Skip to comments.The light bulb ban provides a useful window into the mindset of liberals:
Posted on 01/03/2014 6:49:32 AM PST by Rusty0604
Regardless of party affiliations, true conservatives have made the old fashioned light bulban unassuming household iteminto a symbol for something much larger. But what, exactly? At the risk of sounding melodramatic, it has become symbolic of the fight between liberty and tyranny.
The light bulb ban provides a useful window into the mindset of liberals. Heres how they see the issue: energy-saving bulbs are better, therefore the others should be illegal. The pattern repeats itself in nearly every other realm: they determine the best policy, then impose it in a top down manner with no regard for states, localities, or individuals. Arguing with them about choice is futile because they cannot fathom the idea that the debate has nothing to do with which bulb is better, but rather who gets to decide.
Why cant the government do that? The answer is simple: because Americans might choose the wrong one!
Liberals famous reverence for choice arose only because they couldnt bring themselves to utter the word abortion in a debate that is clearly about that very thing. Consequently, the word choice has been used so frequently in reference to the gruesome procedure that it is now universally understood to mean abortion. When a reporter asks a politician where he stands on the issue of choice people understand without any further context what the reporter means. (Hint: not light bulbs.)
Im pro-choice too; pro-light bulb choice, that is
(Excerpt) Read more at no-pasaran.blogspot.com ...
Anyone have any liberal acquaintances or family members that deny that such a ban exists?
I find it “illuminating” that they deny such a thing,
because it shows that they don’t believe that government
would overstep to that extent.
It’s an opening - drive the point home.
Should the government decide what light bulbs you can use and why?
It just came to me: “Trickle Down Tyranny”
We need to mock them ceaselessly-—and never buy in to their ridiculous bulls**t.
13% of power plant usage is for lighting.
Conventional incandescent bulbs produce 10% light, 90% heat.
The government gets involved in requests for new power plants and their associated infrastructure (power lines, etc.). The government also gets pushed to create a wise energy policy (allow drilling, fracking, pipelines, etc.). So, yes, the government mandated more efficient light bulbs.
I’m not a big fan of CFLs - we have a few in the house. However, I love LEDs. As quickly as they develop LEDs which fit in our budget, we replace our conventional bulbs.
I’m not a big fan of our local power company. Why give them more business than I have to?
Except that this was the work of REPUBLICAN Fred Upton and REPUBLICAN George W. Bush (follow the CFL lobbying money...)
BINGO! We Have a Winner!
LED bulbs contain Arsenic, and fluorescent bulbs generate Ultraviolet light.
Arsenic in landfills yields arsenic in groundwater plus skin cancer from fluorescent lights - - - hmmmmm? Forward!
Looks like Obama Socialized Health Insurance Tax (OSHIT) has arrived just in time to “fix” the planned poisoning by the Liberal Lightbulb Law (LLL)! Forward!
The Obamacrats have thus discovered even more unintended Scientific consequences in their Utopian Obamanation! Forward!
FORWARD! FORWARD! FORWARD!
( Obamacrat John “Benghazi Coverup” Boehner must so proud - - - . )
If you live in an all-electric house, those incandescent bulbs are helping to keep your house warmer in the winter. There’s little or no advantage to using CFL or LED bulbs, at least during the colder times of the year.
If a politician writes a Bill like a Liberal, and votes like a Liberal, and celebrates the signing of a Liberal Bill into a Federal Law like a Liberal, then that politician is a Liberal, even if the last name is Dole, McCain, Romney, Bush, Upton, McConnell, Boehner; Cantor, or Ryan.
“Judge politicians by what they do, and not by what they say.”
Bottom line is, they don’t believe in the free market or freedom of choice generally (see Obamacare).
So even when they happen to stumble upon a good idea, they ruin it by making it mandated by the federal government.
Just yesterday here in Minnesota, a democrat state legislator introduced a bill to make the app that allows you to track down your missing cellphone MANDATORY. You and I would say, let the manufacturers treat it as a feature to attract buyers to their product versus another one, but they see themselves as the arbiter of what you need and so you don’t get a choice (even if it raises the price of the item).
I live in the upper midwest. Our high on Monday is predicted to be -15 degrees. My highest heating bill in the past 8 years has been $163. My highest electric bill during air conditioning weather, has been $249. Heating the house by light bulbs isn’t very efficient, and it’s expensive to pay for the A/C to offset their heat during the summer. So, again, I’ll buy LED bulbs.
I’m all for saving money, just not the government mandating what kind of bulbs I can or can’t buy. For certain applications, I would prefer to purchase a 100 watt to 150 watt bulb - like the lamp next to my bed or sofa, where I might be reading. It’s not going to be left on for long periods of time, so the extra energy usage is negligible.
Another insane proposal. People are just too stupid to decide for themselves if they want to purchase an app?
PS....are you one of those people with light bulbs that save the planet and a huge TV screen for your viewing pleasure?
It’s about the freedom to choose, not whether one form of lighting is more efficient or not.
The Minnesota legislature isn't in session yet.
Lest we forget. A Republican proposed the ban and George W. Bush signed it!
I find it hard to believe that FedGov would regulate something as absurd as what kind of light bulb we can use. That’s as absurd as if they regulated how much water a toilet can flush or how big a soft drink we could buy. No one really wants that much government in their lives, do they?
This is the original one:
This one shows (using their data) how much energy is "saved" by putting individual homeowners through this crap:
True dat. < |:(~
True, and often forgotten.
And of course it works in reverse, too. When you are cooling your home the AC runs longer to remove the heat added by incandescent lights. (As it does the waste heat produced by all electric devices.)
The comparative advantage varies with source of your heat.
If you heat with electric resistance, then the waste heat from light bulbs is exactly as efficient as that from your heaters. Just about any other source of heat is more efficient, though.
The sheep don’t know anything anyway. Over the last couple years when I was buying up my lifetime supply of incandescent bulbs I always asked the clerk checking out my order, “Do you know that these bulbs will not be available at the end of the year?” The answer was always a blank stare. This was not just a couple clerks, it was maybe 20. They know nothing and don’t care to know anything about the world going on around them. Their progressive teachers have taught them well.
I think that they are typical no-nothings who, if they get any news at all, they get it from the network evening newscasts.
It should be noted that this is simply an extension of the process whereby the government mandated certain mileage requirements for vehicles.
As with the mileage, the regulations do not specify the technology to be used, only the energy use per lumen minimum that must be met.
Unless you live in Florida or California, I hope your electric heat is from a heat pump, not a resistor. Converting electricity directly to heat is expensive.
I think you can still buy halogen bulbs. Of course they cost about 5X as much.
There are, or used to be, exceptions in the NW, where electricity was really cheap. Just about all homes in FL, and I would assume in CA, are heat pumps, possibly with backup resister strips.
When I lived in CO a couple decades ago, a LOT of condos were baseboard resistance heat.
I don’t think you should be forced to make the same decision I did even if I know I’m right. trying to save money, yes.
I don’t think you should be forced to make the same decision I did even if I know I’m right. That is my new tagline.
Ignore the last post, not sure what happened.
Choice ONLY counts when it is to kill your preborn children. In all other cases, Nanny State knows best.
I appreciate your willingness to choose LED bulbs, they sound good.
I don’t much appreciate having Government, that can’t handle the logistics of plowing the snow out of the streets, telling me I need to use LED bulbs.
Who gets to choose?
“Im not a big fan of our local power company. Why give them more business than I have to?”
The states are freaking out about lost revenue due to more fuel efficient cars and are raising gas taxes.
The power companies will do the same. Be careful what you wish for.
We have two TVs in our house - a 28" LCD by the computer, and a 32" LCD in the living room. Not exactly huge.
I curse Al Gore every time I flush my toilet.
And they are proposing tracking devices on cars so they can charge you for how many miles driven.
Exactly. Who gets to choose.
If the consideration were only the cost of the electricity vs the price of the new bulbs, we wouldn’t switch until the new bulbs were a LOT more competitive.
Of course, the real “problem” is that the government doesn’t want new electric power plants built, and wants us to use actually LESS electric power, because they’re taking 10% of the generating capacity offline.
Yes, W and his brother Jeb both drink the green energy koolaid. Most conservatives forget that the ethanol program began under Bush. One of the dumbest government programs ever.
I did forget—thanks for reminding me. We lost our way a long time ago, actually. By my reckoning it was about in the 1890s when certain “progressives” became enamored with European socialism. It is a slow erosive progression.