The light bulb debate isn’t about light bulbs
Jul 12, 2011, 8:31 AM | Updated: 12:19 pm
Dave Ross Commentary – Listen: The light bulb debate isn’t about light bulbs
Back in 2007, Congress approved phasing out inefficient incandescent light bulbs. The hundred watters would be the first to go, starting next year, and that bugs Republicans like Mike Burgess of Texas who knows what this would mean:
“Those of us over a certain age under a compact fluorescent bulb, we don’t look as good as we do under an incandescent bulb.”
Think of all the corrective tanning hat would require! As for Democrats, like Rush Holt of New Jersey:
“This costs a few dimes more, but let me tell you, you start saving dimes the moment you screw this into the socket.”
Democrats don’t care how they look, just as long as they can make Republicans look pasty.
But this isn’t about the light bulbs. This is about FREEDOM
We Americans don’t like the government telling us what to do — even if it’s for our own good. ESPECIALLY if it’s for our own good.
If the new swirly bulbs are truly better than the old door knob bulbs; if they’re cheaper in the long run, and don’t make our members of congress look TOO pasty, we’ll buy them BY CHOICE!
But if we want to waste electricity, we should have that right!
The thing is, the bulb ban IS probably going to stick, so what do we do to assert our rights?
That’s easy: just crank up the electric water heater to “SCALD”, and replace this radio with a 1928 vacuum tube Atwater Kent, and — you can keep your power bill right where it is.
As for Congressman Burgess’ problem:
“We don’t look as good as we do under an incandescent bulb.”
I recommend Ben Nye Suntone; I know it works for me.
-
Tune in to KIRO Newsradio weekdays at 5am for Dave Ross on Seattle's Morning News.
