A Very Dim Bulb

Stupidity upon the 'nets: stupidity of light bulbs; some few have halfwit points, others are, uh, just bugshit nuts.

We'll get to the "bugshit nuts" in a moment. (Hiya, Ann Althouse! And wow has she outdone her wine-soaked self. But hang on for that bit.) Let's start with the halfwits, ably represented by self-described professional light bulb wizard Howard M. Bramston.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 will effectively phase out incandescent light bulbs by 2012-2014 in favor of compact fluorescent lamps, or CFLs. Other countries around the world have passed similar legislation to ban most incandescents.

Will some energy be saved? Probably. The problem is this benefit will be more than offset by rampant dissatisfaction with lighting.

Uh, bullshit. In our house, we have eschewed incandescents for over a year now, and the thing is, when we turn our lights on in the dark, we can see. Hallelujah! "Being able to see when it's dark," I daresay, is the most common reason most people are interested in producing artificial light in the first place. And we spend less money on light bulbs now. Also, the "probably" there is precious.

And the response to the "can still see," "costs less," and "better for the fucking planet" arguments?

We are not talking about giving up a small luxury for the greater good. We are talking about compromising light. Light is fundamental. And light is obviously for people, not buildings. The primary objective in the design of any space is to make it comfortable and habitable. This is most critical in homes, where this law will impact our lives the most. And yet while energy conservation, a worthy cause, has strong advocacy in public policy, good lighting has very little.

For good reason! This pits a purely aesthetic consideration against a pressing global need. And it costs more and is more filling. Nor does it especially Taste Great -- incandescent bulbs still lose out to the ancient technology of "candles" as far as "getting properly laid" is concerned. The game is not worth the incandescent bulb, give it up.

To be fair, however, I'm not unsympathetic to this class of argument: in my home cultural ballpark, I am a big fan of the subjunctive mood, and I deplore those who would cheer on its demise, those semi-literate shits. But that's because I'm a snob -- and an unrepentant snob, at that. But then again, I'm not going around demanding that federal policy be set according to my grammatical preferences. We don't need the subjunctive mood to survive as a species, and as a species we should get rid of the incandescent bulb. And besides, gas-light was warmer, mellower, and more humane, and if you say any different, you are an absolute tit.

That we're getting lighting-for-lighting's-sake stuff from the Wall Street Journal's online editorial page is a sign of the times.

But so much for the silly. Here's the Althouse:

I've been stockpiling incandescent bulbs, but I'm still uneasy. Last week, I walked through a beautiful Art Deco building lobby and hallway, where there were gorgeous bronze light fixtures that no longer glowed: The incandescent light bulbs had been replaced by fluorescents. The whole look of the interior was destroyed. I felt like crying. All of our rooms and lobbies and hallways are about to have the life sucked out of them, by a Congress that has no feeling for beauty and the effect of light on human emotions.

May they walk barefoot forever on a sidewalk paved with crushed CFCs.

LEAVE INCANDESCENT BULBS ALOOOOOONE!

Honestly. The image of Althouse stockpiling incandescent bulbs -- that's a surprise. I always figured she'd just be stockpiling cats.

Good grief, what a kook.