Big Doings Under The Big, Tarnished Dome: Dim Bulbs Changing Light Bulbs by Doug Wrenn

Big Doings Under The Big, Tarnished Dome:

Dim Bulbs Changing Light Bulbs

By Doug Wrenn

March 26, 2007

As if they have nothing better to do. Even Governor Rell recently expressed exasperation that the new veto-proof Democrat majority in the General Assembly has only given her one bill to sign in the 79 days since this session opened. And they want to be full time!

Whoever the disputed author was, his sage words still ring true today in the adage, "Government which governs least governs best." As a plethora of loopy ideas have been put forth so far by the Tarnished Dome-ites, the latest dreamy, Draconian brainstorm is to mandate the usage of new light bulbs. We would all be much better off if these overly bored legislators took an interest in crossword puzzles.

House Bill 6550, "An Act Concerning Inefficient Incandescent Lamps" has been proposed by Rep. Mary Mushinsky, a Draconi-crat from Wallingford, and co-sponsored by her fellow Draconi-crats, Reps. O'Rourke, Urban and Wright, from Cromwell, Stonington and Groton, respectively. The bill calls for the "Czar" of the Department of Environmental Protection to study the usage of compact fluorescent bulbs, and of course, the text of the bill mentions banning certain traditional types of bulbs, with a penalty and of course, a tax (euphemistically referred to as a "surcharge") attached.

I can only speculate that given this legislature's track record, future amendments to this bill will soon allow compact fluorescent bulbs to marry each other, and the banned incandescent bulbs will later be accepted for use, but only for medical purposes. It will also be a matter of time before the fine is increased for turning any light on while driving, and of course, it is also inevitable that lights must be removed from the cars of smokers, lest the new, young bulbs get exposed to second hand smoke in a closed vehicle. If it were up to me, I would sell the new bulbs in vending machines in school cafeterias and have the bulbs burn from an internal source of trans fats, but I doubt The Nanny State would ever allow those visionary illuminations to fly.

Another adage says, "As California goes, so does the country." Somehow, I doubt people in states like Alaska, Idaho, Texas, Wyoming and South Carolina would necessarily subscribe to such "wisdom," but here in The People's Socialist Republic Of Connecticut, our "comrades" just gobble it right up like tea in a glass. At least the libs on the left coast have a sense of humor. They have a similar bill in the pipeline called, "The How Many Legislators Does It Take To Change A Light Bulb Act." Beautiful! And as with many other examples of humor, what really tickles our funny bone is the ironic element of truth. California's bill calls for an outright ban, while here in Liberal Land Light, we're having a study first and will only mandate the new bulbs in new construction, and then collect the fines and taxes later. In cop parlance, this time-tested tactic for submission is called "good state, bad state."

In a nutshell, the new bulbs cost much more, and are marginally dimmer than the old bulbs, but the new bulbs use far less energy and last much longer. The bill is on its way to the Environment Committee as well it should. The greenies have done it to us again. Whenever the tree-huggers try to fix something, they just make it worse. Picture Gilligan trying to repair your boat engine. The new bulbs contain mercury. That's right, mercury, that scary stuff that made Torrington evacuate a school recently and necessitate firefighters and hazmat workers to don their space suits and gingerly make their way to the source of the problem, which, if I recall correctly, was a thermometer that was dropped and broken. Now the greenies want this stuff in these new light bulbs, you know, the bulbs that last much longer! There is already talk about "safe disposal." I can already envision another bin on my curb every Thursday, but this one red in color and with a skull and bones on the front. Or will local supermarkets give us change back for "safely disposed" light bulbs? Personally, I have had enough. I won't buy these stupid and dangerous bulbs. Much like the extra large toilets, they are well worth seeking on the black market, and if I am boxed into a corner into buying one of these little-mercury-containing-liberal- legislated-mandatory-illuminating-intrusions to my personal liberty, it will go into the weekly trash when it outlives its usefulness like everything else. To paraphrase President Jackson regarding Chief Justice Marshall, once the socialists under the big tarnished dome make their loony law, let them try to enforce it. I just don't care any more. I am at a point in my life that the more these closet-commies trample on my liberty, the more I will civilly disobey them. Liberal legislators with far too much spare time on their hands are kind of like a spoiled, bratty kid, throwing a marathon tantrum. You have two choices: you can smack these delirious idiots to make them come to their senses, or ignore them until they finally tire, shut up, go away and pester someone else for a while. For several of these rocket scientists, the former is my preference, but given the severity of criminal penalties for assault on feeble-minded people, I'll settle for the latter. I don't recycle bottles and cans (which drives my wife crazy). First of all, I can't be bothered cleaning bottles and cans out, peeling off the labels, sorting them and turning them in to the store for less than enough change to buy a mouthful of stale gumballs from the dusty machine by the exit door. Secondly, we spend more money on recycling than on the items recycled. Third, we are selling our plastics to China now, and excuse me, but China, and its military already has enough of our money. I'll be darned if I will go through another dog and pony show to throw out a stupid, stinking light bulb. Time is precious, limited and fleeting. Some people are state legislators. The rest of us have lives and responsibilities.

Only in this state would we go through so much effort to keep asbestos out of commercial buildings, lead out of houses and peanuts away from kids, but we light up our houses like the Christmas Tree in Central Park with long lasting tube shaped containers carrying mercury and protected only by glass. (Picture that environmental impact statement!) Actually, that does make sense though. Beyond the proposed penalties and taxes, the state could conduct a study to see how these bulbs affect minority children in lower class communities. Then they could create an agency to monitor companies to remove mercury light bulbs, and of course, that company would have to be certified and pay the state for its license, and on and on it goes.

All because we don't want to pay more for energy, which is because we don't want to build more power plants, because they pollute the air and water, which endanger the birds and the fish. So mercury it is and that way, we only endanger us people, and all in keeping with tradition with our equally environmentally hypersensitive, and often-in-the-dark and astronomically over-taxed mentor, California. Sigh! Problem solved.

Now, let's all hug.