I can see it now, as vivid as can be: Someone knocks three times at a door in a dark alley, a slit opens, eyes look out and a voice says, "How many do you want and what wattage?"
There you have it — the Age of Prohibition has returned in all its fury, not to dispense devil rum, but rather an incandescent bulb that offers a higher degree of light plus more warmth than a CFL (compact florescent light) and cheaper than a LED (light emitting diode).
Better get with it, gang. Thomas Edison's original incandescent light bulb was going the way of the dodo bird because of the action of Congress last year to mandate 25 percent less use of electricity. The standard authorized by Congress last year was indefinitely extended on Dec. 16, because no funding was set aside for its implementation. Who knows, if enough people were to rise up to say, "I'm mad as hell, and I won't take it anymore," like they did in the 1976 flick "Network," maybe Congress will back down once again.
Interesting is the fact Texas did just that! They passed a law in 2011 to exempt bulbs made and sold within its borders from federal standards. Said Rep. Michael C. Burgess, Republican, "Why should the federal government restrict my freedom on what type of light bulb I use." Why indeed?
Interesting, too, California adopted the national standards a year earlier. People had stockpiled 100-watt bulbs before it took place, and the bulbs are still being sold at this date in 2012. In fact, across the border in Reno, Nev., Bulbsman Stores' sales of 100-watt bulbs increased by at least 50 percent over last year with many Californians as customers. I guess they drive under cover of night in twin-bottomed trucks with their contraband hidden under tons of enchiladas.
It boggles the mind to what degree our federal government will reach to protect its citizens. At the height of the Republican Caucus "Reality" Show, Ron Paul announced his support for New Hampshire's right to sell raw unpasteurized milk; he and it became a cause celebre. The FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) affirm that raw milk has been shown to make people ill due to potentially deadly pathogens such as E. coli, Listeria and salmonella. In spite of these warnings, 27 U.S. states do not prohibit the sales of raw milk.
Humans consumed unpasteurized milk exclusively prior to the 1890s' discovery of the germ theory. To control the hazards of highly contagious bacterial diseases, full-scale pasteurization soon began. Wikipedia states that proponents of raw milk consumption in the U.S. claim that pasteurization changes or destroys some of the milk's nutrients and actually kills some "good" bacteria that have health benefits. Raw milk is considered safe in Africa, Asia, England, France, Germany, among a host of other countries. This is a situation difficult to assess because those who believe in their right to consume raw milk, since it aids their digestion, will never be convinced that unpasteurized milk is dangerous to their health.
As Winston Churchill said of Russia, "It's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." So is the level to which our government will rise (or drop) to protect its citizens. Congress, how about working on something more majestic than raw milk or light bulbs; something like JOBS!
• • •
Robert D. Campbell, an essayist who lives in Newburyport, believes that a sense of humor is essential.


