Republicans LOVE to use vets as a prop when it’s convenient.
They’ll also stab vets in the back if they’re convinced doing so would own a lib two - see: republicans block PACT act, denying healthcare to veterans in an effort to spite the blue team.
Comment on Republican senator renews push to make daylight savings permanent
ImTryingLemmy@lemmy.world 8 months ago
“As funny as this sounds, several years ago, I was walking in a Veterans Day parade, and a veteran … that was watching the parade, an older gentleman, gets up from his lawn chair – he actually walks into the parade route, shook my hand and said: ‘Before I die, would you end daylight savings time?’” Lankford recounted.
“He said: ‘I hate it. I’m in my 80s. I want you to get rid of daylight savings time before I die.’”
…
Lankford’s bill would eliminate the time change by making daylight savings time apply year-round in the US.
So basically Lankford is bragging that he wants to do exactly the opposite of this (probably fictional) constituent actually wants. They don’t grow 'em too smart in Oklahoma.
Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Sotuanduso@lemm.ee 8 months ago
End or make permanent, the effect is basically the same in terms of convenience.
Natanael@slrpnk.net 8 months ago
Standard time is better for health (and makes more sense from a practical standpoint)
Any arguments about sunlight, etc, are all nonsense because all you have to do is change your schedule if you insist on that
esc27@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Standard time in which time zone? Since each zone is (typically) one hour off from the one next to it, then the people in the timezone to the east of yours are essentially on daylight time relative to you.
I could see an argument that sunlight is involved since sunrise times vary by latitude and longitude, but I’m told sunlight arguments are nonsense…
Natanael@slrpnk.net 8 months ago
Standard time = 12:00 at local noon (usually in the center of the zone)
We need sunlight in the morning more than in the evening. This is why DST in winters is terrible if people would stick to current schedules.
Slowly moving schedules and keeping standard time would be better if people care about evening sunlight. Or even better, move to 6 hour workdays and give everybody more sunlight both in the morning and evening!
Sotuanduso@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Fair. I just meant that most people are upset at the frequent changing, not the pros and cons of each option.
ImTryingLemmy@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I would loathe permanent DST.
I work construction and for the past decade or so the General Contractors have only been paying the electricians to install “life safety” lighting. Basically, it’s enough light to navigate the hallways and especially the stairways. We are on our own to light any other areas. This is why nearly all construction workers now wear headlamps, it’s dark as shit in most of the site.
So, we just had the DST change obviously and now I have to use my headlamp for about an hour every morning even if I’m next to a window. The latest sunrise in Denver would be something like 0815 if we were on permanent DST. That’s two full hours every morning for at least a week stumbling around with a damn headlamp.
Detroit’s latest sunrise would be 0850, I think. That’s insanity. I feel for the people that are stuck in the 8-5 office grind and want to walk their dog after work but damn it would be a huge PITA for anyone who works at 0600. I don’t know if I could take it.