The Randolph County Missouri Old Settlers Reunion and Fall Fair will take place September 11, 12, and 13 in historic downtown Huntsville, Missouri. This is the 126th anniversary of the fair. Those that have lived in Randolph County, Missouri for more than 60 years get a free dinner Thursday the 11th. Registration for this begins at 9 am at Trask Hall of the Baptist Church in Huntsville. The Old Settlers Meeting takes place at 11 am, and the dinner at Noon. There will be many other activities throughout the evening including a performance by the band Loaded Chamber, a parade, a street dance, royalty contests, a fun run, and a three on three basket ball tournament. This is a county wide event and those from Cario, Clark, Clifton Hill, Higbee, Huntsville, Moberly, and Renick Missouri and all places in between in the county are encouraged to take part. For more information go to:
https://sites.google.com/site/historichuntsvillemissouri/huntsville-news/randolphcountyoldsettlersreunionfallfair
Thursday, August 21, 2014
Saturday, August 16, 2014
The Video Catchphrase: A Symptom of a Society that Cannot Think for Itself
 |
| A Video with a Catchphrase not Telling Someone What to Feel |
From the start I hated any text that went with a video that said something like, "You won't believe what happens next" or "You will be in tears." How dare they tell me how I will react to the video! Maybe I think the idea of a kid throwing oatmeal on his dad's head is something to cry about, and not laugh at. Who are you folks to tell me what I find funny, what I find sorrowful, what I find stimulating? Who are you to tell me how to think? Yet videos with such catchphrases persist on Facebook, Twitter, and elsewhere.
Part of what irritates me is I was taught in college how to write headlines, and how to write copy for advertising. There are some things you do not do. One of them is you do not tell the person how to feel or what to think. You present what you feel the facts are, and let the reader or viewer decide for his or herself. Thus you may have a headline for a news story like, "War in Iraq. Thousands Killed," and not "War in Iraq, You will be Appalled at the Death Toll." With advertising you have a bit more leeway. You can get away with something like "Dawn Soap: We Think You Will Like the Results." On rare occasions if you are feeling cocky you might even say, "Dawn Soap, You will Like the Results." For the most part though you do not tell someone how to feel, you present them with a catchy phrase about the product like :Kentucky Fried Chicken, finger licking good," and hope your suggestion leads them to eating chicken.
A friend and I were talking about the effectiveness of such catchphrases as "You will be in tears." His argument was they must be effective or else they would not use them. He pointed out that they collect all kinds of data on these click throughs such as what site the person came from, if on a social network, who are his or her friends, where they come from, what other things does he or she like, what kinds of videos get the most hits, and more. Further they experiment with catchphrases and the preview pictures of what works and what doesn't based on click throughs. I agreed he was right, but I said that since everyone of these videos uses same sort of catchphrase they do not even know if that method is or is not more effective than simply saying, "A dog greets its master after the master's long deployment." I further said that they may not know if perhaps it was the preview picture of the video that drew the viewer to click on it. Even with all this data I did not think they could figure out why someone clicked on a video link to view it. In essence my faith in humanity would not allow me to think folks would actually click on something that tells them how to feel.
After some more discussion I arrived at the conclusion that the American people may now have become accustomed to being told not just how to feel, but how to think. After all Fox News has been on the air since 1985 all the while telling its viewers how to think, and not just presenting them with the information. They are not the only network to do this though others may be more subtle. Commentators like Rush Limbaugh regularly tell folks what they should feel or think about some such or another. Even politicians tell folks how to think or feel. You do not hear many Americans speaking their own opinions, but repeating catchphrases or slogans from their favorite news channel or political commentator. If you enter a debate with them you are not likely to be presented with data or information to back their claims, but with simple quotes from some person who is not even an expert about the subject. Therefore, I concluded that being told, "This will put you in tears" or "This will have you on the floor laughing," may not offend them. Indeed, it may even reassure them that they do not have to think for themselves. They may take some comfort in the fact this video will make them laugh or cry. It saves them the trouble of making up their own minds.
It is a sad commentary on our society that people can no longer think for themselves, but have to be told such and such video will have them laughing their hearts out. Once upon a time folks were simply presented with information, and were allowed to decide for themselves how to feel or think. Sure, even then the media filtered what you were presented with. You might be told the marines have taken Iwo Jima, but not what the death toll was. But if you persisted you might be able to find the information. And never were you told, :"The Marines Took Iwo Jima Today, You Will Cry for the Fallen Japanese." In that day and age, advertisers might try to tell you how to feel, but that was advertising, and for the most part even advertisers avoided telling folks what to do. You would see things like, "Smart Shoppers Shop at Value Mart," and not "Shop at Value Mart, It will have you leaping for joy." The second example was not rare, but no one paid attention. It was advertising. My point is people have been taught they must be told how to feel and what to think. We have ceased being a society of freethinkers.
I think therefore it is time purveyors of such videos take a different route, one that will appeal to free thinkers, and encourage those that are not free thinkers to be. Perhaps have a video with a description like, "Is this dog cute or what?! Decide for yourself!" Or perhaps, "Is this cat funny? What do you think?" Maybe it is time everyone stops telling other Americans how to think or feel. Maybe it is time we just present the information and let folks decide for themselves how they will react. After all what is wrong with describing a video simply as, "This cat apparently loves its companion, watch and see?"
Monday, August 11, 2014
Enhancing My Laptop's Audio: A Review
Last week I decided I wanted to improve the sound I get from my laptop so I went looking for audio enhancers. The first one I downloaded was DFX Audio Enhancer by FXSound. The free trial version was somewhat stripped down, but still usable. I found it preformed at the levels I wanted even given the limitations. The sound it delivered was good. Overall, I was pleased with its performance and would have continued using it save for some annoyances. It had this popup that would come up every 30 minutes or so asking me to order the full version. You could not minimize the software's window either. The ability to minimize it to the taksbar only came with the full version. Worse yet, I found I could not use my laptop's audio without it running. Even still I might have bought the full version, but at $39.99 it was a no go. There was no way I was going to pay that for something that did not behave like a full equalizer and only gave me five items I could adjust to customize my sound.
I had seen mentioned in a review of DFX Audio Enhancer a program called ProfoundSound Audio. While ripping DFX Audio Enhancer (which the reviewer was justified to do IMO) the reviewer praised ProfoundSound Audio. So after uninstalling DFX Audio Enhancer I decided to give it a go. There are two versions. There is ProfoundSound Lite which is a 5 band graphic equalizer that has presets for music, movies, and voice. It has outputs for headphones, internal speakers, and external speakers. Then there is ProfoundSound CSharp. It is a 10 band graphic equalizer with (and I am directly quoting from the website): "variable loudness, auto volume leveling, variable dynamic surround sound, variable dynamic virtual bass, variable high frequency restoration, a 20 band spectral analyzer, variable dynamic bass and dynamic voice, plus the ability to customize and save your settings" I went whole hog and downloaded the free trial of ProfoundSound CSharp.
It was unbelievable. Not only did it give better sound than DFX Audio Enhancer but it was also fully customizable allowing you to decided how you wanted something to sound. Yet at the same time there was a variety of presets for different genres of music, as well as movies, and voice if you did not want to fiddle with the sliders. You could also save your own presets so once you had something sounding as you liked it you did not have to go adjusting things again. A big plus was you could still use your computer's own audio when you shut ProfoundSound down. I was blown away by how useful this software was and by the sound it delivered through my headphones and speakers. Further it is only $4.96 for CSharp. The stripped down Lite which would do for most music listeners and video viewers is only $1.99.
My advice for anyone wanting to enhance their computer's audio is avoid DFX Audio Enhancer like the plague and go straight to ProfoundSound. It is by far the better choice. A word of warning though, with both audio enhancing programs YouTube videos are jerky or out of sequence with the audio. There is nothing you can do about this with DFX Audio Enhancer that I could see. With ProfoundSound you just shut it down and use your computer's own native software do its job.
I had seen mentioned in a review of DFX Audio Enhancer a program called ProfoundSound Audio. While ripping DFX Audio Enhancer (which the reviewer was justified to do IMO) the reviewer praised ProfoundSound Audio. So after uninstalling DFX Audio Enhancer I decided to give it a go. There are two versions. There is ProfoundSound Lite which is a 5 band graphic equalizer that has presets for music, movies, and voice. It has outputs for headphones, internal speakers, and external speakers. Then there is ProfoundSound CSharp. It is a 10 band graphic equalizer with (and I am directly quoting from the website): "variable loudness, auto volume leveling, variable dynamic surround sound, variable dynamic virtual bass, variable high frequency restoration, a 20 band spectral analyzer, variable dynamic bass and dynamic voice, plus the ability to customize and save your settings" I went whole hog and downloaded the free trial of ProfoundSound CSharp.
It was unbelievable. Not only did it give better sound than DFX Audio Enhancer but it was also fully customizable allowing you to decided how you wanted something to sound. Yet at the same time there was a variety of presets for different genres of music, as well as movies, and voice if you did not want to fiddle with the sliders. You could also save your own presets so once you had something sounding as you liked it you did not have to go adjusting things again. A big plus was you could still use your computer's own audio when you shut ProfoundSound down. I was blown away by how useful this software was and by the sound it delivered through my headphones and speakers. Further it is only $4.96 for CSharp. The stripped down Lite which would do for most music listeners and video viewers is only $1.99.
My advice for anyone wanting to enhance their computer's audio is avoid DFX Audio Enhancer like the plague and go straight to ProfoundSound. It is by far the better choice. A word of warning though, with both audio enhancing programs YouTube videos are jerky or out of sequence with the audio. There is nothing you can do about this with DFX Audio Enhancer that I could see. With ProfoundSound you just shut it down and use your computer's own native software do its job.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
"Historic Huntsville Missouri" Website
About 13 years ago I created a website on Rootsweb Freepages called "Historic Huntsville." I never did much with it except provide an incomplete history and a bunch of links to other websites. And so it sat for 13 years with only minor updates a year or two later. Then last week after completing work on my "Historic Map of Randolph County" I decided to revisit it, perhaps complete the history and write my own pages instead of linking elsewhere. One week later it is done. In the meantime the web address has changed. Last Monday Ancestry.com had a Distributed Denial of Service Attack. This knocked Freepages offline for about a week. Freepages was operational for a few hours Friday which allowed me to complete the history, then again I did not have access until today. This gave me time to complete the biographies and other pages. I also decided to move the site to Google Sites. Google Sites allowed me more features such as a site search, and overall made the site easier to manage. The resulting site is much bigger than the old one with added features such as the "Historic Map of Randolph County;" a map of Huntsville; a photo gallery; a section for community news; new listings for Huntsville clubs, churches, government offices, and businesses; and all new biographies of famous people that have lived in and around Huntsville. I am rather proud of it although it could be so much more, and I am going to work to add to it. I need to bring the history up to present times, and I need to find news to add to the community news section. But for now it is a working and I hope informative site. If you wish to visit it go to: https://sites.google.com/site/historichuntsvillemissouri/ If you have any comments please email me at the links provided or comment here. I could have enabled site comments, and I am still considering it, but for now they are disabled.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
A Map of Historic Places in Randolph County, Missouri
A while back I got the idea of trying to document the villages and towns that have existed in Randolph County Missouri. In the early days there were places that were little more than a store and a post office that are now forgotten, yet they were important enough to make it on maps of the time. Among these are Bournesburg, Edwardsville, Oak Point, and Smithland. In the case of Bounresburg, Edwardsville, and Smithland their rough locations are known. Other early places have had their names and knowledge of their locations survive to the present day like Mount Airy and Milton. Still others like Elk Fork and Berthaville despite appearing on maps leave us confused as to their locations.
Later, after the early settlements, mining towns would be founded often within a couple miles of each other as competing mining companies did not wish to use the others' towns. Such is the case with Shafton and Tuanton which were within a mile or two of each other and only a mile or so from present day Renick. These too have largely disappeared and been forgotten. Some mining towns though despite having only a brief existence remain on the map. Kimberly and Harkes are just a couple of examples of such towns.
Some of the locations of places on this map are conjecture and where that is the case a question mark is placed after the name. With some places only a rough location is known, but in those cases I have hoped from directions given in old newspapers and histories to have located the places within a mile or two of where they were. Such is the case with Shafton and McMullen. The location of many places are well known in the county, and some remain on maps to this day. Outside of the major towns these are Darksville, Fort Henry, Grand Center, Hubbard, Kimberly, Levick's Mill, Milton, Mount Airy, Roanoke, Rolling Home, Ryder, and Yates. There is a special exception and that is Kribb's Corner (Kribbsville) which has never appeared on maps or had a post office. It was an attempt at a village that never gained traction in the mid to late 20th century. but remains in people's memories. Finally, there are villages and stores the location of which may never be known. From a post office list there were once places named Breckenridge, Clarno, Hillis Crown and Plum Point. Some such as Hillis Crown even operated post offices for up to 12 years. Yet they are now forgotten.
Towns, villages, and settlements are designated by stars on the map. Historic places are designated by circles. And diamonds designate geographic features. Settlements and mining towns listed besides the major towns are Allen, Belview, Berthaville, Bournesberg, Darksville, Edwardsville, Elliot, Elk Fork, Fort Henry, Grand Center, Harkes (Wilcox), Hubbard, Kimberly, Kribb's Corner, Levick's Mill, McClainsville, McMullen, Milton, Mount Airy (Uptonville), Oak Point, Penney's, Roanoke, Russell, Ryder, Shafton, Smithland, Sunshine, Taunton, Thomas Hill, and Yates. All of these are in Randolph County except for McClainsville which is over the county line in Macon County, and Russell which is right on the Randolph and Howard County line. Historic places listed are Bagby's Mill. the Battle of Roan's Tanyard, Burkhartt's Fields and the Monkey Nest Mine. Geographic areas that are listed are Dark's Prairie, Foster's Prairie, Grand Prairie, and Titherow Hills. To enlarge the map in another window, please click on the little rectangle in the upper right hand corner. You can zoom in and out by clicking on the + and -. And when you click on one of the icons (rectangle, circle, or star) you get little tidbits of information about the place.
If you see any corrections that need to be made to the map, let me know. And if you know of anything that needs to be added by all means let me know. This is very much a work in progress.
Later, after the early settlements, mining towns would be founded often within a couple miles of each other as competing mining companies did not wish to use the others' towns. Such is the case with Shafton and Tuanton which were within a mile or two of each other and only a mile or so from present day Renick. These too have largely disappeared and been forgotten. Some mining towns though despite having only a brief existence remain on the map. Kimberly and Harkes are just a couple of examples of such towns.
Some of the locations of places on this map are conjecture and where that is the case a question mark is placed after the name. With some places only a rough location is known, but in those cases I have hoped from directions given in old newspapers and histories to have located the places within a mile or two of where they were. Such is the case with Shafton and McMullen. The location of many places are well known in the county, and some remain on maps to this day. Outside of the major towns these are Darksville, Fort Henry, Grand Center, Hubbard, Kimberly, Levick's Mill, Milton, Mount Airy, Roanoke, Rolling Home, Ryder, and Yates. There is a special exception and that is Kribb's Corner (Kribbsville) which has never appeared on maps or had a post office. It was an attempt at a village that never gained traction in the mid to late 20th century. but remains in people's memories. Finally, there are villages and stores the location of which may never be known. From a post office list there were once places named Breckenridge, Clarno, Hillis Crown and Plum Point. Some such as Hillis Crown even operated post offices for up to 12 years. Yet they are now forgotten.
Towns, villages, and settlements are designated by stars on the map. Historic places are designated by circles. And diamonds designate geographic features. Settlements and mining towns listed besides the major towns are Allen, Belview, Berthaville, Bournesberg, Darksville, Edwardsville, Elliot, Elk Fork, Fort Henry, Grand Center, Harkes (Wilcox), Hubbard, Kimberly, Kribb's Corner, Levick's Mill, McClainsville, McMullen, Milton, Mount Airy (Uptonville), Oak Point, Penney's, Roanoke, Russell, Ryder, Shafton, Smithland, Sunshine, Taunton, Thomas Hill, and Yates. All of these are in Randolph County except for McClainsville which is over the county line in Macon County, and Russell which is right on the Randolph and Howard County line. Historic places listed are Bagby's Mill. the Battle of Roan's Tanyard, Burkhartt's Fields and the Monkey Nest Mine. Geographic areas that are listed are Dark's Prairie, Foster's Prairie, Grand Prairie, and Titherow Hills. To enlarge the map in another window, please click on the little rectangle in the upper right hand corner. You can zoom in and out by clicking on the + and -. And when you click on one of the icons (rectangle, circle, or star) you get little tidbits of information about the place.
If you see any corrections that need to be made to the map, let me know. And if you know of anything that needs to be added by all means let me know. This is very much a work in progress.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Beware of Companies Selling you Family Coats of Arms and Crests
One of my interests over the years has been heraldry. Heraldry is defined by the Oxford Dictionaries as "the system by which coats of arms and other armorial bearings are devised, described, and regulated." I have been aware for a number of years individuals of my mother's family held coats of arms. One is described in the February 23, 1896 issue of the Courier-Journal (published in Louisville, KY) as "a prostrate foe, an exalted victor standing over him with upraised club." This is just a description, not an official blazon. Blazoning is the way a herald describes what a coat of arms looks like. If a herald blazons an arms he or she is in a fairly precise language using specialized terminology describing what a coat of arms looks like. A heraldric artist can then take this description using standardized pictures and colors and reproduce what the arms look like in a work of art such as on a shield or a scroll. It is a science developed over centuries of work on coats of arms and family crests. Another coat of arms registered to an individual of the Towles family is found in the book Encyclopaedia Heraldica Or Complete Dictionary of Heraldry Vol. 1 (as well as in other works of the period), and is blazoned "per pale, and per chev. erm. and sa. four cinquefoils counterchanged."
Having found these arms my curiosity was piqued so I went searching for more coats of arms registered to individuals of the Towles family. As usual with the searches on Google for the topic "coat of arms" results came up from many of the companies purporting to sell folks scrolls and plaques with their "family coat of arms" or "family crests" on them as well as family histories. I came up with results from companies such as 4crests.com and House of Names. I knew immediately that these companies had not done their research. House of Names and 4crests.com both give previews of one's "family coat of arms" or "family crest." In the case of both the arms pictured I knew from books listing the arms of various families were registered to an ancestor of the Tolson family, not the Towles family. They also had these arms as being the arms of the Towle family. Apparently according to these sites, these arms are the coat of arms of many familes with Towl- or Tol- in their name. While there is some evidence the Towle and Towles families may be related, I am aware of none showing that the Tolson and Towles families are. Similarity of names though was enough for these companies to assume the families were somehow related and therefore the coat of arms of one individual of the Tolson family must be the coat of arms of all these families. Of course this is not so. The arms of an individual of the Tolson family are in no way the coat of arms of the entire Towles or Towle families.
Further to the point, families from England and France do not have "coats of arms." A coat of arms is awarded to an individual, not a family. While a child may have the right to have their father's arms as a part of their own, for the most part arms are unique to an individual and are not hereditary. It has always been that way as long as the various England and France have been granting coats of arms. On the College of Arms Website FAQ (which serves the United Kingdom) it says this:
Therefore telling someone their family has a "coat of arms" is entirely misleading. Some nations did assign coats of arms to families, but many of these sites do not distinguish between countries that awarded arms to families and those that did so only to individuals. They give the impression all countries awarded arms to families which is not so. Now in England, families did and do have heraldric achievements, more commonly known as "family crests." These are the items surrounding the shield on which a coat of arms is portrayed. Crests usually consist of something like a helm atop the shield and supporters to either side of the shield like lions or other animals or items often with a scroll under the shield with the family motto. Even then some families that are not related to each may use the same crest, and sometimes the same motto. A crest is not necessarily unique to a family, and a family may use more than one crest (I have found two for the Towles family). If you can document the coat of arms of one of your ancestors from a reliable source such as Burke's Peerage or the United Kingdom College of Arms, and you find that one of these companies has that individual's arms as your "family coat of arms" and want a cool representation of them then buying a plaque or some such might be great. But otherwise do not rely on these companies to honestly give you a "family coat of arms" or a "family crest" or even a reliable family history. Instead turn to reliable sources such as Burke's Peerage and see if you can find arms registered to your ancestors. If you are of English, Welsh, or Scottish descent you can pay to have the College of Arms do research for you (a warning though if you go that route it is a very expensive undertaking). The point is though do not rely on these "coat of arms" companies for research into any arms ancestors of your family may have used. They simply are not reliable enough to do so.
For more information on coats of arms I suggest the following websites: College of Arms http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/ and Burke's Peerage http://www.burkespeerage.com/
Having found these arms my curiosity was piqued so I went searching for more coats of arms registered to individuals of the Towles family. As usual with the searches on Google for the topic "coat of arms" results came up from many of the companies purporting to sell folks scrolls and plaques with their "family coat of arms" or "family crests" on them as well as family histories. I came up with results from companies such as 4crests.com and House of Names. I knew immediately that these companies had not done their research. House of Names and 4crests.com both give previews of one's "family coat of arms" or "family crest." In the case of both the arms pictured I knew from books listing the arms of various families were registered to an ancestor of the Tolson family, not the Towles family. They also had these arms as being the arms of the Towle family. Apparently according to these sites, these arms are the coat of arms of many familes with Towl- or Tol- in their name. While there is some evidence the Towle and Towles families may be related, I am aware of none showing that the Tolson and Towles families are. Similarity of names though was enough for these companies to assume the families were somehow related and therefore the coat of arms of one individual of the Tolson family must be the coat of arms of all these families. Of course this is not so. The arms of an individual of the Tolson family are in no way the coat of arms of the entire Towles or Towle families.
Further to the point, families from England and France do not have "coats of arms." A coat of arms is awarded to an individual, not a family. While a child may have the right to have their father's arms as a part of their own, for the most part arms are unique to an individual and are not hereditary. It has always been that way as long as the various England and France have been granting coats of arms. On the College of Arms Website FAQ (which serves the United Kingdom) it says this:
Q. Do coats of arms belong to surnames?
A. No. There is no such thing as a 'coat of arms for a surname'. Many people of the same surname will often be entitled to completely different coats of arms, and many of that surname will be entitled to no coat of arms. Coats of arms belong to individuals. For any person to have a right to a coat of arms they must either have had it granted to them or be descended in the legitimate male line from a person to whom arms were granted or confirmed in the past.
Therefore telling someone their family has a "coat of arms" is entirely misleading. Some nations did assign coats of arms to families, but many of these sites do not distinguish between countries that awarded arms to families and those that did so only to individuals. They give the impression all countries awarded arms to families which is not so. Now in England, families did and do have heraldric achievements, more commonly known as "family crests." These are the items surrounding the shield on which a coat of arms is portrayed. Crests usually consist of something like a helm atop the shield and supporters to either side of the shield like lions or other animals or items often with a scroll under the shield with the family motto. Even then some families that are not related to each may use the same crest, and sometimes the same motto. A crest is not necessarily unique to a family, and a family may use more than one crest (I have found two for the Towles family). If you can document the coat of arms of one of your ancestors from a reliable source such as Burke's Peerage or the United Kingdom College of Arms, and you find that one of these companies has that individual's arms as your "family coat of arms" and want a cool representation of them then buying a plaque or some such might be great. But otherwise do not rely on these companies to honestly give you a "family coat of arms" or a "family crest" or even a reliable family history. Instead turn to reliable sources such as Burke's Peerage and see if you can find arms registered to your ancestors. If you are of English, Welsh, or Scottish descent you can pay to have the College of Arms do research for you (a warning though if you go that route it is a very expensive undertaking). The point is though do not rely on these "coat of arms" companies for research into any arms ancestors of your family may have used. They simply are not reliable enough to do so.
For more information on coats of arms I suggest the following websites: College of Arms http://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/ and Burke's Peerage http://www.burkespeerage.com/
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Repeal Daylight Savings Time
I wanted to let you know about a new petition I created on We the People,
a new feature on WhiteHouse.gov, and ask for your support. Will you add your
name to mine? If this petition gets 100,000 signatures by April 09, 2014,
the White House will review it and respond!
Here's some more information about this petition:
Cease the practice of Daylight Savings Time and go to Standard
Time all year long.
We need to move to Standard Time year round. Every November and March we change the clocks backwards and forwards. Studies have shown each time we move the clocks backwards or forwards there is an increase in car accidents, workplace accidents, and heart attacks in the two or three days that follow.
It has been shown that Daylight Savings Time does not save energy as it was supposed to do, and costs millions in lost revenue. Many children have to get up and go to school in the dark in March when clocks are moved forward, and then again in the early Fall months as days get shorter. Going to Standard Time year round would prevent the increased risk of accidents and health issues as well as allow children and workers to travel to school or work when it is light outside.
You can view and sign the petition here:
http://wh.gov/lyePA
a new feature on WhiteHouse.gov, and ask for your support. Will you add your
name to mine? If this petition gets 100,000 signatures by April 09, 2014,
the White House will review it and respond!
Here's some more information about this petition:
Cease the practice of Daylight Savings Time and go to Standard
Time all year long.
We need to move to Standard Time year round. Every November and March we change the clocks backwards and forwards. Studies have shown each time we move the clocks backwards or forwards there is an increase in car accidents, workplace accidents, and heart attacks in the two or three days that follow.
It has been shown that Daylight Savings Time does not save energy as it was supposed to do, and costs millions in lost revenue. Many children have to get up and go to school in the dark in March when clocks are moved forward, and then again in the early Fall months as days get shorter. Going to Standard Time year round would prevent the increased risk of accidents and health issues as well as allow children and workers to travel to school or work when it is light outside.
You can view and sign the petition here:
http://wh.gov/lyePA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)