll down to read that)
And the strangely unchallenged accusation from Caroline that Betty, who voluntarily left her mother and went back to her father and the FLDS, is under enormous 'pressure' from the FLDS not to leave.
Problem: Isn't she also under ENORMOUS pressure from her mother to leave? Didn't her mother take her away against her will?
Problem: Caroline has no contact with Betty or the ranch, according to her. How does she know about this pressure?

Does this reporter understand the difference between 'pressure,' coercion, and the sort of encouragement and loving persuasion anybody would apply to somebody they love? "Please don't go, we love you, we want you to stay"

Brooke Adams interviewed Betty- she said her father told her she could not slam her mother in her upcoming book, she was taken from her home by her mother kicking and screaming, and:

Betty said she and her mother have not spoken since September, when she called to wish a younger brother happy birthday. "She doesn't call me and neither do my siblings," Betty said. "I miss [my siblings] so much and hope with all my heart they can survive."

She believed her mother had something to do with the raid:

Here is one story she told me about why she decided to write the book, but that did not make today's article:

Betty was getting ready to move to Texas when the raid occurred. On April 5, she was at a brother's home, and was searching the Internet for news clips about the raid.

''I saw mother on the news giving her ideas about the raid, and it, well, it infuriated me, to a whole different degree! She had put me through hell for five years and when I finally broken free, she turned around and helped do it to my entire family and community,'' Betty wrote me in an email. ''I had to work with myself not to call her up and scream at her. I had to pray hard to calm myself down.''

Instead, Betty sent her mother a text message. ''How much did you have to do with the raid?'' she asked.

Ten minutes passed. No reply.

So she said she sent a second message.

''I looked down at my phone and started to write. It took me about five minutes to think of what I could say that had power behind every word. This is what I came up with: 'I have always wondered what I would tell my future generations about my mother. It's a sad story that the fact of the matter is, she did everything in her power to destroy the chance of their existence!'

Betty told me her mother did not respond, ''at least not directly.'' The next day, Betty saw another news interview with her mother.

''This time she talked about me, and how I burned through twelve counselors because I was so brainwashed. So, the message I sent, I believe she heard it loud and clear, and it made her mad!''

''Like I have told you before, if you don't support her or have the same opinion, YOU'RE BRAINWASHED!''

Merril and Willie Jessop both testified this week, invoking the fifth amendment, some lotsa times.

Kurt has a few posts up about this, here, and here, and here.

In the second link he asks:

A partial transcript of Natalie Malonis’ January 23, 2009 examination of Merril Jessop, father of Raymond Jessop (allegedly “married” to Teresa Jeffs), appears below the jump. I expect to have access soon to a full transcript of the deposition, but this piece — in which Merril refuses to answer Malonis’ questions in order to avoid self-incrimination — is notable in relation to speculation regarding whether Teresa Jeffs has or has not a “hidden child”.

The question is, if Teresa Jeffs does not have a child, why did her purported father-in-law “take the 5th” on this issue as he did on Friday?

This concerns me, too. Or rather, it did, until I saw the full list of questions he didn't answer, and realized that Malonis had provided Kurt a deeply edited version that left out some important context.

These ponts also disturb me, particularly the release of the transcripts:

Someone leaked a copy of Merril Jessop's deposition, taken by Natalie Malonis last week, to Paul Anthony of the San Angelo Standard.

Malonis also apparently gave an excerpt of the deposition transcript to Kurt Schulzke, who has the iperceive blog. Malonis posted several comments on the blog in which she names some children whose cases have been nonsuited and discusses issues related to the depositions.

I checked with the Tom Green County court clerk who oversees the FLDS filings and was told there is quite a stir over the fact the depositions were released. The judge has the depositions on her desk, I was told, and had not placed them in the case file or authorized their release. She has yet to rule on whether Merril Jessop should be required to answer questions on which he pleaded the Fifth Amendment.

The relevance of many questions (the financing of the ranch, whether or not he drives, etc.) is a real mystery, since the case is about Teresa Jeffs, who turns 18 in July.

I want to know why she did this. It does not seem ethical to me, not the publishing of a partial transcript to a blog, and certainly not her chatty comments in that blog where she reveals the name of minor children and passes on erroneous information about them..

I am also troubled by the questions she's asking, which seem to have little to do with Teresa Jessop and more to do with the sorts of things Law Enforcement is trying to discover. Who helped her come up with these questions?

There are nearly 300 questions he didn't answer- and some of them are just strange:

18. Do you have a religious association?
19. Do you worship a higher power?

In context, it no longer looks quite so significant that he didn't answer a question about Teresa having a child.

Ah... Brooke also thinks some of these questions are being asked for other people:

Why question Merril Jessop in relation to Teresa Jeffs' situation? Here is how Natalie Malonis explained it to Judge Barbara Walther last week according to a transcript of the deposition:

''I think this witness has information about the way that the financial structure's set up and how my client and her family, their needs are taken care of, their living expenses, you know, how much control and choice they have over their own destinies. He's got information as an authority figure in the church over the structure of the church and that kind of thing. . . . He does have information that's relevant to how this family can support themselves, which goes to the safety of the child.''

The judge decided to let the deposition proceed and said she would rule later on any questions not answered. A hearing took place Monday on the unanswered questions, but Walther has not yet issued an order.

I went through the deposition to see for myself what kinds of questions Merril was asked and how they related to Teresa's case, which is already the subject of news and blog reports.

A lot of questions struck me as being posed on behalf of all the people who would like to depose Merril but have not been able to, such as many questions about the United Effort Plan Trust. What does a question about whether Merril was involved in the sale of the Apple Valley property in Utah have to do with Teresa Jeffs, for example? Likewise, of what relevance is it whether he still drives?

One of the questions Merril did not answer was whether or not he knew Jeff Schechter. Brooks has tracked him down.
He's a motivational/leadership/marketing guru dude, he didn't know what FLDS stood for, and he's never heard of Merril. And Merril pleaded the fifth on that question.

Meanwhile, Flora Jessop was supposed to be answering questions in a deposition on Wednesday, but nobody seems to have followed Malonis' lead and leaked it to the press.

Those 'other people' may be desperate to get information from Merril or Willie to back up information from the Ranch, as an Arizona Judge may be about to rule out that Ranch evidence:

An Arizona judge may end up ruling on whether evidence seized by law enforcement officers during the raid on the Fundamentalist LDS Church's YFZ Ranch in Texas is legal.
[...]
Arizona prosecutors have said they did not plan to use any evidence seized in the raid in Jeffs' upcoming trial, but the judge seemed unconvinced.

Adoption and Busy Bodies

I think I've blogged about this before, but I can't find that post right now to copy and paste.

Two of our seven children are adopted. One of them has multiple handicaps. People often ask, out of interested, compassionate, curiosity, about her diagnosis. There is a limit to what I can say because we simply don't know a lot about her birth and when various issues were diagnosed. Often these questions are a reasonable quest for understanding- people want to know what to expect, what not to expect, what could they do 'wrong' or what might be upsetting to our nonverbal, severely delayed daughter. So, while I don't really mind the questions much (particularly because she doesn't understand them, so she's not going to be hurt by them), there is a point in answering them where I have to say, "I don't know. I wasn't there when she was born/when she started school/when she got her shots/when she started walking/when she first fed herself/when she learned to sit up/etc.

This, of course, gets me some funny looks. So I explain, "She did not join our family until she was nearly six. That's when we adopted her."

Then comes a question I do mind. "Are any of your other children adopted?" Had I wished to volunteer that information, I would have done so.

There was a long period of time where the other child who joined our family by adoption minded this information being bandied about very much. She didn't like being the center of attention, and people don't mean to, but they always do turn and stare. Or they tell their children, who then ask personal, nosy, and uncomfortable questions about 'how it feels,' and we're back to the center of attention issue again.

So I would answer, "Well, yes, but The Cherub is the only who doesn't care whether or not we share that information, so we respect that request for privacy."

Then things get really awkward. People dislike being told they cannot have personal information they ask for. You would be surprised how often they argue with me about that. I have been lectured, gently, but still lectured, that it's nothing to be ashamed of and she should know that it's okay to talk about (thank-you for that bit of amateur psychology, but I am still not telling you, and there's nothing wrong with her not wanting you to know).

In one extremely infuriating instance, a very determined and very obnoxious woman who did not get the information she wanted from me (Yes, thanks, I know there's nothing to be ashamed of. We are not ashamed. Being private or discrete or respectful a pre-teen girl's wish not to probed is not being ashamed, and I am not going to tell you which daughter it is") actually went to one of my children behind my back and asked her, "Is it you? Are you the one who is adopted?" She had every intention of asking the rest of my children until she found out- but fortunately, my daughter came to me, and we did not ever see that woman again.

Sadly, having erroneously taught my child to be polite, she had already answered the question- no, it wasn't her. Happily, I believe there was a distraction before my bewildered and unhappy child was pinned to the wall and asked, "Well, WHICH ONE, then?"

We discussed alternative answers. "I don't remember, let's go ask MY MOM" was my favorite.

I thought about calling her, which I believe would have been the biblical thing to do, but I was too enraged to be civil (Mama Tiger defending her precious cubs), and frankly, I never was able to think civilly of her again so long as we lived in that town. I probably could do it now, but it would be rather silly to call somebody to discuss something she did ten years ago and probably does not remember.

So.... I was very tickled to read this post at Popehat today (there is non-church lady language, just so you know), and he linked to Miss Manners on this topic, who kindly explains:

But you must also teach your daughters not to fall for two common arguments: that curiosity is natural and that people who don’t disclose personal information must be ashamed of it. Dignified people value their privacy, and being curious is no excuse for demanding that it be satisfied. Under such pressure, they should merely smile and repeat “That’s personal” as often as necessary.

I would add that belching, passing gas, and other things are 'natural,' yet polite, well brought up people do not need to call attention to them or comment on them. Curiosity is natural. It is also sometimes vulgar and crass, and it is best to ignore it.

Click through to read the whole letter and answer- I like several issues the letter writer brings up. I, too, dislike it immensely when somebody tells me how wonderful we are and how lucky the girls are that we adopted them. I love them dearly. They are part of my family, not pets from the shelter that we rescued. And we had a choice, they didn't. They don't owe us anything more than any other child 'owes' parents.

I don't care whether or not he wears a suit and tie, Times

But the disconnect between this:

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.

“That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” he added.

and this:

The capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat.

“He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”

It kinda bugs me. (via HotAir)

At my house, we're wearing socks, slippers, sweats, sometimes double layers, and huddling under blankets and moving all hospitality and school reading times upstairs, where it's slightly warmer.

(Nor am I real excited about the number of lobbyists being hired by the Obama administration. Does hope and change really mean, "I hope that there's a change, so I get to be the one doing what you're doing?)
We not only cannot grow orchids here, my African violets are dying from the cold.

Updated to add: Last night my 12 year old daughter climbed under the covers with me and pressed her icey feet against my legs. "My toes are so cold, they'll snap off if I bend them" she said.

And while keeping the Oval Office warm enough for hothouse plants (hmmmm), the President thinks children should toughen up:

"When it comes to the weather, folks in Washington don't seem to be able to handle things," a joking Obama told reporters Wednesday morning.

"My children's school was canceled today because of what? Some ice."

Obama said his daughters -- Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7 -- pointed out that school in Chicago is never canceled.

"In fact, my 7-year-old pointed out that you'd go out for recess. You wouldn't even stay indoors," Obama says.

"We're going to have to try some flinty, Chicago toughness to this town."

Can we apply it to the Oval Office? Please?

Actually, you know the real culprits in these stories? The media, for their drooling reporting. Does anybody think for one second that if Bush had kept the Oval Office at temps warm enough for tropical plants while telling the rest of the world to toughen up, the press would have reported those contradictory stories with such drooling admiration? We need a free press, not a trained poodle press.

The CPSIA Makes Boing Boing

The post is good. Many of the comments are made by people who have no idea about the content or impact of this bill.

HSLDA is rethinking their previously dismissive attitude:

If new consumer product regulations will harm your business, tell us so we can tell federal officials. Contact HSLDA’s Federal Relations Department at 540-338-5600 or federalrelations@hslda.org.

Definition of a Children's Product According to CPSIA

Thomas has a copy of the CPSIA that is in html rather than PDF form.

According to the text of the law Congress wrote:

5) DEFINITION OF CHILDREN'S PRODUCT-

(A) IN GENERAL- As used in this subsection, the term `children's product' means a consumer product as defined in section 3(1) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2052(1)) designed or intended primarily for children 12 years of age or younger.

(B) FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED- In determining whether a product is primarily intended for a child 12 years of age or younger, the following factors shall be considered:

(i) A statement by a manufacturer about the intended use of such product, including a label on such product if such statement is reasonable.

(ii) Whether the product is represented in its packaging, display or advertising as appropriate for use by children 12 years of age or younger.

(iii) Whether the product is commonly recognized by consumers as being intended for use by child 12 years of age or younger.

(iv) The Age Determination Guidelines issued by the Commission staff in September 2002, and any successor thereto.

--------------------------
Items iii and iv seem rather subjective and nebulous to me.

What are the Age Determination Guidelines mentioned in iv?

By law, the CPSC must refer to them, and here they are in pdf form.

It's a pretty substantial document, but I've transcribed the part I think is relevant:

Quote (emphasis in all caps is mine):

"If CPSC staff determines that a toy is intended for children under 3 years of age, the toy is subject to the Small Parts Regulation regardless of its age labeling.

For a firm to know if the Small Parts Regulation applies to a toy, the firm must determine the age of the child for whom the toy is intended. For the Small Parts Regulation, the relevant factors to be considered in determining which toys are intended for use by children under 3 years (36 months) of age are the manufacturer’s stated intent- such as on a label- IF IT IS A REASONABLE ONE; the toy’s advertising, promotion, and marketing; AND WHETHER A TOY IS COMMONLY RECOGNIZED AS BEING INTENDED FOR CHILDREN UNDER 3 YEARS OF AGE (see 16 CFR Section 1501.2 (b)).

CPSC STAFF PERFORM AGE DETERMINATIONS, IN WHICH THE VARIOUS CHARACTERISTICS OF A TOY ARE MATCHED TO THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILDREN IN A PARTICULAR AGE GROUP TO DETERMINE WHETHER A TOY IS COMMONLY RECOGNIZED AS BEING INTENDED FOR CHILDREN UNDER 3 YEARS OF AGE.

For example, children from 12 through 18 months of age enjoy toys with bright colors, especially yellows and reds and toys with high contrast and patterns.

THEREFORE, TOYS WITH CHARACTERISTICS SUCH AS THIS MAY BE CONSIDERED AS BEING INTENDED FOR CHILDREN OF THIS AGE. […]

ALTHOUGH SMALL PARTS THAT PRESENT A HAZARD ARE CLEARLY INAPPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN UNDER 3, THE MERE PRESENCE OF SMALL PARTS DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE AGE CHILD FOR WHOM A TOY IS COMMONLY RECOGNIZED AS BEING INTENDED, AND DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE POSSIBILITY THAT CPSC STAFF WOULD DETERMINE THAT THE TOY IS INTENDED FOR CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 3.

Rather, one must consider whether parents and others would purchase the toy for children 3 years of age based on the toy’s characteristics and the characteristics of children of this age."

I share Mr. Bumble's opinion of the law.

Here's another good article on the problems with the law as written.

Not that The Equuschick is Particularly Grumpy or Anything.

But the asthma preventative of Solid Gold only lasts a month, ergo The Equuschick has been trying it experimentally at once a day until a new prescription arrives and for the first time in many moons she made herself a delectable iced coffee with a delicious dairy creamer that she strongly suspects of having just sent her into quite a fit that sent the FYB running for cough drops.


It just makes her MAD, thank-you very much. She's been really so very good for so very long.

She's going to go sulk now.

Buy Your Hondas Now

I don't let my kids ride these things (I was overridden once, and somebody got hurt, oh, look, a pun!)- but that's my choice. You, as a parent, should make your own, but it just got more narrow:

Ban of lead in paint over 600ppm (parts per million)
Honda’s paint contains little or no lead and easily complies with even the most stringent requirement.

Ban of lead in substrate material over 600ppm
Honda is still in process of completing tests on all of the materials used in our small ATV’s and motorcycles; however, some alloy materials commonly used to manufacture motor vehicles may inherently contain levels of lead that are (or ultimately will be) above the current, or future more aggressive, limits set forth in the Act.

Honda and other members of the Motorcycle Industry Council and Specialty Vehicle Institute of America, which face the same issues as Honda, are actively working to exempt the alloy parts for small motorcycles and ATVs from the terms of the Act. The lead embedded in the alloys used in these products is not transferred through typical use of these products. Our shared belief is that Congress never intended the lead content provisions of the Act, which originally were aimed at toys that can be mouthed by children, to be applicable to small ATVs and motorcycles.

Even more concerning is that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the agency charged with enforcing the Act, recently ruled that Congress intended the lead content regulations to be retroactive. This means that, regardless of its date of manufacture or the fact that it complied with all applicable laws and regulations at the date of manufacture, any children’s product manufactured with even a single component part containing lead in excess of the limits will no longer be legal for sale as of February 10, 2009. The economic impact of the CPSC’s ruling will be substantial for both dealers and manufacturers in an already weakened economy.

What all of this means to you is that – without Congressional or CPSC action -- you will not be able to sell new or used TRX 90, CRF 50F, CRF 70F, or CRF 80F models after February 10, 2009, stranding your investment in your new and used inventory

CPSIA- don't let up on Waxman

202-225-4099- Henry Waxman's fax number

contact info for Waxman

Washington, D.C. Office:
2204 Rayburn House Office Building,
District of Columbia 20515-0530
Phone: (202) 225-3976
Fax: (202) 225-4099

Los Angeles Office: (more district offices)

8436 West 3rd Street, Suite 600
Los Angeles, California 90048
Phone: (323) 651-1040
Fax: (323) 655-0502



Here are the locations of current labs certified to do the lead testing Congress requires. There are none north and west of Texas. Along the south-eastern coastal states from Louisiana to Delaware there is one in Georgia.

Either
(a) there aren't enough labs in the US for third party testing for lead in paint
or
(b) information on nearby labs is difficult to obtain.

Comic books- a seller realizes what this could mean to him. I think he's mistaken about the collectibles- I bet they'll be exempt. And an argument could be made that most comic books are for more mature readers. But any comics for children 12 and under are on the chopping block. If they're still bound as they were when I was a child reading the comic book illustrated classics, they are generally stapled (as are Weekly Reader magazines- and Waxman forbade the Commission to exempt books 'with metal components.'



The brilliant and dedicated Kathleen Fasanella, who is nice to me even though I keep getting her last name wrong, says:

In the meantime, the best thing you can do is to hold Waxman accountable. Conversely, the best way to do that is to contact your legislators and tell them to write Waxman a letter. This puts him on notice that his peers are onto him. .

I explained my thoughts on the importance of calling Waxman and calling your reps to ask them to speak to Waxman here and here. Also here.

I am intrigued by this comment left to the first post:

the person at the Ombudsman's office told me to read your article-you were right on in calling out Waxman and Rush on their letter. He said we all need to do that and he said we need to demand Waxman and Rush to "support a particular regulatory outcome" -what does this mean? He mentioned it was a faster way to have the amendment move to pass.

He also said the Cheif Legal Council did not believe everything in the Jan. 16 Waxman/Rush letter was truthful.

Somebody at the Ombudsman's office knew about me and that post? Little ol' me?
That's, um, mind-blowing to an introverted home-body like me (I told my kids recently I could almost be agoraphobic, and, in unison, they said, "Almost?!")

Tristan at Maiden America pointed out in those comments that "any law that takes a nation by surprise cannot possibly have been born of the will of the people!"

In a letter ordering the Commission to make the ban on phthalates retroactive, members of Congress claimed,

"Consumers may erroneously believe that dangerous products will be removed from store shelves once the CPSIA takes effect; that will not be the case if this analysis is allowed to stand."

Consumer Protection groups, maybe- but regular consumers for the most part neither know nor care what phthalates are or when the CPSIA takes effect.

Here's more from the text of that letter to Nord:

It is not practical to require consumers who wish to avoid phthalates to contact individual toy manufacturers to learn when a specific product was manufactured and whether it contains phthalates. That is precisely why the authors of this legislation specified in clear terms that the prohibition would apply to all inventory sold after February 10, 2009.

This interpretation of this clearly-worded statute is contrary to the plain language of the Act. It also contravenes the understanding shared by those who authored this legislation and participated in conference committee negotiations. We urge you to immediately overturn this decision. Thank you for your consideration, and we look forward to your timely response.

Best regards,

Dianne Feinstein Henry Waxman
United States Senator Member of Congress

Janice D. Schakowsky Diana DeGette
Member of Congress Member of Congress

As you see, it is disingenuous of Congress Critters to tell us the Commission has 'full authority' to say what they like about the CPSIA, and that the Congress Critters themselves cannot help.

Why I have teethmarks in my hand

As I type this, thanks to the magic of the interwebs, my dear husband is asleep next to me. Or he was, until I started reading this article.



First I started shaking, silently, tears streaming down my face. An odd hissing sound emerged.

I barely held back a loud guffaw- I caught it just in time, but a strange sort of squawk escaped.

Then I had to bite my own hand, trying to stifle more where that came from- I only managed to sound like I was strangling myself.

My husband rolled over and cocked a sleep eyebrow at me.

I gave up the effort and just laughed, out loud.

It's a complaint to the head of the company about airline food, that's all.

You don’t get to a position like yours Richard with anything less than a generous sprinkling of observational power so I KNOW you will have spotted the tomato next to the two yellow shafts of sponge on the left. Yes, it’s next to the sponge shaft without the green paste. That’s got to be the clue hasn’t it. No sane person would serve a desert with a tomato would they. Well answer me this Richard, what sort of animal would serve a desert with peas in

I think I ruptured something.

Stimulus Passed

Final vote: 244-188.

All 177 Rebublicans voted no. I don't know who the 11 Democrats who voted no are, but God bless them.

I wonder how many of them, if ANY, read the 1500 page bill.

Three New Recalls

A lipgloss keychain: Interesting points- The metal in the key chain itself had lead- the rest is fine. the recall was voluntary-
NOBODY was injured.
Product is from China.

a manicure set: It's the metallic lettering on the pouch that contains lead- the manicure set itself is fine. Nobody was injured. The recall was voluntary.
Product is from China.

Jesus Fish beads: These are wooden fish shaped beads with the word 'Jesus' painted on them. The words come in assorted colors. Only the green ones have lead. Nobody had been harmed. The recall is voluntary.
Product is from China

Goodies for Mom says this is why we need some version of the CPSIA. I respectfully disagree. I think that the fact that the product recalls were voluntary speaks well of the companies, and indicates why the CPSIA is overkill, yet doesn't actually address the largest sources of lead toxins for children-

Water, mostly because of lead pipes in older houses
paint, mostly pain in older houses

A distant, distant third is toys from China. Candy from Mexico is also more likely to contain lead than the toys you'll find at craft shows.

A nearly nonexistant threat would be toys NOT from China. The above toys already violated existing standards in China. The CPSIA as written isn't going to protect our kids from lead toxins.

Former NASA Supervisor Calls Out Hanson on Global Warming

Great article at What's Up:

This is something I thought I’d never see. This press release today is from the Senate EPW blog of Jame Inhofe. The scientist making the claims in the headline, Dr. John S. Theon, formerly of the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Arlington, Virginia, has a paper here in the AMS BAMS that you may also find interesting. Other papers are available here in Google Scholar. He also worked on the report of the Space Shuttle Challenger accident report and according to that document was a significant contributor to weather forecasting improvements:

The Space Shuttle Weather Forecasting Advisory Panel, chaired by Dr. John Theon, was established by NASA Headquarters to review existing weather support capabilities and plans and to recommend a course of action to the NSTS Program. Included on the panel were representatives from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Air Force, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

For those just joining the climate discussion, Dr. James Hansen is the chief climate scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and is the man who originally raised the alarm on global warming in 1988 in an appearance before congress. He is also the keeper of the most often cited climate data.

He says Hanson embarrassed NASA, was never muzzled as he claims, and that models are pretty much worthless, especially since scientists have been tweaking them to reflect their preconceived ideas.

It snowed in the United Arab Emirates last week. I think I read that this is only the second time it's snowed there that anybody knows of. The first time was something like four years ago (don't quote me on this part, I'm going from memory).*
So I was reading a post and comments about this memorable event, and came across the predictable bantering about global warming and the predictable arguments that weather isn't climate, stupid, and increasingly cold weather was actually proof of global warming, which anyway, even though the scary AGW guys have been promoting global warming for decades isn't really global warming it's climate change, and when the climate warms, it actually gets colder, so snow in strange places is proof of global warming.

And I could only think, "But we have always been at war with Eastasia."**


*(found the post and comments)
** 1984

The ALA and the CPSIA

Here's a good post on the difference between the responses to the CPSC coming from the garment industry and the publishing industry.

I think another possible reason for the adversarial tone the publishing industry is taking, and for the ALA's weak and ineffective response is that they are natural political allies with Henry Waxman. This has weakened their ability to grasp the realities of the situation, as they have refused to consider that his advice to them to flood Nancy Nord with complaints is actually a political ploy in his own personal battle with Nord, it doesn't help the ALA at all.

The Commission and the CPSC is seriously understaffed and overwhelmed by work that has to be done with a looming deadline. When Wasman tells people to flood those offices with complaints, he knows perfectly well he's contributing toward overburdening their resources and ability to actually get the job done.

Waxman has already told the Commission, more than once, that they have to walk back some of their exemptions and redo- and he sent them a letter telling them not to exempt books with metal components or plastic parts- the Commission knows some books have staples, library books have plastic covers, stickers, tags, and so forth, as Waxman apparently does not. Specifically, Waxman and his coherts have ordered the Commission that they MUST view the bans as retroactive. Thanks to Congress, the Commission cannot legally issue the exemptions Waxman has told the ALA to ask for.

When people are flooding the Commission with complaints, they are not bothering Waxman with requests to call the Commerce committee meeting that is the only way to actually fix the problems with the CPSIA in a substantive fashion.

If the ALA were not blinded by their politics, they could assess this situation on its own merits and see that objectively, they need to be asking their people to flood Waxman's office to call that committee meeting and issue the technical amendments needed to fix the bill.

School Reform and Self-Perpetuating Institutions

Several years ago the Acting Dean of the University of Texas at Austin was interviewed by the author of
Ed-School Follies. The dean averred that teaching is a form of social work and admitted when asked that "...the necessity of affecting social change sometimes impedes learning."
"But," she continued, "it has to happen then; you can't not use the schools as the agencies of social change. It's too convenient." (emphasis mine)

I think it's interesting that she acknowledges that her social engineering goals for other people's children actually impeded learning, but insists that it has to be done because otherwise, the social engineering that she wants to see take place would be too hard. But her goals for public schools are not the same as the goals of the parents who send their children to them expecting the children to be educated.

We say that public schools are failing, but that's because we have failed to understand their purpose, which hasn't been academic excellence for a very long time.

In the 1969 book Public Controls for Non-Public Schools, Donald Erickson, Associate Professor of Education with the University of Chicago at the time, (later full Professor, and the chief expert witness defending parents in the Yoder case), writes of the struggle between parents and humanist educators:

"The chief enigma... concerns the fact that the child does not choose for himself, particularly at the elementary level, the life orientation to which he will be molded. Given the power of culture, there is no method I know of to permit the young unbiased choice...THE PROBLEM IS ONE OF DECIDING WHO SHALL CHOOSE...". (emphasis mine)

Erickson actually understood that this problem was addressed and dealt with as much as it needs to be in the Constitution and the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. He's made something of a career out of defending homeschoolers and private schools against government encroachment. It tends to be the products of Education Schools who are confused and think there is some question about who gets to choose, parents or bureaucrats. There should be no question at all. The "life orientation" to which the child shall be molded is, or ought to be, up to the parents and child- not any government or creature of the government.

Like John Taylor Gatto, Richard Mitchell, Samuel Blumenfield, and others like them, I have come to believe that the public schools are not truly failing. They are failing children, but they themselves are not failing to do what they are designed to do. What are they designed to do? We've seen that they are designed for social engineering. They are also designed for self-perpetuation.

The goal of those in the upper echelons of institutions is ultimately perpetuation of the institution itself. Our institution of public education is extremely successful:

Furthermore, any institution that still stands must, by that very fact, be successful. When we say, as we seem to more and more these days, that education in America is "failing," it is because we don't understand the institution. It is, in fact, succeeding enormously. It grows daily, hourly, in power and wealth, and that precisely because of our accusations of failure. The more we complain against it, the more it can lay claim to our power and wealth, in the name of curing those ills of which we complain. And, in our special case, in a land ostensibly committed to individual freedom and rights, it can and does make the ultimate claim--to be, that is, the free, universal system of public education that alone can raise up to a free land citizens who will understand and love and defend individual freedom and rights. Like any politician, the institution of education claims direct descent in apostolic succession from the Founding Fathers.

~Richard Mitchell, Graves of Academe, Propositions Three and Seven

Much of so-called 'school reform' is about doing what is best for the institution of government schooling rather than what is best for the children. Isn't it odd that no matter what the complaint, the solution is always to strengthen and centralize control of the institution?
You're not teaching kids to read.
Give us more money and we'll try to fix that.
You're not teaching them math.
Give us more money and we'll try to fix that.
You are giving diplomas to students who are, in fact, functionally illiterate.
Give us more money and we'll try to fix that.
You're spending too much money and not showing any academic improvement.
Give us more money and we'll try to fix that.
You're still not teaching kids to read, write, calculate, and they're still getting diplomas they can't even read.
It's not our fault. It's the parents. We can't make up for bad parenting.
Then why are we giving YOU more money?
Because somebody has to help these children with bad parents, and so you need to give us more money so we can fix that.


A Few of our previous posts on this sad and depressing topic:


State of Education
Question about Public Education

Can Public Schools Compensate for Poor Parenting?

Multiple Choices

Defrauded Students:

We allegedly have public schools in the first place precisely because of those parents. The public school advocates insist that we must have public schools in order to help those children whose parents will not or cannot meet their educational responsibilities. You cannot insist on the one hand that you need public funding in order to fix a problem that you then claim is not your responsibility and cannot be fixed. Bad parenting can either be overcome by good schooling, or it cannot. If it cannot, why do we continue to fund it?

HOmeschoolers are the real education reformers:

But if something already isn't working, why would you want more of it?

Corporate reformers, says Beato, essentially just want to homogenize education. Homeschoolers tend to be more successful than their public educated counterparts, and one reason just might be that "Homeschooling... is essentially an attempt to diversify education."

A Tale of Two Students:

We end up using the exact same reason both to justify the existence of federally funded public education and to absolve it of all its failures.

Excellent New York Post Article on the CPSIA

Fabulous. Jeff Stier 'gets' it:

In the name of safety, the law imposes absurd standards and insane testing requirements. These aren't based on science, but on political hysteria - and they're a major burden on business. In this recession, they could close down countless companies whose products are perfectly safe.

One example: The law not only requires testing of components of children's clothing for tiny levels of lead, but also separate testing of each different style of clothes, even if made from the same materials.

What's worse, the Consumer Product Safety Commission interprets the law to apply to kid's clothing retroactively. So products already en route to stores - even if they contain no lead - will be illegal to sell after Feb. 10 if they haven't been tested.

Wal-Mart is telling its suppliers that everything it has in stock that hasn't already been tested must be out of stores by Feb. 1 - even if that means sending the stuff back to suppliers.

This is creating chaos for everyone involved in making and selling children's items. Unless Congress acts now, tens of millions of dollars worth of safe children's clothing will be destroyed - and that's from New York City clothing makers alone.

Dozens of small, family-owned New York businesses, already struggling, will shut down and/or lay off their workers. The city could lose a quarter to a half of its 8,000 garment-industry jobs within weeks. Cory Silverstein of Kids Headquarters on 34th Street fears he may have to lay off close to 100 of his 600 employees in the city.

He also recognizes that the law cannot just be 'tweaked,' Congress, and Congress alone, must act to FIX their own mess.

How I Long for a 'Do-Nothing Congress'

Doing nothing, just letting things take their natural course, is probably one of the hardest things in the world for people to do. Sometimes intervention is necessary, of course. But other times the best thing is the world is to simply observe, allowing nature, the free market, human nature, individuals, to act on their own. It's hard as a parent to let children make their own mistakes, but sometimes the harm you cause by intervening is much greater than the harm from their errors. It's hard for politicians to believe that they don't have to make a law to address every problem in the world, and that often, as we have seen with the CPSIA issue, their laws cause 'unintended consequences' that are much worse and more complicated than the original problem.

Unintended consequences are not just a CPSIA issue, they are endemic to any system where 'experts' feel like they just have to stick their fingers in a process to 'help' it. In the medical field these unintended consequences have a fancy term- iatrogenic- which means 'doctor caused.' You see this term used for a lot of complications and unfortunate results in obstetrics. The authors of Silent Knife opine that one reason is that doctors, having spent hundreds of thousands of dollar on their education and having million dollar equipment available to use simply cannot avoid the temptation to intervene and use those things, hindering what is generally a natural process.

This still makes them feel better, however, because now they are no longer in a 'sit and wait' mode, which makes them feel useless. They caused problem A by intervening unnecessarily, but they know what to do about A. That intervention causes B, but that's okay, because they are trained to deal with B. What they are not trained to do is simply observe while nature takes its course, unhindered and unaided by their expertise.

We have this iatrogenic effect in public schools, too-

The Acting Dean of the University of Texas at Austin was interviewed by the author of
Ed-School Follies. The dean averred that teaching is a form of social work and admitted when asked that

"...the necessity of affecting social change sometimes impedes learning."
"But," she continued, "it has to happen then; you can't not use the schools as the agencies of social change. It's too convenient."

(emphasis mine)

This urgent desire to meddle and tinker with things, to interfere, intervene, and interrupt seems to be an inborn drive in most politicians, as evidenced by this post from FEE (Please note the similarity between the Rahm Emmanuel quote and that of the social engineer practicing on our children in the above quote):

Congress Seeks to Revamp Welfare State
“The stimulus bill working its way through Congress is not just a package of spending increases and tax cuts intended to jolt the nation out of recession. For Democrats, it is also a tool for rewriting the social contract with the poor, the uninsured and the unemployed, in ways they have long yearned to do. With little notice and no public hearings, House Democrats would create a temporary new entitlement allowing workers getting unemployment checks to qualify for Medicaid, the health program for low-income people. Spouses and children could also receive benefits, no matter how much money the family had.” (New York Times, Wednesday)

But…

“some Democrats on Capitol Hill and other administration supporters are voicing a … critique … that the plan may fall short in its broader goal of transforming the American economy over the long term.” (Washington Post, Wednesday)

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” –Rahm Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff

FEE Timely Classic
“Why the Welfare State Is Immoral” by Tibor R. Machan

It's time for Congress to pass on that 'opportunity to do things they thought they could not do before.' Go ahead and let that serious crisis go to waste. Please.

CPSIA Blog-In

Whooops= Credit where credit is due update: The Blog-in was not my idea (unfortunately)- and I only just realized that several sources are crediting me. No, no- that credit belongs to ChichiBoulie, or Gretchen, at the very cute Chiboulie Blog.
She did a great job planning, organizing, and cheerleading others into blogging, and she's such a team-player and encourager that she never even said a word to me about other people crediting me for her project. Here's her introductory post to the blog-in. Thanks, Gretchen- I think your project was a big success!


Joining in the blog-in? Scroll down and add your link to the Mr. Linky Widget below!!




A number of bloggers are specifically addressing the CPSIA today in the hopes of generating some attention and making the public more aware of what's going on and what is at stake.

I thought I'd share an email I received recently when I asked for more information on the science behind the lead and phthalates ban- how were these levels reached, is there good science behind them- that sort of thing. Wacky Hermit at the Organic Baby Farm kindly explained:

Lead begins to have toxic effects at somewhere around 10 ug/dl (that u is supposed to be a mu but I don't have a mu key). This is a blood level that somewhere around 1.2% of children nationally have/exceed in 2006; this is down from 7.6% in 1997.
Stats

Absorption is key. Lead cannot be absorbed by touching; it must be ingested, breathed as dust, or enter through cuts.
Most lead exposure is through lead in house paint. Other sources are toys, home remedies, candy from Mexico, water that comes through lead pipes, and playing in contaminated soil.

CDC Data


As far as I know there is no direct correlation between lead levels in product and lead levels in blood. It all depends on how much is ingested/absorbed. If your child eats food cooked in a lead pot it's different than if your child just bangs on the pot, even though it's the same pot. Likewise 8 year old girls are at no risk from a dot of lead paint in the eye of a Barbie or a bit of lead in a paper clip. They could lick the Barbie or the paper clip with no adverse affects, at least from lead poisoning. However a small child did die from ingesting a lead charm.


To find cases of recalls linked to lead, go here and select "Lead" as the hazard. I searched through them and found only one that was not either lead paint or jewelry, and it was a screen print (another potential hazard identified by The Smart Mama).


With actual lead exposure on the decline, and with it pretty dang clear where the danger comes from (lead paint and jewelry), you'd think that the government wouldn't take drastic action, but there you go again with that "think" word! The media frenzy over a few recalls of toys with lead paint prompted Congress to "Do Something For The Children". To be fair, they really did need to set a standard for lead in jewelry and enforce the existing lead paint laws. So there was an actual hazard that needed a law. They just swatted that fly with a shotgun blast.


So, phthalates.

CDC factsheet with links.

Phthalates are plastic softening agents that are found in a lot of medical devices as well as bibs, teething toys, and other soft plastic or plasticized items, and in makeup.
More here
And here.

CPSIA, however, does not cover medical devices or cosmetics (these are under FDA jurisdiction and therefore exempt).


The anti-phthalate faction cites studies showing effects on reproductive systems in rats, and levels of phthalates found in humans. However, there just isn't any research showing that they are harmful in humans. Still, they support pre-emptive banning.

The pro-phthalate faction points out that absence of evidence of safety is not proof of harm and that if phthalates were causing actual harm, we'd see people who have been harmed by phthalates. The fact that nobody can point them out (like they can with lead) shows that logically, it makes no sense to ban phthalates. These people are promptly ignored on the grounds that they're using, like, logic and stuff when they should be caring about The Children.

My read on it is that somebody found out there's scary sounding chemicals in stuff, so she pulled on her faux-leather cruelty-free jacket, put on her makeup, flew off to Washington in her private jet, persuaded her Senator to ban scary sounding chemical stuff Just In Case For The Children, then took a long celebratory pull from her bottled water on the flight home. That, or some people are looking for a scapegoat to explain their small [whoops! Edited for a family blog]. :)

Hope this helps!

I confess I am one who has tried several times to get rid of all plastic toys (there is an evil conspiracy and they come back), who switched to drinking from jars because they weren't plastic (and were free), and who won't eat American cheese because it's wrapped in plastic- and I thought this was hilarious.

For my part, I think it is immensely interesting that our government delayed the switchover for digital television- even though this has been widely publicized for ages, the government offered free coupons to help pay for the upgrade, and it affects few livelihoods.

Meanwhile, the CPSIA is railroaded through, few people know about it, no clear answers have been forthcoming about how to comply or where, or what exemptions can be made- and yet it's moving forward with the relentless push of a bull-dozer with no brakes.

Unable to get useful answers from Congress before the February 10th deadline, this business closes its doors.

The Washington Post has an interview with Julie Vallese, formerly with the CPSC:

In terms of small business as a group, the agency under this law doesn’t have the authority to address the group but possibly product categories that may affect them. Congress on the other hand could much more easily affect the issue of small business as a group than the CPSC.

Has the CPSC asked Congress to do that?

Congress is very well aware of this consequence of the law that it passed, and whether or not it addresses the issue of small business is up to them.

Don't let Congress tell you otherwise. Contact them, do not let them fob you off on Nord, who is already grossly overworked. Congress can make substantive changes to the law. Herny Waxman needs to call that Committee meeting and issue exemptions andtechnical amendments- or scrap it all and start from scratch.
here's a CPSIA Action kit and puppet.

A Do It Yourself press release for alerting the media in your town about the CPSIA

Rick Woldenberg advises:

Write your Congressman and DEMAND that they reach out IN WRITING to Reps. Waxman and Rush, and Senators Pryor and Rockefeller, with cc's to Reps. Barton, Radanovich and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, to request urgent hearings on the serious issues raised about the CPSIA and further, to implement an immediate stay of enforcement of the law for at least six months after final implementing rules are promulgated by the CPSC. By hitting the "pause button", Congress will allow for an orderly process to consider the issues on the bill and to define the appropriate corrective action after due public debate. They need to hear from you - on the record.

The CPSC is accepting comments, indeed, soliciting them, on component testing until January 30th

EMAIL THE CPSIA - Sec102ComponentPartsTesting@cpsc.gov

Cate at Nature's Child says:

The CPSC offers a few ways for you to get your points to them. Title these comments "Section 102 Mandatory Third-Party Testing of Component Parts"

Email them at Sec102ComponentPartsTesting@cpsc.gov

Fax the Facts: (301) 504-0127

Snail mail is not just for holiday cards...really!
Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission
Room 502
4330 East-West Highway
Bethesda, Maryland 20814

This post- excellent. collection of contact info: a list of all the Senate member's phone numbers and websites on the Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee

Lawrence H. Summers is the Director of the National Economic Council
and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and his office is in daily contact with the Prez.

You can call the White House at

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
And plead that Obama's new Commission members will be firendlier to small businesses than special interest groups.

Contact the Dept Commerce Business Liaison and complain about CPSIA businessliaison@doc.gov 202-482-1360

Voicemail number for Waxman/House Commerce Committee 202-225-4434- Personally, I hate making phone calls. One suggestion- write out what you want to say, and then just read it.

Update: I'm told this is a new Senate number for CPSIA calls: 202-224-5115

If you call other numbers and talk to real humans, DON'T let them tell you he has this very helpful letter up on his website addressing your concerns so it's all better now. Piffle and horsefeathers. It's the same old thing discussed before. Waxman is fobbing you off with meaningless gestures.


Contact the national ombudsman and file a complaint.

Contact Waxman- you can't email him if you're not a consituent. So email your own reps and include an email to Waxman. Ask them to pass it on to him, since whether you can vote for him or not, the decisions he's made are going to alter what you can buy, where you can buy it, how much it costs, what you can make, sell, or trade- and read.

Here's a list of the members on the Committee of Energy and Commerce:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Commerce_Committee#Members.2C_111th_Congress

Why Waxman and not Nord.

How this bill turns us into a nation of informants

A New Favorite Song Around The Common Room

The video is a little, um, macabre in a way I think is both quirky and cool. The tune is very catchy, and I'm really enjoying listing to my 12 year old sing it:

Waxman Puppet

Craftivism- where Etsy shines- here's a CPSIA Action kit and puppet. The puppet is hilarious.

A Random Photo

Took this picture last weekend. It's an aisle marker in an auditorium, in case you couldn't tell. I chose the Q because it was the oddest letter (and because it was the one closest to me at the time).

As Unhappy As I Am With Obama's Policies....

I remain delighted that I did not vote for McCain. The Clinton Foundation should stop accepting all Foreign Contributions while Hilary Clinton is Secretary of State. Hilary thinks that's unfair, and McCain agrees, not missing an opportunity to rebuke those who disagree with him while misrepresenting the point:

This isn't a partisan issue; Americans of all political stripes ought to be a little uncomfortable with foreign governments being able to donate millions to the household of the person who is in charge of negotiating with them. (If Bush had named Henry Kissinger to a diplomatic post, wouldn't our liberal friends object to foreign governments being able to hire his firm? Wasn't this what kept him off the 9/11 Commission?) No Republican was saying Hillary can't be Secretary of State; they're just saying her husband shouldn't collect checks from foreign sources while she's doing that.

But John McCain thinks that's being too partisan.

You know the thing that disappointed me most about Palin? That she was willing to run on his ticket.

Government Created Jobs

William Shughart at the Washington Times:

The truth is: It is not government's function to create jobs. Putting people to work is easy, as demonstrated by Franklin D. Roosevelt's Depression-era Works Progress Administration (WPA), more accurately known as "WPA: We Piddle Around." The bigger challenge is to create wealth. Toyota failed to foresee the economic events that caused its expansion plans to unravel.

Keep this in mind when Congress and the White House are selecting economic stimulus projects to fund this year.

If highly successful private firms like Toyota - with their extraordinary market research and years of savvy and experience - sometimes embark on projects that turn sour, how can we expect politicians, most of whom have no such business know-how, to pick winners?

There is a difference, however. Companies usually risk their own money. In Washington, the politicians will be risking ours.

Here's what baffles me. When Companies risk their own money, that's greedy. When politicians risk our money, that's noble, service-oriented, and compassionate. That makes absolutely no sense to me.

For the Common Place Book

It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood: if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known and less fixed.

Another effect of public instability, is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the monied few, over the industrious and uninformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any manner affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said, with some truth, that laws are made for the few, not for the many.

James Madison

CPSIA Letter to Waxman

I really like this letter. Here's one part of it:

I have read your letter to the CPSC, and your office’s and your committee office’s public statements to the effect that we shouldn’t worry about the enforcement of the law because we are unlikely to be shut down by an overtaxed CPSC. One thing that has heartened me during this entire ordeal is that so many of my fellow business owners respect the rule of law so much that they would voluntarily quit their businesses rather than flout a law, even an unenforced law. The rule of law is an ancient tradition, one from which you and the rest of Congress derive their power. Passing a law that you fully intend to not be enforced is a travesty. It is a slap in the face of the history of progress in government, from Hammurabi’s Code to the Magna Carta to even our own Constitution. You should be grateful that our people still respect the law that you spit upon, for it is by that law that you have any power to put your boot on our necks at all. I urge you to consider that as you decide what to do about CPSIA.

You can contact Waxman via Fax- Faxzero.com sends 2 free faxes a day, up to three pages for you.

Former Chief Economist for the CPSC Paul Rubin has some valuable insights. He says scrap the bill in this article at Forbes. He points out that actual risks of lead in products for children was very, very small. There were a lot of headline grabbing recall stories, but that was the point- companies caught the problems, recalled their products, notified the CPSC, instituted stricter internal procedures for testing- and this sweeping law while put out of business thousands of micro-businesses and remove thousands of safe products from shelves just because testing isn't feasible given the price and the number of tests the bill requires, all were to address the issue that 1 percent of the nation's children have been exposed to lead in dangerous levels- NEARLY all of whom reached that exposure not through their toys, but through old housing.

What's worse, the CPSC pays little if any attention to cost-benefit analysis. When I worked there, I attempted to institute a formal process for such analysis, but I was blocked by a congressional prohibition. Since then, there has been no effort to resurrect such a program.

That's why contacting Congress and not letting them fob you off with directions to bother the Commission and Nancy Nord is important.

A mentality focused on engineering and health sciences, one that is concerned with the question of whether some product could be harmful, drives the agency. Less attention is paid to evidence about whether or not a product has actually been harmful, and even less to whether or not it pays to correct the harm.

Over-regulation kills the economy.

Poverty Guidelines and Health Insurance

2009 Poverty Guidelines for the 48 Contiguous States and the District of
Columbia
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Poverty
Persons in family guideline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................................... $10,830
2.......................................................... 14,570
3.......................................................... 18,310
4.......................................................... 22,050
5.......................................................... 25,790
6.......................................................... 29,530
7.......................................................... 33,270
8.......................................................... 37,010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additional
person.

Source.

but there's more:

Due to confusing legislative language dating back to 1972, the
poverty guidelines have sometimes been mistakenly referred to as the
``OMB'' (Office of Management and Budget) poverty guidelines or poverty
line. In fact, OMB has never issued the guidelines; the guidelines are
issued each year by the Department of Health and Human Services. The
poverty guidelines may be formally referenced as ``the poverty
guidelines updated periodically in the Federal Register by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of 42
U.S.C. 9902(2).''
Some programs use a percentage multiple of the guidelines (for
example, 125 percent or 185 percent of the guidelines), as noted in
relevant authorizing legislation or program regulations. Non-Federal
organizations that use the poverty guidelines under their own authority
in non-Federally-funded activities can choose to use a percentage
multiple of the guidelines such as 125 percent or 185 percent.
The poverty guidelines do not make a distinction between farm and
non-farm families, or between aged and non-aged units. (Only the Census
Bureau poverty thresholds have separate figures for aged and non-aged
one-person and two-person units.)
Note that this notice does not provide definitions of such terms as
``income'' or ``family.'' This is because there is considerable
variation in how different programs that use the guidelines define
these terms, traceable to the different laws and regulations that
govern the various programs. Therefore, questions about how a
particular program applies the poverty guidelines (for example, Is
income before or after taxes? Should a particular type of income be
counted? Should a particular person be counted in the family or
household unit?) should be directed to the organization that
administers the program; that organization has the responsibility for
making decisions about definitions of such terms as ``income'' or
``family'' (to the extent that the definition is not already contained
in legislation or regulations).

From The Campaign Spot:

...the House of Representatives has passed legislation allowing states to offer government-funded health insurance to children who live in families that have incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level. The Senate is expected to pass this legislation, and President Obama is expected to sign it.

...
This means that a family of four with an annual income of $88,200 can receive S-CHIP benefits. A family of five can have a six-figure household income—$103,160—and still qualify for this program originally designed to help the poor.

CPSIA Updates

Rick Woldenberg highlights a couple letters to the editor in response to the WSJ article on Pelosi and the CPSIA:

Now comes the silly part. The prior law was based on toxicology (how much lead can be extracted from the children's product through use or abuse). The new law only considers total lead in the product. And the maximum allowable lead content starts at a very low level, and keeps getting smaller in future years. Many metals, metal alloys, and a wide range of other materials are perfectly safe and comply with the earlier law, but will become "banned hazardous materials" on February 10.

The new legislation covers "all products designed for children under 12 years old." The crowning glory is that all children's products now need to be tested for lead content. By the way, did you catch that this means all children's products in existence on February 10, not just children's products manufactured after that date?

There's another from a small D.C. business that says testing compliance costs will be triple their revenue.

I like this letter as well:

“’This law passed because our product safety net was broken,’ said Rachel Weintraub, senior counsel for the Consumer Federation of America, a nonprofit organization based in Washington. ‘The answer is not to reopen the bill.’” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aDLzWS6FBwRo&refer=home. Under this world view, no criticism of the CPSIA can justify its reconsideration – the end justifies the means regardless of what the consequence of those means might be.

As we in the Children’s Products industry suffer severe economic hardship and face the prospect of a law that cannot be complied with, we beg Congress “almost on [our] knees” for revised, rational rules focused on real safety issues. A laundry list of imaginary safety issues, like dangerous cotton t-shirts, edible library books or lead-infused shoe soles, are just too expensive to eliminate in a pinched economy. We are good citizens, the same as the consumer advocates, and are just as committed to safety. However, the economic policy advocated by the consumer groups as embodied in the CPSIA will not work – and if not arrested quickly, will do lasting damage that will not be easily repaired.

Watch the presentations to the CPSC from the apparel industry. I've not watched, but my understanding from those who have is that they are boring, but demonstrate the big industries have done some heavy lifting for the rest of us, paid for testing and revealed that fabric and yarn is lead-free.

The Motorcycle industry and the CPSIA

A Do It Yourself press release for alerting the media in your town about the CPSIA

A particularly well-done news story on the CPSIA and a small hat maker who is going out of business.
Walmart reports that they've tested a number of fabrics and materials and they are all lead-free. This would be useful information to pass on to the CPSC and Congress (although they already know this)- You can say, "If Walmart tested all their fabric and yarns and textiles and found them lead-free, why do I have to retest the items I buy from Walmart when I sew them into something else and sell them again?"

Same with Coats and Clarke and the Craft Yarn Counsel.

This data was presented to the Commission in December, and within the document it says that Henry Poole made a presentation in May 2008 about the fact that textiles contain either no lead at all or trace amounts well below the allowable limits. Yet Congress drafted up and passed this legislation anyway.

Because the CPSC isn't busy enough, Congress wants them to regulate cell phone cameras- they want it it to be illegal for the cameras to have silent picture taking capability.


Rick Woldenberg at Learning Resources is excellent again:

d. The Waxman and Rush House Committees have refused to call hearings on the CPSIA. Their proposed hearings in December were suddenly cancelled and no further hearings have been scheduled, despite the calls of Reps. Barton and Radanovich, the ranking Republican members of those committees. One reason to not have hearings is to keep me, and to keep you, off the record. If there are hearings, they will be taped and put up on the web for all to see. Snippets can go up on YouTube. That might be . . . embarrassing for some people associated with the law. People who testify can put written testimony in the public record without their having any ability to review it or change it. Remember that little thing called Freedom of Speech? The written testimony, which the committee must post online, will be an invitation for a suddenly interested Media to ask questions. No one wants that! The only way to keep the mischief makers out of the record is to have no record at all.

[...]

Write your Congressman and DEMAND that they reach out IN WRITING to Reps. Waxman and Rush, and Senators Pryor and Rockefeller, with cc's to Reps. Barton, Radanovich and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, to request urgent hearings on the serious issues raised about the CPSIA and further, to implement an immediate stay of enforcement of the law for at least six months after final implementing rules are promulgated by the CPSC. By hitting the "pause button", Congress will allow for an orderly process to consider the issues on the bill and to define the appropriate corrective action after due public debate. They need to hear from you - on the record.

Ignorance of the Law Remains Unavoidable

Yes, we've posted this political cartoon from Grandpa's Scrapbook before, but I think it bears repeating.


Click on the picture to enlarge.
A man with a ball and chain is bowed down in front of skyscraper of paper stacks, nearby stand two stone tablets. The cartoon caption is "The Laws of Moses and the Laws of Today.

Beneath the cartoon it reads, "In 1925 state legislatures enacted 10,800 new laws. St. Louis Post-Dispatch Cartoonist D. R. Fitzpatrick won the [Pulitzer] prize by depicting a poor citizen bowing before stacks of new laws."

When I first posted this cartoon I wondered how many laws we had on the books today. I read the answer to that question, or at least a partial answer, a while back while reading Helen Smith's blog . There I learned:

"America started out with three federal laws--treason, counterfeiting and piracy. In 1998, the American Bar Association counted more than 3,300 separate federal criminal offenses on the books--more than 40 percent of which had been enacted in just the past 30 years..."

Helen was reviewing David Harsanyi's Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and other Boneheaded Bureaucrats are Turning America into a Nation of Children, which sounds like a ripping good read, actually. And the quote about the federal laws comes from the Heritage Foundation's vice president Rebecca Hagelin.
In 2005, just seven years later, The Independence Institute reported that there were over 4,000 federal crimes outlined in 27,000 pages plus of the U.S Code.

The Bill providing for the funding of the Bailout is over 1500 pages long. The CPSIA is some 69 pages long, and the Congressional members who passed it are not in agreement on what it says.

Philip K. Howard writes:

Freedom has a formal structure. It has two components:

1) Law sets boundaries that proscribe what we must do or can't do -- you must not steal, you must pay taxes.

2) Those same legal boundaries protect an open field of free choice in all other matters.

The forgotten idea is the second component -- that law must affirmatively define an area free from legal interference. Law must provide "frontiers, not artificially drawn," as philosopher Isaiah Berlin put it, "within which men should be inviolable."

This idea has been lost to our age. When advancing the cause of freedom, law today is all proscription and no protection. There are no boundaries, just a moving mudbank comprised of accumulating bureaucracy and whatever claims people unilaterally choose to assert. People wade through law all day long. Any disagreement in the workplace, any accident, any incidental touching of a child, any sick person who gets sicker, any bad grade in school -- you name it. Law has poured into daily life.

James Madison must have been prescient when he wrote:

It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read.

Ignorance of the law is supposed to be no excuse for breaking the law, but that's only reasonable in a society where the average person can keep track of the legal code. In a society where petty dictators micro-manage every facet of our lives through legislation, this requirement is only one more way to tyrannize the masses. Nobody could know all the laws. It's impossible.

Another LOTR excerpt.

Standing there for a moment filled with dread Frodo became aware that a light was shining; he saw it glowing on Sam's face beside him. Turning towards it, he saw, beyond an arch of boughs, the road to Osgiliath running almost as straight as a stretched ribbon down, down, into the west. There, far away, beyond sad Gondor now overwhelmed in shade, the Sun was sinking, finding at last the hem of the great slow-rolling pall of cloud, and falling in an ominous fire towards the yet unsullied Sea. The brief glow fell upon a huge sitting figure, still and solemn as the great stone kings of Argonath. The years had gnawed it, and violent hands had maimed it. Its head was gone, and in its place was set in mockery a round rough-hewn stone, rudely painted by savage hands in the likeness of a grinning face with one large red eye in the midst of its forhead. Upon its knees and mighty chair, and all about the pedestal, were idle scrawls mixed with the foul symbols that the maggot-folk of Mordor used.
Suddenly, caught by the level beams, Frodo saw the old king's head: it was lying rolled away by the roadside. 'Look, Sam!' he cried, startled into speech. 'Look! The king has got a crown again!'
The eyes were hollow and the carven beard was broken, but about the high stern forehead there was a coronal of silver and gold. A trailing plant with flowers like small white stars had bound itself across the brows as if in reverence for the fallen king, and in the crevices of his stony hair yellow stonecrop gleamed.
'They cannot conquer for ever!' said Frodo. And then suddenly the brief glimpse was gone. The sun dipped and vanished, and as if the shuttering of a lamp, black night fell.

The Two Towers, by J. R. R. Tolkien

This is one of my absolute favorite parts in the whole series. I'm not quite sure why, but when I first read the books, this was the part that stuck with me the most. Some days I like to go back and just reread this section, although I usually have a hard time finding it again. That should be easier since I've got it underlined in red in my copies now.

Baseball in the Japanese Internment Camps

I stumbled across this older article while looking up something utterly unrelated, but I thought it was pretty interesting (and I don't even like sports). Maybe you will, too.

The Bail-out, I'm Basically Speechless

Fortunately, the folks at the Corner are not. You could just bookmark it and keep reading. But this post from Peter Robinson is a useful place to start:

If you'd like to know just how much Ben Bernanke has expanded the money supply during the last few months, just take a look at this chart on the website of the St. Louis Fed. I'm not at all certain that there are any adjectives that do the event justice, but "astounding," "flabbergasting," and "utterly astonishing" come close.

Note, incidentally, the tiny little wiggle at the year 2000. That represents the Y2K monetary expansion, judged huge at the time. There are plenty of people who would argue that the Fed's efforts to shrink the money supply afterwards—that is, Greenspan's mopping up operation—burst the high-tech bubble, causing the last downturn. How will the Fed mop up after this expansion?

Or this one (not from the Corner, but linked there) about Galbraithian economics.

Or Ed Morrissey at HotAir:

My friend Rob Neppell at Truth Laid Bear and Kithbridge has literally made a career out of building on-line tools to break down barriers between people and organizations, and he’s done it once again with Read the Stimulus. Rob has transformed the 1,588 pages of legislation and committee reports into a searchable website designed to shine a light on the Congressional porkfest. What had once been an inaccessible and forbidding mountain as daunting as Everest now becomes accessible to those motivated to find the pork, waste, and outright fraud in them thar hills.

Let’s see what an Army of Davids can do. Get your search fingers warmed up and see what ridiculous items you can find in this bloated attempt at nationalization. Put the links and descriptions (I’ll need both) in the comments section, or e-mail them to me at stimulus-at-notonedimemore-dot-org so that we can start displaying them here at Hot Air. John McCain said that he wanted to make people famous for their pork and political aggrandizement, and maybe we can still do that.

There's a hilarious, but Constitutionally inappropriate, clause mentioning Blagojevech on page 14. Click through to read it.

As for the bill- it's 1500 pages. Who wrote it? When? Which of our elected representatives has actually read the entire monstrosity?

CPSC Asking for Public Comments

The CPSC is accepting comments, indeed, soliciting them, on component testing until January 30th. Here are the questions they would like the public to answer:

* How the risk of introducing non-compliant product into the marketplace would be affected by permitting third-party testing of the component parts of a consumer product versus third-party testing of the finished consumer product.
* The conditions and/or circumstances, if any, that should be considered in allowing third-party testing of component parts.
* The conditions, if any, under which supplier third-party testing of raw materials or components should be acceptable.
* Assuming all component parts are compliant, what manufacturing processes and/or environmental conditions might introduce factors that would increase the risk of allowing non-compliant consumer products into the marketplace.
* Whether and how the use and control of subcontractors would be affected by allowing the third-party testing of component parts.
* What changes in inventory control methods, if any, should be required if third-party testing of component parts were permitted. Address receipt, storage and quality control of incoming materials, management and control of work-in-process, non-conforming material control, control of rework, inventory rotation, and overall identification and control of materials.
* How a manufacturer would manage lot-to-lot variation of component parts, in a third-party testing of component parts regime, to ensure finished consumer products are compliant.
* Whether consideration of third-party testing of component parts should be given for any particular industry groups or particular component parts and materials. Explain what it is about these industries, component parts, and/or materials that make them uniquely suited to this approach.

PDF file from the CPSC with further information.


Liliputians NYC blog link deleted, as I have learned she 'borrowed' without permission from a work in process, and did not properly attribute the authors.

EMAIL THE CPSIA - Sec102ComponentPartsTesting@cpsc.gov

Cate at Nature's Child says:

The CPSC offers a few ways for you to get your points to them. Title these comments "Section 102 Mandatory Third-Party Testing of Component Parts"

Email them at Sec102ComponentPartsTesting@cpsc.gov

Fax the Facts: (301) 504-0127

Snail mail is not just for holiday cards...really!
Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission
Room 502
4330 East-West Highway
Bethesda, Maryland 20814

It's probably a bit late for snail mail, now.

You can answer as a consumer, a member of the public who has no connection to a toy making business. I will suggest that they are not going to be much interested in the fact that you are a single mother of six adopted children who depends on your toymaking to support those children. They don't care that you learned your craft at
Grandma's knee and it means a lot to you. It doesn't matter whether or not you will have to go on food stamps if this law passes. They want answers and suggestions relating to the above questions.

If you write them and would care to share your responses, I would love to see them.

Here's another list of possible answers:
(7) Heather Flottmann says... something also deleted as I have learned she 'borrowed' without permission from a incomplete, not read for publication work in process, and did not properly attribute the authors.


Heavy, heavy, sigh.

An Interested Sort of Sequel to the Gender Roles Post

Because everyone's comments were most interesting and brought to light a couple more thoughts and a bit of bewilderment.

The Equuschick was especially amused by the comment about the power drill as it reminded The Equuschick of a particular conversation with Shasta.

After The Equuschick's wall calendar fell off its thumbtack once or twice, Shasta got fed up with it and screwed it into the wall like a fixture. (Yes, with his power drill.)

This an efficient plan that works brilliantly for about thirty days, give or take, and then instead of the second or two that it takes to flip the calendar page and stick a tack back in, the power-drill must be brought out and the screw taken out and put back in. It really isn't that much of a hassle, but it strikes The Equuschick as rather funny.

And if The Equuschick was inclined to the idea that only men were allowed to use the power drill she would furthermore have to wait on Shasta to unscrew her wall calendar for her at the end of the month, but there is a point (and that is essentially the point of The Equuschick's posts) at which these quibbelings become ridiculous. Why would she wait on Shasta for such a silly thing? Shasta teased her about it, asking if she was disappointed to do have to do that or if she had only married him so she could have a man to use a power drill on her calendar for her. She logically pointed out that if she she had not married him, her wall calendar would not have been screwed to the wall like a picture or a light fixture in the first place and his point was therefore moot. (He laughed and took this with a very good grace.)


But all humour aside, that is the crux of the issue. When a woman waits on a man to do _____ or _________ for her and when she is perfectly capable of doing _____________ or _____________ herself, she isn't waiting out of a sense of her Godly place but rather out of a sense of misplaced entitlement. The question ceases to be, "What needs to be done for the good of the household?" but rather "Who should do it? It certainly shouldn't be me."


A moment now before anything else for The Equuschick to satisfy her conscience by reminding her readers that The Equuschick is barely 24 and has been married not even four months. She isn't trying then, to speak out of a wide range of experience and superior wisdom. She's only sharing what she thinks of life and human nature in general and she could be quite wrong.

Moreover, even when right she is just like the rest of the world in her inability to live up to her own expectations. So keep in mind that this post is written by a girl who got up barely before 11 am, and is therefore perhaps even more human than most of you.

But her own expectations are these-That marriage, as instituted by God, is to be a joint and equal (as far as respect and abilities) sacred and irrevocable partnership of two intelligent and capable adults, one of them subordinate to the other, just as in the workforce it is generally recognized as wisdom that there should be no two people in the exact same position. That God has commanded the woman to be subordinate to the man in the marriage relationship, and why, is another post in and of itself. But for now, suffice it to say that this is so. These two mature adults are a team, and having a team captain has never undermined the unity of a team in and of itself. In fact, in all other relationships this is called wisdom, and it is only in the relationship of marriage that it is called "servitude."

This team serves a common goal and a common purpose. They serve the same God, they live in the same household and thus serve the good of the household together.

Or at any rate, this is the ideal. But ideals are called "Ideals" precisely because they rarely have anything to do with reality.

Once again, The Equuschick applies to the workforce analogy. The Equuschick remembers well the one most particular and aggravating coworker at the shelter. "Ideally", they all ought to have been a team. Ideally, there were things this woman should have been doing for the good of the shelter but in reality these were things she never did. In at least one way is the workforce analogy different, and that is in that by all rights, this woman should have been fired. But it became clear very quickly that would never happen.

When The Equuschick came to terms with that, she began to invest some wasted energy in changing the coworker. Making her do what she needed to do, by golly, because The Equuschick sure shouldn't have to pick up the slack.

But you can guess what happened. The situation stayed the same and the animals suffered. And when The Equuschick at last came to terms with the fact that this was a woman who would not change, she stopped the "Who Should Do What" question.

Because it was the wrong question. The right question was "What needs to be done for the good of the shelter and am I in a position to do it?" There were some things she was incapable of it. This hurt, but she let it go. There were some things she was more capable of in the animal control department than was the woman herself but as the woman carried more authority in that department, The Equuschick was not in a position to do these things. That was a bit annoying, but truth be told it was much better that way. When things went wrong they went wrong with this woman's name on them, and not The Equuschick's. And yet still there were many things that needed to be done for the good of the shelter that The Equuschick was more than capable of, and had the authority for. So she did them, and the shelter prospered more than it had in years.

And this applies to every human relationship under the sun, including marriage. The "Who Should Do What?" question before marriage is a very good one to ask indeed, because expectations are a part of life. (Perhaps they wouldn't be as difficult if we all went through life with the expectation that *we* will do whatever we are able to do.)

But after marriage there comes a point to which it isn't a very valuable question any more, it is a mere quibble in light of what needs to be done and isn't, because we're too busy asking "Who?"

There may be many things that someone should be doing and isn't it, you may be very right about that. You may be doing everything, but as long as you are capable and you have the authority to do what needs to be done, then simply doing what needs to be done is a wiser expenditure of energy than fighting over Who.

Lest you suspect Shasta, The Equuschick must admit that she has dealt with picking up the slack much more in the workforce than she has in marriage. Shasta has done the dishes, scrubbed the bathroom, swept and mopped the floors,and the other day he helped make cookies. (And SmockityFrocks, you will be pleased to know that he wore your apron!)

But something tells The Equuschick that things could have been very differently but for the grace of God. Shasta is a peculiar blend of a man whose father was a miserable role model and a man who, by faults of his own he's long admitted, spent many years in the company of the wrong kinds of women and was very badly burned.

She cannot emphasize enough the amount of his cynicism before marriage, and his earlier attitude towards strictly defined roles in marriage. His earlier friends have been shocked and astonished by the amount of what he's done for The Equuschick.

But the thing is, had The Equuschick been raised by different parents, had The Equuschick not learned some very tough lessons both at home and in the workforce, The Equuschick never would have become the kind of person Shasta would have done anything for.

For example, again, the garbage. The Equuschick wishes she could tell you that she took it out based on her superior wisdom and a well-thought out plan, but actually The Equuschick took it out because she was raised by parents who gave her chores to do and she spent five years taking out the garbage at the shelter because if she didn't, no one did. Occasionally she is ashamed to admit that she sometimes waited to see if anyone else would do it, but all that accomplished was making twice as much work for The Equuschick the next day.

And ergo, taking out the garbage when it needed to be taken out became second nature. It never even would have occurred to her to wait until Shasta came home. Doing dishes when they need to be done is simply what her parents trained her to do, and yes, she saw her daddy help, but there was no sense of entitlement. The expectation instilled in The Equuschick from the earliest age was "You contribute." Not because you're the girl. Not because you're the child. Because we're training you to be a responsible adult.

What The Equuschick learned at the shelter was "The only thing that suffers from petty fights about who should do what is the job itself."

And so with marriage. It is all very well to wait for your man to take the initiative. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. But why don't you?

It isn't a question of subservience, of slavitude. It isn't because he deserves it. That's not the point. If it comes to the point, The Equuschick very much doubts Shasta would have contributed to the extent that he has if The Equuschick had waited for him to make the first move. You may sniff and be shocked, and hey, The Equuschick never said he was perfect. But he has many excellent and compensatory qualities, and what she's trying to say is that this not about gender roles or score-keeping. It is about The Mission, if you will.

The point is you too, have a Mission to serve the household. Don't let the job suffer because you feel slighted.

Important CPSIA Contact Info

This post- excellent.

I wanted to put together a list of all the Senate member's phone numbers and websites on the Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee first and then I will post another Blog with all the Representative members on the Commerce Community. From the sources I have talked to in Washington, I believe the most effective point of attack at this point is to contact all the Democrats on these committees first and try to get a least one of them that would be willing to take up our cause, because they are the majority and their Chairman (Representative Henry Waxman (CA) and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (WV) ) decide what will be brought up for discussion at meetings. From talking to a lady at the minority Senate Commerce Committee Office, she said that there is not a lot of interest from the Democrats on the Senate Committee to bring up the CPSIA. We need to make it clear, that they need to be interested! Their names will be hyperlinked to their website, if you need further information. Please contact them by phone if you can at least once a week. This is a fight that we must not give up.

Click through for their names and links. And be sure to read this and this to get some idea of the misinformation and outright lies they've been hearing from the special interest groups that hold their ears. Oh, and this. I like this guy.

Also:


Lawrence H. Summers is the Director of the National Economic Council
and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and his office is in daily contact with the Prez.

You can call the White House at

Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414

President Obama cannot change the law. He can use political suasion to talk Waxman into calling that committee meeting- but Waxman doesn't really answer to him and may not listen.

However, President Obama will be appointing at least three new members to the currently under-staffed two member commission (I don't know if he can or will replace the two currently serving)- so his appointees will be a majority, and I think one of his appointees will be the new head.
So it's VERY important to ask him to consider people who have some understanding of micro-businesses and some sympathy towards them, as well as some knowledge about the way businesses operate, the restrictions they operate under (deadlines, buying dates, testing businesses that won't accept small lots, etc).

I wonder if it would not be even more useful to actually have a couple of names in mind to suggest, but I have no clue about that.

Life Links

Lincoln, slavery, and abortion.

Thanks to Amy, at Amy's Humble Musings, who also shared this thoughtful link:
Being pro-life Christians under a Pro-choice president.

More on Special Interest Groups Behind the CPSIA

I blogged about this several times, probably the most comprehensive post is here.

The Grim Reader is looking into this, too, with a particular interest in an FAQ that major CPSIA culprits Pirg put out.
The GR fisks it well. Here's a sampling:

Question 3
The third question asks them to respond to the HTA claims that small, home-based toy makers cannot afford $4000 testing. They begin their answer to this with a dose of condescension: "Let's not forget common sense." Too bad they forgot common sense when they sat in front of Congress and told them to expand the applicability of the law to all children's goods intended for kids 12 and under, and when they insisted on final unit testing. But then their answer goes off the rails. It makes an appeal once again to the as-yet nonexistent "natural materials exemption", and then compounds this by introducing the claim that you can use tested materials. This is "component testing" and at this time it is not allowed. Many people have argued that it should be, but the PIRG representatives that testified before Congress wanted both component and final product testing.

This answer ends with yet one more expression of their doubt over the cost of testing. Over and over, they have been in the press and cyberspace claiming that the expense of testing has been overstated. It would seem to be a simple matter for them to find a manufacturer, offer to help him in the testing process, and then produce the invoices. They haven't, we have, they are wrong, we are not. Unfortunately.

And now let's look again at Jenny's dolls: Each different color of embroidery floss requires a separate test- that's at least two tests for each doll, and about ten for one of them (the one with the rainbow scarf). Other components that would each require a separate test (for just one doll):
The bead for the head
the pipe-cleaner base for the body (and I am not sure she wouldn't have to have two tests, one of the metal, one for the fuzzy stuff on the pipe-cleaners)
The dots of paint used for the eyes
The other color paint used for the mouth
The other color of paint used for freckles
The fabric for a shirt
the fabric for a pair of pants
the thread used, and if she used different colors for different fabrics, each two inch length of thread would require a separate test.
the yarn for the hair
the fabric for the accessories (a hat, a head-band, a purse)

As this law stands, she has to test each of those things separately, and then test the final product again. If she makes duplicate dolls a thousand times and sells a thousand of those duplicate dolls, she might, eventually, recoup her costs.
But she doesn't make duplicates. Those are one of a kind items. Even if she uses the exact same materials, but 'rearranges them,' using the fabric she used for a hat for one doll for the pants for a different doll, then, under this law, that's a whole new product and it all must begin again.

As I understand it, that's only temporary. In August, XRF testing is no longer allowed. She would have to use wet testing, which destroys the product, making it a practical, reasonable, affordable test ONLY for mass produced items with large runs and equivalent sales. Even fairly large companies are planning to trim their product lines, cutting back on variety and/or eliminating smaller lines that don't sell in high enough volume to justify the costs.

But here's what US Pirg has to say about objections of this nature:
"You greedy, selfish, child-killer. You don't care about how many children you kill, your profits are more important to you."
That may be a paraphrase. With some editorial liberties taken. Actually, I have seen similar arguments around and about, while those who make them never seem to be aware that the whole point of the argument against the bill is that this is punishing people and businesses that have either NEVER harmed a child, or have a very good track record of addressing dangerous products and improving safety measures immediately-without government intervention.

So here's what Pirg actually does say:

Question 4
In the answer to Question 4, they assert "U.S. testing laboratories typically charge about $50 to test for lead." This once again demonstrates their utter lack of knowledge about manufacturing or testing. While the $50 is close (I have seen quotes from $5 to $90), this is only part of the story. As we have explained ad nauseum, if you have a child's onesie with snaps, tag, and decorations (a different type of fabric or ribbon around the neck, arms, legs, etc.), you may have to conduct 5 different tests (fabric, thread, snaps, ribbon, tag). If you furthermore run that same article in 5 different colorways, you cannot use the tests for the snaps on the first unit for subsequent tests. So your bill for a line of onesies in 5 colors may be more on the order of 5 x 5 x 50 = $1250. And we haven't even started talking about surface lead testing or phthalate testing, much less the testing required on special products like children's sleepwear (flammability). And this is a relatively simple item.

So, who is doing the misinforming here?

Please, please, read it all.

And make sure to read the background post, too- he's trying to track down funding issues for US PIRG.

600 Private Jets...

More typical 'do as we say, not as we do' politics:

According to an article in Bloomberg, as many as 600 private jets were expected to touch down in D.C. for the inauguration. The runway at Washington Dulles was closed Saturday to allow as many as 100 small planes to park. And the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority said it expected a total of 500 small jets to land from Jan. 16 through Jan 21.

“That would set a record, topping the 300 the airport accommodated for President George W. Bush’s 2004 inaugural,” an Airports Authority says in the article.

Of course, flying private to a celebration of a populist, pro-environment President is a bit like the Detroit execs jetting to Washington for bailout money. How do you call for social responsibility after touching down in a $40 million, gas-guzzling Gulfstream? (Maybe travelers will buy carbon credits).

more here

For the record- I don't begrudge them the use of their private jets. But I do find the pretense that this is the party that cares about the environment irritating. These people are flying to Washington seeking influence and funds just as much as the GM moguls who flew in their private jets. I don't see the press widely reporting this (and the tons of garbage left behind). I find that snark-worthy.

CPSIA and an Anvil

This small-business owner, artist, designer, and blogger explains why the CPSIA is not so charming as an anvil on a onesie.

Post Literate World

Yesterday at the library I couldn't get any work done because a college studying in the next cubicle over wanted a study break, so he first struck up a conversation with my 10 year old son, and I found myself unavoidably drawn in.


We talked about all sorts of issues, hospitals, the death of his brother, his work accident that sent him back to school, his son, his craftsman father, why he voted for Obama, a variety of political issues, Star Wars ( I did mention my son was in on this conversation, right?).

And then, as I was packing up my things to go, he shook his head and thanked me for talking with him, said it had been a very enjoyable and interesting conversation, and then said, , "You know one of the hardest things for me about going back to school at 31? Kids these days- they just don't communicate. The don't communicate information in the same way, they don't talk to each other the same way, they just flat don't communicate. It's really strange."

First I thought, "You're only 31! How much different can things be from the 90s to now?" And then I remembered this article: You'll want to bookmark this. It's the first of a three parter.

... Thomas F. Bertonneau, who teaches at SUNY-Oswego, offers insight into where education is failing today.
Since the mid-1980s, I have taught a standard survey of literature course to undergraduates in California, Michigan, and most recently upstate New York. This course introduces canonical texts, from Homer’s Odyssey to early medieval texts such as Beowulf or the Icelandic sagas, and sometimes later works. Over the years, my experience has chronicled what I believe to be a broad retreat from genuine literacy into a new, orally based “post-literacy” of emotion-drive mentality, egocentrism, “presentism,” and logical obtuseness. This retreat will have serious consequences for our society.

I'd love to hear from readers about this.

Sunday Hymn Post

Blest Be the Tie That Binds

Blest be the tie that binds
Our hearts in Christian love;
The fellowship of kindred minds
Is like to that above.

Before our Father’s throne
We pour our ardent prayers;
Our fears, our hopes, our aims are one
Our comforts and our cares.

We share each other’s woes,
Our mutual burdens bear;
And often for each other flows
The sympathizing tear.

When we asunder part,
It gives us inward pain;
But we shall still be joined in heart,
And hope to meet again.

This glorious hope revives
Our courage by the way;
While each in expectation lives,
And longs to see the day.

From sorrow, toil and pain,
And sin, we shall be free,
And perfect love and friendship reign
Through all eternity.

John Fawcett, 1782

You can listen to a recording of an a capella congregation singing some of these verses here.

CPSIA results in smaller selection, failed busiensses

“Nothing is more important than the safety of our children,” states Chike Chukwulozie, Owner of Estella Designed for Children (http://www.estella-nyc.com), a high-end New York City based children’s store that carries baby and children’s apparel and speciality children’s products from lesser known designers, artists and toy makers. “Every product that we sell in our store is selected for its quality and safety. We only buy from reputable manufacturers who produce clothes, toys and children’s products that are innovative, creative and, above all safe. Most of the clothes and toys that we carry are designed and created by artisans. Many of these wonderful products will no longer be available because small manufacturers can’t afford to have their products tested in compliance with the new CPSIA regulations. It is indeed unfortunate that responsible small business owners who create very special children’s products will be put out of business, while large manufacturers who can absorb the expense of product testing, can continue to mass produce items of inferior quality. I can no longer employ the local small-production designers that make me one of kind dresses because it is simply cost prohibitive. In this time of high unemployment, it is irresponsible to eliminate American jobs and encourage mass producers from abroad,” laments Chukwulozie.

More here

Gon Fishn

We're not here, right now, we're there, at a singing/Bible study/friends' house.

The Equuschick is here, intermittently, dog-sitting.

The blog is getting scant attention this weekend.

Meanwhile- my weekly post is up at Frugal Fridays (is it fair to call it weekly when the Friday before simply came and went and I never noticed it was Friday?

It's still important to keep up with your lawmakers on the CPSIA, you know, all the usual suspects.

Contact Dept Commerce Business Liaison complain about CPSIA businessliaison@doc.gov 202-482-1360

HEre's another article on the CPSIA, this one from a lawyer-mom.

Get your little red book and jump off into the great leap forward...

So says one of the commenters to this creepy little piece of self-immolation at the alter of the cult of personality.
Breitbart calls them 'shiny, happy, situational patriots.'

On Inauguration Day, I heard through the grapevine that the more leftist side of my family, the side that controls the conversation whenever we are together, the side that calls for boycotting everything and insists that we 'raise our consciousness' on every pet issue, the side that accuses the Jews of committing Genocide against the Palestinians, that demands universal health care and subsidized daycare (while calling for the firing of a hotel maid who committed the crime of bringing a child to work and letting her watch a cartoon)- you get the picture...
So, this side of the family was out doing volunteer work because He Who Must Be Obeyed apparently said this was a good thing for people to do. And this side of the family lamented to certain other members of the fam that when they were young, they'd not taken their kids to do any volunteer work helping the last fortunate.
Ever.

I was flabbergasted. Gobsmacked. Stunned. Disbelieving. I don't know why. I just naively assume that people who are so annoyingly outspoken in company about there very leftwing political causes might actually spend some real time doing something charitable on a personal level.

I started to think about all the service projects we've involved our Progeny in- independently, through our church, with a homeschool group, with friends- I couldn't remember all of them. IT's not that we do anything astoundingly self-sacrificing. We only served food in a soup kitchen once or twice, nursing home visits being more our speed. We're really not all that. I don't think we ever did anything truly hard or very heroic. It's just not that difficult to take the family to a nursing home, to package up supplies to send to hurricane victims, to take a bunch of games to a local childrens' home to play, to bring baby clothes and diapers to a homeless shelter or a crisis pregnancy center, to package toys, school supplies, and goodies in a shoebox to send to children in Mexico for Christmas, to bake cookies or muffins and take them to the older people at church- these things are not painful, not terribly inconvenient or burdensome (so much the contrary that it's embarrassing to mention them)- and you don't need the President to tell you do these things.

Or you shouldn't.

Pssst. You don't even need to like the President in office to do these things.

But it appears, if you watch the above video, that it never occured to some people that whether George W. Bush was president or not, it was possible to not be a self-centered, arrogant, snot. Or something.

Borglike, they needed to be part of the hivemind, and to have somebody they could call 'our leader' (I'm gagging):
Ashton Kucher apparently just heard of the idea of serving others:

National service is becoming a term used to define a much broader and equally passionate category of patriotism. This brand of patriotism is inclusive of a pure humanitarian effort guided by the simple virtue of the giving of oneself for the benefit of another in the name of the United States of America. Americans are on the brink of the Newer Deal where we will join hands in an effort to resurrect the pride in a government that supports us in supporting ourselves. Our new leader understands the value of our collective voices, he believes in our ability to create a greater good, and knows that as a nation we are willing to sacrifice selfishness for a more robust happiness....
...today we have been asked to serve not just for a day but to make it part of our lifestyle.... Barack Obama.....is a servant to this country and he has inspired me to adopt his spirit and to serve him with that dream of a great America in tow.

To serve him? Obama? I thought this was about the poor, the downtrodden.
After all, President Bush was never standing between Ashton Kucher or any other celebrity and their ability to serve others.


Iowahawk has a quick transcript. There might be a few, um, inaccuracies. Definitely a profanity or two. Set your coffee down.

Thanks to Just One Minute for the link.

Flight 1549

The Flight 1549 survivors’ stories are remarkably similar, leading to an assumption that they are highly reliable accounts of what actually occurred. Not only do most of these people mention the relative calm as the plane was going down (only a couple of sporadic emotional outbursts were reported on the part of a lone passenger or two), but passengers’ behavior after the touchdown was likewise serene and collected.

Of course, once the plane had “landed,” a sense of relief and a diminishing panic might be expected from the passengers. But the reality (and the passengers were no doubt aware of this) was that their situation at that time was only somewhat less perilous than in the moments before the splashdown. Drowning was a very real possibility, as well as death by hypothermia in the icy waters.

Rapid evacuation was therefore of the utmost importance, and a clawing for position, or even a stampede, would not have been surprising. But no such behavior occurred:

“We’re sitting with our heads down,” [survivor Carlos] described. “I’m there buckled in tight, and you just hear them over and over and over and you’re just praying.”

Carlos said the plane skidded to a stop on the river and he made it out onto a wing with the nearly freezing water rising around him and his fellow passengers.

“It was like one big family on that wing, everyone’s holding each other, this guy’s got that guy and this lady’s got that guy and no one wants to fall off,” Carlos said. “It was amazing, the human spirit, when it comes down to that everyone just got together, and was able to overcome and stay together, and everyone made it.”

From NeoNeocon. Click through for more.

Another Texas CPS Case

Texas case involving both CPS and futile care.



Could this be another Haleigh Poutre case?

Here's more



Here's Not Dead Yet blog posting

Yesterday was the anniversary of Roe. V. Wade

And Obama recognized that solemn occasion:

Separately, the administration in the afternoon issued a reversal of a ban on federal funding for non-governmental organizations working outside the U.S. that offer abortions or abortion counseling.

Obama signed the executive order on the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in all 50 states.

The article is here, but the rest is about the Gitmo-related orders he signed.

Stem-Cell Research... Wow

Woman Gets New Windpipe Produced From Her Own Stem Cells

By Hyscience

Needless to say, both the pro-life community - who affirm the use of adult stem cells - and medical researchers are thrilled with these results:WASHINGTON (Catholic Online) - A Spanish woman made medical history recently by receiving a new windpipe which had been grown from her own stem cells. The announcement has brought tremendous excitement among the pro-life as well as medical communities. The former group cited this as additional evidence that adult stem cell research, which is in complete accord with catholic social teaching, is producing real results.

Click through for more.

Tracking Pork

Pretty cool response, folks, to this post. We have a wiki started and a blog. Thanks to Max M and Ike for their zeal.

Now what? Let's see what happens in Congress. I don't think it's a done deal. In the meanwhile, I have some ideas for bringing resources to bear on either the blog or the wiki. Either way, the challenge is getting reliable info.

More here.

More Contact Information, the CPSIA, Book, and Potty Chairs

Voicemail number for Waxman/House Commerce Committee 202-225-4434- Personally, I hate making phone calls. One suggestion- write out what you want to say, and then just read it.

Update: I'm told this is a new Senate number for CPSIA calls: 202-224-5115

If you call other numbers and talk to real humans, DON'T let them tell you he has this very helpful letter up on his website addressing your concerns so it's all better now. Piffle and horsefeathers. It's the same old thing discussed before. Waxman is fobbing you off with meaningless gestures.

Don't let up. Call all your reps- again. Email them. Again. Give Jim DeMint hugs and cookies and name your firstborn child after him- give him and the handful of others that have been helping on this a big thank-you (Kyl, Barton, Radonovich, Ron Paul, I forget if there's somebody else).

Don't let him tell you to bother the Commission and Nancy Nord because it's all her fault. That's political infighting and we're not playing. He needs to act.

The ALA has bought Waxman's redirection hook, line, and stinker (that's deliberate). They want you to complain to Nord (they don't mention Waxman and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which he heads, and which can meet and work on technical amendments):

# The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 has been interpreted to include books as a product that must be tested for lead. While it is understandable that the CPSC must protect children from toxic materials, publishers have already tested the book components and found that the lead levels are lower than the regulations require three years from now. Additionally, all book recalls in the last two decades have been because of toys attached to the books that posed a choking hazard, not the books themselves.
# Making these testing regulations retroactive would require both school and public libraries to take drastic steps to come into compliance. They either would have to ban children from their libraries or pull every book intended for children under the age of 12 from their bookshelves at the time children are fostering a lifelong love of learning and reading.

See, there's this funny thing about why the Commission is making the bans retroactive:

Nord issued a statement in November last year saying that the law would only apply to toys made AFTER the Feb. deadline, BUT Congress chastised her and said that the intent of the law was specifically to address all toys made both before and after the Feb. deadline.

The law specifies ALL PRODUCTS intended for children 12 and under. The law makes no exceptions on the basis of category (ie, books, shirts, wooden toys).
Congress chastised Nord for trying not to make the ban retroactive- Congress in the persons of:
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) along with Representatives Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).

Barbara Boxer got involved, too, insisting that it was a gross misinterpretation to say the ban on phthalates did not apply to existing inventory. Was the wording on the lead ban substantially different?

Nancy Pelosi didn't think so:

"With this legislation, we will not only be recalling, we will be removing those products from the shelves."

From the Wall Street Journal article linked in the above post:

Despite warnings from small businesses, Illinois Representative Bobby Rush and California's Henry Waxman pushed provisions that now require pulling products from the shelf. Mr. Waxman demanded lead standards without allowing compliance to phase in.

And now he's telling you to go bother Nord to fix this, he can't do anything? He heads the Committee on Energy and Commerce- they did this, only they can actually fix it. The problem is the law needs to be changed, and Nancy Nord has NO authority to change the law.

Contact the national ombudsman and file a complaint.
White House's Contact Page (the President can do nothing about this law other than try to persuade Waxman to act. But he will be appointing at least three new members to the Commission, and so it would be good to ask him to appoint people sensitive to the interests of micro-businesses, crafters, producers of one of a kind items, etc)



Why the hold order does not affect CPSIA

Why small businesses are not reassured by promises that the CPSC isn't interested in them.

They cannot make alterations to the law, but you can still send suggestions to the CPSIA Public Comment invitation link (see page 2 for the email address)- to try to alleviate the damage from Congress as much as humanly possible (but they are pretty tightly reined in). And I hope that they might be able to use the comments they get to persuade the new Commission members (who will be friendlier with the Democrat controlled Congress) that this law is seriously flawed. Shrug. It's worth a try.

Another source of general info and links.

Updated to add this useful summary of the issues and a very handy round up of links to stories, video and audio sources.

And now it's time for some comic relief

Hilarious CPSIA compliant potty chair:

All of the paints I use (including primers and sealers) are made in the USA and are certified to be lead free. It has been illegal in the USA to put lead in paint since 1977, so it would actually be quite difficult for me to obtain “leaded” paint. This potty chair also has a GCC certificate (General Conformity Certificate) available from the manufacturer certifying it is lead free. Despite the fact that the products I use are all certified lead free, the government mandates that I test each of these already-tested components once again. Better safe than sorry, right? You never know when some crazed WAHM will be able to get lead on a street corner & start injecting it into kids’ products.

Get this potty chair while you can (but give me a little time to actually do the test), because next August I will be required to “wet” test it (instead of using the “reasonable” method allowed right now). This “wet” test actually destroys the product, resulting in a pile of goo (albeit non-toxic goo). Think I could sell that for $5125? Didn’t think so, so OOAK items will be a thing of the past.

And if you're in business, this is a very helpful post on organizing a lead testing party.

What We Call "Traditional" Gender Roles

The Equuschick herself, a staunch believer in the differences between men and women and their God-given roles in family life, is often both amused and annoyed by the way these roles are defined or sometimes even manipulated by people who claim to be following God-given roles.

Far too often a couple who claims to be following the Scriptural model for gender roles are actually following a cultural tradition without any foundation.

And what fascinates her the most, is that it is just as often women who manipulate the roles to serve their own purposes as it is men.

Of course The Equuschick has met many a man who believes his God-given role is to work eight hours a day and come home to a wife who has been working 12, and will continue to work for the next 12 hour shift as well while the husband contributes nothing. This was not God's plan.

To the great surprise of many of the Common Room friends, the FYB has been taught to help cook. He cleans the kitchen. He takes out the trash. As a toddler, his favorite chore was to vaccuum. (He called this the Vroom Vroom, thus proving that any job can be seen as manly if you'll just put your mind to it.)

In other words, The DHM and HM have attempted to equip him for all the skills he'll need as a responsible adult who will be neither a drain on society or a drain on his family.


But consider the woman, you've all met her, who has never deigned to take out the garbage. That is the Man's Job. Any job done outdoors? That's the Man's Job.

Consider the woman The Equuschick once saw with a friend, the woman who sat comfortably in the front seat of the broken-down van munching on a snack while her husband pushed the van from behind.

The Equuschick and the friend both had the same thought at the same time. "She had better be at least 8 months pregnant or have a very bad back."

Shasta, who had a very cynical view of women before marriage, was once surprised and taken aback to come home and discover that The Equuschick had taken out the garbage. He's been delighted by her propensity to do so whenever it appears that the garbage needs to be taken out, and she's available to do it. How sad that it should even be surprising.

If a job needs to be done and you can do it, then you should do it. Male or female. That is how The Equuschick was raised to think and it annoys her no end to see women who think that their God-given gender roles grants them Automatic Princess Status.


It is true that The Equuschick does the entirety of the cooking, but The Equuschick sincerely enjoys cooking and Shasta, as has been mentioned before, gives himself food poisoning.


It is also true that there are many things involving tools and a working knowledge of electricity and plumbing that The Equuschick cannot help with. But this is not something she is at all proud of, rather she takes it as an area of failure.

We really do a grave amount of disservice to our unique and God-given specific gifts when we ignore them in the light of a very narrow interpretation of what it means to "Keep the home."

Some have insisted it means quite strictly and literally "Stay at home." And by simply staying at home, we seem to think we fulfill our posts as intelligent, competent, and able partners in a working adult relationship.


Note that we are called simply to keep, to guard, the home. Not the house. We are called to serve the unit of our individual families and any arena beyond that (the home) is not specified. We serve in whatever arena necessary.

CPSIA, 46,000 small businesses hurt- and, did I mention you should call Waxman?

Keep up the pressure on Waxman. Call his CPSIA dedicated voicemail, and tell him you know that he can call a Committee meeting and issue some technical amendments and fix things a lot sooner and with more staying power than the Commission can. Tell him you don't appreciate him using Nancy Nord as a scapegoat for his poorly written bill. Remind him that books often have staples or plastic protective covers for their dustjackets, and 12 year olds do not typically suck on their bicycle tires. Here's the number: 202-225-2927
I don't know if this would work, but you can't email him if you're not a consituent. So email your own reps and include an email to Waxman. Ask them to pass it on to him, since whether you can vote for him or not, the decisions he's made are going to alter what you can buy, where you can buy it, how much it costs, what you can make, sell, or trade- and read.

Here's a list of the members on the Committee of Energy and Commerce:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Commerce_Committee#Members.2C_111th_Congress

See Walter Olson's post at Overlawyered, as well.

See my previous post for more contact ideas.

Other links:
John Tozzi in Business Week has a good article focusing largely on the grassroots reaction to the law and how it affects small cottage businesses:

These freshly minted activists say that's because the law hits small producers the hardest. More than 46,000 businesses that have no paid employees made apparel or sold children's toys or clothes in 2006, with average sales of $40,000, according to the latest Census data. The mandate to test every batch of every product, while practical for mass-market manufacturers, threatens to put crafters who make small batches or unique items out of business. Olivia Omega Logan, who runs the Baby Candy T-shirt company from her home in Aurora, Colo., says she was quoted a price of $50 to $100 to test components of her kids' T-shirts by a third-party lab, which will be required in August as the law stands now. To test each part—fabric, thread, snaps, designs, and tags—of her 75 discrete items, known as stock keeping units (SKUs), would cost between $18,000 and $37,000 for each run, she estimates. Her total revenue in 2008 was $38,000.

46,000 entrepreneurs, wiped out of the market with the stroke of a pen, and all the places they shop will feel the pinch, too, as will all providers of services they buy (from the newspaper boy to their tax preparer). And the rules for the exemptions won't be completed before the deadline for compliance. Many small crafters are also finding out the places they are supposed to go to have their items tested aren't interested in taking on businesses with only a couple dozen items to test- something Congress seems to have been clueless about.

Bloomberg has another excellent article on the topic:

Major companies, facing a public backlash, clamped down on suppliers even before the lawmakers acted. Toymakers boosted spending on safety testing to more than $600 million last year, more than double that in 2007, according to the Toy Industry Association.

Wal-Mart, the world’s biggest retailer, told toy vendors last March to meet lead-testing guidelines based on “where we thought the law would go,” said Sarah Thorn, director for international trade at the Bentonville, Arkansas-based company.

Mattel, Hasbro

Mattel of El Segundo, California and Pawtucket, Rhode Island-based Hasbro Inc., the two largest toy manufacturers, also pledged a year ago to get outside tests of their items as part of an effort coordinated by the New York-based Toy Industry Association.

Toy companies “are better-positioned than other industries because we try to be ahead of the curve, and we went through a baptism by fire,” said Rick Locker, a lawyer for the toy group.

And while the commission can say they'll look the other way when it comes to small businesses and thrift stores- that's not legal protection. And the Commission can't stop an over-zealous Attorney General from making an example of you.

Video footage here- both the reporter and the consignment store owner point out just how much it is NOT an exemption to be told "you don't have to test, but if you sell anything that would fail a testing program, you're liable by law..."

Think Waxman is telling the truth when he says only the Commission can interpret the law and make excemptions? Look at how Feinstein et all came down on the same Commission when they interpreted in a way Congress didn't like.

Fenris Lorsai discusses how the CPSIA applies to books.

Sgt Mom has a brilliant article with a particularly sharp analogy concerning the fact that the micro businesses and thrift stores are just not to worry our frowzy little heads about the fact that this law does, in fact, make us felons:

The fines are insupportable for an individual or a small business; practically no one wants to risk being charged with a violation of the act. Assurances that ‘oh, no – boutique handicrafters and second-hand stores will not be prosecuted under this act, everyone knows it’s really meant for the big mass-producers’ are falling flat among those most concerned. And rightfully so – for what is a law that is on the books, but enforced by bureaucratic or prosecutorial whim? It is a suspended weapon, to be used selectively against people who have drawn the unfavorable attention of the state upon themselves.

Emphasis mine, and BINGO!!!!


Not a lot of new info here, and some not quite accurate (they view Waxman's letter as helpful rather than the eyewash it was):

One thing to watch going forward is what position the new Obama administration will take, as well as who the President will nominate as his appointee to fill an empty seat on the Commission and most likely become its new head.

When Congress wrote the CPSIA, they also changed the number of seats on the Commission from three to five, effective later this year (I keep forgetting the date, but they made very sure that it wouldn't happen until after Bush was out of office). So President Obama will be appointing at least three new members. One of them will almost certainly be the new head, but even if that were not the case, his appointees would have the majority vote.

And India has banned a substantial number of toys and toy parts from China.

Oh, Goody. A Tax Dodger for Treasury Secretary

rom the Corner:

Geithner refused to answer senators Bunning and Kyl when they asked if he would have paid his 2001 and 2002 taxes had he not been nominated for Treasury secretary. In today’s committee vote, an honor roll of five Republicans kept their integrity by voting against Geithner: Grassley, Kyl, Bunning, Roberts, and Enzi. Good for them.

Kyl Also voted against the CPSIA. Not a single Democrat had a qualm about appointing this guy who did not pay his taxes to a position making sure the rest of us do what he did not.


From Byron York:

Democrats seemed to have no interest in the topic, but some Republican senators wanted to know why Geithner accepted reimbursement from his then-employer, the International Monetary Fund, for taxes that he had not, in fact, paid. They also wanted to know why, when a 2006 Internal Revenue Service audit forced him to pay back taxes and interest for 2003 and 2004, Geithner didn’t just go ahead and pay up for 2001 and 2002 as well. (He didn’t do that until after he was nominated to be treasury secretary.) More generally, Republicans wanted to know whether Geithner had been completely forthcoming with the committee.

Now, after more than three hours of questioning, those Republicans still want the answers they didn’t get from Geithner at the hearing.

Too bad. We're not getting those answers. Maybe he's just not much of a patriot.

In a related issue, the Project on Government Oversight, an organization friendly to the President, sadly realizes that when Obama promised there would be no lobbyists in his administration he apparently meant something altogether different:

"POGO believes strongly in the revolving door restrictions President Barack Obama has outlined to restore integrity and ethics to government," said POGO executive director Danielle Brian. "It is because we believe so strongly in the positive impact that such a change will have that we urge the President to withdraw his nomination of William J. Lynn III as Deputy Secretary of Defense. President Obama should not compromise his standards and the effectiveness of the Department of Defense by allowing a top defense industry lobbyist to receive a waiver from these standards. The defense industry is in a class of its own among all of the industries that have had a pervasive stranglehold on public policy to advance their own financial interests."

Folks, this wasn't just your ordinary run of the mill campaign promise. This was an 'ethics commitment President Obama wrote into an Executive Order.

Even my cynical self is a bit shocked at this.

But don't expect the Press to call him much on this. If they know what's good for them:

President Obama made a surprise visit to the White House press corps Thursday night, but got agitated when he was faced with a substantive question.

Asked how he could reconcile a strict ban on lobbyists in his administration with a Deputy Defense Secretary nominee who lobbied for Raytheon, Obama interrupted with a knowing smile on his face.

"Ahh, see," he said, "I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can't end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I'm going to get grilled every time I come down here."

Pressed further by the Politico reporter about his Pentagon nominee, William J. Lynn III, Obama turned more serious, putting his hand on the reporter's shoulder and staring him in the eye.

"Alright, come on" he said, with obvious irritation in his voice. "We will be having a press conference at which time you can feel free to [ask] questions. Right now, I just wanted to say hello and introduce myself to you guys - that's all I was trying to do."

The president was quickly saved by a cameraman in the room who called out: “I’d like to say it one more time: ‘Mr. President.’ ”

He did, however, give them the important news that he'd gotten in a couple of good workouts.

HotAir has video footage.

There's a lot, Politico suddenly discovers, that we don't really know about Obama.

Every Child IS a Wanted Child...

Why You Shouldn't Let Waxman and Rush Tell You Only The Commission Can Help

Let me direct your attention to this comment to this post at OverLawyered:

Susanna 01.20.09 at 5:33 pm

Thank you so much for this wonderful article.
First- In addition to Ron Paul voting against this, in the Senate Jon Kyle, Thomas Coburn and Jim DeMint also voted against it.
I’m not sure if you are aware of this:
Nancy Nord opposed the CPSIA. As I read those older news reports, it is clear that she and the Bush administration were lambasted by the media at the time who accused them of wanting children to die from lead poisoning. Also, Nord issued a statement in November last year saying that the law would only apply to toys made AFTER the Feb. deadline, BUT Congress chastised her and said that the intent of the law was specifically to address all toys made both before and after the Feb. deadline. ....
I think that would explain why the CPSC’s latest letter to consignment and thrift stores seems like double speak.
From my point of view, the CPSC is damned if they do, damned if they don’t. (don’t forget to check out all the you tube videos of the hearings on this law with Nancy Nord to see what I mean)
Congress is trying to pass the buck and make Nord look like the bad guy, when the truth is she proposed a more reasonable law in the first place.
It seems clear to me that the current Congress really has no agenda other than making themselves look good. So, while we bang on their doors and force them to listen, lets just ignore their attempts to crucify Nancy Nord. If that’s what they have to do to get this law changed, well then I think that says something about their character, but at least the law will get changed. In the meantime, I will send positive thought’s Nancy Nord’s way and write her a nice note.

Here's the letter explaining why phthylates were added and why the ban includes inventory:

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) along with Representatives Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), today called on the CPSC to ensure that any children’s products purchased after Feb. 10 will not contain phthalates.

Last week CPSC’s general counsel issued a legal opinion about how the commission should enforce a ban on the toxic chemical found in children’s toys and childcare products. The opinion stated the ban should only apply to products made after the Feb. 10 enactment date, not any toys or childcare items manufactured before that date.

Senator Feinstein and Representatives Waxman, Schakowsky and DeGette sent a letter to Acting CPSC Chairman Nancy Nord and Commissioner Thomas Hill Moore, requesting that the CPSC correct its legal interpretation to reflect the true congressional intent of the legislation, which states that “it shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribute in commerce or import into the United States any children’s toy or child care article” that contains certain phthalates.

Phthalates are chemicals added to common plastic products, including teethers, rubber ducks, and vinyl shower curtains, to make them soft and pliable. Exposure to phthalates can cause severe long-term health effects.

The ban on phthalates, sponsored by Senator Feinstein, was included in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. Reps. Waxman, Schakowsky and DeGette were on the CPSC Conference Committee and fought to keep the phthalate amendment in the bill. The legislation was signed into law by President Bush on August 14.

Following is the text of the letter sent by Senator Feinstein and Representatives Waxman, Schakowsky and DeGette to U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Acting Chairman Nancy Nord and Commissioner Thomas Hill Moore...

That letter is quite eye-opening. Please read it, and think about the implications of that letter while ruminating on the self-serving and obfuscatory statements from Waxman and Rush that 'only the Commission has the authority to change things.'

So... once more, Waxman tied Nord's hands, hindered her from doing something helpful, and then publicly tells us it's all her fault and she needs to hurry up and implement the rules and guidelines, only she can.

But if only she (and the Commission) could make changes, then Waxman and Feinstein couldn't go behind the scenes and blast her like this and force the Commission to change their interpretation.

Waxman et all have been playing people for fools. I am so mad I could spit.

Of Books, the CPSIA, Politics, Lies (but I repeat myself)

Hee, hee. I'm still reading this great article. Love this part:

"The semi-exemption for children's books--which would not extend to maps, birthday invitations, origami paper, homeschooling kits or drawing pads--is described by the congressmen at one point as covering books "that have no unusual components or materials beyond those of an ordinary book," and only a page later as covering books "that have no painted, plastic or metal components."

Apparently, as CPSIA critic Rick Woldenberg of Learning Resources Inc. has noted, it is not well known on Capitol Hill that ordinary children's books are often bound with staples. "

There are a lot of common, every day, practical, ordinary things, as we have seen, that are not well known on Capitol Hill.

Read on.

I love this protest idea for libraries.

The ALA is directing its fire in the wrong place:

During the meeting, members of a panel including representatives of the American Association of Publishers (AAP) as well as major book publishers and ink manufacturers, addressed questions raised by the CPSC rulemaking committee regarding the testing procedures and methodologies currently exercised in the production of an ordinary book.

The panel presented a collection of data reinforcing their position that ordinary books pose no inherent threat. This information can be viewed here. Though the CPSC acknowledged that the current deadlines are unrealistic and potentially damaging, the General Counsel gave no clear indication as to when an official ruling would be made and could offer no definite direction to libraries at this point.

“It is completely irresponsible and unacceptable for the CPSC to continue to leave this matter unresolved with the February 10th deadline drawing closer each day,” ALA President Jim Rettig said.

This is the problem with the all or nothing thinking that views ALL members of one party as likely good and all members on the other side as BAD.

I don't know, but would assume that the ALA and Waxman et all were allies in the fight againt the Patriot Act. So the ALA appears to be taking Waxman's word for it that these problems are all the Commission's fault (they are Republican appointees, after all). But these separate issues should be treated separately, and just because Waxman shares your politics on 30 items does not mean he's telling you the truth and is in agreement with you on the 31st. All politicians are politicians. The ALA needs to be directing its energies toward insisting that Waxman call a committee meeting and address the bill, delaying implementation of the CPSIA until the worst of the bugs have been addressed in this badly written law. Let us hope that if such a meeting is held, somebody is there to explain to Mr. Waxman that books sometimes use staples.

It also does not matter what the Congresscritters intended- they wrote a law covering ALL Products intended for the use of children 12 and under. They made no exemptions. They need to fix it.

See also:

The SmartMama, Jan. 22: NO, the rule freeze is not a LAW freeze. President Obama's rule freeze does NOT delay the CPSIA.


ONLY Congress can do that.

Really, it appears to me that only Waxman can act at this point- unless there's some other way the House Committee on Energy and Commerce can be called to meet. So I've been thinking of other things to do to try to convince Waxman to have this committee meeing.

Is he married? Contact his wife. Contact the President (who cannot change the law or call the committee meeting but could try to persuade Waxman to do so). Contact Michelle Obama and ask her to persuade her husband to persuade Waxman to call the meeting. Call Obama's chief of staff (who, regrettably, is one of the co-sponsors of the CPSIA), the media, Waxman himself, and particularly other members of the the very powerful House Committee on Energy and Commerce- especially if your own rep sits on that Committee, and your own reps- call, write, email them all and beg them to pressure Waxman to call a Committee meaning and postpone the Feb. 10th deadline and discuss some more sane ways to protect children without testing five thousand samples from the same bolt of fabric, etc, etc.

Here's a list of the members on the Committee of Energy and Commerce:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Commerce_Committee#Members.2C_111th_Congress


See Walter Olson's post at Overlawyered, as well.

He suggests also trying Waxman's Senate counterparts. I'm embarrassingly ignorant here, is that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, or some other Committee?

Here's a interesting example of the double speak and obfuscation coming out of Congress. An etsian (dmollison) contacted Bobby Rush's office there. She says:

The gentleman in the office stated that there is unnecessary mass-hysteria about this. Now throughout our conversation he mentioned that he is not an attorney and is in no way giving me legal advice. He really wanted me to know this.

Well, I pointed out that it only takes one aggressive Attorney General to make an example out of us.

She says he told her three different times that he was not her attorney and this was not legal advice, so she wonders why he continues to insist there is no legal threat? If there was no cause to worry at all, why did she need to be told more than once that he was not an attorney and not offering legal advice?

Either the threat actually exists, or he wishes to reserve the right for legal prudence to himself, while scoffing at the need for such care for the rest of us.

She says, and this part was really quite instructive:

He went on to say that there was really nothing Rush could do...they wrote the law but it was up to the CPSC to implement it how the saw fit.

This is when I asked for a technical amendment. He seemed surprised that I would bring it up. Once we got past the discussion that Rush could in fact issue a TA to allow component testing at the manufacturer level to comply, he stated that this really was not practical.

I was quick to point out that my child eats through a tube, and there are hundreds of thousands of us who would be "inconvenienced " to put it lightly if they(those who have the power to do so) did not change the law.

So we ended with him stating that he will pass the technical amendment suggestion on to his boss.

When you call ask for a TECHNICAL AMENDMENT to the existing law. This is well within their scope of authority.

I don't know why they keep lying (somebody else heard the same thing when they called Waxman) and saying they cannot do anything about it. What needs to be done the most is to postpone the deadline- it's impossible to meet a deadline when the regulations and implementation guidelines cannot possibly, and perhaps legally, be issued until a month after the deadline. Only Congress can do this, and Waxman has got to call a committee meeting and get it done.

Would You Go With Me (music meme)

1. Put your music player of choice on shuffle.
2. For each question, press the next button to get your answer.
3. Write the song name down.
4. Tag 5 friends. (not gonna do that... consider yourself tagged if you want to do this thing. :-D)
5. Voila! Enjoy.

IF SOMEONE SAYS "IS THIS OKAY" YOU SAY?
March of the Celts (Enya)


WHAT WOULD BEST DESCRIBE YOUR PERSONALITY?
Night Ride Across the Caucasus (Loreena Mckennitt)


WHAT IS YOUR LIFE'S PURPOSE?
How Joyful is My Heart (Bach)


WHAT IS YOUR MOTTO?
Athair A Neamh (Enya)
I believe that means Heavenly Father, but I'm not quite sure.


WHAT DO YOUR FRIENDS THINK OF YOU?
Leader of the Band (Red Grammar)
I don't think so...


WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT VERY OFTEN?
Castles in the Air (Celtic Thunder)
So true. :-P


WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR BEST FRIENDS
The Stranger (Billy Joel)


WHAT IS YOUR LIFE STORY?
Nella Fantasia (Russel Watson)


WHAT DO YOU WANT TO BE WHEN YOU GROW UP?
Remember Me (Celtic Thunder)


WHAT DO YOUR PARENTS THINK OF YOU?
Dance (Dufay Collection)


WHAT IS YOUR HOBBY/INTEREST?
Drive (Alan Jackson)


WHAT DO YOU THINK OF YOUR FRIENDS?
I Hope You Dance (Lee Anne Womack)


WHAT'S THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN?
Feed the Birds (Mary Poppins soundtrack)


HOW WILL YOU DIE?
Paddy's Green Shamrock Shore (The High Kings)


WHAT IS THE ONE THING YOU REGRET?
All I Ask of You (Phantom of the Opera)


WHAT MAKES YOU LAUGH?
Dead Man's Curve (Jan & Dean)


WHAT MAKES YOU CRY?
The Old Man (Celtic Thunder)


WILL YOU EVER GET MARRIED?
I Know My Love (Chieftains, with the Corrs)
I guess that's a yes. :-P

WHAT SCARES YOU THE MOST?
American Pie (Don McLean)


DOES ANYONE LIKE YOU?
Hands (Jewel)


IF YOU COULD GO BACK IN TIME, WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE?
Handel's Sarabande (Maksim)
Actually, I like it the way it is.

WHAT WILL YOU POST THIS AS?
Would You Go With Me (Josh Turner)

I used our iTunes playlist, but as our whole family uses iTunes, I tried to go through and uncheck the songs I wouldn't have on there if it was just mine. This has a pretty wide array of genres AND centuries, but it doesn't cover every thing I listen to. :-)

Why you need to contact Waxman rather than Nord

Obama's hold and review order will NOT delay implementation of the CPSIA. It's truly frightening how little people understand about the limited power of a President.

The CPSIA is a LAW. Presidents neither make and pass laws nor do they pull them off the lawbooks and make them 'non-laws.' They can help write laws, encourage Congress to write them, promote them, and they can sign the finished law or veto it. That's it. CONGRESS writes and passes the laws (that's why it's called the legislative branch)- the president only signs them, or not. Once signed, he can't nullify it, overturn it, cancel it, or alter it in any way.

The CPSIA is a law that was written, promoted, and put to the vote by a Democratic Congress who then presented then President Bush with a filibuster proof majority, so he signed it. New Presidents CANNOT simply nullify laws that Congress has already passed and previous Presidents signed. This is highly illegal and he simply can't do it.

What Presidents can do, and generally do- when they take office is to put on hold all the most recent regulations, orders, administrative rulings- the sorts of things which are NOT laws and which Congress did not vote on and pass and a President sign. An example of a recent regulation would be the Commission's exemption of unadulterated textiles such as wool, silk, and cotton from the testing requirements That has now been put on hold.

An example of the regulations that President Obama's 'hold and review' order covers would be, in fact, anything the Commission has said or done. This is why it is monumentally important NOT to let Waxman pull the wool (dyed or otherwise) over your eyes and convince you that the Commission is the only agency that can help you. They can't help at all. They can't delay the February 10th deadline- ONLY Waxman can do anything about that by calling a committee meeting of other Congresscritters and voting on it. He's lying when he tells callers that Nord can help.

The Commission is supposed to have three members. They only have two because the Democrat controlled congress refused to seat the third member, a Bush appointee. Instead, Congress voted to 'temporarily' accept the two member commission as authorized to make decisions- they deliberately left that commission undermanned while increasing their workload tenfold.
Congress, recognizing perfectly well that two people is not enough to do the job, ALSO enacted, as part of the CPSIA, a new requirement that at a certain time (I believe it's August), the two member Commission would become a FIVE member commission. President Obama has the authority to appoint five members, but even then, Congress has to approve them. He doesn't have authority to overturn the law. He doesn't have the authority to decide that the Commission will only be three members or should be six.

Waxman understands this all perfectly well. He understands, better than many small crafters, that anything the Commission says has an expiration date anyway, that previously when they have tried to rule favorably to small businesses (making the phthalates ban NOT apply to existing inventory), Congress (in the person of Barbara Boxer) and special interest groups (not, in this case, corporate bogeymen) have lashed out at the Commission and insisted they have no authority to do this, and the phthalates ban must apply to existing inventory.

When his office tells you he can't help, you must contact the Commission and Nancy Nord- he is laughing up his sleeve. He is disrespecting your intelligence and assuming you are ignorant of the facts (hopes you are, in fact). Anybody who sends you after Nancy Nord instead of the Congressman is dismissing you and sending you on a rabbit chase, or bought the empty rhetoric of Waxman's office themselves. The ONLY significant help small businesses can receive right now is for Waxman himself to listen to and act on the letter from Barton and Radonovich.

As they explained to him (but Waxman hopes you don't know):
"...even if the CPSC devotes full staff attention and moves at the most expeditious speed, it will be unable to issue the necessary guidance prior to Feb. 10 without violating Federal rulemaking requirements."
They also explained to Waxman:
"by simply delaying the imposition of pending CPSC action to work our way through this problem we can save many jobs and ensure that toys are safe."

But there's only one way the pending CPSC action can be delayed- and it's not through President Obama (HE CANNOT OVERTURN LAW):

"...the first step toward providing prudent and effective relief is for our Committee to conduct a hearing so everyone involved can explore the facts for themselves, understand the urgency, and coalesce around a solution."

The Committee must conduct a hearing. Only Waxman can call such a Committee meeting. Only Congress can act in a meaningful way to fix the problems with this bill. Nancy Nord and her Commission of two cannot- and whatever they say can and likely would be changed by the new members of the Commission when Obama appoints them.

Henry Waxman, and Waxman alone, can act to call that important meeting of the Committee he heads. There is nothing Republicans can do but pester him with letters (which does not mean it's not a good idea to encourage them to pester him with letters). There is nothing Nancy Nord can do- although personally, I think it would be a good idea to write her and THANK her for putting up with Waxman's demonizing her over his bad law. There is nothing that President Obama can do other than a apply a little moral suasion and political strong-arming (and it's not a bad idea to write him and ask him to play some of that charismatic political capital), but if Waxman doesn't call a Committee meeting, I don't think the President can force one, so every contact with somebody else needs to be bolstered by contact with Waxman's office, and needs to focus on asking those other people to persuade Waxman to do the right thing. DO NOT let him keep up the deception that this is a Commission problem.

Henry Waxman and the Committee on Energy and Commerce MUST MEET and push back the Feb. 10th deadline. ONLY they can.

Contacts:

Henry A. Waxman

California-30th, Democrat
2204 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515-0530
Phone: (202) 225-3976

http://www.henrywaxman.house.gov/htbin/formproc_za/waxman/zip_authen.txt&form=/waxman/email.htm



Read. This. Post. All of it. Pay attention to the addresses and suggestions at the bottom.

Updated with further thoughts:


Really, it appears to me that only Waxman can act at this point- unless there's some other way the House Committee on Energy and Commerce can be called to meet. So I've been thinking of other things to do to try to convince Waxman to have this committee meeting.

Is he married? Contact his wife. Contact the President (who cannot change the law or call the committee meeting but could try to persuade Waxman to do so). Contact Michelle Obama and ask her to persuade her husband to persuade Waxman to call the meeting. Call Obama's chief of staff (who, regrettably, is one of the co-sponsors of the CPSIA), the media, Waxman himself, and particularly other members of the the very powerful House Committee on Energy and Commerce- especially if your own rep sits on that Committee, and call your own reps- call, write, email them all and beg them to pressure Waxman to call a Committee meaning and postpone the Feb. 10th deadline and discuss some more sane ways to protect children without testing five thousand samples from the same bolt of fabric, etc, etc.

Here's a list of the members on the Committee of Energy and Commerce:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Commerce_Committee#Members.2C_111th_Congress

See Walter Olson's post at Overlawyered, as well.

He suggests also trying Waxman's Senate counterparts. I'm embarrassingly ignorant here, is that the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, or some other Committee?

I may have more later tonight.

No Where To Go But Down

A most excellent analysis from Gerald Warner in The Telegraph:

To anyone who kept his head, the string of Christmas cracker mottoes booming through the public address system on Washington's National Mall can only excite scepticism. It is crucial to recall the reality that lies behind the rhetoric. Denouncing "those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents" comes ill from a man whose flagship legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act, will impose abortion, including partial-birth abortion, on every state in the Union. It seems the era of Hope is to be inaugurated with a slaughter of the innocents.

Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is like one of those toxic packages traded by bankers: it camouflages many unaffordable gifts to his client state. With a federal deficit already at $1.2 trillion, Obama wants to squander $825 billion (which will undoubtedly mushroom to more than $1 trillion) on creating 600,000 more government jobs and a further 459,000 in "green energy" (useless wind turbines and other Heath-Robinson contraptions favoured by Beltway environmentalists).

It is frightening to think there is a real possibility that the entire world economy could go into complete meltdown and famine kill millions. Yet Western - and British - commentators are cocooned in a warm comfort zone of infatuation with America's answer to Neil Kinnock. We should be long past applauding politicians of any hue: they got us into this mess. The best deserve a probationary opportunity to prove themselves, the worst should be in jail.

He says it will end in tears, and I don't see how it can't- particularly for those who pinned their faith on the Obamessiah. Click on this audiofile at Ace of Spades to see what I mean. Listen to it all. Kinda reminds me of this:

There's no way Obama can live up to this. He's a human being, and the President in a representative democracy- not a deity, not Caesar.


As Ace also points out (in a somewhat profanity laden post, because Ace is not the church lady I am and he never will be, and I'm pretty sure he can live with the crushing disappointment):

Most of the "stimulus" will not be spent during the recession at all, but well after it, like around 2011 or so... which just happens to be the year of Obama's run for re-election, the critical year in which opinions about the economy which will inform the election are shaped.

A coincidence, I'm sure.

So, the economy will emerge from the recession with little aid from Washington, and then Obama and the Democrats will pour money into an already-recovering economy (at the expense of long-term growth, of course), in order to make it look as if they've really done something.

Meanwhile, Reich wants to avoid the sin of paying construction stimulus money to actual construction workers, looking for a formula to avoid paying money to "highly skilled white contractors" (i.e., those people actually working in the field) in favor of "the long-term unemployed, minorities, women" (people not in the field).

He further points out that Reich can't have actually looked at any construction crews in the last twenty years or so- I've seen plenty of minorities and women on road crews, and in managerial positions as well. And, as he further points out, limiting the so called stimulous funds for infrastructure improvement to unskilled, chronically unemployed people is basically calling weeding, path sweeping, and flower box planting 'infrastructure improvement.' That's not what most of us have in mind.