Deconstructing "Progressive " thought

[a_majoor]

Light bulbs make a perfect test case for how Progressives really think and act:

http://no-pasaran.blogspot.ca/2014/01/the-light-bulb-ban-provides-useful.html

The light bulb ban provides a useful window into the mindset of liberals: the debate has nothing to do with which bulb is better, but rather who gets to decide

The bulb debate has become a flash point between conservatives and their progressive opponents
writes Benny Huang of the new law making it illegal to sell or import household bulbs that use more than forty watts and the incandescent light bulb accordingly dying an ignominious death after serving humanity well for fourteen decades. See also Tim Carney's Industry, not environmentalists, killed traditional bulbs (thanks to Instapundit; plus, thanks for the the link): "consumer choice is no good either for nanny-staters or companies seeking high profit margins."

Regardless of party affiliations, true conservatives have made the old fashioned light bulb—an unassuming household item—into a symbol for something much larger. But what, exactly? At the risk of sounding melodramatic, it has become symbolic of the fight between liberty and tyranny.

Liberals will of course scoff at the laughable notion of “light bulb tyranny” and accuse me of hyperventilating overreaction. That’s just liberals doing what they do best—pooh-poohing their opponents’ concerns as triflingly insignificant. Yet I suspect that even they understand that there’s a larger principle at stake here. Heaven knows that they have done everything in their power to thwart any attempt to derail the coming ban on incandescent bulbs. If the whole light bulb issue were insignificant they’d let conservatives win this battle and get on with the rest of their agenda: killing jobs and dumbing down education.

The new bulbs are fine by me. … Given the choice, I would probably select the energy-saving model over the incandescent.

But I won’t have a choice starting on the first of the year, and that’s really the rub. There’s something very wrong with America when the federal government selects light bulbs for its citizens. The fight over illumination is about so much more than just light bulbs; it’s about governmental overreach.

The light bulb ban provides a useful window into the mindset of liberals. Here’s how they see the issue: energy-saving bulbs are better, therefore the others should be illegal. The pattern repeats itself in nearly every other realm: they determine the best policy, then impose it in a top down manner with no regard for states, localities, or individuals. Arguing with them about choice is futile because they cannot fathom the idea that the debate has nothing to do with which bulb is better, but rather who gets to decide.

… I am willing to buy a light bulb that costs fifteen times more if it will last ten times longer and reduce my electricity bill. I just don’t like the government making that decision for everyone. It should leave well enough alone, allow both bulbs to peacefully coexist on shelves across America, and let consumers decide for themselves which one is best for them.

Why can’t the government do that? The answer is simple: because Americans might choose the wrong one!

Liberals’ famous reverence for choice arose only because they couldn’t bring themselves to utter the word ”abortion” in a debate that is clearly about that very thing. Consequently, the word “choice” has been used so frequently in reference to the gruesome procedure that it is now universally understood to mean abortion. When a reporter asks a politician where he stands on the issue of “choice” people understand without any further context what the reporter means. (Hint: not light bulbs.)

I’m pro-choice too; pro-light bulb choice, that is. Speaking for the pro-light bulb choice crowd, I would like to say that we don’t hate curly-Q’s. We simply want the federal government to circumscribe the scope of its legislation to its rightful enumerated powers spelled out in the Constitution. The light bulb ban clearly exceeds the federal government’s authority to regulate interstate trade, going so far as to regulate intrastate as well. We also want the government to stop forcing their preference on the rest of us. It’s not as if we’re asking them to legalize an act of horrific violence against a child, we just want to pick the bulb we like best. Is that too much to ask?

Yes, it is, because all of this choosing and self-determination might become contagious. People might start asking the government, particularly the federal government, to stop sticking its nose into all sorts of other issues that are none of their business. Excluding the government from such decisions would necessarily reduce its power. Those top-down solutions they fancy so much might become a rarity. They won’t stand for it.

 

[Good2Golf]

Tungsten filaments are bad! 

Fluorescent bulbs containing poisonous mercury are....ummm....much....safer..."

:not-again:

 

[Kirkhill]

Don't for get to turn up your furnace 60 watts for every incandescent replaced by CFLs or LEDs.

I understand it is getting cold in Toronto.

 

[vonGarvin]

Don't for get to turn up your furnace 60 watts for every incandescent replaced by CFLs or LEDs.

I understand it is getting cold in Toronto.

There was a SUN NEWS article on Facebook about this.  I pointed out that for every unit of heat that light bulbs don't produce because of the switch, to maintain the same level of heat, your furnace will have to work that much more.  Some asked for studies to prove this, I merely pointed out that it was physics, which is a zero sum game.
And of course, mercury isn't *that* bad...

 

[Brad Sallows]

A furnace probably transfers energy from another form into heat more efficiently (cost-effectively).

Regardless, the sufficient reason to continue producing and using incandescent bulbs is that there are some applications for which they are superior (eg. frequent on/off, immediate full illumination).

 

[vonGarvin]

Don't forget heat loss in the ducts, and the electricity to run the blower. Etc. Overall, probably not that much difference.
Still, it's not factored at all when "they" talk about energy savings.

 

[Kirkhill]

Another point to take into consideration Brad, is that light's are on, and thus contributing heat, in the spaces people occupy, adding to the heat that people themselves generate (and their computers and TVs - those lovely, energy inefficient, 52" screens function very effectively as a fireplace - regardless of whether or not the Holiday Log is burning)

Most forced air furnace systems distribute heat generally, even into the spaces that people aren't.

A simple solution to energy efficiency is to ditch the open-plan building concept and hang more doors to put plugs in the holes.  Then you can contain the heat locally in the inhabited space.  Top up with space heaters as required.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>those lovely, energy inefficient, 52" screens function very effectively as a fireplace

Yes, they do.  Very nice in winter, less so during the annual two-week summer heat wave.

 

[cavalryman]

A simple solution to energy efficiency is to ditch the open-plan building concept and hang more doors to put plugs in the holes.  Then you can contain the heat locally in the inhabited space.  Top up with space heaters as required.

Like every apartment I've inhabited in Germany...  Mind you, every single bathroom ended up freezing cold - made for quick visits ;D

 

[Nemo888]

Far too much of the environmental agenda comes from California. There every watt of heat has to be countered by an air conditioner and they often use 100% of the available surface water. They also drain more from their aquifers than they replace annually. These are huge issues there.

In Canada these things are irrelevant. In Canada 5$ of weather stripping can do more than a low flow toilet and mercury laden CFL's to your annual energy consumption. I swap out most of my CFL's for incandescent every fall when it gets cold.  I also found a toilet that will actually flush solids properly. IKEA has some great LED lamps now. Better than both CFL and incandescents. I'm switching over to those as they are pretty awesome.

 

[a_majoor]

While I am for LED bulbs in principle, the local Home Depot has single 60 W replacement bulbs at $13/ea, while some CFL's can be had in 2 and 3 packs for about the same price (and you can buy @ 48 conventional lightbulbs for the same price at the Superstore or the Dollar store).

 

[George Wallace]

While I am for LED bulbs in principle, the local Home Depot has single 60 W replacement bulbs at $13/ea, while some CFL's can be had in 2 and 3 packs for about the same price (and you can buy @ 48 conventional lightbulbs for the same price at the Superstore or the Dollar store).

What are their "Life Spans"?  One that lasts 5 years is better than two that last 2 years, or then that last 6 months.  Or is my math all screwed up?

 

[a_majoor]

In gereral, I don't find CFL's to last anywhere near as long as advertized, and if you try to use them in a "harsh" environment like the inside of a garage or the exterior lights, they might not even last a year.

I have no experience with high power LED's, but the fact they need large heat sinks makes me suspect they are not quite what they are cracked up to be either (if they are in an enclosed fixture they will probably overheat and die as well....)

 

[Nemo888]

I don't care for the Home Depot LED bulbs. They are a generation behind and overpriced. IKEA has stepped up with some decent dimmable LEDs. The 10 watt perform exactly like a 60w bulb. Inside a frosted(but not sealed) fixture I can't tell the difference. They are much more durable than CFL's, which I think are junk.  They are rated for 25,000 hours. Not cheap at 14.99$ but the 10w is cutting edge. The 6.3w is almost as good and much cheaper at 8$ or so.

They have decent colour temperature, turn on instantly, are dimmable and don't flash or strobe like the last generation. In two years CFL's are dead as LED will crush them for 90% of applications. I don't think I would bother buying another CFL. I also have a number of incandescent bulbs stored in the basement now that Ontario has banned them. I want to try one of the 6.3w LED's in my trouble light to see how durable it is compared to an incandescent.

 

[pbi]

I've got quite a few LEDs in my house: I'm gradually replacing all my CFLs (only a couple left...I never really liked them), and my few remaining incandescents and my single fluorescent. I've got LEDs in several different types of mountings, including the dimmable pot lights I did in my TV room downstairs, where they produce next to no heat (unlike traditional pot lights), and in kitchen and hallway fixtures.

I've purchased them from various suppliers: in general they seem to be getting much better each year. I did initially have one or two that flickered, but not lately.

I haven't done any scientific testing, but if their lifespan claims are correct (too early to tell), coupled with a claimed  lower power demand and an evidently much lower heat output, then they seem like a good thing so far.

 

[CougarKing]

Boris merely states a simple truism.  Sooner his honesty that Clegg's smarm any day.  Clegg believes that he is of the elite but refuses to utter the phrase.  Instead he (and his wife) "suffer" the indigent while never associating with them.

The leftists win by pretending that they can, and that they want to, make all right with the world, and deliver every street sweeper Buckingham Palace.

Boris wasn't being unpleasant.  He was being honest.

Seems millionaire Kevin O'Leary is being just as honest to the CBC's Amanda Lang in this video as British MP and former London Mayor Boris Johnson was in the situation described by Kirkhill in the above quote.

CBC youtube link: Kevin O' Leary on Global Inequality: "It's Fantastic"

What progressives don't get if they have ever had economics training is that wealth redistribution won't work.

"Why redistribute wealth from an economic pie when growing the size of the pie is better, since it will mean more for both the rich and poor?" as one of my grad. school professors once said. 

 

[Nemo888]

The only weird thing about LED's is they cannot radiate heat . They can only dissipate heat by convection. So they can't be put in sealed fixtures or they will overheat and die early. This is why they have substantial heat sinks.

As to O'Leary thinking it's fantastic that 85 people own more than 3.5 billion I think he has become intoxicated on theories. In reality wealth redistribution works great up to a point and creates that bigger pie you talk about. The exact point is floating and not constant. It does seem that the magic number for it failing is 50%. Once you reach that things usually break down. When FDR brought out the New Deal it was to prevent a revolution that would have killed capitalism. His top income tax rate was 94% as a punishment for the staggering inequality of the time. Capitalism has a moral framework(Adam Smith) in theory. The reality is that economic systems tend to throw off any collar we put on them and are innately prone to abuse. For decades the pie has grown and the slice average people get is not changing. The stock market has never been higher, but Americans are still getting poorer. Trickle down is pseudoscientific mythology. What we need much more than the redistribution of wealth is the redistribution of opportunity.

 

[vonGarvin]

What we need much more than the redistribution of wealth is the redistribution of opportunity.

:bullshit:

The opportunities are there, irrespective of money or other wealth.  What people want is results with no effort.  Gentlemen such as O'Leary (et al) have taken risks, done the work themselves etc to get themselves to where they are today.  People want something for nothing.  "Give me convenience, or give me death" ought to be their rally call.

 

[Edward Campbell]

:bullshit:

The opportunities are there, irrespective of money or other wealth.  What people want is results with no effort.  Gentlemen such as O'Leary (et al) have taken risks, done the work themselves etc to get themselves to where they are today.  People want something for nothing.  "Give me convenience, or give me death" ought to be their rally call.

:goodpost:

The problem with the misnamed progressives is that they hate progress.

Real human progress comes when ordinary people master the skills and knowledge necessary to advance their own prosperity: farming, weaving, carpentry, metal working, chemistry, sailing, medicine, machinery, steam power, internal combustion, electricity, flying, nuclear technology, computing and genetics. None of these things ever required any redistribution of anything. If anything, opportunity is hampered by the lunatic left which wants "every child to succeed" when it is plainly obvious to anyone with the brains the gods gave to green peppers that we are not all equal in much of anything ... save, perhaps greed and envy. The young people who will lead the world to a better, more prosperous tomorrow will be literate and numerate ... those who are most literate and most numerate will become rich and powerful. Those with great self esteem but little in the way of hard academic or technical skills will polish shoes and serve meals to those who actually worked in school, apprentice programmes and colleges, in universities and in productive occupations.

I am the first to admit that we can and need to do better at providing "equality of opportunity." I have no doubt, not even a smidgen, that children from middle and upper class families attend "better" elementary, middle and high schools and are, broadly and generally, much better prepared for college and university (and the higher incomes that come to those who graduate fromreal programmes (not victim studies)). But I am reassured, every year, when I read that kids from low income families, who worked their tails off in less than really first rate schools, get high value scholarships to first rate universities because that proves to me that anyone can overcome the system that the lunatic left has put in place.

The points is that it is real, ordinary people who overcome the stupidity of socialism and achieve success ... we are all equal in our ability to exploit our own talents to achieve as much as we can. Governments, broadly, except for a few a few agencies like the treasury and the courts, just get in the way and make things harder by trying to make things "equal."

 

[George Wallace]

Education is a determining factor in success and upward mobility on the personal wealth scale.  The poor will remain poor if they do not become educated.  Without an education, the opportunities for upward mobility in society is not going to be achievable.  Thus the poor will be relegated to the lower end paying occupations.  It is those who have strived to better themselves through knowledge, who have broken through the 'class barriers' to no longer be below the 'poverty level'.