Comments on: All The News That's Fit To … Wait. No One Told Us There Would Be Reading Involved.

By: Secular Right » On a hard-to-reach library shelf

Secular Right » On a hard-to-reach library shelf — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:01:09 +0000

[...] I'm happy to report that virtually every strain of conservative opinion, religious and secular, traditionalist and libertarian, seems to be united in agreement that this very bad law needs to be [...]

By: CPSIA chronicles, February 19

CPSIA chronicles, February 19 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:21:45 +0000

[...] reaction elsewhere, including (not exhaustive): Virginia Postrel, Christopher Fountain, Patrick @ Popehat (strong language — now you're sure to click), Carter Wood/ShopFloor, Mike Cernovich, [...]

By: whimsicalwalney

whimsicalwalney — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 06:11:05 +0000

Thank you for expressing so succinctly what I wanted to say, but just couldn't seem to find the words.

By: Sarah Natividad

Sarah Natividad — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:31:20 +0000

I love how the Congressmen who wrote the law also wrote a letter to the CPSC saying they should make exemptions for books and apparel because the law was not intended to cover them, even though the law clearly states that exemptions have to be based on peer-reviewed scientific evidence, not Congressional say-sos.

I think they created a monster the extent of which even they did not realize. Behold the super-geniuses who rule our land!

By: Reed

Reed — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:24:39 +0000

I've read a fair amount on this issue. What seems to be getting confused in the various commentaries I've seen is the difference between the testing requirement and the sale ban. As I read it, "retailers" (i.e. small toy shops, libraries, thrift stores, etc.) would not be obligated to do any testing. The testing requirement only applies to manufacturers. However, retailers are prohibited from selling any product that contains lead or phthalates. Since retailers have no idea whether the products on their shelves might contain lead or phthalates, they're avoiding risk by getting rid of products. On the other hand, maybe insurance would cover that (likely quite small) risk, which would mitigate the alarmism (although it might carry a slightly higher premium, depending on how the insurance companies underwrite the risk). When I've seen people say that this whole issue is being blown out of proportion, it's usually because such commentators are focused on the argument that there's no testing obligation on retailers, and therefore no reason for them all to fuss. They seem to be missing the no-sale prohibition. So, that's a long-winded way of agreeing that, yes, the NY Times missed the boat on this one.

By: New York Times on CPSIA: “needless fears that the law could injure smaller enterprises”

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:59:12 +0000

[...] welcome Virginia Postrel, Christopher Fountain (the best residential real estate blog), Patrick @ Popehat, Carter Wood/ShopFloor [...]