Republican bid to turn out the lights failed

July 12, 2011

Dan Weiss reports at Climate Progress that the attempt to kill energy conservation standards failed tonight.  It required a two-thirds vote from the House to suspend the rules to consider it (the bill did not go through normal legislative channels) — the bill failed.

You may want to read Steve Lacey’s earlier explanation of the bill there, too.

Tip of the old scrub brush to Tony Sidaway and his tweets.

Marxism from Republicans? Sad, but true . . .

July 12, 2011

. . .  Groucho Marxism.

(From Horsefeathers; longer version of entire scene, here.)

The U.S. House of Representatives scheduled a vote today to force light bulb manufacturers to keep manufacturing bulbs the market has rejected — Marxist socialism at its apex! — in order to overturn energy conservation standards signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2007.

ThinkProgress explains:

Lately it seems that the House Republican leadership is against everything that isn’t pre-approved by Big Oil or the Tea Party. Perhaps the most outlandish example of this Groucho Marx approach to public policy is today’s vote on the BULB Act, H.R. 2417. It would repeal the energy efficiency standards for light bulbs established in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, or EISA, P.L. 110-140. It would also prevent California from setting its own light bulb efficiency standards. The original author of the provision is House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (R-MI), who is now supporting the repeal of his own idea after conservatives attacked it along with other clean energy programs.

EISA, with Rep. Upton’s efficiency measure, passed the House in 2007 by a bipartisan vote of 319-100, with support from 49.7 percent of Republicans who voted and 98 percent of Democratic votes. President George W. Bush signed it into law.

Afterwards, Rep. Upton bragged in a press release, “Upton Measure to Upgrade Energy Efficiency Standards for all Light Bulbs Now Law” . . .

Mark Twain observed that it takes just one man of conscience to stand up to a mob and frustrate stupid mob action.  Fred Upton is not that man of conscience, alas.

Meanwhile, PopVox has a poll on the bill.  Go on over there and vote “no,” meaning you wish to keep the conservation standards.

Tip of the old scrub brush to ThinkProgress via Jennsmom.

Superstition that takes your breath away

July 12, 2011

This is the astonishing sort of statement that makes P. Z. Myers in his crabbiest modes of atheism look completely calm and cool in his rationalism.

Our old authoritarian, anti-discussion friend Neil Simpson said:

As a Christian, I scoff at superstitions.  I leave those to non-believers.

Yeah, the same Neil Simpson who holds superstitious convictions that evolution is wrong, warming doesn’t occur and CO2 can’t be a greenhouse gas, etc., etc.  Check out his blog — is there any statement he makes that is not based in superstition?

He’ll probably argue that he has proof of Jesus, so what Jesus would have called faith, Simpson will call evidence-based views.

How can someone practice the faith when they deny it’s faith?  Aye, there’s a huge problem for Christianity these days.



superstition   [soo-per-stish-uhn] – noun
1.  a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2.  a system or collection of such beliefs.
3.  a custom or act based on such a belief.


relgion  [ri-lij-uhn] – noun
1.  a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.  a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.  the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.


Update:  At Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Ed Brayton finds the statement laughable, too.  As always, more comments at the more-trafficked sites.

Red, white and blue: Driving the flag

July 12, 2011

Wish I had more details on this photo — purported to be made of Corvettes:

Corvettes lined up to resemble a U.S. Flag

Would it get more people to salute it this way?

Who dreams up this stuff?


Who dreams it up?  A conclave called “Corvettes at Carlisle” (Pennsylvania):

Corvette salute to the flag, Corvettes at Carlisle

Edited version, from Corvettes at Carlisle

Are you ready to deal with effects of global warming?

July 12, 2011

Why not?  These guys argue that the most rational solution is to get ready to deal with the problems, and stop worrying about the science behind “whether.”

If a global warming debate about certainty and cause only deepens doubt and defensiveness, what kind of debate would create support for action? We saw Hurricane Katrina as an opportunity to shift from the tired debate over cause and prevention to a new discussion about preparedness, thus reframing global warming from certainty to uncertainty and from limits on human activity to greater activity. Regardless of the cause, global warming is here and we need to prepare for it in the same way we prepare for any other imaginable natural disaster, not knowing exactly when or where it will strike. Global Warming Preparedness was created to test the possibility that action on global warming could be taken, not in spite of uncertainty, but because of it. (Breakthrough Institute, Plan for Global Warming Preparedness)

Are they right?

(Reminds me of the old wisdom from the Starbucks coffee cup.)

%d bloggers like this: