The light of day

Think you're smarter than me?

One of the little-noted provisions in that legislation floating around Washington -- it has to do with payroll tax cuts and an oil pipeline -- is a suspension of the ban on 100-watt lightbulbs.

I've been stocking up on these babies, because I hate these new CFL bulbs. It's like we're back in pioneer days living by candlelight.

Well, here's an inside look at who gets what in all this mess. Just read it all.

When Republicans suspended the 100-watt-light-bulb ban, they said they were trying to protect consumer choice. But they also managed to show how regulations help big business at the expense of the little guy. 

The light-bulb ban was part of an energy bill pushed by Democrats in 2007 that set efficiency standards that traditional incandescent bulbs could never meet. The first to go was supposed to be the 100 watt bulb in 2012, followed by 75 watt bulbs the next year and the ubiquitous 60-watt bulb in 2014. 

The argument is that forcing consumers to buy more efficient — and far more expensive — bulbs will greatly reduce energy consumption, and in turn, air pollution and global warming.

Earlier this month, Republicans suspended the law until October by denying funds for its implementation as part of a massive spending bill. For Democrats, this move was another sign of how out of touch the GOP is. 

But look who else is complaining. As Politico reported, "big companies like General Electric, Philips and Osram Sylvania (are) fuming." Allegedly these companies are mad because they invested lots of money getting ready for the new rules.

Fact is, they were pushing for the ban all along. 

In 2007, Philips urged an incandescent ban as a way to force the market toward high-efficiency bulbs, complaining that without such laws, "purchase price and functional performance often take precedence over environmental concern." 

That same year, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, which represents companies making 95% of bulbs sold in the U.S., told a Senate panel that a ban was needed "to further educate consumers on the benefits of energy-efficient products."

You can believe if you want these companies only had Mother Earth in mind with this ban. But more likely they saw it as a chance to fatten their bottom lines. Who wouldn't jump at the chance to outlaw a low-margin, 60-cent product when you're trying to hawk a high-margin $3 alternative? 

This would hardly be the first time big business teamed up with big government to enhance profits through competition-crushing regulations. Timothy Carney's book, "The Big Ripoff," detailed many cases where businesses "profit from big government policies that rip off consumers." 

Thanks to the GOP, consumers now can see this seedy process at work, clear as day.

Journalism -- we bring good things to light.

So is talking and driving unsafe or what?

Don't do this, either.

A federal agency is calling for a nationwide ban on all cellphone use while driving, Investor's Business Daily reports. The National Transportation Safety Board recommended that all cellphone use by drivers, including texting, be outlawed. The ban would include hands-free calls.

There are a few problems here. 

There's no compelling reason for it. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says that 3,092 traffic deaths last year involved distracted drivers. But using a cell phone is only one of many driver distractions. Eating and drinking while behind the wheel are two others, and they are far more dangerous than yapping on a phone. 

In fact, a 2009 NHTSA study found that 80% of all car wrecks are caused by drivers eating or drinking — not cellphone use — with coffee-guzzling the top offender. 

Then there's this. According to federal data, traffic deaths have fallen from 2.1 per 100 million vehicle miles in 1990, when virtually no one had a cellphone, to 1.1 in 2009, when almost everyone does.

The newspaper asks: Banning cellphone use? Why aren't the Potomac nannies going after Starbucks sippers and Big Mac munchers instead? Why not prosecute women who put on their makeup while on the road and men who shave? Shouldn't combing while driving be outlawed as well?

Righto. Flossing, too. Nose-picking. Reading Proust.

One way to control the cost of healthcare

More than 3,000 people in England with diabetes, heart failure or COPD (a serious lung disease called chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) took part in a recent two-year trial of telehealth technology for monitoring people who are chronically ill.

According to the results of the trial, published by the Department of Health, telehealth can reduce mortality, reduce the need for admissions to hospital, lower the number of days spent in a hospital bed and cut the time spent in A&E.

Here's how it works.

First thing in the morning, Terry Munro always puts the kettle on. "Then I take my blood sugar, take my blood pressure and my weight and in that time the kettle's boiled.

"And I've got a record of it on my TV. It's marvellous, it really is." 

Terry, who is 67 years old and has diabetes, has been keeping tabs on his own health using nothing more than his television. The testing equipment uses Bluetooth so when Terry has taken his daily measurements they are automatically uploaded to the TV. 

A trained nurse can access and monitor the readings from a central location and make decisions about potential changes in treatments. "I like walking, but I used to go out and go hypo. Now I know I can't go out if my blood sugar is too low, so I am more aware now. 

"It's like having a doctor there all the time."

Patients like Terry are constantly being watched by nurses, albeit at a distance. Any unusual readings entered onto the TV are picked up straight away and will prompt a visit by a nurse or an alert to the patient's doctor.