Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Welcome to summer time. Changing clocks is good even though you hate it

Welcome to summer time. Changing clocks is good even though you hate it
Getty Images

Davies is a journalist and podcaster. He runs the podcast consultancy, DaviesContent and co-hosts “How Do We Fix It?” and “Let’s Find Common Ground.”

Every six months I’m reminded of the helpful saying: “fall back, spring forward.” And so it was on Sunday when we lost an hour of sleep and had to wander around the house and change the time on all of our non-internet-connected watches, appliances and clocks.


Such a drag, right? Opinion polls report widespread support for a proposal to lock the clock and scrap our biannual winding ritual. Last year, by unanimous consent, the U.S. Senate passed “The Sunshine Protection Bill” to make Daylight Saving Time permanent.

The current practice “makes no sense,” proclaimed the bill’s sponsor, Marco Rubio. “It’s time to end it.” Not one of his fellow Senators stood up to object.

“I am 100% anti-time change,” wrote Bloomberg View columnist, economist Allison Schrager last week. “The economic arguments for the change were always questionable, but our modern lifestyles make jumping back and forth by an hour more nonsensical than ever.”

But is it really such a big deal to be a bit confused or irritated for a day to two each year?

And be careful what you wish for. Often the only thing worse than a widely ridiculed tradition is what we decide to replace it with.

If Senator Rubio gets his way, he may become the most unpopular politician in America on early winter mornings after Standard Time is done away with. If he has ambitions to run for president again, Rubio should remember that the primary season begins early in the year.

Farmers aren’t the only ones who’ll be furious. Commuters and parents will also want to change back to the time change. Imagine driving to work on a dark icy January morning, or shivering with the kids waiting for the school bus when it is pitch black at 7:30 a.m.

The American Academy of Sleep Medicine— stern guardians of our right to spend more than seven hours each night in bed— supports ending the time change, but wants permanent standard time instead of daylight saving time.

“Standard time is closely aligned with the position of the sun, which is important for the body because sunlight is the most powerful external cue for the human circadian rhythm,” the Academy said in a recent statement opposing Senator Rubio’s bill. “This internal ‘body clock’ regulates the timing of alertness, sleepiness, and other biological functions.”

While that might make scientific sense, all-year-round standard time will be a bummer in the summer. One of the pleasures of late June and early July is sitting outside and enjoying the warm air and evening light.

Unlike most of my fellow citizens, I kind of enjoy the inconvenient ritual of changing clocks— especially spring forward. At this time of year we have a quirky yet welcome reminder of longer, warmer days to come.

Let’s accept that whatever change we adopt, it will make some folks howling mad. In this case it may be much better to stay with what we have.


Read More

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

This question is not an exercise in double-talk. It is critical to understand the power that our Constitution grants exclusively to Congress, and the power that resides in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only introduce military force into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less