Life is just a constant bitch for tea partiers.
Rand Paul revealed why he’s full of . . . that certain fecality, shall we say. He did that in a hearing about light bulbs, and appliances. Energy conservation gives Rand Paul formication (look it up).
Burning money: Republicans prefer more heat than light, less energy conservation, and the libertarian, self-help yourself to others' money philosophy popularized in recent movies.
But what about efforts to undo the energy conservation bill that practically forces long-lived, low-energy light bulbs on us? The Tea Party doesn’t like that idea, either. Michael Patrick Leahy, writing at the blog for Rupert Murdoch’s Broadside Books, explains why he thinks the Tea Party should oppose Fred Upton’s bill to repeal the energy standards Rand Paul castigated.
Basically, none of these guys knows beans about energy, nor much about the technology or science of electricity and lighting — they just like to whine.
Leahy wrote:
Section 3 [of the “Better Use of Light Bulbs Act,” HR 2417] states that “No Federal, State, or local requirement or standard regarding energy efficient lighting shall be effective to the extent that the requirement or standard can be satisfied only by installing or using lamps containing mercury.” This reads to me that Congress is attacking the mercury laden CFL bulbs. The point of the individual economic choice guaranteed in the Constitution, however, is that Congress ought not to favor CFLs over incandescents, just as it ought not to favor incandescents over CFLs. I’m no fan of CFL bulbs personally, but look for CFL manufacturers like GE to make this argument against the bill at every opportunity.
Section 4 of the Act is designed to repeal the light bulb efficiency standards in effect in the State of California since January 1 of this year. The standards are essentially the federal standards that will go into effect January 1, 2012, but moved up a year. While I personally question the legal status of these very specific rules promulgated by the California Energy Commission based on a vague and non-specific 2007 California statute, it seems to me that there are serious Constitutional questions surrounding a Federal law prohibiting a State to establish its own product efficiency standards. While a good argument can be made that the Commerce Clause grants Congress the right to repeal California state regulations, a reasonable argument could be made by opponents of the bill that Congress can’t do this because the state of California is merely establishing local standards, which is its right.
Given these concerns about Sections 3 and 4, what purpose does it serve to include them in the bill? Both raise potential objections to the passage of the bill on the floor of the House if it comes to a vote this week.
Now, granted this is the House of Representatives, and not the Senate where Sen. Paul keeps a chair warmed, occasionally. Still, is it too much to ask the Tea Party to support the bills it asks for? Leahy said:
A full and open discussion of these issues in public hearings held by the House Energy and Commerce Committee would have been the right way to begin a legislative process that would have identified and addressed these potential objections. That’s the course that a Committee Chairman seriously committed to repealing the light bulb ban would have taken. Instead, Chairman Upton has followed this secretive, behind closed doors, last minute rushed vote approach.
There was a hearing in the Senate — good enough for most people — and of course, there were hearings on the issue in the House. The Tea Party was unconscious at the time. The bill they’re trying to repeal was a model of moderation as touted by the president when it passed, President George W. Bush — and it’s still a good idea to conserve energy and set standards that require energy conservation (the law does not ban incandescent bulbs).
Also, while they’re complaining about the mercury in Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs (CFLs), remember, Dear Reader, they oppose letting our Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protect you from mercury in your drinking water or the air that you breathe. Pollution is only worrisome to them if they can use worry as a tool to whine about people making life work without pollution. A rational person would point out that the mercury released by coal-fired power plants to produce the energy required by repeal of the conservation law would more than equal the mercury from all the CFLs, even were all that mercury to be released as pollution (which it isn’t, if properly disposed of):
8 hours: The amount of time a person must be exposed to the mercury in a CFL bulb to acquire the same mercury level as eating a six-ounce can of tuna, according to Climate Progress’s Stephen Lacey.
Is it too much to ask for reason, circumspection, and a touch of wisdom from these guys? You’re supposed to drink the tea, Tea Party, not smoke it.
A wet shake of the old scrub brush in the general direction of Instapundit, who never met a form of pollution he didn’t prefer over clean water or clean air.
_____________
Update: Mike the Mad Biologist talks sense about the light bulb vote planned by the dim bulbs:
Because it’s not like more efficient light bulbs would be helpful at all:
The American Council on an Energy Efficient Economy says that the standards would eliminate the need to develop 30 new power plants – or about the electrical demand of Pennsylvania and Tennessee combined.
Only Republicans can make the current crop of Democrats look good…
Mike provides more points that make the Upton bill look simultaneously silly and craven: The current law does not ban incandescent bulbs at all, for example, one manufacturer has introduced two new incandescent bulbs in the past year. Tea Party Republicans: No fact left unignored, no sensible solution left undistorted and unattacked.
Also see:
- Los Angeles Times on crazy Texas Lege work to get around the federal law
- New York Times editorial on the light bulb vote, “Dim and Dimmer”
- Detroit News carries an op-ed supporting killing the energy standards, showing that mainstream media entertains fools despite Tea Party claims
- Houston Chronicle blog reports that the Upton bill, pushed by U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Arlington Texas, will raise electrical bills for consumers
- Online Daily Green reports just the facts — including the fact that the proposed bill is anti-business
- Tarrant County, Texas, Tea Partiers call for the boot heel of Big Government to be ground into the face of American Business to squelch consumer choice for energy conservation
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
So its estimated that the bill and the restriction on incadescant lightbulbs (despite the republican’s assertion, they’re not banned, they just have to be made more efficient) would result in not having to build an additional 22 coal power plants.
So that means we wouldn’t have an additional 22 coal power plants worth of pollution to suffer the effects from, 22 coal power plants worth of money that could be spent on other things, and we would make the United States more energy efficient and thereby more energy independent.
So I have a question for you, Morgan…your objection to that is what?
Hm, I wonder why Joe Barton opposes the law. Oh wait…could that be because he’s the paid whore of the coal industry?
LikeLike
The FACTS are that enacting the already legislated light-bulb standards would be good for everybody’s pocketbook except the owners of coal mines and the builders of coal power plants.
Conservatives have proven time and again that they aren’t interested in facts. They loathe the very idea of objective reality separate and uninterested in their fantasies.
Imagine trying to teach Algebra or Trigonometry with a student in the back of the class that loudly claims 2×3=7 and all derivatives thereof should hold precedence. That is what you are doing by letting Morgan and his ilk continue after the first blatant untruth.
It’s like arguing with a cat over whether the cat is going to scratch the furniture. The cat simply doesn’t hear what you’re saying. You yell at the cat and the cat scratches the couch as soon as your back is turned.
Throw the cat out and lock the door.
LikeLike
[…] and behold, another highly popular liberal rhetorical technique, the kindergarden insult (and that’s just the title). What I don’t get is the longer lifetimes touted for CFLs […]
LikeLike
[…] and behold, another highly popular liberal rhetorical technique, the kindergarden insult (and that’s just the title). What I don’t get is the longer lifetimes touted for CFLs […]
LikeLike
Morgan writes: Would you say it’s fair to possibly characterize the stimulus plans as “a (snake oil) one-size-fits-all, knee-jerk answer to problems of the economy and society”? It seems we have very little evidence to indicate they’re producing the results we need. Agree?
You mean like how the tax cuts to the rich were a “snake oil one size fits all knee jerk answer to poroblems of the economy and society.” Because those tax cuts your party so gleefully created created no new net jobs during Bush’s entire 8 years. More jobs were lost then were created during Bush’s presidency. And your party’s solution to the ills that still plague us? More tax cuts to the rich. The FDA should have to close down the program that is developing a means to detect the strain of E Coli that killed 40+ people in Europe (meaning its only a matter of time until it comes here and starts killing people here) but the 25 richest hedge fund managers should get to keep their cushy tax break that allows them to make $22 billion dollars a year instead of a “mere” $18 billion a year.
And as for the stimulus…it should have been bigger and it should have went longer and it should have gone to areas such as construction and infrastructure repair. You know…the programs that got us out of a bad recession/depression the last time.
So I will agree that the Democrat party was too timid and agree that your party was too stupid and acted to block what it shouldn’t have.
But considering the CBO has said that if the Bush tax cuts were removed there would be no budget deficit within 7 years…why should we keep them?
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
And in what way is a tax cut an “anchor”?
You mean besides the fact that the tax cut gave the money to a bunch of people who already had more then enough money and weren’t going to spend any more?
You want to create jobs, Morgan? Then you increase consumer demand. You increase consumer demand not by giving money to the rich..but giving money to the 90% of the population who isn’t rich and is therefor more likely to spend the money. You’re not going to create jobs by giving money to the so called “job creators” i.e. rich because if there is noone in the middle class and the poor who has money to buy anything why would the supposed “job creators” create any more jobs? Since companies are not creating jobs it would be far better for the government to create jobs by putting people to work. That would be a far better solution then continued tax cuts to the rich. It puts money in the hands of people who will actually spend it thereby fueling actual economic growth and creation of jobs.
Near 80% of the country’s wealth is concentrated in the hands of 10% of the population. You honestly think you can sustain an economy in that situation? It also would help if your party would get its head out of its ass and start removing all those tax breaks for the rich and powerful..but especially the tax breaks that companies get for shipping jobs overseas in the first place. Sorry, if a US company ships a US job overseas its executives should have their taxes jacked through the roof in order to pay for the damages to this country.
If they’re not creating jobs here why in blue blazes should US companies and the rich continue to get tax breaks?
There’s a graph that was originally on Frum Forums (i.e. David Frum, a dyed in the wool Republican) that showed how since 1980 the workers of this country, i.e. the middle class and the poor, have been steadily losing ground and that during Bush’s supposed “economic growth” they got absolutely nothing. The graph can be found at http://www.frumforum.com/incredible-shrinking-workers-income
Then you should read this as well: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/the-wageless-profitable-recovery/
LikeLike
How are the Bush tax giveaways an anchor to our economy?
Easy. They take money out of circulation, and they give the money to people who are not creating jobs. That’s why job growth was so anemic during the Bush years, after the tax cuts were imposed. The tax cuts cost us — how many really? — 10 million jobs at least, at a clip by 2009 of 500,000 jobs gone per month. The Obama stimulus stopped that decline — a net plus of 500,000 jobs per month, even were job growth zero.
It’s pretty clear that the tax cuts contribute nothing to job growth, and its clear to economists that they stifle job growth.
Get rid of the tax cuts. Put people back to work, especially construction workers and teachers. Build the economy, instead of picking it apart, brick by brick.
LikeLike
And in what way is a tax cut an “anchor”?
Only detriment I can see to a tax cut is if there is some kind of bad consequence coming from the government not acquiring enough money. Government is actually spending a great deal more than it’s taking in, in any case; how do you go about squaring that circle? You’d need to provide some believable answer to that question in order to provide the foundation for statements like
We might do a lot better if we simply took off the economic anchors of the Bush tax cuts. Perhaps then we wouldn’t need another stimulus.
I also note that “freedom of religious expression” and “freedom of speech for blogs” are items that somehow didn’t make your “good ideas” list. How about a six-month tax holiday on gasoline? Or ObamaCare waivers for all?
LikeLike
No, I’ll take the facts, please. Last month was a lousy month for the stimulus — only 18,000 new jobs produced.
But let’s start from the baseline. When Obama came into office, we were losing 500,000 jobs a month. So the worst month under the stimulus was a net plus of 518,000 jobs.
Evidence is clear that the first stimulus saved us from immediate ruin. We need a new stimulus to get things going.
On the other hand, the stimulus bill included a renewal of the Bush tax cuts. In the best of times, the Bush tax cuts had produced job gains on a par with Herbert Hoover’s administration in 1932. Then they led to the crash.
We might do a lot better if we simply took off the economic anchors of the Bush tax cuts. Perhaps then we wouldn’t need another stimulus. But in any case, that being politically incorrect and Tea Republicans being nothing if not married to jingoistic political correctness, let’s at least get another stimulus. If another $800 billion would produce another 500,000 jobs/month net gain, we’ll be out of this crisis and cruising in a year.
LikeLike
Would you say it’s fair to possibly characterize the stimulus plans as “a (snake oil) one-size-fits-all, knee-jerk answer to problems of the economy and society”? It seems we have very little evidence to indicate they’re producing the results we need. Agree?
LikeLike
Good ideas (a not-exclusive list, nor in any particular order): 1. A second stiumulus
2. Kill the Bush “tax cuts” (which are really a massive redistribution of wealth, from the poor and middle class to the very rich and super rich)
3. Energy use standards on products millions purchase
4. Clean air
5. Clean water
6. Liberal education
7. Free libraries
8. Inexpensive public swimming pools
9. Incentives to vote, reducing hurdles to voting
10. Love of science
11. Love of knowledge, and the struggle to know things accurately
12. The U.S. Constitution
13. Newspapers, and television and radio news
14. NPR
15. PBS
Bad ideas: 1. Tax cuts as a (snake oil) one-size-fits-all, knee-jerk answer to problems of the economy and society
2. Disempowering teachers, holding them accountable for the failures of others and failing to recognize their successes
3. Stupidity, like claims that evolution is inaccurate or evil, that global warming is not occurring or should be of no concern, that low taxes are a cure all, or even necessarily a virtue
4. “Starve the beast” philosophy of government
5. Ignorance of the Constitution
6. Stupid ignorance of how government works
7. Opposition to energy standards
8. Opposition to clean air regulations
Does that make me left, or not left?
How do you come to the conclusion that Congress regulates light bulbs? Do you even know what the law says on the issue?
How do you come to the conclusion that Congress should not establish energy conservation standards and goals that lead to clean air, clean water, and reduced reliance on imported oil?
Are you really in favor of dirty air, dirty water, and the United States dependent on imports for critical stuff like petroleum? Those are indefensible. Perhaps you haven’t thought any of this through, Morgan. Perhaps you should rethink your position. Libertarians, though perhaps uncomfortable with the governmental regulation, should be among the loudest and most ardent advocates of energy independence for the U.S., don’t you think?
I’d like to know where you are now. You claim to think Congress should stay out of regulating light bulbs, but you say that while defending Congress dipping deeply into the regulation of light bulbs in protest of energy conservation, clean air and energy independence.
That’s a bad idea (see any of the “stupid” listings above; your position falls into several of those categories).
You’ve not made any serious defense of the vote scheduled for today, which is a really stupid idea in almost any analysis, from any political perspective.
I’m not asking you to object to anything other than the stupid bill pending today. Philosophically, you claim it’s stupid — a good idea. In actuality, you’ve done your best to propagandize in the opposite direction, demonizing current law as something it is not.
Where do you really stand? Is energy conservation a good idea, or a bad one?
Your imagination is overactive. Energy conservation is a stunningly common, good idea. “Waste not, want not,” as Ben Franklin said.
Maybe Franklin was wrong, but you’ve made no serious attack on that idea, while claiming policies in support of the idea are dangerous.
It must be uncomfortable to claim to be a conservative or a libertarian, when saddled with the Tea Party as your chief legislative arm. You could simply say you disown them, and assume a more rational stand. This is America, after all, Home of the First Amendment.
LikeLike
This is a constant with the left. They can’t ever look at an idea and say “is it good or is it bad.” If they did that, they know their ideas are the ones that would be found to be indefensible, and this is a great example. Congress legislating light bulbs. Suppose the idea was offered all by itself — the status quo is that Congress doesn’t, and the idea is “I think Congress should.” All by itself, not as a rider on to anything. You’d never be able to sell it. To anyone.
And so it’s always “Where were you when.” If you didn’t object to that other thing over here, you’re OBLIGED to buy our bad idea. In Ed Darrell’s place, I see it popping like popcorn in a microwave…less a “pop pop” sound than a constant buzz. Try to shame people into supporting bad ideas.
James, I’ve already pointed out that an advocate confident in the soundness of the idea he was trying to push, wouldn’t be doing it. Your response is to do it two or three more times…it’s embarrassing watching you do this. It’s like watching someone go through a Grand Mal seizure. Purely involuntary muscle twitching. You just can’t stop. Tax breaks for auto manufacturers now, is it. Gay marriage. Can’t discuss the main topic for so much as half a minute…constant twitching into “oh yeah well then you should have blah blah blah.”
LikeLike
I’m sure Morgan will think we should continue to kiss the asses of these people by giving them ever more tax cuts:
http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-autos-farm-vehicles-20110709,0,2693976.story
By Jerry Hirsch, Los Angeles Times
July 9, 2011
Meet the newest crop of farm vehicles: Porsche Carrera, Mercedes SL550 and BMW Z4.
One wouldn’t expect to see such high-performance roadsters pulling tillers, hauling fertilizer or spraying pesticides between corn rows, but if you believe their owners, these expensive vehicles are working alongside the John Deeres and Caterpillars of the world
It turns out that some drivers of these cars are perpetrating an insurance fraud — claiming them as farm equipment to harvest hefty discounts on insurance premiums. At least that’s the assessment of Quality Planning, a San Francisco company that verifies policyholder data for auto insurance companies.
Auto insurers offer farm-use discounts of up to 20% to people using their vehicles nearly exclusively on a farm, where the chances of a collision, theft, or other mishap befalling the auto are lower than in urban areas.
Quality Planning looked at 80,000 vehicles for which a farm-use insurance discount was claimed last year and used geocoding to determine whether the address where the cars were housed was an urban or rural area and whether anyone was actively engaged in farming there.
About 8%, or 6,382 vehicles, were housed in ZIP Codes where less than 1% of the population engaged in agriculture, based on U.S. census data.
Among the vehicles it found was an Audi A4 classified as a farm vehicle in Brooklyn, N.Y., giving the owner a $389 annual insurance savings. A Cadillac Seville in Los Angeles also was listed as a farm vehicle, but the annual savings was only $61.
“Honest people end up subsidizing the insurance premiums of dishonest people,” said Robert U’Ren, senior vice president of Quality Planning.
He said the improper application of the farm-use discount is a money-saving move that’s done by both dishonest policyholders and insurance agents. It results in about $150 million of unpaid premiums annually.
Because farm use is seldom verified, “it is an easy tool that cheats can use to reduce the cost of auto insurance,” U’Ren said.
For the most part, State Farm Insurance relies on its agents to verify auto classification, but on occasion has its underwriters use Google maps to check whether the address of a vehicle receiving the rural discount corresponds to ranch or farm land, said Bob Devereux, the insurer’s spokesman in California.
When State Farm discovers “misrepresentation,” it reclassifies the auto and charges the correct rate but doesn’t take any punitive action.
“We typically don’t file civil action against the client,” he said.
It’s no surprise that thousands of autos slip past the system to be classified as farm vehicles even though they are sports cars housed in cities, said Pete Moraga, spokesman for the Insurance Information Network of California, an industry trade group.
Some clients lie about how they are using a car, and some brokers cheat to cut premiums to win business, he said. “Every company is different and how much time they spend validating or underwriting is different, so that it is possible that a Porsche could get through as a farm vehicle,” Moraga said, adding that the auto insurance industry loses billions of dollars annually to frauds and misrepresentations.
He said there is some risk for people who falsely claim to be using a vehicle on a farm to win a discount. If they are in an accident and the insurer discovers the misrepresentation, the company might deny the claim.
“A policy will dictate that the information provided to the insurer is true, and the policy may be void if the information is incorrect,” he said.
LikeLike
Morgan writes:
I just don’t think Congress should be involved in it, Ed. It’s entirely inappropriate for Congress to deliberate ANY bill with the words “light bulb” in it. I mean, seriously, what’s next. The wallpaper-paste bill? The picture-hanging device bill?
And yet I doubt you raised one iota of objection when the bill was passed in 2007 in the first place. And I also doubt you’ve raised one iota of objection to all the other appliance safety and efficiency rules/laws passed by Congress.
And as for this line:
As far as the obsession with sex, go talk to James. It is what the most crass generalization about liberals, that I’ve ever heard, says, precisely: Individual choice should triumph over the designs of the state, if & only if it has something to do with genitals rubbing up against other genitals. In all other matters, liberals want individual choice to lose.
Sorry, I don’t want individual choice to lose. I know of no liberals that want “individual choice to be removed unless it has to do with sex”. I don’t care where you live, what job you have, I don’t care what brand of car you drive, you may vote for whoever you damn well please, you may marry who you want, may have however many kids you want, you can own firearms if you want as long as you’re not a convicted felon. You may worship as you please. You may eat what you want and all that. But on some things, Morgan, that there is a national interest on..yeah the nation has some say on it. You’re rather forgetting that the government of the United States is the voice of the people of the United States. Sorry, coming up with an energy policy that lowers our costs, makes us more efficient, and makes us less dependent on foreign sources of energy which is owned by people who want to kill us is in the national interest.
Thats what I dont get about your sides irrational hatred of the government. Because in a democratic republic..the government is the people. So by hating the government you’re expressing hatred of the people. Which goes a long way towards explaining why your side is so hell bent on concentrating power and wealth in the hands of the few chosen ones.
Whereas you and your fellow conservatives seem to think everyone should be able to do as they damn well please no matter the consequences…unless of course it involves sex in some way. And your other field of objection is the idea that maybe just maybe the fabulously rich already have enough money and we really don’t need to tilt the balance in their favor any further. You know..the *gasp* idea that one of the roles of government is to take care of the people on a basic level. Or the idea that maybe just maybe companies shouldn’t get tax breaks for shipping our jobs overseas. Or the ideathat the rich should put a bit more skin in the game since they’ve taken so much of our skin. Or people worshipping in ways you don’t like. Or people being skin colors you don’t like. Or believing political beliefs that you don’t like. Sorry, Morgan, its your side that has a habit of treating anything and anyone who disagrees with you as enemies of the state.
If its a crass generalization, Morgan, its because your side is crass. Notice..you didn’t actually object to what I said..you didn’t even attempt to deny it.
Sorry, your side only wants “individual choice” on things your side approves of…if your side doesn’t approve of that thing your side is more than willing to strip individual choice out of the equation. And you have the gall to accuse my side of trying to do that? Oh please, your blind hypocrisy is astounding.
LikeLike
You’re right. Glad to see you come around. The Tea Party and their Republican lapdogs really are out of line on this one, and shouldn’t be discussing it at all.
LikeLike
I just don’t think Congress should be involved in it, Ed. It’s entirely inappropriate for Congress to deliberate ANY bill with the words “light bulb” in it. I mean, seriously, what’s next. The wallpaper-paste bill? The picture-hanging device bill?
As far as the obsession with sex, go talk to James. It is what the most crass generalization about liberals, that I’ve ever heard, says, precisely: Individual choice should triumph over the designs of the state, if & only if it has something to do with genitals rubbing up against other genitals. In all other matters, liberals want individual choice to lose.
LikeLike
I can’t figure out what your obsession is with sex, especially when we’re discussing light bulbs.
But you still miss the point, Morgan: The regulations call for energy efficiency, and they were done at the behest of the light bulb manufacturers who conceded the market for energy-wasting bulbs was drifting away.
So, now we have more choice in light bulbs.
You’re favoring a bill that cuts against the market choices, ordered manufacturers against their will into areas they’ve deemed unprofitable, and reduces consumer choice — all, as you would say, at the point of a gun.
But somehow, you think that’s “more freedom?”
Can you explain?
LikeLike
From: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/08/263535/light-bulb-efficiency-standard-will-lower-energy-bills%e2%80%9d/
Leading manufacturer: “The reality is, consumers will see no difference at all. The only difference they’ll see is lower energy bills because we’re creating more efficient incandescent bulbs.”
~~~~
So the Republicans are trying to repeal a bill that would save consumers $12 billion a year…a bill that not even the industry in question has a problem with. If the Republicans repeal the bill it would strip away the right of all government units, federal state and local, to set energy efficiency standards. (Oh look..the Republicans blithely ignoring their supposed interpretation of the 10th amendment.)
THe reason, supposed, for the repeal? Well according to Republican Joe Barton of Texas it’s because of the mercury in the CFL bulbs.
Which is funny considering this is the same Joe Barton that claimed there is no “medical negative” pertaining to mercury emissions from coal power plants.
But no..its somehow federal government overreach..even though the bill was passed in 2007 and signed with no problem by then President George W Bush. And the fact that the government has been setting minimum efficiency and safety standards for appliances for decades and the Republicans have never had a problem with the idea before.
So once again we see the Republicans selling out the best interests of the people just so they can score some political points among the stupid and the ignorant…like Morgan.
LikeLike
Let’s see…it’s supposed to be so wonderful for Congress to make these rules about light bulbs. But I call it into question and I hear “hypocrisy,” which is pretty much just a buzz word liberals use when they know they’re in the wrong and want to change the subject.
Then the topic drifts around to gay marriage, and then to euthanasia. Yeah…I’m afraid this isn’t doing much to convince me it’s good for Congress to go meddling around in our light bulb transactions. Not doing much to convince me this is going to go any better than the ObamaCare fiasco.
Got anything better?
LikeLike
So tell us, Morgan, you can provide proof that you were publicly objecting to the Republican Congress’ meddling with the Terry Schivao case right? and you object to attempts to ban gay marriage right? And you also object to attempts to limit or make illegal abortions, right?
Come on, Morgan, surely your avowed principles are strong enough that you’re willing to stand up to your own right?
Don’t worry, I won’t be holding my breath on you proving you’re something other then a forked tongue hypocrite.
LikeLike
Another indicator of hypocrisy among the so-called libertarians and “Tea Party” types: They won’t cover this story:
Michigan Woman Faces 93 Days in Jail for Planting a Vegetable Garden
Unless your name is Archer Daniels Midland, or Con Agra or Mon Santo, you would have to be a hippie to grow your own vegetables — so this patriotic woman will go undefended among the libertarians.
(Actually, to their credit, Free Republic has a discussion thread on this.)
LikeLike
If you really objected to Congress’s being involved, why wouldn’t you choose the 2007 law, which was really just a Congressional ratification of the path the light bulb manufacturers said they’d pursue, instead of the heavy hand of the Upton/Barton bill, which will mandate businesses stop doing what they are doing, and mandate that the market’s choices be overridden?
I don’t really expect consistency from your irrationally-based views all the time, but if you’re going to cite a standard, even a foolish one, I would expect at least a foolish adherence to that foolish standard.
The only standard I see you supporting here is “sticking it to Obama,” though of course, it’s a George W. Bush law you oppose, that is mistakenly attributed to Obama.
Oh, well, I see now: You’re consistent in flight from reason. Is that your intent?
I thought even hard-nosed libertarians would have higher intellectual standards than that.
LikeLike
I object to Congress being involved at all, Ed. You should too.
Liberals: Favoring individual choice, only in matters of sex. It’s a peculiar litmus test you have for your fair-weather friendship to liberty…but whatever works for you, I guess.
LikeLike
Morgan, why do you oppose allowing consumers to choose to conserve energy? Why do you oppose the light bulb manufacturers’ responding to the market, and requiring them, through government force, to manufacture energy-wasting light bulbs? Current law does not ban incandescent bulbs; the bill proposed requires the manufacture of bulbs the market has rejected.
I thought you favored less government authoritarian regulation?
Surely your change in philosophy is not driven by crude, political grandstanding, is it?
LikeLike
But tell me…if you think you should be the one deciding for yourself…and yet you and your part refuse to let gays to decide to marry for themselves. Would you like to recognize that hypocrisy or not?
One of the most reckless generalizations I’ve ever heard about left-wingers, is the one that says they champion individual choice in matters that concern sex in some way. And can be counted-on to adhere to a rigid, anti-choice, statist doctrine on all other issues.
If that is to be proven wrong someday, evidently this is not where it happens.
LikeLike
But it was President George W. Bush, and there’s no penalty for consumers to use up bulbs in their closet, or warehouse.
It’s easy to pose as a tough guy against imaginary foes. That’s the Tea Party to a T: Imaginary foes, imaginary toughness, nothing rooted in reality.
LikeLike
To quote:
“If the government man comes to the door to take away my light bulb, I’m going to express my second amendment rights!” because he keeps a loaded shotgun in the coat closet by the door.
Do me a favor…tell your uncle that the first four words of the 2nd amendment are: A well regulated militia,
Emphasize the “regulated” part of that, please.
I like seeing right wingers blood boil
LikeLike
This has become some sort of symbol of personal choice and government interference for the Tea Party. It’s not about what’s right, what’s efficient, what’s less expensive, and what’s better for the environment. It’s something the Tea Party has rallied around, and there’s no making any sense of it. A few years ago my uncle was telling me about “how Obama was trying to take away his personal freedom right down to telling him what kind of light bulbs to use” and how “If the government man comes to the door to take away my light bulb, I’m going to express my second amendment rights!” because he keeps a loaded shotgun in the coat closet by the door.
I don’t think that any amount of reasoning that energy standards produce better bulbs, whether incandescent or CFL, is going to have any impact on these people. This battle isn’t about light bulbs.
LikeLike
Morgan, here’s a couple more links for you to check out:
http://greenlagirl.com/cfls-less-mercury-than-regular-bulbs/
http://www.humboldtrecycling.org/default.php?mat_id=20
Oh and the other question you should be asking yourself is why does the Tea Party want you to waste your money on old lightbulbs which you’ll have to replace far more often.
What next? Going to go after the laws that govern car safety features? You want the right to drive a Pinto? Going to try and strip the food safety laws?
Oh wait…that’s right…your party already tried that one. Oh I know…your party will go after the mine safety laws…oops..your side went after those already.
Hm…to allow mine companies to build a mine under a school? Oh wait…there is a mine company in West Virginia that is trying to get permission for exactly that.
Tell me, Morgan, when do you and yours stop being such selfish pricks and worry about others?
LikeLike
Morgan, before you get too worried about the difficulty of cleaning up a broken CFL, you should read these two posts — don’t get hoaxed:
1. MFB, May 18, 2007: “Green light bulbs and World Net Daily trying to make a hoax”
2. MFB, June 6, 2007: “How many WorldNet Daily hoaxes does it take to change a light bulb?”
I’ve been using CFLs in our home for nearly 15 years, never had one break. In commercial installations I’ve been responsible for, with EPA looking over our shoulder, in about a decade of use, we never had a breakage that required any special cleanup.
You are aware, I hope, that all fluorescent lights have that trace of mercury, and that the Republican/Tea Party amendment will do nothing whatsoever to prevent the problem of mercury pollution from broken fluorescent bulbs, yes?
Legislative masturbation, in other words.
Rand Paul is incompetent at finding a toilet that flushes, most Tea Partiers appear to be incompetent at changing a light bulb according to their own admissions, and you guys can’t get the facts straight, either. Please quit trying to force light bulb companies back into the 18th century. We don’t need stupid regulations in any case, and we don’t need the strong-arm of libertarian legislators awkwardly forcing people to waste energy and money at the point of a . . . head.
LikeLike
Morgan,
Congress says light bulb manufacturers can’t make bulbs that waste 75% of the energy used as heat — 75 watts per hour to heat, for a 100 watt bulb.
You may buy any kind of bulb you wish, that you can find. You appear to be ticked off that the bulb manufacturers have decided that their fortunes lie in technologies other than the 100-year-old tungsten filament.
Crabby old codger, aren’t you? Are you still ticked off that Fisher Carriages stopped making harnesses to let horses pull the carriages they make? You’re still irritated that no one makes an adequate ice box, and that ice deliveries are tough to find?
Tough luck. It’s not government that keeps you from wasting energy. You can always turn the air conditioner up and open all your windows. It’s your money to blow. Blow it as you see fit.
Don’t blame it on government when manufacturers won’t make what you want, because no significant market exists for it any more. I thought you’d be more dedicated to market forces.
Can you find any light bulb manufacturer complaining?
LikeLike
Which would be fine, Morgan, if the costs of your choice was paid for entirely by you.
The problem is it’s not.
So the real question is this: Why do you so hate the United States and want to damage it even more by making it energy inefficient which will require us to burn more fossil fuels making us sicker and sicker?
The sales pitch isn’t that it’s better for Congress to decide…the sales pitch is that its better for the United States that energy efficient lightbulbs be the norm. All that bill does is require the light bulb companies to make their light bulbs more efficient.
But tell me…if you think you should be the one deciding for yourself…and yet you and your part refuse to let gays to decide to marry for themselves. Would you like to recognize that hypocrisy or not?
LikeLike
This will gut about every state lighting code in the nation. Nearly every lighting source other than incandescent has minute amounts of mercury in them. And you can’t meet a modern lighting code with incandescen
LikeLike
Woops, the </a> didn’t work that time. Damn Mercury.
LikeLike
Your cleanup guidelines in case of CFL breakage are here.
In view of what is behind the link, if your sales pitch is that it’s better for Congress to decide what kind of light bulbs I’m going to be buying, versus me & myself…I think I’d like to make that decision myself. Most grown-ups would give the same answer. If that’s “tea,” then glug glug glug.
LikeLike