Rage, Rage Against the Dying of the Light

It wasn't exactly what Dylan Thomas had in mind but I'm still raging. Daylight Saving begins this weekend. I love that extra hour of sleep in November, but I'd gladly exchange it for no time change at all. Here in the heart of the Midwest,  we sit pretty badly for such an early change. It has just started getting light about 6:30 a.m. now. Come time change, it will be another month before we see such glorious rays so early. The very thought makes me grumpy. Why, why why do we have to fumble with time?

It was Ben Franklin's idea. I'm guessing he didn't like sleep anywhere nearly as much as I do. Although I'm pretty sure most of colonial America shared my love of a warm bed because thrifty Ben's idea went no where. It wasn't until 1905 that anything happened with Daylight Saving, and it was a Brit who (re)started the movement. William Willett loved his early morning horse rides, and was flabbergasted that the rest of his neighbors chose to sleep through the early morning rays. So, he wrote a pamphlet on how much Britain would benefit from rising earlier. When a bill to introduce Daylight Saving was introduced into Parliament, it was met with huge opposition. Ironically, most strongly from farmers. It is a myth that agriculture benefits from setting the clocks back. Dew still lays heavy on crops in the morning the warmer months and there is little farmer can do with them until the dew has evaporated. The bill died and Brits continued to enjoy a good night's sleep.

World War I and II did that elusive hour of sleep in for the world, however. Troops needed light for battle. Factories needed to save money on electricity by working when the sun was shining.

We've been fiddling with time ever since.

In 2005, the oddest form of greed changed Daylight Saving. Sporting manufacturers and convenience stores lobbied Congress to move the beginning of Daylight Saving up from the first Sunday in April to the second Sunday in March. Their reasoning? Money. Customers frequent their stores and/or use their products more often when the sun is out.

Oddly, the sun is not out any earlier here. In fact, we're thrown into darkness in the mornings for at least another month. Granted it's out later, but how many slurpies can a person drink in that extra 30 minutes of sunlight? 

Congress retained the right to go back to the 1986 Daylight Saving Schedule should the new one prove too contentious. In all honesty, it doesn't seem very likely that will happen. The sporting industry and convenience stores organized, lobbied, and paid for the change. A massive grassroots movement to change what dollars and cents have produced seems an almost impossible Leviathan feat.

There is hope, however. In the United States, Hawaii doesn't observe Daylight Saving. Too close to the equator for sunrise and sunset to change too much.

Think they've got room for one more sleep-deprived, Daylight Saving refugee?

Good Intentions Gone Amok

I was soooooooo happy just two short months ago when my middle grade novel, Dragon Wishes, launched. I'd worked so hard, but here it was, out there! Nothing stood in the way of literary success anymore. More book could be read.

Fast forward to February 10, 2009, when the Consumer Product Safety Act goes into effect.

It had blipped across my radar in November when it was passed, but then, I was in the middle of a launch. I knew it was in response to the very real issue of lead in children's toys that we'd seen in the U.S. in the last year. But I didn't think any more of it.

All I thought at the time was, how unlike Congress. Quick action. I thought it might be a good thing, neglecting Thomas Jefferson's remark (I went to UVA, so you kind of breathe in all of the things Thomas Jefferson ever said, thought, did, or even thought about saying or doing) about why Congressional action should take time. He said something to the effect that like one uses a saucer to pour one's tea into to cool, so two houses of government gave feelings and emotions time to cool and good legislation to develop.

There wasn't much cooling on this piece of legislation, and we're now, just a few short weeks away from its going into effect, beginning to feel the backlash of the Act.

The Act is retroactive. And by retroactive, I mean forever retroactive. It affects EVERYTHING that is or has been produced for children 12 and under. And by everything, I mean, toys, games, and books.

Books? Hold on. Are they dangerous? Is my book dangerous?

According to arecent article in Publisher's Weekly, not exactly: "Chip Gibson, president and publisher of Random House Children’s Books, goes further. 'This is a potential calamity like nothing I’ve ever seen. The implications are quite literally unimaginable,' he said, noting that children’s books could be removed from schools, libraries and stores; nonprofit groups like First Book would lose donations; and retailers, printers, and publishers could ultimately go out of business. 'Books are safe. This is like testing milk for lead. It has to be stopped.'”

Gulp.

Basically, everything produced for kids has to be tested, including books. Publishers are scrambling. The liablity is enormous. Think of all the books already out there in Barnes & Noble, Borders, Amazon. They all, theoretically, have to be tested. Every print run. Or returned, whether they are safe or not. Huge losses.

It gets worse. If you knit a pair of booties and sell it to a boutique, they now have to be tested. If you want to sell old car seats to consignment shops, they have to be tested. All of the pastimes that people have used to supplement meager earnings, are now subject to testing.

And by tested, we're talking thousands of dollars. Testing a picture book runs about $3,000.

Huge costs, rises in umemployment, closing businesses aside, here's what really unnerves me. Does this mean they are going to have to take all of the books out of my kids' school library to avoid issues of liability?

What's going on here?

I know Congress meant well, but gees, isn't this going a bit far? Do they know they've gone too far?

I for one am getting out the old American tool used in times of great trial - my voice. I'll be contacting my local state representative to voice my opposition to the law as it stands. We need something for sure, but not something that will put so many good businesses out of business, threatens so many books out there, and ultimately damage our already shaky economy more than it will ever protect our kids.