Okay, okay — I think I’ve calmed down a bit since this morning’s volatile reaction to me spending yet another day eating potato chips and reading math books (yes, really).
It would seem, however, that I’ve already missed yesterday’s vote to repeal the BULB Act. Considering how much media attention this little thing got when it was first introduced (I do believe Fox spent an entire WEEK just raving on and on about how they felt totally violated by Big Government), I am surprised that the rushed vote, which got run out onto the House floor under special conditions, came and went without so much as a peep. Gee, I wonder why that is?
Anyhow — the repeal received a majority vote, but lacked the required super-majority it needed to be passed. I guess it’s a small victory for common sense, but I think the very fact that this was voted on at all is a travesty. Why, in the dark hours before a decision on the debt ceiling, in the face of the need of real budgeting-related reforms covering everything from medicare to welfare to taxes and incentives, are we wasting time and man-power (after all, someone has to write this legislation) on what basically amounts to a nod to someone’s special interest backer?
The justification for this vote seems morally sound: some lawmakers argue that the law encroaches on the personal freedoms of citizens to buy whatever products they want. If there is anything that we should fight for in this country, after all, its our personal rights. There are two things wrong with this argument, however:
1.) It is terribly ironic and two-faced. The grounds used to argue against the Bulb Act — that it is an infringement on our personal freedoms to dictate what consumer products we may buy — suddenly disappear when applied to other consumer products that far-right conservatives want to see out of reach. Example? It is illegal to purchase sex toys in the state of Alabama. There are, of course, less raunchy examples of why arguing this case is a very bad idea — for instance, it would tear open a gaping hole on other (mostly) sensible laws, such as banning the purchase and trade of exotic or venomous animals, cheap out-of-country pharmaceuticals, and pipe bombs.
2.) The BULB Act does not actually ban or prohibit the purchase of incandescent lights. That’s the kicker. The Act actually attempts to enforce a better standard for manufacturing bulbs — all bulbs — so that they are more efficient. In short, the law is a PRO-CONSUMER law. There is nothing stopping a company from inventing a light that meets these standards but produces the same lighting effect, or has the same beloved shape, of today’s incandescents. (Personally, I could care less about its shape, since I don’t stare directly into lights or anything, but the folks at Fox get genuinely upset about it.)
Chaotic Thought 