Time After Time
Senator Ted Cruz is attempting to tackle a problem, but I for one don't expect to see the problem solved any time soon. That "any time" was a joke, actually, because the intractable problem is none other than time itself. The Senate Commerce Committee (which Cruz chairs) just held a hearing on whether they should (as they're now calling it) "lock the clock" and finally be done with the twice-yearly hour shift in the clock to either start or end Daylight Saving Time.
This is somewhat of a unique problem, for a number of reasons. First, it's not really a partisan issue at all. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are solidly behind any one plan. Second, it is one of those problems where just about everyone agrees that something needs to change, but they can't all agree on what should be done. This means that no matter what change is implemented, some people are going to be unhappy about it. Which is why I am predicting that what will happen is what always seems to happen (time after time, you might say), which is nothing at all.
Few people like changing the clocks twice a year. But when you ask people which system they'd prefer year-round, some support going to D.S.T. for the whole year while some support going on standard time instead. Both sides have their arguments for and against, and they are quite adamant that their preferred way is the best.
Time is (with apologies to Albert Einstein) rather relative. How many hours of daylight you get is dependent on geography. It depends where you are in your time zone (how far east or west, and how close you are to the border of another time zone), as well as how far north or south you are. So making sweeping claims about how moving to one standard or the other will benefit everyone is rather pointless, because the supposed benefits can't really be averaged out, they depend for each person on where they are located. Attitudes about which system would work better permanently shift depending on where you happen to be. People in Maine are likely to feel differently than people in western Michigan, because they're both at opposite edges of the same time zone. Likewise, people in Seattle or Alaska are likely to feel different than people in San Diego or Hawai'i. Geography matters, and any sweeping claims don't take into account these regional differences. What may be true for the people in Michigan may be just the opposite in Wisconsin, to put this another way, because of their location on both sides of a time zone line.
If by some miracle Congress did institute one system for all of America, there will be millions of people annoyed by the choice. That is true no matter which choice is made, which is what makes it such an intractable political issue. No politician wants to have a large segment of the population annoyed with them, obviously (especially one that doesn't break on party lines).
There are really five choices Congress could make: go full D.S.T., go full standard time, split the difference and move the whole country one-half hour between the two, allow each state to make up their own mind, or just do nothing.
Currently, states are allowed to stay on standard time year-round, but not D.S.T. Two states (Hawai'i and Arizona) do not change their clocks at all as a result. Congress could change the law to allow any state to go on permanent D.S.T. or standard time, and then each state could do as it pleased. This would likely lead to a patchwork of differing times across the country -- some states might just stay with the current time changes, some states would go on permanent D.S.T., and Hawai'i and Arizona could stay on permanent standard time. This could get confusing for people either travelling from state to state or attempting to do business with someone in another state (which might necessitate checking a patchwork map to see what time it was on the other end of a phone call, for instance). But the plus side of doing it this way would be for the politicians in Washington to just shove the responsibility onto the state governments rather than make a change for everyone that some people are not going to like. Any anger would be directed at the state governments, not the national one.
Historically, before the advent of rapid communications and travel (trains and the telegraph), every town set their own time. Local noon was whenever the sun was highest in the sky. The town clock would be set accordingly, and that was good enough for everyone in the surrounding countryside. But a railroad can't set any kind of schedule when each town has their own local clock, which is why time was standardized into time zones in the first place. Going to a state-by-state system wouldn't be as bad as a town-by-town system, but it would still be a little more confusing.
Going to year-round D.S.T. is favored by the public, when given a choice. One poll first asked what should be done, and while 21 percent is happy with switching clocks twice a year, 62 percent wanted to see the practice ended. Of the people who wanted permanent, year-round time, 50 percent favored D.S.T. while only 31 percent favored standard time. Doctors and sleep experts mostly support year-round standard time, while golf course owners and people who enjoy daylight later in the day favor D.S.T.
But, as mentioned, no matter what the percentage is, there are still going to be millions of people not happy if one standard is chosen over the other. Perhaps splitting the difference would help (moving the time only a half-hour, and then never changing it again), but that would likely leave everyone at least a little annoyed.
America tried to end the time changes once before, as an experiment in the early 1970s. Daylight Saving Time was made permanent for one year, but enough people were so seriously annoyed that Congress soon gave up the experiment and went back to clock-switching again.
So given the choices -- boldly proclaim one system permanent, pass the buck to the state governments, or just do nothing -- my money's on nothing happening at all. That way, the majority of the people will continue to not like the system -- but at least they're used to it. Doing nothing means not changing things, or more precisely "not giving people something new to complain about." Politically, this is the safest course, because people will continue grumbling each time the clock changes, but they won't be venting their ire on any specific politicians as a result.
And then, a few years down the road, Congress will likely hold more hearings on the subject -- and then wind up doing nothing once again. This is what regularly happens... well... just like clockwork.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Yeah. Because in twenty years folks will really zero in on this as a truly existential issue.
Few people like changing the clocks twice a year. But when you ask people which system they'd prefer year-round, some support going to D.S.T. for the whole year while some support going on standard time instead. Both sides have their arguments for and against, and they are quite adamant that their preferred way is the best.
So if 62% versus 21% prefer just PICK ONE I’d expect that once they pulled the trigger in perhaps only a year no one would bitch either way.
Senator Ted Cruz is attempting to tackle a problem, but I for one don't expect to see the problem solved any time soon.
I would just like to take this opportunity to comment that Ted Cruz is an absolute __________. <---- choose your own noun
Lock the clock. I don't even care how they decide to do it; just make sure it's a ginormously large clock and that Ted Cruz is locked inside it.
nite yakko
Tell ya what, CW. If you’re so desperate to hold onto your buddy Michale, why not,
1- give him the red card that he’s objectively earned, and,
2- go ahead and engage in some email thread with homeboy to your heart’s delight! That way you can maintain your loyalty to your buddy and spare the rest of us. I’m sure you’ll have a blast! Everybody wins!
poet
nite yakko — well put!
https://youtu.be/aLPyeTPNLoY?si=wGFu9Rwwq5F-dfuk
Kick
3
I am too lazy in general and too drunk on this occasion to look it up: so is fuckhead a noun? I know it’s not a verb nor an adverb so could that word be an adjective?
Asking for a (drunk) friend.
Upon further review, double well put!
@caddy,
yes, it's a noun.
JL
I feel like 'Standard Time' must have been based on something like noon is when the sun is at its zenith at the center of each designated national time zone. 'Daylight Saving Time' was a distortion of that standard introduced as a wartime measure involving summertime farming efficiency during WW I - that is, before electric lights were common in the countryside.
So I vote for eliminating DST. As you say, a permanent DST has already been tried in the modern era, and it didn't fly. So lets go back to a permanent standard time.
Yes, there will be complaints, but there are complaints now. Surely the complaints basically cancel each other out?
And in the end you make it seem like good government and sound policy must always come from a politician's sense of what will keep him or her from losing the next election. Maybe so - but aren't there any examples of Congress doing the RIGHT THING rather than the politically expedient thing, ever?
(PS can you fill us in on that poll you cited, where the split was: 21% like switching clocks 2x year - 62% don't like it and want just one time year-round. Sure, that 62% couldn't agree on which time they wanted, DST or standard, but wait: That's only 83%. What did the other 17% say to the poll. "I need more time"?)
speaking of time, it's blatantly unconstitutional to make a law or regulation that punishes someone for something that was legal at the time they did it, often with no trial or due process. the language of the constitution calls this a "bill of attainder"
when I did a quick search to see if my reasoning was sound, I found that a judge had already considered this in a recent ruling against the trump administration.
nyp on [13]
I think the law that punishes for acts that were legal at the time is called an "ex post facto" law. The Constitution does forbid this kind of thing.
Then there is the law that specifically names a person or party to be punished, rather than a class of persons who have committed some act. That is a "bill of attainder", and the Constitution forbids that as well.
Both types of law, clearly, had been the tools of injustice in English history and the U.S. Framers wanted none of them.
I'm not clear: how do either of these concepts relate to Chris's essay on the latest proposal to reform the U.S. time standard?
MtnCaddy
8
I am too lazy in general and too drunk on this occasion to look it up: so is fuckhead a noun?
Yes, a noun dysphemistically modeled after "DH."
I know it’s not a verb nor an adverb so could that word be an adjective?
It could be if you added an "ed" to the end of it. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlTEjlHXXkw
I like changing the time twice a year so I'm for doing nothing. And that song has been playing in my head all day long.
well shoot, John. you're right. the time bending would indeed be ex post facto. the two practices are both explicitly prohibited by the Constitution.
I really should go back and read that document more closely again. it's been awhile since i've done so, and the Trump administration has been doing so many things that run afoul of the text.
Chris I’m still on a smartphone only and,
1- It keeps on signing me out by itself — which sucks because there’s no reason to ever sign out on this device. This has been happening for months.
2- I post a link that looks proper in the preview window above, but when selected it goes to your 404 — Page Not Found instead of Daddy Vladdy (1:08). This problem is new.
Also, my BFF is a website developer par excellence. I think you’d be glad you talked to him. Decades and largely self taught
[19] MtnCaddy:
Your link, which otherwise takes one to this selfsame page, has a quote mark at the end. That's what takes it to the 404 page. Not sure what the Daddy Vladdy link should be.
MtnCaddy [1] -
Oh, I fully agree. But hey, I just had to write SOMETHING that wasn't about tariffs this week!
-CW
Kick [3] -
Quoting the esteemed ex-senator Al Franken:
"I like Ted Cruz more than any other senator. And I HATE Ted Cruz!"
:-)
-CW
MtnCaddy [8] -
I think "fuckhead" would be a noun. Adjective? Maybe "fuckheadedly"... no that's an adverb. "Fuckheadish" maybe?
heh
:-)
-CW
John M from Ct. [12] -
Sorry, failed to cite it. Poll was from Wikipedia, but I've seen similar polls showing DST with an edge. Not an overwhelming edge, but still...
-CW
nypoet22 [13] -
Um, no that's "ex post facto".
Bills of attainder are similar, though -- it's the targeting of one person specifically through legislation. In Trump's case it would be more like "executive order of attainder"... maybe we need a new term...
-CW
Kick [15] -
OK, I had to look up "dysphemistically"...
didn't know there was an antonym for "euphemistically"! thanks!
-CW
now it's got me thinking...
if you had a time machine and went back and killed your grandfather and disappeared, what would you be guilty of?
ex post facto suicide?
(heh)
-CW
MtnCaddy [19] -
Really? the bit about web designers?
I am exhausted now, but will contact you privately over the weekend.
Thanks!
-CW
ok probably too exhausted to even get to today's column's comments... but am caught up until here...
-CW