1984 lives. In newspeak that would make George Orwell blush, New York Times associate editorial-page editor Robert B. Semple Jr. on Sunday denounced the House bill to reverse the ban on the common light bulb, arguing the ban would have “actually expanded consumer choice.”

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Elimination is choice.

Semple is only the most prominent example of the green propaganda that anti-bulb forces have deployed in the run-up to a vote to restore the choice of 85 percent of consumers when they buy a light bulb.

“In the name of individual freedom,” Semple sneers, Republican Joe Barton’s bill “would repeal national energy efficiency standards for light bulbs (that) require new bulbs to use 25 to 30 percent less energy . . . next year. They do not ban incandescents, as some politicians have claimed; they simply require them to be more efficient. “

In fact — like the Obama regime’s 56-mpg-by-2025 standard on cars that effectively eliminates the gas engine — the 20-lumens-per-watt-by-2012 standard is aimed at eliminating the common tungsten-filament light bulb, since the 100-watt bulb is capable of only 15-17 lpw (only CFL bulbs get more than 45 lpw, so the federal edict steadily rises to that standard by 2020 to effectively eliminate lower wattage bulbs, as well).

But don’t take my word for it, just look at how every plant in the U.S. that manufactures incandescents has shut down since 2007 (an inconvenient fact Semple glaringly omits). Explain to the hundreds of former bulb workers in the unemployment line how the bulb edict “did not ban incandescents.”

“So far, not a single manufacturer has complained,” writes Semple, “G.E., Philips and Sylvania already sell bulbs that meet the 2012 standards. “

Funny how Big Government regulations suddenly make Times lefties forget how much they hate Big Business. Surely Semple understands why Big Business would want a national standard (instead of California queering state standards as they do with auto mpg) that mandates bulbs that cost ten times more than incandescents ($4 vs. 40 cents) and are made in China?

“What appears to have escaped these freedom-fighters is that the 2007 law actually expanded consumer choice, which has largely been limited to a technology essentially unchanged since Thomas Edison,” concludes Big Brother Semple.

Just like eliminating the unchanged 19th century technology used by the Times newspaper and “expanding consumer choice” to the Internet, iPads, and cell phones?