Which Odd Couples Are Rising When the Sun Doesn’t Shine?

Early bird curious? Night owl prowling? Maybe you’re the kind of bird who crows both ways, at dusk and dawn. Welcome to Politically Strange Bedfellow Wednesday, when we dish on the odd couples for and against Permanent Standard Time.

Now, before we tattle, you might want to scroll down for Politics 4.0’s Four Kinds of Love, Four Dark Emotions, and the Four Love Extremes. It’s weird how much of politics is fighting over love.

Standard Time?

Standard Time Forever: Prioritizing natural light in the morning aligns with human biology, promoting healthier sleep patterns and increased productivity. It prioritizes health and harmony over powerful special interests and night owl hooting.

Shifting hours artificially through Daylight Savings Time Forever increases risks like heart attacks, disrupts circadian rhythms, makes people grumpy, and increases AC energy use as the world grows warmer.

How Did
DST Rise?

Daylight Saving Time (DST) originated during the World Wars to conserve energy by reducing evening artificial lighting. Contrary to myths, DST wasn’t for farmers; most even oppose it. The war-driven need for DST has long passed.

Today, Night owls prefer it lighter into the evening, and certain industries benefit. Crime may be lower during DST, but that’s a band-aid on the problem. The WELCOME Employer Living Wage Tax Credit and/or the P50L Earned Income Tax Credit are systemic solutions to crime, making DST a crime deterrent moot.


If you’d prefer first to role-play this week’s puzzle, then swoop on over to the…

Puzzle of the Week
Should We End Daylight Savings Time?

Puzzle Drop Introduction
Feeling Jet Lagged? How About Sunsetting (Ending) DST?

If We Could Turn Back Time (and End DST)

Now, these parrots have tongues firmly in beaks. Here are the…

Odd Couples
Leaning Against
Permanent Standard Time

Moralist Republicans (22) &
Democratic Leadership (32)

How They Met: At a lobbyist’s cocktail party, opposites attracted over DST, reducing crime and driving political donations. (#22 & #32).
First Fight: While Democrats were irked by Republicans’ insistence on linking DST to scripture, the Republicans were frustrated with the Democrats’ bureaucratic worship.
Makeup Sex: Realizing they both fear the potential disruptions to society’s fabric, they agree to oppose permanent standard time, embracing their long-held desire to tell other people what to do.

Judiciary (22) &
Corporate Lobby (4)

How They Met: At a sports event, they found unity in DST’s tantalizing effect on lowering crime and inhibitions and raising revenue and desire. (#22 & #7).
First Fight: While the Judiciary insisted on going public, Corporate Lobbyists were adamant about discretion.
Makeup Sex: Both acknowledged the shared night owl vision of a just and profitable system; hence, they reunited against permanent standard time.

Urban Investors (4) &
Rural Investors (4)

How They Met: At an annual corporate meeting, skyscrapers met barns over their deep affection for the ROI of DST (#4).
First Fight: Ruralists insist on traditional family values, and Urbanists are more tolerant of other inclinations.
Makeup Sex: Recognizing the value of adaptability in investments, they compromised to support DST and their mutually satisfactory relationship.

Seniors (2) &
Hospitals (26)

How They Met: At a wellness seminar, they appreciated the value of sleep disruptions in more ways than one (#2 & #26).
First Fight: Seniors paid the price the next morning while Hospitals profited from people not taking care of themselves.
Makeup Sex: They bonded over the increased need to be taken care of and the taking care of others that DST offers.

Odd Couples
Leaning In Favor of
Permanent Standard Time

Importers (9) &
Exporters (9)

How They Met: At a bustling port of call amidst containers and cranes, they both appreciated the nuances of a global plan coming together (#9).
First Fight: Importers don’t appreciate the fervor of Exporters buy American rhetoric and see it as a personal attack. Exporters fear Importers’ power.
Makeup Sex: Together, they recognized the mutual benefits of synchronized trade schedules and perfecting their timing.

Giver States (7) &
Taker States (1)

How They Met: At a concert, dollars and senses intertwined as they discovered new ways for health to rise up and frustrations to go down (#7 & #1).
First Fight: Giver States bemoan giving, giving, and giving and not being appreciated, while the Taker States can’t understand why Giver States never stop whining.
Makeup Sex: Acknowledging that DST is a pain, they rallied together at sunrise to favor its sunset.

Liberty Republicans (27) &
Rank & File Democrats (1)

How They Met: At an unusually spirited town hall meeting, individual freedoms echoed alongside other things (#27 & #1).
First Fight: Liberty Republicans fondly remember the quirkiness of DST, while Democrats can’t wait to never hear those words ever again.
Makeup Sex: They realize they’re free to do as they please, to love whom they choose, and not have the few tell them what to do.

Free Press (25) &
Social Media (5)

How They Met: Online at all hours of the day and night, they realized that media consumption goes down during DST as people actually go outside and get busy doing stuff. So, they did, too.
First Fight: But then the Free Press had to bring up how they are being treated unfairly by the social media’s whims. Social media reminds them the rules have changed.
Makeup Sex: Identifying that a high tide lifts all boats and inhibitions, they chose to display a united front against DST.

Permanent Standard Time
Super Nonpartisan Score

POLI had support as vast supermajority. Our editors were a bit less convinced. Nevertheless, we predict a 71% ±5 (13 roles) strong supermajority of roles in this country to support Permanent Standard Time, including a majority of each of the four sides of the political tablemaking this US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL) worthy idea. 

90% and up Near Unanimous
80% – 89% Near Consensus
60% – 66% Supermajority
50% – 59% Majority

By Contrast

SCOTUS’s approval rating is 40%,
the media is 27%, and
Congress is 13%.

The average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL) is 72%, with many above 80%—Politics 4.0 is already 2x to 5x better model of US political sentiment and direction than politics as usual.

is based on the
Four Kinds of Love 

Self-sacrifice is giving of one’s self with no expectation of reciprocation. Think of a firefighter rushing into a burning building. 

Nurture is helping someone grow into their potential and keep up their momentum. Think of a coach, a parent, or a mentor. 

Tough-love is being able to invest in the personal pain of watching someone learn from their mistakes. Think of a boss, teacher, or a loved one drawing a line in the sand. 

Self-love isn’t narcissism. It’s knowing you can’t love another until you take care of yourself. Think about putting on your oxygen mask in an airplane before helping someone else. 

It’s ironic how much hate there is arguing about what kind of love should dominate public policy. The Golden Rule barely holds on to be worthy of the US Public Policy Leaderboard. What’s your mix of the four kinds of love on your best day?

The Four Dark
Political Emotions

Envy in Politics

  1. Consumers: Jealous of affluence, some support luxury taxes, disregarding potential harm to small businesses and their workers.
  2. Workers: Envious of higher pay, some advocate for wage caps, ignoring potential skill disincentives and loss of professional standards.
  3. Professionals: Chasing perfection, they may push for rigorous industry standards that, while well-intended, can limit consumer options.
  4. Owners: Coveting government influence, some call for privatization of liberty, causing less justice for others.

Spite in Politics

  1. Consumers: Upset with corporations, some call for tough rules, forgetting that this can increase costs for professionals and themselves.
  2. Workers: Angered by robots taking jobs, some want trade barriers, overlooking trade wars that hurt consumers and the economy.
  3. Professionals: Unhappy with industry shifts, some cling to old ways, missing the chance for growth and innovation that owners can bring.
  4. Owners: Annoyed by unions, some move their businesses overseas, neglecting local workers and weakening demand for their own products.

Sloth in Politics

  1. Consumers: Unhappy with product quality. Some abstain from political action, allowing inferior companies and poor regulations to persist.
  2. Workers: Dissatisfied with wages. Some avoid labor unions, missing an opportunity for change.
  3. Professionals: Aware of flaws, some stick with the status quo, risking harm to consumers and their livelihoods.
  4. Owners: Comfortable in their lifestyle, they don’t reinvest in their businesses to increase capacity and profits.

Greed in Politics

  1. Consumers: Drawn to low prices, some buy imported goods that risk local jobs.
  2. Workers: Attracted to job security, some back grandfather clauses harming new hires.
  3. Professionals: Eager for profits, some lobby for lax regulations that compromise ethics.
  4. Owners: Focused on the bottom line, some advocate for lower safety standards, risking worker well-being.


When taken too far, each political strength is prone to a political weakness.

Self-Sacrifice – Envy: Individuals who prioritize the needs of others might be prone to envy, as they may feel overlooked or undervalued compared to those they’re helping.

Nurture – Spite: Those who nurture and care for others may be more susceptible to spite when they perceive harm or injustice being done to those they care about.

Tough-Love – Sloth: Someone who employs tough love might feel it’s not reciprocated or effective, leading to a tendency toward sloth—why bother pushing others if it yields no result?

Self-Love – Greed: A focus on self-love could tip into greed, where self-care becomes self-serving to the point of disregarding others.

Politics goes negative fast. Does it have to? A political parrot by any other name still stinks.


Politics 1.0 is each party wanting to be a one-party system. Then, Politics 2.0 is the two-party gridlock that blocks the silent supermajority from getting what they need. Politics 3.0 is all the noise from special interest groups trying to influence us to see things their way. Politics 4.0 is to rank solutions with a nonpartisan score and let the best ideas rise up the leaderboard so the people can choose.

Our One-Page Narrative Tool, game board, and AI are based on a ground truth:

There’s a time to save
and a time to spend,
a time for freedom
and a time for laws.
Where can we agree?

This yields four legs of the political table: Abundance, Thrift, Governance, and Commerce, poetically our Political DNA, ACGT.

The four sides of the table are…

Abundance Governance (AG)
National Public Sector and NGOs,

Abundance Commerce (AC)
Technology and New Businesses,

Thrift Government (TG)
Local Municipalities, Guilds, and Consumers, and

Thrift Commerce (TC)
Established Supply Chains and Jobs.

Each side has a bias for change and a bias for the status quo. We scan these eight Information Walls for Key YES and NO Reasons, no cherry-picking.

Treasure Hunt

We search for solutions with the highest hypothetical nonpartisan rating. Something that would solve 80% of the problem with the simplest 20% solution. The Pareto principle, hence a parrot-topia.

The Political Parrots have a Key reason they don’t want us to know about because it ruins their argument. We search for these, like a treasure hunt, and sort them using our EMIT format: Emotions, Money, Information, and Timespan. We listen for these key signals in the political noise.

Key Reasons can look similar, so we edit for redundancy and look for errors, omissions, and innovations.

Political Parrots say the same thing over and over and over again. We look to filter out the GRIFTERS, Gaslighting, Red-herrings, Idolizing, False-dilemmas, Tunnel-vision, Exclusions, Reductions, and Straw-man arguments. 

Birds of a Feather AI

Once the Key Reasons are set, we prescore the puzzle using the Birds of a Feather AI for loose ties to beliefs, attitudes, values, and ethics. Over 16 million combinations are possible for the 128 roles. The game board starts balanced at zero, with an equal bias for change and the status quo.

We then prescore the puzzle using 56 arch-type roles that best embody each of the 56 loose ties. This yields a general bias for change or status quo and reveals ties.

The editors review all 128 roles for specific reasons and overrule the general AI where necessary. These are noted in the Tuesday Tiebreaker article.

Then, we score the puzzle on all four sides of the Political Table: eight Information Walls, sixteen Subcultural Windows, sixteen Bias Columns, and sixteen Influence Rows.


When the scoring is done, a second AI looks for inconsistencies using the SAT9 AI filter (Situational Assessment Tool). This is 256 ‘supreme courts’ where each role is the chief justice in a presumed 5-4 and 4-5 bench. This generates a ± error margin.

This is all done on a One Page Narrative Tool (OPNT) that we gamified for role-playing at We call our AI, POLI for Political Omnibus Leadership Initiative.

You can read more about PolicyKeys™ in the upcoming book, Politics 4.0: How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for digital engagement.


new PolicyKeys™
Where Can We Agree?® puzzle 
drops every 
Monday at 7 a.m. Eastern at

PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? is a real-life role-playing game. Each week, there are sixteen sets of eight ‘rival’ roles. Sit awhile in each of their eight chairs and predict whether a majority of people in those roles would say Yes or No to the week’s question.

The best ideas land on the US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL) if a majority of each of the four sides of the political table agree. You can play this week’s puzzle at

Cue the
Patriotic Music

Imagine an America not paralyzed by political squawking. A Parrot-otopia oasis in a desert of division. Where the sounds of the silent super-majority drown out the droning of the hyper-partisan parrots.

We’ll be freed from the cages of entrenched ideology to fly higher in the big sky of American beliefs, attitudes, values, and ethics. To boldly go where no political parrot has gone before—rating solutions with a nonpartisan score.


Where Can We Agree? 
(Why Don’t You Want To Know?)


DST Increases Heart Attacks 24%
BMJ Journals

US Exports to the East and West about Equal
Trading Economics

What Would Happen If We Got Rid of Daylight Saving Time?
Reader’s Digest

It’s Time to Put DST to Bed
Modern Farmer

Does DST Save Energy?

DST Time’s Side Effects Prevention
Am Trust Financial

Fighting Crime With DST

Daylight Savings Time is Actually a Good Thing
Popular Mechanics

Standard Time is Better

71% Want to Stop Changing the Clock Twice a Year

Treasure Chest of Sources In Favor of Standard Time
Save Standard Time

The Case for Permanent Standard Time
The Hill

Daylight Savings Time is Controversial
Business Insider

Shedding Light on DST Revenues
JP Morgan Chase

10 Things You Didn’t Know About DST
Country Living

Texas Votes for Permanent DST
Texas Tribune

DST is Hurting Your Health & Should Be Abolished

DST was once known as War Time
Department of Defense

DST is Good For Business

It takes guts to look at things from all four sides of the political table.