Duke: The Anatomy of a Hoax by William L. Anderson

William L. Anderson, Ph.D., teaches economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland, and is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Dr. Anderson writes:

As the criminal case against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans continues to fall around Durham County District Attorney Michael Nifong, and as Nifong’s own future becomes even more uncertain, it is time to take a cold, hard look at how this hoax ever got legs and has advanced as far as it has. Make no mistake about it; this is a hoax, yet as I write, the three young men still face felony charges that could put them in prison for most of their lives.

No one, except perhaps the North Carolina Chapter of the NAACP and its supporters, along with Wendy Murphy, still claims that the young men raped, much less kidnapped and assaulted Crystal Gail Mangum on March 14, 2006...

Duke: The Anatomy of a Hoax by William L. Anderson

Putting More Globalists in Charge of Iraq War Won't Bring Needed Change

John McManus echoes my thoughts on the Iraq War.

What [President Bush] should do is begin removing our forces and cease attempting to force his brand of government on nations that don't want it. It certainly isn't based on freedom, because that cannot be forced on anybody

Putting More Globalists in Charge of Iraq War Won't Bring Needed Change | The John Birch Society - Truth, Leadership, Freedom

Indiana's a natural for Eastern DST? -- not!

As others have pointed out, eastern time is centered on 75 degrees (Philadelphia) and central on 90 degrees longitude (Peoria). The natural boundary is the average -- 82.5 degrees. Checking the atlas shows that this boundary runs down the middle of Ohio and down the eastern borders of Michigan and Kentucky.

It takes the sun about 45 minutes to travel from Philadelphia to Indianapolis, but only about 15 minutes to travel overhead from Indy to Peoria.

From a historical perspective, there is evidence that being on central time was not bad for Indiana business, and may even be better for business than eastern time.

By the state's own figures (pdf page 7 of 44), Indiana's per capita income was 106.4 percent of the national average in 1953 (when most or all of the state was on central time year-round, and had been for decades).

http://www.in.gov/iedc/pdfs/Strategic_Plan.pdf

By 2006 this figure had dropped to 91.4 percent. This is about four decades after beginning the grand experiment of having a big chunk of the state move from Chicago to New York time for the cooler portion of the year.

It's hard to avoid noticing that the state economy really seemed to be "hitting on all cylinders" when the whole state was on central time and things have really come apart since most of the state started to flirt with eastern time.

As far as when it gets dark this time of year, that's more a function of our latitude than our time zone. With only about 9 hours 25 minutes of sunlight on January 2, the average sunrise and sunset times for places at Indy's latitude around the world are about 7:21 am and 4:47 pm. Since we're not in the exact middle of a time zone, the closest we can get to these natural times is on central time, which would give Indy a sunrise of 7:06 am and sunset of 4:31 pm.

As far as whether daylight saving time really gives the benefits it is purported to, that's another bag of worms for another day.

Bill
Tue, 2 Jan 2007, 7:20 am EST


State's a natural for Eastern DST

Zoning: The New Tyranny

James Bovard is the author of Shakedown (Viking Press, 1995) and Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty (St. Martin's Press, 1994).

Mr. Bovard writes:

The essence of zoning is the shotgun behind the door — the pending call on police to drag someone away in handcuffs and bulldoze their home. Zoning is not simply a question of bureaucrats and local politicians coming up with Byzantine ordinances — but of the full force of government waiting to fall on the head of anyone who violates one of the constantly changing local land-use decrees...

Government abuses of zoning laws were clearly foreseen back in 1926 by Supreme Court Justice Willis Van Devanter. In his dissent to the Euclid vs. City of Ambler decision — the case that opened the floodgates to zoning — Van Devanter wrote: "The plain truth is that the true object of the ordinance in question is to place all property in a strait-jacket. The purpose to be accomplished is really to regulate the mode of living of persons who may hereafter inhabit [the community]." A brief in that case declared: "That our cities should be made beautiful and orderly is, of course, in the highest degree desirable, but it is even more important that our people should remain free."

Zoning: The New Tyranny

Zoning: The New Tyranny

James Bovard is the author of Shakedown (Viking Press, 1995) and Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty (St. Martin's Press, 1994).

Mr. Bovard echoes my sentiments on zoning when he writes:

The essence of zoning is the shotgun behind the door — the pending call on police to drag someone away in handcuffs and bulldoze their home. Zoning is not simply a question of bureaucrats and local politicians coming up with Byzantine ordinances — but of the full force of government waiting to fall on the head of anyone who violates one of the constantly changing local land-use decrees...

Government abuses of zoning laws were clearly foreseen back in 1926 by Supreme Court Justice Willis Van Devanter. In his dissent to the Euclid vs. City of Ambler decision — the case that opened the floodgates to zoning — Van Devanter wrote: "The plain truth is that the true object of the ordinance in question is to place all property in a strait-jacket. The purpose to be accomplished is really to regulate the mode of living of persons who may hereafter inhabit [the community]." A brief in that case declared: "That our cities should be made beautiful and orderly is, of course, in the highest degree desirable, but it is even more important that our people should remain free."

Zoning: The New Tyranny

What Patriotic Christians Can Do For America

Dr. Chuck Baldwin is founder-pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. He is also the host of a lively, hard-hitting radio talk show called, "Chuck Baldwin Live." He was the 2004 vice presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. I agree with much of Dr. Baldwin's advice for the patriotic Christian. He writes:

Continuing to vote for the majority of establishment candidates from both the Republican and Democratic parties will accomplish nothing. Voters have been changing the composition of their various and sundry elected offices for decades, and nothing has changed. The country continues to plummet down the proverbial slippery slope.

Neither will listening to the major news media, including Fox News, prepare one to be a difference-maker...

If you are a Christian, do your best to find a church where the pastor knows what is going on and is not afraid to teach and preach politically incorrect Bible truth...

Our country's problems are, first and foremost, spiritual in nature. Therefore, solutions will ultimately never be discovered inside the halls of Congress; rather, they will be found in the hearts and lives of God's people...

Secondly, begin educating yourself. Stop relying on the major news outlets to bring you the news. I heartily recommend the New American Magazine...

Internet news sites such as News With Views and World Net Daily are also valuable sources of information...

Thirdly, get involved with likeminded patriots. Hook up with your local John Birch Society. Join Larry Pratt's Gun Owners of America...

Fourthly, never discount prayer. God's true champions have seldom, if ever, been a majority. Throughout history, God has used a small number of faithful and courageous Christian soldiers to accomplish His divine will. He can still do so.

If everyone reading this column would sincerely and seriously be willing to change their affiliations and associations, would endeavor to personally educate and inform themselves with the truth, would endeavor to not knowingly support organizations and individuals that contribute to the compromise of our national sovereignty and independence, and would be willing to fervently and faithfully pray for America, there is no telling what may result.

So, what are you waiting for? Get busy!

What Patriotic Christians Can Do For America

Chuck Baldwin Endorses The New American and JBS

Jefferson Davis by Charley Reese -- Who are the real Democrats?

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years. He writes:

And what, you might well ask, is a Jeffersonian Democrat? He's a person who hasn't forgotten that the sovereign states created the federal government, not the reverse, as some today seem to assume. He believes that what the Constitution created was a republic of sovereign states, and that the carefully limited powers assigned to the federal government were all the powers it had, in peace or in war. He believes the Constitution is a binding contract, not a rubbery document that can mean anything a judge or a politician says it means. He believes in a system of checks and balances. In short, he believes in the Declaration of Independence.

That document, you might recall, says that the only purpose of government is to protect rights already granted by God, and that when a government fails to protect those rights and begins to abuse them, the people have the right to alter or overthrow it...

H.L. Mencken, the Baltimore journalist, in his usually blunt way said the only thing wrong with Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was that it was the South, not the North, that was fighting for government "of the people, by the people and for the people."

So to add to the definition of Jeffersonian Democrats, they were a majority of the Founding Fathers, a majority who fought the American Revolution, a majority who wrote the Constitution, and a majority who fought for Southern independence. No wonder the precious few still extant make big-government lovers so nervous.

Jefferson Davis by Charley Reese

Got Ads?: Nerdiest Comment Ever

Well, I had my five minutes of fame yesterday in the blogosphere.

I was credited with "out-geeking" an uber-geek.

Got Ads?: Nerdiest Comment Ever. - Google AdWords and Overture PPC

jdigittl: I'm the operator with my pocket calculator

Who Makes Foreign Policy? by Ron Paul

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Dr. Paul writes:

The media, Congress, and the American public all seem to have accepted something that is patently untrue: namely, that foreign policy is the domain of the president and not Congress. This is absolutely not the case and directly contrary to what our founding fathers wanted.

The role of the president as Commander in Chief is to direct our armed forces in carrying out policies established by the American people through their representatives in Congress. He is not authorized to make those policies. He is an administrator, not a policy maker. Foreign policy, like all federal policy, must be made by Congress. To allow otherwise is to act in contravention of the Constitution...

So Congress is charged not only with deciding when to go to war, but also how to conduct – and bring to a conclusion – properly declared wars... But the notion that presidents should establish our broader foreign policy is dangerous and wrong. No single individual should be entrusted with the awesome responsibility of deciding when to send our troops abroad, how to employ them once abroad, and when to bring them home. This is why the founders wanted Congress, the body most directly accountable to the public, to make critical decisions about war and peace.

It is shameful that Congress ceded so much of its proper authority over foreign policy to successive presidents during the 20th century, especially when it failed to declare war in Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, and Iraq. It’s puzzling that Congress is so willing to give away one of its most important powers, when most members from both parties work incessantly to expand the role of Congress in domestic matters. By transferring its role in foreign policy to the President, Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also disenfranchises the American electorate.

Who Makes Foreign Policy? by Ron Paul

WorldNetDaily: How about a federal 'nice crimes' law?

Linda Harvey is founder of Mission America, which monitors and reports on the promotion of homosexuality to youth. With her tongue firmly in her cheek she asks us if a "nice crime" is better than a "hate crime".

Now that the left has ascended to power in Washington, San Fran Nan and her munchkins have declared that adding "sexual orientation" to existing federal "hate crimes" law will rise to the top of the congressional priority list.

But wait. Why not first pass a "nice crimes" law, at the federal level and also in some states?

After all, selecting some crimes for special designation as markers of "hate" is helpful, but only if we first recognize other "non-hate" crimes as the nice ones.

For instance, I would nominate all nice murders, where the offender expresses tender sentiments toward the victim before bludgeoning him/her to death...

Local police officers, based on the federal 1990 Hate Crime Statistics Act, are required to conduct interviews when a crime is committed against a homosexual to find out "why" the offender committed the crime. Victims who are window-washers, stamp collectors, vegans or blues musicians wouldn't get this courtesy even if the actual crime is the same, say, an act of theft. But a homosexual does. If the offender has a negative ("homophobic") opinion, or if he/she added a homosexual insult to the injury, that crime becomes a statistic, counted as part of a miniscule-but-predicted-to-grow "epidemic" of "hate" crimes against homosexuals...

Such crimes need to be carefully tracked, the offenders and all their allies or potential allies interrogated, with extra penalties for even daring to commit a crime while holding, or seeming to hold, the wrong beliefs. To stop at simply punishing the crime would be, well, insensitive to "hate." How much better for everyone, even the victim, if one is robbed or murdered while nice views are held by the felon...

Thanks to that 1990 statistics law, we know the correct definition of a "hate" crime, as opposed to all those "nice" crimes out there. And I'm sure the new Democrat majority, backed up by their trial lawyer friends, will help us with further categories, labels and stereotypes, so we know what "nice" beliefs to hold.

Or else.

WorldNetDaily: How about a federal 'nice crimes' law?

WorldNetDaily: Why we love government

Walter E. Williams, Ph.D., is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia. He writes:

Unlike today's Americans, the founders of our nation were suspicious, if not contemptuous, of government...

Today's Americans hold such liberty-oriented values in contempt, and any presidential aspirant holding them would have a zero chance of winning office.

Today's Americans hold a different vision of government. It's one that says Congress has the right to do just about anything upon which it can secure a majority vote. Most of what Congress does fits the description of forcing one American to serve the purposes of another American. That description differs only in degree, but not in kind, from slavery.

At least two-thirds of the federal budget represents forcing one American to serve the purposes of another...

In other words, once Congress establishes that one person can live at the expense of another, it pays for everyone to try to do so. You say, "Williams, don't you believe in helping your fellow man?" Yes, I do. I believe that reaching into one's own pockets to help his fellow man is both laudable and praiseworthy. Reaching into another's pockets to help his fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

The bottom line: We love government because it enables us to accomplish things that if done privately would lead to arrest and imprisonment. For example, if I saw a person in need, and I took your money to help him, I'd be arrested and convicted of theft. If I get Congress to do the same thing, I am seen as compassionate.

This vision ought to bother the Christians among us, for when God gave Moses the commandment "Thou shalt not steal," I'm sure He didn't mean thou shalt not steal unless you got a majority vote in Congress.

WorldNetDaily: Why we love government

Should Christians Support Slavery? by Laurence M. Vance

Laurence M. Vance writes:

Should Christians support the government-enforced, involuntary slavery of human beings? ...

A greater evil, however, is that some Christians would support – right now, in the twenty-first century – not only government-enforced slavery, but government-mandated slavery.

The government-mandated slavery I am referring to is military conscription...

Now wait a minute, Mr. Vance. I thought you were talking about slavery? The draft isn’t slavery...

But I am talking about slavery. The draft is a form of slavery or involuntary servitude...

What else are you going to call the draft if it is not slavery or involuntary servitude? A young person is told that he must join the military. He is then told when to go to bed and when to get up. He is told when to eat and when to sleep. He is told to move here or move there. He is told what he is allowed to do and what he is not allowed to do. And worst of all, he is told that a certain group of people is the "enemy" and therefore must be bombed into submission or killed.

The draft is not at all about defending and protecting the country. It is about getting cannon fodder to fight in an immoral and unnecessary overseas war. How many young men who didn’t know where Vietnam was located would think of going there to kill or be killed unless they were forced to do so?

A real invasion of American soil would necessitate, not the conscription of young men to fight, but the need for Americans of all ages to wait in line in order to get a chance to shoot the invaders. Every able-bodied man (and even some women) would fight without having to be coerced or threatened.

The draft is something that all patriotic Americans should abhor because, as Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) has said: "A government that is willing to enslave some of its people can never be trusted to protect the liberties of its own citizens..."

It is too bad that more young men didn’t use whatever means they could, legal or otherwise, to avoid being sent to Vietnam. Fifty-eight thousand Americans and perhaps two million Southeast Asians are dead because millions of American soldiers obeyed the dictates of the state.

Why, then, would Christians who are opposed to slavery be in support of military conscription? The answer is because they are not opposed to the state. In fact, many Christians are in love with the state. Sure, they may complain about paying their taxes or following some regulation, get upset with Supreme Court decisions about abortion, and even get outraged about government-funded pornographic art, but when it comes to the subject of war and the military they lose their mind. Bombing, maiming, interrogating, and killing are okay as long as it is done in service for the state...

Even if they acknowledge that a war like the one in Iraq is unconstitutional and unnecessary – and even immoral and senseless – some Christians still say that the troops are not responsible and we should support them.

What are the Christians who live by the "obey the powers that be" mantra going to do when the state conscripts their young women? ...

What are these Christians going to do when U.S. troops are directed to attack American citizens in the name of fighting terrorism? Will they still encourage their children to join the military? ...

Christians who continue to defend Bush’s war of aggression in Iraq are in a state of denial. They refuse to believe that the president lied the country into war. They refuse to believe that loving one’s country has nothing to do with loving the government. They refuse to believe that being patriotic does not mean blindly following whatever the government says...

Should Christians support slavery in the form of military conscription? Of course not. The draft, whether into the military or into some form of "national service," is about serving the state...

Should Christians Support Slavery? by Laurence M. Vance

The Second Amendment, North Korea and Iran by Michael Gaddy

Michael Gaddy is an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut. He has some good food for thought on the clamor against the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea.

Serious supporters of the Second Amendment and the right to self-defense of one's person, family and personal property, fully understand the amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting, skeet and trap, or Cowboy Action Shooting. It has to do with protecting ourselves from a tyrannical out-of-control government.

North Korea and Iran fear the same tyrannical government we do, and insist on being armed for the same reasons.

I know the above is going to be a hard pill to swallow for many – but the evidence is clear: a runaway government maneuvers to control the means of resistance from those it seeks to enslave...

If a criminal had threatened your family along with several other families in your neighborhood, and had then followed through with the threat; invading one of the homes and killing several in the family and then threatening others; would you not seek a deterrent to the possibility of a similar invasion and killing?

Again, I remind you: the governments both Iran and North Korea fear is the same government we fear will become tyrannical and necessitates our being armed to resist. If we fear our own government, why should other nations not fear it also?

Yes, we have been told the Theocracy in Iran and Kim Jung il of North Korea are nuts and fanatics. Have we supporters of the Second Amendment not had the same said of us by leaders in our government? Are we not often referred to as "gun nuts" and pelted with lies and distortions about who we are and what we believe?

Kim Jung il was said by one BBC report to "head a very secretive regime where no dissent is tolerated." Does the recently passed repeal of Habeas Corpus and the old "you are with us or with the terrorists" speech not speak of a similar regime here in our own country?

The last 3 years of the current administration have made it perfectly clear this government intends to become an empire and control the world’s resources – that includes its people. Those of us who support the right of self-defense and the right to be armed should fully understand why North Korea and Iran are determined to arm themselves: after all, only one nation on this planet has ever used atomic weapons on another nation. Why should that nation’s government not be feared? Would you not arm yourself against a criminal who threatens your very existence?

The Second Amendment, North Korea and Iran by Michael Gaddy

Not Yours to Take, by Carmon Friedrich

Thought-provoking article by a home school mom on expecting our neighbors to provide the books we want.

Carmon Friedrich writes:

While many would agree that the government school system is utterly corrupt and not worth keeping on life support, most homeschoolers are aghast when I suggest that government-operated libraries deserve a similar demise...

Folks, that money is not yours to take...

take a few minutes to read... Davy Crockett’s essay, Not Yours to Give. He tells about a wake-up call he had when running for re-election to Congress -- he realized that other people’s pockets were not to be pilfered, even for the best of causes. He points out that those who are so ready to avail themselves of the largesse of others become rather parsimonious if their own purse-strings are involved.

Local libraries are sacred cows for many people, especially homeschoolers...

The assumption that the tax-financed library should provide those things for one’s family is akin to saying government hand-outs are just dandy, as long as they provide for my kind of candy...

How conservative is it to promote limited government, decry pork barrel spending and welfare, criticize tax-funded education, yet avail ourselves of the so-called “free” library? Though it’s available to all regardless of race, sex, creed, sexual orientation, or income, public libraries are really just a middle-class entitlement program. They are also a handy venue for corrupting the values of the hapless children whose parents are not careful to protect them from the insidious influences lurking on their shelves. Those bad influences come in many forms, including the socialism that is inherent in the demand for government-financed libraries.

First spotted at LewRockwell.com (Reject Government Libraries by Carmon Friedrich).

Buried Treasure Books: Weblog » Not Yours to Take

Free People Are Better Drivers, by Alan Scholl

Alan Scholl writes:

Now some areas of Europe are doing away with other traffic restrictions after having the revelation that free people acting in their own self interest can be expected to behave in a rational and safe manner when on the road.

According to those who are pushing for the simplification of Europe's traffic rules, too many regulations make people irresponsible because they look to the state to tell them what to do...

The European experiment with reducing traffic laws would be nothing more than a curiosity if it did not serve as an illustration of an important fact, namely that government interference in most areas of daily life is both unnecessary and harmful. Just as the European cities that have reduced traffic regulations have seen accidents decrease, history has shown repeatedly that those societies that are most free, meaning those societies in which people are free to interact and cooperate without arbitrary regulatory interference, are the ones that experience the greatest degree of wealth production and cultural development. The real lesson of Europe's budding traffic libertarianism is that freedom works.

I have long suspected that the speed limit fetish in the United States leads to reduced personal responsibility, without a corresponding increase in public safety. It would be interesting to know more about the philosophical debates that took place when legislators first started enacting speed limit laws.

Free People Are Better Drivers | The John Birch Society - Truth, Leadership, Freedom

Judge Monroe misquoted by letter writer

Following is my letter to the editor which ran in The Republic (Columbus, Indiana) Saturday, 28 Oct 2006.


I was dismayed when I read the letter to the editor of Sept. 30 from Jeff West.

Mr. West alleged that Judge Chris Monroe was very harsh toward him at his visitation hearing and that the judge also told him in a hateful voice that "God is not in this courtroom, and he cannot be your witness today."

I do not know Mr. West at all, and I do not know Judge Monroe very well.

I stewed for about three weeks wondering whether and why Judge Monroe might have said such a thing. But I also kept thinking of the words of a very wise man, "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him."

So I e-mailed my concerns to Judge Monroe Oct. 21. The judge promptly composed a thoughtful reply to my e-mail and also gave me a phone call to discuss his reply.

At his invitation, I went to the courthouse today and we listened to most of the 25-minute public recording of the hearing for Mr. West. I concluded that Mr. West had seriously misquoted the judge.

When Mr. West began to affirm a statement with the phrase, "as God is my witness," I heard the judge briefly interrupt him. I believe the point he was making was that Mr. West had no need to add any confirming oath or affirmation to his words, but to simply give his testimony, without adding any additional claim that he was telling the truth.

The actual words the judge used to make this point were "God's not going to testify here today... that's not really helpful."

I wrote these down while listening to the recording about six minutes into the hearing. The recording is still available if anyone else cares to confirm it.

I did not hear any indication that Judge Monroe ever said anything about God's not being in the courtroom. In fact, the subject of religion came up several times during the hearing, and I thought that the judge always treated Mr. West's religious beliefs with respect.

I also did not detect any overall tone of harshness nor hatefulness in the judge's comments. There are three letters that Mr. West wrote to his wife. They are also in the public record for anyone who wishes to view them.

In these letters, Mr. West admits to serious moral shortcomings in his life, including lying and unfaithfulness. The judge sternly reminded him that his loss of fellowship with his son was a result of his own actions and choices.

The apostle Paul wrote, "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad... But if you do wrong, be afraid... For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer." (Romans 13:3-4)

God also commissions judges in 2 Chronicles 19:5-7, saying "He appointed judges in the land... and said to the judges, 'Consider what you do, for you judge not for man but for the LORD. He is with you in giving judgment.'"

Mr. West, Judge Monroe, and I all claim to be followers of Christ.

It appeared to me that Judge Monroe made a good-faith effort to fulfill his God-given responsibility to hold Mr. West accountable for his actions.

Perhaps Mr. West chose to interpret the judge's stern demeanor in fulfilling this responsibility as harshness or hatefulness.

As Paul Harvey might say, now you know the rest of the story.


Letter: Tape indicates judge misquoted by letter writer

Letter to the editor: Candidate omitted from S41 Right to Work survey

Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:12:30 -0400
To: "John Harmon -- therepublic.com", "Johnson County Daily Journal -- thejournalnet.com"
Subject: Letter to the editor: Candidate omitted from S41 Right to Work survey

I received a political mailing today from the Indiana Right to Work Committee based in Indianapolis.

I am not very familiar with this organization, but they claim to endorse no candidates and to be a nonpartisan organization.

The cover letter says that they sent their 2006 candidate survey to all candidates for the Indiana House and Senate.

The subject is whether Indiana workers should be forced to join or support a labor union as a condition of employment.

Unfortunately, the survey only includes results for two of the three registered candidates for State Senate District 41.

Whether due to design or carelessness, the survey lists candidates Greg Walker and Terry Coriden, but fails to include Kenn Gividen.

I support the right of Indiana residents to work without having to join or support a labor union. This right is not currently protected by Indiana laws.

I am alerting other voters who receive this mailing that if you want to know where the third candidate stands on this issue, you will need to look further than this "nonpartisan" voter education mailing.

You have my permission to publish this as a letter to the editor.

Letter: State should be in Central zone

My letter to the editor, published Saturday, 8 July 2006.


We have now lived through our first three months in recent history of daylight-saving time. In June and July we observe the more conspicuous peculiarities of staying on Eastern time rather than going back to Central.

The longest day of the year was June 21 — almost 15 hours of daylight. If we had only 60 minutes of daylight shifted from morning to evening that day, sunrise would be 5:32 am, midday 1, and sunset 8:28 pm.

Instead, our earliest sunrise of the year is 6:17 am, our latest midday is 1:50 pm, and our latest sunset is 9:14 pm.

These later times illustrate that we have about 105 minutes of daylight shifted from morning to evening in Columbus. Compared to Central time, this is about three times further than necessary from the DST “design goal” of 60 minutes.

I have heard mixed feelings about this 45-minute excess of evening daylight compared to “nominal” DST. For example, one of my coworkers says he enjoys the extra time for a longer bike ride after work. But, like poet Robert Louis Stevenson, he notices that it is harder to get his visiting grandchildren to sleep when they “have to go to bed by day.”

I frequently hear those with early morning jobs and appointments lament the difficulty of trying to fall asleep while it is still light out, or of getting up by dark on midsummer mornings, when it is “supposed” to be light out.

Indiana is the narrowest state split into two time zones. The next wider is Idaho — more than twice as wide as Indiana. The entire state of Indiana falls well within the natural boundaries of Central time. All 92 counties were on Central time for more than four decades (1918 through 1961). The sun takes 60 minutes to cross each of the 24 time zones. It takes just under 13 minutes to cross from our eastern to our western border. I.e., Indiana is about one-fourth of a time zone wide.

By contrast, Alaska is about 18 times wider than Indiana. It takes about 228 minutes for the sun to get from one side to the other. It is wide enough to be in three or four different time zones and yet it is virtually all on one time zone. Indiana is so narrow it makes me wonder what the feds were thinking when they ever carved us into two time zones in the first place.

The predominant reason Gov. Mitch Daniels gave for pushing Indiana back onto DST was the economic benefit and increased efficiency for business of changing time with the rest of the country. It only stands to reason that putting the whole state back on a single time again would be even less confusing, and therefore even more beneficial for Hoosier businesses.

In their 2006 ruling on Indiana’s time zone, the DOT wrote that their decision was meant to allow communities to fully assess the impact of DST observance. They also reminded governmental representatives that they are free to petition at any time for further changes to the time zone boundary.

Now that we have had a chance to assess the impact of DST on our daily lives, I see much to be gained, and little to be lost, in urging our governor and state legislators to ask the DOT to put the whole state back on Central time again.


Letter: State should be in Central zone

Modern Medicine’s Sleight of Hand by Bill Sardi

Why the claims for preventive prescription drug use ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

Modern Medicine’s Sleight of Hand by Bill Sardi

Congressman Tom Expresses Disappointment at Pence’s Immigration U-Turn

Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Chairman of the 97-member House Immigration Reform Caucus, expressed disappointment at Rep. Mike Pence’s policy shift on immigration reform. At a Heritage Foundation speech this afternoon, Pence presented what he called “a rational middle ground… between amnesty and mass deportation” that turns its back on a enforcement-first strategy, grants rogue employers amnesty, and would in effect reward illegal aliens for breaking the law...

“Unfortunately, like the President, Pence is breaking from House conservatives who remain steadfast in their support of a security-first approach to immigration,” said Tancredo...

Pence wants to start the new foreign worker program before border security is even proved effective, which is the same strategy that was used in the 1986 amnesty. Twenty years later, the U.S. got amnesty as promised but no border security.

“Pence’s W visa... gives the Administration exactly what it wants: unlimited foreign workers first, enforcement later or never,” said Tancredo...

The Pence plan includes no prevailing wage standard for foreign workers... In fact, almost all current visas require employers to offer the job to American workers before seeking foreign labor, but with no enforcement mechanism, the requirement is laughable.

“The House’s strategy in H.R. 4437 was to fix the illegal alien problem by enforcing the law. Over time, as illegal workers cannot obtain jobs, they go home because they have no other option open to them. Pence takes a much different approach: fix illegal behavior by legalizing it,” said Tancredo. “As a conservative and a friend of Mike Pence, I am baffled by his shift on immigration. I hope he reconsiders his position and returns to an enforcement-first position.”

Congressman Tom Expresses Disappointment at Pence’s Immigration U-Turn