Rod Livdahl's letter (July 15) condemning conservatives' attempts to give us a choice on what kind of light bulbs we can use illuminates how liberals deal with the idea of "choice." Incandescent, which has been in use for well over a hundred years, is considered a threat because it consumes too much energy. The gradual phase-out of these bulbs to the compact fluorescent (CFL) type is underway because of government mandates.
When a liberal sees something he doesn't like (incandescent bulbs), he wants to ban their use by everybody. If a conservative does not like something, he just doesn't buy it but leaves others the freedom to make their own choice.
My wife has headache and equilibrium problems with the illumination characteristics of CFLs. As a result, we have tried to stock up on incandescent bulbs so we will have a supply for some time to come. The toxic mercury content of CFLs which would normally outrage lefties is ignored. As for incandescent bulbs consuming more power, I'm paying my power bill so leave me alone.
The correct solution is to allow both CFLs and incandescent bulbs. Let the consumer choose. If CFLs really save a lot of money, most people will buy them. For others who have legitimate reasons for choosing incandescent, please leave us with that choice.
Give me conservative choice, not liberal mandated one-size-fits-all ultimatums.
Steve Ball, Gilbert