Well, hell, dear reader.  I can’t believe it’s already time to talk about the sheer, unadulterated lunacy of Daylight Saving Time (DST). This biannual ritual of clock-twisting isn’t just a minor annoyance; it’s a relic of idiocy that kills, maims, and maddens us, all while clinging to justifications so outdated they belong in a museum next to Edison’s first light bulb.  I’m here, once again, to rip this farce apart. Spoiler alert: the only sane fix is locking the clocks on Standard Time—permanently—and telling DST to take a long walk off a short pier.

The Body Count of Clock-Changing
Let’s start with the grim stats, because we might as well face the ugly truth head-on. Every spring, when we “spring forward” and lose an hour of sleep (i.e. tonight), the world doesn’t just groan—it bleeds. Studies—like a 2014 Michigan hospital analysis—show heart attacks spike 24% the Monday after the switch. Strokes? Up 8% in Finland, per a 2016 study. Traffic accidents? A 2020 University of Colorado-Boulder report pegs a 6% jump in fatal crashes, adding about 30 extra deaths a year. Why? Our circadian rhythms get sucker-punched. We’re groggy, irritable, and stumbling into the day like drunks after last call. Sleep deprivation isn’t a quirky plot twist—it’s a killer, and DST is the trigger.
Then there’s the “fall back” in November. You’d think gaining an hour would be a reprieve, but nope—it’s just a different flavor of chaos. Darkness creeps in earlier, and suddenly deer collisions and pedestrian pile-ups spike as drivers fumble through the gloom. Workplace injuries climb too, because tired hands and dim light don’t mix. This is a public health crisis dressed up as tradition. We’re not saving daylight—we’re sacrificing lives.

The Dumbass Origins of DST
So why the hell did we start this madness? Rewind to World War I, when Germany flipped the clocks in 1916 to stretch daylight and save coal. The U.S. jumped on the bandwagon in 1918, sold on the idea that more evening light would cut energy costs and boost wartime efficiency. Farmers, they said, would love it (spoiler: they universally hated it—cows don’t read clocks). Then, in World War II, it came back as a patriotic duty. Fine, you say—war’s desperate times called for desperate measures. But here’s the deal: those reasons don’t hold water in 2025.
Coal? We’ve got electricity humming through every socket—our society’s been electrified since Truman was in diapers. Energy savings? A 2008 Department of Energy study found DST shaves a measly 0.03% off electricity use—peanuts in a world of LED bulbs and 24/7 grids. Farming? Modern agribusiness runs on tractors and tech, not sunrise prayers. The original pitch—conserve fuel, align daylight with work—was flimsy even then, and now it’s laughable and embarrassing. We’re not rationing for the Kaiser anymore; we’re just screwing ourselves for no reason.

Standard Time: The Only Sane Rebellion
Here’s the truth: locking the clocks on Standard Time is the only fix that doesn’t make us look like fools. Why? It’s the closest thing to “real” time—aligned with the sun’s arc, not some arbitrary shift. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine backs this hard, saying permanent Standard Time syncs with our body’s natural clock, cutting the health risks of DST’s jolts. No more heart attacks from sleep loss, no more kids dodging cars in pre-dawn dark because sunrise is at 9 a.m. under permanent DST. It’s simple, it’s logical, and it’s got science in its corner.
Permanent DST?  Don’t even start.  That’s just DST’s smug cousin, pretending to be progress.  Sure, you get later sunsets – great for barbecues – but winter mornings turn into a gothic nightmare.  Sunrise at 8:45 a.m.?  Kids trudging to school in pitch black?  That’s not efficient; that’s dystopian.  We tried it in 1974 – Nixon’s energy crisis stunt – and people revolted after a few months of predawn misery.  Standard Time isn’t sexy, but it’s steady.  It’s the temporal equivalent of a no-nonsense narrator – reliable, grounded, and done with bullshit.

Musk, Trump, and the Poll That Missed the Plot
Enter Elon Musk and the Republican Party, riding in like modern-day Don Quixotes tilting at DST’s windmill. Trump’s been barking about it on Truth Social since December 2024: “Daylight Saving Time is inconvenient, and very costly to our Nation.” Musk, co-leading Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency), has been hyping it too. On March 5, 2025, he dropped an X poll: “If daylight savings time change is canceled, do you prefer an hour earlier or an hour later?” Over 1.2 million voted, with 58% picking “an hour later.” Cue the applause from the uninformed.
Here’s the rub: that question’s a literary trainwreck. “An hour later” means permanent DST—shifting clocks forward year-round—which is exactly what no serious person should want. It’s not ending DST; it’s enshrining it, trading one stupidity for another. “An hour earlier” at least gets us to Standard Time, but Musk’s framing muddies the waters like a bad metaphor. The real choice isn’t “more or less”; it’s Standard vs. DST, and Standard wins every time if you’ve got a pulse and a brain. Musk’s poll isn’t a solution—it’s a distraction.

The Final Word
Daylight Saving Time is a farce—a killer cloaked in nostalgia, propped up by reasons that crumbled decades ago. It’s not efficient to cling to it; it’s lazy. Permanent Standard Time isn’t just the smart play—it’s the only play. Let’s lock the clocks, ditch the chaos, and tell the ghosts of 1918 to shove it. Musk and the GOP might fumble the execution, but if they actually kill DST, I’ll raise a glass—provided they don’t botch it with some half-assed “hour more” nonsense. Time’s too precious for this crap. Let’s live like we mean it.

N.P.: “All Shook Up” – Ry Cooder

Here we go again, dear reader—California’s lawmakers have plunged headfirst into yet another abyss of absurdity, dragging the rest of us along for the ride. Assembly Bill 133, the so-called “Duty to Retreat” bill, is the latest steaming pile of horseshit to emerge from Sacramento’s ivory tower, and it’s a slap in the face to every law-abiding citizen who dares to believe they have the right to protect themselves. This isn’t just moronic policy—it’s a betrayal of common sense, a coward’s charter dressed up as compassion, and it’s going to get people killed.

Let’s break this down for anyone who hasn’t yet had their morning coffee ruined by the details. AB 133, spearheaded by Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (because of course it’s a Democrat from Los Angeles), wants to obliterate California’s “no duty to retreat” stance. Instead of standing your ground when some shitbag threatens your life, this bill demands you turn tail and run—assuming, of course, you can magically teleport out of harm’s way. If you’re outside your home and some asshole comes at you with a knife, a gun, or even their fists, AB 133 says your first legal obligation is to flee. Forget defending yourself, forget protecting your family—your job is to scamper off like a scared rabbit, hoping the bad guy doesn’t catch you. And if you don’t? Well, good luck explaining that to a prosecutor who’d rather see you in cuffs than the criminal in a cell.

Are you kidding me? This is the kind of lunacy that only makes sense if you’ve spent your entire life in a cushy office, sipping lattes and pontificating about “de-escalation” while the rest of us live in the real world. Newsflash, Sacramento: as I would have thought you would have learned by now, violent criminals don’t send RSVP invitations to their attacks. They don’t give you a heads-up so you can plot your escape route. When danger strikes, it’s sudden, it’s chaotic, and for most people,  it’s terrifying. Expecting someone to calmly assess whether they can “retreat with complete safety” in the heat of the moment is so detached from reality it’s almost laughable—if it weren’t so infuriatingly dangerous.

And it gets worse. This bill doesn’t just stop at forcing you to run—it strips away your right to defend your property or stop a felony in progress. Imagine some lowlife breaking into your car, stealing your livelihood, or worse, assaulting someone you love. Under current law, you can intervene. Under AB 133? Nope. You’re supposed to stand there, twiddling your thumbs, while the criminal waltzes off with your stuff—or your life. The bill even muddies the waters inside your own home, tightening the screws on how you can respond to threats. This isn’t just a “duty to retreat”—it’s a duty to surrender.

Who does this protect? Certainly not the victims. Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco nailed it when he said this is yet another move by Sacramento Democrats to “coddle criminals” while tying the hands of law-abiding residents. Assemblyman David Tangipa put it even more bluntly: “Where do you retreat if you can’t defend yourself in your own home?” These aren’t fringe voices—they’re the voices of reason screaming into a void of progressive delusion. Meanwhile, the gun-control cheerleaders at Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety are clapping like trained seals, claiming this will “reduce violence.” Reduce violence? Tell that to the single mom who can’t outrun a stalker, or the elderly shopkeeper who can’t dodge a robber’s bullet.

The supporters of AB 133 cloak their argument in sanctimonious drivel about preventing “escalation” and curbing “unwarranted violence.” Oh, please. Spare me the crocodile tears. Criminals don’t care about your bleeding-heart legislation—they’re not sitting around debating the finer points of self-defense law. They’re preying on the vulnerable, and this bill just handed them a free pass. By disarming victims—legally and morally—California is rolling out the red carpet for every thug, thief, and psychopath who knows you’re now a sitting duck.

And let’s not ignore the chilling effect this will have on anyone brave enough to fight back. Under AB 133, if you dare to stand your ground, you’re not just risking your life—you’re risking a courtroom nightmare. Prosecutors will have a field day second-guessing your every move: “Why didn’t you run faster? Why didn’t you hide? Why didn’t you let the guy stab you and hope for the best?” It’s a legal trap designed to punish the innocent and embolden the guilty. Self-defense isn’t a privilege—it’s a fundamental human right, and California’s lawmakers are stomping it into the dirt.

This bill isn’t about safety; it’s about control. It’s about a state government so obsessed with its utopian fantasies that it’s willing to sacrifice real people on the altar of ideology. AB 133 doesn’t make California safer—it makes it a playground for predators and a prison for the rest of us. If this passes, mark my words: the blood of every victim who couldn’t retreat fast enough will be on the hands of every legislator who voted for it.

Wake up, California. Fight back. This isn’t just a bad law—it’s a declaration of war on your right to survive. Call your representatives, flood their inboxes, and make it clear: We won’t retreat, and we won’t surrender. AB 133 must die on the vine, or we’ll all pay the price.

N.P.: “Ring of Fire” – Frayle

Listen up, dear readers, patriots, and anyone who’s ever cracked the spine on a book worth a damn: as of yesterday, English is finally the official language of the United States. Cue the fireworks, crack a beer, pour the whiskey, and let’s raise a middle finger to the woke vultures who’ve been pecking at the neglected carcass of our beloved language for too long. This isn’t just a win—it’s a goddamn triumph. One Language, One Flag, One Nation. And now, it’s time to protect this victory with something big, something bold: a Department of English Grammar and Usage. And, as you may have guessed, I’m the guy to run it.

For decades, English has been under siege. The DEI cult and their word-twisting acolytes have tried to warp it into a limp, apologetic shadow of itself—stripping away precision, clarity, and balls in favor of their anti-American fever dreams. They’ve turned pronouns into weapons, grammar into a suggestion, and meaning into mush. Enough. English isn’t just a language; it’s the backbone of this nation’s soul—Shakespeare’s fire, Twain’s grit, Hemingway’s steel. It’s time to stop the bleeding and start swinging back.

Enter the Department of English Grammar and Usage. Picture it: a federal fortress of syntax and style, tasked with setting ironclad norms for how we speak, write, and think. No more “they” for singulars unless it’s earned. No more “latinx” abominations. Just pure, unadulterated English—rules that stick, enforced by people who know the difference between a comma splice and a knockout punch. This isn’t about snobbery; it’s about unity. One tongue to bind us, from sea to shining sea.

So why me? Let’s cut the crap and lay out the receipts. I’ve got a Master’s Degree in English—earned, not handed out like participation trophies. Thirty-plus years tutoring every level from snot-nosed 2nd graders to PhD candidates, beating the rules of the language into their skulls until they could write a sentence that didn’t suck. Years teaching at the collegiate level, where I turned classrooms into battlegrounds for ideas, not safe spaces for whining. I’m an internationally published author—words of mine have crossed oceans, not just keyboards. And for the last two decades, I’ve been a pitbull for this language, snarling at every woke attempt to dilute it, every DEI edict to deform it. I’ve got the scars, the ink, and the fire to prove it.

To President Trump: You’ve made America great again—now let’s make its language unbreakable. To Elon Musk: You’re a man of vision—back this and watch it soar. To Speaker Johnson and the rest of the suits in DC: Get this on the floor and make it law. I’m ready to lead this charge, to build a department that’s half library, half war room—a beacon for every American who still believes words matter.

The woke crowd will scream. Let ‘em. They’ve had their turn, and they blew it—turning English into a punching bag for their identity obsession. Now it’s our move. We’re not just reclaiming a language; we’re reclaiming a culture. #OneLanguage,OneFlag,OneNation.

N.P.: “Body Burn” – Cubanate

Remembering Mary.