Simply Speaking: New laws
Of course school’s back in, so don’t forget to slow down as you go past and, for goodness sake, get off that cell phone in the marked-off zone, as well. That includes you youngsters driving through too. I guess it’s alright to use the iPhone, cell, or Game Boy if you’re not behind the wheel, but not buckling up is not optional.
(Somehow I just can’t picture my 15-year-old granddaughter with a cell phone not on her ear. I love you Jessica Lea.)
The new laws on cellphone use (non-use) is all well and good, I suppose, though, actually, students are not seen on foot very much anymore, certainly not as often as it occurred back in the (old) days when we walked five miles to school and back home, all uphill, coming and going. Thank goodness cell phones were not around back then, as most of us would have been run down, especially considering the size an iPhone would have had to be back then.
For instance, Aunt Sue’s big box-style party-line phone, which we all used (or listened-in to) at times and, which hung on her living room wall, would have been a load, converted to cell.
We could have used an accordion strap to make it mobile, I suppose. But imagine the problem just finding a place in your 55 Dodge, loaded with kids, to set the thing down as you drove through the school zone.
Kids would have been run down by drivers – not when using the phone – but simply trying to find a place to set the thing down, in compliance with the law. Of course, lawmakers would have had to make yet another law that you had to stop and find a place to lay down the monstrosity prior to entering a school zone.
Those people are never short of composing yet another law. Incidentally, is the burn ban still on? I hope not...
Speaking of new laws, some of which lawmakers themselves, we know, have not read completely through, why hasn’t a law been written, whereby, when new laws are put on the books, an equal number of old, useless, obsolete laws must be taken off?
Additionally, for every dollar of new costs, an equal number of dollars must be removed, irregardless of how many old bills must be removed. In other words, 10 new bills introduced, 10 old bills deleted; 10 million new-dollar costs, 10 million old-cost removed, with dollar-costs being dominant, in case more laws must be removed to match-up, dollar-wise. Make sense? Seems fair.
Congressman Barton and Congressman Pitts; how about sponsoring that one on behalf of "We the People?"
Someone recently said we are all guilty of breaking some law at just about any time, no matter how careful we might be to not do that. If some gung-ho prosecuting attorney or law officer wants to get you for something (anything), he or she probably can...and at most any time. In such an eventuality, being careful will not be enough to keep you out of the hoosegow.
This new law to remove old law and its cost from the books with each new law passed would help to simplify the current law logjam. This new law would be exempt from having to remove an old law with its passage, though it would be okay to do so, if desired. Come to think of it, such action would reveal whether lawmakers’ hearts were in the matter...or not.
Maybe a new departments of government should be set up at the local, state and national level (with an old department removed, of course) to monitor and insure this new law is enforced, under penalty of law.
A pie in the sky idea? I don’t know. How about it Congressman Pitts and Congressman Barton?
May Yahweh God bless through Yeshua, Christ Jesus of Nazareth.