Nanny State Chronicles … Leaded ink in children’s books
Authored: February 23rd, 2009 @ 11:15 AM
Leaded ink in children’s books … oh my! A legacy from “The Age of Lead”.
An astute reader sent us this link from our British cousins …who apparently have more time to read our legislation than do our own politicians who pass these sorts of bills.
Stop. Go and check your bookcases. Are there any children’s books that were published before 1985? Maybe a bit of Beatrix Potter, Enid Blyton, or even a copy of The Very, Very, Very Long Dog? Well, put on some gloves and remove them immediately, because those things could be lethal. Don’t burn them though – that might release poisons into the air. Don’t bury them either, that could pollute an aquifer. In fact, I’m not sure what you should do. Ah, that’s it! Panic.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2009/feb/20/kalder-childrens-books-lead-panic
Why do we call this one of the Nanny State Chronicles? Well, these stories are almost always funny yet troublesome, so we think they will be fun reading, and we plan to run many more in the future. In this case, who can argue against protecting the children, fer crying out loud? Well, maybe people who understand the importance of freedom can. What, exactly, is the nanny state? Many things to many people. Not surprisingly, since it is considered a derogatory term (that’s why we used it), it has no real meaning other than fascism in the name of a policy one does not agree with. The Wikipedia entry says it all on that topic.
Consider this commentary from Radley Balko (CATO Institute) … he has little good to say about either side of this problem and points out that it all depends on whose ox is being gored.
On the right, movements like National Review contributor Rod Dreher’s “crunchy conservatism” borrow bons mots from Marx in denigrating wealth, consumption, and consumerism. Meanwhile, the left-leaning editorial boards at the Washington Post and New York Times abandoned traditional civil liberties concerns in supporting the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the federal ban on medical marijuana, because a ruling the other way might have adversely affected the federal government’s massive regulatory state. As Reason magazine’s Jesse Walker has put it, “There is no party of tolerance in Washington—just a party that wages its crusades in the name of Christ and a party that wages its crusades in the name of Four out of Five Experts Agree.”
We look in the mirror and see the true enemy, us (Pogo). But we move forward in a mindful way to deal with this shortcoming from principles. In this case it is simple. Freedom trumps protectionism.