Town Square

Post a New Topic

McNerney set to vote today either FOR or AGAINST our individual freedom (Re: Light Bulb Repeal Act)

Original post made by Edison, Alamo, on Jul 12, 2011

So how will McNerney vote this week (maybe even today)?

Will he vote FOR our individual freedom (i.e. in favor of allowing "his lowly subjects" to be free to choose whether we want to buy the incandescent light bulbs?)

OR will he vote AGAINST our American right in this once freedom loving country to choose for ourselves by MANDATING the squiggly CFL bulbs?

We shall see.

Let's stop and think for a moment...this light bulb issue is the perfect analogy of democrat principles, however. Let's evaluate...

Incandescent bulbs:

- Inexpensive

- Safe

- Many are made in America

- They WORK

CFL bulbs:

- Hugely expensive...up to $8 each

- If broken, harmful mercury is emitted.

- Will result in many US jobs lost...bulbs will be made in China

- They DON'T WORK as well.

That about sums it up. Another example of Democrat logic. (And yes, I am disgusted that Bush signed this Democrat-sponsored legislation).

We will see if McNerney votes for our freedom regarding this recent Republican-sponsored bill to remove the ban. Or will he vote down democrat party line...in favor of Socialist/Marxism/Big Government oppression?

I personally won't hold my breath.

We all know McNerney is a Socialist/Marxist and that he will stomp out our individual freedom whenever and where-ever he has an opportunity to do so.

Hey McNerney...WHERE DOES GOVERNMENT MANDATE OVER OUR LIVES END? WHAT PRODUCTS ARE NEXT?

- You are close to forcing us to buy certain govt cars

- Refrigerators?

- Washing machines?

- The food we eat?

- The clothes we wear?

Where is your benchmark country? Oh, I know ... NORTH KOREA!!!

Comments (11)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dirk
a resident of Alamo
on Jul 12, 2011 at 9:14 am

While you're at it Edison, why not fight for our freedom to burn leaded gasoline again in our automobiles?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bill
a resident of Danville
on Jul 13, 2011 at 7:12 am

Edison,

A right wing tea bagger in our midst perhaps? This comment is laughable, "Or will he vote down democrat party line...in favor of Socialist/Marxism/Big Government oppression?" The right wing can get so flumoxed so easily that it's just funny. Were talking about energy saving lightbulbs not the end of civilization as we know it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Farmer Dave
a resident of another community
on Jul 13, 2011 at 7:30 am

Farmer Dave is a registered user.

@Edison:

A few facts you are ignorant of or conveniently overlook:

1. A majority of incandescent light bulbs are NOT made in the U.S.
2. Incandescent bulbs are very inefficient and generate far more heat than light, adding to cooling costs and using more power.
3. Incandescent bulbs are NOT banned by the new requirements, but must meet certain efficiency standards.
4. Decorative incandescent bulbs (such as candelabra) are exempted from the standards.

Besides the vote is over and the standards were not repealed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Duffy
a resident of Danville
on Jul 13, 2011 at 8:53 am

In this age of enlightenment (or is it entitlement) one must never forget the Democrat mantra - INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE ALWAYS SUBSERVIENT TO THE COLLECTIVE GOOD!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Danville
on Jul 13, 2011 at 11:04 am

How stupid do certain people look, including the dopey Tea Partiers when EVEN the Light Companies were against the repeal of light bulb efficiency standards.
The Republicans are so anti progress, if it were up to them we would be the most polluted country on the planet, with no safety features in our cars, and high-rises up and down the coast of california.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by TL Nelson
a resident of Danville
on Jul 13, 2011 at 11:14 am

We will be saving a lot of energy in our home ... all of our lighting circuits are on dimmer switches. I have tried the "dimmable CFLs" and they do not work. Once our incandescent bulbs are unavailable, we will be in the dark without any lighting at all .. unless we revamp our lighting system and remove dimmers. Candles or kerosine lamps might be our only option.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by guynextdoor
a resident of Danville
on Jul 13, 2011 at 11:21 am

GE and Phillips will offer incandescent bulbs that meet the new effeciency standards. They are expected to cost $3 to $5 each. Of course the manufcturers endorse the new standards. I've used fluorescents since they came on the market years ago. Some failed in a few months and I had to return them. Given the mercury content, what are we supposed to do when they "burn out", take them to Martinez?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by psmacintosh
a resident of Danville
on Jul 13, 2011 at 12:49 pm

This issue is an excellent example of a fundamental difference between Democrat/Liberal and Republican/Conservative philosophies and methodologies of Government.
Does the Government CONTROL and TELL us what we can and can not buy or do? Or do WE THE PEOPLE decide for ourselves?

If incandescent light bulbs are so "great," then won't smart-thinking, environmentally-caring, financially-responsible people figure that out and then buy them without Government force/law and subsidies?
The business of incandescent light bulbs needs to stand on its own two feet, just like any other business......or go belly up.....or be supported by individual patrons who "believe" in supporting that cause.

It should NOT be Government's function to take a "belief" position to support one business idea, over another. Let Free Enterprise operate. Let the consumers choose what THEY want, desire, need, and/or believe in.

I am very careful and frugal in my use of electricity....and probably have one of the lowest energy bills in my neighborhood.
I have dimmer switches on many rooms in my house so that I can "dial-in" the amount light that I need at any given time. Will MY method of electric control still operate?
When I need light, I need it quickly. When I don't want so much, then I can lower it. I'm willing to reasonably pay for the light and electricity I need.

It is one thing to "suggest" to people that it might be better to buy incandescent light bulbs. It is another thing to "legislate" what is legal or illegal--and force them. (That is a Government to be afraid of!)

Why does the Government think that this is an area of life that THEY should be involved in?
Having the Government making laws and requiring standards about light bulbs--what you can and can not buy, what manufacturers HAVE to do.
Why not let the consumer decide--and utilize the Free Enterprise system?
Why do the Liberal fear us and not trust us to decide best for ourselves on our own?

If Government doesn't LIMIT itself in the size and scope of the areas that it gets involved in, then it becomes this huge, costly, expanding, never-ending monster that breaks the wallet and will of its citizens. That financial brokenness and loss of individual choice and freedom is where the Democrat/Liberals are taking us.
Essentially, we are on the road to becoming SLAVES, not to a person Master, but to a government Master.

Light bulbs are such a small thing that it seems that it doesn't matter much. It's "death by a million cuts."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by guynextdoor
a resident of Danville
on Jul 13, 2011 at 2:24 pm

psmacintosh, I agree with you but I think you meant fluorescent rather than incandescent. Everyone's a critic.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dirk
a resident of Alamo
on Jul 13, 2011 at 7:05 pm

DIMMERS are a terrible way to save energy. Those who are congratulating themselves on using dimmers should understand a little about the physics of using dimmers to reduce incandescent bulb power consumption. Dimmers work by running light bulbs cooler, and this drastically reduces the already terrible efficiency of incandescent bulbs. It would be FAR better to reduce the light in your home by running fewer bulbs or using lower power bulbs, not to mention to switching to a more efficient light source. As an example*, I have reduced the output light of a 60W light bulb to about 8% of the full 60W, and found that the electrical power was reduced only to 35%. This means that the bulb run dimmer by reducing voltage used more than FOUR times as much electrical power for the light put out than an undimmed bulb! Do the world a favor, turn out some lights, and throw away those dimmers.

*Details on request.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by cardinal
a resident of Diablo
on Jul 21, 2011 at 9:59 am

@ Dirk -- I protest! You're ruining this board by interjecting actual "facts" into the apoplexy!

Further, your analysis Completely ignores the incandescence of a good ol' flamewar in lighting the homes, if not the brains, of the commenting contingent hereabouts!

For shame, sir.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

The valley loses a distinguished and humble leader
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 1,508 views

Not Endorsements
By Roz Rogoff | 7 comments | 1,104 views