-
Global Warming on 15-Year Hold
April 2, 2012 | 12 comments
-
Suddenly This Summer
March 31, 2012 | 8 comments
-
FakeGate: Just Another Day at Team Green
February 22, 2012 | 7 comments
-
“Climate” and the Campaign
January 12, 2012 | 8 comments
-
Germany’s Green Bubble Follows Spain’s; Will Congress Waste More Billions on Ours?
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
George F. Will writes a paean to new House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Fred Upton today. It includes this third paragraph:
The capacious jurisdiction of Upton’s committee will allow him, if he so desires, to issue the biblical command “Let there be light” by pushing repeal of the 2007 law that, in 2014, effectively bans sales of incandescent light bulbs. This law, which creates a captive market for those annoying, twisty, flickering fluorescent bulbs, is protectionism disguised as environmentalism: It is corporate welfare for U.S. bulb makers afraid of competition from imported incandescents.
In the on-line and print editions of the Washington Post, at least, there is no mention of where that light bulb ban came from.
It was a bill sponsored by a California Democrat and a Republican from Michigan. Three guesses who the Republican was.
View all comments (15) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Chris Horner
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/09/mystery-light-bulb-banner
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Revenge of the Fruitcakes
- Behind a Quilt of Mist
- How Not To Buy a Fighter
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Ned the Red| 1.9.11 @ 10:25AM
The top of my pantry is full of the "good lights". I don't care whether it's some china man in the 875th infantry regiment or a union dog in the USA who makes them.
I buy at Wal-Mart’s for the cheapest price possible.
Mel Torme| 1.9.11 @ 11:12AM
Dang! Good for the country, but bad for me - I am stocked up to the hilt on many common wattage incandescent bulbs. I was hoping to make a pretty penny, come 2014.
I'm good for 100 light-years ;-), in any case.
I got em for about $2/packs of eight, Ned, for the regular life bulbs. How 'bout you (at Wal-Mart)?
Mel Torme| 1.9.11 @ 11:13AM
Maybe I should have said 100 "lit years".
Ned the Red| 1.9.11 @ 12:53PM
I think I paid 88 cents for a pack of four.
bobmontgomery| 1.9.11 @ 11:25AM
And so, how to analyze the situation? Well, the admonistion for conservatives is always "We need to be better than the lefties; we need to be better than the Democrats." And how best to do that? Why certainly not by appointing someone to chair the energy committee who had the good sense to realize what the 'light bulb' issue, indeed the whole 'environmentalism' issue was really all about (there are sensible people out there, you know). No! The way to be better than the Democrats is to appoint someone who WAS IN FAVOR OF BANNING THE INCANDESCENT BULB BEFORE HE WAS OPPOSED TO IT. Yes, folks, your classic flip-flopper. Yes, we do things better than the Democrats, don't we? Not only that, but we'll appoint someone who THE ONES WHO RETURNEDUS TO POWER MADE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THEY DID NOT WANT IN THAT JOB. Yes, we need to be better than the Democrats, don't we?
JP| 1.9.11 @ 11:33AM
Boehner and conservatives should force Upton to rescind this crazy ban on one of the greatest inventions of the last 1000 years. If the Senate nixes it, each of the Senators should go on record.
Our lawmakers, if left to thier own devices, are truly dangerous people. They should be kept on very short leashes.
LK| 1.9.11 @ 11:58AM
I heard on one of my reliable conservative talk shows that the curlyque florescent replacement for Thomas Edison's incandescent contains "MERCURY" you know hg. This obviously creates one heck of a disposal problem. It was suggested that we henceforth refer to it as the "mercury bulb". If this info is accurate how did Mr Upton and the MSM miss it?
Ned the Red| 1.9.11 @ 12:58PM
Hence forth and forever more I will refer to the curly fries light tubes as mercury tubes or mercury bulbs.
Tom Osterman| 1.9.11 @ 2:46PM
Not to ruin anybody's fun, but flourescent lights have been in widespread use for over half a century. You could and can get them just about anywhere you get incandescent light bulbs. Just about every store and office building uses them. so:
- how have people been disposing of them for all that time?; and
- what do people do when one breaks?
Oh yeah, and Upton shouldn't even have been considered for Energy and Commerce.
Ned the Red| 1.9.11 @ 3:29PM
When I was a kid it was great to find a long tube fluorescent light in the garbage, usually a store’s. We liked to chuck them like spears and when they hit the deck they made a cool popping sound, complete with a puff of smoke.
Why the big deal now over the mercury in them? You fight fire with fire. The left or environmentalists force many stupid and unnecessary restrictions on our daily lives. They justify these rules out of concern for the environment, so if we can use some of their own ammo (can I use that word?) back at them, we should do so.
ralph| 1.9.11 @ 4:58PM
Read the column before reading this post, and I wondered if Will knew that Upton was for the ban before he will be (hopefully) against it. Possibly George wants the repeal bad enough to overlook who's responsible. As a comedian says, "just get 'er done"
Mel Torme| 1.9.11 @ 6:27PM
Upton probably was for the bill as part of his get-rich-slow plan - get the garage stocked up with 50 cases of incandescents while they're still cheap - get the bill passed - wait 5 years - make out like a bandit at $5 /bulb.
Then the small earthquake happened, and he realized that all the filaments were broken in an instant (more brittle when cold) and his bulb were now worth jack-squat. Time for a new plan - vote to repeal the bill to seem as one with "the people", or "the masses", as the commies like to say.
He had it all worked out, the sneaky bastard. "If it wasn't for those damn, meddling kids!!"
lighthouse| 3.1.11 @ 6:52AM
About the unpublicised industrial politics behind the USA ban on simple incandescent light bulbs
http://ceolas.net
with documentation and copies of official communications