French politics; from the Left...
Has New York State indicated what it would like on this matter?
Sunday, November 1, 2026
Time_Change
Just changed all the clocks in the appartment, including my watch. The
new Quebec government has said we are doing this for the last time. They are going
to let a panel of experts advise on what time system we should be going to.
If health experts decide, I would expect standard time. If it is a popular choice,
it might be Daylight Savings. Ontario would like to align with Manitoba to go
with Daylight, but is waiting for Quebec and New York State...
Copilot:
Has New York State indicated what it would like on this matter?
Yes. The general position of New York State has been quite similar to Ontario's: many state legislators have expressed support for permanent daylight saving time (keeping the "summer" clock year-round and eliminating the twice-yearly clock changes). However, New York has not actually made the change and continues to observe the normal daylight-saving schedule.
In fact, New York has considered legislation that would allow permanent daylight saving time if federal law permits it. One such bill, Senate Bill 3380, was still pending as of 2026
The complication is that U.S. federal law plays a role. States can opt out of daylight saving time entirely and stay on standard time year-round (as Arizona and Hawaii largely do), but a state generally cannot switch unilaterally to permanent daylight saving time without a change in federal law.
This is why Ontario has been watching developments south of the border. If New York were able to move to permanent daylight saving time, Ontario would be much more likely to activate its own legislation so that Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and New York City remained aligned.
An interesting wrinkle is that not everyone agrees on which permanent time is best:
Permanent daylight saving time means more evening light in winter.
Permanent standard time means earlier sunrises in winter.
For places as far north as southern Ontario, Quebec, and New York, permanent daylight saving time would push some winter sunrises quite late. In New York City, for example, the latest winter sunrise would be about 8:20 a.m. under permanent daylight saving time.
So, to answer your question succinctly: New York's political discussion has generally leaned toward permanent daylight saving time rather than permanent standard time, but neither New York nor the U.S. federal government has yet completed the legal changes needed to make that happen.
Didn't the original move to Daylight originatein the US? Are the countries elsewhere than North America that use it?
No, the original idea did not originate in the United States.
The history is a bit surprising:
In 1784, Benjamin Franklin (while in Paris) wrote a humorous essay suggesting people could save candles by getting up earlier. He did not propose changing the clocks.
In 1895, George Hudson, a New Zealand entomologist, made one of the first serious proposals for a seasonal clock change.
In 1907, British builder William Willett became a prominent advocate of the idea in the United Kingdom.
The first country to adopt daylight saving time nationally was Germany (with Austria-Hungary) during the First World War in 1916, largely to conserve fuel and electricity. Britain followed shortly afterward, and the United States adopted it in 1918.
As for the rest of the world, yes, daylight saving time is used well beyond North America, though not nearly as widely as many people think.
Today it is mainly concentrated in:
Most of Europe (including France, Germany, Spain, Italy, the UK, etc.)
The United States and most of Canada
Parts of Australia and New Zealand
A few countries in the Middle East, such as Israel and Lebanon.
Chile and some other jurisdictions in South America.
What is perhaps more interesting is that most of the world does not use daylight saving time at all. Most of Asia, most of Africa, and many countries in South America either never adopted it or abandoned it. Countries near the equator have little reason to use it because daylight hours change very little over the year.
In fact, the long-term trend has been away from clock changes. Countries such as Russia (2014), Brazil (2019), and much of Mexico (2022) have abolished daylight saving time.
One irony is that while many Canadians think of the spring and autumn clock changes as a universal practice, they're actually a feature mainly of the mid-latitude industrialized countries of Europe and North America. Most people on Earth never change their clocks at all.
But both Britain and France switch during the year?
Yes. Both Britain and France still switch their clocks twice a year.
In the United Kingdom, clocks move forward by one hour in spring (to British Summer Time, BST) and back in autumn (to Greenwich Mean Time, GMT).
In France, clocks move forward from Central European Time (CET) to Central European Summer Time (CEST) in spring and back in autumn.
An interesting point is that the UK and France make the change on the same dates, so France remains one hour ahead of Britain throughout the year.
The European Union discussed abolishing the clock changes several years ago. The European Parliament voted in favour of ending them, but the proposal stalled because countries could not agree on whether to keep permanent summer time or permanent standard time. As a result, the twice-yearly clock changes remain in place across most of Europe.
For someone in Québec, the surprising thing is that France changes its clocks on almost the same schedule as we do, despite being an ocean away. When Québec "falls back" in late autumn, France and Britain do too, although not always on exactly the same weekend.
In fact, if you've ever travelled to France in winter, you've experienced something slightly odd: Paris is much farther north than Montréal, yet because of France's time zone and daylight-saving arrangements, winter sunsets can occur surprisingly late by European standards. That is one reason the debate over permanent summer time versus permanent standard time remains lively in both France and Britain.
* * *
So here we are: Alberta and Quebec are three hours apart in physical terms (2 hours and 40
minutes), but currently clocking in at two in the summer and one in the winter:
Time zones in Canada are getting complicated. These maps lay them out | CBC News* * *
On a personnal note, the body has its own way of adapting to things.
In my older years, I have set fixed rules for myself, and one has to do with
breakfast time. I can have hot drinks when I get up, but breakfast is no sooner
than 10 AM. So that during Daylight Savings Time periods, I can eat at 9 AM Standard.
But guess what, in the Fall I am not hungry at 10 AM, or am too busy to notice.
Lately, I have been eating fruit and dry toast around 11 AM Daylight. Which is 10 AM
Standard. So my body has been gradually keeping up with my 10 AM rule and I am
marginally hungrier into the winter months!!
Yes. The general position of New York State has been quite similar to Ontario's: many state legislators have expressed support for permanent daylight saving time (keeping the "summer" clock year-round and eliminating the twice-yearly clock changes). However, New York has not actually made the change and continues to observe the normal daylight-saving schedule.
In fact, New York has considered legislation that would allow permanent daylight saving time if federal law permits it. One such bill, Senate Bill 3380, was still pending as of 2026.
The complication is that U.S. federal law plays a role. States can opt out of daylight saving time entirely and stay on standard time year-round (as Arizona and Hawaii largely do), but a state generally cannot switch unilaterally to permanent daylight saving time without a change in federal law.
This is why Ontario has been watching developments south of the border. If New York were able to move to permanent daylight saving time, Ontario would be much more likely to activate its own legislation so that Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and New York City remained aligned.
An interesting wrinkle is that not everyone agrees on which permanent time is best:
- Permanent daylight saving time means more evening light in winter.
- Permanent standard time means earlier sunrises in winter.
For places as far north as southern Ontario, Quebec, and New York, permanent daylight saving time would push some winter sunrises quite late. In New York City, for example, the latest winter sunrise would be about 8:20 a.m. under permanent daylight saving time.
So, to answer your question succinctly: New York's political discussion has generally leaned toward permanent daylight saving time rather than permanent standard time, but neither New York nor the U.S. federal government has yet completed the legal changes needed to make that happen.
Saturday, October 31, 2026
Cake
Made a cake for Halloween. something I haven't done in a while. It
looks a tad weird and it is: I had no instant coffee so put in actual coffee
in the chocolate layer, which was then more liquid than the other... see
the result below. But it tastes great, isn't too caloric and it is festive.
I also didn't have chocolate chips for the topping, but have been eating it
with fruit and yogurt and chomping on chocolate candy now and again.
Even Copilot approves!!
* * *
* * *
Friday, October 30, 2026
Markets...
So is Canada the sleazy one, signing an accord with the EU just as
things migt be picking up again on a deal with the US. Because one cannot
really have both going at the same time. If one did, one could just buy things in
one market, and sell them in another: for example, I buy up pumpkins from the US
and sell maple syrup with pumpkin in Paris, and all the while the US pumkin
farmer can only sell with tariffs attached in that market. Hooooo!
Looking at our other commitments was just one thing Team Canada woudn't let
the US do. Or maybe this wasn't a totally innocent request. In any event, we do
appear to be making a choice for the EU...
HAPPY HALLOWEEN TO ALL!
Salient
In the news this morning, a small vessel approached a tanker in the
straight of Hormuz and detonated devices that started a fire. The fire is
now under control but the price of Brent is currently at 117USD ...
Prices in USD, below...
The price of gas has great importance in the US. People drive a lot in
their day-to-day affairs - twice as much as in Canada - so this is an salient
issue for many!
Thursday, October 29, 2026
Us_Academia
Was reading this morning how Jon Ossoff was a coming star in the US
Democratic party. But consulting his bio in Wikipedia did leave me with a question:
https://share.gemini.google/6OhLzQ2YROue
* * *
Copilot:
'Ossoff is a 2009 graduate of Georgetown University's Walsh School of Foreign Service with a Bachelor of Science in culture and politics.' Read this description of a US Senator's biography on Wikipedia and it seems odd to me. How can one have a science degree in culture??
It does sound odd at first glance, but in the U.S. university system the phrase "Bachelor of Science" (B.S.) does not necessarily mean the subject itself is a natural science like physics, chemistry, or biology.
There are two separate things here:
The degree type: Bachelor of Science (B.S.) versus Bachelor of Arts (B.A.).
The major: Culture and Politics.
At many American universities, a social-science or interdisciplinary programme may award a B.S. even though its subject matter involves culture, politics, economics, international relations, or public policy rather than laboratory science.
In Ossoff's case, the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown is a specialised school focused on international affairs. "Culture and Politics" is an interdisciplinary major that examines questions such as:
How culture influences political behaviour.
Nationalism and identity.
Religion and politics.
Ethnic conflict.
Globalisation and cultural change.
International relations viewed through historical and social-science lenses.
The "science" part of the degree usually refers to the programme's emphasis on systematic analysis, research methods, social-science theory, statistics, economics, and empirical study, not test tubes and microscopes.
A rough analogy would be:
B.Sc. in Economics: common, even though economics is not a natural science.
B.Sc. in Psychology: also common, despite studying human behaviour.
B.Sc. in Culture and Politics: less common, but based on the same idea.
In fact, many subjects sit in a grey zone. Political scientists, economists, sociologists, and psychologists often use scientific methods (hypothesis testing, statistical analysis, surveys, modelling), which is why universities sometimes classify them as sciences.
So the wording is not saying that culture itself is a science. Rather, it means Ossoff completed a programme called Culture and Politics and Georgetown chose to award that programme as a Bachelor of Science degree.
Your reaction is shared by many Europeans and Canadians, because North American universities can be surprisingly liberal in how they use the B.A./B.S. distinction. In some cases, two students studying nearly the same material at different universities may graduate with different degree titles simply because of institutional tradition.
Are there universities in Canada that make this distinction?
Yes, although generally Canadian universities tend to be a bit more conservative than American ones in their degree titles.
For example, at Concordia University, Political Science is offered as a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.), not a B.Sc. Likewise, the University of Waterloo awards a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science.
That said, Canada definitely has programmes where social-science subjects receive science-oriented degrees:
Psychology can be taken as a B.Sc. at McGill.
McGill also offers interdisciplinary B.A. & Sc. degrees that combine Arts and Science approaches, including Political Science and Psychology.
The deeper issue is that the distinction between B.A. and B.Sc. is often historical and administrative rather than philosophical.
A political science department might award:
a B.A. if it emphasizes history, political theory, and qualitative analysis;
a B.Sc. if it emphasizes statistics, formal modelling, economics, polling, and quantitative research methods.
Indeed, if you look at modern political science journals, much of the work involves statistics, survey design, econometrics, and data analysis. Some political scientists spend more time with datasets than historians do with archives.
Your reaction may also reflect an older understanding of the word science. In French and in much of Europe, science is often understood primarily as the natural sciences. In the English-speaking academic world, however, universities commonly speak of the social sciences: economics, political science, sociology, psychology, anthropology, and so on.
So a Canadian degree called"B.Sc. in Culture and Politics" would still be unusual, but not absurd. The more typical Canadian label would probably be B.A. in Culture and Politics, whereas an American institution such as Georgetown is somewhat more willing to attach a B.S. designation to an interdisciplinary social-science programme.
Interestingly, the very name "political science" dates from the 19th century, when scholars hoped that the study of government could become as systematic and evidence-based as the natural sciences. Whether they fully succeeded is still a matter of debate!
I think it had to do with the practice of publishing journals in a particular field...
You've put your finger on an important historical point.
The term "science" originally had a much broader meaning than it commonly does today. It comes from the Latin scientia, meaning simply "knowledge." For centuries, a science was essentially any organised body of knowledge.
One reason disciplines fought to be recognized as sciences was indeed the emergence of the modern research university and scholarly journals in the 19th century. Fields such as economics, sociology, political science, and psychology sought to establish themselves as rigorous academic disciplines by:
founding professional associations;
creating peer-reviewed journals;
developing specialised research methods;
collecting data systematically;
building theories that could be tested and criticized.
Political science, for example, wasn't merely the study of politics in the old sense of reading philosophers like Plato or Locke. Scholars wanted to study voting, institutions, revolutions, public opinion, and government behaviour in a way that resembled the growing prestige of the natural sciences.
This is why many academic disciplines acquired names ending in "-ology" or incorporated "science" into their titles. The label signalled: "We aren't just discussing ideas; we're conducting research according to recognised methods."
That said, there has always been a debate. Critics argue that human beings, cultures, and societies do not behave with the predictability of atoms or planets, so the social sciences can never be sciences in quite the same sense as physics or chemistry. Supporters reply that even if human behaviour is more complex, it can still be studied systematically and empirically.
Your observation about journals is especially relevant because, in academia, a field often gains legitimacy when it develops:
a research community,
specialised journals,
recognised methodologies,
standards of evidence.
In many ways, those institutions matter more than the degree title itself. A "Culture and Politics" programme is considered an academic discipline not because it studies culture, but because there is a community of scholars producing and evaluating research about culture and politics through journals, conferences, and peer review.
So when you see "Bachelor of Science in Culture and Politics," you're really seeing the outcome of a long academic tradition that says: culture and politics can be studied using scholarly methods, whether or not you personally feel that makes them "science" in the same sense as chemistry. Many academics themselves still debate that question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)