Brooks Harris wrote:
> I feel all these technical difficulties created by the Sunshine
> Protection Act are dangerous and the Senators who may vote on it are
> probably mostly unaware if it.
I don’t typically reach first for random sweeping criticism of elected
officials, but on this topic I think it’s on target.
Lawmakers hear the two main, simplistic arguments for “permanent DST” — it’s
hard to adjust clocks, and sunny evenings are preferable to sunny mornings —
and race to enact a feel-good measure with little to no consideration for
possible ill effects.
The quote from Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) in 2022:
“All I know is, constantly, every year, my wife wants [DST] to be
permanent.”
illustrates just how many technical tokens lawmakers are spending on this
subject.
My representative emailed a survey question earlier this week: “Are you in
favor of making Daylight Saving Time permanent to avoid changing clocks twice a
year?” The obvious loading of the question, to avoid mentioning that permanent
standard time would also eliminate clock changing, is unsurprising, given that
she is already on record as supporting a move to year-round UTC–6. The email
invited lengthier responses, and I plan one, but how much that can change her
mind is questionable.
--
Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org
