Easy And Bogus Energy Star Certifications

Newly added to my list of things that annoy me would be the EPA and the DOE. That's the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. Both sound like they would be something that would not annoy me. They certainly sound like things that should not annoy me. But when I read over yonder at Fox News that "The federal government has been slapping "energy-efficient" ratings on products that don't even exist" then I get a little annoyed. I get even more annoyed when I read that one of these non-existent products was "...a space heater with a duster and several fly strips attached to it". Wait. What now?

Correct. A space heater with a feather duster and fly strips attached to it. What. The. Hell? According to the article, the Governmental Accountability Office (which is sort of like the Internal Affairs of the federal government) "...wanted to see how easily the feds could be duped". Apparently, the answer to that question is "very". Very easily is how the feds could be duped.

They submitted 20 different products and 15 of those were approved for the "Energy Star" rating. Great. So 75% of the time, they're just certifying crap. Good to know. What else? Well, the reason this happened was because "...Energy Star does not verify energy-savings data reported by manufacturers." So, wait. So you can just tell them whatever the heck you want to about your product, whether it be real or fake, and they're not going to ask you to prove your claims?! Are you kidding me? LOOK at it!!

For cryin' out loud. Now, this wouldn't annoy me all that much except for the fact that a company that makes a product that is Energy Star certified gets humongous tax breaks. Thus, I can see the incentive for any company to claim that anything that they have is energy efficient in order to get that rating and receive their tax breaks. I can see the incentive even more considering that one of the bogus products that the DOE and the EPA approved was a (wait for it) "a "gas-powered alarm clock" that "...was described as a generator-sized clock run on gasoline." Are you kidding me?

How would an alarm clock that runs on GASOLINE be considered "energy efficient"? Granted, it doesn't use any electricity, I'll give it that! But that's about all I can give it! And it says that it's "generator-sized"? That sounds like it's HUGE. Why would anyone even WANT a gasoline powered alarm clock? How would that work? EVER?!

Now of course, after these departments were notified of this little incident (in which a space heater with a feather duster attached to it was certified as being energy efficient), they responded "...that they continue to check up on products after they are certified." Hmm. That's really not explaining how a space heater with a feather duster on it got certified in the first place, but good to know that you'll be checking up on it in the future! Good. To. Know. Maybe they'll look on one of the bogus product websites that the GAO set up for these things.

Further, "In a joint statement, the DOE and EPA said they take the findings "very seriously" and that they have started "enhanced testing" to improve. But they said the public should not lose confidence in the program. " Enhanced testing? You need enhanced testing to figure out that a space heater with a feather duster on it is NOT an energy saving appliance? You DO? Really?! And because you need that testing, THAT is what is supposed to make me not lose confidence in the program?! Really?! You're going to have to explain to me WHY that would be, because from what I can tell, the folks that are running the certification show over there are a bunch of morons.

They also tried to cover their asses by saying, "A review last year found that 98 percent of the products tested met or exceeded the ENERGY STAR requirements." I find that to be an interesting statistic, as this little experiment done by the GAO managed to get 75% of their fake crap certified. Were they just having an off couple of weeks there? Because this isn't an elongated process at all. That space heater debacle? Yeah, "The EPA approved it in 11 days and listed it on the official Web site." Good Lord.

What have we learned? We've apparently learned that just because something is labeled Energy Star, it doesn't necessarily mean crap. We've also learned that the EPA thought it was a good idea to feature a space heater with a feather duster attached on their website. And that means that we've learned that there is obviously more than one moron working over there and they all seem to be on the same page. And from what we've learned, we can just simply assume that we're doomed. Doomed. And if you'd like to look at the GAO's report and see for yourself just how doomed we are, it's available here.

No Divorce For You!

Slowly, but surely, the government is injecting itself into almost every aspect of our lives. How we do things. When we do things. Why we do things. When did the American people suddenly become so incompetent that they couldn't make a decision on their own? I don't know either, but if we're not careful, we're not going to be able to decide when we want to get divorced if we live in Arizona. Wait. What?

Correct. According to the azdailysun.com, a one Rep. Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix) has sponsored a one bill HB 2650 which basically makes couples who want to divorce wait four months longer than they already have to wait. See, her theory is "....that requiring couples to wait 180 days will result in more people deciding they actually should stay together." Um...why?

She claims that in states where there is a longer waiting period, the divorce rate per 1,000 is 3.6 whereas in not-thinking-things-through-long-enough Arizona, the divorce rate per 1,000 is 3.9. OK, so that may be true. But thank goodness for Rep. Phil Lopes (D-Tucson), who piped up and said that what she's doing is that she's "...confusing correlation with actual causation". He also said that despite the statistics that "...there is no hard evidence that delays in granting divorce decrees actually keep couples happily married." And do you know what Rep. Barto had to say to that? You guessed it. She agreed with him. Wait. What?!

She agreed. There's no hard evidence that making people stay married longer when they're already expressed a desire to get divorced is going to actually make them decide to stay married. And Rep. Balto has been warned by a one Colleen McNally, a presiding family court judge for Maricopa County said "...that stretching out the process actually could be dangerous...domestic violence attacks actually increase the moment a spouse tries to get out of an abusive marriage." Yeah, see, I think that would be a problem. If you're forced to stay in a marriage and endure some beatings for an extra four months, that's not going to help the situation.

Adding to the ridiculousness of this idea (because you know there are supporters of it out there) are people like Deborah Sheasby, a despicable lobbyist. (I think all lobbyists are despicable, so it's not like I'm singling her out for anything, I just don't like lobbyists.) She claimed "...that in about four out of every five divorce cases, one spouse does not want out of the marriage." Yes, but see, that's why the marriage has to end! Because, in case you were absent on the day when we went over what a marriage entails, it would seem that both people need to want to be IN the marriage in order for it to be successful. Just because only ONE person wants to stay married is not really a very good reason in favor of the whole staying married idea. It's actually more of an argument for why they should get divorced.

Look, even though you can technically be granted a divorce in Arizona in as little as 60 days, that doesn't mean it's going to happen. The 60 days scenario is the "best case" scenario. If there is any negotiation, if there is any discrepancy as to who should get what, if there are children and/or property involved, or any number of other factors, you are not going to be fully divorced after the minimum 60 days has passed. Do the people that propose asinine legislation like this not see where the problem lies? I guess not. Perhaps I'll share it with them.

How about this idea instead: How about instead of making it so damn difficult for people to get divorced, why don't you make it a little more difficult for them to get married? Why is it so easy to get INTO something that is likely going to end up being the most life-altering decision that you can possibly make? Shouldn't that require a little bit more thought? Shouldn't that require a little bit more time to ponder and to plan for? How about this idea: People who go through pre-marital counseling BEFORE they get married get some sort of a tax break? People who are married and take some sort of marriage-stayin'-together class every other year get some sort of a tax break? I don't know. I'm just throwing stuff out there. It could be that requiring folks to wait before getting married is just as dumb as making folks wait before getting divorced, but I'm not so sure that it is.

If I thought that it were possible, I'd just say that the government needs to butt out of marriage all together. But since I know that's never going to happen (revenue, doncha know?), it makes more sense to me to have a longer waiting period before getting married than it does to have a longer waiting period to get divorced. I guess since it makes sense, that'll never happen either. Shame, too. I kinda thought I was onto something.