March 18, 2011

Rand Paul is pro-choice... about toilets and light bulbs.



Via this collection of essays in the NYT called "The Politicized Light Bulb: Why are some Americans upset with attempts to encourage more energy efficiency in their homes?" I've skimmed the essays, and they seem pretty worthless. None of the writers seem to get why I am upset about losing access to the light bulbs I like.

109 comments:

mesquito said...

Isn’t there some aspect of consumer choice? Yes. But the small segment of the market that wants the outdated products can still get them: while the big producers move on to provide cheaper, cleaner products, a few legacy companies can provide the old bulbs or appliances.

I call bullshit on Juliet Schor, Professor of Sociology (ugh), Boston College

Almost Ali said...

Is it me, or did Rand Paul surrender his point in the end?

Windbag said...

Personal liberty and government intervention are inversely proportional. A government that can dictate what doctor you visit has no qualms telling you what light bulb you must purchase.

madawaskan said...

Little Red Riding Hood: Grandma why are your lights so blue?

Grandma: To take the yellow out of my hair.

Little Red Riding Hood: Why do your toilets suck?

Grandma: Ruff! age.

Quayle said...

Why are gays so upset about Mormons' encouragement to abide by multi-thousand year old social definitions and mores?

In the critical foundational things, lefties are "anything goes", but in nit-picky, in your shorts kinds of choices, lefties want you to shut up and obey.

LarsPorsena said...

Paul should have added the left's reluctance to allow choice in schools.

Issob Morocco said...

Hg, can't they see the light of Thomas Alva Edison's invention, the Incandescent Light?

edutcher said...

Stalin and Mao (and Adolf and Benito) were all Lefties.

When Ward Churchill was talking about little Eichmanns, he was looking in a mirror.

QED

Maguro said...

You can add dishwasher detergent to the list of products the government has fucked up in their never ending quest to save the planet.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Isn’t there some aspect of consumer choice? Yes. But the small segment of the market that wants the outdated products can still get them: while the big producers move on to provide cheaper, cleaner products, a few legacy companies can provide the old bulbs or appliances.

The problem with this theory is that there is a disencentive to provide parts for the older appliances.

Currently, thanks to the interference of the Government Nannies and Enviro Nazis ...

Our dishwashers don't work as intended and the dishes, flatware and pans are literally ruined because they altered the forumla of the soap so that it doesn't work.

Our washing machines don't get clothing clean. You might as well use a rock on the edge of a stream. All in the name of energy efficiency, we wear dirty clothing.

The soap in our shampoos and on our bodies doesn't work as well and won't rinse out of our hair, creating skin reactions.

Our food tastes like crap because they don't want us to use salt, fats, sugar or other seasonings. Everything is flat tasting and unappealing.

Our lighting is horrible. We all look like night of the living dead under the cold soul draining lights.

Our lighting fixtures don't work well either anymore since the 'new' bulbs don't fit.

We can't take a decent shower because our low flow shower heads don't put out enough water to wash off the crappy soap that doesn't work anyway.

We can't even flush our turds down the toilet without several tries. AND as a result of low flow toilets the sewer systems are becoming dangerously clogged.

Could we PLEASE get these people to leave us alone and butt out of our lives? Probably not.

LarsPorsena said...

The serious nature of his inquiry is blunted by the 'potty' humor.

blake said...

They're not really pro-choice about abortion, either.

They want people to have them.

japanned_box said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bruce Hayden said...

I think that Ms. Schor just doesn't get that a lot of us just don't like going through what is demanded of her so that she and her ilk can feel better about themselves.

I realized the insanity of the low flush toilets when we visited Portland, located at the junction of the Columbia and Willamette rivers. And, they proudly made sure that we knew that they ad the (politically correct) low flush toilets.

Winning The Future (WTF) (I wonder whether or not the Obama reelection campaign will change their slogan, now that people are using it as a euphemism for the primary use of those initials - I saw it earlier today in a Forbes article on the Volt made by Government Motors).

I should add that I spent some time last night reading all about disposal of fluorescent bulbs and what to do if they break. The big ones, and not the smaller ones that are at issue here. We are likely talking a potential health problem here. We shall see, but my guess is that most of those using the new bulbs are not going to dispose of them properly.

somefeller said...

Must be hard living in your skin with all those horrible things happening to you because of liberals, Dust Bunny Queen. I mean, you can't get a good meal or clean clothes in this country anywhere because of them!

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Palladian said...

"None of the writers seem to get why I am upset about losing access to the light bulbs I like."

Of course not. Political people generally have no aesthetic sense, therefore they behave as if aesthetics are worthless.

Also, the incandescent bulb is not an "outdated product", as there is no "improved" product that functionally takes its place and advances it.

I'm amazed that people claim not to be able to tell the difference between the light produced by CFLs and the light produced by incandescent bulbs.

And what of the fact that sitting under fluorescent light is, for some reason, a reliable trigger of debilitating migraines for me?

Who cares! It's all about the appearance of political morality. To hell with the fact that the market would not support the ugly, polluting, dangerous, dim, unreliable, expensive, short-lived CFL without artificial intervention. It seems like "the right thing to do".

tooclass said...

very insulting to come into people's houses and tell them what to do. in less, of course, you're talking about which drugs adults choose to consume, in which case it is totally ok to come into their houses and tell them what to do.

Windbag said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mesquito said...

"None of the writers seem to get why I am upset about losing access to the light bulbs I like."

Of course not. You are expected to either paricipate in the Lefty Kitsch or to silently submit. I suggest you by your shitty lightbulbs, install them, and step back and smugly admire the sickly light and your own virtue.

Marilee said...

DB Queen
Amen sista!!! Sing it loud, sing it proud!!!

Windbag said...

@dust bunny queen

Our washing machines don't get clothing clean. You might as well use a rock on the edge of a stream. All in the name of energy efficiency, we wear dirty clothing.

We were in Guatemala for an extended stay and took our laundry to a local woman to wash. She literally beat our clothes against a rock, and we never wore whiter, cleaner clothes. The trade-off was that the material wore out more quickly, but we were impressed with how clean she got them.

@Palladian

Of course not. Political people generally have no aesthetic sense, therefore they behave as if aesthetics are worthless.

Political photographers understand.

Christopher said...

Apparently the NYT has yet to figure out the difference between "encourage" and "require".


Simply put the govt. is requiring me to purchase inferior products for a higher price in order to achieve a negligible change; naturally I don't like this.

Bob_R said...

@blake I'm pro choice about abortion and for some of these enviro-fascists the 150th trimester would be a reasonable time to make a choice. [Insert standard disclaimer about this being a joke not intended to seriously advocate violence here.]

blake said...

tooclass--

Indeed, that's where it begins. Alcohol, drugs, smoking, prostitution, etc., become are the oil on the slope as it were.

mesquito said...

I realized the insanity of the low flush toilets when we visited Portland, located at the junction of the Columbia and Willamette rivers.

I swear, some years ago I saw a CNN bit about some insufferable ecologue in western Norway and the pains he went throught to conserve water.

blake said...

Aesthetic sense? They don't have any sense of liberty.

Coketown said...

I found a brand of CFL that burned just like incandescents, but they stopped working after a couple months. And my energy bill didn't budge. And now they're leaking mercury in a landfill somewhere because I didn't want to dispose of them properly.

Palladian said...

I despise the impulse toward outward displays of moral piety, whatever their source. Inferior "green" products are nothing more than fashionable hairshirts. The peer pressure and State compulsion to use these products is simply the latest incarnation of the hypocrites, "standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men", casting their rhetorical stones at those who don't conform to their self-satisfying notion of morality. Lefties and "progressives" do it with every bit of the self-righteous, shame-fueled zeal as would a fundamentalist paleocon. It's simply a nominally different expression of the universal human tendency toward conformity, ideological xenophobia and arbitrary moral enforcement.

TMink said...

I love encouragement. But this has nothing to do with encouragement. The progressive statists eschew encouragement in order to forbid. Americans are forbidden by their government to buy a toliet that uses the amount of water they wish to pay for. Americans are forbidden to buy the type of lightbulb they think best. Americans are forbidden to purchase the type of fuel they wish to use.

This has nothing to do with encouragement. Anyone who uses that terminology is a fool with little understanding or a liar with statist ambitions.

Trey

Kurt said...

How hard is it for people to understand that the light emitted by those Dale Chihuly-style lightbulbs is hideous in the extreme, and to top it off, if one of those monstrosities breaks, it puts a bunch of mercury everywhere? Who needs or wants either kind of problem in our homes?

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Boy, we really know how to f_ck up a wet dream in this country.

This light bulb business is a classic example.

Here is a .pdf document provided by the friendly faces at the EPA on how to clean up your broken CFL curly bulb.

What a joke.

http://epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.pdf

Todd said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Palladian said...

"...in less [sic], of course, you're talking about which drugs adults choose to consume, in which case it is totally ok to come into their houses and tell them what to do."

If only you would stay in your house I wouldn't care. It's that you insist on stumbling through the streets, having music festivals and hipster parties in my building that infringes upon my right to domestic tranquility.

"I found a brand of CFL that burned just like incandescents"

Impossible, because CFLs don't "burn" at all. It's apples and oranges.

But if you found one that suited you, then it should be your free choice to buy and use it, just as someone who prefers or requires incandescents should be free to buy and use those products. That's what's at stake here. This argument is not about choosing one over the other, it's about being forced to choose one, because the State says so.

nobody said...

Not only are fluorescent lights "a reliable trigger of debilitating migraines" for Palladian and I am sure many others, but they can be intolerable in the extreme for many developmentally disabled and autistic people with light sensitivities.

There is no substitute for the incandescent light bulb and this is a serious disability rights issue.

Why does Juliet Schor hate autistic people?

Coketown said...

@Palladian: Don't pull that petulant semantic bullshit with someone who agrees with you 98% of the time. You know what I meant by 'burn'--the apparent color temperature was identical between the CFL and incandescent. Otherwise, yes, consumer choice, liberty, etc. Rah rah rah.

Fen said...

"Why are some Americans upset with attempts to encourage more energy efficiency in their homes?"

Because the changes suck. Bulbs don't illuminate the room properly, dishwasher no longer cleans the dishes, washer no longer cleans the clothes.

Also, because the "elites" keep exempting themselves out of the changes they inflict on the rest of us.

Palladian said...

"Not only are fluorescent lights "a reliable trigger of debilitating migraines" for Palladian and I am sure many others, but they can be intolerable in the extreme for many developmentally disabled and autistic people with light sensitivities."

Not just autism per se, but many autism-spectrum conditions, to which I can also relate.

Fen said...

At least the morons are getting bedbug infestations in New England.

I cant think of a better Hell to wish upon them.

Palladian said...

"Why are some Americans upset with attempts to encourage more energy efficiency in their homes?"

Because as an artist and a sensitive individual, I choose to value aesthetics, comfort and utility over "energy efficiency" in regard to light bulbs.

Choose is the operative word here.

And government doesn't "encourage" things, it enforces them.

edutcher said...

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

Senator Rand Paul is also for this.

"Rand Takes the Reins"

"Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) unveiled his five-year budget plan on Thursday. Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) joined Paul at the press conference. Paul’s package axes four federal departments: Commerce, Education, Housing and Urban Development, and Energy. It also repeals Obamacare and requires entitlement form to be implemented by 2016. If enacted, according to Paul’s office, it will reduce federal spending by nearly $4 trillion relative to President Obama’s budget....."

Does America want to cut spending or just talk about it? We shall see


I'd go him one better. Get rid of every cabinet department created in the 20th Century. Most are shells around which only one or two valid functions (e.g., the census) exist.

And then go gunning for the alphabet soup regulatory bureaucracies.

nobody said...

@Palladian,

I use "autistic" for all ASC's (which in any event are being united into the single ASD category in the next DSM).

Julius said...

Gawd damn... Rand Paul is so right-on... and that was indeed a beautiful tirade!

Now... why is it that so many Republicans take the opposite view and support big nanny-state intrusive government?

I understand why Democrats do it... the idea that the elite members of their party aspire to be the rulers making rules for everyone else, because everyone else is too stupid and uneducated to be trusted with the power to make their own decisions, is the foundation principle that seems to define the Democrats more than anything else.

But why do Republicans disagree with Paul? They've shit on him and his dad and libertarians in general for years. And as the Hogan lady remarks in the video, these top-down anti-Capitalism social-engineering rules have been put in place by a continual bipartisan effort over the last few decades.

Fuck the Nanny State Democrats. Fuck their Republican partners-in-moral-crime. I'm with Paul. And I... wanna... be... in an an-ar-chy!

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

I think it's been said here before in previous threads on this topic, but the fact that incandescent bulbs give off a lot of heat as well as light is a feature rather than a bug if you've cold weather.

Methadras said...

They don't care what you like or don't like. They only care about telling you what they like and how they want you to like it. That's what leftards do.

Conserve Liberty said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Don't Tread 2012 said...

"Why are some Americans upset with attempts to encourage more energy efficiency in their homes?"

The question should be 'why would Americans agree to eliminate products that work safely for products that don't work as well AND may contain mercury?'

Methadras said...

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

I think it's been said here before in previous threads on this topic, but the fact that incandescent bulbs give off a lot of heat as well as light is a feature rather than a bug if you've cold weather.


We know this, but to a leftard, that extra heat generated is just simply to much in the grand scheme of global warming. They don't the atmosphere to be anymore of a heatsink than they think it already is and if incandescents can be stamped out an killed because that extra heat they generate, then so be it in leftard land.

Timon said...

Put out the light.

Conserve Liberty said...

Discussing energy or financial efficiency diverts one from the true issue of liberty (and no "efficient" product is TRULY efficient if all performance and sisposal factors are considered).

Had this discussion with a lefty recently.

When asked why on earth I would want to use less efficient light bulbs I replied, "Doesn't matter why I don't. It isn't your business to know, nor even to wonder why."

I said, over and over, in response to every supposed eco-money-social justification for making me use CFL's, "This is America. I don't want to and I shouldn't have to."

When she finally became exasperated and accused me of simply being obstinate and argumentative, I replied, "Actually, you/re the one arguing."

That prompted the F-word in a LOUD voice.

Hee Hee.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@Meth

"They don't care what you like or don't like. They only care about telling you what they like and how they want you to like it. That's what leftards do."

Socialism is force. Socialism is coercion.

tooclass said...

150 years ago Dust Bunny Queen would be complaining how much more work she had to do with the government coming in and freeing her slaves and all.

nobody said...

A worthwhile comment at the Times (#105 - Bentley Meeker):


As a lighting designer, I believe that the possibility of this becoming law is a serious matter that needs to be looked at in its many facets before we can be at all close to any conclusion being drawn.

The efficiency of CFL light bulbs is calculated in a very narrow way. It is a strictly watt/lumen ratio that correctly assumes energy efficiency in terms of direct consumption of electricity. What is not calculated, yet has a very real environmental impact, is the effect that it has on people and their resulting habits from their change in environment. A switch of light sources is indeed a wholesale transformation of our environments. That needs to be considered as well.

Incandescent and/or halogen light is a far more attractive means of illumination than fluorescent light. Incandescent light is also natively dimmable. CFL's, while many claim to be so, are not dimmable in any meaningful way. Bringing this back to my personal life, I use the lights in my house at levels ranging anywhere from 10% - 70% intensity. Very rarely more. That factored in creates a much closer ratio of consumption between the two (CFL's and halogen/incandescent lamps.) Furthermore, if I had CFL's in my living and sleeping areas, I would not feel nearly as good in my home environment. (Or my office for that matter.) I quite likely would eat more, or more poorly, I would probably be home less, thus driving more, all of which would have a resulting environmental impact.

Studies, while most in their infancy are showing the long term effects of fluorescent light having a significant impact on peoples' health and nervous systems. If this turns out to be true, this also will have a dramatic environmental impact as the cost of care for an aging population is already rising. An environment transformed for the worse may likely pose a very real possibility of exacerbating health issues even more. Thus, the care itself, the resulting transportation to healthcare facilities, and even the possible need to construct health care facilities to treat these long term effects of this type of light would all have not only a dramatic impact on the environment, but also on the grid.

We haven't touched on any loss of productivity in work environments resulting from the long term effects of fluorescent light, nor have we touched on the environmental impact of mercury contained in these bulbs...

I propose that rather than encouraging people to utilize light sources that are unattractive as an effort to force conservation, a different and perhaps more thoughtful approach might be to create a rebate program for the installation of dimmers in one's home in place of toggle switches. That would almost invariably cut consumption by a a wide margin as dimmed incandescent and/or halogen light is far more attractive and will surely be utilized.

This is an important debate and I personally believe it to be correct that derivative consumption and environmental impacts surrounding this issue are considered thoroughly. The ramifications of a mandated CFL law, while possibly impactful in terms of energy conservation in the short term, will surely stretch far and wide for years and even decades to come and the impact of any resulting carbon footprint may far outweigh the savings.


http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/03/17/the-politicized-light-bulb/whos-really-upset-with-energy-efficient-products

Phil 3:14 said...

Apparently Rand did that question/rant somewhat on the spur of the moment.

For more of that and an overall good interview check out Reason's interview of Rand Paul

I've been lukewarm to Rand Paul but this interview and some of his recent bold statements are making me think twice. I don't think I'd every be as "convicted" as a Libertarian as Paul is but at this point in our country's history its good to have him pulling the discussion in that direction.

Birkel said...

too class @ 6:45 pm:
"150 years ago Dust Bunny Queen would be complaining how much more work she had to do with the government coming in and freeing her slaves and all."

Response:
What Law does this violate? Godwin's Law covers Nazi references. Is there a Law covering slavery references?

Oh, and tooclass Shankman has revealed all anyone need know about his "class".

Henry said...

This is going to be like gun control. Leftist advocates for incandescent restrictions will be secretly packing incandescents in their reading rooms.

Palladian said...

"What Law does this violate? Godwin's Law covers Nazi references. Is there a Law covering slavery references?"

Nah, no laws, it just means than noclass is a typical douchebag.

PatCA said...

Amen, DBQ. Let's add all the extra money we have to pay for all our foods and utilities to pay for all the government programs attached to it.

A liberal friend of mine said yesterday that we are leaving behind the age of the auto, that we have to simplify.

!

I had to change the subject; I knew what was coming.

Today's liberalism is a totally reactionary movement. They want to go back to a primitive paradise that never existed.

Pogo said...

A core contradiction of US leftism is their simultaneous demand for absolute social freedom and economic communitarianism.

They argue that how I behave in the economic sphere affects others and therefore must be controlled, such as light bulb choice, or in health care (even if I choose not to get any care at all).

Yet at the same time, my social behavior has no implications for others, and all self-expression, especially the marginal, inhomogenous, and eccentric, is to be encouraged, even 'celebrated'.

But when social tolerance collides with economic pieties, it's the social freedoms most quickly denied.

No, you can't choose your light bulbs, your doctors, your car.

All that will be left is the freedom to screw whoever you want.

That is, unless there is a perceived power difference, a hint of coercion, or morning-after regrets; then you're in big trouble.

Michael K said...

I particularly enjoyed her superior smirk. I would like to know what her educational background is. Anybody know ?

Lawyer ? Ed D ? Sociologist ?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Pogo,

That is, unless there is a perceived power difference, a hint of coercion, or morning-after regrets; then you're in big trouble.

Unless you're a Democratic President and your partner is an unpaid intern about half your age who's just keen on getting her Presidential kneepads. Then the perceived power difference will be, well, not "perceived."

wv: dimpoth. I ought to be able to do something with that.

Michael K said...

the fact that incandescent bulbs give off a lot of heat as well as light is a feature rather than a bug if you've cold weather.

Exactly !

Anyone who has ever tried to brew beer in the winter knows how important this is. You get a large reflector and put it on top of the 6 gallon crock. The light bulb generates just enough heat to keep the beer brewing.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Juliet Schor makes the mistake of combining two tropes that have to be kept far, far apart from each other to work:

For years, the tobacco industry framed its attempts to hook consumers on an addictive and dangerous product through the prism of individual choice and freedom. The junk food industry set up the Center for Consumer Freedom to scare people into thinking that the government wants to take away their Twinkies.

Intended takeaway: Silly slippery-slope worry-warts!

Actual takeaway: The Schor-minded really are coming after your Twinkies next.

Michael said...

I reinstalled the old toilets after the building inspector signed off on the addition and the contractor returned the low flows for a full refund. I also take out the little thing in the shower that makes a great shower into a sad shower. I do not recycle. I will not use florescent bulbs. I once built a cabin and tried solar. It did not work. It was both ugly and inadequate and I expect the battery, the giant battery, was a health hazard. I tried to go along with all this but once you see with your own eyes that it doesn't work you have to have a little dignity and refuse to pretend.

roesch-voltaire said...

This pro-choice, free market philosophy tends to ignore how the market places, as much as government, limits my choices. For example I can not buy a replacement for my twenty-five year old GE refrigerator that will server as well because they are now designed to last no more than fifteen years. I can not get the original Wilkerson razor blades that would last a month, because as soon as they realized that, they degraded the blade. For Rand Paul, I would suggest he check out the dual flush ToTo, who have been designing and developing low-volume flushing systems for decades-- they work quite well! The market, when pushed, can even design full spectrum bulbs that cut down on the juice.

AJ Lynch said...

And to think we have been like compliant sheep for 30-40 years when we go to choose a new appliance and get all googly-eyed at the Energy Star label.

AJ Lynch said...

Where do sociology majors, like Schor, get the idea they ar so smart?

Hagar said...

Palladian, et al.

If you have problems with fluorescent lights in general, not just the CFL "bulbs," it may be because they flicker with the AC current at 60 cycles/sec., which is just at the limit where "most" people cannot notice it, but you might.

There are now available fluorescent light fixtures at your local Lowe's or Home Depot, with electronic ballasts way beyond what a human can notice. Also the bulbs come with various color outputs.
I do not know if this technlogy is adaptable to CFL's.

Hagar said...

Palladian, et al.

If you have problems with fluorescent lights in general, not just the CFL "bulbs," it may be because they flicker with the AC current at 60 cycles/sec., which is just at the limit where "most" people cannot notice it, but you might.

There are now available fluorescent light fixtures at your local Lowe's or Home Depot, with electronic ballasts way beyond what a human can notice. Also the bulbs come with various color outputs.
I do not know if this technlogy is adaptable to CFL's.

Henry said...

I wonder how much green legislation derives from sublimated birth-control urges. Congress legislates low-water toilets in willful denial of the fact that my kids will leave the hot water running.

Whenever a green talks about the horror of consumption I wonder if they realize that they're really talking about the horror of kids.

Michael said...

RV: I think you are wrong about the razor blades. Revert to a double edge razor and you will find dozens of brands of excellent blades that are long lasting and very inexpensive. Technology kept pace but people in the West were diverted to and by the three, four and five blade razors.

Henry said...

RV wrote: ...they are now designed to last no more than fifteen years...

Did you know there's a market in used refrigerators? For $100 you can get a 15-year-old refrigerator that will last you 15 more years.

Hagar said...

RV,
There also is an old story about Gillette and the CEO of Schick's meeting Arthur Murray, the dance school king, at a party, and Murray giving them a long tedious story about how he always used blue Gillette double-edged blades and could make a blade last a year by rubbing it on the inside of a waterglass, and the Schick man looked at Gillette and said, "Such a customer you are welcome to!"

Fen said...

Hey Hagar, you seem to have some knowledge re this. Its the white-strobes on Police car sirens that hurt me. Any ideas why? I can look right at the red and blue lights without a problem, but the white ones are a pita. Almost got hauled in for DU because the police couldn't understand why I was so sensitive to the white strobes.

Palladian said...

"Almost got hauled in for DU because the police couldn't understand why I was so sensitive to the white strobes."

Assuming you're not epileptic, there is a phenomena that occurs when some people are exposed to lights that strobe or flicker at between 1 and 20 hertz, which is about the same frequency as human brain-waves. Being exposed to lights flickering at one of those frequencies can make people sick, disoriented, dizzy and can even cause seizures. I think there was/is research into using strobes as an incapacitating weapon.

Henry said...

@Hagar. Great story. In the old Tightwad Gazette (my mother-in-law has the book) there was an interminable postal correspondence by old geezers about how to preserve razor blades for infinite reuse. The answer? Vaseline.

Which is insane. A 4-blade Schick gives me a good shave and lasts a week for less than a cup of coffee. And I don't end up knicking myself to death to save a nickle a week.

Methadras said...

PatCA said...

Today's liberalism is a totally reactionary movement. They want to go back to a primitive paradise that never existed.


These are neo-luddites. Should be called the fools and morons movement. Your friend is an idiot.

Methadras said...

roesch-voltaire said...

This pro-choice, free market philosophy tends to ignore how the market places, as much as government, limits my choices. For example I can not buy a replacement for my twenty-five year old GE refrigerator that will server as well because they are now designed to last no more than fifteen years. I can not get the original Wilkerson razor blades that would last a month, because as soon as they realized that, they degraded the blade. For Rand Paul, I would suggest he check out the dual flush ToTo, who have been designing and developing low-volume flushing systems for decades-- they work quite well! The market, when pushed, can even design full spectrum bulbs that cut down on the juice.


You miss the point completely. If the market demanded that these are things that people will buy, they will make them, but in a market driven world, you will get things like a 15 year old lifespan fridge, or a razor that lasts half as long because we consume them and the private sector is what delivers them. They are not edicts from the state projected onto private industry as a function of tax breaks or some other financial concessions to peddle the ideology of a free market in the form of limited products. I want government out of the private sector for the most part. If it is a function of safety, I have no issue with government or civilian oversight. Beyond that, stay out. I don't want them forcing me to buy what they think I should buy for my own good. I want the freedom and liberty to consume what I wish, when I wish it and without their oversight to do so.

Revenant said...

The toilet thing used to annoy me, but toilet technology has mostly been able to keep up. The light bulb thing is annoying, but I don't make much use of incandescents so I don't mind TOO much.

But what really grates my cheese are "energy efficient" washers. Between that and the hard water in San Diego I end up having to wash everything twice to get it clean. Fucking "environmentalists" -- I'm using more water and power just to get the same results.

LakeLevel said...

These thousands of nasty lefty things that reduce our quality of life are not always small. My daughters asthma rescue inhaler is now MUCH harder to use and she could possibly die because she is now required to very slowly inhale (very difficult while having an asthma attack), since CFCs were banned. Before it was push the button and done.

Anyone remember the Columbia Space Shuttle Disaster? A piece of the new CFC free coating broke off the main fuel tank and punctured the wing thus killing all those on board. Of course our brilliant news media shielded us from this unpleasant fact since it might make people reject left wing lunacy.

Revenant said...

This pro-choice, free market philosophy tends to ignore how the market places, as much as government, limits my choices. For example I can not buy a replacement for my twenty-five year old GE refrigerator that will server as well because they are now designed to last no more than fifteen years.

So the example of the free market limiting your choices... is that it is not supplying a good replacement for the last refrigerator the free market supplied you with?

Hm.

Revenant said...

My daughters asthma rescue inhaler is now MUCH harder to use and she could possibly die because she is now required to very slowly inhale (very difficult while having an asthma attack), since CFCs were banned.

Supposedly the government did a study and found that the new ones worked just as well.

I'd LOVE to know what bunch of jerk-offs did that particular study. The new inhalers don't work work a damn. Every asthmatic I know loathes them. But at least the atmosphere is spared the ginormously huge gaping ozone hole that would have been torn open by asthma inhalers.

Methadras said...

LakeLevel said...

Anyone remember the Columbia Space Shuttle Disaster? A piece of the new CFC free coating broke off the main fuel tank and punctured the wing thus killing all those on board. Of course our brilliant news media shielded us from this unpleasant fact since it might make people reject left wing lunacy.


Oh, I remember having multitudes of discussions about that very thing with my fellow engineers. The green movement killed those astronauts as a function of government sanction. It's clear as day. Furthermore WTC1 and WTC2 may have actually survived those fires in them if the contractor hadn't switch the fireproof asbestos coating on the steel structures to something without asbestos in it because of the 'ASBESTOS' scare. Even though Asbestos sequestration in the solution to coat would have caused anyone any issues and never did on the lower floors where it was installed. But we see now the outcome of the problem on the upper floors.

Yup, environmentalism kills people and that's a fact. It may not be immediate, but it will get you sooner or later.

blake said...

Unless the government is involved, roesch-voltaire, there's nothing stopping you or anyone else from offering those products you think the market should provide you.

Nobody says the free market is perfect. It's quite obviously highly flawed. It's just better than the known alternatives.

Revenant said...

Why are gays so upset about Mormons' encouragement to abide by multi-thousand year old social definitions and mores?

Cough coughpolygamy cough.

Revenant said...

Furthermore WTC1 and WTC2 may have actually survived those fires in them if the contractor hadn't switch the fireproof asbestos coating on the steel structures to something without asbestos in it because of the 'ASBESTOS' scare.

Maybe, but probably not -- and the collapse would have been a far worse disaster if it had dispersed finely-ground asbestos particles all over Manhattan.

vbspurs said...

I discussed this blogpost with my friend, who is not from these here parts. It got me to thinking,

Will we see the birth of a Black Market for incandescent light bulbs, where they go for 10 bucks a pop?

It wouldn't be America's first, since that existed in WWII, but you guys rarely have had to deal with something most Europeans deal with even today (due to EU strictures -- unpasteurised cheese, e.g.).

Methadras said...

Revenant said...

Maybe, but probably not -- and the collapse would have been a far worse disaster if it had dispersed finely-ground asbestos particles all over Manhattan.


A lot of the weakening came from the sheering of structural supports that the jets did upon impact across mulitiple floors, but these were at the upper levels that did not have absestos coatings like the lower floors did. The resulting fires finished the job because, in my opinion, the lack of the asbestos coating. The mitigation wasn't there due to this in my opinion. All we have is the outcome from multiple conditions. None of which are mutually exclusive.

Since the lower floors still contained the asbestos coating, which wasn't removed, you still had the collapse and on top of the finely ground dust from the resulting collapse from concrete, which is just as bad as asbestos, it really wouldn't have mitigated any inhalation issues from the resulting cloud of dust that canvassed lower Manhattan from both buildings if anyone got caught in it.

Methadras said...

blake said...

They're not really pro-choice about abortion, either.

They want people to have them.


Actually if they really wanted to do what they want, they would make abortions mandatory. You can see the evolution of this in how the Chinese have implemented it with their One Child Policy and the resulting outcome of such an edict from a central planning slave state point of view. Leftards in this country would love to emulate it because of their religious environmental fervor of the scare of overpopulation, but in this country wouldn't dare suggest such a thing for fear of finally being removed from the political food chain if not the mouth breathing chain altogether.

This is what they really want and that's why they fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo on abortion. They see it as their only wedge into furthering their myopic views of population control. Ask the blacks in this country how leftard policies like abortion have worked out for them.

PatCA said...

Talk about slipper slope, here's another unintended consequence of the low flow toilet.

http://tinyurl.com/4w8wz3j

Phil 3:14 said...

R-V;
This pro-choice, free market philosophy tends to ignore how the market places, as much as government, limits my choices. For example I can not buy a replacement for my twenty-five year old GE refrigerator that will server as well because they are now designed to last no more ...

NPR did a piece about a month ago on a guy who has a standing bet with anyone that he can find anything made in the past ?100 (it might have been ever made). He hasn't lost yet.

Maybe you should look harder.

(PS Here's the piece)

Revenant said...

They're not really pro-choice about abortion, either. They want people to have them.

Yeah? And I'm pro free speech even though I think people who use the n-word are jerks.

Believing in freedom isn't the same thing as being totally indifferent to people's behavior.

blake said...

Rev,

Wrong parallel. The equivalent to what you are saying would be being pro-choice and anti-abortion. That's being genuinely pro-choice.

To use your analogy, the equivalent to what I'm saying would be you claiming you were free speech when what you really wanted was people yelling the N-word all the time.

Reagan said...

If you truly believe in liberty, you should be allowed as a person with God-given rights to use a light bulb that uses the equivalent of 2 nuclear reactors of energy per day if you can afford it with no interference from the guvmint.

On the other hand, if you believe the government is entitled to regulate the use of energy so that we decrease our reliance on fossil fuels, then you are normal.

Reagan said...

Althouse's light bulb usage x 40 million other selfish folks who hate energy efficient bulbs = a lot of wasted energy. Great idea - keep it up!

Hoosierman said...

Yeah and don't forget about the crappy washing machines Dept of Energy has mandated.

Alcuria said...

@vbspurs 03/18/11 11:23 Pm:

Will we see the birth of a Black Market for incandescent light bulbs, where they go for 10 bucks a pop?

I see where the same 2007 law that deals with incandescent lamps also modifies 42 U.S.C. 6304 concerning restraining any person from distributing into commerce certain lamps. What is considered "distributing into commerce"? If I sell some bulbs to someone across the country, will that be considered a violation?

Hagar said...

@Methadras

Please note and repeat after me: A Contractor on any construction project cannot make any change in materials or construction methods from those specified in the Project Manual or shown on the Construction Plans, without the express permission of, or it being ordered by the Owner or Its Authorized Representative.

This is true even when two materials or methods are specified as "at Contractor's option" in the Construction Documents. Once the Contractor has submitted, and has received approval for, a certain material or method, he is stuck with that, unless he requests a change and it is approved by the Owner or Its Authorized Representative.

roesch-voltaire said...

Phil interesting piece; but I bet that you can not find the Allis-Chalmers tractor that was the first fuel cell vehicle of its kind. My point is that the free market it not perfect as some noted. In some cases it can not work without huge subsidies from the government-- nuclear energy is a prime example: private industry won't invest in this adventure without government handouts--

Dust Bunny Queen said...

the fact that incandescent bulbs give off a lot of heat as well as light is a feature rather than a bug if you've cold weather.

Exactly. In the winter it gets very very cold here and almost everyone has a well for domestic water as well as agricultural water....there is no public water system except in one very small place.

In order to keep your pipes from freezing at the well head inside the pump house we install a 100 watt bulb down near the area and keep it turned on during the coldest days. Also under the house crawl space for the same reason.

NOW...because we can't get 100 watt bulbs in Ca. people use electric pump house heaters which use much more energy and are more costly to purchase.

In unheated buildings we just leave the florescents on 100% of the time in winter because they won't light up or take forever to light.

Good move government.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Of course we could always just string together a series of lesser wattage bulbs for the heat source. Where there is a will there is a way :-D

Currently we are stocking up on incandescents and buying commercial service bulbs which are just a bit more expensive but last much longer than a regular 100 watt bulb.

Buy those, at least while they are still available.

jr565 said...

Palladian wrote:
But if you found one that suited you, then it should be your free choice to buy and use it, just as someone who prefers or requires incandescents should be free to buy and use those products. That's what's at stake here. This argument is not about choosing one over the other, it's about being forced to choose one, because the State says so.

In this case, the market should dictate which lightbulbs people buy. If incandesents are more expensive and burn out quicker, then their inefficiency should naturally make them redundant in the marketplace as people go towards the better more cost efficient product. Only, in this case, it seems like many people aren't moving towards that better product, so perhaps the new product aint al that great.

THough it looks like, since 2009 that incandescent bulbs have been getting a lot better:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs.html

Perhaps the govt restrictions caused the incandescent bulb manufacturers to innovate beyond what they would normally do. Though one could make the argument that as CFL's took more and more market shares, some of this same innovation would have occured as incandescents had to improve their product to deal with the CFL's.

Conserve Liberty said...

@Reagan:

Althouse's light bulb usage x 40 million other selfish folks who hate energy efficient bulbs = a lot of wasted energy. Great idea - keep it up!

Choose the reponse you prefer:

1) This is America. I don't want to and I shouldn't have to.

2) Your computer use to post here + 40 million selfish computer users just like you = a whole lot of wasted energy. Keep it up!

Hagar said...

Plus which, it is also my understanding that the efficiency of incandescent bulbs can be improved upon, and that would of course be a much more rational course to follow if you are concerned about the "wasted" heat, which as several posters have pointed out, is not necessarily "wasted" in the first place.

The CFL legislation, I think is at best comparable to the "sealed beam" headlight legislation of the 1930's. "Sealed beams" were great when they were first invented, but the legislation froze automotive headlamp development in the United States in place for 50 years, until "Detroit" finally decided it hurt them more than it helped, and put their lobbyists to work pushing Congress to repeal it.

Methadras said...

Reagan said...

On the other hand, if you believe the government is entitled to regulate the use of energy so that we decrease our reliance on fossil fuels, then you are normal.


Is this sarcasm? Sorry, my sarcasm meter is broken. If it isn't sarcasm, then my question to you is, why do you want to decrease reliance on any fuel at all?

Methadras said...

Reagan said...

Althouse's light bulb usage x 40 million other selfish folks who hate energy efficient bulbs = a lot of wasted energy. Great idea - keep it up!


Explain to me again, why I'm selfish for using something and pay for it like a lightbulb and pay for the electricity to use it? So in your mind, energy not used is energy not wasted?

Synova said...

Oh wow, I missed this.

Her answer was... the Republicans did it too?

Really?

Synova said...

"If you truly believe in liberty, you should be allowed as a person with God-given rights to use a light bulb that uses the equivalent of 2 nuclear reactors of energy per day if you can afford it with no interference from the guvmint."

Yes, and?

I mean, of course.

And it's really rather... curious... to talk of nuclear reactors and whine about dependence on fossil fuels as if we couldn't make nuclear reactors if we were serious.

Clearly we are not.

jfm said...

We must all keep it in mind that the primary purpose of compact florescent lights is to save energy; producing a pleasant, usable light is a secondary purpose.

The same goes for energy-saving washing machines--saving energy comes first, clean clothes second.