Get rid of DST!

Daylight savings time needs to go. It was originally introduced to save money on electricity. Currently, it does not do this, but instead causes serious problems. It causes problems with many jobs related to time, such as farming.

The original intent of Daylight Savings Time was to save energy. It was supposed to reduce usage of incandescent lighting, which was once a primary user of electricity. Now, our main consumers of electricity are heating and cooling systems, in part because of the widespread use of such systems, and in part because of newer, more energy efficient methods of lighting. This has rendered Daylight Savings Time not only ineffective, but also harmful. This is because, while having more daylight hours means using less lighting, it means being awake during the hotter parts of the day, and thus using more electricity for cooling. Studies have proven that more electricity is used during Daylight Savings Time than during other times of the year, and than in places where Daylight Savings Time is not in effect. This additional strain on our electricity needs to be dealt with, especially when so much of our electricity is made in a way that damages the environment. Reducing electricity usage would also help relieve some of the stress on our overloaded and antiquated electricity delivery system, perhaps helping to prevent some of the blackouts that have plagued us during the past years.

Daylight Savings Time also affects people who rely on the sun. These people, such as farmers, lose money during Daylight Savings Time. Wikipedia says, "For example, grain harvesting is best done after dew evaporates, so when field hands arrive and leave earlier in summer their labor is less valuable." Thus, our farming industry suffers because of Daylight Savings Time.

Daylight Savings Time also has bad effects on our economy. Our economy, which many believe is currently in, or is just recovering from, a recession, suffers even more during shifts to and from Daylight Savings Time. For example, Wikipedia says, "Clock shifts correlate with decreased economic efficiency. In 2000 the daylight-saving effect implied an estimated one-day loss of $31 billion on U.S. stock exchanges." As you can see above, Daylight Savings Time has not only outlived its usefulness, but also become a harm. It now uses more energy than it saves, harms our already poor economy, and adversely affects people who rely on sunlight for their jobs. Thus, I honestly think that we should get rid of Daylight Savings Time once and for all.

Daylight Savings Time is a state level issue; individual states can opt out of it. Texas should opt out of it. We're a state that relies heavily farming, with over 130 thousand acres used for farming alone. We also have many large companies that suffer from the stock losses.

None of this is to mention what happens on a much more personal level. Every year, car accidents go up, and more people commit suicide because of sleep deprivation due to Daylight Savings Time. Everything combined, it's past time we got rid of it.

Jobs or no Jobs (And yes, I know he died last year.)

In the article, Texas Today: Strong Business Environment And Innovation Spurs Job Creation, author Steve Stackhouse makes the claim that Texas' economy is growing well, with many new jobs being created.


I believe that his audience is two-fold. First, I believe that he's talking to Texans, as this is a very Texas oriented blog. I also believe that he may be trying to address some non-Texans, because he gives a lot of background information on Texas that many Texans, and certainly most Texans who read his blog, would already know.


His purpose, therefore, is also two-fold. For the first group, I think he's trying to cast Texas in a positive light, to make them feel proud and happy with their state, and how it is going. I also think he's trying to make Texas look better in the eyes of others. He may even be trying to get others to want to move to Texas, looking for jobs, although he never mentions the idea in the article.


I believe that the author is fairly credible. He certainly backs up all of his facts. However, I feel that his argument is very one sided; he avoids even mentioning several critical facts. As noted here, Texas doesn't have the best pay rates in the nation. So, despite the fact that we have more jobs than average, many of those jobs are much lower paying, on average. He also glosses over the fact that the tax breaks for the businesses lead to much lower funding for many programs, like education.


In summary, while I believe that he makes a good point, I also think it's a one sided point, that ignores many of the negative aspects of the issue.

A Substantial "Critique"

In the article, For better health, pay Perry no mind, an editorial for the Austin American Statesman, the author asks legislators to go against Perry's recent letter that says that Texas will not increase Medicaid or set up health insurance, which was sent to the Obama administration.

Although the author specifically says, "We call on legislators...", I don't think that the legislators are his intended audience. Why not? Well, I think that the legislators only really listen to two things, votes and money. One man's opinion doesn't matter a lot to them, not on an issue like this where they're likely to simply vote along party lines. Rather, I think he's trying to reach the voters, who can then tell their elected officials, with the force of numbers, that this is what they want to have happen. Votes make things happen, and if he can get the voters to speak, he has a much better chance of causing something to happen than if he is one person talking. This is why I think his audience is the voters.


This author is very credible. He lists many, many facts, all of which would be easy to check. This means that he is very unlikely to lie about any of his facts, essentially guaranteeing that they are true. Not only does he have facts, he's in the Austin American Statesman, the largest newspaper in central Texas. They have good staff, and generally write good articles. Thus, the combination of numerous facts and writing for a reputable paper give this author significant credibility.


His argument is sound and well written. He keeps a level tone throughout his article, and presents things as if that's just the way they are. He also has emotional appeals, though they're not explicit. His mentions of the people who benefit from this care, and of saving money by doing this now are meant to make his readers feel that they personally will benefit and save money. His mention that Texas is #1 for the number of people without health insurance is an appeal to Texan pride. Because he has all of the elements that a good argument should - he's logical, has emotional appeals, and presents a very credible front - this is a very effective argument, and it has convinced me that I'd rather, "pay a dollar now to keep someone as healthy as possible," so that I don't, "pay for it later when they're sick."

The First Post!

First post! Yippie! Okay, so I've picked the article, Newspaper seeks public records on 911 system outage from AT&T, from the Texas Watchdog. The article says that AT&T's 911 system, a publicly funded system, experienced approximately 4 hours of outage in Cameron County, leaving many people without their normal methods of contacting the emergency services. AT&T claimed that no problems were caused by the outage. However, according to the article, there were several missed emergency calls and one medical call due to the outage. AT&T claims that this was the result of a system error. The paper, the Brownsville Herald, is calling for the release of records from AT&T to show what actually happened, claiming that AT&T is a public company in this regard because the funding for the 911 system comes from taxpayer money.


I strongly agree that they should release their records, as this was a very dangerous occurrence. I think that the article is very important, as it underlines two things. First, in the digital age, we are relying on an increasingly small number of companies for an increasingly large number of things. If one of them fails, we are all in trouble. Second, these companies are not transparent, so we, many times, do not know what is going on with them. This is worrisome.