Why can’t liberal defenders of the light-bulb law admit what they want to do? Why can’t they admit that their favored light bulbs are (1) more expensive and (2) perfectly legal?
The debate is about whether it should be illegal or not to sell and buy bulbs, such as the traditional incandescent, that don’t meet an arbitrary efficiency standard determined by industry lobbyists and lawmakers. Yet liberal bloggers repeatedly pretend that Republicans are trying to block the expensive high-efficiency bulbs.
The latest offender is David Wogan blogging at Scientific American.
- Wogan downplays the severity of the law in question. He describes the 2007 law as empowering DOE to “enforce a more efficient standard for light bulbs.” That really means “ban the manufacture or importation of light bulbs that don’t meet the standard.”
- Then Wogan, just like other liberal bloggers, has a gratuitous swipe at GOP-Big Oil ties, which can best be understood as a reflex reaction for liberal bloggers put in an awkward situation by the fact that they are firmly on the side of GE and the rest of the industry, and firmly against consumer choice
- Wogan also plays the obnoxious condescending mockery game, as if resisting petty tyranny is petty: “Somehow, through the absurdity of American politics, incandescent light bulbs have attained the same fervor-inducing status as assault rifles and extended magazines.” As I wrote about this a few months back: “It’s a great tactic for those wanting more state power: pass regulations controlling piddling details of people’s lives, and when anyone complains about these restraints, mock them for worrying about such piddling details.” If Wogan thinks light-bulbs aren’t important enough to get upset about, he should let us buy the kind of light bulbs we want to buy as long as there is someone willing to sell them to us
- More efficient light bulbs cost more to buy. You wouldn’t know that from liberals writing about. Wogan, for instance: “The now defunct standards wouldn’t have eliminated the incandescent bulb – they would have only required bulbs to become 30% more efficient, meaning you could still have an incandescent bulb. Only it would be better than the one you can stockpile from your Wal-Mart today.” I’m sure those high-efficiency incandescents exist in theory, at least, but I can’t find them, though. And I’m also sure they cost more.
There’s an old John Prine song about marijuana called “illegal smile.” I’m thinking of writing a song called “illegal light.”
