Welcome to 2010! We're heading into Year 5 of good times here at TPS.
Anyhow, CNN gives an overview of new laws for the new year here, and I've seen a surprising number of TV and print stories concerning this same topic, maybe I wasn't quite in tune to the matter last year at this time. (Hi Dave!)
Perhaps I'm getting more cynical as the months go by, but I'm increasingly frustrated by the passive nature of laws like this. Yes, they're ridiculous, but passive foolishness seems even worse. San Francisco banned plastic shopping bags a little while back-- wouldn't it better just to ban trash? Doesn't that get at the issue a little more directly? One of the new laws in the CNN bit was to ban texting while driving-- why not ban car accidents?
The point being: If we're going to have foolish laws, wouldn't it be better to have clear, direct foolish laws? After all, if you feel that banning texting while driving will actually stop people from texting while driving, then banning car accidents would eliminate those too! You wouldn't even need seat belts! Or car insurance! Or car seats! Oh, the welfare increases!
Is passive lawmaking a way for politicians to dodge the issue of the credibility of the law? I mean, if you're in favor of banning texting while driving, then you are of the opinion that car accidents are bad; wouldn't you necessarily be in favor of banning car accidents as well?