perfidy

However well intended, however laboriously justified, if you look closely enough, you'll often find that the results of grand government plans don't always match the rhetoric. Or worse, that the rhetoric was, well, bullshit.

Take, for instance, the recent goofy shift in the timing for switching back to Daylight Saving Time. From Brad Feld's blog, "Feld Thoughts", have a look at his initial take on the DST firedrill just recently encountered, if not endured, by Americans. Mr. Feld said:

I wrote a post on March 12th titled Daylight Savings Time is Stupid. A bunch of people agreed with me, but some didn’t, suggesting that (a) I was missing the point and it was more fun to have light at night than in the morning or (b) the “authorities” insisted that we’d get GDP gains, (c) there would be big energy savings helping save the world, and (d) restaurants and stores would make more money due to sunny night shopping. Oh – and I also learned DST = daylight saving time, not “savings.”

After the event, about which a manageable but still non-trivial amount of media ink was spilt warning us of the second coming of Y2K (and ignoring completely, or being so misinformed as not to have known, what a complete non-event that was in the real world), Mr. Feld checked in with one of his colleagues, "Ross the IT guy", for a real-life opinion on the matter.

A minute spent viewing "Comments on Daylight Saving Time from an IT Guy" provides clear, if not definitive, proof that it was all a waste of time. An excerpt highlighting variance between dreams and reality:

DST change (Daylight Savings Time) has made no difference in national energy consumption and probably cost us more than it saved in lost productivity.

Big shock, that. No net effect, based on several sources with which Ross, the IT guy, checked.

Since we are all home the same amount of time we're all pretty much using the same amount of energy.

It seems so obvious in retrospect that you'd think it would have been just as obvious in prospect.

There is, I should note, a dissenting comment on Feld's blog. It's backed by nothing, of course, and refers to "volumes of research on this area, it's not just politicians spouting off", but I remain unconvinced this was anything but a complete waste of time. The cost to update all the systems required to put the change into effect was a one-time cost, and won't be repeated through all future cycles from standard to daylight saving time. But the benefits, unlike the costs, seem ephemeral at best, and non-existent at worst, and I'll continue to believe that until it's credibly reported to be otherwise. I haven't seen any stories claiming savings, and have seen several, in addition to Mr Feld's, claiming the opposite.

It reminds me of another current hot-button issue, about which many folks clamor for immediate action without having scientifically, accurately, or definitively assessed the cost of inaction, or the benefits of action. Or, failing that as an impossibility, admitting that those same costs and benefits are about as quantifiable as the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

But I'll spare you any further flogging of that particular horse, since I expect Minister Buckethead will soon be doing that job better than I can. Stay tuned.