Bachman, Barton, Bulb Bill Buffoons Flog Fictitious Fascism Fantasies

August 5, 2011

Now Michelle Bachmann has made light bulb lunacy an issue in the presidential campaign.

Mother Jones:

Few issues get Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) going quite like lightbulbs. At campaign stops across the country, she has repeatedly denounced a 2007 law that required manufacturers to develop energy-efficient lightbulb varieties. Bachmann sees the law as an affront to American values. “I think Thomas Edison did a pretty patriotic thing for this country by inventing the lightbulb,” she told a New Hampshire audience in March. “And I think darn well, you New Hampshirites, if you want to buy Thomas Edison’s wonderful invention, you should be able to!”

In reality, no one’s stopping New Hampshirites (or anyone else, for that matter) from buying any kind of lightbulb they please—even the incandescent variety that Bachmann warns will be outlawed unless we pass the Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act that she supported. (BULB would repeal the energy-efficiency rules.) But Bachmann’s crusade is about much more than energy-conserving bulbs: The Minnesota congresswoman is part of a movement that considers “sustainability” an existential threat to the United States, one with far-reaching consequences for education, transportation, and family values. If Bachmann is right, lightbulbs will soon be the least of our worries.

Bachmann’s concerns may have been best articulated in an interview she gave to the American Family Association’s OneNewsNow in 2008. As Republicans in Washington revolted over the rising costs of gas, the then-freshman congresswoman outlined the stakes:
“This is their agenda—I know it’s hard to believe, it’s hard to fathom, but this is ‘Mission Accomplished’ for them,” she said of congressional Democrats. “They want Americans to take transit and move to the inner cities. They want Americans to move to the urban core, live in tenements, [and] take light rail to their government jobs. That’s their vision for America.”

7 Responses to “Bachman, Barton, Bulb Bill Buffoons Flog Fictitious Fascism Fantasies”

  1. lighthouse Says:

    Light Bulbs: True, the idea that “everyone has to use squiggly mercury-ridden CFLs” is wrong!

    Still, it is a Ban…
    An early ban on simple incandescents and an eventual ban on ALL known incandescents.
    Official links +updates:​
    Therefore also the hailed Halogen type replacements are banned before 2020 on the Energy Act 45 lumen per Watt specification

    the replacement incandescents have a different light quality as well as much greater expense for marginal savings, which is why neither Politicans or Consumers like them….
    and, overall, the savings don’t hold either for society (less than 1% US energy usage, 1-2% grid electricity) or for consumers, using DOE and other official
    statistics –

    How many Congressmen should it take to change a light bulb?
    How many Citizens should be allowed to choose?

  2. Moth Says:

    It’s the most batty war going on over there!

    Lighthouse sounds like a bulbtroll (most notably due to the insistence of a “ban” – ooo, government bad! Taking away my right to buy old tech… No, they’re not, but it’s easier to turn it into that kind of argument rather than admit that you like to waste money on increasingly obsolete equipment).

    You’d think, with Wall St as it is and the national debt, a war that’s cost you big and seems to be lingering for its own sake and with the rest of the world losing confidence in the US (investing elsewhere and making what moves they can do to reduce their emissions without US leadership) your government would have bigger issues to discuss than whether or not Edison’s globe needs to central to your illumination.

    • BlueRock Says:

      I think it’s impossible to tell trolls from the genuinely stupid on many Teabagger ‘hot’ issues. The Onion is almost indistinguishable from the Tea (Koch) Party.

      If efficient light bulbs have driven them this insane, Obama’s ’55 mpg cars by 2025′ policy is going to send them right over the edge.

      “You can have my 10 mpg SUV when you prise it from my cold, dead hands.”

      P.S. That ‘BachmanBulb’ image is hilarious.

      • Moth Says:

        Indeed – and then there’s the last few years of increasing venom which has left a lot in the blogosphere wanting to fight about anything..

        This lighthouse character sounds like the odd individual I run into who refers to adding fluoride in as “medicating water”. It’s hard to know whether or not they’re serious or just pulling your leg.

        • BlueRock Says:

          The venom. I don’t think that’s going to improve much in the coming years. The more the global warming thumbscrews tighten, the more both ‘sides’ will get increasingly angry for very different reasons.

          My ‘favourite’ at the moment is the people who genuinely seem to believe that radiation really isn’t that bad for you, and that anyone who says otherwise is “a fear-mongering Luddite hippy”.

          Are they serious? Are they confused? Is it possible that it’s orchestrated and the nuke industry would propagate such a vile lie?

          Sadly, I believe that last one is possible.

          • Moth Says:

            You’re kidding me – people are now in denial about radiation poisoning? I hadn’t heard that. I suppose the manufacturers of lead vests for x-ray machines are in on the evil plot too? All one needs to do is read up on the sad personal story of Marie Curie and her husband..

            We’re seriously stepping backwards into a pre-Enlightenment era, aren’t we?

            Moncktonian wisdom suggesting that scientists should need to demonstrate faith in a major religion before being allowed to research is the iconic sentiment for this head-in-the-sand movement.

          • BlueRock Says:

            Not quite outright denial, but certainly launching in to the usual rightwing ranting: “eco-loonies are exaggerating the dangers because they don’t understand the science”.

            Hit them with some science:

            * “A preponderance of scientific evidence shows that even low doses of ionizing radiation, such as gamma rays and X-rays, are likely to pose some risk of adverse health effects….”

            …and it barely puts a kink in their stride. A few talk about radiation hormesis (low doses of radiation are beneficial) as though it were fact when it’s just a fringe hypothesis with no widespread scientific support.

            I guess it all comes out of the rightwing echo chamber where it’s established ‘fact’ – along with the ‘fact’ that anything “those damn liberals” say must be false.

            Whatchagonnado? :/

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: