Stoop and Scoop Law
Shalampax’s parliament is into its seventeenth consecutive day of debate on a proposed bill. If passed, the act will require that all dog-owners pick up and dispose of any poop that their dogs drop on the hallways and other public areas of Shalampax’s building. All other parliamentary business has been suspended until the current debate and, presumably, the eventual enacting of the bill, is complete.
There is little doubt that the, as it is called, “Stoop and Scoop the Frigging Poop Act” will eventually be passed in some form. The debate now revolves around the details.
What grade of plastic should be required in the bags that dog-owners use to pick up and transport the poop? How should the bags be fastened shut so as to minimize the odors emitted before the bags can be dropped down the garbage chute? How large should the fines be for people who fail to comply with the law? Should repeat offenders receive jail sentences? And so on.
Approximately one day was spent debating whether the law should include a “three strikes and you’re out” provision. Under this proposal, anyone who is convicted of failing to pick up his or her dog’s poop three times would be sentenced to death. Discussion of this proposal was halted when parliamentarians were reminded that Shalampax had taken a strong stand against the death penalty. There were many dissenting voices but, in the end, the majority agreed that this was probably not the best offense to use as a trigger for reversing Shalampax’s anti-death penalty stance.
During one of the many long breaks in parliament’s debate I was able to make contact with a Member of Parliament. She agreed to talk with me on the condition of anonymity.
I asked this Member of Parliament if, should the Stoop and Scoop the Frigging Poop Act become law, would parliament then repeal the existing law that strictly forbids all pet ownership in Shalampax?
She responded, “Are you out of your frickin’ mind? We barely have room for all of the people here and you want to allow pets? That’s just plain crazy!”
The debate continues.
I believe we call this a solution seeking a problem….but no doubt a good use of time in Parliament.
@David: Solution seeking a problem … whatever … basically, the role of our government is to pretend they are doing something without doing too much damage.