PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.
X

June 10, 2011

VIRGINIA POSTREL ON THE LIGHT BULB BAN: “Even if you care nothing about individual freedom or aesthetic pleasure, this ham-handed approach wouldn’t pass muster in a classroom at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. As pollution control, it’s horribly inefficient.”

Plus this: “The bulb ban makes sense only one of two ways: either as an expression of cultural sanctimony, with a little technophile thrown in for added glamour, or as a roundabout way to transfer wealth from the general public to the few businesses with the know-how to produce the light bulbs consumers don’t really want to buy. Or, of course, as both.”

UPDATE: Reader Ric Phil Manhard writes: “The first order of business after the ban takes effect is a full, independent bulb audit of all Congressional offices, and for good measure, the homes of all members of Congress and their staffs. Penalties for possession and use of outlaw bulbs should be severe, possibly including jail time. After all, they are killing the planet, right? What penalty could be too much for such a heinous crime?’

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Rick Wolf emails: “Glenn, how long before the Obama administration starts handing out light bulb waivers to favored constituents?”

MORE: Sorry, that’s Phil Manhard, not Ric.

Comments are closed.