Dimming Down America
Get Ready To Buy The Light Bulbs That The Government Commands You To
I wasn’t intending to write an article on this subject because it seemed to me that everything that could be said about the topic had already been covered. But the issue has become somewhat relevant again because in recent weeks the US House of Representative courageously refused to pass a bill overruling the mandate which will have everyone in the formerly-free United States of America buying nothing but Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) bulbs starting in 2014 (which will be here sooner than you think, folks!). So, here goes.
Most people have heard the PR story of these bulbs ad nauseam, about how they are the new intelligent choice for lighting because they use only a fraction of the energy which is consumed by the old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs that everyone has been familiar with for a hundred years. And on the surface it sounds like a good idea. But I have several objections to these new bulbs (Not the least of which is the fact that I will be forced to use them!) which I will cover in the following paragraphs.
1. They look stupid.
Okay, granted that this is no legitimate reason not to use them, but let’s face it: CFL bulbs, in either of their two incarnations, look stupid and ugly.
2. They cost too much.
CFL advocates say that the costs of CFLs are going down. I recently did an informal survey at two light bulb retailers, an Orchard Supply Hardware store and a Walmart. At the Orchard I could buy three regular, bright 60 watt CFLs for $9, or three soft whites for $7. Four 60 watt Reveal incandescent bulbs made by GE cost $3.40. That breaks down to $3.00 or $2.33 respectively for the CFLs versus eighty-five cents for each incandescent. At Walmart you could get just two 60 watt GE CFL bulbs for $8.48 ($4.24 per bulb) or two GE Reveal CFL bulbs for $10 ($5 per). Walmart wanted $2.44 for four 60 watt incandescent Reveals, or sixty-one cents per bulb. The prices for the energy-saving bulbs are obviously very much greater than the price of a “normal” lightbulb, which raises some interesting questions. For instance, why are these new bulbs so much more expensive? Does it really cost that much more to manufacture them? If so, why? Does the production of CFL bulbs require more expensive materials than the manufacture of incandescents? Is more energy required for their manufacture? If so, how much?
Of course, the response to this argument of higher purchase cost is that consumers will actually save money because of the bulbs’ longevity and lower electric usage (i.e., operating) costs. But I don’t think that this rebuttal is true, because in my experience the bulbs don’t last for years, as advertised. (See # 3, below.)
Lactation law-dawgs growl-n-howl at Wat Tyler insurrection of post-natal peasant girl. 92 IQ Alpha agent barks for da TSA Black-Pack and gubmint quota-hounds come-a- runnin’ on all fours to rend woman of liberty and integrity by displaying her in glass cage like airport sideshow freak.
How much humiliation can a people take? How much of their freedom can this tyranny forcefully seize until said peoples begin to realize they are the proverbial elephant scared of the mouse?
This country’s constitution and bill of rights are but yellow-tinged pieces of ancient parchment. Ineffectual and utterly useless, unless White men are willing to rewrite their words in blood.
November 30, 2010
Following their own guidelines will not get you anywhere because they make the rules up as they go along
The latest case of TSA tyranny to hit the headlines comes in the form of a young mother who was subjected to enhanced groping and then shut inside a screening box for almost an hour by agents after she refused to allow them to put her breast milk through an x-ray device, a legitimate request that is even written into the TSA’s own guidelines.
The ordeal, which took place at Phoenix airport earlier this year, was captured on security cameras, which Stacey Armato, who is also a lawyer, gained access to, but only after repeated requests and careful editing by the TSA had taken place.
After being told that her breast milk might have to be put through an x-ray scanner, Ms Armato attempted to show the TSA agents a print out of their own guidelines allowing non x-ray screening for breast milk. This act of serious disobedience resulted in the agent pushing Ms Armato into a glass cage, telling her “to be quiet if you know what’s good for you”, while calling for “back up”.
“Standing 50 ft away are the same manager and supervisor I had dealt with the previous week.” Ms Armato writes in her description of events, referring to a previous 30 minute delay at the security gate for the exact same reason.
After being shut in the box for some 20 minutes, in full public view of other passengers, Ms Armato began to cry and remonstrate with TSA agents. She was then approached by a police officer who told her that she had been singled out by TSA agents who recognized her because she had filed a complaint against them regarding the handling of her breast milk the previous week.
Ms Armato writes:
About 10 minutes into all this, a Phoenix PD comes to calm me down. I explain to him that there is no reason I should be treated this way and I have every right to be upset.
He then says “they” (aka TSA) saw me coming, have it out for me (from my complaint against TSA the week before when they didn’t know the breast milk rules then either), and I should travel out of a different gate in future weeks.
He said TSA wants me to play along with their horse and pony show and if I don’t then TSA can have the Phoenix PD arrest me! Well, I wanted to get home to my baby and my flight was 30 minutes from departure so I ‘played along.’ Three Phoenix PD watched in the background…I could tell they all knew this was a waste of their time but I was happy to have them standing by in case TSA continued to act out of line.
Eventually Ms Armato was released from the box, and subjected to a full groping from another TSA agent.
A TSA manager then approached her and told her that the milk had to go through the x-ray scanner because the containers it was in were “too full” and it was “not a clear liquid”. These are both made up rules that are not mentioned anywhere in TSA guidelines, proving that even the TSA manager had no regard for the official laws in this instance.
The guidelines allow “Mothers flying with, and now without, their child be permitted to bring breast milk in quantities greater than three ounces as long as it is declared for inspection at the security checkpoint.”
According to TSA rules breast milk is to be treated as a medical liquid, which should not be subjected to x-ray radiation.
Ms Armato writes:
He read the first form which stated that medical liquids can have alternate screening (no x-ray). He was quick to say “well this isn’t a medical liquid!” So I had him read the second form which says breast milk is to be treated like a medical liquid. He then says, “well, not today.” I started balling all over again once he said that.
Again this is clear evidence of a TSA supervisor acting like a supreme authority and simply making up the rules as he goes along.
Ms Armato was then forced to pour out the milk into 8 different containers, only half filling each, as per the TSA’s new completely made up rule.