On 2008-03-21, Jette <bosslady@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Joy Beeson wrote:
>>
>> The strange thing is, nobody has *ever*, as far as I know, offered a
>> defense of Devil Satan Time, yet it has been adopted all over the
>> world.
>>
>> Ask a DST proponent why he likes it and he'll give an enthusiastic
>> rendition of "early to bed and early to rise/makes a man healthy,
>> wealthy, and wise" with many, many corroborating details -- but he'll
>> studiously avoid explaining why longer and longer periods of DST are
>> progressive and with it, but year-round DST just won't do.
>>
>> A few play the "Gee, ma, all the other kids are doon' it" card, which
>> hits the table with a snigger-worthy lack of snap in Indiana, where
>> the only way to come reasonably close to doing what all the other kids
>> are doing is to match Illinois half the year and Ohio half the year --
>> which Indiana did for thirty years. And they never explain why all
>> the other kids are doing it.
>>
>> But I take back all the nasty things I've said about Benjamin
>> Franklin. While poking around the Web one day, I came across his
>> original proposal -- and it was clearly and obviously meant as a
>> *joke* -- something too absurd to ever implement.
>>
>>
>
> Try living up here in the almost Arctic circle - where dawn would
> arrive at about 2am at midsummer without "summer time" - and somewhere
> around 10m at midwinter if we stuck to "summer time" all year round.
And is calling the period of darkness that was from 10 pm to 2 am
11 pm to 3 am actually an improvement?
Further, is it enough of an improvement that it compensates for the
groginess and significantly higher accident rates in the week falling?
If you want to change when you get up and when you go to sleep, do so by
all means. But you don't have to relabel the hours to do so, nor do you
need to so by one-hour jumps, instead of adjusting slowly and
organically across the year.
--
Aaron Denney
-><-
|
