Joe wrote on January 12, 2008 07:34 AM: I have been following info in lvrj and other papers from regions far from home through links at www.polijam.com In addition to objecting to nanny government, my problem with fluorescent bulbs is their mercury content. You have to worry about contaminating landfills, but more importantly, make sure that you don't break the bulb at home, or your house becomes contaminated according to the government.

dennis1944 wrote on January 10, 2008 01:36 PM: You folks elect and keep re-electing the ship of fools that inhabit Washington and our state capital. Perhaps you deserve what you get; Damn fools representing the Damn fools that elected them!

David Johann wrote on January 03, 2008 04:11 PM: Implicit in timinator's comment "there are some who feel that there is virtually no limit to how the all-powerful fedbots may alter our society, continually deciding for us how to live" is the argument that people who believe that mandating flourescents is a good idea must also "feel there is virtually no limit to [the feds powers]."

Formula: if you believe in light bulb laws, then you also believe in something different and ridiculous (unlimited federal powers).

He then essentially knocks-down the straw man by invalidating his ridiculous unlimited-federal-powers construct and at the same time the valid pro-flourescent argument: "How does banning incandescent light bulbs come under government's legitimate, delegated powers to protect our natural rights to life, liberty and property?" (timinator implies it does not).

Or maybe it does. It could be argued that lessening our dependence on foreign oil and keeping as much CO2 and mercury out of the atmosphere (by lessening our dependence on coal generated electricity) is protects our natural right to life.

Jon H. wrote on January 03, 2008 07:20 AM: David Johann,

timinator's quote is not a straw man. A straw man is a literary construction that is knocked down by the author. Perhaps you need to go back and read the definition that you had posted from Wikipedia.

Quoting from you:

"When timinator claims "that there is virtually no limit to how the all-powerful fedbots may alter our society, continually deciding for us how to live" he is setting up a straw man argument: a logical fallacy."

This statment is not a logical fallacy, it is a fact from a certain political point of view.

"timinator wrote: As per usual, there are some who feel that there is virtually no limit to how the all-powerful fedbots may alter our society, continually deciding for us how to live.

How does banning incandescent light bulbs come under government's legitimate, delegated powers to protect our natural rights to life, liberty and property?

Beats the heck outa me..."

David Johann wrote on January 02, 2008 09:22 PM: Oops! Forgot to say 43% of our electicity comes from coal (none of it is ever, ever, ever clean and never will be). Coal is the reason you shouldn't eat to much albacore tuna, and the reason to completely avoid shark (the higher the fish is on the food chain, the more mercury). Feed shark to your mother-in-law and your boss.

This is because coal contains mercury. Burn it and it goes into the atmosphere to return to the earth's seas in raindrops. Years ago we didn't have to worry about mercury in fish. Now it's mega scary.

Honey, would your mom like some more shark hollandaise?

David Johann wrote on January 02, 2008 09:04 PM: When timinator claims "that there is virtually no limit to how the all-powerful fedbots may alter our society, continually deciding for us how to live" he is setting up a straw man argument: a logical fallacy.

He is claiming that people who believe that incandescents should be phased out, with a boost by the force of law, also believe that "there is virtually no limit to how the all-powerful fedbots may alter our society."

We're only talking about light bulbs, bubba.

Timinator constructs our straw man for us by essentially saying: "if you believe in a flourescent mandate, you also believe in no end to government regulation."

We all know that anyone who believes there should be "no end to government regulation" is nuts, and Timinator is so very brave to have defined our argument in this way, exaggerating it to make his construction of our argument sound especially ridiculous (timinator has constructed a "straw man" to build-up and knock-down). AM radio hosts are addicted to constructing and knocking-down straw men. They are also very brave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Timinator is so very brave to have knocked-down the straw man interpretation of our simple argument that he created.

Unfortunately, a bizzillion incandescents increase our addiction to foreign oil (7 percent of our electricity comes from burning petroleum), and puts even more carbon in our atmosphere due to the burning of natural gas to produce electricity (19% of electricity comes from natural gas).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/ipp/ipp_sum.html

timinator wrote on January 02, 2008 08:06 PM: As per usual, there are some who feel that there is virtually no limit to how the all-powerful fedbots may alter our society, continually deciding for us how to live.

How does banning incandescent light bulbs come under government's legitimate, delegated powers to protect our natural rights to life, liberty and property?

Beats the heck outa me...

tom wrote on January 02, 2008 06:41 PM: once again,the less affluent can go buy something that maybe they cannot currently afford,light bulbs,toilets,more efficient cars all well intended i'm sure,but perhaps not affordable...

David Johann wrote on January 02, 2008 06:32 PM: Ken,

(1) The point I was making is that the drought in the desert Southwest is unsettling at best, and looming upon crisis at worst, regardless of what the capacity is that you claim the designers of Hoover built it for when construction began in 1931, over 75 years ago. At that time the population of Clark County was around 16,000 (125x less than our current 2 million).

(2) Buy a better water-saving toilet.

(3) The RJ does not "ask questions" in a responsible, objective fashion. Rather, in rabble-rousing fashion it announces "they're here to check our bulbs." That's a slippery-slope fallacious argument. The RJ typically propagandizes like this.

As I see it, with a near-monopoly in the Valley, the RJ has a RESPONSIBILITY to the people who purchase it, who expect OUR local paper to be objective, rather than propagandizing to suit it's major advertising base: casinos and the real-estate industry.

Ken wrote on January 02, 2008 06:11 PM: David,

1.Lake Mead might be half empty, but is still above the level designers built it for.
2.Water saving toilets, more often than not require several flushes.
3.Asking questions is how America came to be the incredible power it is.
If the RJ did anything, it got me thinking. Take a good look at the post from Mark to Tom and you will find knowledge in all.

Read All Comments