A new approach to daylight saving
The editorial "Science is clear: Stay with DST" [Opinion, March 15] tells us research has identified how changing the clocks twice per year has numerous negative effects on us. Subsequent readers identified past issues with the 16-month DST experiment of 1973 and its quick demise. Sound reasoning can be presented on both sides of the DST debate, but why do we need an all-or-nothing approach? While it seems that is the world we live in these days, I offer this solution: Come November, instead of moving the clocks back one hour, set them back a half-hour and leave them there. No more adjusting the clocks from then on. We’ll get the extra sunshine most of us crave, and the short-term impact on our lives will be minimized. It may not be a perfect solution, but it surely would be better than what we’ve tried in the past and what we’re doing now. Compromise can be a good thing for all of us, at least when it comes to the idea of permanent daylight saving time.
Vincent J. Ficarrotta, Miller Place
Focus on diversity polarizes country
This time, Newsday focuses on the working class and the lack of diversity in education ["Diversity among LI teachers could see rise," News, March 20]. Is Newsday suggesting systemwide discrimination? It should be proven, or otherwise it just seems like an attempt to polarize our society.
Whatever happened to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream that his children would one day be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin? We live in a country in which our president nominates a judge strictly based on the color of her skin. It seems to me that we are going in the wrong direction
Patrick Heaney, Malverne
Simple solution for debate over bail
I have a solution to the debate about bail ["Hochul's anti-crime plan," News, March 18]. Obey the law, don’t get arrested, and you won’t have to worry about it.
Frank J. Donohue, Riverhead