Posted on 07/03/2009 6:33:42 AM PDT by TDCAnalyst
The struggle of the Iranian people is a quintessential liberal cause. The Iranian people are nonviolently protesting their unjust suppression of every type of right a human deserves, yet unlike Darfur or Africans suffering from AIDS, Hollywood has been almost silent on their behalf. Jon Bon Jovi is the one exception, having recorded a version of “Stand by Me” in English and Farsi with Iranian musicians to express his support of them. The Green Revolution, like all similar revolutions, lives on morale. Bon Jovi needs to be praised by all quarters for his contribution to this most essential element, and if the music can make its way to the Iranian people, I believe people will be surprised by the effect it has...
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
If you post a picture of a half naked guy, you might like guys, which makes you a queer boy.
I’ll handle the posting of pix of half-naked guys, thankyouverymuch. (I found one that showed even MORE skin, but I’ll spare you...)
Eh. Someone has to do it. You guys have too much fun on the CZJ threads. Equality, Man! It’s 2009 already...and I’m not getting any younger, LOL!!
I'm sorry. Are you hot? Cuz I'll change your luck! ;)
Wow. I honestly didn’t know that drivel had a 5th gear.
I’m not getting any...YOUNGER, you Cad!
You quoted me out of context! Are you a NY Times ‘journalist’ or something? LOL!
What are you out of? Hot prospects for a Saturday night date? Cuz I am your DREAMMMMMmmmmm muffin, baby......rrrrRRRROOOOWWWLLLLlllllll ..... ;)
I’d hit it.
You'll have to wait a couple of years. Bestiality is still against the law.
Yep, not to bad on these old eyes!!
(I really don’t care for tattoos, though)
Now, there is a truly green revolution, and there is this pseudo-”green” insurgency, that can and should be beaten back, to make room for REAL change.
Profit in business is not a bad thing, for that is the means by which the real green change shall come. The greatest achievements of mankind come when there is an opportunity to increase the profit margin, by making something cheaper that is widely accepted and replaces an old, inefficient method. We have electric lighting because it is cheaper, and provides a much greater amount of light for each dollar spent, as compared to either kerosene lanterns or gas lighting. Also safer.
In fact, we have become almost wholly dependent on electricity to provide lighting, to the degree that our light at night is almost equal to natural sunlight during the day. One of the byproducts of incandescent lighting, however, has been that only about 5-10% of the energy used in an incandescent bulb is actually light, the other 90-95% is heat. Which is fine if you want a heater to go along with your light.
It has been found that other forms of converting electricity to light produce way more light, and proportionately much less heat, like fluorescent lighting, which has been around with us for some sixty years or so, first as long tubes, then as circular fixtures, and now in a compact form twisted into a spiral, and of approximately the same dimensions as the incondescent bulb which it replaces. Some 35% of the electricity is now converted to light, the rest is STILL lost as heat energy, and while the compact flourescent bulbs are cooler than the incandescents they replace, they still turn out to be energy hogs.
Enter a new design, the Light Emitting Diode, or LED lights. These have a breath-taking 80-90% efficiency in converting electric current to light, with WAY less heat produced. This makes them practically useless for heating purposes,of course, but excellent for a point source of light. Currently, the commercially available designs sre no threat to CFL bulbs, as they are both more expensive, and the available designs emit light too feeble to adequate light up a room. They do make a terrific flashlight when arranged in a parabolic array, and the light may be powered with simple flashlight batteries, which can provide a continuous light for up to 20 hours. Try getting more than an hour or so with conventional flashlights.
Wherein is the mistake that “green” activists make. When it is demonstrated that the use of CFL bulbs, and tube fluorescent lighting, is CHEAPER than incandescent lighting, people will make the switch, as they understand the value of getting the same or better for less money. But when this change is directed by LAW, then a “them against us” mentality sets in, and people will be damned if they will comply with this sort of micromanagement of their daily lives, and buy the incandescent bulbs up in quantity in defiance of the coming mandate.
People of limited means still buy the old inefficient bulbs, simply because first cost is less (about a dollar per bulb, as compared to $5-$6 for a CFL bulb, and $15 or more for an equivalent LED fixture), and the electricity is paid for on an as-used basis. When you do not need the incandescent lamp, shut it off. The CFL and the LED, on the other hand, use so much less electricity per hour there is an inclination to leave them on all the time, continuously consuming electricity.
All this implies that there always remains a CHOICE of using incandescent lighting, or going to the newer more energy-efficient (but more expensive) substitutes, when there may well be other considerations than simply providing light. The right kind of light, for instance, makes a great deal of difference for steady usage, and many people have complained of the effects on their eyes of continuous exposure to fluorescent lighting. Fluorescent lighting tends to favor the blue end of the lighting spectrum, while human eyes are adapted mostly to the yellow-green part of the spectrum. As it so happens, incandescent light favors the yellow-red part of the spectrum, which human eyes can accept more readily than the blue part. That is also the part of the spectrum that produces heat.
This all still comes back to one thing - should we allow the market to determine whether people change their lighting to a more efficient form, or shall it be mandated by law, with no choices? The mandate by law is going to draw irate response, and even evasion or open flouting and mockery. And once people start disregarding a few of the laws by open resistance, it is only a short step to outright anarchy, a total disrespect of all law or authority.
We have seen this before. It was called “the 70’s”.
LOL! I think you’re either over or under-medicated today, Laz, LOL!
“I really don’t care for tattoos, though...”
He has a tattoo? I must’ve been looking elsewhere. *WINK*
This simpleton really has no idea who he voted for, does he?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.