The Green Movement Encourages Internal Strife

I read an article on Lew Rockwell's site outlining the dangers of fluorescent lightbulbs. Pretty scary stuff. Then I decided to do a bit of research.
If the government doesn't overturn this socialist act, we're going to be forced to pick any of the following:
1. Fluorescent. We have one in the hall. I can say that the lighting is sort of blue, and worst of all, it attracts little bugs. Of course, if it's for the environment, it's alright to have your house as one huge bug zapper. Ever hear of redemptive suffering? Yeah, suffer for the state and you'll end up getting more green heaven points. (maybe tax breaks since the government wants you to believe its a god)
2. LEDs. I have a few LED flashlights. They aren't nearly as good as traditional flashlights. We have an LED spotlight on the garage. It just makes everything glow pretty creepilly. Being a nerd though, I love LEDs. I found some lightbulbs that cost about $35 and end up costing about $10 in energy over it's lifetime. Apparently, it's equivalent to a 45 watt bulb. It's not the same and it's incredibly expensive, but it's the next best thing.
3. ...Incandescent lightbulbs? Well, according to that Wikipedia article, the government is banning bulbs between 40 and 150 watts. So I'm going to assume that 30 Watts are going to be sort of popular. People may end up with 2 to compensate, but it's not the same, so they may just use 3. Of course, 200 watt bulbs are a-okay too! I'm going to bet that's so the government and "special interests" can keep them. Eat your soup while we eat cake, right?

The Democrats claim to care about the little guy. When they attack business, it sure seems like they are, right? Well, who employs the little guy? Business, government, and themselves.
First they came for big business...
Let's see what the act includes:

Increased CAFE standards. Automakers are required to boost fleetwide gas mileage to 35 mpg (14.8 km/l) by 2020. This applies to all passenger automobiles, including "light trucks".

Automakers must spend money to increase fuel standards. Businesses (both big and small) must spend money to offset these costs.

Improved vehicle technology and transportation electrification. Incentives for the development of plug-in hybrids.

More money being spent by the failing automotive industry. Indeed, it may boost it a bit at first, but the cost of manufacturing all these cars and parts will take a massive toll. More jobs go overseas. Incentives may "warrant" congress to raise taxes.
And plug in? Well, so long for a lower electric bill!

New conservation requirements for federal vehicle fleets.

Gasp! The government making itself do something?!

Increased production of biofuels. The total amount of biofuels added to gasoline is required to increase to 36 billion gallons by 2022, from 4.7 billion gallons in 2007. The Energy Act further specifies that 21 billion gallons of the 2022 total must be derived from non-cornstarch products (e.g. sugar or cellulose).

So long free markets, hello sugar shortages and more farm welfare. More tax hikes. All in the name of self-sufficiency (nationalism)

Requires roughly 25 percent greater efficiency for light bulbs, phased in from 2012 through 2014. This effectively bans the sale of most current incandescent light bulbs.

Goodbye free markets...I hardly knew you.

Requires roughly 200 percent greater efficiency for light bulbs, or similar energy savings, by 2020.

I don't even want to think how its going to raise to 200% in 6-8 years. Will this mean lightbulbs will cost even more? Sure, incandescents technically cost more, but it's over years, not all at once. Even less money in our pockets because of green socialism.

New initiatives for promoting conservation in buildings and industry.

Oh hey, initiatives! More taxation to encourage environmentalism! Nevermind my socialism statement, hello economic fascism!

Requires all lighting in Federal buildings to use Energy Star products.

Wow, second time the government put itself into something. All right! And they'll do this with stolen money!

New standards and grants for promoting efficiency in government and public institutions. New and renovated federal buildings must reduce fossil fuel use by 55% (from 2003 levels) by 2010, and 80% by 2020. All new federal buildings must be "carbon-neutral" by 2030.

And how do they do this? With taxpayer money! Yay!

Accelerated research and development of solar energy, geothermal energy, and marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies.

More subsidies, more taxes.

Expanded federal research on carbon sequestration technologies.

More subsidies, more tax.

Green jobs - creation of a training program for "Energy efficiency and renewable energy workers".

How are they going to do this? Taxes! Government creating jobs is another sword in the heart of capitalism. Seriously, I'm going to miss it.

Energy transportation and infrastructure. New initiatives for highway, sea and railroad infrastructure. Creation of the Office of Climate Change and Environment in the Department of Transportation.

More taxes and...what's this? Another department?! Well, there we go! They have a foothold to further regulate.

Small business energy programs, offering small businesses loans toward energy efficiency improvements.

Loans, eh? They'll eventually have to pay back even more, so it hurts the business in the long run. More taxes. Is it me or are they starting to attack the "little guy" directly instead of indirectly?

Smart grid - modernization of the electricity grid to improve reliability and efficiency.

Well, the grid is pretty screwed up. More taxes though? I'm thinking yes. More efficient and reliable? I'm thinking less output and capacity instead of fixing blackouts. Well, it's for the environment, damn it!

Pool safety - new federal standards for drain covers and pool barriers.

This is a headscratcher. Regulating pools? Obviously, the cost of owning or going to a private pool will rise, public pools will need more taxes.

To the 108 that voted against it-God Bless you. To those that voted for it-I'm sorry, you're misguided. To the president-never talk about free markets again you traitor.
Who will they tax? Well, the rich of course. They have the money to pay for it, right?
Then they came for the rich...
One day, you may be considered rich because you make as much as a rich person does after taxes.
Then they came for me...
Just a step closer to the government's dream-an ultimate fascist or socialist state where business is in bed with the government or the leviathan consumes all business like the parasite it is.

Pray for Peace

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7271658.stm

Thanks a lot, Mr. Bush.

NBC, you're traitors

Freedom's Watch isn't about the troops, but the neoconservative agenda. Their ads are full of emotional appeals. I just saw on Fox and Friends that NBC is going to play those neocon ads.

"I lost two family members to Al Qaeda -- my uncle, a firefighter, on 9/11, and my husband, Travis, in Iraq. Congress did the right thing, voting to defeat terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. Switching their votes now, for political reasons, it will mean more attacks in America."-Iraq War Widow
I lost two family members, therefore we should stay. More attacks in America, therefore we should 'poke the hornet's nest'.
I think we ought to swallow our pride. Let them "die in vain", with neocon wars every death is a vain death! Instead of defending our dwindling honor and falling position in the world, why don't we act truly pro-life and just get out? A massacre is going to happen, but there's already one. We can't afford to stay there for 50 or more years. It's going to happen no matter how long we're there. The only difference is how many of our soldiers are going to die. The longer we're there, the worse the massacre is going to be whether it's a million dead in a year or a million dead in ten years+750,000 dead the year we leave.

"They attacked us, and they will again. They won't stop in Iraq."-Iraq War Veteran
They won't stop in Iraq, therefore, we must attack other nations we deem are aiding terrorists? Sorry for the possible straw man, but I can't think of any other way of interpreting that.

An end to the war?

Limited funding is better than the whole thing.
Neocons are yelling about the pentagon firing civilian workers to fund the war and how the troops are now in harm's way. Somehow, this is the legislative branch's fault. Yes, the congress isn't patriotic because they aren't giving the troops our money! I always thought patriotism was the love of country and not love of the military/soldiers. At any rate, someone has to grow a spine and place the blame on Bush. Something like "Hey, we're ending the war by giving a limited amount of money. He's the one putting them in harm's way by not taking them out by the time the money runs out."
Assuming patriotism is the love of the military/soldiers, congress is ending war and by keeping them in without money, the president is the unpatriotic one. Unless patriotism is re-redefined as the love of war. In that case, yes, the congress is unpatriotic.

The Bush Administration Are Big Babies

They don't want to play nice with a leader who's good for Russia, but they admire the man who played nice with Uncle Joe during WWII.
They're willing to attack countries that sponsor terrorism, but they don't want Turkey to defend itself against the Kurds since it would make Iraq look even more messed up.
They get angry when Chavez called Bush the devil, but it's a-ok to stick it to the Chinese by attending the Dalai Lama's Congressional Gold Metal ceremony.
It's fine and dandy for Israel to attack military installations, but if someone attacked our's, fecal matter would hit the fan.
And of course, it's awesome to hurt citizens with embargoes, but we topple a regime if they're killing their own people.
Childish? I think so.
By giving the Dalai Lama the Congressional Gold Medal, the government is using American's tax dollars to "attack" China. What did he do to deserve the honor anyway? Tick the Chinese off? Better give Bush the Medal of Honor since he's gone beyond that and ticked the whole world off.
And why don't they want Turkey to protect it's borders? Obviously because they don't care about our own borders and don't want to seem worse than Turkey.