Another f***ing stupid idea

[Feanor]

I'm taking about extending daylight savings time. This is another, cost-the-goverment-nothing gimick that's supposed to win cheap approval but is back-firing.

It's absolutely for sure that evening energy savings will be offset by higher morning usage, at least at this time of year, and certainly in more northern climes like like the northern states and Canada.

Yes, we're getting this shoved down our throats up here too by Bush's lick-spittal lacky, Steven Harper.:incazzato:

[jrhymeammo]

More accidents and Less productivity.

Be careful folks, J's 'bout to Murda!!!

[ForeverAutumn]

I don't understand the problem? Personally, I love the idea. Not for the energy-saving reasons that are being spewed at us. If you wanna save energy, pass a law that forces office towers to shut lights off during non-business hours...then see how many million (possibly billions) of kw are saved each year. No to mention how many millions of birds' lives will be saved each year (but that's another issue altogether).

I like the idea of it staying light later. I always look forward to changing my clock in the spring. Yeah, it'll be dark when I wake up now. But I don't have to wake up that early, so the morning darkness won't last long. But having that extra hour of sunlight in the evening, well...that's just good for my psyche.

[Feanor]

I don't understand the problem? Personally, I love the idea. Not for the energy-saving reasons that are being spewed at us. If you wanna save energy, pass a law that forces office towers to shut lights off during non-business hours...then see how many million (possibly billions) of kw are saved each year. No to mention how many millions of birds' lives will be saved each year (but that's another issue altogether).

I like the idea of it staying light later. I always look forward to changing my clock in the spring. Yeah, it'll be dark when I wake up now. But I don't have to wake up that early, so the morning darkness won't last long. But having that extra hour of sunlight in the evening, well...that's just good for my psyche.

Yeah, well maybe you don't get up 5:45AM and have to wait 2 hours for a trace of sunlight.

I hate darkness in the morning. What first put me off that was when I commuted to Toronto from Guelph. I had to be at the bus station at about 5:50AM. It was wonderful in late March when, after a long dark winter, the sun came up about the time the bus was leaving the terminal. Then *bang* first week of April it was back to another four weeks of darkness.

Later I moved to Regina, SK: they don't observe DST in Sask. Fine, but they are on Central instead of Mountain time so in effect Regina had year-round DST!! What treat not to see the sun until after 9:00AM -- NOT. On the flip side ot that, when I went to bed at 10:30PM it was useless having twilight 'till 11:30.

I can remember when DST was even shorter, like from the end of April: that work reasonably well. But if some is good, more has to be better, right?

[kexodusc]

I know that energy consumption figures, including kilo-watt-hour pattern studies done by public utilities were undertaken quite thoroughly to determine what the optimal DST should be. The original proposal supported by the results was actually more aggressive than what we see now. They scaled it back because of expected resistance, and to be a bit more fair to some industries and people that would be negatively affected by the change. Expect another tweak in a few years.

I'm indifferent. If what they say is true and it saves energy or helps people's moves, that's great. If it's not, whatever. At least we tried. This ranks one billion, thirty-two on my list of things to worry about.

[Feanor]

I know that energy consumption figures, including kilo-watt-hour pattern studies done by public utilities were undertaken quite thoroughly to determine what the optimal DST should be. The original proposal supported by the results was actually more aggressive than what we see now. They scaled it back because of expected resistance, and to be a bit more fair to some industries and people that would be negatively affected by the change. Expect another tweak in a few years.

I'm indifferent. If what they say is true and it saves energy or helps people's moves, that's great. If it's not, whatever. At least we tried. This ranks one billion, thirty-two on my list of things to worry about.

These "studies" are decades out of date. Work and play habits have changed over these decades: there is no reason to believe the old studies are still relevant.

This is "feel good" legislation. Like I said, done to get a public approval on the cheap by do-nothing governments. Seems like a few people have been sucked right in. Yes of course, we'll all get used to the change very quickly so it's not a big deal. Just another gratuitous irritant.

[superdougiefreshness]

It's so we can sync with all the spaceship landings and they can reprogram you before you wake up each morning....LOL,and our government's keep our consciousness stuck in the Eisenhower 50's and Rosewell desert bunker mentality by giving us what we think is flu inoculation's...........Oh No......there coming to get me because I cannot keep a secret.......Double LOL,LOL.........and they promised me such nice speaker's.
:eek: :eek: :eek:

[Dusty Chalk]

I don't understand the necessity of daylight savings time -- we get the exact same number of hours during a particular day as we would have otherwise, we're just tireder...er...more tired...

Did You Know...?

That the day or two after the switch to daylight savings time (I.E. tomorrow and the day after) are the two worst traffic accident days of the year?

[Feanor]

It's so we can sync with all the spaceship landings and they can reprogram you before you wake up each morning....LOL,and our government's keep our consciousness stuck in the Eisenhower 50's and Rosewell desert bunker mentality by giving us what we think is flu inoculation's...........Oh No......there coming to get me because I cannot keep a secret.......Double LOL,LOL.........and they promised me such nice speaker's.
:eek: :eek: :eek:

You have to read more carefully. I'm not talking about what "the government" is doing to us, I'm really talking about what their not doing for us.

[Feanor]

I don't understand the necessity of daylight savings time -- we get the exact same number of hours during a particular day as we would have otherwise, we're just tireder...er...more tired...

Did You Know...?

That the day or two after the switch to daylight savings time (I.E. tomorrow and the day after) are the two worst traffic accident days of the year?

Re. getting the same number of hours of daylight, you'd almost think people didn't know that. :confused: All they really need to do is get their worthless butts out of bed an hour earlier, and voi la, they "saved" an hour of daylight.

When I lived in Saskatechewan, we did very nicely not having to set the clocks forward and back. SK says on standard time all year round. Admittedly, they are in an inappropriate time zone, Central, while they ought to be in Mountain with the unfortunate result that they have effective "daylight savings" year-round. Around the winter solstice, (duh, I mean December 21), official sunrise isn't 'till after 9:00AM -- hich really sucks in my books.

[kexodusc]

These "studies" are decades out of date. Work and play habits have changed over these decades: there is no reason to believe the old studies are still relevant.

This is "feel good" legislation. Like I said, done to get a public approval on the cheap by do-nothing governments. Seems like a few people have been sucked right in. Yes of course, we'll all get used to the change very quickly so it's not a big deal. Just another gratuitous irritant.
In Canada the decision to adopt the time change is provincial jurisdiction. In my province a study was performed in 2005/06 that examined 2 decades of power consumption trends among other things. In the US, some big, influential industries challenged the US data (especially airlines). I haven't seen any overwhelming opposition supported by any facts that this is a wrong decision. If it was so obvious, we'd be hearing about it a lot more. I doubt many people even read a report, most people don't care. I think it's safe to say the decision wasn't made irresponsibly and without analysis of relevant and current data.

This is hardly just feel good legislation. The same people who cry governments never take a proactive approach to finding simple solutions are the same people crying over this. Something easy that isn't costing joe taxpayer a dime. Changing an arbitrary time system to another arbitrary point based on some science is better than just winging it.

The only criticism I have is that the time changes are being adopted almost universally, despite some states/provinces not benefiting other than keeping synchronized with their neighbors. But I think on the whole this is probably overdue.

Honestly, I'd rather not have DST at all, but if a penny is saved somewhere, so be it.

[Feanor]

In Canada the decision to adopt the time change is provincial jurisdiction. In my province a study was performed in 2005/06 that examined 2 decades of power consumption trends among other things. In the US, some big, influential industries challenged the US data (especially airlines). I haven't seen any overwhelming opposition supported by any facts that this is a wrong decision. If it was so obvious, we'd be hearing about it a lot more. I doubt many people even read a report, most people don't care. I think it's safe to say the decision wasn't made irresponsibly and without analysis of relevant and current data.
...
Honestly, I'd rather not have DST at all, but if a penny is saved somewhere, so be it.

It is the provinces that have the final say on the issue. I'm not aware of any sort of study in Ontario. I don't share your blissful confiction that, "it's safe to say the decision wasn't made irresponsibly and without analysis of relevant and current data". Gosh, if only we could count on all government decissions being made responsibly.


This quote from from the CBC web site ...
"A 2006 report from the U.S. Department of Energy anticipated electricity savings of four-tenths of a per cent per day of extended daylight savings time, totaling three one-hundredths of a per cent of annual electricity consumption." [emphasis added]Whoa, .003%, I guess that is a lot in multi-trillion dollar economy. But that includes southern and mid-US latitudes. I postulate that in northern latitudes the extension of DST will not save energy: show me current evidence that disproves that. (I'll be sorry I said this: what might work in northern latitudes, thanks to the longer days up here, is double DST but only for June and July). The "benefit" from the current extension, such as it may be in Canada, stems entirely from remaining synchronized with the US. This was the only justification given in Ontario's case as stated by the provincial Attorney General.


In the US, I'm given to believe, the legislation was strongly lobbied by the retail and recreation, (e.g. golf), interests but not at all by farmers or manufacturers.

I'm not exactly a person who says that governments never take a proactive approach. For example, no doubt GWB considered the invasion of Iraq to be "proactive". Certainly the worst decission anyone has made in the 21st century.

[kexodusc]

Gosh, if only we could count on all government decissions being made responsibly.

I may share the sentiment of this sarcastic rhetoric, but it really doesn't bring any new points to this debate. Skepticism isn't a rational argument. The fact that work was done is.



This quote from from the CBC web site ...
"A 2006 report from the U.S. Department of Energy anticipated electricity savings of four-tenths of a per cent per day of extended daylight savings time, totaling three one-hundredths of a per cent of annual electricity consumption." [emphasis added]


Whoa, .003%, I guess that is a lot in multi-trillion dollar economy. But that includes southern and mid-US latitudes. I postulate that in northern latitudes the extension of DST will not save energy: show me current evidence that disproves that. (I'll be sorry I said this: what might work in northern latitudes, thanks to the longer days up here, is double DST but only for June and July). The "benefit" from the current extension, such as it may be in Canada, stems entirely from remaining synchronized with the US. This was the only justification given in Ontario's case as stated by the provincial Attorney General.

In the US, I'm given to believe, the legislation was strongly lobbied by the retail and recreation, (e.g. golf), interests but not at all by farmers or manufacturers.


Let's say I agree with all the above - I really don't know who or what to believe, except there really hasn't been much political opposition to this from the so-called green/left leaning parties other than complaining it isn't enough, so I'm inclined to believe it can't hurt.

So here's your opportunity to recruit me...what are the negatives of making the switch, other than breaking convention? A few people late to electronically organized meetings? A minor hastle for Microsoft and the airlines? That breaks my heart.

I said 2 years ago they should have picked "trial states" to collect data before diving right in, but the appearance of being greed was politically palatable, even desirable for pretty much every government involved. I'm not aware that they did this, but I apologize if I'm wrong.
Studies aside, I'm a bit annoyed this even became an issue - we're talking a net change of DST that can be measure in hours after all...But I'm a pleased someone was willing to try. Let's do this for a few years, take a look at the numbers and then evaluate.
If I'm right, we'll probably see another switch, supported by more concrete figures, if not, we can always go back.

[bobsticks]

Hey y'all northerners,

Having been to Canada on many occassions I just assumed that you characters had DST all along. From the context of this conversation I assume that it is something new for you. Growing up in Michigan I have lived with DST all my life until...

...relocation to the inbred midwestern US. Here in Indiana we are in our second tumultuous year of DST and you'd think that the Mothership had landed. Undoubtedly this is due to the implementation of the program, accomplished by folks for whom the complexity of anything other than a straight line is foreign. I mean this literally. Indiana, which is not that big, has three time zones because the lines of demarcation fall just slightly off. I had occasion to call a district judge in a neighboring county the other morning. I had a nice talk with the night janitor. I swear to god.

Beyond the energy issue, many retail and restaurant associations lobby strongly for DST. Most shopping is done between the hours of 4:00pm and 9:00pm. Many folks don't like to drive in the dark. Connect the dots. I don't know whether this reasoning accurately plays out in terms of real economic gains for anyone.


Cheers

[Feanor]

I may share the sentiment of this sarcastic rhetoric, but it really doesn't bring any new points to this debate. Skepticism isn't a rational argument. The fact that work was done is.
...
So here's your opportunity to recruit me...what are the negatives of making the switch, other than breaking convention? A few people late to electronically organized meetings? A minor hastle for Microsoft and the airlines? That breaks my heart.
...

Sarcasim has an time-honored history in rhetoric, but I'm not always sufficiently careful to avoid it where it might be taken as a personal attack. I'm sorry if it sounded that way.

I've made my case in opposition to the further extension of DST; to wit, it is a nuisance that will yield minimal to zero energy saving. It is largely a ploy to give the impression that something is being done about energy shortage and global warming while in substance nothing is.

[Feanor]

Hey y'all northerners,

Having been to Canada on many occassions I just assumed that you characters had DST all along. From the context of this conversation I assume that it is something new for you. Growing up in Michigan I have lived with DST all my life until...
...
Cheers

In most of Canada, as in most (but not all) of the US, DST has been around for many years. The province of Saskatchewan is the major exception in this country.

It is interesting Saskatchewan is very far west for the Central Time Zone; the U.S. state directly south of most of SK is Montana which is on Mountain time. As measured by the position of the sun all of SK has its clocks set more or less early which means it has real though unofficial "daylight savings" all year round.

[bobsticks]

Aha, thanks for the clarification. Storm on my man from Guelph...

[kexodusc]

Sarcasim has an time-honored history in rhetoric, but I'm not always sufficiently careful to avoid it where it might be taken as a personal attack. I'm sorry if it sounded that way.
Feanor, I know you better than that...didn't take it personally at all, I just disagree with the implication you made that governments can't (occasionally) do something productive, or that in this case they did their due diligence. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. It's a thankless job but sometimes they do get it right. Maybe I'm wrong. I'll concede that, but then that means I've been lied to, at which point I'll have just cause to be upset. But when they say they've done their homework and as a result have a plan for change, ya gotta prove otherwise, or believe it. So far, there seems to be support on both sides of the political spectrum.


I've made my case in opposition to the further extension of DST; to wit, it is a nuisance that will yield minimal to zero energy saving. It is largely a ploy to give the impression that something is being done about energy shortage and global warming while in substance nothing is.
Yeah, I think we all agree on the second point, and the first point, well, I think governments have been honest all along in that they expect this to be a very small drop in the bucket, but one that should be done anyway on account it's only a "nuisance" and not an outright terrible inconvenience...there's little spin-doctoring going on here about how much impact this will have. But there's no harm in trying...better some than none.

Then again, 3 years down the road there'll be a report that says this was a good idea, or did nothing, (or both) and the debate will resurface, this time with hopefully more conclusive evidence.

Besides, I'd hate having to adjust my TV schedule yet another hour for a few days a year...For that reason alone, it's worth it.

[superdougiefreshness]

[I'm not exactly a person who says that governments never take a proactive approach. For example, no doubt GWB considered the invasion of Iraq to be "proactive". Certainly the worst decission anyone has made in the 21st century.[/QUOTE]

I believe the proactive word for the invasion of Irag used was "preemptive" as in preemptive strike. And yes it certainly was the worst decission anyone has made in the 21st century. That is if you not related to anyone owning Haliburton stock of course....... I don't like our president and if he never returns from Latin America I would be all the happier. I do remember in the winter walking to school in the dark as a child back in Nebraska and it sucked big time. So daylight savings is cool for your region, but on the other had many regions adopt this and it causes trouble if they don't need to change. I still like my government plot idea better, after all wasn't George Bush Jr. elected by a plot; anyhow ??? :ciappa:
Later Dudes.

[Resident Loser]

...what's with DST period? I mean "why?"...Giving the farmhands (mostly illegal) extra daylight to tend the crops and eventually do the harvest? In the days of industrial agriculture is that really even an issue, unless you consider the bottom line, of course...illegals are cheaper?...Along with that, why do we still have two months of school's out? When was the last time we needed the brood down on the south 40? If anything we need MORE school to help the mental defectives we seem to be spawning...

Why? So we can produce more corn? So we can use more high-fructose corn syrup in our foods instead of cane sugar?...the by-product of which is overuse of nitrogen fertilizers, which creates a toxic run-off oozing into the Mississippi and killing the fishing grounds beyond the delta? So we can produce more corn to feed the poultry and livestock in and around the Del MarVa penninsula, whose waste products are screwing up the Chesapeake Bay...all so we can have a chicken in every pot, a pig in each and every poke, cheaper bag of Frito's?...things are never as simple as they seem...

Like every other government move...Why do we still have a Federal excise tax on rubber? Wasn't it the "War Effort"? Scarcity and conservation...Gee, but I'm pretty sure it was WWl...Or the excise tax on 'phone service since the Spanish-American war? And so on, and so on and shooby-dooby-ooby...

jimHJJ(...just where is the "public interest" served in any of this?...)

[GMichael]

In my opinion, we should have stuck with regular time to begin with. If anyone needs to get up earlier for any reason, then let them. Why should everyone else have to be on their schedule?

[Feanor]

In my opinion, we should have stuck with regular time to begin with. If anyone needs to get up earlier for any reason, then let them. Why should everyone else have to be on their schedule?

I've heard that the major lobbies in this case were the retail industry, (who wants us overloading are credit cards at the malls after work), and the recreation industry, (e.g. golf courses, who want us using their facilites as late as possible in the evenings).

If ever a thing that looks gratuitous, strange, or wrong in this world, look for the guy who's make a buck from that state of affairs and you'll know why it is.

[Dusty Chalk]

I heard that it was the conservationists -- they found that if they gave us extra hours of daylight (apparently most of us are not morning people), then we burned less electricity, for example. That is my understanding is the main impetus for daylight savings time. And as was mentioned, we're not conservating that much...er...conserving that much.

[GMichael]

I've heard that the major lobbies in this case were the retail industry, (who wants us overloading are credit cards at the malls after work), and the recreation industry, (e.g. golf courses, who want us using their facilites as late as possible in the evenings).

If ever a thing that looks gratuitous, strange, or wrong in this world, look for the guy who's make a buck from that state of affairs and you'll know why it is.

I found this little story on the net. It still doesn't say why though. Not to my satisfaction at least.

"History of Daylight Time in the U.S.
Although standard time in time zones was instituted in the U.S. and Canada by the railroads in 1883, it was not established in U.S. law until the Act of March 19, 1918, sometimes called the Standard Time Act. The act also established daylight saving time, a contentious idea then. Daylight saving time was repealed in 1919, but standard time in time zones remained in law. Daylight time became a local matter. It was re-established nationally early in World War II, and was continuously observed from 9 February 1942 to 20 September 1945. After the war its use varied among states and localities. The Uniform Time Act of 1966 provided standardization in the dates of beginning and end of daylight time in the U.S. but allowed for local exemptions from its observance. The act provided that daylight time begin on the last Sunday in April and end on the last Sunday in October, with the changeover to occur at 2 a.m. local time.

During the "energy crisis" years, Congress enacted earlier starting dates for daylight time. In 1974, daylight time began on 6 January and in 1975 it began on 23 February. After those two years the starting date reverted back to the last Sunday in April. In 1986, a law was passed that shifted the starting date of daylight time to the first Sunday in April, beginning in 1987. The ending date of daylight time was not subject to such changes, and remained the last Sunday in October. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 changed both the starting and ending dates. Beginning in 2007, daylight time starts on the second Sunday in March and ends on the first Sunday in November.

For a very readable account of the history of standard and daylight time in the U.S., see

Ian R. Bartky and Elizabeth Harrison: "Standard and Daylight-saving Time", Scientific American, May 1979 (Vol. 240, No. 5), pp. 46-53. "

[GMichael]

Lots of information here:

http://ask.yahoo.com/20040625.html

I really liked this part about ol' Ben:

"At the age of 78, in a moment of whimsey, Benjamin Franklin wrote An Economical Project, a discourse on the thrift of natural versus artificial lighting. He included several funny regulations that Paris might adopt to help. Over two centuries later, nations around the world use a variation of his concept to conserve energy and more fully enjoy the benefits of daylight.

Benjamin in Paris

As he neared the end of his long tenure as American delegate in Paris, Benjamin Franklin felt his years. Gout and gallstones hampered his movements and left him virtually confined to his house in the Parisian suburb of Passy. Such restrictions to a man of Franklin's dynamic and social nature would have been vexing indeed had he not the company of close friends, men like Antoine Alexis-Francois Cadet de Vaux, editor of the Journal de Paris, who encouraged him to work on simple, yet important, problems. To show his appreciation to these comrades, Franklin penned a series of bagatelles for their amusement.

One such piece took the form of a letter to the Journal de Paris concerning the economy of lighting in the home, which Franklin wrote after attending the demonstration of a new oil lamp. In it, he parodied himself, his love of thrift, his scientific papers and his passion for playing chess until the wee hours of the morning then sleeping until midday. His friend Cadet de Vaux published the letter in the Journal on April 26, 1784, under the English title An Economical Project. Franklin began the letter by noting that much discussion had followed the demonstration of an oil lamp the previous evening concerning the amount of oil used in relation to the quantity of light produced. This he followed with details of how a great discovery of an avenue of thrift came to him.

The Parisians never woke before noon

Franklin had eventually bedded down at three or four hours past midnight but was awakened at six in the morning by a sudden noise. Surprised to find his room filled with light, Franklin at first imagined that a number of the new oil lamps were the source, but he soon perceived the light to be originating from the outside. Looking out the window, Franklin saw the sun rising above the horizon, its rays pouring through the open shutters.

"I looked at my watch, which goes very well, and found that it was but six o clock; and still thinking it something extraordinary that the sun should rise so early, I looked into the almanac, where I found it to be the hour given for his rising on that day. I looked forward too, and found he was to rise still earlier every day towards the end of June; and that no time during the year he retarded his rising so long as till eight o clock. Your readers, who with me have never seen any sign of sunshine before noon, and seldom regard the astronomical part of the almanac, will be as much astonished as I was, when they hear of his rising so early; and especially when I assure them, that he gives light as soon as he rises. I am convinced of this.

Sly Franklin claimed that a noted philosopher assured him that he was most certainly mistaken, for it was well known that "there could be no light abroad at that hour." His windows had not let the light in, but being open, had let the darkness out.

"This event has given rise in my mind to several serious and important reflections," the letter continued. Had he not been aroused at so early a morning hour, he would have slept until noon through six hours of daylight and therefore, living six hours the following night by candlelight. Realizing the latter was much more expensive than the former, he began calculating, for the sheer love of economy, the utility of his discovery -- the true test of any invention.

On the assumption that 100,000 Parisian families burned half a pound of candles per hour for an average of seven hours per day (the average time for the summer months between dusk and the supposed bedtime of Parisians), the account would stand thus:

"183 nights between 20 March and 20 September times 7 hours per night of candle usage equals 1,281 hours for a half year of candle usage. Multiplying by 100,000 families gives 128,100,000 hours by candlelight. Each candle requires half a pound of tallow and wax, thus a total of 64,050,000 pounds. At a price of thirty sols per pounds of tallow and wax (two hundred sols make one livre tournois), the total sum comes to 96,075,000 livre tournois.

"An immense sum," the astonished Franklin concluded, "that the city of Paris might save every year."

Some "new" regulations

To answer skeptics who cried that old habits are hard to change, and it would be difficult to induce the population of Paris to rise before noon, Franklin proposed the following regulations:

A tax be laid on every window built with shutters to keep out the light of the sun.
Candles rationed to one pound per family per week, and the regulation enforced by the constabulary.
Guards posted to stop the passage of all coaches, etc. upon the streets after sunset except those of physicians, surgeons and midwives.
Every morning as soon as the sun shall rise, church bells and, if necessary, cannon shall inform the citizenry of the advent of light and "awaken the sluggards effectually and make them open their eyes to see their true interests ... All the difficulty will be in the first two or three days; after which the reformation will be as natural and easy as the present irregularity. ... Oblige a man to rise at four in the morning, and it is probable he will go willingly to bed at eight in the evening."
Future of the idea

The great discovery, conceived in humor and reported with all the wit and wisdom of Poor Richard was not soon forgotten. Cadet de Vaux reprinted the article on November 30, 1785. Messrs Quinquet and Lange, inventors of the oil lamp that sparked the idea, were so taken by the scheme that they continued corresponding with Franklin even after he returned to America.

Franklin continued to think about the scheme, and it may have prompted this description of 18th-century London written in his autobiography:

"For in walking thro' the Strand and Fleet Street one morning at seven o clock, I observed there was not one shop open tho it had been daylight and the sun up above three hours -- the inhabitants of London choosing voluntarily to live much by candlelight and sleep by sunshine, and yet often complaining a little absurdly of the duty on candles and the high price of tallow."

Decades later, church bells and cannon to rouse a sleeping populace were replaced by the simple act of altering the hands on clocks in the spring as the hour of dawning becomes too early for most sleepy eyes. In 1973, for the second time in American history, the Congress declared the year-round use of Daylight Saving Time to save energy during the oil embargo as a general concern for the nation's good and a love for economy. Today as fossil fuel supplies diminish and increase in price and their use damages the environment, we need to heed Franklin's advice still again"

[Resident Loser]

jimHJJ(...also said this...)

[PeruvianSkies]

We need to develop a way to set the clocks behind during the weekends and ahead during the workday...now that's what I call a great idea!!!!! Who's with me?