Let me just say this: If I read or hear one more breathless news story about the â€œenergy efficientâ€ Times Square new Yearâ€™s Eve ball, I may puke.
An â€œenergy efficientâ€ ball? Gimme a farookinâ€™ break. Jesus H. Christ! Weâ€™re talking about Times Square here, a place that is known for its dazzling display of lights and which, for that reason, has historically attracted tourists from all over the world â€“ not just on New Yearâ€™s Eve, but all year â€˜round.
The dropping of the ball at midnight on Times Square has been the highlight of New Year’s Eve for as long as I can remember, so this year we need an â€œenergy efficientâ€ ball? Why? We are told, â€œThe upgrade [i.e. the â€œenergy efficient” ball] means an 88 percent reduction in energy use and 573 tons less of carbon dioxide from the ballâ€™s previous lighting source.â€
Excuuuuuuuse me, but I rather liked the bygone balls, which were powered by the â€œprevious lighting sourceâ€ â€“ yeah, the balls that sported a gazillion lights, real lights, hot, bright New Yearâ€™s Eve lights. I donâ€™t buy into the political correctness or the Al Gorean junk science that positively correlates carbon dioxide emissions with dead polar bears.
If this nonsense continues, perhaps weâ€™ll be ringing in 2013 by candlelight in Times Square while we eat salt-free snacks, prepared, of course, without trans-fats.