I'm sure the phrase: "Think of the children" was said more than once during the push to have the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act passed through congress.

Whenever I here that something should be done "for the children" I usually brace myself for painful amounts of ignorance and calls for more unnecessary government intervention into our lives.

But after hearing about this Act and how it is likely to affect millions of families and thousands of small businesses, I am saying to myself, "Think of the children..."

Think of the children who will not be properly clothed because their parents can't afford new winter coats for them and the local second-hand stores cannot sell children's clothes.

Think of the children of the small business owners who will be forced out of business.

Think of the children with special needs (such as the blind and deaf) whose parents can't buy specialty products for them because most businesses can't afford to make them anymore.

Think of the children whose local libraries cannot afford to test every book meant for children and therefore cannot loan out children's books. (I'm not lying, see link below)

Yes, folks.  That is what happens when the government "thinks of the children"  Irrational, over sweeping laws that will have a huge negative impact on our already fragile economy. 

This is a very important issue that needs to be addressed immediately before February 10th (which has been deemed National Bankrupcy Day) when the Act go into affect.

Instead of restating alot of information that you can better find else where, here are some links that will explain the law and it's affects better.

-----

Here is the change.org page on this cause.

http://www.change.org/ideas/view/save_handmade_toys_from_the_cpsia

It's a good summary of why people are so concerned about this law.  It is also where ideas for change are voted on to be presented to the Obama administration to help form the basis of a nationwide advocacy campaign to turn each idea into actual policy.

-----

This is Save Second-hand Kid's Clothes. 

http://www.rallycongress.com/make-second-hand-kids-clothes-legal-/1471/

It is a great petition to sign and makes it also very easy to send letters directly to your Congresspeople from the site. The form letter only really addresses the second-hand clothing issue, so I recommend adding your own comments and editing the letter to include the other consequences of the law I have mentioned.

-----

Here is a great youtube video of a business man's response to CPSIA Implementation.  It makes VERY IMPORTANT ECONOMIC POINTS.  Watch all three parts.  Please!! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUlY6zOMPqQ

He points out the logistical difficulties (if not impossiblities) of many businesses complying to the law and the affect it will have on children in schools and with special needs.

-----

Many people have said that second-hand stores are exempt, but that isn't entirely true.  Read the official statement from the CPSC for yourself.

http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/01-08-2009/0004951695&EDATE=

Though resellers do not have to test their inventory they can be fined and/or prosecuted for selling anything that does not comply.  Some stores will take that to mean just follow recall notices carefully, but it could also mean a great reduction of children's clothing and toys in second-hand stores.  Older clothing and toys that may never get tested will be too risky to sell.

-----

This is an article about the CPSC statement on resell items.  It mentions the fact that as of now (1/9/09)Libraries will have to be sure all children's books are compliant to the law.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/264507#tab=article&sc=0&local=

Let's hope that gets changed before Feb. 10th.

-----

**Update:  This article goes into more detail of the affect the CPSIA will have on publishers and libraries.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/index.asp?layout=talkbackCommentsFull&talk_back_header_id=6578488&articleid=CA6627969

Very informative and from publisher's perspective.  They know what this law will do to their industry.  Only ONE book has been recalled in the past 20 years.  Do books really need to be tested?

-----

This article has a lot of information on the issue as well. 

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/264507#tab=article&sc=0&local=

It mostly focuses on hand-made toy makers.  It has contact information for the Consumer Product Safety Commission.  All comments must be sent to them by January 30th.

**Update:  It should be clarified that sale of products manufactured within the same state does not fall under this Federal law, but the law does supersede any state law.  This means that sale within your state on hand-made toys would not be prosecuted by the federal government, but could be prosecuted by your state government.  It should go without saying that sales across state lines would be subject to the CPSIA.  Good-bye ebay, craigslist, and internet commerce.

Read more clarifications from the CPSC at the link below.

http://www.joc.com/articles/news.asp?section=spec3&sid=47493

-----

And finally, this is the law itself with some summaries and frequently asked questions put out by the CPSC.  It dispels some rumors and re-enforces others. 

http://www.cpsc.gov/ABOUT/Cpsia/legislation.html

I put this last in hopes that people who skim through the post will at least see the last link.

This law needs major re-work if not to be completely re-written.  We all want children to be safe, but I think we all want rationality in our laws.

Please read all the information you can about the issue and come to your own conclusion.  But remember it is easier to do something about this now, fix the mistakes before it takes affect.  If only we caught it sooner.  Maybe the law would have been written right the first time.

-Rae

My Irony Meter just broke.

If you actually think that a woman's promiscuity or sexual background tells us about how good of a mother that woman will be, then let me introduce you to today's winner of "People most deserving of a severe beating."  If you read the next paragraph and don't really see what the problem is, then please send me your home address so i can come over and personally beat you to the point of losing fertility.

Today's winner is a lucky lady who came up to return something at Target today.  She had her son with her (I later learn he is 4 years old), and she wanted to exchange a toy that was "defective".  The toy was a stuffed dog with buttons on the paws and ears.  She said that the toy cut-off the songs that were suppose to play when the buttons were pressed.  To demonstrate to me she starts pressing buttons, but they all seem to work.  Her son speaks up and says, "Try the purple one."  To which she quickly tells him to be quiet.  I take the boy's suggestion, and sure enough, the purple button demonstrated the "defect".  (The reason I quote "defect" is because we later learn it is not defective, but that is not important) 

I smile and tell the boy, "You were right." and he smiles back.  His mother is too busy digging in her purse to notice.  I can only hope that my small affirmation will encourage him to continue to speak his opinion when he knows he is right and maybe even learn the importance to listening to others as well, but that is probably too much for which to hope. 

I notice this type of dismissing of children very often when out in public.  People almost NEVER listen to their children.  They treat them like pets, not people.  They tell their children to be quiet or even to "shut-up" when they dare to ask innocent curious questions.  The natural curiosity and confidence that children have are squashed at a young age by their parents. 

I usually notice, such as in today's case, that children are WAY smarter than their parents.  This 4 year old kid knew what his mother didn't about the toy.  (Although this shouldn't be too surprising.  After all, even though I learn the toy was for a younger sibling, he probably played with it and noticed the problem to begin with.)  His mother was probably once an inquisitive child too, but her parents also subscribed to the "seen and not heard" tenets of child rearing, and thus, the mental midget standing before me today.

Reflecting back on Ms. Jameson.  I wish her the best of luck getting pregnant and having healthy children.  I think she will make 10x the mother the "respectible" bitch I met today currently is.  Sexual background has no coorolation to bad parenting.  Then again, maybe the lady I met today is actually a real slut.  I shouldn't make assumptions.

"First and last, man is alone.
He is born alone, and alone he dies
and alone he is while he lives, in his deepest self." -D.H. Lawerence

I'll go out alone. I'll go to sit down restaurants alone. I'll go to concerts alone. I'll go places alone.

I have found this is something that few other people seem to do or are able to do or are even willing to consider. When I'm out alone and I meet people and tell them that I am there alone, there is almost always a slight bit (or a lot) of pity in their reaction. My first instinct is a blush of anger that they should pity me at all (i hate being pitied, but that is another post), but then I have to remember why I'm angry at them in the first place. There is no reason to pity me and, in fact, I could (and maybe should) pity them. They appear to have no ability to just do things alone, and I think that is sad. To me, it's as though they can't give themselves permission to enjoy anything without other's consent. They have to check to make sure that what they want to do is the same as at least one or two other people they know before they can just go out and do it. And if no one else wants to (or approves of) doing it, they simply won't. I have a freedom they will never have. Every so often, I'll go out and meet someone and tell them I'm there alone, and they say to me, "Wow. I wish I could do that."  I think that demonstrates the sad fear people have of being alone.

It's great to be with friends and around people who are like you and understand you, but it can also be great to be alone and with oneself. And as bad as being alone can sometimes be too, so can being surrounded by people. Or maybe that's just me.

I've always been a solitary person and it does anger me a lot when people look down on me for that or feel sorry for me for it. The worst thing about being solitary is the fact that most people don't understand it or even worse just plain dislike you for it.

Well, I tire of this. It's late and I'm hungry. Maybe I'll go to Steak and Shake...alone. :)

How do you define sex? 

The traditional definition of sex is penal penetration of the vagina or coitus.  Many feminist call this a "male-centric" definition that focuses on the male erection being necessary for sex while the female orgasm is not.  I think this view might have some validity, but I think the reason for this traditional definition is much more simple:  Penis + Vagina = Baby.  That's right.  For more than 99% of history, this was the only way to get pregnant.  It's still the primary way to get pregnant today.  Of course there are rare instances of pregnancy through anal sex (yes, it has happened) and genital rubbing and now there is artificial insemination and the like, but the vast majority of pregnancies occurred and still occur through traditional sex. 

Even within the animal and plant worlds, we regard any form of reproduction as sex.  But do birds and bees really have sex?  Do flowers?  Or are they just reproducing?  (I'm not a biologist so don't harass me about this.  I'm asking Socratic questions to make you think.)

I like to believe most progressive minded people would agree that human sex is about a lot more than reproduction.  Heck, most biologist would agree that most mammalian sex is about more than reproduction, but I digress.

Looking at this subject from my understanding of Christianity and my upbringing within it, I obviously see religious implications of the "traditional sex" definition and by default, societal implications.  Many religions (not just Christianity) wish to reduce sex as only for procreation.  The roots of this distinction have been lost to time (That is if you are like me and don't believe that God told us so for our own good), but some theories include the desire to reduce unwanted children, curb the spread of STDs, and to ensure male lineage of children.   The traditional man-woman sex definition also completely  proscribes  the same sex  encounter by denying that it is even sex.  It's something else wholly unnatural.  Of course any other sexual act that is not "sex" is only whispered about in myth and legend within most Christian families, so blow-jobs don't exist on Jesus' earth.

What I find to be a particularly funny bi-product of this narrow definition of sex is something that is often referred to as "The Good Catholic Girl" syndrome.  The "Good Catholic Girl" is the woman who will not have sex before marriage.  Sex of course being coitus and nothing else.  This results in the mentality that any other "sexual" act is not sex.  We have all heard the jokes and stories about "Good Catholic girls" who will do anything - ANYTHING - but insert a penis in her vagina.  Other orifices don't count.  The joke of course is that these hypothetical girls still think themselves "pure" and "virginal" regardless of all the sexual acts they have done.  

Obviously not ALL "Good Catholic Girls" engage in a lot of kinky "non-sex", but there are a fair number of them who still engage in some kind of sexual activity before marriage.  Are the women who only gave a hand-job or a blow-job before marriage more pure than those who had anal sex?  Are they more a virgin?  I'm beginning to think, no. 

A sexual act is still a sexual act with the goal of sexual or orgasmic satisfaction for one or all persons involved.

Some might argue (returning to the earlier discussed pregnancy risk definition of sex) that a woman who has not had coitus is still a virgin.  But if risking pregnancy is the decider of virgin-hood, then if you have only ever had sex using a condom or some other 99.99% effective birth control, you could be a virgin.  Oh, but what about the other .01%?  Well, we already discussed that a woman CAN get pregnant through anal intercourse (rare, but it is possible when the openings are close or when through a birth defect the intestine has an opening into the vaginal canal) and through genital rubbing.  So would either of those acts negate your virginity?  They might as well in terms of pregnancy risk.  

Of course, most women will find any rationalization to still call themselves a virgin, because we women have been conditioned to believe that virginity is something worth clinging on to at all cost.  And DON'T get me started with the double standard between men and women about virginity.

But in the end, this entire post is just MY rationalization for saying this:  I'm not a virgin.  I'm not sorry about it.  And if I do have a wedding day, I'll wear white if I damn well please.  I will not be a hypocrite because at no time have I ever suggested that I am pure or that I want to be thought of as pure.  Maybe, I just like the color white.