Lightbulb Correction

Ooops. In an earlier post, I criticized congressional legislation to ban incandescent lightbulbs and mandate the use of Compact Fluorescent Lights. There is no such legislation. Instead, there's legislation that mandates bulbs meet energy efficiency standards that only CFLs and impractically expensive LEDs can meet. I apologize for the error.

That said, the point still stands. The sort of plans to curb carbon emissions that the Democratic Presidential candidates are both necessary and sufficient to meet the challenges of global warming. These plans place an economy-wide cap on carbon emissions, auction permits to produce the allowed level of emissions, let emitters buy and sell permits on the open market, and will then rely on the price system to help individual consumers adjust their personal habits to the new low-emissions regime as they see fit. Domain-specific efficiency standards like this CFL business are, by contrast, neither necessary nor sufficient. I'm not going to take to the streets to protest against incandescent bulb bans or increased CAFE standards, but I do think the legislative battles over this stuff are fundamentally a waste of time.

Comments

You are right in principle. However, we also know that the majority of people do not buy energy efficent electrical appliances even when they are well worth the extra cost in the long run (even if the long run is just one year of electricity bills).

Mandatory standards can thus be potentially justified on the basis of human failing, even if they look foolish in Econ 101 terms.

That said, I very much doubt the legislators had this argument in mind...

Posted by Never Certain | February 11, 2008 3:45 PM

The sort of plans to curb carbon emissions that the Democratic Presidential candidates are both necessary and sufficient to meet the challenges of global warming.

Please. The plans of both Democratic Presidential plans are neither necessary nor sufficient. Absent the ability to replace all coal-burning power plants with something that doesn't produce greenhouse gases and costs less, any plan is a drop in the bucket. Absent a nonpollutant method of fueling not only cars, but tractor trailers and airplanes as well, any Obama or Clinton plan is like piss in the Ocean.

Not that my own plan of 'hope innovation in the market' solves the problem is very reassuring.

Posted by Shinyk | February 11, 2008 3:48 PM

Why is it an either/or?

A carbon tax or auction like in the plans currently being discussed would gradually raise the cost of energy (being mitigated by the use of renewables, blah blah blah).

In the short term, it would provide very incremental incentives to change to more efficient appliances and vehicles. Besides, I think people tend to evaluate the "hidden" costs like gas mileage and energy efficiency differently than sticker price. Don't quote me; I'm a dilettante.

Instead of outlawing them, maybe place a heavy tax on incandescent bulbs, which gradually phases out as the carbon tax becomes high enough to achieve the same effect.

That way you're speeding up the transition to greener technologies that are already or will soon be available while still applying the slow pressure on the market to develop new technologies in the future.

Posted by ET | February 11, 2008 3:51 PM

Note -- I have had terrible luck with the lifespan of various brands of CFLs. No, they aren't in dimmer settings, or in three-way, or hanging or at an angle.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | February 11, 2008 3:53 PM

I apologize for the error.

The humor is subtle, but very, very funny. A less subtle post would have included the scare quotes around the word "error". Error, indeed...

Posted by Al | February 11, 2008 3:56 PM

As Never Certain implied, and as we discussed in the prior thread, it seems that for whatever reason people often are not responding as expected (and as desired) to the lifecycle costs of more energy-efficient goods.

So as I suggested before, I am unconvinced that pricing carbon (or pricing in other externalities) will necessarily address this particular problem.

Posted by DTM | February 11, 2008 3:56 PM

Actually, you still don't have it right. The efficiency standards can also be met by relatively new halogen bulbs that fit in normal fixtures, like Philips' Halogena. These also work with regular dimmers.

The problem is if you just pick up a couple bulbs at the grocery store when you need them, all you'll see is plain old incandescents. I had to go to a home-improvement store to get my Halogenas. That's why the law's a good idea, it will mean that the efficient bulbs will be the ones everybody sees.

Posted by Rich McAllister | February 11, 2008 3:59 PM

While a step in the right direction, these plans are certainly not sufficient nor do they represent the only way to temper carbon emissions. Pay for pollution plans like these, which allow polluters to buy and trade emission credits, will never produce the robust pollution cuts that are necessary to really make a difference in global warming because they incentivize paying to pollute in the short term rather than making more costly capital improvements to limit the pollution at its source. Cap and trade programs only make sense when paired with strong incentives to innovate and update pollution control technologies, which is why strict limits on specific industries, though heavy-handed, can have much greater impacts.

Posted by genevieve | February 11, 2008 3:59 PM

Note -- I have had terrible luck with the lifespan of various brands of CFLs. No, they aren't in dimmer settings, or in three-way, or hanging or at an angle.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08

Me too. I keep track, and they burn out in about the same time incandescents do for me. Anybody else looked at this? Consumer Reports done any testing? Seems like a natural for them.

This is really important, since if they don't really have substantially longer lives, the cost to people of requiring them, is going to be significantly greater than forecast, and may cause a backlash.

Posted by David in NY | February 11, 2008 4:13 PM

mercury -- you can't (okay shouldn't) talk about CFL bulbs without discussing recycling the mercury in the bulbs. Otherwise we might be trading one problem for another.

Posted by mike c | February 11, 2008 4:15 PM

I love how freaked out everyone gets about curly lighttbulbs.

First they banned smoking in the bar down the street, but I said nothing. Then they banned incandecent lightbulbs, but I said nothing. Then they exterminated all the whitemen and I got exterminated.

It's a light bulb. It lasts longer and so cost less and uses less energy and so cost less. Why are people all uspet about this but not the new HD TV standards?

Posted by cw | February 11, 2008 4:17 PM

Lightbulb manufacturers can collude on built-in obsolescence, but the government can't set efficiency standards?

Market forces my ass.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | February 11, 2008 4:21 PM

Without outing myself, my company, or any confidential information that'd get me fired...

Matthew Yglesias readers, and any skeptical conservatives (Hi, Ross?) reading this -- this is my promise to you: in the near future, LED lights will not only be a viable alternative, but also fairly priced.

Best regards.

Posted by Derek | February 11, 2008 4:23 PM

Will they last a while, Derek? Hope so.

Posted by David in NY | February 11, 2008 4:30 PM

I really hate it when government takes a stupid position on a problem.

Why can't I have a regular 60 watt bulb if that is the best thing for me?

If reducing CO2 is a major goal then there are far better ways to achieve the goal than forcing everyone to change light bulbs.

We could tax CO2.
We could tax inefficient light bulbs.
We could tax gasoline.
We could tax leaf blowers.
We could ban fireplaces in all new homes.
We could stop the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts from having campfires.
We could require all new buildings to have revolving doors and double doors for handicap access.

All of these suggestions would be more logical, less costly, and save more CO2.

Posted by neil wilson | February 11, 2008 4:33 PM

I was in Brazil (Sao Paulo and Rio) a couple of weeks ago and I was impressed by how many of the lightbulbs that I saw were compact fluorescent. I only noticed a single incandescent bulb in the two weeks I was there. Do any of you all know if they have a government program promoting CF use in Brazil or something? Getting people to use CF bulbs seems to be a solved problem.

Posted by js | February 11, 2008 4:34 PM

Oh, I forgot another good reason to like the law: The Wall Street Journal editorial page doesn't like it. I would at least give them credit for pointing out the Halogena bulb, except it's of course impossible for them to get their facts straight in an editorial so they called it the Philips "Halogena-IR" bulb. (IR refers to a Sylvania product.)

(PS: I think the link works for non-subscribers because all opinion is now free on wsj.com.)

Posted by Rich McAllister | February 11, 2008 4:37 PM

I'm sorry to hear that some people are having lifespan issues. For what its worth, I've had a house full of CFLs for several years now, and never had one burn out.

I'm wondering what the X factor is here?

Posted by Spike | February 11, 2008 4:42 PM

"Why can't I have a regular 60 watt bulb if that is the best thing for me?"

Why in the world would a 60 watt bulb be more "right for you" than a 12 watt incandecent? They are just stupid light bulbs. I've had them in my house for the past 4 years and the light is the same, they last longer and use less energy. You give this big long list of things you thing would be better for reducing carbon and they are all way more invasive than setting an energy efficiency standard for lightbulbs. The government sets all kinds of standards. Just about very single componant your house is built of meets some kind of government standard. Your freaking out over a light bulb for god sakes. Sometimes (often) I think this is a country of idiots.

Posted by cw | February 11, 2008 4:42 PM

I prefer idiots to thugs, which is what the previous poster strikes me as. Mind you, I'd favor a gigantic gas and coal tax, offset with elimination of FICA taxes on the first 20k or so in wages or salaries, but the sort of person who just can't wait to tell peple what to do is more obnoxious than the run of the mill idiot. Of course, the two traits are very compatible.

Posted by Will Allen | February 11, 2008 4:58 PM

"I prefer idiots to thugs"

The government sets all kinds of industrial standards that affect just about everything that we buy. They have reset a stnadard for lightbulbs (incandescent light bulbs are the way they are because of government standard) and in doing so will improve all our live to some degree via energy savings (less carbon burned, less money out of our pockets) and bunches of people start acting like the CIA just anal probed them. And I'm a thug becasue I say that these people are acting stupid?

You have very weird definitions of thuggery.

Posted by cw | February 11, 2008 5:09 PM

David, the LED technology that'll become pretty common in the next couple years will last basically as long as you want the fixture (LED lights are built into fixtures, it's not a bulb you replace)

Posted by Derek | February 11, 2008 5:13 PM

I'm a civilian employee of the US Navy, managing construction projects on a base near the west coast. It may interest you all to know this:

The Navy does not allow incandescent bulbs to be installed in its facilities. Hasn't for several years.

Why not? Simple. They're too expensive. An incandescent bulb might cost $0.75, while a fluorescent lamp might cost $12.00, but the electricity usage over their lifetimes overwhelms those figures. Fluorescent lamps save huge dollars in the long run.

There you go. The Navy doesn't care about saving the earth, but would prefer to spend their budget on new submarines rather than utility bills.

Posted by Joel | February 11, 2008 5:18 PM

They don't even cost $12 a piece. I bought six the other day for $8.

Posted by cw | February 11, 2008 5:26 PM

No, cw, you're a thug because you lack the imagination to grasp that there may be people who prefer an incandescent for rational reasons, and thus at first opportunity to ban somthing they prefer, via the power of the state, you do so, instead of just pricing the externality sufficiently, so as to discourage the use of something, except in those instances where there really is a very strong preference for that something.

Posted by Will Allen | February 11, 2008 5:30 PM

Will, presumably there was a contingent of people who were upset about the government intrusion that mandated flame-retardant mattresses and childrens' pajamas, too, but I don't hear much from them, and I don't much care.

Posted by Tyro | February 11, 2008 5:37 PM

There are significant differences in the quality of light given off by incandescent light bulbs and CFLs. Banning incandescents seems like a pretty silly policy to me too; much better to subsidize CFLs if we want people to adopt them…

Posted by Jacob Rus | February 11, 2008 5:51 PM

This still isn't really right.

Firstly, the standards for phasing out inefficient lights were negotiated among all the manufacturers, including GE and Philips. They are based on what they all agree is technologically achievable and what will allow them to recover investments in higher efficiency bulbs they are producing today.

Second, you need standards when the costs are not born by the consumer and are too diffuse to lead to behavioral change. This is the case with bulbs (or cars) because electricity (or gas) is artificially cheap, since externalities are not included, and because the upfront costs of efficiency are high relative to the return on an individual by individual basis. Sure, it's likely worth it (but not by a lot) over the lifespan of the bulb to invest $4 in a CFL rather than a $.50 incandescent, but it's pretty hard for the consumer to see in the checkout lane. Similarly, a 20mpg car will likely cost more over the lifetime of the vehicle than a 40mpg hybrid - but is it worth the $4000 premium? Not a trivial analysis. This does not change significantly even with a price on carbon. Even the most aggressive bills will not increase the cost of electricity or gas enough to change minor buying decisions like this.

Finally, and most importantly, we all bear the costs of inefficiency, whether in global warming consequences, building unnecessary power plants, or in securing imported energy sources. These are simply not priced in, and would not be even under a cap and trade or carbon tax.

The fact is, more efficient light bulbs only make a difference once a very large number of people deploy them, then it matters quite a bit, but they'll never make a ton of economic difference to the individual consumer.

Posted by Mike | February 11, 2008 5:55 PM

I'm not sure how effective your suggestion would be, or what the administration costs would be.

However, a huge amount of the success we've had with the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act involves exactly Congress' approach - finding the best available technology, require that all products meet its standards, and then allow different innovators to achieve it. It can actually be easier to assess different products and set standards than try to create a universal tax system for all carbon emitters.

Honestly, the cap, auction, and trade approach works best when there are a small number of large emitters - it's relatively easy to monitor emissions and tax people. It's much harder to pull it off when you have a huge variety of emitters.

Posted by MDtoMN | February 11, 2008 5:58 PM

Why in the world would a 60 watt bulb be more "right for you" than a 12 watt incandecent?

Well, for example, I occasionally work with large machining tools that rotate at high speeds. They have a lamp on them so you can see your work better. If you put an incandescent bulb in there, and the work happens to be rotating at a multiple of 60 Hz, it will look like the blade is standing still. You reach in to adjust it and ... whoomp, where'd my fingers go?

CFLs are excellent in terms of energy efficiency. That does not mean they are the preferred choice in all situations.

Posted by Narc | February 11, 2008 6:03 PM

Yes, Tyro, I understand you are uninterested in learning why some peopleone may have the preferences they do. That is typical of thugs.

Posted by Will Allen | February 11, 2008 6:28 PM

the light is the same

This is not true. The distribution of the wavelengths will be different between the two (also between florescent bulbs with different blends of phosphors and incandescents with different fillament operating temperatures), although they won't be that dissimilar since the they will be designed in either case is to produce a "white" light.

The difference is often perceptible (incandenscents are normally balanced more towards yellow for reasons having to do with the physics of their failure modes and black body radiation) and can be aesthetically significant despite distributions from both types of bulbs being capable of providing suitable general purpose lighting.

Posted by MattXIV | February 11, 2008 6:42 PM

Narc

Unlike older straight-tube fluorescents, CFL's don't strobe at 60 Hz, because they have an electronic element inside pulsing at a far higher rate. It's not likely you'd get a visible strobe effect from a single CFL. (I've confirmed this myself by comparing a CFL to an old-style fluorescent tube - you can easily induce a strobe effect by wiggling a strip of reflective material near the old tubes, but you can't do it with a CFL.) However I've heard of possible strobe effects when you have multiple CLF's running together, due to slight variations in their electronic controllers.

Posted by jimBOB | February 11, 2008 6:53 PM

"No, cw, you're a thug because you lack the imagination to grasp that there may be people who prefer an incandescent for rational reasons"

What are those rational reasons? And they better be good or me and my band of thugs come to your home and offer you tax breaks to repalce your furnace with something more energy efficient.

"The difference (in the quality of the light) is often perceptible"

I have them in my house and there is not any noticable difference.

Posted by cw | February 11, 2008 7:08 PM

"What are those rational reasons? And they better be good or me and my band of thugs come to your home and offer you tax breaks to repalce your furnace with something more energy efficient."

CFLs contain mercury. So, here are two rational reasons to avoid them:
1) How do I recycle them when they burn out? Recycling batteries is hard enough.
2) I don't want to worry about contaminating my home if I break one.

Are these rational enough?

Posted by puzzled | February 11, 2008 8:21 PM

"What are those rational reasons? And they better be good or me and my band of thugs come to your home and offer you tax breaks to repalce your furnace with something more energy efficient."

CFLs contain mercury. So, here are two rational reasons to avoid them:
1) How do I recycle them when they burn out? Recycling batteries is hard enough.
2) I don't want to worry about contaminating my home if I break one.

Are these rational enough?

Posted by puzzled | February 11, 2008 8:21 PM

YEah, you kind of got me there. There is a small amount of mercury in each bulb. But not as much as is in the florescent lights that are alread in use everywhere for decades now.

Posted by cw | February 11, 2008 8:59 PM

cw, I don't have any personally, but I'm not such an arrogant fool as to presume to know the entire universe of possible reasons. That would be you.
The hallmark of the central planning idiot is the conceit of omniscience.

Actually, I just thought of of a good reason, right in my home. I have fixture that a CFL won't fit in but a small incandescent will. It is a fixture that is used seldom enough that an incandescent bulb will last for several years. As such, I'd prefer to pay a substantially higher price for about four bulbs, that would suffice deep into the 21st century, but no, as long as the Central Committee for Light Bulb Planning is on the job, sniffing out wreckers and other Enemies of the State, no, I'll just have to replace the fixture.

Posted by Will Allen | February 11, 2008 9:07 PM

"The sort of plans to curb carbon emissions that the Democratic Presidential candidates [have proposed] are both necessary and sufficient to meet the challenges of global warming."

Sufficient? How could you possibly know this? Of course laws could be proposed to ban excess carbon emissions, but a) they would not be passed; b) they would not be obeyed and c) this would put us back into the 18th century.

Of course conservation is very important, not just because of global warming but because we will probably run out of oil before long. But to actually reduce carbon emissions will require replacement of fossil fuels with something else, and if it's not nuclear, which comes with its own set of problems, that replacement hasn't been found yet.

Posted by skeptonomist | February 11, 2008 9:29 PM

Maybe you should form a resistance group. The Anti New Energy Efficiency Standards for Light Bulbs Liberation Front. Your logo--a clenched fist superimposed on an incadescent lightbulb shape--suddenly appearing on walls everywhere triggering a popular revoloution sweeping you into power.

Or perhaps you trenchant blog posts in defense of liberty have been noticed by Bill Buckley or even Ron Paul. Maybe even as we speak he is reaching for his phone so as to ask you to join him on the ticket as his vice president.

Posted by cw | February 11, 2008 9:40 PM

cw, one of the differences between you and me is that I have a sense of proportion, thus I won't be spending any energy, beyond sending a few sentences into the ether, to thwart the sort of numbskull who favors using the Congress of the United States to ban certain types of light bulbs. Again, that would be you.

Posted by Will Allen | February 11, 2008 10:24 PM

"...thus I won't be spending any energy, beyond sending a few sentences into the ether, to thwart the sort of numbskull who favors using the Congress of the United States to ban certain types of light bulbs. Again, that would be you."

So that means us numbskulls win, right? Picture me laughing as you're forced to purchase those curly light bulbs.

Posted by cw | February 11, 2008 10:55 PM

cw, well, yes, you are the sort of idiot who savors victory in matters pertaining to light bulb purchases. Such is your life, and as any sentinent being is aware, the Forces of Evil are nothing compared to Forces of Stupidity.

Posted by Will Allen | February 11, 2008 11:09 PM

I certainly don't give a shit about light bulbs, and cw didn't sound like a thug to me at first, but either Will Allen is very perceptive or he goaded him into sounding like a thug.

Posted by too many steves | February 11, 2008 11:14 PM

At the risk of immodesty, too many, I think it is the former. There is something about the personality of some people that really does savor forcing people to submit over fairly trivial matters, trivial because nearly as effective results could be obtained without resorting to prohibitions. When they restrict themselves to gaining the presidencies of condominium associations they are rather less annoying than when the vote in Congressional elections.

Posted by Will Allen | February 11, 2008 11:38 PM

Too many steves:

You are right. I got sucked in. I'm a moron.

Posted by cw | February 12, 2008 12:00 AM

It was the phrasing of his posts, the pompous victorian gentleman's tone. It just got to me and I snapped.

Posted by cw | February 12, 2008 12:07 AM

cw, there is good cause to term you a thug infatuated with government power to cram edicts you like down the throats of others, for their own good.

Will Allen and others object to this Nanny State Marxism.

I join in that.

1. First on general principles of choice and freedom. Ideally, we should decide on consumer choice where the market decides how a more expensive commodity (electricity) is used, not bureaucrats deciding [incandescent lightbulbs and electric can openers BAD for society, HD TVs, 1500W space heaters, electric cars GOOD for society]. Banning little this or that items just makes for gov't encouragement that electric use is not reduced but channeled into "approved" Gov't uses.

2. Second, on calling these cheapshit little bans on inconsequential energy "squanderers" geared mainly to proseletyze young kids in school to what a "correct family does". Cheap because there are far greater household savings than lightbulbs.

Like ending use of jet skis,snowmobiles and ATVs for "fun" - when gov't investigated better and energy conserving fun can be had with canoes, X-country skis, "green-sensible" mountain bikes.. Or that a pound of margarine requires 12 times less energy usage than a pound of butter and saves more than several CFL lights.

Or if government would just mandate that furnace sensors be sealed and can only kick on when temperature reaches 48 degrees, or AC similarly gov-sealed and can only kick on when temperature reaches 85 DEG.

There are countries exploring these and other "mandates" and "standards".

And countries like France and Japan declaring that sort of chickenshit is stupid and they will instead build more nuke plants, greatly reduce or end "immigrant reunifications" as immigration-caused population growth wipes out all conservation savings if the are large enough.

3, Third, it doesn't give us a coherent energy strategy but puts it on bureaucrats to act capriciously on what they think or "the Children!" think is important, or a fine "symbol", or best sensitizes and indoctrinates the publc.

Posted by chris ford | February 12, 2008 12:40 AM

Aggghhhh! I lost my head and interacted with a troll and now I got Chris Ford on my ass. It's like I got drunk and had sex with a stripper and now I got a venerial disease.

Posted by cw | February 12, 2008 1:14 AM

Let's face facts

We would be better off with a higher gas tax than with increased CAFE standards.

We would be better off with a tax on electricity than a ban on light bulbs.

Just a thought. Will my flashlight have to be an LED or can it still be the old fashioned kind??

Posted by neil wilson | February 12, 2008 10:14 AM

Yeah, cw, anyone who points out that you are a meddlesome little twerp who lives to push people around, for no other reason than you like it, is a "troll".

Posted by Will Allen | February 12, 2008 10:22 AM

For some applications, incandescent bulbs are more efficient when you consider all aspects. Any bulb that stays on for only brief periods should be an incandescent.

The bulb inside your refrigerator is the most extreme case. A CFL will burn out just as fast as an incandescent. The CFL requires more energy to create.

Powder rooms, closets etc also should not have CFLs as well as any bulbs that are likely to be subject to very harsh treatment. If the bulb is going to break frequently, an incandescent is more energy efficient.

Using CFLs is smart. Banning incandescents is foolish.

Posted by Njorl | February 12, 2008 10:49 AM

Njorl, don't deprive cw of his fun, and please respect the burden he shoulders, what with his carrying around all human knowledge inside his head! Are you some sort of wrecker!?

Posted by Will Allen | February 12, 2008 11:08 AM

Just a thought. Will my flashlight have to be an LED or can it still be the old fashioned kind??

Just a thought. If you want to know what the law says, you could, you know, read it. thomas.loc.gov, it's HR.6 subtitle B section 231 (no link, I don't know if the Thomas URLs are persistent.)

Anybody who bothers to actually read it will find that all the cases people are bringing up (appliances, high vibration areas, flashlightsm yadda yadda) are not included in the restrictions. It's almost as if people who understand lighting requirements were involved.

(I've changed my flashlights over to LEDs because I want them to have a better chance of working after I drop them...)

Posted by RIch McAllister | February 12, 2008 1:44 PM

So Rich, when I go to a store, and they no longer sell the plain incandescent that would be be better for a particular use, do I petition Congress to force a manufacturer to build me one?

Posted by Will Allen | February 12, 2008 2:48 PM

Will Allen is the only thug I see in this thread. Being better at hurling insults does not mean he's on the right side of this issue.

The government has regulated the energy efficiency of a host of products for decades. Regulating the energy of light bulbs is just another aspect of this very long and highly successful program.

There was a very informative "article on Slate on this subject last week. The objectivists who see Joseph Stalin lurking within every government regulation won't be convinced, but they never will be.

Some of the hightlights:

* The amount of mercury in CFLs is miniscule (and on the decline) and you can protect yourself basically by using common sense.
* The mercury equation comes out well in favor of CFLs when you take into account the mercury emitted from the burning of coal.
* have shown that CFLs produce light as good as or better than incandescents.

The recycling problem remains, however. It is possible, though difficult, to recycle a CFL. This is something that certainly does need to be addressed, although it should be noted that no one ever addressed the recycling problems of incandescent bulbs.

This program will prevent the release of about 170 pounds of CO2 per bulb replaced. By any measure, the impact of this on the national scale will be huge. And mandating this switch in no way impacts a movement toward a carbon tax or cap and trade. This is a major environmental victory. I really don't see how anyone could look at this any other way.

Posted by Rob Mac | February 12, 2008 3:28 PM

Yeah, Rob, I'm thuggish when I note that regulation does not have to take the form of what are essentiully outright bans to be just as effective. Please explain how, in the space between your ears, it has come to be that sending light pulses through fiber optic cable, conveying nary a threat, has come to be an example of thuggishness. Also, if one is going to note insulting language, you may wish to note that the party at which I directed the insulting language signaled that he wished to have an invective-filled exchange, by attributing idiocy to those with whom he disagreed. Now, are you so entirely ignorant in the norms of human relations that you find it notable that a person who attributes idiocy to those with whom he disagrees may be the recipient of such rhetoric in return? I'm quite serious; what is wrong with your brain?

Posted by Will Allen | February 12, 2008 3:40 PM

Will Allen, it is thuggish to call people thugs repeatedly and otherwise insult them. I don't call you a thug because I disagree with your views. I call you a thug because of your repeated haughty insults against cw and now me. I admit I more or less deserve it because I have thoroughly gone down to your level. Also, I'm quite serious; don't tell me you're quite serious as a prelude to juvenile sarcastic. That's all I'm going to say on that.

I apologize for the messed up links in my previous post. Not sure how that happened.

Here's the link to the Slate article. link

Here's the link to the study comparing the light quality of CFLs to incandescents. link

Posted by Rob Mac | February 12, 2008 4:07 PM

No, Rob, that wasn't sarcasm. It is likely that your brain is functioning abnormally for what is expected in a literate adult, in that you seem to think a thug is someone who uses unpleasant yet non-threatening language, over fiber optic cable. A greater indication is that you do seem to think it notable that one would respong with insults to someone like cw, who decided to first hurl insults. This isn't sarcasm. What happens within your brain that would cause you to note the insults I deployed against cw, after he first decided to use such language, instead noting cw's use of such language?

Are you so titanically ignorant of what is typical in human relations that you do not expect reciprocity, that the decision to use insulting language will result in it being returned in kind? Or is it more a case that you only object to such language when it is deployed by people who do not share your political views? What exactly is wrong with your brain? Here's a clue, Aristotle. If cw desired a civil exchange, he would have been well-advised to first employ a civil tongue himself. It is a regular source of wonderment in forums such as this that people find it notable that the insulting tone they choose to adopt is frequently returned in kind.

Posted by Will Allen | February 12, 2008 4:38 PM