Political Crusaders (by Thomas Sowell)

[EveningStar]

Thomas Sowell
Townhall.com
April 16, 2008

The latest political crusade is the crusade to replace ordinary light bulbs with the new CFL light bulb that is supposed to save electricity, reducing the need for fossil fuels and helping the fight against global warming...
More, with reader comments (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/04/16/political_crusaders?page=full&comments=true)

[Neil Peart]

Before I read this, I didn't know the downsides to CFL lightbulbs. Now I dislike the environazis even more.

[Naturalized-Texan]

A few months ago Rush quoted an article from a New England newspaper about a woman who dropped and broke a CFL light bulb in her child's bedroom. She had to hire a HazMat crew to clean up the mercury before she could allow the child to return to the room - the cost was over $2,000. For just ONE broken CFL bulb.

[MaximumSam]

I actually opened the article ready to eat my words about Sowell. Environmentalists are especially guilty of not following through on their recommendations to see what their costs are. New light bulbs are all the rage, for a good reason - they use drastically less energy than regular light bulbs. However, how much energy do they use in their creation? How are they disposed of? What are they made of, and are these resources rare or dangerous? A very strong column can be written about this topic.

No surprise, then, that Sowell loses interest in the topic about a third of the way through, switches gears and talks about the airline cancellations. Then he breifely mentions the Food and Drug Administration, all in an effort to apparently condemn all efforts to be safe.

[EveningStar]

No surprise, then, that Sowell loses interest in the topic about a third of the way through, switches gears and talks about the airline cancellations. Then he breifely mentions the Food and Drug Administration, all in an effort to apparently condemn all efforts to be safe.
Sam, his article was not about light bulbs. It was about people who try to protect us from ourselves and stumble badly. The light bulb story was but the first example.

But, yes. I think it would have been just as good an article if he'd confined his story to light bulbs and expanded on it.

[Wyatt_Junker]

I can't throw away flourescent bulbs anymore without getting a disposal permit fee.

I have to call a guy in from Hazmat wearing rubber gloves and carrying titanium tongs to pick up each deadly and long, white mercury laden tube whereas before I could just smash them on my leg and chuck them in the dumpster.

Now, it costs more to get rid of them than to buy them.

[BuckeyeMike]

Sound PROGRESSIVE to me!

[MaximumSam]

Sam, his article was not about light bulbs. It was about people who try to protect us from ourselves and stumble badly. The light bulb story was but the first example.

But, yes. I think it would have been just as good an article if he'd confined his story to light bulbs and expanded on it.

I know it isn't about light bulbs. I'm saying his column has no strong point. There is a cost to safety crusading. Well, duh. If focused on any one topic and proved his point, I think he'd be much more effective. After reading his article, I still have no idea if he's even against the new light bulbs. It seems doubtful that he's against every measure to improve efficiency or safety.

[BarkleUSA]

RE:
It seems doubtful that he's against every measure to improve efficiency or safety.

It's not government's job to impose measures to improve efficiency or safety.

The free market in which people decide for themselves the cost/benefit in each consumer decision works far better. Anyone looking to the government to "improve efficiency" is an idiot.

[DesertFox]

If focused on any one topic and proved his point, I think he'd be much more effective.When a conservative does that (I know from experience), the first thing a liberal says is, "Yeah, but that's only ONE INSTANCE! You base your whole thinking on just ONE INSTANCE! And besides, it's ANECDOTAL!" I may be wrongly imputing this to you, Sam, and if so I apologize; but seems to me I've seen you yourself do just that.

10-15 years ago I saw a teevee program where the liberal was trying to prove that you just have no chance entering the marketplace today. The conservative challenged the remark. The lib then challenged the conservative to name a single instance of a product that had made it in the marketplace in the last ten years. The conservative named one. The lib said, "Another." He did. "Another." He did. "Another." He did. Finally, after seeing he couldn't exhaust the examples, the liberal quit that game.

[Naturalized-Texan]

RE:


It's not government's job to impose measures to improve efficiency or safety.

The free market in which people decide for themselves the cost/benefit in each consumer decision works far better. Anyone looking to the government to "improve efficiency" is an idiot.
Remember, Sam is a liberal and liberals believe that the government is the be all and end all for everything, including, especially, controlling every aspect of our lives and every aspect of our economy. In other words, modern American liberals are border-line totalitarians.

[MaximumSam]

It's not government's job to impose measures to improve efficiency or safety.

The free market in which people decide for themselves the cost/benefit in each consumer decision works far better. Anyone looking to the government to "improve efficiency" is an idiot.

I strongly disagree with those statements. But without getting too far into that, my problem with the article is that it doesn't say anything useful. I can't imagine that one is against all forms of safety. Everyone is aware of stories of police who violate someone's rights. Does that mean we shouldn't have police? Similarly, there may be an extra cost to these light bulbs. Then what? Should we have the light bulbs or shouldn't we? Should airlines do safety checks or shouldn't they? Should the FDA regulate medicine or shouldn't they? Simply saying there are costs associated with the regulation of anything is obvious - the analysis should be on what the costs are, and whether they outweigh the benefits.

When a conservative does that (I know from experience), the first thing a liberal says is, "Yeah, but that's only ONE INSTANCE! You base your whole thinking on just ONE INSTANCE! And besides, it's ANECDOTAL!" I may be wrongly imputing this to you, Sam, and if so I apologize; but seems to me I've seen you yourself do just that.

Well, if you use one instance, say these light bulbs, to argue that all environmental regulation is wrong, then your argument is faulty. However, if you show the light bulbs to have more costs than benefits, then extend your argument to show that environmentalists don't always consider the costs of what they propose, then your argument is strong.

You like to write, and if I remember you're pretty good at it. As they say in writing class, "Show, don't tell." Don't throw out a few vague examples then tell me your opinion. Present the facts, then show how they support your opinion.

[MaximumSam]

Remember, Sam is a liberal and liberals believe that the government is the be all and end all for everything, including, especially, controlling every aspect of our lives and every aspect of our economy. In other words, modern American liberals are border-line totalitarians.

I wouldn't go that far. However, I do believe that the government has done reasonably well in regulating certain areas, food supply being one, and medicine being another.

[Lazarus]

Remember, Sam is a liberal and liberals believe that the government is the be all and end all for everything, including, especially, controlling every aspect of our lives and every aspect of our economy. In other words, modern American liberals are border-line totalitarians.Tex beat me too it - Everything I was going to post... So I'll just quote it for emphasis...

Oh.... As well as Barkle's post too, which was my initial inspiration...
It's not government's job to impose measures to improve efficiency or safety.

The free market in which people decide for themselves the cost/benefit in each consumer decision works far better. Anyone looking to the government to "improve efficiency" is an idiot.

Sam, I have a question for you, since you are our latest sojourning liberal... Why do Liberals always look to the govenment to solve every problem, no matter how small, with regulation, fences, and chains on our lives? Do liberals have so little confidence in the abilities and judgement of the common people?<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Naturalized-Texan]

Do liberals have so little confidence in the abilities and judgment of the common people?<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
Of course! Liberals are elitists who believe that we "common" people are too stupid to run our own lives. That's why all liberal programs are designed to create ever-increasing numbers of poor and ignorant people dependent on government programs.

[Lazarus]

I get the impression also that they believe we are alien creatures who have invaded this pristine planet, not to be trusted, in need of constant surveilence and regulation, lest we run amok and discover the joys of Liberty...

Nothing scares a liberal like the idea of a free man...

[Neil Peart]

Simply saying there are costs associated with the regulation of anything is obviousNot to environazis and various other radical freaks.

[Rhino]

Didn't we already have a thread on this?

[MaximumSam]

Sam, I have a question for you, since you are our latest sojourning liberal... Why do Liberals always look to the govenment to solve every problem, no matter how small, with regulation, fences, and chains on our lives? Do liberals have so little confidence in the abilities and judgement of the common people?

I don't know that I agree with the assumptions of the question. After all, it would seem some are asking the government to solve their problems re: illegal immigration, with regulations, fences, and chains.

But, for my own opinion, I elieve government regulation is helpful in correcting things the free market doesn't. For example, take certain issues of environmentalism. Take global warming. There is no real market correction that makes sense that would curb global warming. Therefore, if you believe global warming to be a problem, then government regulation makes sense.

[Maggie_T]

Sam, his article was not about light bulbs.


Neither is Maxi, dear. Neither is Maxi.

[Maggie_T]

Didn't we already have a thread on this?

Prolly not. It's just the impression one gets from, ah, debating with Maxi.

[Trovalor]

Some of those passengers drove cars to reach the destinations to which they had originally planned to fly. Since automobile fatality rates per mile have long been several times as high as airline fatality rates per mile, this means that the dangers to life and limb have not been reduced by this political grandstanding.

Instead people have been exposed to greater dangers -- in the name of safety!

As long as it protects the environment right?

Got to remember, to most of these environazi's, your life is worth less than the protection of the environment.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I don't know that I agree with the assumptions of the question. After all, it would seem some are asking the government to solve their problems re: illegal immigration, with regulations, fences, and chains.
Only the government can solve the the problem of illegal immigration and protecting our borders is a constitutional function of the federal government.

But, for my own opinion, I elieve government regulation is helpful in correcting things the free market doesn't. For example, take certain issues of environmentalism. Take global warming. There is no real market correction that makes sense that would curb global warming. Therefore, if you believe global warming to be a problem, then government regulation makes sense.
Manmade global warming is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the people of the world. Since global warming is natural and is being caused by the increased solar energy being produced by the Sun, there is nothing the government, any government, can do to stop it, short of turning off the Sun. All we can, or should, do is to just sit back and enjoy it.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Got to remember, to most of these environazi's, your life is worth less than the protection of the environment.

Yep!

[Maggie_T]

Manmade global warming is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the people of the world.

So was Jim Jones, Tex. Not much difference between the two, either. But that does not stop the stupid, the gullible, and the socially resented from following them like lemmings.

[MaximumSam]

Only the government can solve the the problem of illegal immigration and protecting our borders is a constitutional function of the federal government.


Manmade global warming is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the people of the world. Since global warming is natural and is being caused by the increased solar energy being produced by the Sun, there is nothing the government, any government, can do to stop it, short of turning off the Sun. All we can, or should, do is to just sit back and enjoy it.

Clearly, then, you agree that some problems can only be solved by the government. The only disagreement is about which ones should be solved.

[DoctorDoom]

But, for my own opinion, I elieve government regulation is helpful in correcting things the free market doesn't. For example, take certain issues of environmentalism. Take global warming. There is no real market correction that makes sense that would curb global warming. Therefore, if you believe global warming to be a problem, then government regulation makes sense.Does one need further evidence that Sam the Sham doesn't have a microclue about anything, and that he's here to argue for the sake of arguing?

Sam is one of those ecowackos who are obsessed with spending trillions of dollars on responding to an unproven, grossly unscientific theory without an iota of evidence that the proposed "solutions" will make the slightest positive difference (they will almost certainly make a shitload of negative difference).

I use CFLs because I like them, but I will stock up on incandescents just to say "F**K YOU!" to the micromanging assholes in Congress when their idiotic ban on them takes effect.

BTW, I do NOT take seriously the ramblings of AlBore, the lying, hypocritical, self-worshipping dickhead, who tells us to use CFLs to save electricity while his mansion uses 20 times the electricity of the average American home, and who preaches energy conservation while flying hither, thither and yon in one of the most fuel-inefficient private jets in the country.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Aircraft/GoreJet.jpg

[Naturalized-Texan]

Clearly, then, you agree that some problems can only be solved by the government. The only disagreement is about which ones should be solved.
Only those solutions authorized by the Constitution, e.g., protecting our borders.

Enforcing environmentalism is not a constitutional function of the federal government. The ONLY constitutional functions of the federal government are those enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

In other words, at least two-thirds of our current federal budget is unconstitutional, meaning that at least two-thirds of our federal government is unconstitutional and should be eliminated.

[BarkleUSA]

But, for my own opinion, I elieve government regulation is helpful in correcting things the free market doesn't. For example, take certain issues of environmentalism. Take global warming. There is no real market correction that makes sense that would curb global warming. Therefore, if you believe global warming to be a problem, then government regulation makes sense.

Yikes, you don't actually believe the government can change the earth's climate do you? I checked the Constitution and there was no mention of taking money from the people for changing the earth's climate - sorry.

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/hysteria-books.jpg

Please put down the above pamphlets and read the following based on actual science.

Source (http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html)

1. The "Greenhouse Effect" is a natural and valuable phenomenon, without which, the planet would be uninhabitable.

2. Modest Global Warming, at least up until 1998 when a cooling trend began, has been real.

3. CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas; 95% of the contribution is due to Water Vapor.

4. Man's contribution to Greenhouse Gasses is relatively insignificant. We didn't cause the recent Global Warming and we cannot stop it.

5. Solar Activity appears to be the principal driver for Climate Change, accompanied by complex ocean currents which distribute the heat and control local weather systems.

6. CO2 is a useful trace gas in the atmosphere, and the planet would actually benefit by having more, not less of it, because it is not a driver for Global Warming and would enrich our vegetation, yielding better crops to feed the expanding population.

7. CO2 is not causing global warming, in fact, CO2 is lagging temperature change in all reliable datasets. The cart is not pulling the donkey, and the future cannot influence the past.

8. Nothing happening in the climate today is particularly unusual, and in fact has happened many times in the past and will likely happen again in the future.

9. The UN IPCC has corrupted the "reporting process" so badly, it makes the oil-for-food scandal look like someone stole some kid's lunch money. They do not follow the Scientific Method, and modify the science as needed to fit their predetermined conclusions. In empirical science, one does NOT write the conclusion first, then solicit "opinion" on the report, ignoring any opinion which does not fit their predetermined conclusion while falsifying data to support unrealistic models.

10. Polar Bear populations are not endangered, in fact current populations are healthy and at almost historic highs. The push to list them as endangered is an effort to gain political control of their habitat... particularly the North Slope oil fields.

11. There is no demonstrated causal relationship between hurricanes and/or tornadoes and global warming. This is sheer conjecture totally unsupported by any material science.

12. Observed glacial retreats in certain select areas have been going on for hundreds of years, and show no serious correlation to short-term swings in global temperatures.

13. Greenland is shown to be an island completely surrounded by water, not ice, in maps dating to the 14th century. There is active geothermal activity in the currently "melting" sections of Greenland.

14. The Antarctic Ice cover is currently the largest ever observed by satellite, and periodic ice shelf breakups are normal and correlate well with localized tectonic and geothermal activity along the Antarctic Peninsula.

15. The Global Warming Panic was triggered by an artifact of poor mathematics which has been thoroughly disproved. The panic is being deliberately nurtured by those who stand to gain both financially and politically from perpetuation of the hoax.

16. Scientists who "deny" the hoax are often threatened with loss of funding or even their jobs.

17. The correlation between solar activity and climate is now so strong that solar physicists are now seriously discussing the much greater danger of pending global cooling.

18. Biofuel hysteria is already having a disastrous effect on world food supplies and prices, and current technologies for biofuel production consume more energy than the fuels produce.

19. Global Warming Hysteria is potentially linked to a stress-induced mental disorder.

20. In short, there is no "climate crisis" of any kind at work on our planet.

[DoctorDoom]

Deniers' summer wear (click to go there) ...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Energy-Eco/StupidityShirts.jpg (http://www.printfection.com/stupidityoffsets/Stupidity-Offsets-T-Shirt-C-2-sided-whitelight/_p_2181283)

[Rhino]

I like their other one too.

http://img.printfection.com/9/4188927/e1agI.jpg