Years ago, there was a two panel comic strip entitled "There Ought To Be A Law" from cartoonists Al Fagaly and possibly Harry Shorten, who were also involved with the "Archie" comics. The strip ran from 1944 until the 1980s - after being taken over by others who survived Fagaly.
In the "Law" strip the cartoonist(s) would use the two panels to show the contrasts between what a person said at one moment - and what they actually did or said in the second panel. (Personally, I think it "oughta" be revived.)
Here are a few comic examples: A baby won't stop crying in the first panel - so the exhausted and concerned parents call a doctor. In the second panel the doctor is holding the baby who has stopped crying by that point - and he turns to the couple and says, "That'll be $10." - (which was a lot when this strip was running in our papers.)
Another one depicted a guy who was so upset by shoveling snow in the north that he proclaims: "That's it. We're moving to Florida!" The second panel shows him on a beach - this time busy shovelling sand to construct a castle or bury someone under the hot Florida sun."
A third - and final example - shows a guy who has just moved into a new development. In a display of friendship, and wanting to belong, he is seen as a new resident gleefully signing a petition offered to him by a neighbor.
In this first panel the "newbee" declares "This is my civic duty" However, the second panel shows him so completely outraged when the city fathers notify him of several building code violations that he quickly changes his original position.
"There oughta be a law" was a common exclamation back when I was a kid.
It was usually heard when someone was upset regarding an unexpected misfortune that befell them; and for which they were SURE another was responsible.
One source regarding the comic which I found in my research was a "Postino" which/who suggested the correct title for the comic should have been called, "There ought 'Notta' be a law"; because many laws that we have on the book are ridiculous and need to be removed.
I agree with "Postino" but not just because there are entirely too many laws and regulations on the books that make no sense.
The real problem ,as I see it, is that there are not only too many of them, but that the nexus of our concern should be that our politicians appear to be reluctant to enforce them ( or do so only selectively).
One such belabored - but obviously timely example was the law - or series of l thoughtful and well researched laws - we passed long ago - but in the past few years decided not to enforce. This failure resulted in an guesstimated 11 million people presently occupying this country illegally.
My prediction is that any of your protests of this failure to govern event made to your local politician was met with their studied defense mechanism of politicians everywhere employing the oft heard promise: "Trust me, We're taking a long look at this and I promise you we will be taking action very soon". (Sound familiar?)
Politicians seem to believe (and maybe accurately) that this approach will stave off the groundswell of opinion that many (but sadly - possibly not most) folks in power still fear.
Their final "new" revised approach (if we're lucky) is due to a reluctant realization that "something drastically needs to be done" - if they are to continue to occupy Capitol office space and party in Georgetown or Avenue K.
On a smaller scale, this process is not entirely dissimilar to one we often use as parents and/or grandparents.
We've found it works so well as a technique that we've repeated it for years with our kids and grand kids.
We swing into gear with this one when those many issues of our progeny seek a concession from us that we really don't want to grant; particularly if it is an exception to our well worn - but unpublished "house rules".
Our usual response to these demands - if not one of outright refusal - is usually the classic parental defense mechanism: "WE'LL SEE!"
To which, only the most assertive "rug-rat" will reply with something like: "Drat - or double Drat! We all know what "we'll see" means!"
It's also at a time when the most or the more intimidated or vulnerable adults among us hastily reply, "No, we Really Will think about it."
The most practiced pro-active move we can make at home, and which usually leads to a modicum of success is - upon the kids arrival at Gramma and Paps - we-pro-actively establish: "These Are The Rules and there WILL NOT be any exceptions".
The more practical of us (who are so inclined) then immediately go into the garage and enjoy a "private moment" shot or two of "Old Overcoat" that we've carefully stashed away from Gramma's purview.
Using this admittedly questionable cheesy comparison - I argue our problem is not dissimilar to the one on our country's books now - regarding our problems with immigration reform.
There is a distant possibility that -as part of the act of "thinking about it"- Congress may at some time pass yet another law - that I continue to fear also may or may not be enforced - based on past examples.
This miracle will no doubt also happen at a time while our President, Congress, and the Chamber Of Commerce conveniently ignore the really valid question from many of us: "What was wrong with the old one Congress passed?" (But, that's a matter for another blog).
Passing a law or regulation is something our governing bodies do with impunity - "Without Punishment"; as they say and followed by, "It's the way it's always been done."
Usually, this unexpected departure from Rip VanWinkle's historic slumber by our politicians is only because there was such an outcry from potential voters (them is us!) or organized groups, that their reluctant decision to finally face the music and do something is seen as the lesser of evils that may impact their future political futures.
This unexpected non self-starter was usually preceded by what used to be a smoke filled room conclusion that to do so will not result in the loss of a significant number of votes.
It is a temporary remedy to all of their own "We'll sees" - that now have rightly caught up with them and should have long ago except for our own procrastination.
Our problem as citizens of this great nation is it appears that this is a well practiced routine by our politicos and only works because we, as voters, do not insist on a three step approach to the passage of major laws similar to those practiced by and established during the formation of business decisions.
In most instances (think "classic coke") when established businesses go through the preferred 4 step problem-solving module and arrive at a well thought out solution, they then add a fifth step - "monitor the results".
It would be nice some day if no law could be passed without an accompanying plan attached to those proposed laws that requires the mandatory monitoring of the results on a scheduled basis. This should also include the selection by us as to the identity of someone who is appointed to report the results of that monitoring in a timely fashion.
We as concerned citizens then "goose it up" if neither the law or regulation is found effective nor practiced by anyone .
Unlike the questionably effective "Sunset Laws" - politicians reluctantly put on the books occasionally - we need to discover a way - a leverage - (maybe via our votes regarding a second term) - to "demand" of our politicians that no laws can be passed without these accompanying steps being followed.
It is admittedly a "pie in the sky" approach, but change has to start somewhere - so why not by us? If we're seriously thinking of electing a Trump to our highest office - why rule anything out? Times are "a changing".
If you believe this is not a viable proposal or lacks specificity, (which it purposely does) think back to the times that financially under supported consumer groups have cried out for our action on some drastic foolish and unethical act they have uncovered and we've turned our backs on them.
Instead of supporting their efforts, we've chosen to rely on our media to step up and drive it home - even those periodicals who are more interested in the size of Kim Kardashians butt.
Still not convinced? In about 90 days it's going to be time to shift our attention from Ryan Secrest and the New Years Eve bunch, and turn it toward the more sober act of "filing our taxes".
if you're doing it yourself - make sure you pick up a copy of the 2016 filing regulations - all 3,458 pages - twice the size of the Bible - and examine the rules for same - before spending hours of consternation and nail biting.
This would be, of course, prior to sending your forms into the State and the IRS who due to non-funding staffing problems - as a result of a GOP political pique - will result in a delay in processing your refunds when applicable - and a massive loss of revenue due to tax cheats - but, whose remaining personnel will still definitely schedule you for a audit.
Then before seeking out the "Old Overcoat"once more, please ask yourself:
"So, how's that all working out?"
