Q: How many progressives does it to take to change a lightbulb?
A: Why would you change it when you can ban it?
Notice one thing. I didn’t say “how many liberals or how many Democrats.” I purposely stated “progressives” because as this whole light bulb situation shows us, progressives exist in both parties.
It was George W. Bush after all, who signed the anti-free enterprise, liberty-killing “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007” into law.
As we now approach the elimination of the incandescent light bulb, we are faced with one of the realities of progressive actions when it comes to their “we know better than you” agenda.
The reality? Progressives are full of good intentions – along with being full of something else – but as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Another reality is this: their solutions don’t have to be practical, affordable, or realistic. As long as it’s idealistic and meets the requirements of their radical agenda, that’s good enough.
So, as January 2012 draws ever closer (when the phase out begins), we are faced with two primary options.
The first being the compact fluorescent, aka “the swirl.”
Besides the fact that it carries an average price of around $6.00 (as compared to an average of around $1.00 for the incandescent), it also contains poisonous gases that require you to follow a series of hazmat procedures if you break one in your home, not to mention the incredible hassle just to throw one away.
Other health issues are over-exposure to UV rays, blotchy skin, headaches and eye strain.
The second option comes to us courtesy of the LED light bulb.
While they don’t carry the health risk, they have another serious disadvantage, as we see in this little tidbit of information:
Two leading makers of lighting products are showcasing LED bulbs that are bright enough to replace energy-guzzling 100-watt light bulbs set to disappear from stores in January.
Their demonstrations at the LightFair trade show in Philadelphia this week mean that brighter LED bulbs will likely go on sale next year, but after a government ban takes effect.
The new bulbs will also be expensive — about $50 each — so the development may not prevent consumers from hoarding traditional bulbs.
With the average American struggling to put food on the table and gas in the car, isn’t it great that the “know-better-than-you” progressives have decided that money is no object when it comes to
their agenda saving the planet?
Michelle Malkin really puts in perspective:
I’m beyond perplexed by government officials and assorted Gorebots who lose sleep over how much earth-destroying electricity my incandescent bulbs devour and then try to convince me to help save the planet by purchasing a car I have to plug in. They know that electricity is generated from the same source… don’t they?
She also comes to a hilarious conclusion:
Coming soon, the sale or importation of old school light bulbs will be illegal, which means that the following conversation may soon take place in a federal prison cell somewhere in the United States:
“What’cha in for?”
“Bank robbery. You?”
“Incandescent light bulb.”
I close with a twist to my original question. . .
Q: How many light bulbs does it take to change a progressive?
A: None. Some things will never see the light no matter how brightly it shines.
What others had to say: