Ah, this is different, This is rooted in medical, ecological, and environmental concerns. It's for the children. Surely you see the difference (he said satirically).
Beau . . . You're too funny! In spite of our ideological differences, I detect a kindred spirit (at least with respect to irony and sarcasm).
Seriously, though, isn't it sad that the federal government is involved in banning books based upon chemical content of inks, papers, glues, etc? One wonders how children survived all these years.
Well this does seem over the top, for the sake of the books content being preserved and the fact of children being more or less fine today (well, looking at the elder generations, I'm not completely sold). Perhaps some wise partisan on this issue can draft an amendment to clear the law up? Prohibition for the sake of public health and safety is certainly not equivalent to that for the sake of intellectual content; still though, good sense is often misplaced in the processes of law, and simple enough to recover.
It is also possible, I think, that the great majority of books were not printed in Asia prior to the 1980s; not the case today, and thus the need for protective laws. So then, much beating of the breast from little cause.
Ah, this is different, This is rooted in medical, ecological, and environmental concerns. It's for the children. Surely you see the difference (he said satirically).
ReplyDeleteOh, yes, of course, how foolish of me.
ReplyDeleteI thought the past was forbidden fodder for questioning here?
ReplyDeleteJust the other day the preaching was that the past was irrelevant to what's happening today .. right?
I'm sooooo confused.
-blue
Beau . . . You're too funny! In spite of our ideological differences, I detect a kindred spirit (at least with respect to irony and sarcasm).
ReplyDeleteSeriously, though, isn't it sad that the federal government is involved in banning books based upon chemical content of inks, papers, glues, etc? One wonders how children survived all these years.
Well this does seem over the top, for the sake of the books content being preserved and the fact of children being more or less fine today (well, looking at the elder generations, I'm not completely sold). Perhaps some wise partisan on this issue can draft an amendment to clear the law up? Prohibition for the sake of public health and safety is certainly not equivalent to that for the sake of intellectual content; still though, good sense is often misplaced in the processes of law, and simple enough to recover.
ReplyDeleteIt is also possible, I think, that the great majority of books were not printed in Asia prior to the 1980s; not the case today, and thus the need for protective laws. So then, much beating of the breast from little cause.
If you have to point out that it's satire . . . it's not satire.
ReplyDeleteFill me in, Blue. When was the past declared forbidden fodder here?
ReplyDelete