<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel> <title> Comments on: Light bulb ban NOT repealed </title> <atom:link href="https://junkscience.com/2011/12/light-bulb-ban-not-repealed/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /> <link>https://junkscience.com/2011/12/light-bulb-ban-not-repealed/</link> <description>All the junk that’s fit to debunk.</description> <lastBuildDate>Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:14:20 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod> hourly </sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency> 1 </sy:updateFrequency> <generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.7.2</generator> <item> <title> By: Ralph </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2011/12/light-bulb-ban-not-repealed/#comment-6188</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Ralph]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:14:20 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://junksciencecom.wordpress.com/?p=7902#comment-6188</guid> <description><![CDATA[My reason for not buying CFL's http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6046/5911393665_97865e3476_z.jpg This was the last CFL that was in my house.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My reason for not buying CFL’s</p> <p><a href="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6046/5911393665_97865e3476_z.jpg" rel="nofollow ugc">http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6046/5911393665_97865e3476_z.jpg</a></p> <p>This was the last CFL that was in my house.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Edwin Loftus </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2011/12/light-bulb-ban-not-repealed/#comment-6187</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Edwin Loftus]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:12:27 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://junksciencecom.wordpress.com/?p=7902#comment-6187</guid> <description><![CDATA[I agree with the sentiment above that we should look at this as "a step toward" lifting the "ban". The solution to the problem lies in ending the Democratic Party's control over this and preventing that until the Democrats have changed again (if ever). The Republicans are not completely reliable on such issues either. At this time they are the means to block the Democrats who have been taken over by their Left. This push to mandate energy savings is a maneuver in the greater effort to establish centralized authority, the authroity for central government to control. That is an establishing element in the long-term effort to establish management in a social-corporation. So victory on this issue will be a setback for those pushing this social change, but it will not stop the effort. The goal is "dictatorship of the party of the people". That was the way it was expressed in the Soviet Union, but the current Democratic Party is not communist and in little to no danger of pursuing that approach. The American Democratic Party has become a socialist party and it is important to understand that there is a real difference between socialism and communism because communism was originally theorized as critique and alternative to socialism, not, (as most believe) to free-enterprise. When Marx refers to "Capitalism" he was speaking of the ability of the very wealthy to buy influence and eventual dominance over a socialist society, the kind of societies in which he lived and which he studied. Marx originally described an evolutionary process based on "Dialectic-Materialism" as manifest through class-struggle. Class-struggle (despite current ignorant misinterpretations) exists only in the type of structuire in which the interests of a lower class are pitted against those of an upper and more powerful class. They depend on political power being seizable by cooperative efforts by competing classes. That does not exist in the limited, divided system that facilitates free-enterprise as Smith envisioned it. In the free-market system (which can only be free in the abscence of controlling political structure) mobility beteen varying levels of wealth are too fluid to establish competing classes. The poorest worker is always no more than a good idea or opportunity to a few generations of accumulated and inherited wealth away from entering the upper ranges of wealth. while the wealthy are always a few bad decisions away from falling to a far lower position of wealth. The free-market also pits wealth against wealth. Without a power structure to take over that is capable of controlling opportunty within the society, the greatest threat to great wealth is the potential rise of competition with newer and fresher ideas that will out-compete established manufacturers. So the free-market, like divided government with restricted authorities, pits power against power while the centralization of power ensures the dominance of society by major sources of power; political and economic and physical. Marx's communism was a theoretical point in an evolutionary process. But it critiqued socialism and provided socialism with a strawman to stand against. Because of similarities with theoretical, democratic-socialism the socialists were able to use communism as a false comparison to which they asserted, their socialist ideals were relatively moderate. In competition with free-market models, socialism made poor sense. So the socialists learned to associate communism, with its rich theoretical terminology, with socialism, while they associated themselves with free-enterprise-with-a-democratic-force-to-prevent-the-excesses-of-capitalism. They set up a continuum with communism at one end and free-enterprise at the other and socialism as the moderate compromise between these "extremes". But it was all a lie to make socialism, the true extreme, seem more acceptable. To understand this one needs to understand that communism is only a theoretical social organization. There has never been a large, modern, communal society. This is a pure Rouseauian dream world in which all property and politiacla/commercial activity is controlled by the people who at the level closest to the property and activity through various democratically run "communes" that overlap each other in membership but are distinct based on their application. So each farm or factory is a commune. Each worker also belongs to communes based on where they live and based on any other activities inwhich they are involved, like arts-communes and recreational-communes. All of these communes are members of larger, regional communes and so on. As Marx explained, the "means of production" are controlled by those engaged in the production. It is in socialism that the state controls every (or any) element of society. In communism there would be no central control. I'm not advocating for communism. It is a theoretical stage that I don't believe could be achieved or maintained. What I'm trying to convey is that what we are told are communism and socialism are not those things. This is a multi-generational fiction developed to disguise what is truly socialism from recognition. Real socialism is actually a slightly modified re-hash of aristocracy and monarchy with trappings of a pseudo-free-enterprise (controlled by the state) and trappings of democracy (with choices limited to more or less active or extensive control by the state). But the state does not actually control. The state is established to act as arbitrator between the masters of various types of power within the society: leaders of Business, Labor, social issues, Bureaucracies and Police and Military leaders. the main differences are that the new aristocrats and leaders of the state arise from the aristocracy through popular acceptance instead of birth-heritage or ability to destroy the competition. Once accepted, they assume the role and powers of modern monarchs and their councils of peers remaining in power by consent of the populace and peers. In the long run this is likely to devolve into a new system of birth-inheritance, (as we see in North Korea and Cuba today) and see throughout the "democratic" countries in family-political-dynasties (or in the 19th Century in the inheritance of prestige by Louis-Napoleon near the end of the post Revolutionary instability. The importance of light bulbs saving energy that is only in shortage because of government retrictions on energy production is in establishing the power of the central government to control these things. This is similar to the take-over of health insurance made desirable by the intentional expansion of demand beyond supply beginning with the incentives for employer-provided healthcare insurance, medicare, medicaid and federal regulation of healthcare systems based on those federal "interests", the promotion of inflated tort judgments leading to inflated liability costs, etc. In every element of life we have seen the government promotion inflated markets leading to suppliments that further inflate the market leading to regulations that further inflate the market leading to more suppliments by central government leading to greater and greater problems with all solutions leading to the establishment of further federal control. At every step, this is supported by statistical studies of dubious, pseudo-scientific merit based on the theory that this can identify great social imperfections that can only be resolved through the application of great society-encompassing political power. And the pseudo-science, Sociology, that justifies these needs was developed by the socialists to justify the need for their take-over of civilization. This too crude outline cannot contain the complexity of this development, as complex as the history of civilization over the last few hundred years. What these light bulbs are is a particular tiny step in the grand struggle to reassert the theory that human beings are not fit to run their own lives and need to be directed by a gifted few who can better understand what needs to be done in order to maintain and improve civilization.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with the sentiment above that we should look at this as “a step toward” lifting the “ban”. The solution to the problem lies in ending the Democratic Party’s control over this and preventing that until the Democrats have changed again (if ever). The Republicans are not completely reliable on such issues either. At this time they are the means to block the Democrats who have been taken over by their Left.<br /> This push to mandate energy savings is a maneuver in the greater effort to establish centralized authority, the authroity for central government to control. That is an establishing element in the long-term effort to establish management in a social-corporation. So victory on this issue will be a setback for those pushing this social change, but it will not stop the effort. The goal is “dictatorship of the party of the people”. That was the way it was expressed in the Soviet Union, but the current Democratic Party is not communist and in little to no danger of pursuing that approach.<br /> The American Democratic Party has become a socialist party and it is important to understand that there is a real difference between socialism and communism because communism was originally theorized as critique and alternative to socialism, not, (as most believe) to free-enterprise. When Marx refers to “Capitalism” he was speaking of the ability of the very wealthy to buy influence and eventual dominance over a socialist society, the kind of societies in which he lived and which he studied. Marx originally described an evolutionary process based on “Dialectic-Materialism” as manifest through class-struggle. Class-struggle (despite current ignorant misinterpretations) exists only in the type of structuire in which the interests of a lower class are pitted against those of an upper and more powerful class. They depend on political power being seizable by cooperative efforts by competing classes. That does not exist in the limited, divided system that facilitates free-enterprise as Smith envisioned it. In the free-market system (which can only be free in the abscence of controlling political structure) mobility beteen varying levels of wealth are too fluid to establish competing classes. The poorest worker is always no more than a good idea or opportunity to a few generations of accumulated and inherited wealth away from entering the upper ranges of wealth. while the wealthy are always a few bad decisions away from falling to a far lower position of wealth. The free-market also pits wealth against wealth. Without a power structure to take over that is capable of controlling opportunty within the society, the greatest threat to great wealth is the potential rise of competition with newer and fresher ideas that will out-compete established manufacturers. So the free-market, like divided government with restricted authorities, pits power against power while the centralization of power ensures the dominance of society by major sources of power; political and economic and physical.<br /> Marx’s communism was a theoretical point in an evolutionary process. But it critiqued socialism and provided socialism with a strawman to stand against. Because of similarities with theoretical, democratic-socialism the socialists were able to use communism as a false comparison to which they asserted, their socialist ideals were relatively moderate. In competition with free-market models, socialism made poor sense. So the socialists learned to associate communism, with its rich theoretical terminology, with socialism, while they associated themselves with free-enterprise-with-a-democratic-force-to-prevent-the-excesses-of-capitalism. They set up a continuum with communism at one end and free-enterprise at the other and socialism as the moderate compromise between these “extremes”. But it was all a lie to make socialism, the true extreme, seem more acceptable.<br /> To understand this one needs to understand that communism is only a theoretical social organization. There has never been a large, modern, communal society. This is a pure Rouseauian dream world in which all property and politiacla/commercial activity is controlled by the people who at the level closest to the property and activity through various democratically run “communes” that overlap each other in membership but are distinct based on their application. So each farm or factory is a commune. Each worker also belongs to communes based on where they live and based on any other activities inwhich they are involved, like arts-communes and recreational-communes. All of these communes are members of larger, regional communes and so on. As Marx explained, the “means of production” are controlled by those engaged in the production. It is in socialism that the state controls every (or any) element of society. In communism there would be no central control.</p> <p>I’m not advocating for communism. It is a theoretical stage that I don’t believe could be achieved or maintained. What I’m trying to convey is that what we are told are communism and socialism are not those things. This is a multi-generational fiction developed to disguise what is truly socialism from recognition. Real socialism is actually a slightly modified re-hash of aristocracy and monarchy with trappings of a pseudo-free-enterprise (controlled by the state) and trappings of democracy (with choices limited to more or less active or extensive control by the state). But the state does not actually control. The state is established to act as arbitrator between the masters of various types of power within the society: leaders of Business, Labor, social issues, Bureaucracies and Police and Military leaders. the main differences are that the new aristocrats and leaders of the state arise from the aristocracy through popular acceptance instead of birth-heritage or ability to destroy the competition. Once accepted, they assume the role and powers of modern monarchs and their councils of peers remaining in power by consent of the populace and peers. In the long run this is likely to devolve into a new system of birth-inheritance, (as we see in North Korea and Cuba today) and see throughout the “democratic” countries in family-political-dynasties (or in the 19th Century in the inheritance of prestige by Louis-Napoleon near the end of the post Revolutionary instability.<br /> The importance of light bulbs saving energy that is only in shortage because of government retrictions on energy production is in establishing the power of the central government to control these things. This is similar to the take-over of health insurance made desirable by the intentional expansion of demand beyond supply beginning with the incentives for employer-provided healthcare insurance, medicare, medicaid and federal regulation of healthcare systems based on those federal “interests”, the promotion of inflated tort judgments leading to inflated liability costs, etc. In every element of life we have seen the government promotion inflated markets leading to suppliments that further inflate the market leading to regulations that further inflate the market leading to more suppliments by central government leading to greater and greater problems with all solutions leading to the establishment of further federal control. At every step, this is supported by statistical studies of dubious, pseudo-scientific merit based on the theory that this can identify great social imperfections that can only be resolved through the application of great society-encompassing political power. And the pseudo-science, Sociology, that justifies these needs was developed by the socialists to justify the need for their take-over of civilization.</p> <p>This too crude outline cannot contain the complexity of this development, as complex as the history of civilization over the last few hundred years. What these light bulbs are is a particular tiny step in the grand struggle to reassert the theory that human beings are not fit to run their own lives and need to be directed by a gifted few who can better understand what needs to be done in order to maintain and improve civilization.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: jims </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2011/12/light-bulb-ban-not-repealed/#comment-6186</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[jims]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:22:13 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://junksciencecom.wordpress.com/?p=7902#comment-6186</guid> <description><![CDATA[Someone should follow the lead of that guy in Germany to get around the EU nannystate. He sold the 100 watt bulbs as "incandescent space heaters"]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Someone should follow the lead of that guy in Germany to get around the EU nannystate. He sold the 100 watt bulbs as “incandescent space heaters”</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: lighthouse </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2011/12/light-bulb-ban-not-repealed/#comment-6185</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[lighthouse]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:24:09 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://junksciencecom.wordpress.com/?p=7902#comment-6185</guid> <description><![CDATA[To summarize, It is true that the amendment makes little difference in the short term. But it should be added that the Republican amendment was not pointless: It was all they could do in a Democrat controlled Senate, and it means Congressmen are forced to look again at the whole issue in election year 2012. The 2012 sale of regular incandescents was NEVER banned Only the manufacture and import. Since stores are stocking up, it will not change things for consumers short term. Remember too that Canada delayed a ban to 2014, allowing cross-border purchases. The Mexico situation is under review, they are suppposed to bring in a ban but grid issues are affecting it (following the massive CFL switchover program this fall, copying California etc programs, but CFLs affect grids with harmonic distortion etc http://ceolas.net/#li15eux ) Long term is a different story: Whatever the ban proponents say, incandescent technology for ordinary lamps will effectively be banned, on the mandated 45 lumen per Watt end regulation standard. A full explanation of current light bulb regulations, and any amendment effect http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/12/after-funding-amendment-clear_18.html .]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To summarize,</p> <p>It is true that the amendment makes little difference in the short term.</p> <p>But it should be added that the Republican amendment was not pointless:<br /> It was all they could do in a Democrat controlled Senate,<br /> and it means Congressmen are forced to look again at the whole issue in election year 2012.</p> <p>The 2012 sale of regular incandescents was NEVER banned<br /> Only the manufacture and import.<br /> Since stores are stocking up, it will not change things for consumers short term.</p> <p>Remember too that Canada delayed a ban to 2014, allowing cross-border purchases.<br /> The Mexico situation is under review, they are suppposed to bring in a ban but grid issues<br /> are affecting it (following the massive CFL switchover program this fall, copying California etc programs,<br /> but CFLs affect grids with harmonic distortion etc <a href="http://ceolas.net/#li15eux" rel="nofollow ugc">http://ceolas.net/#li15eux</a> )</p> <p>Long term is a different story:<br /> Whatever the ban proponents say,<br /> incandescent technology for ordinary lamps will effectively be banned,<br /> on the mandated 45 lumen per Watt end regulation standard.</p> <p>A full explanation of current light bulb regulations,<br /> and any amendment effect<br /> <a href="http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/12/after-funding-amendment-clear_18.html" rel="nofollow ugc">http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/12/after-funding-amendment-clear_18.html</a></p> <p>.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: INCANDESCENTS FOREVER </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2011/12/light-bulb-ban-not-repealed/#comment-6184</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[INCANDESCENTS FOREVER]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:46:46 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://junksciencecom.wordpress.com/?p=7902#comment-6184</guid> <description><![CDATA[CHANT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS! SPREAD IT EVERYWHERE! HELL NO, WE WON'T CHANGE! WE DON'T WANT YOUR COMMIE BULBS! HELL NO, WE WON'T CHANGE! WE DON'T WANT YOUR COMMIE BULBS! HELL NO, WE WON'T CHANGE! WE DON'T WANT YOUR COMMIE BULBS!]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>CHANT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS!</p> <p>SPREAD IT EVERYWHERE!</p> <p>HELL NO, WE WON’T CHANGE!<br /> WE DON’T WANT YOUR COMMIE BULBS!</p> <p>HELL NO, WE WON’T CHANGE!<br /> WE DON’T WANT YOUR COMMIE BULBS!</p> <p>HELL NO, WE WON’T CHANGE!<br /> WE DON’T WANT YOUR COMMIE BULBS!</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Dan from Ohio </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2011/12/light-bulb-ban-not-repealed/#comment-6183</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Dan from Ohio]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 18 Dec 2011 02:03:23 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://junksciencecom.wordpress.com/?p=7902#comment-6183</guid> <description><![CDATA[I propose that we from now on refer to CFLs as "mercury light bulbs". That oughta get the greenies good and panicking]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I propose that we from now on refer to CFLs as “mercury light bulbs”. That oughta get the greenies good and panicking</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: JGDP </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2011/12/light-bulb-ban-not-repealed/#comment-6182</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[JGDP]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2011 15:42:40 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://junksciencecom.wordpress.com/?p=7902#comment-6182</guid> <description><![CDATA[In reply to <a href="https://junkscience.com/2011/12/light-bulb-ban-not-repealed/#comment-6177">Art</a>. California idiots! Mold, even worse than dreaded asbestos. Totally worthless government dim bulbs...]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://junkscience.com/2011/12/light-bulb-ban-not-repealed/#comment-6177">Art</a>.</p> <p>California idiots! Mold, even worse than dreaded asbestos. Totally worthless government dim bulbs…</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: G Taylor </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2011/12/light-bulb-ban-not-repealed/#comment-6181</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[G Taylor]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2011 00:50:18 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://junksciencecom.wordpress.com/?p=7902#comment-6181</guid> <description><![CDATA[I found 150's and 200's. The have not yet been banned. And they are awesome bright. Just call me Big Carbon.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I found 150’s and 200’s. The have not yet been banned. And they are awesome bright. Just call me Big Carbon.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: Nowir1 </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2011/12/light-bulb-ban-not-repealed/#comment-6180</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Nowir1]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2011 00:38:55 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://junksciencecom.wordpress.com/?p=7902#comment-6180</guid> <description><![CDATA[Don't fall for a halogen lamp "within a light bulb" like I did. They may be bright enough but they have a short lifetime.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don’t fall for a halogen lamp “within a light bulb” like I did. They may be bright enough but they have a short lifetime.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title> By: lighthouse </title> <link>https://junkscience.com/2011/12/light-bulb-ban-not-repealed/#comment-6179</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[lighthouse]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:41:11 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://junksciencecom.wordpress.com/?p=7902#comment-6179</guid> <description><![CDATA[Re Last, correction the bulbs and building, cars, washing machines etc could simply be taxed -- and pay for price reduction on their energy saving alternatives, of course (= not just CFLs, LEDs !) on such ideology]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re Last, correction<br /> the bulbs and building, cars, washing machines etc<br /> could simply be taxed — and pay for price reduction on their energy saving alternatives, of course<br /> (= not just CFLs, LEDs !) on such ideology</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>