Saturday, March 12, 2016

Wibbly-Wobbly Timey-Wimey

Brace yourselves: it’s that time again. No, I’m not talking about the anniversary of the founding of the Girl Scouts of America, although that should certainly be celebrated (preferably with lots of cookies). I’m talking about that bit of “wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey” nonsense known as “Daylight Saving Time.” If you read my post last fall, you already know how I feel about DST. However, if you don't mind, I have a few more things I would like to say on the subject. (And if you do mind, tough. This is my blog, and I'll say what I want. So there.)

1. We're idiots.

Who do we think we are, Time Lords? Changing a clock has no effect on the number of hours of daylight in a day. Only an idiot would believe that, as someone once said, "you could cut a foot off the top of a blanket, sew it to the bottom, and have a longer blanket."

2. We’re losing an hour—of weekend.

Actually, we’re not. We’re banking an hour which, barring any unforeseen circumstances (such as a meteor the size of Texas hitting our planet), we will get back in the fall (although without interest, and what kind of deal is that?). But my point is that we’re taking that hour away from the weekend. Weekends go by too quickly as it is. If we have to lose an hour, why not lose it on Monday? (See number 1.)

3. We're torturing ourselves.

Obviously, the reason we change the clocks on the weekend is to give us a day to adjust to the change. But a day is not enough. I guarantee you that for me, time will be "out of joint" until at least the end of the month. Pets take even longer to adjust. (If you think it’s hard to explain DST to a human, try explaining it to a cat.) Why do we subject ourselves to this torture twice a year? (See number 1.)

4. We don't need to do it.

There is no good reason to change our clocks twice a year, and there are plenty of good reasons not to. More and more people are realizing that fact. A bill (AB2496) was recently introduced in the California Legislature to abolish it.

Will it pass? Probably not. (See number 1.)

No comments:

Post a Comment