Repeal the 55-mile-per-hour Light Bulb
In 1994, Republicans swept into power promising to enact a raft of reforms outlined in their Contract with America. Most of those reforms were stymied in the Senate, vetoed by Bill Clinton or struck down by the Supreme Court.
But Republicans did deliver on one wildly-popular promise: repeal of Jimmy Carter's national 55 mph speed limit. For people who grew up zipping along superhighways designed for higher speeds, the lower speed mandate, in effect for 20 years, was a daily reminder of serfdom. When the limit was repealed, it was a reminder that our votes actually do matter.
Now the clock is ticking down on a similarly-intrusive mandate: the ban on incandescent light bulbs. Like many bad "green" initiatives, replacing Thomas Edison's invention with compact fluorescent bulbs originated in Europe, where folks have gotten used to having Big Government intrude into their private lives. Ironically, Ireland, that bastion of good government, was the first nation to implement the incandescent ban.
Fluorescent bulbs cost 6 to 7 times more than incandescent bulbs, take longer to warm up and are an environmental and safety hazard due to their high mercury content. Moreover, there is no empirical data that proves they save electricity. When the town of Traer, Iowa distributed 18,000 compact fluorescent bulbs to residents, energy usage actually increased by 8 percent.
But perhaps the worst aspect of compact fluorescent bulbs is their weak, sickly glow. Flick a switch on an incandescent bulb and it lights up instantly, with a warm, "I'm here to serve you" brilliance. Turn on a gloomy compact fluorescent and it reminds you that you're merely a servile subject of an over-reaching government.
Light bulbs may be small things, but liberty is a big thing. Perhaps Americans should remind their Congressmen of this by shipping millions of toxic compact fluorescent bulbs to Washington.
If Congressional Republicans do the right thing, Americans will have a daily reminder - every bit as resonant as the repeal of the 55 mph speed limit - that elections really do have consequences.
- Comment (38)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: Repeal the 55-mile-per-hour Light Bulb
EPA will probably come after you for sending toxic materials through the mail.
May '10
Re: Repeal the 55-mile-per-hour Light Bulb
I actually like CFLs in the right places (you need at least 150 watt equivalent for reading), but they are irritating due to the warm-up time.
I really like LED in the right places- the "warm white" Christmas tree lights are terrific- you can put up 1500 for the operating cost of a 100 watt incandescent. The fact is, eventually, LED lamps will take over the lighting market and Fred Upton's Folly will be overcome by events.
For those who cherish incandescent bulbs, be my guest- I still use the floodlights and some halogens- but as the LED technology improves and comes down in price, I'm there because it is a superior product, not to Save The Earth. I don't drive a Pious either.
Jul '10
Re: Repeal the 55-mile-per-hour Light Bulb
Duane Oyen: I actually like CFLs in the right places (you need at least 150 watt equivalent for reading), but they are irritating due to the warm-up time.
I really like LED in the right places- the "warm white" Christmas tree lights are terrific- you can put up 1500 for the operating cost of a 100 watt incandescent. The fact is, eventually, LED lamps will take over the lighting market and Fred Upton's Folly will be overcome by events.
For those who cherish incandescent bulbs, be my guest- I still use the floodlights and some halogens- but as the LED technology improves and comes down in price, I'm there because it is a superior product, not to Save The Earth. I don't drive a Pious either. · Nov 29 at 4:04pm
They'll be coming after your halogens next. I use two 500-watt halogen floor lamps, which I'm sure are responsible for the death of dozens of polar bears.
The point is, whether you prefer incandescent bulb, compact fluorescents, halogens or LED's, the choice should be yours - not government's.
May '10
Re: Repeal the 55-mile-per-hour Light Bulb
Unfortunately, the damage has been done. Countless manufacturers and distributors have already made plans (or gone belly-up) in response to the crazy intervention. Even building codes are being rewritten with new specs for fixtures, switches (no dimmers!), wiring, etc.
Undoing big government creates its own disruption and uncertainty, which makes being a conservative extremely frustrating.
Aug '10
Re: Repeal the 55-mile-per-hour Light Bulb
Kenneth I have to thank you for killing those bears , my great uncle was killed by polar bears while he was clubbing baby seals as a summer job in the 30s. Revenge is tough against certain species. I would like to buy you a drink !
Re: Repeal the 55-mile-per-hour Light Bulb
"Light bulbs may be small things; But liberty is a big thing..." Exactly! And the liberty to choose your own light bulb, or water pipe is connected to your liberty to choose your own health insurance or not, etc. Symbolism is important. I like your idea, Kenneth. By the way, do you think it was fluorescent bulbs that illuminated all those emanations from the penumbra in the Constitution?
Aug '10
Re: Repeal the 55-mile-per-hour Light Bulb
Dave -Good Buddy( remember that ?) Do not use PVC as a water pipe. It'll melt. Keep it between the ditches , thanks for an improvement on Kerouac.
Jul '10
Re: Repeal the 55-mile-per-hour Light Bulb
In my experience, emanations and penumbra are the products of illicit pharmaceuticals.
Aug '10
Re: Repeal the 55-mile-per-hour Light Bulb
Kenneth That would be fog and shadows. Or SF with sun.
Re: Repeal the 55-mile-per-hour Light Bulb
Flownover, now you tell me...
Jul '10
Re: Repeal the 55-mile-per-hour Light Bulb
Water pipe? Hell, I'd be glad to pick my own toilet!
Jul '10
Re: Repeal the 55-mile-per-hour Light Bulb
Michael Tee
Water pipe? Hell, I'd be glad to pick my own toilet! · Nov 29 at 7:56pm
Or your own shower head. Or, soon, a car that will go 0 to 60 in less than 14 seconds.
Aug '10
Re: Repeal the 55-mile-per-hour Light Bulb
I was in Utah this past weekend, and seriously enjoyed their 80mph speed limit.
Oct '10
Re: Repeal the 55-mile-per-hour Light Bulb
"The point is, whether you prefer incandescent bulb, compact fluorescents, halogens or LED's, the choice should be yours - not government's." Incredible that you should even have to utter those words. We are even protected from setting the temperature too high on our "hot" water tanks in Ontario.
May '10
Re: Repeal the 55-mile-per-hour Light Bulb
Michael Tee
Water pipe? Hell, I'd be glad to pick my own toilet! · Nov 29 at 7:56pm
Tell me about it! The California mandated low flush toilets are actually wasting more water than they're supposed to save because many times you need to double or triple flush. I hate low flush toilets!
Aug '10
Re: Repeal the 55-mile-per-hour Light Bulb
The most serious problem with most non-incandescent forms of light is commonly referred to as "metamerism". Technically, metamerism is the condition in which two different light spectra look the same to the eye, because the eye doesn't distinguish all wavelengths but merely detects the energy in three overlapping ranges of wavelengths, roughly corresponding to red, green and blue light. In practice, metamerism actually means that an object of a particular color looks different under different light sources, even if the light sources themselves all look "white".
LEDs are intrinsically narrowband devices, so an LED light will always have big holes in its spectrum, meaning that many objects will look all wrong under LED light. (LEDs are wonderful for displays, where the light goes directly into the eyes, rather than being reflected off objects, but that's a separate issue.) Phosphor-based lights can approximate a broad spectrum, but only if they go to the expense of using a careful mix of a large number of different phosphors. They usually don't.
The sun is a broadband light source, and our brains are used to judging color by sunlight. On earth, only incandescent bulbs have the same natural property.
Aug '10
Re: Repeal the 55-mile-per-hour Light Bulb
Sammy Hagar called, he said he can't drive 55.
Ozzy Osbourne called, something mumbly about a toilet and flush, couldn't understand much.
Edited on Nov 30, 2010 at 8:44amJul '10
Re: Repeal the 55-mile-per-hour Light Bulb
Paul DeRocco
I was in Utah this past weekend, and seriously enjoyed their 80mph speed limit. · Nov 29 at 8:31pm
You may be too young to remember, Paul, but before the 1974 law, several states, including Arizona, Montana and Wyoming had no speed limit at all. Of course, in those days, most cars wouldn't go much past 120 mph. But nevertheless, it was a hoot.
Edited on Nov 29, 2010 at 9:10pmAug '10
Re: Repeal the 55-mile-per-hour Light Bulb
You don't have to go that far back in Montana. I've driven there when there was no speed limit, back in the 1990s. I believe it was only a daytime thing.
May '10
Re: Repeal the 55-mile-per-hour Light Bulb
There's another plus to bringing back the incandescent bulb - we can distribute the CFL bulbs to the military for use in Afghanistan against the Taliban.