Weds. morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Wednesday, July 13. 2011

House turns out light on old-style bulbs - Republicans unable to overturn law on efficiency

Atlanta teacher: "Those kids were dumb as hell."

Divorce and emotional pain: Numb and Number

In my view, the government should be able to eliminate poverty, war, stress, work, worry, and emotional pain.

The unbearable smugness of Liberals: A Guide

Are the poor morally superior?

Mamet:

I went to a consultant a few years back, and he said, “You want to make your life better?” I said, “Yeah, sure.” He said, “Stop drinking and don’t read the newspapers.” So I did both.

California wants to discriminate against Asians again

High-achieving Asians get no respect

Chicagoans Overwhelmingly Vote to Ban Palin, Beck & Coulter Books at Book Fair in Obama’s Home Town

Dangerous ideas for the Masses

If the Prez were a Repub, this would be bigger than Watergate

Re Krugman on the stimulus:

I can’t find the part where he says “but in two years if it doesn’t work I’ll say it just wasn’t the right kind.”

Nobody should believe anything Obama says about the budget

The O throws Dem Mediscare tactic under the bus

OBAMA: PASS MY DEBT CEILING OR I’LL STARVE GRANDMA.

Dino: Running up the debt wasn't a bug, it was a feature

Senator Marco Rubio: Everything Is Worse Under Obama

Corporate money flowing to Dems

Nothing new about that. The Dems are the party of Big Biz and Wall St; the Repubs are the party of Main St.

A Drudgeism:

GE Immelt lectures biz owners: 'Stop complaining about government'...

FLASHBACK: Company Paid NO TAXES Last Year...

Buchanan: An Establishment in Panic

Mead: An Unhappy Ending To The Drug War?

Graph below via Mankiw:

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 06:02 | Comments (17) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: blogs.dailymail.com
Tracked: Jul 13, 07:27

PingBack

Weblog: nicedeb.wordpress.com
Tracked: Jul 13, 18:09

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Regarding lightbulbs, I'm already stocking up on 100-watters, because I believe those are the first to be banned. Getting a bunch of 60-watt next, and maybe a few miscellaneous ones like appliance bulbs.

Any Seinfeld fan remembers Elaine searching the city for cases of contraceptic sponges after they were banned, and her frugality in using them afterwards. The punch line was, "Is he sponge worthy?"

The new line will be, "Is he lightbulb-worthy?" You're not getting mine, MFers!

#1 Big___Al on 2011-07-13 07:37 (Reply)

Big A - The 60-watters aren't going until 2014, I believe, so there's still time for a (delicate cough) sensible Congress to take action. And the law doesn't apply to non-standard bulbs, like for chandeliers and such. Not sure about those little appliance bulbs, but I'd guess they're exempt, too. "Room lighting" seems to be the object of their undesire.

Title for the above pic: "Liberal's Chandelier".

#2 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2011-07-13 07:53 (Reply)

This headline is misrepresentative. Bulbs are not being banned, but are expected to be more energy efficient.
"The 2007 standards require bulbs to use 25 percent to 30 percent less energy beginning in 2012, when 100-watt bulbs must meet the standards, and ending in 2014, when 40-watt bulbs must come into compliance. By 2020, bulbs will have to be 70 percent more efficient."

Let's not be histrionic and short-sighted: we will save dough on gas and oil and such and don't have to live in the dark. Either a bit more for LED (which I love, as they do not get hot, last for years and the new ones give pleasant warm light) or still buy (more efficient) incandescents. We've done this for refrigerators: this is even easier.

NS

#3 NS on 2011-07-13 08:03 (Reply)

Merc and NS,

I don't claim to know every nuance of the new law. What I do know is that the bulbs I like (for their performance and minimal expense) are being outlawed. The prices on the bulbs this consumer wants will go up, thus the "stocking up."

Screw the gov't and the enviro-weenies. They have no right to do anything of this sort, and I'll be d--ned before I comply.

#4 Big___Al on 2011-07-13 08:31 (Reply)

So when Mamet stopped reading newspapers, which I presumes includes the NY Times, he turned away from god?

Interesting side effect of the incandescent bulb ban, more energy usage as the only way to save money on the CFLs is not to cycle them on and off so you just leave them on. And in the winter instead of localized heating near where you are sitting or reading, you'll have to crank up the whole house heat to achieve the same pleasant comfort.

And isn't it interesting that GE's CFLs have terrible reliability and lifespan. It's almost like they had to have this ban on quality technology to keep their low quality union-made technology selling.

#5 JKB on 2011-07-13 09:11 (Reply)

Howdy NS
The fedeal government is responsible for public safety, national defense, and a couple of other things.
It is a devastating overreach for the federal government to ban a safe product that consumers want.
If more efficient light bulbs meet consumer wants, consumers will select them and they will succeed. If the government sets the standards for car mileage, light bulb energy use, or amount of caffeine in coffee, we are the losers.
When Readers' Digest went enviro-liberal-wacko, one article led with "The federal government gave consumers a Christmas present" and went on to praise the new 35mpg CAFE standards. No, that's not a present. It's a mandate on YOU and ME, enforced through the manufacturers. Oddly enough, it's less likely to produce fuel savings because the cost of the new vehicles is higher than I'm ready to pay. So I'll keep driving a 22-25mpg (ethanol is a problem too) car.
The issue here is less what the bulbs do, it's the mandate from government. Maggie's Farmers have a biiiig problem with that.
Related to the war on drugs: the article linked is very important because it's one of the most balanced I've ever seen. Acknowledging that prohibition and enforcement have been problems, the author also acknowledges that legalization will about have to cover everything and that there will be drug-use problems because of legalization. The author and I seem to have landed at the same place: squeamish about legalization but more so about prohibition.

#6 Geoff Brown on 2011-07-13 10:13 (Reply)

I'm not sure why a 2/3 majority was needed to repeal the light bulb regulations. Was that to be able to sustain a veto from Obummer?

#7 mudbug on 2011-07-13 11:04 (Reply)

To say that California wants to discriminate against Asians shows either a lack of understanding about what is going on or an incredible ability to ignore what is going on. Affirmative action in whatever form it is implemented discriminates against 70% of the population of which about 3% is Asian. WHat the headline should have said is California wants to discriminate against whites and in particular white males. In fact white males are the only group which can be legally disciminated against in this country. (All whites are discriminated against by affirmative action but in general they do it illegally.)

#8 GoneWithTheWind on 2011-07-13 11:39 (Reply)

At MIT they divide minorities into two classifications:

1) "Minorities" - their percentage of the student body is equal to or greater than their percentage of the American population as a whole.
2) "Underrepresented Minorities" - their percentage of the student body is less than their percentage of the American population as a whole.

MIT gets far more qualified applicants than it can admit. A member of an underrepresented minority who makes the cut on test scores, etc. is admitted automatically. A minority that is not underrepresented goes into the pool with everyone else. The student body has far more students with Asian ancestry than there are such in the general American population. That's not going to change. Neither is the fact that the racial and ethnic groups that are underrepresented minorities will continue in that status for the forseeable future.

#8.1 RonF on 2011-07-14 11:05 (Reply)

As far as the incandescent light bulb ban is concerned, the Texas lege has passed a law that Texans can still buy incandescent light bulbs no matter what the Busybody Brigade in Washington says, as long as the bulbs are made in Texas and consumed in Texas. Since the wusses in Congress are as yet unwilling to directly throw out the incandescent ban, we Texans can still triumph. And other states have the right to pass a similar law. But I suggest that the last dippy mandate passed by Congress mandating low-flow toilets immediately created a black market along the Canadian border in the old [good] five-gallon-flush toilets.

My suggestion is that surely Canada and Mexico can set up a black market in light bulbs. One just has to find a pusher who will supply you after your own supply runs out.

And by the way, speaking of pushers, Amazon is now selling and delivering by UPS/Fed-Ex light bulbs in 60-watt and other denominations. We've been stocking up further against the day when the Busybodies try to force us to stop using incandescent bulbs.

Fight back, I always say.

.

#9 Marianne Matthews on 2011-07-13 12:43 (Reply)

"denominations"... I like that. It makes them sound like money! :-)

#9.1 mudbug on 2011-07-13 13:19 (Reply)

Some enterprising fellow might set up a quality incandescent bulb factory just over the border in Mexico then have illegal immigrants to pack them into the States. Then either they could sustain themselves with their black market bulbs or the liberals would demand the fence be finished complete with a moat and crocodiles to stop the blight of illegal light.

#9.2 JKB on 2011-07-13 13:23 (Reply)

So President Jug Ears says he cannot guarantee that Soc Sec checks will go out August 3 if the debt ceiling isn't raised? First of all, that isn't his responsibility: it's the SS Administration's job to make sure the benefits are paid. And second, the SSA has already stated publicly there's no way they can PREVENT the money from going out on time since they'd have to reprogram the computer system to stop payments but it's too complex a task to do in such a short time.

I'm sure Obama is well aware of that, which makes his deceptively worded threatening statement nothing more than fear mongering. The Dems seem to have amnesia about their past claims of just a few years ago that SS is not in trouble because its trust funds are in a secure "lockbox." I guess someone must have picked the lock on that lockbox since Bush was President. Now who could that be? Could it be O-O-B-B-A-A-M-M-A-A? Isn't that special?

#10 Agent Cooper on 2011-07-13 13:12 (Reply)

He knows dern well the checks will go out, even if paid in renminbi's (which I bet The One carries more than a few in his purse) and he knows dern well he has nothing to say about it one way or tanother.

What he just did was set up his lapdog press to report that Obama got the checks out in time for grandma.

#10.1 Pajak (Link) on 2011-07-13 18:58 (Reply)

Oh, and by the way. While we're considering the general sappiness and inattention of Congress, I'd like to raise a question that's been bothering me. Now that we've eliminated our own access to the Space Station, which was conceived and built mostly with huge amounts of our taxpayer money, how are we going to get up there when we want to, unless we beg a ride from the Russian shuttle? Isn't this sloppy planning? All of our hard-earned tax money floating around Up There, and the only people who can access it At Will are our former [and perhaps future] enemies, the Russians.

This is a reeely Big OOpsie on our part.

Marianne

#11 Marianne Matthews on 2011-07-13 13:41 (Reply)

This is a reeely Big OOpsie on our part.

Not necessarily. Congress and the Administration should answer the question of Why is there a Space Station? This project has always been a Congressional jobs boondoggle for certain, it's scientific value has never been clearly demonstrated as far as I know, which leaves its value as a demonstration of how man can work in space its only possible justification. But that has been amply demonstrated by now, so why do we continue to fund the ISS program? Why, logically, wan't it cancelled along with the Shuttle program? Isn't it time to head back to the moon instead of continuing to mess around in low orbital space? Where's the adventure in that? That's like Americans saying "Far enough" and stopping their Conestoga wagons at St. Louis instead of pushing West.

#11.1 Agent Cooper on 2011-07-13 15:22 (Reply)

The incandescent light bulb ban is inherently racist.

Why? Because it doesn't stop pollution. It exports it.

The old bulbs use a lot more energy. Reputedly, using them will reduce pollution by reducing the amount of coal we have to mine and burn. But the new bulbs use mercury. It will increase the amount of mercury that has to be mined. But mercury isn't mined in the U.S. It's mined in places like Africa and S.E. Asia that don't exactly have EPA and OSHA regulations. Mining mercury in those places results in gross pollution of the mining areas and shorter and gruesomely unhealthier lives for the miners, their families, and anyone downstream drinking the water or breathing the air. Little brown people are paying the price for our improved health.

But I guess to the left, their lives aren't as important as ours.

#12 RonF on 2011-07-14 11:14 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, July 13. 2011

Weds. morning links