Well, I doubt that happened, since he did not live to see DST implemented. Indeed by the time it was implemented, most people no longer used candles as their light source, since by that time electric lighting was widely available.

Rather than institute year round DST (which makes no sense if you think it through), why not just do everything earlier year round? It is the same thing except you do not pretend that you do it at the same time as we currently do (actually, currently we pretend that we do certain things at the same time all year, and then adjust the clocks so that we actually do things earlier for part of the year).

I do not understand why. If we went to Standard Time all the time, it is likely that there would be a change in our schedules. That is, everything would happen earlier.

Except that that does not appear to be happening.

There are doctors who will see you without health insurance. Doctors who will arrange a payment plan.

Yes, but the article is NOT about health care. It is about health insurance. They are not the same thing. Having health insurance is not a benefit if there is no one to provide you with health care, which is what is happening with this law. Most of those who now have health insurance that did not have it before are those who have been added to the Medicaid rolls. Yet the number of health care providers who accept Medicaid patients has fallen.

That's the great thing about Obamacare, now those people pay for health insurance coverage and can't get care. Whereas before, they didn't pay for health insurance, but were able to get health care when they needed it. Isn't Obamacare great?

Let me see if I got this straight. You are arguing that as we as a society have moved away from a capitalistic economic system, we have started to behave more according to the ideals of capitalism?

No, my claim is that the politicians have seen in the proclamations of climate researchers an opportunity to funnel money to their cronies and since the only way to get money for climate research is to proclaim what the politicians want to hear, the only people left in climate research are those who buy into that theory. In addition, the world's universities have been staffed by those who believe in the inherent goodness of government for over a generation so that they are blind to how their research is being used.
As to seeding high schools with their agents, they have been doing that since the idea of government funded education was first developed. At this point, if you are not an active agent for such groups you will find it very difficult to get and hold a job in public education.

For the same reason the Democrats are big on trying to do the same. It is a great way to funnel taxpayer dollars to their cronies.

Ah yes, the famous Richard Nixon "Southern Strategy". You know, where he convinced all those racist southern Democrats to vote Republican by forcing desegregation on their schools after LBJ chose not to.

What was studied in both articles linked to is not what is usually meant by those who talk about the power of positive thinking. As others have pointed out the idea behind the power of positive thinking is imagining successfully completing the goal, not imagining having successfully completing the goal.

I am a fencer. One of the people I fence with often says before they fence someone, "I can't beat them. I am a terrible fencer." Unsurprisingly, after saying this they usually lose, even against people I have fenced and know they are better than. Occasionally, they will be convinced that they are not a bad fencer. They will enter a bout against someone convinced that they can win. When that happens, they usually win, even against fencers I know are better than they are. Positive thinking does not cause them to beat fencers who are a lot better than they are, but it, sometimes, allows them to take advantage when those fencers underestimates them.

Umm, the federal government has already seized someone's bitcoins, they could do the same to yours if they so chose.

Perhaps you should get YOUR facts straight. The central law, the Bank Secrecy Act and its various amendments, which is what created this legal situation, were ALL passed by a Congress where BOTH Houses were controlled by the Democratic Party. These were not "Republican policies". Since they were signed into law by Republican Presidents, I must conclude that they were bipartisan,
It is possible this conclusion is wrong, so I will not argue with anyone providing evidence that this was primarily a Democratic Party idea (I can think of several explanations as to why a Republican President would sign a bill into law that he mildly disagreed with, but cannot conclude that any of those are true in this case without doing more work than I am willing to at this time).

Conclusion: This is not a "Republican policy". It is a bipartisan policy and should be unconstitutional (and that the Framers of the Constitution would be horrified that anyone could think that it was not).

You do realize that the Treasury Bonds held by the Social Security Administration cannot be sold? That means that if the U.S. government does not have the money to redeem them, and cannot get someone else to lend them money to do so, the only way to get money to redeem them is to print it. Want to guess what the money will be worth if the U.S. government prints money to redeem the bonds held by the Social Security Administration?