This video was created by the state of Oregon to communicate the need for special care for citizens with special needs. The intent of the video is to show that humane care was being provided at Fairview, but also to remind the public of the need to support such institutions financially.
Many will find the video disturbing.
In Our Care from Oregonian News on Vimeo.
I am posting it because as I wrote my post about Bud Fredericks, it occurred to me that many younger people would have little idea of what it meant for a special needs child or adult to be cared for in an institution.
Fairview is closed now. Generally, if care for special needs children and adults cannot be provided by their families, a system of group or foster homes is relied upon to provide care.
When feasible, special needs children attend public schools, receiving extra attention as required. This is referred to as mainstreaming.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Two Roads Diverged For Bud Fredericks
Twenty years into his career, on a fast track toward becoming a Marine Corps general, Bud Fredericks resigned his commission. He was in his early 40s and had no immediate prospects for employment. Why did he do it?
Bud's military career was very gratifying, but the birth of his fifth child, Tim, forced him to choose between the Marines and a whole new direction that would provide more direct support for his family.
Bud graduated from a highly competitive Jesuit run high school in 1944. The military offered support for college, followed by Officer Candidate School.
Bud's military career flourished. By the mid 1950s he was a major and a strong candidate for further promotion. The Marines sent Bud to Stanford University to study history as a part of his preparation. He completed the requirements for a doctorate in history, lacking only a completed thesis.
Bud's marriage to Dot also prospered. She adapted well to life as an officer's wife. She also coped with Bud's long absences as they raised four children. In the 1960s Bud commanded one of the few military units that had trained to fight guerrilla warfare. His unit was ordered to Vietnam in 1964.
When he returned from Vietnam, Bud was posted to the ROTC at Oregon State University. He was able to transfer his credits from his studies at Stanford to a graduate program at the University of Oregon.
Bud and Dot's fifth child, Tim, was born in 1966. Tim has Down syndrome.
Bud reminisced, "We were fortunate to have a doctor who told us to take Tim home and love him". Forty years ago, children with Down syndrome were usually placed in institutions.
Bud and Dot supplied love, but did not know how to foster Tim's early development. Books at the UO library were oriented toward institutions. “They were sad books. There was nothing in them to help us.” said Bud.
In 1967, Bud was about to be reassigned to Vietnam. Dot dreaded his absence. Their teenage children were opposed to the war.
The decision to resign was not an easy one. Bud cherished his time in the Marines. He loved the camaraderie. He excelled as a Marine Officer and had an opportunity to grow. However, Bud could see that his family needed him.
He never told them how much it hurt him to leave the Marines.
Bud changed his focus to special education at UO. He also sought a paying position. A chance conversation led to a job at Teaching Research, an arm of the Oregon higher education system.
While working on his thesis, Bud met Vic Baldwin at Fairview Hospital. Vic admired Bud's research and helped him procured a $40,000 federal grant.
While pursuing his second career, Bud worked with Tim to help him reach his full potential. Bud and Tim actually travelled on a lecture circuit where Tim delivered a speech about what it is like to have Down Syndrome. See page 2 of this newsletter for the full text. Tim joined the Boy Scouts. He attained Eagle Scout status.
The federal government began to see a need to mandate special education opportunities for children. Bud and Vic gained support in Oregon and at the federal level. Decades passed. Bud contributed to special education projects worldwide.
Today, Tim, 42, lives independently, works and is married. Bud's dedication contributed to a richer life for Tim, and for countless others.
Bud's military career was very gratifying, but the birth of his fifth child, Tim, forced him to choose between the Marines and a whole new direction that would provide more direct support for his family.
Bud graduated from a highly competitive Jesuit run high school in 1944. The military offered support for college, followed by Officer Candidate School.
Bud's military career flourished. By the mid 1950s he was a major and a strong candidate for further promotion. The Marines sent Bud to Stanford University to study history as a part of his preparation. He completed the requirements for a doctorate in history, lacking only a completed thesis.
Bud's marriage to Dot also prospered. She adapted well to life as an officer's wife. She also coped with Bud's long absences as they raised four children. In the 1960s Bud commanded one of the few military units that had trained to fight guerrilla warfare. His unit was ordered to Vietnam in 1964.
When he returned from Vietnam, Bud was posted to the ROTC at Oregon State University. He was able to transfer his credits from his studies at Stanford to a graduate program at the University of Oregon.
Bud and Dot's fifth child, Tim, was born in 1966. Tim has Down syndrome.
Bud reminisced, "We were fortunate to have a doctor who told us to take Tim home and love him". Forty years ago, children with Down syndrome were usually placed in institutions.
Bud and Dot supplied love, but did not know how to foster Tim's early development. Books at the UO library were oriented toward institutions. “They were sad books. There was nothing in them to help us.” said Bud.
In 1967, Bud was about to be reassigned to Vietnam. Dot dreaded his absence. Their teenage children were opposed to the war.
The decision to resign was not an easy one. Bud cherished his time in the Marines. He loved the camaraderie. He excelled as a Marine Officer and had an opportunity to grow. However, Bud could see that his family needed him.
He never told them how much it hurt him to leave the Marines.
Bud changed his focus to special education at UO. He also sought a paying position. A chance conversation led to a job at Teaching Research, an arm of the Oregon higher education system.
While working on his thesis, Bud met Vic Baldwin at Fairview Hospital. Vic admired Bud's research and helped him procured a $40,000 federal grant.
While pursuing his second career, Bud worked with Tim to help him reach his full potential. Bud and Tim actually travelled on a lecture circuit where Tim delivered a speech about what it is like to have Down Syndrome. See page 2 of this newsletter for the full text. Tim joined the Boy Scouts. He attained Eagle Scout status.
The federal government began to see a need to mandate special education opportunities for children. Bud and Vic gained support in Oregon and at the federal level. Decades passed. Bud contributed to special education projects worldwide.
Today, Tim, 42, lives independently, works and is married. Bud's dedication contributed to a richer life for Tim, and for countless others.
Missing La Roca
S0me businesses are a victim of their own success. La Roca has become La Rockita and is located in a spacious, gleaming, restaurant a block from the old taqueria.
For many years La Roca was a fixture on the main drag through Philomath. The tiny building was crammed with a small kitchen, pop dispensers, and storage for beans and rice. No seating inside. Fortunately an aging roof shot out of one side of the building, supported by steel poles painted a hundred times, yet still showing numerous spots of rust. Under this canopy one could sit at small picnic tables adorned with plastic table cloths.
Ordering was an odd experience. You stooped before a small window. The relative gloom inside the restaurant combined with the screen on the window make it almost impossible to see who his taking your order. But immediately after the words leave your mouth, they are are shouted loudly and rapidly in Spanish. Soon the rushing noise of the soda dispenser assures you that your beverage is on its way.
But the best is yet to come.
Soon your name is shouted at a small side window and you are presented with a steaming, foil wrapped bundle. The multitude of delightful cooking smells from the take out window motivate you to rush back to your table and peel away the foil to reveal a burrito that looks just like any other, only larger. However, inside the bland flour tortilla exterior is a cornucopia of flavors, textures, and smells. Highly seasoned meats. Slow cooked beans. Vivid green guacamole with a perfect smooth, creamy texture.
From the first bite to the last, your mouth explodes with flavor.
As you eat, the pleasure is so great that the gritty highway traffic twenty feet from where you sit becomes a pleasant vista. The roar of passing log trucks may not quite drown out the local riff and raff telling sophomoric jokes at the next table, but your profound bliss allows you to see them as colorful and engaging.
The food is still great at La Rockita, and it is nice to be able to see the staff and chat with them. Nonetheless, I find myself missing La Roca.
For many years La Roca was a fixture on the main drag through Philomath. The tiny building was crammed with a small kitchen, pop dispensers, and storage for beans and rice. No seating inside. Fortunately an aging roof shot out of one side of the building, supported by steel poles painted a hundred times, yet still showing numerous spots of rust. Under this canopy one could sit at small picnic tables adorned with plastic table cloths.
Ordering was an odd experience. You stooped before a small window. The relative gloom inside the restaurant combined with the screen on the window make it almost impossible to see who his taking your order. But immediately after the words leave your mouth, they are are shouted loudly and rapidly in Spanish. Soon the rushing noise of the soda dispenser assures you that your beverage is on its way.
But the best is yet to come.
Soon your name is shouted at a small side window and you are presented with a steaming, foil wrapped bundle. The multitude of delightful cooking smells from the take out window motivate you to rush back to your table and peel away the foil to reveal a burrito that looks just like any other, only larger. However, inside the bland flour tortilla exterior is a cornucopia of flavors, textures, and smells. Highly seasoned meats. Slow cooked beans. Vivid green guacamole with a perfect smooth, creamy texture.
From the first bite to the last, your mouth explodes with flavor.
As you eat, the pleasure is so great that the gritty highway traffic twenty feet from where you sit becomes a pleasant vista. The roar of passing log trucks may not quite drown out the local riff and raff telling sophomoric jokes at the next table, but your profound bliss allows you to see them as colorful and engaging.
The food is still great at La Rockita, and it is nice to be able to see the staff and chat with them. Nonetheless, I find myself missing La Roca.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Guilty Until Proven Guilty
I like the idea of innocent until proven guilty. But it doesn't always seem to work that way.
The first time I sat on a jury, I was shocked when we were told that we would be passing judgment on a man accused of assault with a deadly weapon, a sledge hammer. The defendant was a big burly guy in his thirties. The alleged victim was a petite, middle-aged mom type.
My brain switched into feverish overdrive, as I considered what kind of man would go after a woman with a sledge hammer. Intellectually I was aware that he was innocent until proven guilty. However, my gut feel was that we needed to move quickly through the trial and hang, draw and quarter the wretch. The prosecutor made it clear that the defendant was a dangerous man. I felt a little nervous being in the same room with him. What if he grabbed a chair and attacked the jury?
After many hours of testimony, the real story seemed to emerge. The defendant and his little
girl had to scurry to safety to avoid being run over by a speeding car driven by a local hoodlum . I shall refer to him as "the dude". The dude lived with friends in a shabby vacation cabin nearby. The defendant knew the dude well enough to believe that talking to him would be counterproductive. However, he noted that the dude's parents were visiting.
"Maybe they will be reasonable", he thought.
Big mistake.
The defendant drove to the cabin and got out of his pickup to make his complaint. The dude's mom (I shall refer to her as "the witch".) grabbed a shovel and ran toward the defendant. The defendant picked a sledge hammer from the bed of his truck and held it up saying, "Look, I have a weapon too, but let's be reasonable". The witch lowered the shovel and the defendant put the sledge hammer back in his truck
As the defendant turned back from tidying up his tools, he met the dude charging him with a hatchet. The dude and the defendant wrestled. The dude chopped at the defendant's head and hands. Defense evidence included vivid photos of the resultant carnage.
Meanwhile, the dude's dad ("Clueless", not his name but rather a derisive term) began searching beneath the seat of his automobile. It was conjectured that fire arms are often kept under auto seats, but that was grist for another trial.
Clueless refused to testify on the grounds it might be self-incriminating. We were instructed to ignore him. I felt I was trying to overlook a man who refused to decry a pit bull who had savaged a neighbor.
Jury deliberations created new problems.
One juror proclaimed she had prayed about the case with her husband, and God had shown her that the defendant was innocent. She offered to sit quietly and read her bible while she ignored our discussion.
The first secret ballot, (and the second, and the third, etc) was 11 to 1 in favor of the defendant. We were instructed to stay in the jury room until we arrived at a unanimous decision. The alternative was to call a mistrial. The judge was willing to let us stay in the jury room for days, if necessary, to avoid a mistrial.
As foreman, I reasoned with, exhorted, and begged my fellow jurors. One by one, they said "I didn't vote him guilty". Just one sad little man remained quiet about his vote. Nonetheless, he insisted that the act of picking up a sledge hammer and holding it in front of the witch constituted assault with a deadly weapon. We paused to ask the judge for clarification. He refused and sent us back to our deliberations.
I became frustrated . I picked up the sledge hammer that lay as evidence on the table in our midst. I shook it in the sad little man's face.
"There! Call the cops. I assaulted you with a deadly weapon."
"Maybe we should conduct another secret ballot" said the sad little man.
We did. It was 12-0.
The first time I sat on a jury, I was shocked when we were told that we would be passing judgment on a man accused of assault with a deadly weapon, a sledge hammer. The defendant was a big burly guy in his thirties. The alleged victim was a petite, middle-aged mom type.
My brain switched into feverish overdrive, as I considered what kind of man would go after a woman with a sledge hammer. Intellectually I was aware that he was innocent until proven guilty. However, my gut feel was that we needed to move quickly through the trial and hang, draw and quarter the wretch. The prosecutor made it clear that the defendant was a dangerous man. I felt a little nervous being in the same room with him. What if he grabbed a chair and attacked the jury?
After many hours of testimony, the real story seemed to emerge. The defendant and his little
girl had to scurry to safety to avoid being run over by a speeding car driven by a local hoodlum . I shall refer to him as "the dude". The dude lived with friends in a shabby vacation cabin nearby. The defendant knew the dude well enough to believe that talking to him would be counterproductive. However, he noted that the dude's parents were visiting.
"Maybe they will be reasonable", he thought.
Big mistake.
The defendant drove to the cabin and got out of his pickup to make his complaint. The dude's mom (I shall refer to her as "the witch".) grabbed a shovel and ran toward the defendant. The defendant picked a sledge hammer from the bed of his truck and held it up saying, "Look, I have a weapon too, but let's be reasonable". The witch lowered the shovel and the defendant put the sledge hammer back in his truck
As the defendant turned back from tidying up his tools, he met the dude charging him with a hatchet. The dude and the defendant wrestled. The dude chopped at the defendant's head and hands. Defense evidence included vivid photos of the resultant carnage.
Meanwhile, the dude's dad ("Clueless", not his name but rather a derisive term) began searching beneath the seat of his automobile. It was conjectured that fire arms are often kept under auto seats, but that was grist for another trial.
Clueless refused to testify on the grounds it might be self-incriminating. We were instructed to ignore him. I felt I was trying to overlook a man who refused to decry a pit bull who had savaged a neighbor.
Jury deliberations created new problems.
One juror proclaimed she had prayed about the case with her husband, and God had shown her that the defendant was innocent. She offered to sit quietly and read her bible while she ignored our discussion.
The first secret ballot, (and the second, and the third, etc) was 11 to 1 in favor of the defendant. We were instructed to stay in the jury room until we arrived at a unanimous decision. The alternative was to call a mistrial. The judge was willing to let us stay in the jury room for days, if necessary, to avoid a mistrial.
As foreman, I reasoned with, exhorted, and begged my fellow jurors. One by one, they said "I didn't vote him guilty". Just one sad little man remained quiet about his vote. Nonetheless, he insisted that the act of picking up a sledge hammer and holding it in front of the witch constituted assault with a deadly weapon. We paused to ask the judge for clarification. He refused and sent us back to our deliberations.
I became frustrated . I picked up the sledge hammer that lay as evidence on the table in our midst. I shook it in the sad little man's face.
"There! Call the cops. I assaulted you with a deadly weapon."
"Maybe we should conduct another secret ballot" said the sad little man.
We did. It was 12-0.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
American Meth: A film review
Emaciated, glassy eyed, walking dead. Rotted teeth. Paranoia. Abused children. Vats of toxic chemicals.
"American Meth" is a horror movie. Sadly, it is not fictional.
The film documents the spread of methamphetamine use in the U.S. It explores the impact on communities, families, and individuals. Statistics, graphic images, interviews, and a gut churning video of the daily life of two meth users and their four children illuminate the epidemic.
Apparently Justin Hunt (writer, producer, director) hoped to frighten his audience. Interviews with law enforcement and medical professionals provide startling statistics and grim anecdotes. The visual power of film is used to engender dismay and disgus
t. Photos from an Oregon anti-meth campaign, Faces of Meth , shock the viewer with the rapid degradation of many meth user's countenances. Posters and videos from the Montana Meth Project evoke horror by depicting the depravity that often proceeds from frequent meth usage.
Interviews with meth addicts currently in recovery are edited to emphasize the effects of addiction their lives, and humanize addicts in a way that statistics and anecdotes cannot.
Justin Hunt's film works as a wake up call regarding the extent and depth of the meth problem. However, young people who have not tried meth may be harmed by Hunt's tactics. The film lacks a satisfactory investigation into what motivates people people to use meth the first few times.
The film fails to explore the seductive powers common to many drugs . Meth is depicted as a unique drug with a power to ensnare that other drugs cannot match. However, similar power has often been attributed to cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and even alcohol.
In a British campaign to abate cocaine use Dr. Ken Checinski says, "Cocaine is psychologically more addictive than many other substances, such as alcohol and cannabis, and can easily become a habit that controls your life. "
This poster from the temperance movement in the 19th century showed the progression from a single drink with friends all the way to death by suicide. Eventually alcohol consumption was made illegal throughout the U.S.
Many drugs, including alcohol, are physically addictive when used in excess. Addiction has been a problem world wide for centuries, from opium dens in China to coca leaf chewing in Peru. Humans often seek comfort in drugs to escape pain, fear, or even boredom.
"American Meth" could be retitled American Myth. It imputes the sort of mystique to methamphetamine that could easily encourage a young person to try it. The drug is actually nothing extraordinary. Methamphetamine has been available since it was first synthesized by a Japanese chemist in 1919. Over the past century it has been used to energize troops, enable weight loss, treat depression and calm hyperactive children. Its popularity has waxed and waned.
I grew up in an era of rampant experimentation with drugs. I used alcohol, marijuana, hashish, opiates, LSD, hallucinogenic mushrooms, barbiturates, and benzodiazapines (Valium and it's kin). And yes, I used methamphetamine for a season. Each time I tried something new, I felt that I had been misled by anti-drug campaigns. I did not experience immediate strong cravings for more. Friends used various drugs regularly, generally with no apparent ill effects. As a young person, my thinking was mostly very short term. I seldom pondered the possibility that drugs would prove to be dangerous in the long run. In the short run my experience seemed to refute the hype often used in those campaigns.
"American Meth" is worth watching as a means of learning about the drug's current popularity and the problems attendant to frequent illicit usage, however I recommend against showing it to young people in hopes of deterring them from experimenting with meth.
Photo Credit: One Woman... by d70foucs: http://www.flickr.com/photos/23905174@N00/435934694/
Photo Credit: Drunkard's Progress Lithograph by Nathaniel Currier ca. 1846 Public Domain
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Lost and Found In Cyberspace
As a part of my journalism feature writing class, I included a post about the new law regarding lead in children's clothes. Originally I was going to title the post "The Unintended Consequences of Law". However, my professor pointed out that although the title had a nice ring to it, it would not show up very often in web searches done by people trying to get information about the new law. I changed the title to H.R. 4040: the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008
Almost immediately I began to get new hits to my blog regarding this post. Many of the hits are the result of Google searches. The number of people searching for an article regarding "The Unintended Consequences of Law" was destined to be near zero. Although I am not specifically trolling the Internet for more readers (well, maybe a little), I am glad to share a post with someone interested in its subject matter.
Why did I pick the "catchy" title first? I was thinking like a print media person. Headlines, chapter headings, short story titles and magazine article titles are often written to catch a readers eye and spark a readers interest as they scan printed pages. However, web readers cannot possible scan all the web pages on the world wide web. There are billions of such pages. So we use search engines . Search engines look for web pages that seem most likely to contain information relative to the search term. Blogspot (the blogging software I use) creates a unique URL for each post. The URL generally incorporates some or all of the words in the title. Although the exact algorithms used are a closely guarded secret, I am betting that a web page with a URL containing words that might commonly be used in a search term is much more likely to be prominently displayed in a list of search results.
It's been a great lesson for me. I have already seen a substantial increase in the number of hits to my blog. Imagine if I had employed this idea in my last 270 or so posts!
Almost immediately I began to get new hits to my blog regarding this post. Many of the hits are the result of Google searches. The number of people searching for an article regarding "The Unintended Consequences of Law" was destined to be near zero. Although I am not specifically trolling the Internet for more readers (well, maybe a little), I am glad to share a post with someone interested in its subject matter.
Why did I pick the "catchy" title first? I was thinking like a print media person. Headlines, chapter headings, short story titles and magazine article titles are often written to catch a readers eye and spark a readers interest as they scan printed pages. However, web readers cannot possible scan all the web pages on the world wide web. There are billions of such pages. So we use search engines . Search engines look for web pages that seem most likely to contain information relative to the search term. Blogspot (the blogging software I use) creates a unique URL for each post. The URL generally incorporates some or all of the words in the title. Although the exact algorithms used are a closely guarded secret, I am betting that a web page with a URL containing words that might commonly be used in a search term is much more likely to be prominently displayed in a list of search results.
It's been a great lesson for me. I have already seen a substantial increase in the number of hits to my blog. Imagine if I had employed this idea in my last 270 or so posts!
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Why is it called a credit crunch?
Although there is certainly no shortage of reporting on our current worldwide economic woes, I still have felt that I couldn't quite grasp the big picture. This audio slide show by the business editor for BBC World News is the best summary, by far, that I have seen.
"Living Beyond Our Means" might be a good phrase summarize the root of the problem.
"Living Beyond Our Means" might be a good phrase summarize the root of the problem.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Please Don't Leave Me
I know there are a few folks who check this blog from time to time. I imagine you are thinking, "Wow, I just thought his other posts were boring. Now that I read letters from congressmen and articles about lead in children's clothes, I have a whole new appreciation for how boring Kent can be."
Well, boring for you, but great fun for me. The odd posts are related to my Feature Writing Journalism 217 class. I love it. I attended school for 18 straight years during my first try at it. I would never have believed that I would think of school as fun after that. But, I love this.
I used the lead in clothing topic because I volunteer at a children's clothing outlet that provides free clothing and supplies for families that could use a little help. Now it appears that we may be subject to a fine of up to $15 million dollars for distributing clothing that has not been properly tested for the presence of lead. I don't think it will actually come to that, but it has been a great learning experience researching the law and trying to understand what will really happen.
It is also the first time I have received calls and e-mails from congressmen. It seems this topic has a lot of people riled up. When I said I was writing a news feature about the impact on businesses, I actually got taken seriously. I've even had a few hits from Google search as people look for explanations of the law.
However, I realize that posts like "A letter from Congressmen Peter DeFazio" are not likely to hold many people's attention. So while I am busy with this stuff, perhaps you'd like to look back to some of my older posts such as 50 Things That Should Have Killed Me or Do I Look Like A Racist . Wonder what it was like being a college freshman in 1968? Try Mustache Story . Ever wonder if you are losing it? Try What Is It Like to be Mentally Ill?
Of course, stooping to reminding you of my old posts may seem desperately needy. That's probably true. However, it also serves as a way of meeting my two posts per week quota for my class (with live links inserted).
Well, boring for you, but great fun for me. The odd posts are related to my Feature Writing Journalism 217 class. I love it. I attended school for 18 straight years during my first try at it. I would never have believed that I would think of school as fun after that. But, I love this.
I used the lead in clothing topic because I volunteer at a children's clothing outlet that provides free clothing and supplies for families that could use a little help. Now it appears that we may be subject to a fine of up to $15 million dollars for distributing clothing that has not been properly tested for the presence of lead. I don't think it will actually come to that, but it has been a great learning experience researching the law and trying to understand what will really happen.
It is also the first time I have received calls and e-mails from congressmen. It seems this topic has a lot of people riled up. When I said I was writing a news feature about the impact on businesses, I actually got taken seriously. I've even had a few hits from Google search as people look for explanations of the law.
However, I realize that posts like "A letter from Congressmen Peter DeFazio" are not likely to hold many people's attention. So while I am busy with this stuff, perhaps you'd like to look back to some of my older posts such as 50 Things That Should Have Killed Me or Do I Look Like A Racist . Wonder what it was like being a college freshman in 1968? Try Mustache Story . Ever wonder if you are losing it? Try What Is It Like to be Mentally Ill?
Of course, stooping to reminding you of my old posts may seem desperately needy. That's probably true. However, it also serves as a way of meeting my two posts per week quota for my class (with live links inserted).
Rep. Peter DeFazio regarding HR4040: The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008
The following letter (quoted in its entirety) is Rep. Peter DeFazio's response to inquiries about the new law regulating lead content in children's clothing:
Dear Mr. Schnake: Thank you for your recent message regarding the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. I appreciate hearing from you. As you know, on February 10th the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act becomes effective. The bill was a response to importers bringing in dangerously unsafe products from China. The bill passed the House by a vote of 407 to 1 as it was considered a common sense piece of legislation that was designed to keep our children safe. Unfortunately the Bush Administration's Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is in charge of drafting regulations in order to enforce the new law, did a poor job of explaining what was expected of retailers and consumers and have written what I believe are overly strict interpretations of the law. As a result, countless retailers, thrift stores, charities and even small toy manufacturers have contacted my office in confusion not knowing what they are or are not allowed to do when the law becomes effective. One if the main points of contentions is the new provision that bans lead in excess of 600 parts per million in children's products. While we can all agree it is important to protect our children from this dangerous substance, the CPSC provided little to no guidance to consumers, retailers or manufacturers on exactly what is expected of them when the law becomes effective. As a result rumors spread across the internet and amongst retailers about the new law, many of them untrue. The CPSC recently released a press release (located at www.cpsc.gov ) intended to provide guidance to consumers that did speak to some of these concerns. The release stated:The new law requires that domestic manufacturers and importers certify that children's products made after February 10 meet all the new safety standards and the lead ban. Sellers of used children's products, such as thrift stores and consignment stores, are not required to certify that those products meet the new lead limits, phthalates standard or new toy standards.The new safety law does not require resellers to test children's products in inventory for compliance with the lead limit before they are sold. However, resellers cannot sell children's products that exceed the lead limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the products being sold have less than the new limit. Those resellers that do sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or criminal penalties. Furthermore, in response to complaints from small manufacturers, the CPSC is now considering some exemptions to the new regulations. Specifically, they are considering an exemption from testing certain materials that are not scientifically known to contain lead (like wood, cotton, gemstones, leather, etc), as well as looking into easing restrictions on batch testing for small manufacturers. The current regulation mandates all products be tested for lead, as well as all of its components. This is a burden for small manufacturers. Some groups have responded to this confusion by trying to delay or even eliminate the implementation of the new lead standards. Others have asked to exempt these new standards from unsold or used inventory. I am opposed to this. If a product is unsafe, it is unsafe. It doesn't matter when it was made. That being said, I feel the recent efforts by the CPSC have provided some clarification for retailers and manufacturers, but more can be done. I recently sent a letter to the CPSC asking them to respond to a series o f detailed questions so people will get accurate information about this new law. Once I receive a response I will forward it to you. Thanks again for contacting me. Please keep in touch.
Sincerely, Rep. Peter DeFazio Fourth District, OREGON
Dear Mr. Schnake: Thank you for your recent message regarding the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. I appreciate hearing from you. As you know, on February 10th the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act becomes effective. The bill was a response to importers bringing in dangerously unsafe products from China. The bill passed the House by a vote of 407 to 1 as it was considered a common sense piece of legislation that was designed to keep our children safe. Unfortunately the Bush Administration's Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is in charge of drafting regulations in order to enforce the new law, did a poor job of explaining what was expected of retailers and consumers and have written what I believe are overly strict interpretations of the law. As a result, countless retailers, thrift stores, charities and even small toy manufacturers have contacted my office in confusion not knowing what they are or are not allowed to do when the law becomes effective. One if the main points of contentions is the new provision that bans lead in excess of 600 parts per million in children's products. While we can all agree it is important to protect our children from this dangerous substance, the CPSC provided little to no guidance to consumers, retailers or manufacturers on exactly what is expected of them when the law becomes effective. As a result rumors spread across the internet and amongst retailers about the new law, many of them untrue. The CPSC recently released a press release (located at www.cpsc.gov ) intended to provide guidance to consumers that did speak to some of these concerns. The release stated:The new law requires that domestic manufacturers and importers certify that children's products made after February 10 meet all the new safety standards and the lead ban. Sellers of used children's products, such as thrift stores and consignment stores, are not required to certify that those products meet the new lead limits, phthalates standard or new toy standards.The new safety law does not require resellers to test children's products in inventory for compliance with the lead limit before they are sold. However, resellers cannot sell children's products that exceed the lead limit and therefore should avoid products that are likely to have lead content, unless they have testing or other information to indicate the products being sold have less than the new limit. Those resellers that do sell products in violation of the new limits could face civil and/or criminal penalties. Furthermore, in response to complaints from small manufacturers, the CPSC is now considering some exemptions to the new regulations. Specifically, they are considering an exemption from testing certain materials that are not scientifically known to contain lead (like wood, cotton, gemstones, leather, etc), as well as looking into easing restrictions on batch testing for small manufacturers. The current regulation mandates all products be tested for lead, as well as all of its components. This is a burden for small manufacturers. Some groups have responded to this confusion by trying to delay or even eliminate the implementation of the new lead standards. Others have asked to exempt these new standards from unsold or used inventory. I am opposed to this. If a product is unsafe, it is unsafe. It doesn't matter when it was made. That being said, I feel the recent efforts by the CPSC have provided some clarification for retailers and manufacturers, but more can be done. I recently sent a letter to the CPSC asking them to respond to a series o f detailed questions so people will get accurate information about this new law. Once I receive a response I will forward it to you. Thanks again for contacting me. Please keep in touch.
Sincerely, Rep. Peter DeFazio Fourth District, OREGON
Sunday, January 11, 2009
H.R. 4040: the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008
In August 2008, the U.S. Congress passed a law prohibiting the manufacture, sale or distribution of any children's products containing lead. It will be in force effective Feb. 10. The votes in the Senate and House were almost unanimous in favor of the bill.
Can Americans relax, knowing that their children will be protected from lead in clothing and toys? Perhaps not.
Many retail outlets for children's products are unaware that the law exists. Others are aware of the new bill but do not know how they can comply. Most of the existing inventory at retail outlets, distributors, and factories was fabricated before manufacturing companies could have known about the requirements of the new law.
Children's clothing, toys, and other supplies are often composed of fabrics, dyes, plastics, and metal parts from sources all over the globe. Testing to ensure compliance with the law requires a chemistry laboratory, skilled technicians and a capability to perform x-ray fluorescence or inductively coupled plasma spectrometry.
Consequently, it is expensive to test a completed children's item.
Lead is not a rare ingredient. It is used in a wide variety of production processes. When the expense of testing for the presence of lead is spread over large quantities of paint, fabric, and plastic, the cost impact on any one item manufactured from those raw materials might be small.
However, current understanding of the law is that all products must be proven free of lead, including existing stock. All items for sale after Feb. 10 are considered guilty until proven innocent.
Retail outlets and small manufactures would find the cost of testing their goods to be prohibitive. The alternative is to scrap their current inventories.
Errol Noel, owner of a retail shop named The Toy Factory, replied “I don't know what the impact will be, and that's what so scary. I don't know how to insure that my suppliers are in compliance." Carey Oien, the manager of The Kids Kloset said, “I haven't seen the actual law. I don't know if it applies to nonprofit organizations like ours."
Enforcement of the law is at the discretion of each state's attorney general. Surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2006 enabled estimates that the annual clothing expenditure in the U.S. is roughly $400 per child. Total spending is in excess of $50 billion dollars annually.
Rigorous enforcement of the law at every retail establishment would be difficult. However, when a business is found guilty of a violation, fines of up to $1 million or more can be levied.
The situation is difficult for shops that sell used clothing. A single shop may have clothing from thousands of different manufacturers, and the clothing may have been created long before the bill was first considered.
Imagine that Congress passed a law that all cars sold must meet extremely tight tail-pipe emissions standards, effective immediately. Used car lots would have a real problem. Even car dealers holding an inventory of new cars manufactured before the law was passed would be in trouble. However, emissions laws have been written to impact only future car models. A grace period allows for the manufacture and sale of current models. Existing cars are exempt. Meanwhile we have to live with the emissions from older auto designs.
Children's clothing and supplies are more sensitive politically. No legislator wants to go on record as saying that it is acceptable to continue to sell lead containing items for children, even if only for a season while stricter manufacturing standards can be implemented and existing stocks can be sold. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 contains no grace period. It passed 421 -1 in the U.S.House and 89-3 in the Senate.
Did legislators anticipate the impact of their bill? It appears that they didn't.
As the bill was being processed through Congress, a section required to assess the bill's economic impact was left blank. Congressman Peter DeFazio of Oregon sent a detailed letter in response to inquiries about the impact of HR4040. He attributes the confusion surrounding the bill's implementation to poor management by Bush administration officials, "The bill passed the House by a vote of 407 to 1 as it was considered a common sense piece of legislation that was designed to keep our children safe. Unfortunately the Bush Administration's Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is in charge of drafting regulations in order to enforce the new law, did a poor job of explaining what was expected of retailers and consumers and have written what I believe are overly strict interpretations of the law."
The number of news stories about the law has increased dramatically as the February implementation date draws near. Members of the public, not just business owners, are becoming concerned.
Bethany Fegles, a mother of two small children commented, “I just heard about this earlier this week and have wondered myself what would happen to so many smaller second-hand retailers. Or all the moms selling their kid's clothing on Craigslist. Or all the parents that use garage sales to earn back a little bit of what they spent on all the kid toys/clothes.”
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission web site
http://www.cpsc.gov/ has the latest news updates and answers to frequently asked questions.
Can Americans relax, knowing that their children will be protected from lead in clothing and toys? Perhaps not.
Many retail outlets for children's products are unaware that the law exists. Others are aware of the new bill but do not know how they can comply. Most of the existing inventory at retail outlets, distributors, and factories was fabricated before manufacturing companies could have known about the requirements of the new law.
Children's clothing, toys, and other supplies are often composed of fabrics, dyes, plastics, and metal parts from sources all over the globe. Testing to ensure compliance with the law requires a chemistry laboratory, skilled technicians and a capability to perform x-ray fluorescence or inductively coupled plasma spectrometry.
Consequently, it is expensive to test a completed children's item.
Lead is not a rare ingredient. It is used in a wide variety of production processes. When the expense of testing for the presence of lead is spread over large quantities of paint, fabric, and plastic, the cost impact on any one item manufactured from those raw materials might be small.
However, current understanding of the law is that all products must be proven free of lead, including existing stock. All items for sale after Feb. 10 are considered guilty until proven innocent.
Retail outlets and small manufactures would find the cost of testing their goods to be prohibitive. The alternative is to scrap their current inventories.
Errol Noel, owner of a retail shop named The Toy Factory, replied “I don't know what the impact will be, and that's what so scary. I don't know how to insure that my suppliers are in compliance." Carey Oien, the manager of The Kids Kloset said, “I haven't seen the actual law. I don't know if it applies to nonprofit organizations like ours."
Enforcement of the law is at the discretion of each state's attorney general. Surveys conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2006 enabled estimates that the annual clothing expenditure in the U.S. is roughly $400 per child. Total spending is in excess of $50 billion dollars annually.
Rigorous enforcement of the law at every retail establishment would be difficult. However, when a business is found guilty of a violation, fines of up to $1 million or more can be levied.
The situation is difficult for shops that sell used clothing. A single shop may have clothing from thousands of different manufacturers, and the clothing may have been created long before the bill was first considered.
Imagine that Congress passed a law that all cars sold must meet extremely tight tail-pipe emissions standards, effective immediately. Used car lots would have a real problem. Even car dealers holding an inventory of new cars manufactured before the law was passed would be in trouble. However, emissions laws have been written to impact only future car models. A grace period allows for the manufacture and sale of current models. Existing cars are exempt. Meanwhile we have to live with the emissions from older auto designs.
Children's clothing and supplies are more sensitive politically. No legislator wants to go on record as saying that it is acceptable to continue to sell lead containing items for children, even if only for a season while stricter manufacturing standards can be implemented and existing stocks can be sold. The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 contains no grace period. It passed 421 -1 in the U.S.House and 89-3 in the Senate.
Did legislators anticipate the impact of their bill? It appears that they didn't.
As the bill was being processed through Congress, a section required to assess the bill's economic impact was left blank. Congressman Peter DeFazio of Oregon sent a detailed letter in response to inquiries about the impact of HR4040. He attributes the confusion surrounding the bill's implementation to poor management by Bush administration officials, "The bill passed the House by a vote of 407 to 1 as it was considered a common sense piece of legislation that was designed to keep our children safe. Unfortunately the Bush Administration's Consumer Product Safety Commission, which is in charge of drafting regulations in order to enforce the new law, did a poor job of explaining what was expected of retailers and consumers and have written what I believe are overly strict interpretations of the law."
The number of news stories about the law has increased dramatically as the February implementation date draws near. Members of the public, not just business owners, are becoming concerned.
Bethany Fegles, a mother of two small children commented, “I just heard about this earlier this week and have wondered myself what would happen to so many smaller second-hand retailers. Or all the moms selling their kid's clothing on Craigslist. Or all the parents that use garage sales to earn back a little bit of what they spent on all the kid toys/clothes.”
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission web site
http://www.cpsc.gov/ has the latest news updates and answers to frequently asked questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
