Damned Daylight Saving Time...

Could someone PLEASE tell me why we still bother with this?

We change clocks twice a year - for no good reason I can determine.

For all of the automatic clocks out there, we have to wait for the central server to update their software - which doesn't always happen. Therefore, for at least a couple of weeks, we have clocks giving at least two different times (yes, I could set them all myself - but then I have to correct them all again a fortnight later, as everything catches up. So, why bother? Then I'd have to change them FOUR times a year, instead of just twice.)

Given the globalisation of industry and the economy, and the fact that a number of "civilised" or "industrialised" nations do not observe DST, why are we holding out?

And, not even the entire United States bothers with it - AZ and HI are still holding out (Mitch Daniels made IN follow DST ca. 2005 - much to the dismay of everyone still in the state - and me, even though I don't live there anymore.)

And then some nitwit in DC decides to extend DST by a month or so - "because it puts smiles on people's faces." You know what would put a smile on my face? Stop making me change the clocks every spring and fall.

As the old Indian chief said - "Only the white man things that cutting one foot off of one end of his blanked and sewing it on the other end would give him a longer blanket."

I don't care which time we pick - pick one and stick with it! The sun won't rise any earlier or set any later - the conceit to think that we can affect that is appalling.

Also, changing the clocks twice a year may - in theory - save energy, but it also causes at least a month of diminished productivity and increased traffic congestion:
- Diminished productivity because it screws with everyone's body clock twice a year - and it generally takes a good fortnight to recover fully and be back up to speed. Two weeks twice a year is about a month - so we're only getting eleven good working months to produce economically.
- Increased congestion because it screws with everyone's body clock twice a year - and reduces the (already diminished, y'ask me) capability of the public to drive. (It would be less of a problem if we actually went to the trouble to train people to drive, but that doesn't happen anymore from what I'm seeing. Driver's Education is too farcical to even count as bad comedy...)

Of course, the diminished productivity in the workplace is irrespective of the lost productivity caused by the increase in roads incidents, lost work due to hospital stays, and economic losses due to property damage.

So, again, where's the benefit to this? I've given up writing Op-Eds to the local paper - they probably got tired of getting letters from me twice a year on this subject and don't print them anymore. So, I'm turning to you - if we can get enough people to agree that this is a silly idea these days, maybe we can finally put this idea to rest...

Discuss.