Comments on: Let there be LEDs
Add a Comment
- From what we saw not too long ago, about the only thing they saved was General Electric some more money when they tossed another group of hard working Americans under the bus and shut down their US light bulb factory and moved it to Mexico to make new style light bulbs that are more efficient.
The Govt. drove it by banning old style light bulbs. The Govt SAID they thought they were doing the right thing because it would make more jobs for Americans. Nope. In the end, it was a disaster for those in the US that had been making light bulbs there since Thomas Edison invented them.
With the changes the Govt. made to the Patent office last Sept, you can kiss our current Thomas Edison's goodbye too. Instead of an inventor being able to simple log his invention in a notebook and seek funding, now an inventor has to come up with 3,000 for every invention and race to the patent office and try and beat the corporations. Great plan you idiots. All you did with that was screw over all the small inventors in the US. Another example of how our Govt is being ran by the Corporations and the lobbyists. - Reply to this comment
- So often, it is the incomplete understanding of the world around, as well as an unquestioning gullibility, that leads the New World Order to connive its target audience into self-destructive behavior.
An "argument" for replacing incandescent bulbs with LED's is that it "saves electricity".
In fact, they don't!
They use less electrivity, but that's not the same as "saving electricity"! Because the electricity you use now is coming from power stations that are already supplying a certain amount! If you plug in a new item, the power stations don't suddenly kick up to add that little extra electricity! You just cut into the total amount they are standardly supplying, and the remainder is lessened. They are already putting out huge amounts of electricity! They will put that same amount out whether you tap into it or not! It's not "saved"! It's simply not used by you!
So where will it go? Why isn't the government telling you the energy isn't "saved", it's just not used by you? What are they planning on siphoning off all that extra electricity for? Is it the same clandestine project that caused the numerous downed power grids during the past decade? Is it the expected overloading of power grids that led them a couple of years ago to "warn" that "terrorists" might find a way to hack into power grids and "knock them offline"?
And\, for all the supporters, it is unjustifiable that they should forget, or not stress, that corporations work for their own obscene profit, not for the good of the people! How many really think they will provide "bulbs" that won't burn out for 20 years? The same corporations that devised "planned obsolescence"; manipulated stock prices; utilized "creative bookkeeping"; engaged in price fixing; engaged in price gouging; engineered shortages to artifically hike prices; resdesigned containers so consumers wouldn't know they were paying the same or more for less product; designed cars with unnaturally high trunk lids and criminally narrow rear windows to force drivers to purchase expensive closed circuit television!
Is it reasonable to assume the price of LED bulbs will come down with time? Like the price of gas came down after the oil companies lied and said Hurricane Katrina destroyed offshor oil rigs? When prices go up and there is no competition, the corporations keep them up.
And, face it, if they do manage to eliminate incandescent bulbs in the marketplace, what competition will there be? It'll be use their expensive, unpleasant light bulbs or go in the dark! They can even lower their output, to force you to buy more, and you'll have to do it!
And don't underestimate the sheer impact of being pushed around! Of being told, do it the way we cravenly want, or else! Too many place roo low a value on simply not being bullied, these days! Too many malingerers and NWO quislings tout the line that the spiritual depletion of being treated like an animal for "security" or "efficiency", and in the interests of making the corporate capitalist Fascist NWO thugs richer, is meaningless! "Quality of life" has already been severely threatened by the corporate/political/military abominations of the "war on 'terror'". Even if the new LED's provided the same "black body" spectrum as incandescent bulbs, being forced to use them, with no choice being given in the matter, can still make using them like poison, for those with spirit! - Reply to this comment
- not mentioned in the story is that the non-incandescents don't work with light dimmers, security timers, remote switched controls or alarm systems. the issues are more than cosmetic appeal of the color of the light. the effect of the report was to belittle those who oppose the forced separation of the public from a product while misrepresenting the impact and using the govt to force behavior changes that would not succeed via market forces or morality motivation. we need much less govt cause they muckup what they get their legislation on.
- Reply to this comment
- Sorry, Mortar, but totally wrong. As the federal government has the right to mandate higher gasoline engine efficiency standards, they also have the right to mandate higher bulb efficiency standards, even if that means that they basically outlaw a certain type of bulb or wasteful technology.
- Reply to this comment
- by transman123 December 18, 2011 2:29 PM EST
'The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. 'No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.' 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
*******************************************************
But until the court actually rules the law unconstitutional, it is law. Otherwise, anyone and everyone could make the argument that any law they don't like or agree with is unconstitutional. The "general rule" speaks only of an unconstitutional statute, and only SCOTUS makes that determination. That's why there is SCOTUS. Otherwise, folks like you would just declare all legislation that they don't agree with, unconstitutional. If a law is subsequently deemed uncontitutional by SCOTUS after legislation, then the rulings you cite all apply, but not before. The rulings no way suggest that we don't have to accept or obey unconstitional laws, until ruled so. In that case, then it goes back to the way it way before the law was enacted. Cite all you want, but none of the rulings negate the necessity of SCOTUS ("decision so branding it") to rule an act of Congress unconstitutional. Federal laws are constitutional until SCOTUS brands them unconsttutional. Only then is a law unconstitutional, and null and void from its inception. But Kudos to you for your knowledge of law, just not to its interpretation.
-------
I guess the Founders did not understand this? I guess Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, et al had no clue???
I have given you direct quotes from them on whether the national courts are the surpreme judge of what is Constitutional. They stated they are not. You say they are.
Who is right? - Reply to this comment
- I would like to see how long it takes to recover the cost of one of these lightbulbs by a person that cuts the lights off when not in use. The phillips LED 60w equivalant runs about $24 for one bulb at home depot vs $1.47 for a four pack of phillips 60w household incandescants.
- Reply to this comment
- I acquired 20 of the curly bulbs at an office supply retailer using with ink rewards a few years ago. They are adequate in 90 percent of applications. The jury is still out on longevity. Had to put four of them in the large garage (using a splitter at each ceiling fixture) to seemingly get the same illumination as 2 conventional bulbs, and they don't seem as anxious to produce light in winter. Seem to recall reading they should NOT be confined to a fixture due to heat build up. 50% of my flashlights are LED.
- Reply to this comment
- So we pay 10-30 times more, to use higher efficiency. So where's the real savings?
- Reply to this comment
- by transman123 December 18, 2011 1:38 PM EST
I guess you can cite the ruling, and the date it was overturned by SCOTUS? Until ruled unconstitutional, it is law. You can not make DOMA unconstitutional by merely saying it is unconstitutional. And neither can Obama. Only SCOTUS can make that determination. Are you the constitutional scholar you think you are, or not? I'll wait....
-------------------
"Whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force" - Thomas Jefferson (the General Government INCLUDES the SCOTUS)
"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows: 'All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.' Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
'When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.' Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
'An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.' Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442
'The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. 'No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.' 16 Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256 - Reply to this comment
- If I wanted to construct a nuclear power plant on my 2000 acre ranch (hypothetical) for my own personal power construction, does the constitution protect my rite to do this?
- Reply to this comment
