![]() meetings are not unusual, whereas for many other people the only thing that you may be meeting at that time is the toilet bowl. This argument, of course, assumes that most people are waking up and commuting early in the morning as medical doctors often do. Evidence for keeping Standard Time also includes the rapid repeal of permanent DST in the past due to public safety concerns during dark morning commutes necessitated by DST.” Society of Behavioral Sleep Medicine (SBSM), and Society for Research on Biological Rhythms (SRBR) claimed that “There is strong scientific and medical evidence that supports permanent Standard Time. For example, a letter from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM). So is this mainly a Morning Lark versus Night Owl debate? Well, some seem to be waving around the “S” word to support one side, claiming that scientific evidence backs maintaining Standard Time throughout the year. Rumor has it that some folks are already awake, active, and get work done during these hours but that has not been fully confirmed since it would require being awake during those hours. This in turn would benefit those people, professions, religious groups, and organizations who operate more in such an early morning time frame. Having DST year round would extend the hours of sunshine that most businesses would operate under, presuming that most businesses stay open in the 9 am to 9 pm time frame.īy contrast, making Standard Time permanent would add more daylight to the early morning, the 5:30 am to 8 am hours. Now one could argue that more daylight during the 4:30 pm to 9 pm time range would benefit everyone since practically everyone is awake during this time, aside from those who call it a day after watching the People’s Court on TV at 5 pm. This would mean that folks would be less likely to walk out of work or school at the end of the day into the pitch dark. Making DST permanent would help those interested in having more daylight in the 4:30 pm to 9 pm range throughout the year. Plus, compared to the full lineup of late night TV, there’s not much to watch on TV in the early morning unless you want to watch four straight episodes of Charmed on TNT.Įarly morning TV typically consists of "Charmed" and infomercials. However, this neglects the fact that the nighttime can be quiet and peaceful too, allowing you to count all the bleep that’s happened to your throughout the day. Morning Larks may argue that the morning is quiet and peaceful, allowing you to collect your thoughts before the bleep of the day begins. It really seems more of a personal makeup and preference thing. It’s sort of like the chocolate versus cheese, Star Wars versus Star Trek, and Britney versus Christina debate. Yes, Morning Larks are the ones who have showered our society with Early Morning propaganda such as quotes that say “the early bird gets the worm” when you are wondering who the heck wants worms? And how about their pushing Ben Franklin’s quote that says “Early to bed and early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise,” rather than Banksy’s quote that warns, “People who get up early in the morning cause war, death and famine.” There’s no real clear scientific evidence whether being a Morning Lark or Night Owl is better. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images) Getty Images In this case, the lobbyists could very well be coming from one particular party: Morning Larks.Īfter passing through the Senate by unanimous consent in March, the Sunshine Protection Act of 2021. Whenever Congress folks try to put the brakes on a legislative process, you figure that some lobbyist somewhere has gotten to them. Some House members began questioning the procedures in the Senate and urging that more discussion is needed before a decision can be made. And reality can often bite, as the title of that 1994 rom-com starring Winona Ryder, Ethan Hawke, and Ben Stiller suggested. (OK, may be the second wouldn’t have gotten unanimous support in the House.) So the Senate decision suggested that the bill would not hit roadblocks in the House.īut then reality hit. The bill had passed via unanimous consent in the Senate, which these days doesn’t happen often, unless the need for the bill is obvious such as a bill declaring that chocolate is a good thing to exist or that space lasers haven’t been causing the California wildfires. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) was the Sponsor of this Act, which had 18 co-sponsors in the Senate consisting of 10 Republicans and eight Democrats. There was hope that the bill would go swiftly through the House after it got hefty bipartisan support in the Senate.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |