The Times explores the world of dysfunctional flourescent bulbs that are neither saving energy nor giving the greens a good name.
« Yeah, They'll Send A Thank You Note To The IRS With The Check | Main | A Times Boost For The Geithner Plan »
The comments to this entry are closed.
What, you mean toxic electronic devices with at five or six times the cost might have disadvantages compared to something that is pretty much the simplest possible electrical component?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 28, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Can't get enough waste mercury I always say.
Posted by: clarice | March 28, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Anybody who is inspired by watching "An Inconvenient Truth" deserves everything she gets.
Isn't there a federal law on the books already that will make these things mandatory in the near future?
Meantime, some nut job in California has proposed outlawing black cars because it takes more energy to cool their interiors.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 28, 2009 at 12:18 PM
It was the California Air Resources Board (an assemblage of kooks), but apparently they have shelved the idea for now.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 28, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Yes, you really can't fix stupid, you just try ro work around it. Good luck with that, by the way, this is kind of OT, fi you're a free speech of any kind, don't vote for the candidate who considers it ' a negative right', I'm just saying, LUN.
Posted by: narciso | March 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM
it only takes one, but you need a Hazmat team and hazardous waste disposal site to dispose of the lightbulb.
Posted by: matt | March 28, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Leave it to Maguire to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Quality control issues in manufacturing hardly
skews the mathematics of energy consumption.
Maguire must have a ton of tungsten shares.
Posted by: Semanticleo | March 28, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Don't knock tungsten, it's why we went to Vietnam, so said the late David Halberstam. and who am I to doubt him. See what I was saying before. Every aspect of our economy is under attack by this braintrust, every
advantage, comparative and otherwise, is to be trade away. Fluorescence give off less light and they are toxic, I guess candles
and whale oil lanterns, are next oh wait,
that's not going to work either.80,000 years ago, both NY and D.C, were underwater,
don't recall too many factories or sUV's around then, but I could be mistaken. Next up, Alchemy for beginners.
Posted by: narciso | March 28, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Best way to address the mathematics of energy consumption is through the price mechanism.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | March 28, 2009 at 12:34 PM
It was the California Air Resources Board (an assemblage of kooks)
DoT,
Out here, AKA "The Smog Nazis". A Mel Brooks parody wouldn't be any more ridiculous.
Clean air, my ass. Clear revenue collection!
Posted by: Mustang0302 | March 28, 2009 at 12:36 PM
'Cleo, all TM did was link the NYT. Take it up with them if you don't like what you read.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 28, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Ha! Mention "kook", "nazi", "parody" and "ridiculous", and cleo shows up!
How's your son doing, cleo?
Posted by: Mustang0302 | March 28, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Meantime, some nut job in California has proposed outlawing black cars because it takes more energy to cool their interiors.
I thought Mythbusters had already busted that one.
Posted by: bad | March 28, 2009 at 12:40 PM
"The Financial Post reported in April that a broken CFL bulb cost a Maine woman more than $2,000 to clean when the state Department of Environmental Protection referred her to a cleanup company. At $5 in energy savings per bulb per month (as Davidson reported), one broken bulb could eat up 33 years’ worth of savings! The federal EPA doesn’t recommend professional cleanup for a broken bulb. It recommends you open a window, leave the room for 15 minutes, then put on some rubber gloves, scoop up the broken bits and seal them in a plastic bag, then put that bag in another plastic bag before throwing it out. Then wash your hands. But don’t worry, Tree Hugger – which calls itself the “leading media outlet dedicated to driving sustainability mainstream” – says the bulbs aren’t dangerous despite those recommended measures."
Posted by: PeterUK | March 28, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Reading that Times piece is like reading a mash-up from the Onion. Beyond parody.
“We’re both college-educated and pay attention to labels we read,” Ms. Zuercher said. “It feels like someone forgot to put a place to find the information.”
Anyone care to wager a guess as to the number of hard-science classes rolled into those educations? They're victims!
Posted by: Chris | March 28, 2009 at 12:54 PM
We had a couple shatterd bulbs back in the day when younsters were doing a little outdor fun inside.
As I recall, one was from a hockey stick and the other from a football. Mysteriously, no people were involved, both items came to life on their own.
The clean was no easy task. Add mercury into upholstry, rugs, and bedding and the job is ridiculous.
There were kids from other families in the house at the time. Imagine the possibilities of lawsuits...
Posted by: bad | March 28, 2009 at 12:56 PM
I installed flourescent bulbs where lights would be on for extended periods of time. For outlets where lights would be turned on and off in short periods of time, such as bathrooms or closets, I kept them with incandescent bulbs.
For those who treated broken bulbs as if there were an EPA hazardous spill emergency: what maroons! Double Ditto for a governmental agency that recommends same.
One thing that concerns me about flourescent bulbs is that as far as I can tell, all come from China. Why cannot we manufacture them here?
Posted by: Gringo | March 28, 2009 at 01:03 PM
Why cannot we manufacture them here?
Gringo, whattayatryintado?
Steal rice right outta the mouths of those Chinese soldiers?
Posted by: Mustang0302 | March 28, 2009 at 01:06 PM
Speaking of bright as a burned out lightbulb:
I just luuuuuuuuv the new smart diplomacy...
LUN
Posted by: bad | March 28, 2009 at 01:12 PM
Wow, bad. Boy is that ever dumb.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 28, 2009 at 01:16 PM
"Isn't there a federal law on the books already that will make these things mandatory in the near future?"
See the 822 pages of the ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT OF 2007 also know as "Public Law 110-140"
The section that effectively bans incandescent bulbs must be read to be believed. Search "rough service" for the multitude of clauses that attempt to make it still legal to sell a regular shop light bulb - but not legal in twin packs!
You can bet no congressman read this beauty either!
Posted by: T J Sawyer | March 28, 2009 at 01:21 PM
Spoakane county, Washington outlawed detergents with phosphates so now people drive outside of the county to buy dishwashing detergents that actually work.
All that extra gas burned...
Posted by: bad | March 28, 2009 at 01:25 PM
And in the 'water is wet' category, the Washington Post, through the efforts of former American Prospect Garance Rucka, has come to realize that his townhall was not spontaneous; News at 11
Posted by: narciso | March 28, 2009 at 01:25 PM
fi you're a free speech of any kind, don't vote for the candidate who considers it ' a negative right', I'm just saying, LUN.
Look up the term, Narciso -- it is a "negative right", which is to say it's a right that defines what government may not do, as opposed to a positive right, which defines something must do.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 28, 2009 at 01:26 PM
Quality control issues in manufacturing hardly skews the mathematics of energy consumption.
Actually, that's not true since it takes rather more energy to make the CFL bulb. With very short lifetimes, high failure rates will cause the energy cost of making the bulb to dominate the energy saved during their short lifetime.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 28, 2009 at 01:28 PM
So which kind of bulbs am I supposed to call the EPA for? The ones that look like a corkscrew or the ones that look like a lightbulb - or the long ones that go under the cupboard and over the sink.
I am so confused. And how am I supposed to be maimed if I forget and clean up the old fashion way?
Posted by: Jane | March 28, 2009 at 01:29 PM
Porch, are there no career diplomatic people left in the state department to coach her in these things?
Posted by: bad | March 28, 2009 at 01:29 PM
Almost forgot to mention re: the Zuelchers. They're Pelosi's constituents. So naturally their horror story warrants the full attention of Washington and the NYT's.
Posted by: Chris | March 28, 2009 at 01:29 PM
bad, there have to be dozens if not hundreds of such people. My guess is that like Obama, she doesn't think she needs coaching.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 28, 2009 at 01:32 PM
heh Porch, that's exactly what Mr. bad just said. He's still laughing at the story...
Posted by: bad | March 28, 2009 at 01:35 PM
It is Charlie, but is one that 'we the people' reserve against government encroachment in our autonomy. Of course like with Big Brother, there is no private space, free of government interference.
How could a presidential candidate be so contemptuous of the people, to speek that way.
This feels like the Star Trek episode, where Kirk comes across this Planet with two tribes, the Yangs supposedlyrepresenting
the USA and other group representing the Chinese. Kirk here's this semi mystical saying' E Plab Nista" which he discovers is some translation of We the People, because that aspects of the Yangs history has been long forgotten. It feels a little like that now, I'm afraid. I hope there's turnaround, yet I see so many things working against
one.
Posted by: narciso | March 28, 2009 at 01:43 PM
This is one of those places where we really need statistics, though. Regular filament light bulbs exhibit an exponentional failure rate, which simply means it "doesn't know" how long it's been burning: it's as likely to burn out at 5000 as it was at 50.
If CFLs have the same failure rate property, there will be some of them that fail quickly; easy to get a spurious statistical cluster and Gods know the Times isn't very careful with that sort of thing.
But a CFL bulb also has a number (24 in one version) of electronic components, which exhibit a "bathtub failure rate distribution": lots of failures early and late in life, with a long nearly-exponential middle. If so, the manufacturers may be saving money by not "burning in" the bulbs long enough, and so shipping some with incipient infant mortality.
Here's an interesting article on some of this. It turns out the manufacturing energy cost breakeven is around 50 hours for a single bulb.
Of course, every bulb that fails in manufacturing adds to that.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 28, 2009 at 01:47 PM
One thing that concerns me about flourescent bulbs is that as far as I can tell, all come from China. Why cannot we manufacture them here?
We can. At 3 times the price. Not to mention the OSHA and EPA issues with the mercury.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 28, 2009 at 01:50 PM
Wow, bad. Boy is that ever dumb.
I hate to get into the position of defending Hillary, but I'd never heard the story of the miraculous image on the tilma until I just now googled it. Hillary was raised a Methodist, so I don't think it's hard to imagine she'd never heard it either.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 28, 2009 at 01:57 PM
Me too, Charlie, yet I've known of it for years as do all of my children.
Posted by: bad | March 28, 2009 at 02:01 PM
It is Charlie, but is one that 'we the people' reserve against government encroachment in our autonomy. Of course like with Big Brother, there is no private space, free of government interference.
How could a presidential candidate be so contemptuous of the people, to speek that way.
Narciso, what are you on about? The phrase "negative right" doesn't appear in that article. Freedom of speech is what's called a "negative right". It's a term of art, and while we may have doubts about his actual legal acumen, he is a lawyer.
Hell, I'm not even sure that restricting "lobbyists" to written communications is a violation of the right to freedom of speech, although that's getting more esoteric.
God knows I don't think the Administration is particularly fond of free speech they don't like -- I started Unfair Doctrine, after all -- but I'm not seeing the issue.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 28, 2009 at 02:07 PM
I've never heard the story either,but I'm not a SOS and didn't visit the site 30yrs ago
Posted by: jean | March 28, 2009 at 02:08 PM
Me too, Charlie, yet I've known of it for years as do all of my children.
So was I, for that matter. It just seems a bit overstrong to say it's "dumb" for a Prot not to.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 28, 2009 at 02:09 PM
I've never heard the story either,but I'm not a SOS and didn't visit the site 30yrs ago
Thirty years ago she was probably looking for the best weed and did anyone know where they could score some peyote?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 28, 2009 at 02:11 PM
I'd never heard the story of the miraculous image on the tilma until I just now googled it.
Perhaps, Charlie, but you aren't the Secretary of State of the United States and charged with making sure you know such things before official state visits.
My issue is not with her not knowing it in the first place, but with her not finding out.
It's not like it came up in casual conversation at a state dinner in Mexico. She was making a special trip to visit the basilica and the painting, which just happens to be a major religious icon all over Latin America. She brought flowers, for goodness sake. Getting the backstory on the places you visit is Diplomacy 101, is it not?
Incidentally, as I type this, my mouse is resting on an Our Lady of Guadalupe mousepad someone gave me ten years ago as a welcome gift when I moved to Austin.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 28, 2009 at 02:15 PM
Hell, I'd like to know where to score some Peyote. I bet whe wouldn't have know the best weed it, it hit her in the ass. Bill, another story. He appears to have discriminating tastes, ceptin for women.
Posted by: Donald | March 28, 2009 at 02:15 PM
"Msgr. Monroy took Mrs. Clinton to the famous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which had been previously lowered from its usual altar for the occasion. After observing it for a while, Mrs. Clinton asked “who painted it?” to which Msgr. Monroy responded “God!”
Sorry,but the "smartest woman on the planet was simply unprofessional.She should have got briefed on what is, perhaps, the famous religeous place of pilgrimage in Guadaloupe.
A tourist brochure would probably do.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 28, 2009 at 02:18 PM
It just seems a bit overstrong to say it's "dumb" for a Prot not to.
My apologies for being unclear if that's how my comment came across, Charlie. I just meant it was dumb for her not to have had asked her staff to brief her on it.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 28, 2009 at 02:18 PM
Good grief, Chaco. I knew. You couldn't read the simplest guidebook without knowing the story. Why did she think she was going there? The most elemental briefing should have included that information.
Posted by: clarice | March 28, 2009 at 02:36 PM
Of all the silly shit Hillary has done, missing this point is the one on which we want to focus?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 28, 2009 at 02:38 PM
Clarice, all I can say is that I've lived in the Southwest most of my life, the Virgin of Guadalupe is very very popular in this area (I can't tell you how many girls are named Guadalupe, but it's a lot) and I even knew the story about the vision and roughly when it happened, and for all that, and with my ridiculous flypaper memory, I'd never heard the story.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 28, 2009 at 02:41 PM
this point is the one on which we want to focus?
Who are you calling "we", Kemo Sabe?
I don't think it's all that unusual for a nice Methodist girl from Illinois to be unfamiliar with Latin American religious symbols. If only she had some sort of connection to an organization which provided Americans with information on foreign lands....
Posted by: bgates | March 28, 2009 at 02:52 PM
Chaco, How could you know"the story about the vision" and yet "never hear the story"? I am missing something in what you're saying.
It's been some time since I read about it before traveling to Mesxico and I certainly have forgotten some of the details, but I know the legend is that the paintinf mysteriously(miraculously) appeared on a peasant's cloak.
Posted by: clarice | March 28, 2009 at 02:57 PM
Of all the silly shit Hillary has done, missing this point is the one on which we want to focus?
Of course not. I don't see a huge desire to focus on it; as far as I can tell, most of the above commentary was simply a response to your defense of her.
She is SOS of the US and it would have taken all of 15 minutes for her staff to ensure she knew the relevance of the site she was visiting and not open her big mouth and embarrass us. That's what we pay her to do.
I will say this, though: if she whiffs the little stuff, how well is she going to fare with the big stuff?
Posted by: Porchlight | March 28, 2009 at 03:04 PM
Chaco, How could you know"the story about the vision" and yet "never hear the story"? I am missing something in what you're saying.
There's rather a lot more to it than the tilma: the original apparition to Juan Diego, the roses, and so forth. Even if you heard the business about the Image on the shirt, not connecting the framed picture from the altar with it isn't that surprising. So I heard a zillion times about the Virgin appearing to this Indian guy, and about the roses. The roses may have stuck because I'd heard the story about Saint Erzsébet and the Roses ("what have you got in your apron? Er, uh... roses, yeah, roses, that's the ticket.") at least twice as many times. Being Grandma was Hungarian and all.
So, okay, I'll grant you, Hillary is as dumb as I am.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 28, 2009 at 03:16 PM
I will say this, though: if she whiffs the little stuff, how well is she going to fare with the big stuff?
Afte eight years of bitching about the continuing pick-pick-pick on Bush for small flubs, do we have to go down the same slope?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 28, 2009 at 03:18 PM
What about the frickin Peyote dammit?
Posted by: Donald | March 28, 2009 at 03:18 PM
I don't think it's all that unusual for a nice Methodist girl from Illinois to be unfamiliar with Latin American religious symbols. If only she had some sort of connection to an organization which provided Americans with information on foreign lands....
ha!
Posted by: MayBee | March 28, 2009 at 03:23 PM
In the name of Allah the all powerful, the all wise and all knowing, we declare fatwa against CFL lamps.
Our teams of martyrs have instructions to penetrate secure Costco and Home Depot sites throughout the infidel empire, purchase CFL lamps, and then smash them in the streets of the Great Satan's empire.
The infidel HazMat teams shall be busy for years cleaning up the mess, and they will have to withdraw their occupiers from the sacred lands. Praise be to Allah!
Posted by: zim zim alabim | March 28, 2009 at 03:31 PM
Chaco, is Hillary on your list with Sarah, Meghan and Bat-shit Bai?
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Posted by: bad | March 28, 2009 at 03:32 PM
You aren't the dumb one, Chaco.
But think of this--you go to the most sacred shrine in Latin America. Around you are thousands of pilgrims many crawling over the stone plaz on their knees to get there..The object is clearly one of religious veneration. Wouldn't you suspect, that this veneration is due to the believed miracle of its creation and not because of the name of the artist who created it?
You are just defending a position now. (Smooch)
Posted by: clarice | March 28, 2009 at 03:34 PM
After eight years of bitching about the continuing pick-pick-pick on Bush for small flubs, do we have to go down the same slope?
Down the slope to complete control of the federal government, you mean?
I was opposed to the left using lies to cement their control over DC. I'm not bothered by using facts to remove their control.
And I can't think of a "small flub" which is really comparable to this or the DVD debacle. Where did the prior administration display ignorance of a foreign country during a visit, or intentionally slight a visiting ally?
Posted by: bgates | March 28, 2009 at 03:37 PM
It's vital, as the most powerful nation on earth, that we make our friendly allies feel valued. A good way to do that, although it is small, is to give the impression we are aware of the things that are culturally important to them.
Posted by: MayBee | March 28, 2009 at 03:47 PM
Anybody get the idea that the State
Department is deliberately 'punking her' like that terrible mTV show. I mean first
the reset button, now this. I know this won't likely see wider distribution, but the impact has been made. Is there anybody
competent in this administration.
Posted by: narciso | March 28, 2009 at 03:51 PM
Nope. As my 15 yo daughter said the other day in response to my question about something silly one of her friends did... "She's not that dumb... she doesn't like Obama!!!"
Had to smooch her on that one...
Posted by: Stephanie | March 28, 2009 at 03:59 PM
During the election we troglodytic Rethuglicans were routinely lectured that the "smart" "adults" would soon be taking over. Well, these geniuses are not only making elementary mistakes, they also appear in some instances to be slighting our allies deliberately (Brown's visit). I don't see how it is comparable to eight years of Bush-bashing to point that out.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 28, 2009 at 04:06 PM
narciso, I don't think so. State is godd at that sort of thing. I think she only trusts and listens to her own hand picked dopes.If anyone.
Posted by: clarice | March 28, 2009 at 04:39 PM
What about the frickin Peyote dammit?
Dude, I haven't scored peyote in 20 years. Come out to Boulder, I'm sure I know people.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 28, 2009 at 04:44 PM
Chaco, is Hillary on your list with Sarah, Meghan and Bat-shit Bai?
Maybe 30 years ago -- I've seen Radcliffe pix of her that were kinda cute. now she just causes me vagina dentata nightmares.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 28, 2009 at 04:45 PM
Down the slope to complete control of the federal government, you mean
No, you moron, down the slope of picking out and echoing a misstep instead of something significant.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 28, 2009 at 04:47 PM
Simply replace Hillary Clinton in this story with Sarah Palin and we would never hear the end of it.
Posted by: daddy | March 28, 2009 at 04:47 PM
Well that's certainly true, daddy.
Posted by: clarice | March 28, 2009 at 04:50 PM
If no one points out Hillarys mistakes then she gets to be considered the smartest women alive.I don't think obsessing on small errors is right,but I don't think letting them slide is helpful.It is good to have a laugh a Hillarys expense,she has been laughing at us for years.
Posted by: jean | March 28, 2009 at 04:58 PM
And the one who would be most condescending in highlighting Sarah Palin's gaffe and so snidely twisting the knife in her back for political advantage would be...Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: daddy | March 28, 2009 at 05:06 PM
Grr. To quick on teh trigger.
And I can't think of a "small flub" which is really comparable to this or the DVD debacle. Where did the prior administration display ignorance of a foreign country during a visit, or intentionally slight a visiting ally?
See, that's my point. The apparently intentional dissing of Gordon Brown is a big mistake; the DVDs were part of that. The amateurs either didn't understand the symbolism and protocol inherent in the exchange of gifts by Heads of State, or it was on purpose.
That means either Hillary's State Department made an amazing mistake, or the Executive Office of the White House made an even more amazing mistake, or most amazing of all, Obama meant it as a purposeful slight. It's such a big slight that it begins to exceed the bounds of Heinlein's Razor, and I wonder if it wasn't Obama's purposeful revenge for the treatment his father got in Kenya.
You're equating that, which took multiple people multiple major errors to successfully FUBAR the outcome, with a slip that might have been ignorant, might have been a moment's inattention, and at least could be covered up by saying "Oh my goodness! You mean thats' the actual one? I was sure you must have the real one locked away somewhere!"
See? This is such a small mistake versus the treatment they gave Brown, and the "overload" button, that putting them in the same category strikes me as just about like the eight years of crap we listened to about Bush's stammer, and whether it was a real turkey. Or whether JFK saying "Ich bin ein Berliner" was really all that funny compared to "ich bin Berliner", which is how a Berliner would have said it.
(Yes, it can be heard as "I am a jelly donut, a Pfannkucken" but hardly anyone would laugh at an American saying that; they're usually too astonished at an American speaking German at all. In any case, "ich bin ein Berliner" is definite; it might better be translated as "I too am a Berliner", ike "I am Joe the Plumber.")
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 28, 2009 at 05:09 PM
Simply replace Hillary Clinton in this story with Sarah Palin and we would never hear the end of it.
EXACTLY!!
Can't we be better than Keith Olbermann?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | March 28, 2009 at 05:10 PM
"Afte eight years of bitching about the continuing pick-pick-pick on Bush for small flubs, do we have to go down the same slope? "
Yes, if it pisses off millions of latin American voters.Further,the muddle doesn't comprehend the really huge things,but give them something on a human scale,they will be right there with you.
"Hillary disses Virgin of Guadelupe"
Add that to Obama one abortion and they begin to stack up nicely.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 28, 2009 at 05:16 PM
Can't we be better than Keith Olbermann?
I can. I have no reason to believe you or Keith could get through a small disagreement without lapsing into name-calling.
Posted by: bgates | March 28, 2009 at 05:17 PM
No, you moron, down the slope of picking out and echoing a misstep instead of something significant.
Simmer down, Charlie. Can't we do both? In any case, bgates and porchlight both have it right. The left lied about Bush to make him out to be a bumbling idiot (as in the plastic turkey story), and now they are finding out that maybe the job isn't quite as easy as they thought. Yes, it's a relatively small thing, but as long as it's the truth, it's not comparable to what the left did (and continues to do) with Bush. And no one was making that big a deal about it until you jumped in and started attacking people for even mentioning it.
Posted by: jimmyk | March 28, 2009 at 05:18 PM
I do get your point,Chaco. I just don't think you have the right example--I think this was an error as big as the dvds..The shrine and its venerated cloak are very significant to millions of religious latinos..and this will be seen as proof of the gringos utter cultural disregard and ignorance.
Posted by: clarice | March 28, 2009 at 05:18 PM
Hillary will be great in Tehran,"Is this some kind of wishing well?"
Posted by: PeterUK | March 28, 2009 at 05:24 PM
You have got to get Hillary on the Turin Shroud,"Who painted It?"
Posted by: PeterUK | March 28, 2009 at 05:26 PM
Mister Puk..Please step into the manager's office. NOW!!
Posted by: clarice | March 28, 2009 at 05:29 PM
Getting back to the subject at hand, today's Times also had this. I wonder if the cost benefit analysis Charlie alluded to takes into account the value of people's time (actually I don't wonder, I'm sure it does not). I kind of like the notion that I don't need to read manuals and do extensive research when it comes to changing a light bulb. Not to mention discarding an old one. But of course, just like ethanol and other boondoggles, what's done cannot be undone, and we'll be stuck with this nonsense for the rest of our lives, or at least until a better technology comes along to supercede CFLs.
Posted by: jimmyk | March 28, 2009 at 05:34 PM
You're equating that
I mentioned them at the same time. Is that what you think "equating" means? I shudder to think your intellectual ability might have fallen off the same cliff as your interpersonal skills.
The Latin American incident and the DVD screwup are both examples of the same broad phenomenon, the new administration undercutting its claim to be better at foreign relations. They are no more equal than all the breaches of protocol involved with the Brown visit are equal to botching some kind of joke about resetting the Russian relationship. I suspect you know the latter are not equal, which is why you did not equate them, but only mentioned them at the same time, as examples of the same broad phenomenon.
I really don't know whether Hillary is as dumb as you are; but based on this thread, I expect given the chance you would cause a much graver international incident than she ever would. So she's got that going for her.
Posted by: bgates | March 28, 2009 at 05:37 PM
And Charlie, if the dems & obamabots want to see a civil environment return in the public square they could stop blaming bush for 10 minutes and actually take up the plow and do their jobs without finger pointing every time they f*ck up. Just a small thing like that would do wonders.
Posted by: gk1 | March 28, 2009 at 05:43 PM
Can't we be better than ...
Don't want to be better. Not interested in the least. They've been shouting and screaming how much better they are for so long they finally got enough in the muddle puddle to vote for them.
It's show time now. Let's just see how much better they really are okay. And just so we're clear ... no pretending no do over no look away no mulligans no hide away not me not never no how.
Posted by: boris | March 28, 2009 at 06:13 PM
In fact,has not the Democrat main tactic been that of taking some piece of trivia and,with the aid of the myrmidons of the MSM,blowing it up into epic proportions?
Now Hillary isn't just any old SOS,she is the wife of a former two term,nearly said timing,president.Did she not pick up any tips on protocol in eight years as First Lady?
This isn't some street punk associate of Obama's,this is a pro.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 28, 2009 at 06:22 PM
I get along with Charlie most of the time but have become increasingly curious as to just exactly who appointed him the constable of the JOM comment section.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkywatzky | March 28, 2009 at 06:35 PM
Maybe Hillary does not know about Our Lady of Guadalupe because she is also the patron saint of aborted babies-----She is a major figure in the Catholic pro-life movement.
Posted by: Middle -aged Lurker | March 28, 2009 at 06:35 PM
Boris - hear! hear! I so agree with everything you said.
Oh, and there is a LUN regarding the subject of this post. Watch the video and be inspired again (to be a productive, intelligent human being, instead of a troglydite progressive)!
Posted by: centralcal | March 28, 2009 at 06:36 PM
Newsbusters:
"The Washington Post's 44 blog today carries the item "Obama Town Hall Questioners Were Campaign Backers." Authored by Garance Franke-Ruta, the article notes:
But while the online question portion of the White House town hall was open to any member of the public with an Internet connection, the five fully identified questioners called on randomly by the president in the East Room were anything but a diverse lot. They included: a member of the pro-Obama Service Employees International Union, a member of the Democratic National Committee who campaigned for Obama among Hispanics during the primary; a former Democratic candidate for Virginia state delegate who endorsed Obama last fall in an op-ed in the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star; and a Virginia businessman who was a donor to Obama's campaign in 2008."
Posted by: clarice | March 28, 2009 at 06:59 PM
Clarice,
You should adopt a "Zero Tolerance" regimen with the Democrats.Engulf them with a cavalcade of misdemeanours and blunders for the next four years.
Posted by: PeterUK | March 28, 2009 at 07:15 PM
I think ridicule is a powerful weapon..Limbaugh's teleprompter president is causing Obama a great deal more difficulty than reasoned analysis of his blunders.
Posted by: clarice | March 28, 2009 at 07:18 PM
Hey, my "post" and "preview" buttons have not been working. (Clarice I sent you an email to see if anyone knows how to fix them.) Suddenly they appear to have come back. This is a test.
Posted by: Jane | March 28, 2009 at 07:22 PM
O.K.
I'll admit that I like CFL's in certain locations. They are GREAT in unheated or poorly heated buildings where filamented bulbs are constantly burning out. They are also nice in ceiling fans, where the vibrations shake out normal filaments.
Other than that????
Not so much.
Posted by: Pofarmer | March 28, 2009 at 07:23 PM
Jane narciso and I had that problem last week. I added firefox as a browser and that helped. Also those buttons vanish if you merely cut and paste an entry or an url in the box. You have to add some freshly typed stuff.
I hope that helps.
Posted by: clarice | March 28, 2009 at 07:30 PM
"I think ridicule is a powerful weapon."
So extracting the urine out of Ellie Mae Clampett's faux pas in Guadalupe is OK?
Posted by: PeterUK | March 28, 2009 at 07:34 PM
Clarice,
I see that lovely Garance takes care to let us know in the first paragraph that in stocking his town hall with supporters, Obama is "taking a page from the Bush playbook."
First of all, that's nonsense, and second, "taking a page from ______'s playbook" is a tad shopworn. A Harvard grad (admittedly, a transfer from Hunter College - that's for you, bgates) ought to be able to do better.
Posted by: Porchlight | March 28, 2009 at 07:36 PM
Well, of course, someone as pure as The Won, would never have dreamed this up all on his own even with Rahm helping--and it's on the blog site, but I don't think the regular readers are going to learn this,Porch.
I argue it's perfectly ok and and worthwhile,Puk.
Posted by: clarice | March 28, 2009 at 07:53 PM
ditto, Ignatz.
Posted by: centralcal | March 28, 2009 at 08:29 PM
Thanks Clarice.
I hope everyone on the east coast has all their lights blazing.
Posted by: Jane | March 28, 2009 at 08:35 PM
Mine are..Jane..
Posted by: clarice | March 28, 2009 at 08:41 PM
Well, the sun is still out on the West (LEFT) Coast. Do we have a time delay for protest?
I have the short people spending the night, so lights will be blazing till who knows when. We are gonna watch the movie "Annie" after dinner.
Posted by: centralcal | March 28, 2009 at 08:50 PM
Aquestion for the legal fraternity here.
If,say and elderly person,were to follow the advice of the organisation behind the idea of turning the lights out and in the ensueing darkness were to fall and injure themselves,are there grounds to sue?
Posted by: PeterUK | March 28, 2009 at 09:00 PM