Demise of the Incandescent Light Bulb

Demise of the incandescent light bulb is imminent.  The ordinary lightbulb will become history at the end of 2013.  January 1, 2014 marks the end of a seven-year effort to outlaw the ordinary lightbulb, thanks to a 2007 law that raised the standards above what the manufacturers could meet with the incandescent bulb.  This law essentially killed the incandescent lightbulb.

Beginning in 2010 the government began phasing out the incandescent lightbulb starting with the most common 100-watt bulb, followed in 2012 by the 75-watt, and now beginning January 1, 2014 both the 60-watt and 40 watt bulbs will be outlawed.  That will have the most impact on consumers because they are the most popular.

The demise of the incandescent lightbulb may come as a surprise to most Americans.  A study by the Lutron Group showed that only 1 in 3 adults were aware of the planned phase out of the incandescent lightbulb.  Those that were aware began to systematically stock up with incandescent light bulbs of various wattages.  My wife and I have a large cabinet in the garage full of 100-watt bulbs and a large number of 75-watt, 60-watt and 40-watt bulbs.  Probably enough to last us a lifetime.

This is just another instance of government in our face.  The liberals just can't resist the urge to tell the rest of us how to run our lives with everything from the lightbulbs we can use to our healthcare needs.

The Lost Art of Conversation

I believe our younger generations have lost the art of conversation.  I see them everywhere with their eyes fixed on small gadgets in their hands and with listening plugs in their ears.  They appear to be almost oblivious to their surroundings as they go about their daily functions.

At the gym where I go three times a week I see many of the same people time and again, but never speak or get to know them.  They have ear plugs listening to music, I suppose, as they workout.  While they rest they sit holding one of those gismos working it with their thumbs and looking intently at the miniature screen.  A few of the older folks at the gym are mostly the ones I know and converse with.

When my wife and I go into restaurants we see the younger people (by younger I mean under the age of 55) at tables with eyes fixed on the gadgets in hand and little or no conversation.  It's not uncommon for us to see a young couple having dinner with heads down fingering the hand held gadgets. We wonder who they are communicating with.  Each other, maybe.

Just today we had lunch in a small restaurant.  A couple was at one table.  A couple with two kids were at another table.  Five people were at a larger table.  All were using those small hand held gadgets.  Even the kids had one.  My wife and I were amazed.  The table of five did have some occasional conversation, and the two kids were sometimes noisy, but for the most part they played with their gadgets as they ate their meals.

Is this just a phenomena that will pass with time, or will it become a permanent part of the social culture?  Will all the people eventually actually loose the art of vocal conversation?      

 

Jihadist Homosexuals

The homosexual community makes up about 2% of the population, though their advocates claim as high as 10%.  They are the most aggressive and vocal group movement espousing their lifestyle.  In fact, as illustrated by the recent Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame incident, they seek to destroy those of fame and prominence that do not approve and accept their life style.  They are what I characterize as jihadists, like the followers of Islam, that either you accept their life principles or they will destroy you.

All homosexuals are not a part of the radical jihadist movement.  They simply quietly go about their ever day business and do not publicly wear their lifestyle beliefs on their sleeves, or try to force non-believers to approve and accept their way of life.  By the same token heterosexuals are well advised to do the same.

It is perfectly acceptable to express one's beliefs as sanctioned by the First Amendment so long as there is no jihadist-like intent to destroy others for their beliefs.  

Merry Christmas

MERRY CHRISTMAS, MY FRIENDS.  ENJOY!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln01p1M2cH0

Is Welfare too Profitable?

Today Chris Wallace featured Andrea Elliott, a New York Times investigative reporter, on Fox News Sunday.  She wrote a five-part series on the plight of an eleven-year old girl living in a homeless shelter in New York City with her parents and siblings.  It was a touching story of her trials and tribulations.

However, the New York Post, a competitor newspaper in New York City, provided a different perspective on the young girl and her family as follows:

"If a five-part opus in The New York Times by Andrea Elliott is to believed, we live in a hard-hearted city. But if you read closely, it suggests just the opposite.

Begin with the family at the center of this story. The mother, father and eight kids aren’t really homeless at all. True, they live in housing meant for “homeless families.” But their 540-square-foot unit gives them a solid roof over their heads, in addition to city-provided meals and services.

“New York City provides families in need, including this one, with subsidized health care, child care, shelter, job-training, counseling and placement services,” as well as cash assistance, a spokesman said.

For this family, shelter, rental assistance and food stamps alone have added up to nearly half a million dollars since 2000. In addition, Medicaid covers health care. Even so, the parents have consistently failed to meet basic eligibility requirements.

Yes, the family’s housing has problems, including mice and reports of sexual assaults and other crimes. But the Times and Elliott, like much of the liberal establishment, seem to think it’s the city’s job to provide comfortable lives to outrageously irresponsible parents. In this case, that’s a couple with a long history of drug problems and difficulty holding jobs.

Something’s wrong with that picture.

If the city is at fault here, it might well be for having been too generous — providing so much that neither the father nor mother seems much inclined to provide for their kids. That would be a story worth reading."

In my opinion, and I believe the opinion of many others, welfare is meant to give temporary assistance to help people over difficult times and to get them back on their feet as productive and contributing citizens.  It is meant to be a safety net, not a hammock of lifetime leisure.  In this case the family has received about half a million dollars in "assistance" over the past 13 years.  That is over $38,000 a year tax-free.  Pity the poor souls working their butts off for salaries far less and having to also pay taxes to support the free-loaders.

The "war on poverty" began in earnest under the Johnson administration.  Several trillion dollars have been spent since on various government run welfare programs, and the level of poverty is about the same today as it was in1960.

So, has welfare become too profitable?  Is it too easy to simply rely on the government to provide your needs, and it is no longer necessary to provide for yourself?

And, before you get bent out of shape about my lack of compassion let me tell you that I grew up dirt poor during The Great Depression of the 1930's.  But, my father and mother were too self reliant, too proud to accept any kind of government welfare.  They struggled and made it on their own like many others of that era.