House of Eratosthenes

No cute headline on this one, not here. You can go just about anywhere else to get one of those. “BULB Act burns out,” “House turns out lights on BULB Act,” etc.

Whatever. The bill failed. But details, details…

The Republican-controlled House voted 233-193 on Tuesday for the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, which would have repealed higher energy-efficiency standards for bulbs. But the measure needed a two-thirds majority to pass.

House Republicans can still try to adopt the measure under different procedures requiring only a simple majority, but it’s unlikely it would get through the Democratic-controlled Senate.

The original legislation, signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2007, requires all new bulbs to use at least 27 percent less energy than standard incandescent light bulbs. It will go into effect next year and gradually phase out traditional 100-, 75-, 60- and 40-watt incandescent bulbs by 2014.

There is a silver lining here. Remember Conquest’s Second Rule as it pertains to Congress; 233 representatives, 17 of whom are converts to the cause who previously voted in favor, recognize this was a dumbass idea. So some 54 percent recognizes this is a dumbass idea — that’s Congress — you can safely add fifteen points to that quotient to get an idea of where the electorate is leaning because, hey, it’s Congress voting on how much power Congress should have.

Not everyone is running a small business, wondering how many employees they can afford to hire with ObamaCare kicking in. But everyone’s got light bulbs. My household jumped at the opportunity to buy CFL’s because they’re cheaper — but we resented like the dickens that Congress had anything to do with the decision at all. How many more are like us?

And now the message has gone out, loud and clear, to anyone who wants to light anything up: Liberalism is like any other Faustian deal, you can get in but you can’t get out. A healthy majority of our congressmen see this was a wrong turn, and we still can’t extricate ourselves from the morass. That’s liberalism. Your first chance to reject it is also your last.

It’s good that the effort failed, in a way, because it’s highly visible. And there’s a decent chance we’ll see more examples just like this. Progressives pride themselves on finding these cute clever ways the minority can tell the majority when to jump & how high; they establish their identities this way. So they’ll continue to tell the rest of the country that lefties are in charge, doesn’t matter if the lefties are outvoted, that’s the way it’s gonna be because we’re past the commit point. It’s one of their favorite (snotty) lectures to give. I think the smarter ones understand this hurts their chances when there is, after all, an election coming up…but they just can’t help themselves. One of the defining facets of liberalism is a subjugation of rational thought, a repositioning of it so that primal urges take priority, and they’re very fond of this primal urge. Hey, we got outvoted but we won anyway! That proves we’re better!

I say, good. Keep it up. Keep going with that message that this wise, special, elite minority of sages is dragging the majority, kicking and screaming if necessary, to a better place…and we’ll thank you when it’s all over and we have the maturity to see you were right all along. Go to town on that one, liberals. Put it up in a brightly lit sign.

Oh, I mean a mercury-filled CFL sign, with lots of special pain-in-the-ass cleanup procedures for us to follow if it ever shatters. Whatever. Just make sure that’s your campaign slogan next year. Can’t wait to see how it shakes out.

[it] doesn’t matter if the lefties are outvoted, that’s the way it’s gonna be because we’re past the commit point.

Past the commit point, eh? Were we “past the commit point” when slavery was legal in the South?

Good darned thing Republicans didn’t listen to “past the commit point” logic in the 1800’s or the 1950’s & 1960’s.
- philmon | 07/13/2011 @ 08:16
Incidentally, maybe it would fare better if they just repealed the act rather than mentioning anything about state and local governments. Re-word it and try again.

Just repeal it. That’s all.
- philmon | 07/13/2011 @ 08:24
That is an interesting question. I do have to admit if I were sitting in Congress I’d like that idea…but then, I’d already have been part of the 233. Article mentions they can try again with another maneuver that would set the bar at simple-majority, which would have worked with this vote.
- mkfreeberg | 07/13/2011 @ 09:07
I am afraid that many of the republicans who voted against it were afraid of the flooding earth destruction and it’s all the republicans’ fault ads.

But they shouldn’t be. The majority of America is tired of it.
- philmon | 07/13/2011 @ 10:10
And why is it that it’s only “scare tactics” when the right points out real, verifiable consequences, while when the left does it on opinion concensus (with people who agree with them), it’s not?
- philmon | 07/13/2011 @ 10:14
An observation I’ve made — and it’s a big ‘un, bigger than right vs. left, so suspend the liberal/conservative thing for a few moments while I opine & observe…

You know an idea is bad, when the people selling it must exercise considerable discretion and foresight choosing the words for their pitch, and the people listening to the pitch must be distracted from exercising any scrutiny or critical thinking in divining the meaning behind those words.

This observation has to do with “buzz” words like your “scare tactics.” Another one is “scheme.” Words like “risky” and “scheme” are actually means-tested in front of focus groups to see how a random sampling of ordinary people will respond to the word standing alone…completely out of context of anything. If the seller has to be studious and the buyer has to not be studious, and the sales pitch isn’t adapted for any other condition — you are looking at a stinky, rancid idea.

Another buzz word our mutual friend Mr. Darrell likes to use a lot: “standards.” Our government never stops us from doing anything we wish we could do; it simply imposes “clean air standards” or “standards for safe drinking water.” You’ll never hear a prog using the golden glittery s-word to describe a “standard” that leans right…like for example…a “standard” that you can’t be on welfare for more than a year or two without looking for a job. Those are not “standards,” they are “restrictions.”
- mkfreeberg | 07/13/2011 @ 10:42
…Better Use of Light Bulbs Act…

Just fucking STOP with the cutesy acronym bill names, OK? It’s NOT cool, it was NEVER fucking cool, and it’s just annoying as hell.

And there’s your GOML moment for the day.
- bpenni | 07/13/2011 @ 10:52
Bah. I see where you’re coming from, but seriously. Name the damn things after Smurfs, or Harry Potter characters, for all I care. Just quit telling me what to buy with my $$$.
- mkfreeberg | 07/13/2011 @ 11:03
Wait, are you telling me that BULB actually stood for something other than what comes right after “Light”??????

[eyes roll]

Better Use of Light Bulbs?

[eyes roll again]

I’ll use my damned lighbulbs any way I pleas, thank you Mr. Big Govt.
- philmon | 07/13/2011 @ 13:09
Wait, are you telling me that BULB actually stood for something other than what comes right after “Light”??????

[eyes roll]

Better Use of Light Bulbs?

[eyes roll again]

Why wasn’t it BUOLB, or BULBA, or BUOLBA? 😉

I’ll use my damned lighbulbs any way I please, thank you Mr. Big Govt.
- philmon | 07/13/2011 @ 13:10
What everyone else said.

I happen to like the CFL bulbs. I don’t really see where people are complaining that they cost more – I can buy them at the local 99 cents-only store. I also like the way you can put a 100-watt-rated CFL bulb into a 60-watt socket, because the bulb only uses 23 real watts of electricity.

Cons: the time some of them take to warm up, the burnout rate on the ones that go on and off too often, and of course, the way they turn an area into a toxic waste hazard if one of them breaks. I was alarmed to find out that not only do the new curly-Q CFL bulbs contain mercury…apparently florescent bulbs ALWAYS have had our friend Hg as one of the key ingredients…including the long tube-style bulbs that we’ve been using in offices and retail stores for decades. I shudder when I reflect how many of those things I broke as a kid or a teenager. Standard Operating Procedure was to play “light sabre” with any such tubes found sticking out of a trash dumpster, always ending in some way with the destruction of the bulb. (And then there are all the millions of those things that went into the trash during those years, all the way to the present day.) Why the hell didn’t someone warn us?

Better still, why can’t bulb manufacturers find something else to make bulbs with that isn’t toxic? We quit using lead pipes, lead paint, and asbestos some time ago…why is the government actually *mandating* the use of mercury light bulbs? How many birth defects are we going to see in the next couple of generations as a result of this crap?
- cylarz | 07/16/2011 @ 22:27

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

BULB Act FailedWednesday, July 13th, 2011

BULB Act Failed
Wednesday, July 13th, 2011