0 comment Friday, December 5, 2014 | admin
A while back, I read something about this new law, Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), which was passed quietly (as most laws are) last year and which came into effect last week or so. I paid scant attention to it, but I've just read about one curious feature of this new law, after Laurel Loflund posted about it at the Kinism forum. The article to which she linked was in the City Journal:
The New Book Banning
byWalter Olson
It�s hard to believe, but true: under a law Congress passed last year aimed at regulating hazards in children�s products, the federal government has now advised that children�s books published before 1985 should not be considered safe and may in many cases be unlawful to sell or distribute. Merchants, thrift stores, and booksellers may be at risk if they sell older volumes, or even give them away, without first subjecting them to testing�at prohibitive expense. Many used-book sellers, consignment stores, Goodwill outlets, and the like have accordingly begun to refuse new donations of pre-1985 volumes, yank existing ones off their shelves, and in some cases discard them en masse.
The problem is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), passed by Congress last summer after the panic over lead paint on toys from China. Among its other provisions, CPSIA imposed tough new limits on lead in any products intended for use by children aged 12 or under, and made those limits retroactive: that is, goods manufactured before the law passed cannot be sold on the used market (even in garage sales or on eBay) if they don�t conform.''
Laurel also linked to Gary North's piece on this law
Children's Books in Dumpsters: Washington's Madness Continues
Here is the new reality, one week old. If you can still find any pre-1985 books, it is because the thrift store's managers don't know they are breaking the law and could be fined or sent to prison if they persist.
[...]
The bureaucrats are now enforcing the letter of the 2008 law. Congressmen will feign ignorance. "Gee, how were we to know?"
Too late. The books are in landfill.
But why? "Stop dangerous lead paint!" Right. The lead paint in pre-1985 kids' books in minuscule traces. There is no known example of any child being injured by lead paint from a book. No matter. The law's the law.
This seems insane, but it is the relentless logic of the State: "Nothing is permitted unless authorized by the State."
The Federal government has authorized abortion on demand. But, once a parent allows a child to be born, that parent is not be allowed to buy the child a pre-1985 book. Such books are too dangerous for children.
This is the logic of Washington. This logic is relentless. It will be extended by law into every nook and cranny of our lives until it is stopped.''
Now, most of the criticisms I've since found of the law are concerned with the minutiae of it, or about other aspects of it, like the banning of certain clothing items like buttons or snaps which may contain toxic materials. But from my perspective, the most troubling thing about it is that it seems, beneath the surface, to be concerned with what our rulers consider 'toxic ideas', not lead in ink or in items of apparel.
Our government has different ideas of what is 'dangerous to our health' than my own idea. To them, it seems anything which comes from the pre-politically correct era is toxic. Our school textbooks and popular histories, in book form or on TV or the Internet, have been 'corrected' to conform with the present ideas of acceptability. We are all familiar with disputes between educators and parents, and complaints by ethnic agitators over 'racist' and 'xenophobic' words, images, and ideas in old textbooks and literature. I don't for a moment believe that the government would not like to wave a magic wand and cause all pre-PC books, movies, and recordings to disappear forever. Anything that would further that cause, even if only incidentally, would be just fine with them.
Some time back, I blogged about the 'cleansing' of old books from public libraries nationwide, and the overall dumbing down of libraries, usually under the guise of ''updating" and digitizing and changing the emphasis to electronic media. If some old, pre-PC books happened to be casualties of the march of progress, then -- oops, too bad, what a shame.
Most people don't question this; we have this ingrained idea that newer is better and that progress is inevitable and unstoppable, and that overall, all changes are part of progress and therefore we just have to accept it with a shrug. But I think we may lose a great deal of our heritage and history in those old books that are being unceremoniously thrown out or dumped in landfills, and what is being left in its place is not an improvement.
As a society, we no longer value the old in general, and every day it seems another article appears somewhere about the coming demise of the printed word. Books in general are valued less than ever before, as people passively accept that the book will soon be a relic of the past, of no use to us in the computer age. And old books generally are regarded as irrelevant if not downright backward and harmful to our delicate PC sensibilities.
This commentator understands the importance of what is happening.
...It used to be that the older the book, the more it was treasured as part of the collection. Now the opposite seems to be true: the most recent interpretations of human affairs are valued, while the older ones are discarded. Instant and untested knowledge trumps the wisdom of the ages.
Western civilization (or any other civilization worth its name) depends on written texts for its preservation, perpetuation, and development. Dead civilizations are studied through archeology, live ones are reanimated by reading books.
[...]
The removal of a sizeable percentage of books published before the 1960s truncates the memory of the present generation. If a significant chunk of interpretations of culture committed to paper is removed from easy circulation, the culture built on these interpretations will eventually wither. This was predicted by Marxists like Antonio Gramsci who wrote in the 1930s that it is not necessary to engineer bloody revolutions to change political systems and affect a transfer of power: it is enough to change culture to affect such a change. The massive removal of old books from university libraries is a small step in this direction. While many steps have to be taken to bring Gramsci�s vision to fruition, one should not ignore the small steps.''
I agree; the 'small steps' often go unnoticed but they are not insignificant.
The New Book Banning
byWalter Olson
It�s hard to believe, but true: under a law Congress passed last year aimed at regulating hazards in children�s products, the federal government has now advised that children�s books published before 1985 should not be considered safe and may in many cases be unlawful to sell or distribute. Merchants, thrift stores, and booksellers may be at risk if they sell older volumes, or even give them away, without first subjecting them to testing�at prohibitive expense. Many used-book sellers, consignment stores, Goodwill outlets, and the like have accordingly begun to refuse new donations of pre-1985 volumes, yank existing ones off their shelves, and in some cases discard them en masse.
The problem is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), passed by Congress last summer after the panic over lead paint on toys from China. Among its other provisions, CPSIA imposed tough new limits on lead in any products intended for use by children aged 12 or under, and made those limits retroactive: that is, goods manufactured before the law passed cannot be sold on the used market (even in garage sales or on eBay) if they don�t conform.''
Laurel also linked to Gary North's piece on this law
Children's Books in Dumpsters: Washington's Madness Continues
Here is the new reality, one week old. If you can still find any pre-1985 books, it is because the thrift store's managers don't know they are breaking the law and could be fined or sent to prison if they persist.
[...]
The bureaucrats are now enforcing the letter of the 2008 law. Congressmen will feign ignorance. "Gee, how were we to know?"
Too late. The books are in landfill.
But why? "Stop dangerous lead paint!" Right. The lead paint in pre-1985 kids' books in minuscule traces. There is no known example of any child being injured by lead paint from a book. No matter. The law's the law.
This seems insane, but it is the relentless logic of the State: "Nothing is permitted unless authorized by the State."
The Federal government has authorized abortion on demand. But, once a parent allows a child to be born, that parent is not be allowed to buy the child a pre-1985 book. Such books are too dangerous for children.
This is the logic of Washington. This logic is relentless. It will be extended by law into every nook and cranny of our lives until it is stopped.''
Now, most of the criticisms I've since found of the law are concerned with the minutiae of it, or about other aspects of it, like the banning of certain clothing items like buttons or snaps which may contain toxic materials. But from my perspective, the most troubling thing about it is that it seems, beneath the surface, to be concerned with what our rulers consider 'toxic ideas', not lead in ink or in items of apparel.
Our government has different ideas of what is 'dangerous to our health' than my own idea. To them, it seems anything which comes from the pre-politically correct era is toxic. Our school textbooks and popular histories, in book form or on TV or the Internet, have been 'corrected' to conform with the present ideas of acceptability. We are all familiar with disputes between educators and parents, and complaints by ethnic agitators over 'racist' and 'xenophobic' words, images, and ideas in old textbooks and literature. I don't for a moment believe that the government would not like to wave a magic wand and cause all pre-PC books, movies, and recordings to disappear forever. Anything that would further that cause, even if only incidentally, would be just fine with them.
Some time back, I blogged about the 'cleansing' of old books from public libraries nationwide, and the overall dumbing down of libraries, usually under the guise of ''updating" and digitizing and changing the emphasis to electronic media. If some old, pre-PC books happened to be casualties of the march of progress, then -- oops, too bad, what a shame.
Most people don't question this; we have this ingrained idea that newer is better and that progress is inevitable and unstoppable, and that overall, all changes are part of progress and therefore we just have to accept it with a shrug. But I think we may lose a great deal of our heritage and history in those old books that are being unceremoniously thrown out or dumped in landfills, and what is being left in its place is not an improvement.
As a society, we no longer value the old in general, and every day it seems another article appears somewhere about the coming demise of the printed word. Books in general are valued less than ever before, as people passively accept that the book will soon be a relic of the past, of no use to us in the computer age. And old books generally are regarded as irrelevant if not downright backward and harmful to our delicate PC sensibilities.
This commentator understands the importance of what is happening.
...It used to be that the older the book, the more it was treasured as part of the collection. Now the opposite seems to be true: the most recent interpretations of human affairs are valued, while the older ones are discarded. Instant and untested knowledge trumps the wisdom of the ages.
Western civilization (or any other civilization worth its name) depends on written texts for its preservation, perpetuation, and development. Dead civilizations are studied through archeology, live ones are reanimated by reading books.
[...]
The removal of a sizeable percentage of books published before the 1960s truncates the memory of the present generation. If a significant chunk of interpretations of culture committed to paper is removed from easy circulation, the culture built on these interpretations will eventually wither. This was predicted by Marxists like Antonio Gramsci who wrote in the 1930s that it is not necessary to engineer bloody revolutions to change political systems and affect a transfer of power: it is enough to change culture to affect such a change. The massive removal of old books from university libraries is a small step in this direction. While many steps have to be taken to bring Gramsci�s vision to fruition, one should not ignore the small steps.''
I agree; the 'small steps' often go unnoticed but they are not insignificant.
Labels: Big Government, Books, Censorship, Congress, Freedom Of Thought, Libraries, Orwellian, Political Correctness
0 comment Sunday, October 26, 2014 | admin
It's good to see the 'DREAM Act' defeated -- for now.
Of course there is squawking from the usual quarters, but that too is music to the ears, just as long as the amnesty-in-disguise was defeated.
For now.
Recently I heard, as many of you probably did too, about a potential GOP version of the 'DREAM Act' which may be in the works. I hope there is still enough determination to see this thing stopped, once and for all, but reading some of the exasperating comments online among the 'mainstream' conservatives does not exactly inspire hope.
There are still people stuck in that mode of saying 'I'm not against immigration, just ILLEGAL immigration' from the people who think that all legal immigration is good, and that immigration is our lifeblood, keeps our country renewed, and similar twaddle.
As of now, we still have a kind of de facto amnesty in place; once they set foot on our soil, chances are they will stay. Even those who commit crimes and are deported are usually back in the blink of an eye. And once they have kids here, they are home and dry. Legal or not, they are still given most of the rights of citizens, and then some, in certain cases.
Sure, a few are deported, if only for show, yet it seems that this is enough to satisfy some Americans. They read the news stories about the deportation of a handful here and there, and think 'good, they're enforcing our laws.' Yet for every one that is sent home or who goes home voluntarily, there are thousands, probably tens of thousands coming into our country.
The battle was won this time, but the war goes on.
Of course there is squawking from the usual quarters, but that too is music to the ears, just as long as the amnesty-in-disguise was defeated.
For now.
Recently I heard, as many of you probably did too, about a potential GOP version of the 'DREAM Act' which may be in the works. I hope there is still enough determination to see this thing stopped, once and for all, but reading some of the exasperating comments online among the 'mainstream' conservatives does not exactly inspire hope.
There are still people stuck in that mode of saying 'I'm not against immigration, just ILLEGAL immigration' from the people who think that all legal immigration is good, and that immigration is our lifeblood, keeps our country renewed, and similar twaddle.
As of now, we still have a kind of de facto amnesty in place; once they set foot on our soil, chances are they will stay. Even those who commit crimes and are deported are usually back in the blink of an eye. And once they have kids here, they are home and dry. Legal or not, they are still given most of the rights of citizens, and then some, in certain cases.
Sure, a few are deported, if only for show, yet it seems that this is enough to satisfy some Americans. They read the news stories about the deportation of a handful here and there, and think 'good, they're enforcing our laws.' Yet for every one that is sent home or who goes home voluntarily, there are thousands, probably tens of thousands coming into our country.
The battle was won this time, but the war goes on.
Labels: Amnesty, Border Enforcement, Congress, Illegal Aliens
0 comment Sunday, August 31, 2014 | admin
So much of the 'news' lately reported in the old media, and even in the blogosphere, seems to be so much distraction from some of the rather unsettling things that are happening quietly, unbeknownst to most Americans.
I've alluded to this 'national service' plan which has been in the works, but few details have been publicly discussed, so there was not much to say about it except that I find it to be wrong in principle. However the Senate has just passed the bill which is called the GIVE Act.
The senate voted 74-14 in favor of the bill.
HR 1388
GIVE Act
Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act
The link above gives only a summary of the bill, and not the complete text, but I invite my readers to take a look at it.
The House version of the bill passed a few days ago, as WorldNetDaily reported, and with no less than 70 Republicans voting for it.
The House version is here.
Here is one part (among many) which is rather unnerving:
SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:
...(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.''
There's also a related bill here.
Somehow in light of what these measures suggest, I can't help thinking of what a certain person said some months ago:
"Barack Obama will require you to work."
"He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation and that you move out of your comfort zone. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage."
"Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual � uninvolved, uninformed � you have to stay at the seat at the table of democracy with a man like Barack Obama not just on Tuesday but in a year from now, in four years from now, in eight years from now, you will have to be engaged."
These plans seems disturbingly open-ended, and though it looks as if the idea is primarily to indoctrinate young people (or further indoctrinate them, more accurately), the bills even mention programs for seniors over the age of 55. If we consider the quotes in the paragraph above, it sounds as though this 'service corps' will not just be another little VISTA program or something which provides busy work for idealistic young people, but something that sounds unsettlingly compulsory as opposed to voluntary, and it looks like it is meant to touch everybody, not just a 'commiitted' few.
Any reactions? Comments?
I've alluded to this 'national service' plan which has been in the works, but few details have been publicly discussed, so there was not much to say about it except that I find it to be wrong in principle. However the Senate has just passed the bill which is called the GIVE Act.
The senate voted 74-14 in favor of the bill.
HR 1388
GIVE Act
Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act
The link above gives only a summary of the bill, and not the complete text, but I invite my readers to take a look at it.
The House version of the bill passed a few days ago, as WorldNetDaily reported, and with no less than 70 Republicans voting for it.
The House version is here.
Here is one part (among many) which is rather unnerving:
SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:
...(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.''
There's also a related bill here.
Somehow in light of what these measures suggest, I can't help thinking of what a certain person said some months ago:
"Barack Obama will require you to work."
"He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation and that you move out of your comfort zone. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage."
"Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual � uninvolved, uninformed � you have to stay at the seat at the table of democracy with a man like Barack Obama not just on Tuesday but in a year from now, in four years from now, in eight years from now, you will have to be engaged."
These plans seems disturbingly open-ended, and though it looks as if the idea is primarily to indoctrinate young people (or further indoctrinate them, more accurately), the bills even mention programs for seniors over the age of 55. If we consider the quotes in the paragraph above, it sounds as though this 'service corps' will not just be another little VISTA program or something which provides busy work for idealistic young people, but something that sounds unsettlingly compulsory as opposed to voluntary, and it looks like it is meant to touch everybody, not just a 'commiitted' few.
Any reactions? Comments?
Labels: Communism, Congress, Indoctrination, Mass Media, National Service, Socialism, Volunteerism
0 comment Monday, May 12, 2014 | admin
I haven't seen much discussion of this story around the internet as yet. But I wonder what it portends for the immigration restriction cause?
A former state Senate president. The son of a former U.S. senator. The secretary of state. A radio talk show host.
The long list of candidates mentioned as possible successors to Congressman Tom Tancredo reads like a Who's Who of Suburban Republicans, and paves the way for what is sure to be a fascinating primary race.
One day after Tancredo announced he would not seek a sixth term in Congress, the jockeying began to determine who might replace the nationally known Littleton Republican, who is reviled and revered.
"I assume there will be a spirited primary," Dick Wadhams, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, said Monday.
"It's kind of a family feud that has to play itself out."
At least four Republicans have expressed an interest in running for the seat: Secretary of State Mike Coffman; businessman Wil Armstrong, son of former U.S. Sen. Bill Armstrong; and state Sens. Ted Harvey and Tom Wiens.
[...]
Tancredo is the 17th House member, and the 14th Republican, who will not be seeking re-election next year, according to CQPolitics.com.
There has been talk for some time that Tancredo will run for the governorship of Colorado; this might be a good move for him and good for his home state, which apparently is being hit hard by illegal immigration.
Tancredo says that he feels his run for the Presidency will have accomplished what he hoped it would, regardless of whether he is is the GOP nominee. He hoped to draw more attention to the immigration issue, and he feels that goal has been accomplished, since there are now more Congressmen who are adopting the restrictionist position, and there is more open public discussion of immigration. It's also noticeable how much more restrictionist the 'top tier' candidates have been sounding lately. Of course whether or not they can walk the walk remains to be seen; I doubt it. Tancredo, however, is the real deal; he is sincere in his concern for this country and its preservation.
Whatever Tancredo decides to do, I hope he will not leave public life; he is sorely needed right now, as never before.
A former state Senate president. The son of a former U.S. senator. The secretary of state. A radio talk show host.
The long list of candidates mentioned as possible successors to Congressman Tom Tancredo reads like a Who's Who of Suburban Republicans, and paves the way for what is sure to be a fascinating primary race.
One day after Tancredo announced he would not seek a sixth term in Congress, the jockeying began to determine who might replace the nationally known Littleton Republican, who is reviled and revered.
"I assume there will be a spirited primary," Dick Wadhams, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, said Monday.
"It's kind of a family feud that has to play itself out."
At least four Republicans have expressed an interest in running for the seat: Secretary of State Mike Coffman; businessman Wil Armstrong, son of former U.S. Sen. Bill Armstrong; and state Sens. Ted Harvey and Tom Wiens.
[...]
Tancredo is the 17th House member, and the 14th Republican, who will not be seeking re-election next year, according to CQPolitics.com.
There has been talk for some time that Tancredo will run for the governorship of Colorado; this might be a good move for him and good for his home state, which apparently is being hit hard by illegal immigration.
Tancredo says that he feels his run for the Presidency will have accomplished what he hoped it would, regardless of whether he is is the GOP nominee. He hoped to draw more attention to the immigration issue, and he feels that goal has been accomplished, since there are now more Congressmen who are adopting the restrictionist position, and there is more open public discussion of immigration. It's also noticeable how much more restrictionist the 'top tier' candidates have been sounding lately. Of course whether or not they can walk the walk remains to be seen; I doubt it. Tancredo, however, is the real deal; he is sincere in his concern for this country and its preservation.
Whatever Tancredo decides to do, I hope he will not leave public life; he is sorely needed right now, as never before.
Labels: Borders, Congress, Politics, Tom Tancredo