After the original puff pieces, California's proposed incandescent-bulb ban is getting some journalistic scrutiny. The SF Chronicle's Matthew Yi used the old reporter's trick of looking for comment from the obvious other side to ferret out these objections:
"It may not be rocket science, but it actually comes pretty close when it comes to making lighting products that are acceptable and safe," said Earl Jones, a senior counsel for GE's consumer and industrial division. "There are technology challenges to get them done by 2012."
One example is the small chandelier light bulb that is in the shape of a candle light, he said. Currently, there is no compact fluorescent replacement that is similarly shaped. Another challenge is dimmable compact fluorescents, which are difficult to make without having them flicker or create a low-humming buzzing sound if the switch is not turned up all the way.
Besides, more people are replacing the warm glow of the incandescent bulbs with the cooler compact fluorescents anyway, and lawmakers should let consumers vote with their wallets, Jones said.
"The market is already transitioning and transforming itself, and for the legislature to come in and dictate, or try to change that pattern with five years' notice, is just wrong," he said.
And Sac Bee columnist Steve Wiegand raised some obvious problems with making a common household item illegal:
Do you really want to open up a light bulb black market, where Californians are clandestinely purchasing incandescent bulbs via shady Internet sites, or driving to the border towns of Arizona and Nevada to buy bulbs, along with cheap cigarettes and fireworks?
Do you really want to make college students and others whose lives tend to be transitory have to pack up fragile light bulbs each time they move because they are too costly to leave behind?
And aren't there are other issues more worthy of heavy-handed government intrusion? How about banning the sale of all tobacco products instead? What about making it a felony to drive more than 250 yards with the turn signal on? Why not a substantial fine for 12 items in the 10-items-or-less line?
It's likely these well-intentioned-but-you-should-mind-your-own-business light bulb proposals won't go anywhere, unless it's in the form of a legislative suggestion.
That's good. Because when incandescent bulbs are outlawed, only outlaws will have incandescent bulbs.
Kate Folmar's one-sided original report in the San Jose Mercury News is looking more and more like an embarrassing press release. Judging from the reader comments, it's not hard to find objections.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on February 12, 2007 • Comments
Thanks to everyone who emailed reasons you should get passes to Ghost Rider. I'm sorry we couldn't accommodate everyone, but even big-time radio stations have to ration their passes. The winners are...
John Tabin, who wrote:
I should totally get a Ghost Rider screening pass.
1. I both blog and write professionally, so I'll definitely squeeze a review out of it one way or another.
2. In the past I've enjoyed dumb action movies starring Nicolas Cage, like Con Air and The Rock, so there's a better-than-even chance it'll be a good review.
3. When I saw the Ghost Rider trailer and expressed interest in seeing the movie, my wife suggested waiting for it to come to cable. If I have a screening pass, nothing can stop me from seeing it in theaters.
4. If I don't get a pass, it can only be interpreted as a blow to The Future, and a victory for Its Enemies.
5. I have both Substance and Style.
And David Noziglia, who wrote:
There are two reasons it would be a good idea to give me tickets to see this movie.
The most important reason is that I just forgot our anniversary, and I could really use a special treat for my wife. It would especially help if it didn't cost too much money, for the reason below.
Not that I'm looking for sympathy, but the second reason is that I have just been laid off from my job at SAIC, and I need something to get my mind off the situation and help me recharge while I am looking for a new position. I can't think of anything better for that than going to a movie to laugh at Nicolas Cage overacting in a rediculous situation, while the film makers get the whole idea of the Ghost Rider completely wrong.
I will, however, be willing to pay for dinner afterward.
Laughter is the best medicine, no?
Again, thanks to all the entrants, and to Sony for the chance to give away freebies.
And for you trivia buffs, I recently learned that Eugene Volokh was in a journalism class with Nicolas Cage at Beverly Hills High. Maybe they should send some guest passes to the Volokh Conspiracy.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on February 09, 2007 • Comments
Arnold Kling has a friend who needs a kidney, type O or A positive. Arnold, who has been ruled out for medical reasons, is looking for a donor or information on a paired exchange that would allow his friend's husband (type B positive) to give to someone else in exchange for a donation that would suit his wife.
Paired donation could significantly increase the number of kidney transplants, and there have already been some remarkable successes. But it could also be illegal. Federal law prohibits giving someone "valuable consideration" for an organ donation, and what could be more valuable than an organ to save a loved one? A bill, H.R.710, introduced by Reps. Charlie Norwood (R-Georgia) and Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) would explicitly exempt paired donations from the prohibition. The bill is currently in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. If your representative is a member, particularly of the subcommittee on health, please write to him or her urging that this bill be expedited. A similar bill died last year, despite little opposition. A Senate version is sponsored by Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Kit Bond (R-Mo.).
Posted by Virginia Postrel on February 06, 2007 • Comments
The good folks at Sony Pictures are promoting the new film Ghost Rider (and a related online game) and, apparently knowing of this site's interest in comic book heroes, have offered me a (very) small allotment of screening passes to give away. Send me an email at vp-at-dynamist.com explaining why you should get a pass, and I'll pick the best two. Your reasons should involve going to this movie, not flattering the blogger (though flattery is always welcome). Include your mailing address, so we can send you the tickets if you win. According to the publicist, "The tickets are valid in the United States and specific to the winner's location. There will be a specific theater for the winner to go to, corresponding to their city. The viewing will be a couple days before the release on Feb 16, 2007."
Any entries may be posted here, and my decision is arbitrary and final. The deadline for entries is 11:59 p.m. Central Time on Wednesday, February 7. Winners will be announced on Friday, February 9.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on February 02, 2007 • Comments
When I was a child in the 1960s, a lot of children's literature seemed to be set in the Depression and featured characters, often migrant farmers, beset by financial woes. One of the morals of these stories was that you shouldn't "buy on time." In the 1920s, installment buying was a popular way to finance consumer durables like cars, furniture, and refrigerators. As I hazily recall, in kids' books poverty-stricken families were always having their household goods repossessed because they couldn't make their payments.
So here's the bleg: What are these books? I'm looking for some examples and can't find them. Blue Willow
is a terrific book whose title dish beautifully exemplifies Grant McCracken's concept of "displaced meaning," but it has nothing about buying on time. Strawberry Girl is less impressive and also features no repo men. Am I simply imagining these anti-debt morality tales?
Posted by Virginia Postrel on January 31, 2007 • Comments
"Say what you will about Al Sharpton, but his personal hygiene appears to be excellent."
Posted by Virginia Postrel on January 31, 2007 • Comments
It looks like ridicule may kill the spanking ban, but California legislators never stop finding new ideas for bans and regulations. Now the San Jose Mercury-News reports that Lloyd Levine, an assembly member from Van Nuys, wants the state to ban sales of incandescent light bulbs. The credulous article, by Kate Folmar of the Sacramento bureau, makes no mention of aesthetic objections to fluorescent bulbs, focusing entirely on short-term price comparisons (with no present value calculations):
Switching light bulbs is an idea that environmentalists have long supported. But getting consumers to embrace change has been slow going.
Banning energy-intensive incandescents "saves consumers money, saves the state money and saves energy," said Levine, who calls his measure the "How Many Legislators Does It Take to Change a Light Bulb Act."
"When a consumer is standing in a store and they're confronted with two different products, they generally opt for the one that is cheaper and the one they've traditionally bought," he said. "The problem is: The one they think is cheaper is only cheap at that moment in time. The other one is cheaper over the long run."
Compact fluorescent bulbs cost several times more than a traditional bulb, but they last 10 times longer. Replacing one bulb that is used four to eight hours a day can save a consumer $4 to $13 a year and $38 to $72 after five years, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
For a different perspective, see my article here. After an unhappy experience with Wal-Mart's compact fluorescents, Megan McArdle sparked a vigorous debate on the subject here and here.
Regardless of the merits of the light bulbs, California legislators are far too eager to write their personal preferences into bans and mandates. (If you want Californians to burn less electricity, put a tax on it or let utilities raise the price. Don't tell them how to allocate the electricity they use.) So I'm reviving a blog series headline from a few years back.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on January 31, 2007 • Comments
Discover.com is running a contest for the best two-minute video that will "present an accurate, basic understanding of string theory that will stick in the brains of relatively intelligent non-scientists." Glamorous physicist and author Brian Greene is the final judge.
But this is one seriously exploitive contest. There appear to be no prizes--not even a gift subscription or a signed copy of The Elegant Universe--and merely entering the contest gives Discover "exclusive [!!!--vp], royalty-free and irrevocable right and license to edit, reproduce, publish, display, broadcast, stream or otherwise use your video entry, in whole or in part, for any purpose and in any manner or media (including, without limitation, the Internet) throughout the world in perpetuity, and to license others to do so, without limitation or further compensation." Sounds like a very bad deal.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on January 31, 2007 • Comments
Looking for something entirely unrelated, I stumbled on a list of Amazon recommendations titled Apollo in American Myth and Memory, from Roger Launius, a historian at the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum. It's an intriguing list with useful comments and, judging from the books I'm familiar with (those by Charles Murray and Michael Collins), a well-chosen selection. I wish more Amazon lists were as well done.
As a matter of blog history, back in 2004, Launius came in for some not-entirely-fair criticism on Rand Simberg's blog for his skepticism about the prospects of private launch companies. That shouldn't detract from the value of his book recommendations, of course. Besides, we had indeed seen lots of earlier private launch hype with few results, and rockets are indeed dangerous and hard to control. There was nothing crazy or, for that matter, pro-NASA about Launius's comments.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on January 31, 2007 • Comments
Egyptian blogger Abdelkareem Soliman, known online as Kareem Amer, is facing nine years in prison for such free-speech "crimes" as "spreading data and malicious rumors that disrupt public security," "defaming the president of Egypt," "incitement to overthrow the regime upon hatred and contempt," and "incitement to hate Islam." Before his arrest in November, he had been expelled from college because of his political blogging. His case demonstrates the abyssmal state of basic liberties in Egypt. It also challenges the self-importance of bloggers: Can, in fact, this new medium generate public interest and support for one of its own? Pajamas Media has covered the case here, and Tom Palmer has made freeing Soliman a major cause.
There will be a rally at 3:30 today outside the Egyptian consulate in Manhattan (2nd Ave. between 58th and 59th) in support of Soliman. For more information, visit the Free Kareem site. (Thanks to Todd Seavey for the tip.)
Posted by Virginia Postrel on January 31, 2007 • Comments