July 7, 2011

"It was never my goal for Washington to decide what type of light bulbs Americans should use."

"The public response on this issue is a clear signal that markets – not governments – should be driving technological advancements. I will join my colleagues to vote yes on a bill to protect consumer choice and guard against federal overreach."

Says the erstwhile overreacher Fred Upton (R-Mich.).

96 comments:

Robert said...

"“Phasing in energy efficient light bulbs means more choices and more savings and that’s good for families, the country and the environment," the ads say."

Banning other types of light bulbs does not mean more choices. You know, I'm less upset with them trying to limit our choices than I am with their blatant and transparent doublespeak. Do they think we are so stupid to not see it, or is it that they just do not care any more.

pauldar said...

""It was never my goal for Washington to decide what type of light bulbs Americans should use.""

My Bullshit meter just went full force. Wondering why

edutcher said...

Gee whiz, then why do it in the first place?

Oh, that's right, they're our betters and know what's best for us.

Cheer up, Ann. Even if this passes, your light bulb needs are set for life.

Bruce Hayden said...

Just more evidence that people do not govern themselves all that well. Or, maybe better that those drafting laws and regulations are human, and thus most often do not anticipate all the consequences of their actions.

The conservative/libertarian response to this is to be less aggressive in law and regulation making. The liberal one is to say, trust me, I will get it next time.

traditionalguy said...

The shell game begins. Congressmen were never in favor of that trick that they played on us back when we were too stupid to understand it.

They only want whatever we want as soon as we turn out to be smart enough to raise hell over the tricks they play.

So what good are the Congress people?

tree hugging sister said...

Oh, yeah, says you.

He ws happy as a clam overreaching when he had the Democreachers at his back. Big important man. Now it's, "Oh, pardon me. Terribly sorry. What on EARTH was I thinking?"

Fix it FAST, asshole.

Curious George said...

Green Police!

Henry said...

Upton's excuse must be grooved into the wrinkles of every politician's brain: "It was never my goal for Washington to decide ..."

Sadly, they most often use it in the future tense: "This legislation in no way will ..."

Next up for Upton is figuring out that "markets - not governments - should be driving technological advancements" in high-speed rail. Poser.

Of course you could argue that Amtrak represents no technological advancement. Governments -- not markets -- remain in charge of technological dinosaurs. That's Fred Upton's new position.

Paul Zrimsek said...

It was never my goal for Washington to decide what type of light bulbs Americans should use. It was my goal to force incandescent-bulb makers to unleash the magic efficiency technology they've been keeping on the shelf in the secret vault, right next to the 300-mpg carburetor.

SteveR said...

LEDs and CFLs are significantly more efficient than traditional incandescent bulbs.

That's the story anyway

Dustin said...

These CFLs are an environmental disaster.

My garbage men dropped a neighbor's bag and ripped it, and there was a broken CFL in it.

How many of these bulbs are being disposed of in some super secure container that won't leak into our water?

The light is ghastly. It's actually not so bad in my garage, but when you want to read a book, or prepare a meal, or hang out with your family over a game of scrabble, it's simply awful.

This bulb being forced on Americans is corruption and actually harmful for the environment.

Those responsible for this do not get to say 'Sorry!' and move on. Our government is too interested in deciding what I do with my money.

Slim Jim said...

That's the problem with nanny state legislation, it is always producing those unintended consequences.

At least they see the light and will repeal.

Next they need to end ethanol subsidies and repeal CAFE laws for automakers.

Shanna said...

""It was never my goal for Washington to decide what type of light bulbs Americans should use.""

Then maybe don't vote for laws that do exactly that?

Fix it now and you're forgiven.

Original Mike said...

"It was never my goal for Washington to decide what type of light bulbs Americans should use."

If that was not your goal, Mr. Upton, then you're a fuckin idiot for having supported the original bill.

Carol_Herman said...

Politicians worry about re-election.

Even though this creep got paid off by lobbyists. He's got regrets.

Doesn't change a thing. But he has to apologize to fool people.

Even so, there's a good chance he could get replaced. Even if no one in his party wants to challenge him in the primary.

He'd be in worse shape, if it wasn't for Anthony Weiner.

gerry said...

National Electrical Manufacturers Association is in favor of the ban. Why? Because its members make more money on the more expensive, higher-margin alternatives. General Electric is one of them.

Bastards.

MadisonMan said...

So this is another I was for it before I was against it politician?

Scott M said...

Do they think we are so stupid to not see it, or is it that they just do not care any more.

I'm of the opinion that old habits die hard. Even for relatively newly elected officials in DC, there is a Way of doing things that hasn't caught up with the Information Age. This will most likely continue for another ten years or so.

PatHMV said...

"It was never my goal for Washington to decide what type of light bulbs Americans should use." That's why I sponsored my original bill to have the federal government in Washington declare it illegal to sell the kind of light bulbs that most people want to buy.

Seriously, what kind of split personality must a Congressmen have to think he can get away with such an obvious falsehood? It WAS his goal for Washington to decide what type of light bulbs I should use, when he originally sponsored the legislation that outlawed most incandescent bulbs.

The Ghost said...

who cares if CFL's or LED's are more efficient ... gas heat is more efficient that electric heating isn't it ... the government's job is not to eliminate the least efficent products from the market ...

they can educate us and tell us that its better for Gaia to use CFL's (until you break one and that NEVER happens) but that should be the limit to the governments role ...

Jay said...

“It was never my goal for Washington to decide what type of light bulbs Americans should use," Upton said in a statement to The Hill

Well gee Fred, why don't you tell us what the "goal" was you silly little nanny, you!

The Crack Emcee said...

"It was never my goal for Washington to decide what type of light bulbs Americans should use."

No, it was your goal to put American lightbulb makers out of business.

Asshole.

Fred4Pres said...

Then maybe we should get rid of the law that does exactly that numbnuts?

Joseph said...

Anyone that challenges Upton in a primary will get a check from me.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

“Phasing in energy efficient light bulbs means more choices and more savings and that’s good for families, the country and the environment,"

This is the problem. Assholes like these presume to know what is good for families, the country and the environment.

How dare they presume to know what is good for ME.

They can't possibly know what is good for the entire country.

AND....there is no evidence that an incandescent light bulb is bad for the environment, while there IS evidence that mercury laden bulbs are dangerous.

It is all a part of a religious movement that they call Global Warming.....oh wait.....now it is Climate Change. They can't even be consistant on what they believe.

Screw them and the curly bulbs they rode in on.

bwebster said...

About damn time.

Seeing Red said...

Via Jen Rubin:

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) is steamed. In a conference call with conservative bloggers this morning he railed against the closed negotiations on the debt ceiling. I asked him what he thought of the prospect of a “grand bargain” with Social Security and Medicare cuts in exchange for tax hikes. He was plainly livid: “It is amazing to me . . . that you reporters have more detail than members of Congress.”


Some Wisconsinite is minding the store.

Original Mike said...

"Well gee Fred, why don't you tell us what the "goal" was you silly little nanny, you!"

I think Paul nailed it upthread: "It was my goal to force incandescent-bulb makers to unleash the magic efficiency technology they've been keeping on the shelf in the secret vault, right next to the 300-mpg carburetor."

These people think we live in a Star Trek world where Scotty figures out a way around the "laws of physics". In a 60 minute episode, no less.

Original Mike said...

I think we should turn the design of the magic light bulb over to Freder.

PatCA said...

“Phasing in energy efficient light bulbs means more choices and more savings and that’s good for families, the country and the environment," the ads say."

We've always been at war with Eastasia, Winston.

Old Dad said...

This travesty is perfectly indicative of our politics. We elect dumb shits who, surprise, do dumb shit stuff.

Congress should convene for one month every other year. The executive branch should be trimmed to whatever can fit in the White House. All that white marble in DC should be salvaged and sold.

bagoh20 said...

This is a perfect example of the stupidity of government trying to dictate the market.

First, we all paid too much for lousy, dangerous bulbs, that we were lied about on performance and useful life.

Second, manufacturers spent billions to create and supply this new forced market.

Third, these manufacturers did not invest in new better technology because it was locked in law and seemed to be at the whim of government anyway, so why invest in anything the government is not already behind.

Fourth, it's now all gonna fall apart, alternatives are not ready, and the environment is far more polluted with mercury now IN OUR HOMES.

Genius.

If this was the goal, you're evil. If it was not, you're an incompetent with no understanding of history or economics.

Original Mike said...

What are it's chances in the Senate? I need them to hurry up and pass this thing. We have a small house, with limited closet space. My light bulb stash already takes up an inordinate amout of space and I've only just started hoarding.

Michael said...

Paul did have it right. The thinking is that If Washington decrees it then it shall be. The green "revolution" is built on this idea. As if entrepeneurs havent been killing themselves for decades trying to make batteries store more energy longer! As if this is Obama's idea! It makes you want to weep.

John said...

This is why we must focus our effort on un-electing EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN, repo or Demmie.

All 435 Congressman, 33 Senators run are up for re-election in 2012.

What say we see how many of those seats we can turn over?

Vote agains them in the primaries.

If they survive the primaries, vote against them in the general.

Anyone who votes for any incumbent has no right whatsoever to complain about pols in DC.

I suspect that Upton may even be telling the truth. It may not have been his intention. He simply voted the way the party told him to with no idea what he was voting for.

All the more reason to un-elect him in 2012

John Henry

Phil 3:14 said...

In future news Rep. Upton will lose his committee membership and his office and be relegated to a back closet lit by a flickering fluorescent tube.

AllenS said...

Joseph said...
Anyone that challenges Upton in a primary will get a check from me.

Me too.

Original Mike said...

"I suspect that Upton may even be telling the truth."

I do too, which makes him too stupid to be trusted with political power.

Phil 3:14 said...

Example of office here

E.M. Davis said...

Example of office here

Didn't even have to click.

Chuck66 said...

I like the new light bulbs, but geesh, to ban the selling of old ones althogether......

I am pro-choice when comes to lightbulb shopping.

Zoltan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
virgil xenophon said...

And of course once laws like this come into play enter the faceless ham-fisted regulatory bureaucrats whose stubborness rivals that of a Missouri mule; having the remorseless heart of Inspector Javert, and that would make Kafka's bureaucrats look like the soul of rational efficiency, nuance and understanding..

Mike K said...

Upton is in deep trouble and Boehner had better produce his vote or he, too, is in trouble. This is the fallout from the failed global warming scam. The comments at Politico are interesting. They are about "jobs" showing they don't realize what this ban did to American jobs.

Zoltan said...

If I may please make a remark, the government is an institution; the exact same people that are in government leadership are in the private sector leadership. They are all selling they wares for the public consumption. When the “Man” tell you to purchase a square light bulb you buy it, if you know what is good for you. Can you imagine how much investment went into the manufacturing of the new light bulbs, who you think is responsible to cover the loss? The Congress passed a law and people invested money. Every time legislation gets passed, somebody gets paid and every time it gets repelled somebody gets paid. So who got paid the first time and who will be getting paid when the repeal takes effect?
Just one more thing, if you can please look up chronologically how many laws, regulations and mandates have been passed by the Congress in the last fifty years? Information like that could easily have us, “We the People” talking for few months.
Thank you

Mike said...

Of course now that the last frackin' incandescent light bulb factory in the USA has closed (happened last February I think) it's going to be hard for good old Fred to make good on his epiphany.

Some little green weinie on the Obama GMC takeover crew was told by a GMC engineer that an Obama team goal could not be achieved without repealing the laws of physics.

Honest to gosh--or so the story goes, the Obama staffer replied he "was not familiar with the laws of physics, but if he could be pointed to where they were, he was sure that Team Obama could repeal them."

No doubt aprocyphal--but when you look at Team Obama's latest goal for car highway mileage, it's indicative that the little fellow has got a big promotion and is now the "Highway Mileage Czar".

Dustin said...

"The Crack Emcee said...

"It was never my goal for Washington to decide what type of light bulbs Americans should use."

No, it was your goal to put American lightbulb makers out of business.

Asshole."

Your link, over the swear word... it doesn't go anywhere relevant to this story. It's just a link to your blog.

Can't you at least write something relevant before you suggest via link you have something to say? Sometimes it's hard to distinguish between you and a spammer. I realize by now you're actually are a decent blogger... but things like this are extremely off-putting. Think about it. I haven't clicked a link of yours in months because I just expect your links to be meaningless. I gave you another shot and now it'll be a long time before I try again.

I don't think that's the result you wanted.

Peter said...

Re: “The switch lightbulb,” and “LED bulbs seem to break the bank by comparison. But that's only until you do the math.”

Viewed as a consumer purchase, what this analysis is missing is the risk factor. That is, you just know there’s a good chance that this won’t really last for 20,000 hours. And if you buy a $20. lightbulb and it dies in a year or two, you just know that even if it’s guaranteed you won’t have the receipt. And so, if you’re going to use a spreadsheet to calculate its value, you really should consider the risk.

Aside from that, we don’t really know what’s meant by “20,000 hours average life.” BUT, it’s common to rate the life of an LED lamp as the time to half-brightness. And so the good news is that it might still be working after 20,000 hours. BUT the bad news is, its light output could be unacceptable long before then. And (BTW), the efficiency falls as well, which also compromises that simple value spreadsheet.

IMHO, LED lighting will have arrived when average lifetimes are so long, and reliability so high, that the LED light sources can be permanently built into buildings and furniture, and few will want to cram them inside something that looks like an incandescent light bulb.

traditionalguy said...

Thomas Edison Heirloom Bulbs are the new status symbol.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@BruceHayden

"...response to this is to be less aggressive in law and regulation making. The liberal one is to say, trust me, I will get it next time."

This.

The framers were careful to warn about legislation - that each piece must be carefully considered, resisted even, before enactment.

Liberals just love to criticize framers; too bad they were right. Legislation chips away at liberty.

Liberals/progressives don't care about liberty. Only about control.

Paul Zrimsek said...

I'll believe that LED lighting has arrived when I see an LED traffic light that doesn't look moth-eaten thanks to like a quarter of the individual LEDs being burned out.

mariner said...

The world's oldest working light bulb (incandescent, natch) celebrated its 110th birthday on June 18th.

wv: sphiola -- dunno, sounds like a social disease

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@mariner

Very neat...love the monitoring camera fixed on it.

Triangle Man said...

Apparently we're trying to improve our energy efficiency by putting dim bulbs in Congress.

AJ Lynch said...

How about they pass a bill that calls for a moraturium on new bills until Congress goes back and reviews existing laws and repeals the dumb, stupid crappy ones [that should keep them busy for a year or two].

Cedarford said...

Since the Greens, Free Trade, and Globalism have driven manufacturers of light bulbs and light fixtures off-shore - how many years would it take for America to go dark if we piss off China?
ANS - Algore bulbs are wonderful and last longer than eviiill incandescents - so at least 3 years - so we have lots of time to transfer those jobs and factories to Malaysia or Pakistan!

==================
The efficiency argument. A very small, even trivial savings compared to other effeciencies that Greens and the Ruling Elites don't trust the masses to do - so they go with government as nanny.

Energy savings from CFL bulbs for a full year are surpassed by trivial cooking practices. Boiling two meals of pasta in a quart vs gallon plus pot. Three "slow cook crock pot meals" abandoned.

Outside cooking, cancelling delivery and tree-killing by the NY Times for two weeks.

Or a single day where you combine all your shopping and errands into one trip.

2 weeks of abandoning taking your daughter to dance lessons 3 miles away. If she is "green-indoctrinated" say it is for the good of the planet.

Home-educating a single child causes energy savings equivalent to forcing 220 homes a year of ignorant people in Flyover country to have to use CFLs. Each year.

MayBee said...

Our exhalations are pollutants, and bulbs with mercury are environmentally friendly.

Behold the wisdom of the green movement.

Patrick said...

I guess good for him, but what the hell did he think would happen. I mean, this is hardly the law of unintended consequences.

jamboree said...

Asshole. I really can't even pretend to be thoughtful on this. My Source of Light is too much of a primal need for some asshole bureaucrat to fuck with.

Skyler said...

My hero, letting us buy light bulbs.

It's good he sees the error of his ways, now that he's already gotten the kickbacks and the campaign donations and sees the fury of his constituents.

But that doesn't excuse the initial act. He should still be tarred and feathered.

Martin L. Shoemaker said...

Once upon a time, my Representative was Peter Hoekstra, an honest-to-goodness PHYSICIST in a chamber dominated by lawyers. He actually understands science and how regulation distorts the process. As a bonus, he was really influential on the Intelligence Committee.

Then the 2000-era redistricting came in, and I got stuck with Fred Upton.

I ask you... What did I do to deserve this?

Cedarford said...

Somebody with time should make a list up of energy-savings equivalent to forcing people to buy Chinese CFLs.

Calculate the average energy savings per household, the savings of deadly Earth killing CO2 - from going from an all-incandescent bulb home to Algore PC compliant.

Then contrast that with greater energy savings of other absolutely trivial things people might do instead.

1. The energy savings achieved by growing your own spinach vs. getting it from 3,000 miles away.

2. A one degree drop in the public school thermostat setting in a city of 50,000 offsets the energy savings of all households going under threat of law to CFLs, with enough left over to fly a lucky family round trip to Disney world.

3. Flex weatherstripping on the bottom of two doors beats CFLs.

4. Tossing the crock pot.

5. Forgoing 5 meals of baby squash and baby arugula imported from Guatemala.

6. Euthanizing the family dog, even the family cat or the acquarium contents flushed down the toilet. Unecessary Co2 contributors and non-essential energy users.

Skyler said...

And personally, I like the CFL's because they don't crank out the heat that incandescents generate. My house in Texas is much cooler inside in the summertime with CFL's. This does not mean that I agree with the government telling me what size toilet I can own or what light bulb I can buy or how efficient my car can be. Government is out of control.

DaveW said...

"It was never my goal for Washington to decide what type of light bulbs Americans should use."

Do these dorks never think about the consequences of the laws and regulations they enact?

X said...

his goal was to get reelected. his means was for Washington to decide what type of light bulbs Americans should use. and now his calculation about the means has changed but not his goal.

these are his principles. if you don't like them, he has others.

David said...

See

Why

A

Batman AZ said...

Thank you Reps Barton and Upton and House of Representatives for moving to undo such dim-watted, misguided legislation. Hope there is enough support to pass this repeal legislation. The CFL bulbs produce less light, and produce an ugly light besides. They burn out much earlier than advertised. Disposing of them becomes an environmental hazzard due to the mercury. The LED lights are more expensive and produce a cold, harsh light. The main beneficiaries of the original "ban" are the overseas manufacturers - the consumers take it in the socket (they're screwed). Hope the Members of the Senate get a chance to display their own brilliance.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

@Cedarford

1. Limit toilet flushes to (1) per toilet per day regardless of usage.

2. (1) shower with a low flow shower head per family member per week.

3. Elimination of traffic signals around all state capitol buildings and all federal buildings in DC. Speed limit of 65 mph. No cross walks.

4. Elimination of A/C systems and lighting inside state capitol buildings, Capitol Hill, Senate chambers, etc. Couple this with a mandatory dress code of 3 piece wool suits for men and tight fitting long wool jumpers for women; sessions in June, July and August of each year. This would limit legislative sessions and wasteful partisan actions.

Sofa King said...

I think we should turn the design of the magic light bulb over to Freder.



Heh, I haven't forgotten that either.

chickenlittle said...

It is sadly ironic that CFL bulbs contain mercury and their widespread use will inevitably lead to more mercury dispersion in the environment due to human activity and accidents.

Proponents of CFLs like to point out that coal-fired power plants emit naturally occuring mercury too (and convential bulbs require more energy), but truth be told, mercury capture and sequestering technology is much more effectively deployed at a point sorce emissions like power plants.

The CFL debate was always about carbon emissions.

Browndog said...

Fred Upton was re-elected in part by his promise to repeal the ban.

He did the work, got the co-sponsors, said all the right things..

Then, he suddenly and without warning threw it all int the trashcan just ahead of bringing it to the floor for a vote-

Then, after a few weeks went by, he backtracked (again) and said he would reintroduce the Bill (again).

Freddy's a liar.

Cedarford said...

Sofa King said...
I think we should turn the design of the magic light bulb over to Freder.

Heh, I haven't forgotten that either.
===================
Oh, anyone who was around for that moment of "Freder's Laws of Physics" remembers it. It was epic.

He kept digging his hole deeper and deeper, and even people who were not engaged eventually came in to skewer him on his vehement ignorance.

Freder had other moments as well....like when he said it was better to see several American cities nuked than interrogate a single terrorist caught from a team smuggling the WMD in...

Original Mike said...

I am appreciative of all the hard work being done by Team Althouse so that gems like Freder's treatment of the conservation of energy are not lost to posterity.

Revenant said...

Vote him out of office anyway, pour encourager les autres.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Somebody with time should make a list up of energy-savings equivalent to forcing people to buy Chinese CFLs.

We just had to buy a new refrigerator to replace the one we bought in 2002 at a cost of $1600. The compressor went out.

The repair people said, and I quote: "That's the way it is with these new energy star appliances. The compressors only last about 6 to 8 years. They are meant to do that so you will buy new appliances."

Some energy savings, huh?


It would cost almost $750 to replace the compressor and a new refrigerator comparable to the one we had is about $1500.....again..

So for the sake of saving a few kilowatts of power, we have the privilege of throwing away a perfectly good refrigerator and buying a brand new one. Someone figure the carbon footprint (ptooey) on that. What a freaking waste!!!!!!

AND....the freezer that we used to put our stuff in until we got a new fridge and freezer.....over 35 years old and still running like a champ.

The entire Green Religion is based on false economy and worshiped by morons.

VW; dedumbo.....indeed.

Original Mike said...

@DBQ: My parents just had to replace their old refrigerator, which they bought in 1955.

dick said...

What the hell did he think the upshot of his vote would be? What a maroon.

Browndog said...

I started buying them 2 years ago-

The GreenLiars told us they would last forever, and save a bunch of money on the electric bill.

-didn't notice a dime of differnece on the electric bill, other than the rate increases.

-I have 4 dead ones in the garage. I read I was supposed to take them to Home Depot. I called Home Depot. They don't know anything about that. Now what-I don't feel comfortable just throwing them away, even though I'm sure everyone else is.

-I have 0 dead light bulbs since switching back to normal light bulbs.

I really despise these Green assholes.

No wonder they love the jihadi's so much-they both want everyone to live in the 7th Century.

Dustin said...

"Skyler said...

And personally, I like the CFL's because they don't crank out the heat that incandescents generate. My house in Texas is much cooler inside in the summertime with CFL's. This does not mean that I agree with the government telling me what size toilet I can own or what light bulb I can buy or how efficient my car can be. Government is out of control."

I like the heat from incandescents, but sure, that's basically the single advantage a CFL has. They don't last long, they cost too much, and they produce awful light, but they don't transmit heat (which is another way of saying they use more energy).

I'm in Texas, and a 40 watt bulb I use to read by really isn't changing the temp of my home very much. But if I lower the lamp when it's a little cool in the house, I enjoy the comfort. It's like a spot heater.

At any rate, I would consider supporting banning CFLs simply because they are filled with poison. It's a different scale of environmental concern. I think CFL fans should consider LED bulbs instead.

Fred4Pres said...

Fred Upton, did a light bulb just go off over your head indicating this was a plan voters might not like? Oh wait, it was a compact flourlescent and it took a while to warm up.

Widely Seen said...

In my newish house, there are some ceiling light fixtures which ONLY accept four-pin push-in compact fluorescent bulbs -- the fragile looped-back ones which tend to break when removing or inserting them. The ballast is built into the fixture itself. It is a lot like the mandatory low-flush toilets in that choice is not an option.

SunnyJ said...

We need to pay homage to Rand Paul for having the courage to withstand the ridicule the Dems/Rinos heaped on him for demanding choices in light bulbs and toilets.

I sincerely tried the CFL lights. I'm old and have poor vision. I had two falls related to the poor lighting, shadows and murkey and changed as it was on.

I thought it was like a green death panel thing and was arranging for my fall, broken hip and subsequent demise.

Jess said...

Why anybody ever thought that it was a good idea to outsource light bulb design to the Canadian Football League is beyond me.

AlphaLiberal said...

Markets are not perfect. Especially when it comes to energy, markets do not operate according to the ideology of free market fundamentalism.

Markets fail to account for pollution from energy waste. People who demand to waste energy are effectively demanding more pollution.

When you pollute by advocating waste, you impose costs on other people who live with the consequences of your filthy waste. And now you say those people should just live with it.

It's immoral.

Big Mike said...

He's right. It never was his goal to demand that we buy CFL bulbs made in China. He was just deciding what type of bulb we could not use, and that left us pretty much with only CFL bulbs from China.

He wouldn't have minded if they were good old made-in-the-USA CFL bulbs, but it turned out that there weren't any.

Big Mike said...

@Alpha, and how do you think the sane amongst us (i.e., not you) feel about being forced to live with the potential for mercury spills in our homes? Incandescent bulbs may have been energy hogs, but at least they didn't have potential to poison us if they broke.

Talk about immoral!

Methadras said...

Are these fools working under a massive Reality Distortion Field? You fucking bet they are. What do you mean it was never your goal? Then what was your goal? Do you fools even understand the laws of unintended consequences? Stop being my mother!!!

Methadras said...

AlphaLiberal said...

Markets are not perfect. Especially when it comes to energy, markets do not operate according to the ideology of free market fundamentalism.

Markets fail to account for pollution from energy waste. People who demand to waste energy are effectively demanding more pollution.

When you pollute by advocating waste, you impose costs on other people who live with the consequences of your filthy waste. And now you say those people should just live with it.

It's immoral.


You know what's immoral? The fact that you pretend to even understand what you are saying and pretending that the rest of us don't. Your ignorance is so blatantly on stage here that you would do well, to tuck tail and stay out of this thread, your liar. You liar daily and nightly. Were you Casey Anthony's mentor?

Carol_Herman said...

I wonder if you can see russia from this house's rear window?

Bet'cha Sarah Palin would be comfortable in this house.

Plus, even better, there's no way for Joe McGinniss to rent next door.

george said...

The sad thing is the public can only get riled up over so much. We have jobs and bills to pay. But these bastards are working 24/7 to control everything. So we win back our right to choose which light bulb we want but we lose the right to pick which insurance coverage we want... if any.

And this goes on day after day, year after year with all of the Constitutional safeguards having been systematically dismantled.

PaulV said...

being a politician means you never say you are sorry, especially when you are.

JAL said...

I will join my colleagues to vote yes on a bill to protect consumer choice and guard against federal overreach.

So does this new bill revoke the old one?

My guess is no.

Why not?

Because when we give people power they simply can not shut up, sit down, and do nothing.

Bet this new bill is just another layer of regulations and gobbledy gook which in the end encroaches on our ability to make choices.

Suuuuch BS.

He's afraid he won't get re-elected.

Skippy said...

Oh, great. We're remodeling the kitchen. I just looked at the can lights in the cook/prep area and they're these stupid four-prong ones someone else wrote about. Required by code. I read last year that there are no more light bulb factories in the United States. All made in China. Buying tile and where is it made? China. It makes me sick.

poppa india said...

So A/L has forgotten the beating he took over the union door-to door hiring issue and is back to tell us he's right and we're wrong again. He must have one of those Men In Black memory eraser gadgets he zaps himself with every day.

Joanna said...

It's immoral.

@Alpha

The market -- and its effect on the world -- is amoral. People's interactions with each other, those can be moral or immoral.

So let's consider a couple different styles of interaction.

If people's choices (which dictate the market) create an effect that a person or group believes to be undesirable, that person or group may use their freedom of speech to try to educate those whose choices effect the market, thereby changing the effects of the market.

Instead, you have suggested that the "better" system is to strip people of choice, tell them what is "right", and then force them to abide by what is "right" -- rather than educate them as to why it is "better" and "right", and once you've explained the merits of your cause, they will choose to change their behavior on their own (if the cause indeed has merit).

If a person or group is unable to use words to convince the public of the "rightness" of their view, then how definitively "right" can it possibly be? And if it is not definitively "right", how can it be moral to legislatively force it upon the country?

sriman2011 said...

http://www.cybertoothtech.com/