The world is going mad about the speculative-at-best Ã¢â‚¬Å“scienceÃ¢â‚¬Â of man-made global warming Ã¢â‚¬â€ simply nuts. And nowhere is this happening more than in California, which is weaving itself into a cuckooÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s nest to such a degree that the only way to save The Golden State now would be to crop-dust it with Thorazine.
Recent Ã¢â‚¬Å“newsÃ¢â‚¬Â stories inform us that we might as well kill ourselves now, as our future holds nothing but misery, so one state is taking drastic steps.
California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine has introduced the Ã¢â‚¬Å“How many legislators does it take to change a light bulb act.Ã¢â‚¬Â The legislation would ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012. They say itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s to save the planet, but I think itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s only so any smokers slipping through the cracks of all the smoking bans canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see their cigarettes.
California is also leading the nation in the ranks of states who are trying to ban trans fats and SUVÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s so people donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t hurt anybody by wrecking the planet and suffering heart attacks while driving to the abortion clinic.
Ã¢â‚¬Å“How many legislators does it take to change a light bulb?Ã¢â‚¬Â isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t to be confused with Ã¢â‚¬Å“How many legislators does it take to screw in a light bulb?Ã¢â‚¬Â The answer to the latter being, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Depends on how many legislators the light bulb can hold.Ã¢â‚¬Â
ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s somewhat comical that California lawmakers are concentrating on hamburgers, cigarettes and light bulbs when the real environmental culprits are right there on their television sets and in the movie theaters.
According to a UCLA study, Hollywood pollutes, big time Ã¢â‚¬â€œ second only to the petroleum industry. Producing just a couple more movies about the environmental evils of big industry is sure to push Hollywood into the top spot.
As one example, consider the makers of the global-warming film Ã¢â‚¬Å“The Day After Tomorrow,Ã¢â‚¬Â who had the foresight to help ensure there would be an opportunity for a sequel, because itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s reported that they spewed out 10,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions during production. The UCLA report found that the film and television industry emits 140,000 tons a year of ozone and diesel pollutant emissions from trucks, generators, special effects earthquakes and fires, demolition of sets with dynamite and other sources.
Leave it to Hollywood to spend a fortune and destroy the environment in order to generate fake earthquakes and fires when, right behind them, are actual earthquakes and fires.
If the government was really concerned about the environment, theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d address the apparent environmental rapists in Hollywood Ã¢â‚¬â€ but, like most things, this isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t about what it would appear to be on the surface. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not about light bulbs Ã¢â‚¬â€ itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s about control. That and perhaps big campaign donations from the energy-saving fluorescent light manufacturers lobby.
I have no problem with energy-saving measures, but liberals are now throwing around the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“ban” like baseballs during spring training. The word Ã¢â‚¬Å“banÃ¢â‚¬Â is really in the eye of the beholder, isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t it? This is why itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s so dangerous.
ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a case study in irony. If you say you want to ban trans fats, SUVs, smoking, spanking,Ã‚Â and light bulbs; the left lionizes you as a hero. If you say you want to ban books on homosexuality from your kidÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s elementary school library, youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re a Nazi scumbag.Ã‚Â Most Ã¢â‚¬Å“bansÃ¢â‚¬ÂÃ‚Â are best left to totalitarian regimes, which apparently the left is hell-bent on creating in the United States.
The firstÃ‚Â “pollutant” we need to ban areÃ‚Â buffoons in government, but that wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t happen anytime soon, as the Ã¢â‚¬Å“what to banÃ¢â‚¬Â docket is quite full for the foreseeable future.
Note: If you’re seeing only this post, the entire blog can be accessed at DougPowers.com