The Fable of Ted

Fable: a short tale to teach a moral lesson.

Meet Ted. Ted is somewhat of an atypical fellow. In fact, there are probably not more than 10% of the population like Ted. You see, Ted has an unusual preference -- Ted doesn't drive. There is no real way of telling why Ted doesn't drive. He believes he was born with a predilection to ride his bike. Whatever it is, Ted doesn't even own a car. He rides his bike wherever he needs to go. And, really, if you think about it, that's kind of a good thing. He doesn't pollute like others. He doesn't consume resources like others. He doesn't have to pay for gasoline like others. He keeps in better shape than most. All in all, Ted's a pretty good guy.

Then comes the government's plan. They say that the price of gasoline is too high. To help offset the cost of gas, they are going to give a tax rebate to all citizens who drive to work. Well, Ted is a citizen and Ted certainly likes tax rebates and Ted goes to work, so Ted signs up to receive his. Except Ted receives a notice in the mail: "We're sorry, Ted, but you don't drive to work, so you don't qualify for the rebate."

Ted is outraged. "Don't drive to work, eh? What do they mean? Why are they discriminating against me simply because I ride my bike? Riding my bike is a good thing! I should be allowed to get that rebate!" Ted contacts his attorney. "They are depriving me of my right to a tax rebate. They are basing it on the traditional understanding of the term, 'drive'. It's wrong!" Ted's attorney is sympathetic. He goes to bat for Ted with the IRS.

"My client deserves the tax rebate. Your arbitrary use of the term 'drive' is bounded by unnecessary restrictions. Besides, Ted deserves the rebate. He pays taxes. He goes to work. He is a good citizen. The only reason he is being excluded from the rebate is unfair prejudice against bike riders."

The government disagrees. "The purpose of the tax rebate is to offset the cost of gasoline."

Not to be silenced, the attorney fires back. "Ted buys gas. He has a lawn mower. His wife has a car. He can buy gas whenever you want. You see, it's not about buying gas. Clearly it's an unfair, unfounded prejudice against bike riders based on an unclear, unsupportable definition of a single term, 'drive'. Besides, how Ted gets to work is none of your business. The Constitution considers Ted a citizen. As such, he is protected from a violation of his right to privacy as well as a rebate check."

Ted and his attorney would not be dissuaded. The government pointed out laws dealing with driving and showed how they differ from biking. They pointed out that it wasn't a matter of morality or prejudice, but simple definition of the term. They took it to the people who voted against Ted and his people. But to no avail.

Well, to make a long fable short, the California Supreme Court shot down the government's case. Sure, it was based on the longstanding and traditional definition of "drive", but times change and Ted should not be prevented from having the same legal standing as other drivers ... even if he didn't drive ...