Ed Begley flips out on FOX News

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2009 4:40 PM GMT
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/24/ed-begley-jr-flips-out-on_n_370022.html

    I know conservatives in America have a thing about government showing up in their homes but isn't this getting a little ridiculous when that principle centers around incandescent bulbs?

    Aren't there bigger fish to fry in the world? Doesn't this only aid and abet a culture of profligacy when progress cannot be made because of the ridiculous application of ill-thought out principles at times when the principle of stewardship and prudence needs, absolutely needs to take precedent?

    That's all rhetorical by the way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2009 5:56 PM GMT
    Your argument seems tangential, what is irking you? The validity or the apparent waste of time the above debate is because of the regressive thought process of conservatives?
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Nov 25, 2009 6:00 PM GMT
    That's right, don't outlaw incandescent light bulbs. Let's roll back emission standards for cars, too. And let's roll back regulations on waste dumping and industrial pollution. Let's not do anything because climate change may not be the sole cause of all the things humans do to shape their environment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2009 6:05 PM GMT
    Well, I personally see no difference between somebody like Ed Begley Jr. and some anti-abortion activist. It is all the same neurotic lunacy.

    That's too bad too, because he is a pretty good actor.

    Anyway, at least his talking points include peer-reviewed science.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2009 6:11 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidThe more we let government regulate our lives today, the more it will embolden government to impose additional regulation on our lives in the future.


    This is the dog whistle for the "rugged individualist". Regrettably you have been drafted into an army by interests that are not individuals: they are large, virtually unregulated corporations. These corporations have been given person-hood status by the misreading of an opinion of the Supreme Court more than a century ago. They have fought every attempt at reform that would contribute to saving our planet, and they've enlisted you to do the heavy work of voting, arguing, and tea-bagging.

    Yes, stay vigilant about our government, but pay closer attention to who's cheering you on.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2009 6:16 PM GMT
    He is not the best person to have to a debate that's for sure. But, between yelling, he made a good case.
    The interviewer was so bloody stupid about saying that he doesn't want gov't coming into his home over lightbulbs. That is normal scare tactics that they use.
    When they do FINALLY ban the manufacturing and import of incandescent lamps, you will simply not be able to buy them. There is no downfall to this at all. They use much more energy, and conduct MUCH more heat then CFLs. Even repuGlicans/Fox watchers can not argue that this is a bad thing. However, I am sure they will try. LOL!
    Don't get to use to the CFLs. They will not be around as long as the incandescents were. The CFLs are estimated to be around for about a decade or so. LEDs will be standard in homes in about 15-20 years.
    Cheers,
    Keith
    icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2009 6:21 PM GMT
    Actually even during the yelling he still had nice points, it is just that his interviewer is a fear monger. It is rather repulsive, reminds me of scare tactics in California about Prop 8. OMG THEY WILL MAKE YOUR CHILDREN THINK IT IS OK.

    The Princeton physicist part made me laugh. Hey let me ask a Spanish professor his thoughts about Siberian literature.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2009 6:24 PM GMT
    Wow! I'm impressed! Someone dumps thousands of files from the CRU on the internet showing the science behind "Climate Change" is compromised and all you're able to grasp is the part about light bulbs ?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2009 6:44 PM GMT
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8230544.stm


    "The [European Union] ban will be extended to all incandescent bulbs by 2012."

    While they are pushing for Compact fluorescent bulbs. These bulbs contain Mercury, which actually is a dangerous chemical for our health. Here is the EPA website on proper disposal on the bulbs.

    http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/

    " Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room

    * Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.
    * Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
    * Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.

    Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces

    * Carefully scoop up glass pieces and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
    * Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
    * Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.
    * Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.

    Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug

    * Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
    * Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
    * If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken.
    * Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister), and put the bag or vacuum debris in a sealed plastic bag.

    Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding and Other Soft Materials

    * If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away. Do not wash such clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage.
    * You can, however, wash clothing or other materials that have been exposed to the mercury vapor from a broken CFL, such as the clothing you are wearing when you cleaned up the broken CFL, as long as that clothing has not come into direct contact with the materials from the broken bulb.
    * If shoes come into direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from the bulb, wipe them off with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the towels or wipes in a glass jar or plastic bag for disposal.

    Disposal of Clean-up Materials

    * Immediately place all clean-up materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area for the next normal trash pickup.
    * Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing clean-up materials.
    * Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states do not allow such trash disposal. Instead, they require that broken and unbroken mercury-containing bulbs be taken to a local recycling center.

    Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rug: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming

    * The next several times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window before vacuuming.
    * Keep the central heating/air conditioning system shut off and the window open for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is completed."

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2009 6:48 PM GMT
    these FOX interviewers just seem hell bent on finding everything possible to dissagree with if it comes from Obama or Democrats and Progressives. Its quite alarming to me that they will go to such lengths, as equating outlawing a certain kind of ineficient light bulb to the government "coming into our homes' and controling our lives. Sometimes I wonder, are they really that much about winning out against Obama, or is it that they know being against something sells?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2009 6:52 PM GMT
    The hacked emails show that the leaders in global warming research and modeling purposely fit data to match the global warming model. Thats the real story.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657

    These are some of the emails. Even though it is long, it might be worth the read since it is very interesting information.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2009 7:02 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidThanks for posting the link. It actually was a good debate and they did wrap it up well.

    As for outlawing incandescent bulbs. It's the slippery slope problem.

    The more we let government regulate our lives today, the more it will embolden government to impose additional regulation on our lives in the future.

    You've never seen government actually reverse itself on any of these things, have you?


    I fail to see how this is a slippery slope problem. If people are crying to the government to fix the energy economy, this is one of the easiest and most logical steps that involves little or almost no sacrifice by citizens.

    And as for the paltry argument that the new bulbs aren't good for your health, there are brands of energy efficient bulbs with the "double envelope" as well as ones that have tints cast to them, to decrease brightness.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2009 7:05 PM GMT
    Oo I really like this quote:

    "don't get your information from me folks, or any newscaster. Get it from people with Ph.D. after their name."

    I feel suddenly useful :-) (and that angsty hottie DiverScience, too! Woot!)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2009 7:24 PM GMT
    As far as the light bulbs go ... wah wah wah! We need better light bulb technology! Other products that are harmful to the environment are regulated also. I really wonder though if there would not be a better technology that fluorescent. Something like LED which uses very little energy but I think its use for home lighting needs to be improved ..

    http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_lighting.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2009 8:07 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    blah blah


    So how do you feel about Street lighting? The Fire Service? Highways? The fact that you have to use 110V electricity? Power transmission lines? Nuclear reactors? Weather stations? Aircraft Carriers?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2009 8:32 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    southbeach1500 said
    blah blah


    So how do you feel about Street lighting? The Fire Service? Highways? The fact that you have to use 110V electricity? Power transmission lines? Nuclear reactors? Weather stations? Aircraft Carriers?
    The same goes for water use restrictions, fire (burning) regulations, used oil disposal, fuel mixture regulations (remember leaded fuels?) the list goes on and on. If there is ANYTHING that the government should regulate it is environmental stuff. Only an idiot would think that all that stuff will take care of itself. If the deregulate everything people had their way, we would be burned up, dried up, choked up, and poisoned in no time .. they are just too dumb to get it.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Nov 25, 2009 8:36 PM GMT
    Efficiency saves money. The only thing I fault Ed Bagley for in this flip out is that he didn't speak the language of dollars and cents. That's what conservatives listen to.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2009 8:38 PM GMT
    In the UK you can no longer buy 100W incandescent light bulbs. The manufacturers are not allowed to make them any more.

    The supermarkets quickly ran out of the old style light bulbs when people realised they were being abolished. Now you can only buy the florescent bulbs.

    So far no one has rioted in the streets or poisoned themselves with mercury. Was a lot of fuss over nothing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2009 8:51 PM GMT
    Imagine all the energy saved if we'd start behaving properly and use more efficient lighting.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Nov 25, 2009 8:52 PM GMT
    ^ you have the right to give a fuck and choose a better quality light bulb. I'm just saying...


    To put on about light bulbs like this makes it seem like spoiled kids throwing temper tantrums because they can't have it their way any more.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Nov 25, 2009 9:06 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    coolarmydude said^ you have the right to give a fuck and choose a better quality light bulb. I'm just saying...


    That's a very important distinction - "choose" versus "be told"...



    I was being facetious. The point is that a mandate towards a more energy efficient light bulb is nothing to get bent out of shape about. You will get to still choose which light bulb you want, but the choices won't include the far less efficient incandescent bulb.

    It's like Henry Ford on the Model T. You can get it any color you want as long as it's black.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2009 9:55 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    coolarmydude said
    southbeach1500 said
    coolarmydude said^ you have the right to give a fuck and choose a better quality light bulb. I'm just saying...


    That's a very important distinction - "choose" versus "be told"...



    I was being facetious. The point is that a mandate towards a more energy efficient light bulb is nothing to get bent out of shape about. You will get to still choose which light bulb you want, but the choices won't include the far less efficient incandescent bulb.

    It's like Henry Ford on the Model T. You can get it any color you want as long as it's black.


    Yeah, but you are missing the point (or just choosing to disregard it).

    In the Soviet Union, people had choices too.... light bulb "A" or "B" or "C" but the difference was that the government decided that there should only be an "A" "B" and "C" to choose from.

    And to everyone who says, "It's only a light bulb" well that's the whole point! It's a light bulb! And the government is telling us which light bulbs we can now use.

    Don't you see the problem?


    There is no downfall/problem with this at all. Was there a problem when the gov't put laws into effect about upping the mileage that motorcars have to get per gallon? NO.
    When they do FINALLY ban the manufacturing and import of incandescent lamps, you will simply not be able to buy them. They use much more energy, and conduct MUCH more heat then CFLs.
    Don't get to use to the CFLs though. They will not be around as long as the incandescents have been. The CFLs are estimated to be around for about a decade or so. LEDs will be standard in homes in about 15-20 years.

    If people are so stupid to object to this, then they should run out sometime in the future and buy up a lifetime's worth. Then they will have nothing to worry about.
    Cheers,
    Keith
    icon_twisted.gif

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2009 10:13 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    realifedad said these FOX interviewers just seem hell bent on finding everything possible to dissagree with if it comes from Obam or Democrats and Progressives. Its quite alarming to me that they will go to such lengths, as equating outlawing a certain kind of ineficient light bulb to the government "coming into our homes' and controling our lives. Sometimes I wonder, are they really that much about winning out against Obama, or is it that they know being against something sells?


    Your statement implies that this doesn't happen at all on MSNBC. Do you think that "your side" does NOT do the same against Republicans and conservatives? Ever watch Maddow or Olberman?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>LOL !!! Southbeach - Come on !! you mean you cann't tell the difference ? You cannot readily see that Maddow and Olberman are pointing out how rediculous the methods, and stretching efforts to which the far right will go to make the Dems and Obama wrong, and to dissagree with them. Take an evening and watch two hours of FOX (False news, unfair and not balanced) then the next evening watch Maddow and Olberman, take down each point made, then right down whether there was proof or just suppositions to be against something being done by the establishment, and whether or not the point being made was refuting false statements against the establishment (being for what's being done, and pointing out desparate efforts to make everything wrong) I have, and its obvious where the real news is being put forward.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2009 10:14 PM GMT
    I cannot and will not use CFL's because flourescent lighting plays hell with my eyes and gives me very bad headaches. Even if that were not the case, the bright, white office like glare of them is ugly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 25, 2009 10:42 PM GMT
    They will have to pry my pink incandescent bulbs from my cold dead hands! Everybody looks terrible in fluorescent!

    Maybe I could spray paint my fluorescents pink?