... I put that we all(that would include you) know what Fife meant despite your attempts to make yourself look witty at another's expense by sarcastically arguing against a point that no one made.
QUOTE(Fife and Drum)
And thank you Just Leave Me Alone for “watching my back” in my absence.
JLMA, now I understand your ire, but please allow me to point out it is due to an incorrect perception of my motivations. I had no intention of belittling Fife...although I can see where you would get that perception. Rather (true to my conservative roots) I was merely attempting to point out a case of government perhaps overextending its bounds, attempting to legislate forces of nature. Apologies to Fife for any perceived slights.
From the study you cited (which I liked btw, as it is one of the few cited here that seemed objective and actually pointed out both sides of the issue):
A writer in 1947 wrote, "I don't really care how time is reckoned so long as there is some agreement about it, but I object to being told that I am saving daylight when my reason tells me that I am doing nothing of the kind. I even object to the implication that I am wasting something valuable if I stay in bed after the sun has risen. As an admirer of moonlight I resent the bossy insistence of those who want to reduce my time for enjoying it. At the back of the Daylight Saving scheme I detect the bony, blue-fingered hand of Puritanism, eager to push people into bed earlier, and get them up earlier, to make them healthy, wealthy and wise in spite of themselves." (Robertson Davies, The Diary of Samuel Marchbanks, 1947, XIX, Sunday.)
This is the thought that I was trying to get across. As one generally against government intervention where none is required, I reiterate my previous question...why not just let market forces take care of this. There must be reasons why some states have opted out of DST (although their ability to do so mitigates some of my concerns).
Come on Hobbes, are you a Halloween grinch and an anti-Dentite?
Actually, as a conservative, I'm usually a grinch 24-7, 365 days a year. We sometimes take a break on Halloween, though.
QUOTE(from the cited article)
The energy saving benefits of this were recognized during World War II, when clocks in Britian were put two hours ahead of GMT during the Summer. This became known as Double Summer Time. During the war, clocks remained one hour ahead of GMT throughout the winter.
Another complaint is sometimes put forth by people who wake at dawn, or whose schedules are otherwise tied to sunrise, such as farmers. Farmers often dislike the clocks changing mid year. Canadian poultry producer Marty Notenbomer notes, "The chickens do not adapt to the changed clock until several weeks have gone by so the first week of April and the last week of October are very frustrating for us."
So, it seems that outside of PE's argument, the main concern regarding DST comes from farmers. Since we are moving (already moved?) away from an agrarian society, this seems of a minor concern. Also, note that their issue is as much from the clocks changing as it is from the time itself. Further, note that:
So, Daylight Saving Time saves energy for lighting in all seasons of the year, but it saves least during the four darkest months of winter...
So, DST saves energy year round, and the main complaint against it seems to stem from the switching back and forth. So, perhaps we can meet in the middle, and abolish DST by simply enacting it year-round? It's always puzzled me that we switched back, anyway....as the article states, the benefits are year round. I have lived in the northern US, and can tell you the argument against this there....kids walking to school in the dark. How much energy savings is this security issue worth?
Well, you can get a unique Alaskan view of our distaste for DST here:
Heck, CR....your daylight is so messed up there anyway, what difference does an hour make?