Late last week, the House and Senate approved the final version of an energy bill that includes a provision extending Daylight Saving Time by a month. The bill is now on President Bush’s desk, and he says he will sign it. So, it’s as good as official: DST will start three weeks early and end one week late, starting in 2007.
The DST extension was cut in half from two months because of complaints from the airlines that it would disrupt international flight schedules, of all things. (It’s good to know that Congress is on the side of the little guy, as usual. Heh.)
I meant to post this quote two weeks ago, as I figured the local anti-Daylight Saving Time denizens would appreciate it, but then I forgot all about it, what with the various hardware and website crises that have befallen my digital world recently. But now it’s newly relevant, so here it is:
I think Washington likes DST because, having regulated everything else, it now wants to regulate time. (Maybe next year it can regulate space, and form a continuum.) At least the Jacobins, for all their calendar-related crimes, did not claim that they were making the sun shine longer. It takes a 21st-century American congressman to utter such nonsense.
Heh. Indeed.
But, hey, at least Congress has good, solid reasons for making this change:
[Co-sponsor Fred] Upton [(R-Mich.)] noted that the extension means daylight-saving time will continue through Halloween, adding to safety.“Kids across the nation will soon rejoice,” he said, as they get another hour of daylight trick-or-treating.
Oh yes, the kids will rejoice… but what of their parents, the actual voters? What will you tell your constituents when their children, and indeed children all across America, are stricken with unprecedented sugar highs come Halloween 2007, all because of your DST bill?!? Their blood sugar will be on your hands, Congressman!!! :)
Then there’s this, from fellow co-sponsor Ed Markey (D-Mass.):
“The beauty of daylight-saving time is that it just makes everyone feel sunnier.”
LOL! God bless America…
P.S. South Bend Tribune columnist Jack Colwell says this whole thing is Mitch Daniels’s fault — and also the South Bend Tribune’s fault, in a way.
P P.S. Bush may be slightly perturbed that he was unable to get this provision passed. :)
|
Categories: Uncategorized
|
July 31st, 2005 at 6:42:13 pm
Ah yes, the energy bill, the one with over $10 billion in tax breaks/incentives for big oil. Cause they really realy need it, given the record profits they have been making recently. The price for a barrel of oil has gone from $18 to $60 since Bush took office, oil companies are making record setting profits and we feel the need to give the tax incentives? Government hand outs? Just another case of Republican hypocrisy. Whatever happened to keeping government out of buisness?
Oh sure there are tax incentives for alternative fuel and hybrid stuff as well, it just pales in comparison.
Wonder how people would feel if they knew the true cost of gas, instead of the phantom cost at the pump. You know, if the gas companies had to charge us $5 a gallon to make up for all that money they are now getting in tax breaks.
But thats ok, let the gas companies keep making record profits while the price of gas to the consumer goes up. Its not like we are at war or anything and the President has asked us to make some sacrifices…oh wait…
We shouldn’t be giving incentives to gas companies who are making such enormous profit, we should be encouraging higher efficiency standards and alternative fuel research so that we can get ourselves off this mid east oil dependency. Then maybe those Saudi oil Sheiks can stop blackmailing us with high oil prices.
But don’t expect any kind of change from a President in bed with the Saudi’s and big oil. This bill will sail through.
July 31st, 2005 at 9:44:23 pm
Who trick or treats while the sun is up?
July 31st, 2005 at 11:08:15 pm
Ahhh BK. You must live in that area known as Free-land. Here in Edict-land, kids are assigned hours when they can trick-or-treat. They are relegated to daylight hours.
August 1st, 2005 at 12:05:49 am
the only thing that limits trick or treating where I live is parents
i remember that until i was old enough to go out with just my friends, one of our groups parents just came with us, but we always waited til dark.
August 1st, 2005 at 1:44:22 am
David. Idiot. But I repeat myself.
August 1st, 2005 at 4:09:21 am
If you can’t say something nice, Andrew…
Ah, nevermind, it’s obvious that nobody ever taught you that rule, or else you decided somewhere along the line that you don’t much care for it…
August 1st, 2005 at 7:22:00 am
Its ok Brendan, it just shows that Andrew can’t come up with a valid defense.
Since my first post was a bit rambling I’ll try and simplify it for you Andrew.
Republicans keep championing the idea of free markets and less to no government involvement. Big oil doesn’t even NEED that kind of government support to be succesful. The only reason to give them any kind of finanical incentives to keep doing the same thing they have been doing is because of their close ties with the current corupt administration.
For this administration, who keeps talking about making America safer and improving national security to give tax cuts to big oil, further fueling our dependency on the Mid East oil and keeping us involved in Mid East disputes we could otherwise ignore, rather than giving those tax cuts for alternative fuel research that would not only decrease our oil dependency, but also be better for the environment and better for the consumer, is hypocrisy of the highest degree.
Bottom line, Big Oil doesn’t need tax breaks. One of Wa. States representatives was talking about this recently and pointed out that one of the big oil companies recently posted a profit that was the highest in the history of the country. And they need tax breaks because?
Meanwhile gas prices have been going up. It’s a basic bait and switch. The Bush administration cuts taxes but rewards an industry that is raising gas prices. Congratulations consumer, your tax cut is going right back into the gas tank, and right to big oil. We should have kept gas prices where they are and just given the tax cuts to Big Oil.
So what is it Andrew? I thought the market was supposed to determine things, not the government. How do you justify huge tax incentives to big oil companies allready making record profits at the expense of the average American? How do you justify this administration, with its make America safer attitude, helping companies keep us dependent on foreign oil? How are you going to try and twist this to fit into your partisan world view rather than admitting that *gasp* this is just plain wrong?
August 1st, 2005 at 10:05:43 am
IIRC, much of this legislation was introduced by a congressman from Texas, although probably not without quite a bit of input from Cheney’s Enery Task Force. When interviewed by NPR, much of his answer was of the form: well, if I wasn’t representing the oil industry to some extent, I wouldn’t be representing my constituency, would I?
To some extent I can understand that. There is an oil industry in Texas that (amazingly) employs Texans, and so it makes sense that some pork would go to them. However, I agree that if it is the job of the administration to take initiative and lead the country in a better direction, then it does seem positively stupid to further tie our future energy consumption to foreign sources. And given the backgrounds of Bush, Cheney, et al it is reasonable to question their motives here. Handouts to the oil industry may indeed provide easier access to oil 10 years down the road, and we may have to accept the fact that petroleum deposits are in many parts of the world besides the United States.
However, is that the road we want to go down? Apparently for this administration, it is. One would hope that with all the crazy pork you read about in the op/ed pages that the administration could, say, not buy a few F-15s (newest ones are $100M each) or maybe not cut taxes for the rich quite so much, and instead redirect that money into alternative energy research — which, incidentally, would produce more high tech jobs anyway.
Personally, I can’t wait for the introduction of the Mr. Fusion.
August 1st, 2005 at 12:27:46 pm
I’m just curious, what are the specific “handouts” and “tax breaks” that you are all so incensed about? Considering that energy is the number one thing necessary to drive a modern economy, why in the world would you be upset over a bill that incentivizes new refineries, “clean coal” power plants, and nuclear power? Do you actually know what the bill says, or are you just reading the DNC talking points?
The only part of this bill that I really dislike is the corporate welfare for ethanol producers, but that’s the fault of Democratic politicians from the corn-growing Midwest as much as the Republicans.
My response to David was based on the fact that he had absolutely nothing to say. All I heard was “blah blah blah Big Oil blah blah The Rich blah blah blah Evil Corporations blah blah blah”. Why even bother responding with substantive comments? He’s not adding anything to the debate, he doesn’t even know what the bill contains, he just reads the AP summary and has the de facto Democrat gut reaction of rage. After all, if there are anything more evil than rich, greedy capitalist corporations, it’s rich, greedy, capitalist energy corporations. The only surprise is that nobody mentioned Enron yet.
August 1st, 2005 at 12:34:52 pm
Ah, nevermind, it’s obvious that nobody ever taught you that rule, or else you decided somewhere along the line that you don’t much care for it…
It’s not that I don’t care for the rule, it’s that I don’t care for David. He’s so reflexively liberal/partisan (or pro-Vatican, when Catholic issues are on the table), and yet he sticks to his spiel about not liking either party. He spews rhetoric and basically sounds like he’s regurgitating lines from Nancy Pelosi, which would actually be tolerable if there were some well-developed, substantive argument behind it. Alas, that is not often the case, unless we’re talking about abortion or other issues pertaining to Catholic morality.
August 1st, 2005 at 2:02:24 pm
I think we’re all well aware that you and David don’t much care for each other, or at least for your respective cyber-personae. (Hope springs eternal that you’ll not only tolerate each other, but maybe even like each other, when you meet at the wedding. Stranger things have happened! Okay, not many, but some. :)
But all I’m saying is that I don’t see much purpose in a post that states in its entirety, “David. Idiot. But I repeat myself.” It’s one thing to lose touch with civility in the course of a heated argument with someone whose debating style drives you nuts, and it’s another thing entirely to skip right past the argument and jump straight to the insult. In that case, I don’t see what’s gained by saying anything at all — hence my reference to the “if you can’t say something nice” rule.
August 1st, 2005 at 2:02:39 pm
If you find it so easy to dismiss him, then simply ignore him, rather than call him names. If not, then post a reply to him — but still please refrain from the name calling, you silly little righty-wingnut-on-the-left-coast.
August 1st, 2005 at 2:04:31 pm
P.S. ENRON!!!
And also:
HITLER!!!
There… I think my work here is done. :)
August 1st, 2005 at 3:03:54 pm
Heh. That reminds me of my favorite Enron quote ever:
I predict that in the years ahead Enron, not Sept. 11, will come to be seen as the greater turning point in U.S. society.
By the way, I did a bit more reading, and I’ve decided there’s another part of the bill I don’t like: the $15 billion earmarked for heating oil. Let the New Englanders freeze, I say. The pilgrims didn’t need no heating oil.
August 1st, 2005 at 3:04:57 pm
By the way, that quote was from Paul Krugman. Is David his protege?
Okay, that was a really low blow. I apologize, David.
August 1st, 2005 at 3:43:37 pm
Hmmm … at the risk of asking a potentially substantive question …
Just who the $#$#@ *is* “Big Oil”, anyway ?
I thought the various oil/gas/petroleum corporations were owned by shareholders, and those same shareholders decided through their Boards of Directors where the profits went, after taxes ?
I also thought that the higher the profits, the higher the taxes paid ?
That there are programs to give companies incentives to do useful things is well-understood - I admit to having difficulties understanding the putative rationale behind “Bottom line, Big Oil doesn’t need tax breaks. One of Wa. States representatives was talking about this recently and pointed out that one of the big oil companies recently posted a profit that was the highest in the history of the country. And they need tax breaks because?”.
When it makes sense to have the physical plant that refines oil into gasoline be converted into or rebuilt in less-polluting form, then to whom the $#@$#@ should any appropriate tax incentives go to cause this to happen ? Hmmmm … perhaps to the champions of honest free and unbiased speech - Air America - that well-known refiner of … naaaahhh - even *I* can’t type further along those lines with a straight face …
David - if you want to show that profits are obscene, ya gotta start by showing *why* they are obscene, rather than just giving the standard responses that are devoid of semantic content never mind rational content … if you can show that “Big Oil’s” manifold increases in profits are going 90% to Jeb and the Georges you may well have a ‘pod to stand upon … absent such a situation, all you have is hyperhyporhetoric …
August 1st, 2005 at 5:03:18 pm
DST is astronomical heresy.
Noon is when the sun is at its zenith, which is directly overhead on the fall and spring equinoxes. To try to define it otherwise is dishonest.
August 1st, 2005 at 5:36:26 pm
Hmm… well, that definition would rule out not only DST, but the whole idea of standardized time zones. We’d have to go back to the old days, when it was a different time in every city. Good for astronomical correctness but bad for commerce, methinks.
August 1st, 2005 at 7:11:22 pm
Brendan - think about it … in this day and age of PCs and yes, even PowerBooks, we could actually go back to each community running on its own local time, and have PCs and the Internet perform the required calculations to make timetables sorta meaningful …
Just think - if you could get the planet to adopt the idea, they might even name a sandwich after your local time …
August 1st, 2005 at 9:16:45 pm
The difference between solar noon and “clock” noon created by timezones is a minimal effect, with only strange borderlands like South Bend, IN being affected. DST is an intentional mistake, and therefore Bad in my book. :)
August 2nd, 2005 at 2:34:32 am
Wow Andrew, you are still not bright enough to understand that criticizing this Republican administration doesn’t make me a liberal, but then again you don’t seem to listen very well to anything but what you want to hear.
The only one who doesn’t add to the debate is you with your constant flinging of insults.
I have leveled my criticisms based on the fact that Republicans claim they want to keep gov’t out of buisness and yet have no problem providing massive incentives and tax breaks to big oil.
August 2nd, 2005 at 2:36:37 am
Alasdair, its not that I specifically object to Big Oil making a profit, what I am objecting to is Big Oil making record profits AND getting hand outs from the Bush administration AND hearing the right wing rhetoric about making sacrifices for the country whilst Big Oil RAISES prices on gas for the average consumer.
New refineries? There hasn’t been a new refinery built in this country for over a decade. And clean coal is a myth, its a buzz word designed to make coal sound better.
August 2nd, 2005 at 3:20:29 pm
David - same question again … just *who* is Big Oil ?
Is it a small number in the proverbial smoke-filled room ?
Or is it the shareholders, many of whom do so by ‘proxy’ (loosely-used term) of their pension funds or other grouped investments, and, as such, is Everyman ?
Or something in-between ?
(tapping foot some more) … and just who should get the societally-responsible subsidies ? Or should be just say “$#@$@ ‘em” and forget about even trying to do better ?
“clean coal” is what I consider to be things like “smokeless fuel” - coal processed into what are essentially briquets (*ugly* word!) so that they don’t produce all that nasty-yet-natural icky smoke stuff …
As for new refineries, I sorta suspect that the only thing stopping ‘em being built are the little details like (*ptui*) lawyers-who-file-nuisance-suits and can do so since this country doesn’t seem to like “loser pays” when it comes to court costs and legal fees …
And it ain’t “Big Oil” that’s stopping ‘em being built … perhaps the AFL-CIO could take their pension funds and start building societally-responsible and -responsive oil refineries run for the Benefit of Mankind rather than for the greed of Big Oil ?
All those in favour say “Aye” !