Rage against the dying of light (bulbs)

Rage against the dying of light (bulbs)

Nolan Finley
Detroit News
Dec. 9 , 2010

Somewhere in Wayne County there's an ACO hardware store without a single incandescent light bulb in stock. They're all on a shelf in my basement.

The idea of soon having no illumination choice other than those twisty light bulbs has left me a little bit nuts. So now part of my Saturday routine is making the rounds of various stores and loading my pickup with packages of incandescent bulbs.

It's an obsession I bet I share with others who dread the day a year from now when the old-fashioned bulbs become extinct by federal fiat, and all that's left are the smug compact fluorescent lights.

Congress has decided that everyone should use the new bulbs because they are more energy efficient, though I doubt anyone factored the extra energy used to ship them from China, where they're being made instead of the Midwestern plants that produced the old bulbs to price them anywhere near affordable.

I hate everything about the new bulbs. So I've done my best to calculate how many of the old bulbs I'll need to light the rest of my days. I figure I burn out about 25 bulbs a year. If I'm lucky I've got 30 years left. If I'm really lucky and someone comes up with a major life-extending breakthrough, 40 years.

So I'll need 1,000 bulbs. If I've overestimated my expiration date, any remaining bulbs will make a nice next egg for my heirs. I've got to believe they'll be like glass gold once folks can't get them anymore. There may even be a trading exchange.

I've been buying them in every wattage and shape. Three-ways. Spotlights. Sconce bulbs. I'm even thinking about stashing away some colored Christmas twinklers.

Revulsion to the new bulbs is rooted in two of my many character flaws: impatience and stubbornness.

It's as simple as this: When I flip a light switch, I expect light. Immediately. The delay between switch and light with the new bulbs is unsettling. No matter how many times it happens, my reaction is always to keep flipping the switch on and off again.

I suppose I could get used to that, but not to what the new bulbs represent. I don't want to use them mostly because the federal government is telling me I have to.

We've been bullied and brainwashed into accepting the ever-growing intrusion of politicians, regulators and do-gooders into our personal decision making in the name of the greater societal good.

We're told that if we give up some of our individual freedom to buy what we want, drive what we want, smoke and eat what we want, the world will be a better place.

But we can't be trusted to make the right decisions on our own just because we understand the need to conserve and may hope to save a few bucks. We need laws to make sure nothing is left to chance.

Those mandates have already saddled us with toilets that won't flush, washers that won't wash, ethanol-laced gasoline that burns up our lawnmower engines and electric cars that aren't nearly as comfortable, powerful or practical as the models they're supposed to replace.

And next, we get crazy-looking light bulbs shoved into our sockets that may or may not come on before we fall down the stairs in the dark.

Well not my sockets. If I can hoard enough bulbs to make sure I die by the glow of an incandescent light, I'll consider it a small blow for freedom.

If you feel the same way, you'd better get to ACO before I do.

We've been bullied and brainwashed into accepting the ever-growing intrusion of politicians, regulators and do-gooders into our personal decision making in the name of the greater societal good.

We're told that if we give up some of our individual freedom to buy what we want, drive what we want, smoke and eat what we want, the world will be a better place.

But we can't be trusted to make the right decisions on our own just because we understand the need to conserve and may hope to save a few bucks. We need laws to make sure nothing is left to chance.

Those mandates have already saddled us with toilets that won't flush, washers that won't wash, ethanol-laced gasoline that burns up our lawnmower engines and electric cars that aren't nearly as comfortable, powerful or practical as the models they're supposed to replace.

And next, we get crazy-looking light bulbs shoved into our sockets that may or may not come on before we fall down the stairs in the dark.

THIS is what I mean when I talk about the "soft tyranny" of the left. I know some liberals here had a question about the term "soft tyranny," well this is what a soft tyranny is. It is the imperial federal government STEALING choice and liberty in the name of the "greater good." Little by little, by slow and incremental measures, the imperial federal government closes the noose around the neck of lady liberty. Soon all liberties will be subject to government approval, and not, as our founding documents state, unalienable rights immune to the dictates of government and man.

As Jefferson said: "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."

NOW you know why that is my siggy.

Other examples of that term is stuff like the seat belt laws. What many here don't know about that is, yes, it's each state passing laws but also under the guise of the feds telling the states that you MUST pass it OR we'll withhold federal highway funds if you don't. Three things wrong with that. 1) The feds blackmailing the states. 2) The fed has no business telling the states which laws to pass. 3) Withholding funds that the states have already paid in taxes to the feds.

Un fucking real.

TexasBlue wrote:Other examples of that term is stuff like the seat belt laws. What many here don't know about that is, yes, it's each state passing laws but also under the guise of the feds telling the states that you MUST pass it OR we'll withhold federal highway funds if you don't. Three things wrong with that. 1) The feds blackmailing the states. 2) The fed has no business telling the states which laws to pass. 3) Withholding funds that the states have already paid in taxes to the feds.

Un fucking real.

Exactly! The constitution is quite clear on what powers the federal government has, and demanding and then blackmailing states to pass seat belt laws, or highway speed limits, is NOT among those powers. Nor is the federal government empowered to FORCE automakers to build cars that get X number of gallons/mile! This is the federal government interfering in the free market system, creating a demand, one that does not exist in the private sector, by federal fiat! There are THOUSANDS of examples like this. Thousands of false inputs into the free-market system of supply and demand that screw up free-market capitalism, which results in all kinds of unintended consequences which the federal government then uses to justify seizing even more power to "correct," and which only makes things worse still.

What really ticks me off is that people think that free-market capitalism actually exists here in America these days, and then complain that the economy is as screwed up as it is because of free-market capitalism when NOTHING could be further from the truth. The reason we are in the mess we are in today is because of not only unconstitutional federal interferences in the free-market system (i.e. CRA), but also an abysmal failure of the federal government to actually do the job it was supposed to do (better regulate the GSA's Fannie and Freddie).

When are people going to wake up and learn that the federal government isn't the solution, the federal government is the problem?

You unregulating capitalist pig you!

Yeah, it was funny how Montana told the fed to shove it when they tried some of their highway blackmail. They told them, "We don't need your federal dollars. Shove it." If most states did that, then there'd be no problem. In fact, if all states would grow a pair and just tell DC to shove it up their ass, this country would be better off. Of course, I mean when the fed oversteps it's boundaries. There's some who would read more into what I meant.

TexasBlue wrote:You unregulating capitalist pig you!

Yeah, it was funny how Montana told the fed to shove it when they tried some of their highway blackmail. They told them, "We don't need your federal dollars. Shove it." If most states did that, then there'd be no problem. In fact, if all states would grow a pair and just tell DC to shove it up their ass, this country would be better off. Of course, I mean when the fed oversteps it's boundaries. There's some who would read more into what I meant.

Yes, I am against unconstitutional usurpation's of our freedoms. I'm against the federal government assuming extraconstitutional powers to meddle in our lives and free markets. And I'm also against the federal government abusing the tax code and using it as tool to pick winners and losers in society without regard to the rule of law.

Naturally we need laws and regulations. There is a proper and constitutional role for federal government oversight and regulation. I am not proposing we live in anarchy. But what we have now is a massively bloated federal government that has assumed the power to interfere in our lives on nearly every single thing that we engage in! IT IS ENOUGH! It has to stop or the Republic will indeed follow in the footsteps of all those previous republics in history.

dblboggie wrote:Naturally we need laws and regulations. There is a proper and constitutional role for federal government oversight and regulation. I am not proposing we live in anarchy.

Funny how you've been accused of exactly that.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Naturally we need laws and regulations. There is a proper and constitutional role for federal government oversight and regulation. I am not proposing we live in anarchy.

Funny how you've been accused of exactly that.

Yeah, I know. God forbid that one call for the constitution to be considered when calling for the rule of law. Seems that some only want those laws observed that further government power, even if those laws are contrary to constitutional limits on government.

For the "good of the people" don'tcha know?