December 20, 2007
No More Incandescent Bulbs??

I don't like this one bit.

And I didn't hear about it anywhere but in Michelle Malkin's blog. She reports that the energy bill foisted onto the public by the Democrat congress (and signed by President Bush--sigh) on Tuesday contains "a provision that mandates the phase-out of the 125-year old incandescent bulb in the next four to 12 years in favor of a new generation of trendy, supposedly energy-efficient Gorebulbs."

No way.

I HATE those compact flourescent bulbs (CFLs). The light they give off does not compare with the pleasant light of the incandescents. And whatever happened to choice?? I thought these libs claimed to be all about choice? If they self-righteously want others to use CFLs, they can create incentives. But simply taking away the choice of incandescent lights altogether goes way too far.

Some of you won't care at all that this is happening, but I'm going to have to contact my national representatives to complain, and I urge anyone who feels similarly to do likewise. Besides, those CFLs contain mercury. The disposal problem this creates will be enormous. And this, at a time when they fairly recently killed off the last available mercury thermometer at the drugstores.

Since they actually give people the "choice" whether to end a life in the womb, I consider it completely ridiculous that citizens are forbidden the choice of what kind of lighting they wish to have in their homes.

Completely. Insane.

Posted by MicheleDeRouis at December 20, 2007 10:15 PM | Email This
Comments
1. I agree Michele. In the name of sanity why did Bush sign this idiotic bill? Is this what Republicans are going to do from now on? Just cave to the Democrats and their global warming mass media hysteria? I might just as well have voted for Kerry in 2004.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 21, 2007 09:05 AM
2. I, too, have been having a lot of problem with Bush and Company's legacy building. Especially, in the foreign sphere and am having trouble doing so.

The best I can come up with is that if Bush weren't doing it, would we want the next President faced with these same questions. For example, would you rather have Condi try to talk to the terrorist nations (all the candidates seem to be saying this is why I mention it- some to one degree or the other) and fail or have a Jimmy Carter type (Huckabee-Obama-Edwards-Clinton) try it and who knows what will happen.

The same goes for the energy nonsense that Bush just signed.

Posted by: swatter on December 21, 2007 09:26 AM
3. I don't get it. Bush sold out at the very end of the Global Warming conference in Bali. What kool-aid has he been drinking?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 21, 2007 09:49 AM
4. Swatter, I don't think a true conservative would have signed that energy bill. A true conservative would have vetoed it and explained to the country why he did so. Bush has betrayed conservatives. I've never been able to grasp what Bush's values were. I guess I do now.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 21, 2007 10:02 AM
5. Bush isn't really a true conservative. He has a knee jerk to compassion and supporting environmentalist hogwash, etc. Another very good example of why Huckabee won't win the nomination. He's another Bush-like Republican.


Posted by: Jeff B. on December 21, 2007 01:29 PM
6. I like Bush. Bush is no Jimmy Carter, so don't compare 'Jimmy' Huckabee to Bush.

Posted by: swatter on December 21, 2007 02:06 PM
7. Bush may not be Jimmy Carter but how does one explain his failure to control our borders and his monumental cave in to the left he happily signed into law yesterday?

I sense that Huckabee is a "crunchy-con" which perhaps explains why Medved shills for him every day on his radio show. Maybe it's just me, but I long to elect a real conservative in 2008. Is that too much to hope for?

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 21, 2007 02:45 PM
8. This situation shows the intellectual vapidity of liberals...I want to save the planet so I'll support the use of a product that saves energy.

So far...feels great. (Thats where the thinking ends.)

Problem: CFL bulbs contain mercury. Mercury, in landfills, is bad. Hundreds of millions of units in landfills each year is worse. Therein lies the paradox...CFLs good...Mercury bad. Saving the planet? I don't think so. More feel good crap.

By the way, your Prius falls into the same paradox.

Posted by: k2 on December 21, 2007 03:11 PM
9. Yes k2 it is feel good silliness. What saddens me is that our President fell for this nonsense hook,line,and sinker. This is the guy I voted for because I thought he had enough common sense to oppose the nutty left. My mistake.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on December 21, 2007 03:51 PM
10. I guess I will need to make trips to Canada to buy my light bulbs and my super flush toilets!

Posted by: Arunas on December 21, 2007 11:08 PM
11. I guess I will need to make trips to Canada to buy my light bulbs and my super flush toilets!

Posted by: Arunas on December 21, 2007 11:08 PM
12. I guess I will need to make trips to Canada to buy my light bulbs and my super flush toilets!

Posted by: Arunas on December 21, 2007 11:08 PM
13. This means you got 4 years to stock up on the old bulbs!

Just buy em up! They don't go bad in storage.

If you buy too many, sell em on ebay at a premium!

Posted by: GS on December 21, 2007 11:21 PM
14. "Climate Change" is not about saving the planet. It's about money, power, and control over our lives.

Posted by: Obi--Wan on December 22, 2007 02:05 PM
15. Just saw this comment on another blog and just had to share:

"Leftists think they can use their head for a colonoscopy and then crab-walk across the blogosphere expecting all the world to think their new hats make them look smart."

Posted by: Obi-Wan on December 22, 2007 02:25 PM
16. When light bulbs are outlawed, only outlaws will have light bulbs.

Posted by: Roger P. on December 22, 2007 10:31 PM
17. Sam's Club has 20 60 watters for $5 Get em while you can!

Posted by: GS on December 24, 2007 01:09 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?