• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • So I'm surfing along Google News, and I find that several US Senators believe we urgently need to pass a federal law requiring most of the states to engage in year round Daylight Savings Time.

      The Sunshine Protection Act of 2021

      They quote numerous studies purporting to save energy, diminish seasonal affective disorder, decrease traffic accidents, and fewer burglaries, and other claims.

      I am reminded by my Navaho Guide when I was in Monument Valley, saying that one cannot make a blanket longer by cutting off one inch from the top and then sewing that inch back on along the bottom.

      Kinda like what we do with DST...

      But several states and territories are not in full agreement - from the article linked below - Arizona, Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands have opted out of participating in daylight saving time, at all. I note that they tend to be more tropical longitude states, than say Minnesota or Alaska.

      I am interested in readers opinions about the need for, or against, universal year long DST, and how strongly they believe the published papers in favor of it. Maybe some suggestions why our lawmakers are so enthusiastic in support of it, too.

      This article is even more positive. I wonder if the push to abolish standard time would be as effective in late November, early December, especially in the northern tier of states....

    • I'm all for getting rid of the time switch, one way or the other. I think the every 6 months of forcing your body to adjust to a new sleep cycle is significantly damaging.

    • Can I ask you to define and/or specify "significantly damaging", please? It sounds terrible, but......

      Some really interesting comments in this link in the Farmers Almanc about the danger to busing school children in the dark in the winter morning hours, which is made even worse with DST.

      I think one of the things we forget is that when DST was introduced, most farmer's homes and farms, and a great many smaller comunities did not yet even have electric service or lighting, unlike large urban cities. Certainly in Indiana, most farms did not get electrified until WW II or later. I know of farms locally which still were without electricity until the 1950s.

      Again, one cannot make a blanket longer, by shortening the top, to sew it on the bottom. The sun only shines for so many hours per day, no matter the wishes of King Canute, eh?

      One can make their sunlit days longer by moving closer to the Equator, or the artic circle, depending on season, which is why southern states like Arizona do not observe DST.

      Why don't we all just adopt Universal time at Greenwich - GMT and then we can awake at what ever hour we want, to or our employer needs us to. And trains, buses, and airlines can only schedule in GMT - so much easier to plan and follow.

      Or be like Newfoundland and be 30 minutes different than every one else...

    • You listed a lot of the problems in your initial post. But I'll add that forcing everyone to "shift" their work hours every 6 months is very stressful on the body. I know that it takes me weeks to get back to feeling normal after the "fall back" switch.

      In terms of adopting UTC, I think you mean Standard Time, which is fine with me. Whether it is Standard Time or Daylight Savings Time I think the problem is switching, not how many hours we are from the prime meridian.

    • Yes, I confused Universal Time with GMT, and GMT is a time zone, and Universal Time is a Time Standard. I was just suggesting that the world go to one time zone, worldwide, and seperate time keeping clock hours from awakening and sleeping. There is no inherent reason we should all expect sleeping and awakening to be tied to specific clock hours, is there? Awakening and sleeping hours might just be local customs, that vary from community to community in a web based world.

      I did list many of the issues that have been published with the changing of Time schedules from Standard Time to DST, but I didn't say they were universally believed to be entirely true.

      I look forward to seeing followup studies showing a lack of a semi annual time change is safer than no change whatsoever, but I won't hold my breath. The grade school bus drivers in Wisconsin, I mentioned above, certainly weren't convinced either.

      From your response, I take it that "significantly damaging" means you had difficulty "feeling normal" for some time after setting the clock back an hour in the fall return to Standard Time from DST? I am sorry you have this issue. I find the fall "fall back", much more pleasant than the spring "spring forward."

      How long will it be until you begin to "feel normal" now this spring? Or is that not an issue for you?

      UT and GMT were used interchangeably until 1972

    • I see, well I would generally be against that. Time Zones have an actual meaning and purpose and getting rid of them would still make people perform the same set of transformation calculations in their head (like figuring out if it's early in California right now).

      And other standards would still exist, like what are "normal" working and school hours. And should those hours "shift" in the winter?

    • This is an example, IMO, of what has gone wrong in the US Republican Party. (Explanation at the bottom.)

      In the 1960s and early 1970s, there were basically three kinds of Republicans. (There were hybrids of these three, but for the sake of simplification, let's make it simple.)

      The bluebloods (My family has been GOP since the days of U.S. Grant.)

      The ex-Democrats (This included foreign policy hawks, anti-McGovern types, former dixiecrats, etc.)

      The "idealists" (Primarily the fiscal conservatives, the ninth and tenth amendment anti-racists, the semi-libertarians, etc.)

      At this time, the Republicans did not have control of either house of congress and the congressional Republicans were collegial towards many Democrats especially the older ones.

      Then came the "culture wars" and polarization.

      Today neither major party has much in common with the leaders of the parties in the 1960s.

      The bluebloods lost the struggle for power when Reagan was elected. They had come close to losing their power base in 1964 but due to Goldwater's defeat they were able to rally and succeeded in getting Nixon nominated in 1968 which itself destroyed the base of the bluebloods.

      When the first Bush was elected, he had to adapt to the party's current status rather than take the positions that he held in the 1970s. He and his family were bluebloods but the Goldwater-Reagan wing of the party had taken over the power base.

      Thus, the party of the 1980s and 1990s was a small national government party. Back then the GOP wanted the States to deal with most domestic issues and leave the national government to deal with national and foreign policy issues. (By national, I am referring to issues which involved disagreements between states such as when a river flows through several states and the downstream states are upset with the upstream states.)

      Back then, most congressional Republicans would have proposed a bill allowing each state to make its own decision on this kind of subject. If Rubio and Scott want to allow Florida (as one example) to remain on Daylight Savings then according to the philosophy of 40 years ago, they should propose a law that allows Florida to make such a decision without seeking to coerce other states to also remain on DST.

    • Well, I wasn't really trying to make this a political right /left discussion, but maybe I inadvertently missed it??...

      It does kinda seem like a State issue, more than a federal one, to me, but maybe that's just my parochialism showing. I don't really have a strong feeling, pro or con, about year round DST.

      My real interest was the real, as opposed to the stated, reason for the urgent need to make DST permanent for the nation, year round, right now.

    • Historically this has always been a Federal issue primarily due to inter-state commerce.

      Shewmaker's asserted history of the Republican party doesn't make any sense in this context, Daylight Savings was first passed as a Federal law in 1918, long before the "culture wars". Heck, the entire notion of what constitutes time zones in the US is governed by Federal law as I linked just above.

      During WWII, the United States was on Daylight Savings Time year around, it was called "War Time".

      During World War II, President Franklin Roosevelt instituted year-round Daylight Saving Time, called "War Time," from February 9, 1942 to September 30, 1945. [See law] From 1945 to 1966, there was no federal law regarding Daylight Saving Time, so states and localities were free to choose whether or not to observe Daylight Saving Time and could choose when it began and ended. This understandably caused confusion, especially for the broadcasting industry, as well as for railways, airlines, and bus companies. Because of the different local customs and laws, radio and TV stations and the transportation companies had to publish new schedules every time a state or town began or ended Daylight Saving Time.

    • Having lived in a state and a few countries where we didn't do the biannual clock change, it was so much nicer to know that the time difference between me and someone in another non-switching place in the world was always the same. I've lived in places where the time zone was strange (UTC+4:30) but at least we knew it was always that time.

      That being said, if I could choose one or the other, I'd choose the time that makes it lighter earlier in the day. As a morning person, it kills me that just as it's starting to get light at 0630 or so, the time changes and I'm back to being in the dark in the mornings. In some places I've lived the sun came up at 0440 in the summer and it was great. So whichever one that is, (savings or standard time) I want it to be that time all year round.

    • If I understand, @Squelch, bright mornings are more valued by you, than higher sun in the evenings then? Kind of like the Wisconsin grade school bus drivers I mentioned above, who prefer not to drive around young children at bus stops in the dark if they can avoid it.

      That would sound like you prefer Standard Time all year round, rather than DST in the summer time, then, right?

      At least the sun would be higher in the winter mornings with Standard Time than with DST.

      As a general rule, DST tends to favor longer sunlight in the afternoon and evenings and darker early mornings, depending upon your geographic locations of course.

      You mentioned UTC +4:30. Newfoundland is UTC - 2:30, which took me a moment to parse when I landed in St John's the first time. The half hour difference was something I had not experienced previously. But the differences are purely arbitrary anyway - we could do away with Standard Time and DST in the states by splitting the difference and shifting our time zones by 30 minutes between ST and DST if we so choose.

    • Or we could just move to one time zone for the entire CONUS, which would be disastrous I think. Check out the solar time map on and see how China (all one time zone) looks. When the sun won't be up for a couple of hours on the western side of the country, and the sun's already been up for a couple of hours on the eastern side of the country, and it's 7 in the morning...

    • "It has a lot to do with the weather.

      The history of daylight saving is tied to energy conservation. Switching to DST in the summer means more sunlight at night, which in turn means homes don't have to turn on lights as early.

      According to the U.S. Government, that leads to energy and fuel savings.

      Over the course of the last 100 years, the United States (including Arizona) has gone on Daylight Saving time in both World War 1 and World War 2, but then gone off after the wars were over.

      In 1973, a more permanent federal law was enacted to help with the oil shortages of that time. But Arizona asked for – and was eventually granted an exemption.

      According to an Arizona Republic editorial from 1969, the reason was the state's extreme heat. If Arizona were to observe Daylight Saving Time, the sun would stay out until 9 p.m. in the summer (instead of 8 p.m., like it does currently).

      "[Data] clearly show that we must wait until about 9 p.m. DST to start any night-time activity such as drive-in movies, moonlight rides, convincing little children it’s bedtime, etc," the editorial stated. "And it’s still hot as blazes!"

      Another Arizona Republic editorial from 1968 stated, "Drive-in theaters, the parents of small children, the bars, the farmers and those who do business with California" were against Daylight Saving time while "power companies, the evening golfers, the late risers, and the people with business interests on the Eastern seaboard" were for it."

      It can be very confusing here in Arizona during this time...

    • 👍 Local reasons versus "national" reasons.

      Kinda like those Wisconsin grade school bus drivers above.

      Why has the need for year DST become more urgent lately, though, is what I want to know.

    • This has been percolating for as long as I can remember. Who knows if there is enough energy for anything to happen this time around.

    • Part of the reason that it happened was that about three and a half years ago, Florida voters voted that they wanted Florida to remain on DST year round.

      But the voters of Florida were not advocating a national permanent DST.

      As I said earlier, the GOP which historically supported the federal system and usually opposed movements to nationalize seems to have lost its bearings.

    • Voters did not vote on this issue. The State passed a law mandating year round DST. But it requires Congressional approval for the law to take effect.