Monumental stupidity!

[dreamflower]

Link courtesy of rabidsamfan:

http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon0212wo.html

Imagine how many first editions of The Hobbit just went into the landfills...

*weeps*

Comments

[addie71.livejournal.com]

So stupid! *weeps with you*

[dreamflower]

It is. It is sheer stupidity and rushing to act without thinking of the consequences.

[rabidsamfan.livejournal.com]

First editions might skin by on a "collectible" pass. But nice copies of the second edition? And books which aren't nearly so famous, like the one you loved when you were in third grade?

*bangs head on desk*

Does no one realize that four color printing looks entirely different than the new printing methods?

I just realized the article is a month old, but I'm still calling my reps and finding out just WHAT they've done to stop this travesty.

[dreamflower]

I know. One of my greatest treasures is a little first-grade reader called "Little Lost Bobo". It was given to me by my first grade teacher, and I wore it out. Many years later, I found a copy at a junk store, and was thrilled to replace it.

They've got to move on this. It's just ridiculous.

[topaztook.livejournal.com]

This is part of that completely idiotic Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act I blogged about earlier. http://topaztook.livejournal.com/172612.html

It has already put at least two businesses that I now about out of commission for selling the majorit of their (previous) line of products: CDs of audio books for kids under 13, or printed books with instructions in hand sewing and other traditional crafts. Because even if they are published now, one of *every press run* has to be expensively tested -- and there is no way small businesses can afford to pay the price of several hundred to several thousand dollars they're being quoted -- if they can even find a lab to do it.

I have written to my state's single senator, who (eventually) wrote back and claimed that she and other senators are trying to force the CPSC to change its position and implement the law in common sense and practical ways.

Considering its far-reaching potential to bankrupt small business, destroy the environment, and make children's items inaccessible to families on a budget, I am not impressed with the turtle-like speed any such activity seems to be taking.

[dreamflower]

The thing is "encouraging" the CPSC to be less draconian won't help, as long as the stores fear the consequences of non-compliance.

The law needs to be repealed and re-written to serve the original purpose: protecting kids from shoddy *NEW IMPORTS*.

[lily-the-hobbit.livejournal.com]

This is absolutely ridiculous!!!!!
It breaks my heart to read it. Makes me want to go out and buy every single book I can lay my hands on.

[dreamflower]

It does, doesn't it?

[illyria-novia.livejournal.com]

*waving from a third-world country where books are still considered a luxury, no matter how old they are*

Yo! Send 'em here! Heeeeeeere!

I bet the people who made this stupid law do not read. *weeps with you*

[dreamflower]

They read. They just don't *THINK*. The law was never intended to be aimed at books, but that was how it turned out.

And they probably wouldn't let us send them anywhere.

[cairistiona7.livejournal.com]

This leaves me almost speechless. Almost, I say, because it's not a matter of not being able to say anything because my mind is blank but because I want to say so much at once it's all clogged up and fighting over what to say first.

This is governmental stupidity at its highest level. Big Brother and all that... people who want the government to "fix" everything really need to get a grip and study a bit about the law of unintended consequences. It's not *quite* on a par with banning books because of the ideas therein, but it seems perilously close to a step in that direction, doesn't it? How big a leap is it, really, for a government who puts such a draconian measure into law, seeming without any scrutiny, to decide, out of concern for the "safety" of children, to make that step into banning books for ideology's sake?

It's frightening.

[dreamflower]

I know.

And the thing is, the whole idea of a law was to protect kids from shoddy new imports! I am not sure how the part about second-hand stuff got in there, but that part needs to be repealed!

[gentlehobbit.livejournal.com]

Oh my goodness. That does sound utterly stupid. I really hope that none of that nonsense makes its way up here...

[dreamflower]

Well, I hope your legislators have more sense, and think about the consequences before they rush to pass a new law!

[meneleth.livejournal.com]

That is so utterly ridiculous as to need a new adjective to describe it. What, do they think children are suddenly feasting on old books? They even admit that no child has ever gotten ill from reading them. I think in our zeal to "make the world a better place" we are rushing into ill-considered laws without the slightest thought of the actual consequences. Yes, some protections are necessary. On the other hand, if children are so protected they never come in contact with anything remotely hazardous, when they become adults they will have no immune system.

If they want to come take away my old books, they're going to have to arrest me first!

[dreamflower]

Yes, this was panic legislation. The original idea was to make a law to protect kids from all those toxic imports from China. I've no idea how second-hand stuff suddenly got lumped in with new imports, but it was a bad idea.

They never thought it through, and now the agency in charge of enforcing it is gleefully flexing its new muscles.

[auntiemeesh.livejournal.com]

I would imagine that first edition Tolkien books would be considered collectors' items and safeguarded that way. No one is going to give a treasured first edition to a child for daily reading purposes.

The books that bother me the most are the really old ones that aren't still so popular. Books from the thirties and forties that aren't in print any more. And yeah, they may be old and a little outdated, but some of them are still really charming little stories that we are in danger of losing altogether, because no one is going to spare the expense of reprinting them. :(

[dreamflower]

Yes. If someone actually *notices* it's a first edition.

I know. A couple of my own favorite treasures are old school readers, one from the thirties and one from the late forties. And I still have many of my childhood books in my possession. I don't want them destroyed if anything happens to me!

[winterbard.livejournal.com]

A lovely parting shot scare tactic brought to you by the wonderful folks of the previous administration. totally unenforcable by the way. I know a number of Federal law enforcement agents and they do not have the time or the inclination to go raiding every second hand bookshop. That being said, it is still a STUPID law which MUST be revoked, repealed or whatever.

They thought of the loss of just about every classic work written for children just maked me sick.

[dreamflower]

Well, I hope it's unenforceable. But a good many of the thrift stores and second-hand shops are already rushing to comply because they *fear* enforcement. Already a lot of books and toys have been hauled off to landfills, just because they don't want to take any chances.

This was a bit of stupid panic legislation, originally aimed at protecting kids from toxic Chinese imports--I have no idea why someone thought of including second-hand stuff in the law, but it was a piss-poor idea.

[winterbard.livejournal.com]

that's exactly what was intended. The "Fear" of prosecution will cost us dear. It will take a very brave and fearless bookseller to stand firm and go to court and challenege the law. Meanwhile the rest of us need to put pressure on congress.

(Wow, did I write all that?)