Watts New With Lightbulbs And The Nanny State?
May 17, 2011 Political
As the nation prepares for the departure of the 100 watt incandescent light bulb and children across the nation mourn the subsequent demise of the Easy Bake Oven (it uses a 100 watt bulb for the heat), the light bulb industry prepares to make a killing off unproven technology. In January 2012 the 100 watt bulb will be banned in the US and other incandescent bulbs will follow suit being eliminated by 2014.
The Compact Fluorescent Bulb (CFL) has been around for a while as a replacement for the incandescent bulbs but they come with their own problems. The bulb costs about 11 times more than the incandescent bulb and has a small amount of mercury vapor inside. The amount should not pose a problem if the bulbs are broken in a house as long as some safety precautions are observed but in quantity the bulbs present problems for the waste stream. The bulbs that were supposed to save the environment are an environmental problem.
Next out of the gate are Light Emitting Diode (LED) bulbs. These are available in flashlights and other smaller bulbs (like Christmas lights) and they provide a crisp sharp beam of light. The problem is that any bulb for home use requires a number of LEDs to be placed together to provide adequate lighting. LEDs are finally available in the 100 watt size but there are problems with these as well. The crowded LEDs increase the amount of heat generated and forces manufacturers to put a lot of LEDs together, something that is less efficient.
The other problem with the bulb is that it costs $50.00. Proponents of this so called “green” energy would have us believe that the cost is offset by how long the bulbs last but this is misleading. The bulbs themselves might be good for up to 10,000 hours of use and that would seem reasonable for the price. This would be about 5.75 years of bulb use assuming a use of 5 hours per day. Not bad but considering the incandescent costs about 50 cents a bulb one can get 100 bulbs for the same price. Electricity use might figure in a bit but not enough to offset the price.
Another thing to consider is that the actual life of LEDs will be much shorter because they are only good for about 2000 clicks to on. So one would have to turn lights on and leave them on or turn them on and off and shorten the life of the bulb. Not a very efficient way of saving energy and certainly much more costly for the consumer.
I have some of the CFLs at my house. I use them in areas where the lights stay on for a long period of time (like my outside door lights). Since they consume less electricity I get my money’s worth and if they break they are outside where the mercury vapor is not a concern (adequate ventilation and open space reduce the amount of mercury vapor to very low levels). The important thing here is that I took the decision to use them because I wanted them and not because I was forced to do otherwise. I think that everyone should have a choice in what bulb they use.
But starting in January we will lose choices and we will continue to lose them as the nanny state government forces us to comply with its green agenda by legislating behavior. Keep in mind that if it was so wonderful they would not have to force you to do it through the use of laws. If it was good then people would do it on their own. But government is trying to influence behavior and compel us to do what it wants regardless of what we think is in our best interest.
And their intrusion will cost us thousands of dollars in new bulbs and eventually new appliances that will be able to use the bulbs mandated by government.
The best way to combat this is to stock up on incandescent bulbs right now. They are inexpensive and people should be buying them by the hundreds. Buying enough each week to build a stockpile will ensure that you have all the bulbs you want and need long after the government bans them. It will allow you to continue using cheap bulbs until better technology comes along that can compete with the cheap bulbs we will soon lose.
Start buying the 100 watt bulbs now because they go away the soonest. Then work your way down until you have enough to last a lifetime…
Of course there would be nothing stopping the government from sending the storm troopers to confiscate incandescent bulbs. I would not put it past the government to do this.
We use to be free but now they tell us what kind of bulbs we are allowed to use. In my book, that makes it a dictatorship…
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: 100 watt bulb, cfl, easy bake oven, led, mercury vapor, nanny state
Have We No Freedom?
Mar 11, 2011 Political
A law is being considered that would require that alcohol detection devices be installed on cars to keep people from driving while intoxicated. The interlock devices must be blown into and an alcohol level below a determined limit (the article states 0.03) must register before the vehicle will start. The devices are designed to require the driver to blow at intervals to ensure that a sober person did not initiate the original air that allowed the vehicle to start. If a person is over the limit six times the car will no longer start.
Interlock devices are sometimes court ordered for DWI offenders as a condition of keeping their licenses.
Installing these devices on all vehicles is a bad idea. The nanny state is now trying to force all drivers to prove they are not over the limit before starting a car. This would be another loss of freedom in this country. Forcing the millions of people who do not drive while intoxicated to do this because a relatively small number of people drive drunk is ridiculous and another infringement into our lives. Since the records can be downloaded it is another way for Big Brother to see what you have been up to. I can imagine a future where the records are pulled each time a person goes to renew a driver’s license and that person being denied because they tried to drive after a few too many.
I have no problem with people who have DWIs being required to have one of these on their cars. That would be a condition of their being allowed to continue to drive. They drove drunk and they have to pay the price but why does everyone have to pay the price with preemptive breathalyzer tests before they can operate a vehicle?
These things are not easy to operate and it takes time to get use to them and even then it is time consuming. Suppose some woman is getting into her car late in the evening and she notices a group of nasty looking men heading her way. On any given day she could lock the doors, start the car and leave. If she is delayed because of the device or the device does not work then she will be at the mercy of potential attackers.
Who will be responsible for that?
I am tired of the nanny state. We have laws against driving while intoxicated and we have police officers to look for those who do so. We do not need to infringe on the rest of the driving public to make some do gooder feel good about himself.
We do not need to be told what to do and we do not need to be monitored in all aspects of our lives.
Most of us are smart enough to do the right thing.
And we have laws to take care of those who are not.
But Big Dog, what if this would have saved a family from being killed by a drunk driver. That will be little consolation to the family killed because a person was busy reblowing while driving so the machine could ensure a drunk was not behind the wheel.
And how often are people killed or injured by drunk drivers? The number is small compared to the number of non impaired accidents and other ways people die.
Stay out of our lives you nanny state morons.
As for me, I will rebuild my vehicle from the ground up before I buy a new car that must have one of these and I don’t even drink.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: freedom, interlock, law, nanny state
Nanny Pelosi Knows Best
Jan 5, 2011 Political
The nanny state is alive and well. Nanny Pelosi spoke after a group of Democrats presented their views on repeal of Obamacare. They gave the standard lies and some said how much it would cost to repeal, standard stuff one expects from the nanny state but Nanny Pelosi took the case.
In this video from The Blaze (linked from WBAL Radio) Pelosi states that even if everyone in America was happy with their health care and it was affordable for all, the government takeover was necessary because the system was not sustainable.
Listen to what this moron is saying. She indicates that even if EVERYONE had health care and liked it and it was affordable she and her nanny state Democrats would have had to take it over because it was not sustainable.
Excuse me while I laugh. OK, I am back. If everyone has what they want and they can afford it then the system IS sustainable. The system is and has been sustainable but according to Pelosi even if the system was completely ideal and everyone had coverage they liked and could afford, the government would need to take it over.
This is more proof that the takeover had nothing to do with the stated goals and everything to do with involving government in our lives.
It is absolute proof that this is about one thing and one thing only. CONTROL! They want to control us and they know it will be easier if they control our health care.
I have an idea. Government as we know have it is unsustainable. Spending is out of control and we are 14 TRILLION dollars in debt. We have a bloated government that is simply unsustainable.
So let’s take it over. It is necessary and, according to Nanny Pelosi, the proper thing to do.
We started today and if the Republicans don’t do the right thing we will fire them and replace them with people who will. We will keep replacing these people until we get folks who will do what is right by this country and the people who make it work.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: control, democrat, lie, nanny pelosi, nanny state, obamacare
Government Official Thinks We Act Like Children
Sep 22, 2009 Political
Energy Secretary Steven Chu compared American adults to teenagers and said that we are not acting like we should act with regard to using energy. Here it is, conformation that someone in government thinks you are a child who needs to be taught by the adults in DC how to act.
“The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act,” Dr. Chu said. “The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is.” WSJ
Who does this guy think he is? Who is this twerp to tell us that we are not acting like we should? In whose eyes are we not acting like we should, his? Because it is not up to him or any other government agency to tell us how to act as long as we are not breaking the law. It is one thing to say that criminals are not acting the way they should because they are breaking the laws established by society but it is quite another for this guy (or any government official) to decide we are not acting like we should because something we happen to do runs contrary to what he expects us to do, as if his opinion matters.
This little man has insulted us and compared us to teenagers and said we do not act like we should. Not only is this insulting but it gives credence to the idea that the nanny state thinks it knows better than you do.
They take your money and spend it because they know better how to use the fruits of YOUR labor than you do. They take your money and “invest” it in Social Security because they know better how to take care of YOUR future than you do. They take your money and put it away for Medicare when you are old because they know better than YOU what you will need when you retire.
This insulting little man actually thinks we are like teen aged children who need to be taught how to act by Big Brother in government.
This is a free country and how we use the energy we pay for is our business. If the Energy Secretary wants to have initiatives to help people use energy more wisely, should they choose to do so, then fine. However, we do not need this pencil neck twerp admonishing us and treating us like, or comparing us to, children.
Chu’s people said that he was not comparing us to teenagers:
Energy Department spokesman Dan Leistikow added: “Secretary Chu was not comparing the public to teenagers. He was saying that we need to educate teenagers about ways to save energy. He also recognized the need to educate the broader public about how important clean energy industries are to our competitive position in the global economy. He believes public officials do have an obligation to make their case to the American people on major legislation, and that’s what he’s doing.”
That, of course, is a blatant lie. While this article does say they are teaching children about energy use, the statement is separate from the quote about us acting like teenagers. When he said, just like your teen aged kids, you [adults] are not acting as you should, he compared you to teenagers. The words “just like” are used for comparison as in Steven Chu acts just like a nanny state official. Or Steven Chu denied he said what he did just like a liar would.
There is no denying what he said and all the back peddling in the world will not change what he said.
I wonder if Joe Wilson is available to give Chu a “You lie!”.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: chu, energy, nanny state, teenagers
The International Court Of Environmental Nannyism
Dec 1, 2008 Political
A former chairman of the Bar Council is calling for an international court for the environment to punish states that fail to protect wildlife and prevent climate change. Telegraph UK
Stephen Hockman wants to have a court similar to the International Court of Justice but he wants this court to be the International Court of the Environment. The court would be responsible for forcing countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The court would also fine countries or companies around the world for failing to protect the environment and endangered species.
The last thing we need is an Environmental Court of Nannyism. We do not need to give away our rights to outside agencies. This country has laws and law enforcement agencies to deal with companies that violate the law with regard to the environment. We need to focus on real violators and stop creating rules and expectations that are nearly impossible to meet, have little or no benefit, and drive costs way up.
This hair brained idea is being presented to a symposium at the British Library and no doubt there will be morons that sign on to it. This would be a huge mistake. Giving away our sovereignty is not the correct thing to do. Our courts and our system of laws can best address the issues faced within our boundaries.
As with any bureaucratic program, this idea has the potential to create havoc and cause misery that will be beyond our control and leave us no avenue for redress. How far will these people go? Will they go after the states (or other geographic areas) within nation states? Will they try to ban hunting because it involves killing animals? Will they refocus on individuals who they believe are not living up to the arbitrary standards they will impose?
Our country is a sovereign nation and we have rights that are guaranteed under our Constitution. Those rights should not be decided by a bunch of nannies sitting in the Hague.
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.
Tags: court, environment, nanny state, nannyism, state's rights