Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Dim bulbery

From Tom Scocca, writing in the New York Observer:

The anti-light-bulb campaign [by Mayor Michael Bloomberg] isn’t creeping socialism—it’s nanny-state capitalism:  a cross-ideological alliance to force-market lousy products to the public.  The left gets to see environmental virtue written into law; the right gets to see the negative consequences of that law fall on individual consumers, rather than, say, the power industry.

Because of course, we on “the right” are totally stoked whenever big business is subsidized at our expense.

It is true, of course, that the “right”—particularly its pro-business policy—is often characterized as enthralled with “corporate greed”, but in truth, there are plenty of rich Democrats who invest in big business, too, who don’t seem to mind when the profits from the power industry provide a spark to their portfolio.

All of which is beside the point.  Because in his effort to portion out equal slices of blame for the blatant government overreach of an single megalomaniacal Mayor, Scocca obscures the fact that the “power industry” had nothing to do with Bloomberg’s meddling, and that the “right”—which encompasses far more than mere GOP cheerleaders bent on stroking big business at the expense of the working poor—is in general averse to both bigger government and nannystatist policies that encroach on individual freedoms.

Bloomberg’s idea is one that springs from the minds of the kind of petty despots who, having bought their own favorable press clippings, have come to think of themselves as benevolent philosopher kings.  And the only thing the “right” has to do with it is to point out how wrong it is—and how market-averse is such a ban, which would make it decidedly “progressive” in nature. 

After all, it is “progressives” who believe the government needs to intervene to “correct” markets that continue to buck trends that militate against their ideological agendas.  Bloomberg, for all his GOP pretense, is nothing more than an egomaniac—a man whose successes in life have convinced him that he is in the unique position to dictate to the great unwashed how they should be acting.

He’s the King of New York. The best we can hope for is that Abel Ferrara and Nicholas St John will sue him for copyright infringement over the title.

16 Replies to “Dim bulbery”

  1. mojo says:

    Well, he may be the “King o’ New Yawk” (although I’d like to see him in a cage match with Chris Walken to settle that point…) and a bazillionaire who’s looking at buying the Presidency as a trifle for his watch chain, but he sure don’t know squat about lighting.

    Easterners are too impressed by money, in my opinion. It’s their tragic flaw.

  2. happyfeet says:

    A thousand? Pah! All your points of light are belong to us!!

  3. Tai Chi Wawa says:

    Oh say, can you see?

  4. Mikey NTH says:

    Not with those stupid flourescent bulbs, that’s for sure.  I have them in my basement and can’t wait for them to die.  In fact, I may just get rid of them early so I can actually see what I’m doing.

  5. dicentra says:

    In 1996, there were banners on the streetlights in NYC saying, “New York: Capital of the World.”

    So that makes Bloomberg king o’ da woild, ya mooks. Git wit it.

  6. Dan Collins says:

    Dude.  Where’s my city?

    ******

    Dude?

  7. TheGeezer says:

    Don’t forget that flourescent bulbs are loaded with mercury and that N.Y.,N.Y. will soon have ordinances regulating how to dispose of your dead bulbs.  DO NOT CALL FOR HELP if you break one of them.  The environmental whackjobs will end up sealing your house before calling in the contractors to contain the mercury, to the tune of, say, $2000.

  8. TheGeezer says:

    Another thing: this is just another white liberal ploy to harm nonwhite peoples.  As the demand for the dim bulbs increases because of loopers like Bloomberg pushing these stupid mandates, the Chinese will crank up production to meet the demand, building coal-burning power plants to supply energy for the new manufacturies.  I am sure that Bloomberg won’t ask to have greenhouse-gas emission standards imposed upon the Chinese.  So we can increase greenhouse gas emissions in a foriegn place and let nonwhite peoples suffer the effects of pollution and exposure to coal-related combustion products.  Oh, the humanity! 

    Dim bulbs cost, what, up to 8 times as much as the old incandescents?  So we will be paying more for each bulb, sending a good deal of money abroad, which affects trade imbalances, as a bonus.  Which means, of course, that we will be subsidizing expansion of the Chinese economy while weakening ours, and all because of liberal doctrinal folderol.

    It’s a liberal dream: deprive citizens of money, make them pay more for stuff, subsidize our competitors (and aid a possible enemy), spill poisons into the lungs of nonwhite peoples, and force everyone to use potentially harmful devices that, if broken, will require the intervention of government bureaus to clean up.

  9. Andrew says:

    I would like to stick my fingers in the eyes of all the people who think this is stupid yet roundly applauded the smoking ban.

    But I can’t seem to summon the will to go slumming to those sorts of blogs. Any takers?

  10. Jeff Goldstein says:

    Not me.  I don’t want to get people talking about my cock again.

  11. McGehee says:

    the “power industry” had nothing to do with Bloomberg’s meddling

    I have to admit the notion that it did have something to do with it, is just stupid enough that I wouldn’t be surprised to find that people believe it.

    And yet the point of these swirly bulbs is supposed to be to use less power. And what happens to a business that sells less product?

    Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

  12. mgl says:

    The left gets to see environmental virtue written into law; the right gets to see the negative consequences of that law fall on individual consumers, rather than, say, the power industry.

    And how, exactly, would the negative consequences fall on the power industry?  Last time I looked, the power industry was selling its products to consumers, to whom it would merely pass along the added costs of whatever measure was cooked up.  The Scoccas of the world seem to think that industries faced with (say) a carbon tax would just sit there and absorb the extra costs of their consumers’ own behavior.  Yeah, that’ll show ‘em.

  13. “I’m the man with the compact flourescent bulb head” doesn’t scan.

  14. B Moe says:

    Is it still okay to draw a light bulb over a cartoon dudes head if he gets an idea?

  15. Rob Crawford says:

    Who knew we would arrive at a time when Uncle Fester would be considered an eco-criminal.

  16. PhlyFallus says:

    Jeff seems to have happened upon that clearing in the forest full of those giant orange toadstools suffering the tragedy of psoriasis.  Sapian neurotransmitters melding with arthropod neurotoxins.  Incomparable synergy.  I want some, too.  UPS, dry ice, COD.

Comments are closed.