"Let us not enforce existing laws and apply them to the glaring, pulsating problems of our lives and times; let us not lock up failed regulators who have allowed massive fraud in our financial system and toxic poisons in our imported foods. Let us instead make new laws so we can hire legions of additional losers who cannot function in the real world to stand in god-like judgment over those who cannot afford battalions of lobbyists to advocate for them, skyscrapers full of lawyers to protect them, and "objective" experts to hawk their rot."

Of course, it doesn't make any sense that only safe items, including the materials sold for crafting, should be put on our merchandise shelves in the first place, does it?

Oh yeah, let's just keep importing all those cheap, tainted and hazardous crappy items to keep those equally crappy big-box stores in business, instead.

/sarcasm

one thing i am actually looking forward to from the continuing economic meltdown is that there simply won't be the money around to keep enforcing a lot of the bullshit laws.

that's always the clarion signal of a thug state about to fall. they lose the money to keep their jackbooted goons squads out in the streets. somebody, somewhere will look up from a balance sheet and say "look dude, this war on drugs/christmas/or what ever their pet cause is has simply quit being something we can afford. mandatory sentencing? nope. can't afford that shit either. 3 strikes? shit's out."

like deep throat said "follow the money." that's a sure a political pathway to follow. it makes as much good sense as my favorite old sailor's proverb.

"when the water passes your knees. follow the rats."

One of the local TV outlets had an article on the legislation entitled New Effort to Protect Kids from Lead.
I sent the reporter, the news director, and general manager an e-mail with quotes and links to your article.
Alas! I faltered at the end and as a postscript added the comment: "A conspiracy theorist might recommend you change the title of your article to "New Effort to Protect Wal-Mart, etc. from Falling Profits." I see their stock fell 7.49% today. (http://www.reuters.com/finance/markets/indices-click on the .DJI symbol)"
DW & readers, I normally wouldn't post a link to an article such as the above, but I do so in this case in case you want to either comment directly on the site or send the reporter an e-mail.

Good morning, Dark Wraith.

Brings to mind this ditty:

1984 is gone
Forget about Big Brother,
Welcome to the 90's
Where the government is your mother.

They'll tell you, don't do that
They'll try and tell you, it's for your own good
Big Mother is watching you
Mother's protecting you
Mommy knows what's right for you

Goodbye Freedom, Hello Mom
The Bill of Rights just disappeared
There it is -- whoops it's gone!
Goodbye Freedom, Hello Mom
The Bill of Rights just took a dive
Everybody stay calm.

---Scatterbrain
Goodbye Freedom, Hello Mom

They had the best selection
But they were poisoned with protection

---Neil Young
Thrasher

it's not a matter of left vs right. There are always authoritarians on both sides. But you already know that.

I'm still trying to understand why this is necessarily a conservative stance; Sounds a lot more like a stand against idiotic laws, which have never been the domain of just one side of the aisle.

it's conservative (the paleo variety) because of the stance of the argument against the stupid law.

i often point out that i argue my side of abortion from a very conservative position. a level of government intrusion to barge into such a private and personal moment as a woman visiting her doctor is far more than my stone aged libertarian soul can stand.

it's a position that lands me cheek by jowl with progressives, while i stay certainly and decidedly conservative.

i miss the glory days of "free range children." we were left on our own, without programmed and organized activities and stuff. we amused ourselves through improvosation and imagination. we also were blessed with deadly playground equipment to weed out the reckless and stupid among us.

goofing around in the company of other children buffed up our immune systems, taught us to play through "little" hurts, we didn't need WGA folks programming half hours of scripted shows, we did all that stuff ourselves, making it up as we went along. so were most of our parents.

i was talking with the young 20's friends of a nephew over the holidays. one story struck home with them. at one point while at the age of 8 or 9 i said something smart aleckey and rude to my mother and took off running. moms chucked an ashtray which nailed me in the back of the head, it required stitches. about all i got in the way of intervention from the ER staff was "you shouldn't have sassed your mom like that dummy."

no CPS calls, no mandatory reports of abuse, just another kid who was taught a serious lesson.

it's conservative (the paleo variety) because of the stance of the argument against the stupid law.

Sounds to me like the delineation of Reasoned vs Numbnutz.

I'm glad to note that my descriptions of how we made our own playtime activities has at least partially sunk into my kids; Playstation, TV, etc. has a time and place, but they are a poor trade-off for imagination and "just do it". We certainly were lucky to not have so much fearmongering thrown at our parents, who considered outdoors to be more than enough to keep us occupied, and didn't usually consider that "MAYBE" some crazed hopped up Marijuana smoker might come along and kidnap us kids.

Here's a couple of the many definitions of "liberal". This is typically what I think of when I think of the word:

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

Blondesense is right - this isn't a left vs. right issue. Those polarizations are not so useful in understanding the issues. To imply that conservatives these days stand for freedom of personal operations or craftmanship is not consistent with the evidence. Are you referring to how conservatives used to be? My parents can remember when conservatives believed the government should butt out of our personal business on every level. What a refreshing concept - where do I sign up??
Perhaps I'm coming from a southern perspective, but here's what I've seen in my own, and in neighboring states. The following are all legal prohibitions on personal actions or businesses enacted by conservative lawmakers:
Bans on lottery, bingo, video poker, shopping on Sunday morning, visiting psychics and palm readers, getting a tattoo or operating a tattoo parlor, giving info on contraceptives to public school students, buying or selling of sex toys, the sale and purchase of pornographic books and videos, getting a payday loan, etc. (In Alabama, you can't buy a sex toy, but you can buy a machine gun). I can't even grow half an acre of tobacco without a government permit.
The people currently in these federal regulatory positions are largely conservative Bush appointees. They are the ones enacting these kinds of measures now.
The nanny state usually knows no party lines. Look at all the so-called "libertarians" who are anti-choice, for example. Around here, conservatives tend to espouse government and corporate freedoms, but not civil rights, or personal freedom and decision-making. They love making sure corporations don't have to bother with any regulations, while loading up average citizens with an endless variety of restrictions.
To me, those new regulations seem like an extension of that mentality. For example, where are the testing requirements for countries selling products and materials TO the U.S.?
These days, the nanny state is looking pretty much like corporate fascism. Both parties have been completely bought, body and soul. Our government exists by the corporations, for the corporations.
But it's occurring to me that you're probably just yanking our chain here, and I fell for it...

I hate to be the hesitant voice of reason here, but several craft-involved friends have made phone calls and are getting variants on these themes:

(1) It will not affect American crafters---it apples ONLY to imports.

(2) Even if it DID apply to American made crafts--if they save the labels of the makings (yarn wrappers, paint can labels, etc) THOSE will have the already licensed safety information on them---thereby proving the craft product is safe because the components were already ruled safe.

(3) For the alpaca raising spinners and knitters, the USDA can certify the animals and their resultant yarn products safe.

I do wonder if the corporate master-class would love this to attach to all small business-crafts workers. And then, being the devious bitch that I am, if I did think it was going to be applied, since it is in the name of protecting children? I'd label everything "FOR COLLECTORS ONLY, NOT INTENDED FOR CHILDREN."

As labrys says, we must get all the facts. I for one am appalled at the dangerous items which have hit the U.S. consumer market from China. For U.S. crofters, it makes sense that all integrated items would probably have already passed grading (however feeble or efficient that procedure is.)

But if one is opposed to the proposition, Blondsense does include the contact info where one may lodge a complaint, which is still among the most effective forms of protest shy of boycotts or taking to the street that citizens possess.

I'm completely off topic here, but the open thread is closed...DW, Imp... likes the new cut very much and Implet says he likes your hair both ways. Imp.. likes the younger look (while I always liked older looking men as opposed to babyfaces), and said you looked much younger, and she felt the old look appeared like you were hiding behind your bangs, and she liked the "open look" of the new cut.