Let me just say this: If I read or hear one more breathless news story about the “energy efficient” Times Square new Year’s Eve ball, I may puke.
An “energy efficient” ball? Gimme a farookin’ break. Jesus H. Christ! We’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 – not just on New Year’s Eve, but all year ‘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 “energy efficient” ball? Why? We are told, “The upgrade [i.e. the “energy efficient" ball] means an 88 percent reduction in energy use and 573 tons less of carbon dioxide from the ball’s previous lighting source.”
Excuuuuuuuse me, but I rather liked the bygone balls, which were powered by the “previous lighting source” – yeah, the balls that sported a gazillion lights, real lights, hot, bright New Year’s Eve lights. I don’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 we’ll be ringing in 2013 by candlelight in Times Square while we eat salt-free snacks, prepared, of course, without trans-fats.