What we know Thomas Jefferson said

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

-- attributed to Thomas Jefferson

Whether he actually said that or not is unknown. We do know, however, Thomas Jefferson in 1802 wrote to Thomas Cooper a subtly more profound statement.

If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy.

-- Thomas Jefferson (reference)

Thomas Cooper, like Thomas Jefferson, was a politician and academic. The "we" to which Mr. Jefferson refers, then, are those with political power. Continuing with his logic while linking back to the attribution, it is imperative we are diligent in electing officials who hold, and will act in support of, our beliefs. Unfortunately, at least from my experience, there are too few individuals running for office so inclined.

Reference

TITLE: To Thomas Cooper.

EDITION: Washington ed. iv, 453.

EDITION: Ford ed., viii, 178.

PLACE: Washington
DATE: 1802

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/foley-page?id=JCE2358

Foodie’s Secret - Addendum

S. Pellegrino's annual "World's 50 Best Restaurants" list was released yesterday. I noticed Chicago, New York and even Yountville, California among the eight restaurants on the list of those located in the United States. Surely it must have been an oversight for none of Wichita’s “unique and gourmet restaurants” to be included!


Reference: http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/04/27/fifty.best.restaurants/index.html

Carrying On

I traveled this week. Both flights we were delayed as people boarding in the last groups brought on luggage for which there was no overhead storage space. As the people last to board are disproportionately seated in the back of the airplane, it takes inordinately more time to transfer the luggage up to the crew at the front door to be checked. One airline, Spirit, has incentivized passengers not to carry on their luggage. For this sensible move, the airline is being vilified. New York Senator Charles Schumer stated "Airline passengers have always had the right to bring a carry-on bag without having to worry about getting nickeled and dimed by an airline company" [reference a)]. Since when did a carry-on bag become a right? Let alone that it become one for which no charge is associated? If an airline prohibited me from carrying on my laptop, I would not fly on them. If enough people took the same position, the airline would change its policy. A solution without the government's involvement. By the way, Spirit is not going to charge for laptops or personal items or strollers or cameras or diaper bags or reading materials or any other personal item that is fitted under the seat [reference b)].

Why would the federal government insert itself into something for which it is unnecessary and at best a stretch of the intent of the Constitution's Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3)? I suggest there are several answers. First - power. They do because they can and sometimes it makes our so-called leaders feel good they are doing what they think is good for us. Eroding the power of the people on minor matters such as this allows for further erosion down the road on items we would otherwise find unacceptable. Second - elitism. Whether they have read The Republic or not, I suspect they see themselves as The Guardians, the elite wise enough to make the appropriate decisions the masses are unable to make. Third and most importantly - money. The big bad airlines, or at least Spirit, has found a way to charge the consumer without giving a cut to the federal government. While it may be appropriate for the Secretary of the Treasury not to pay all the taxes he owes - tax evasion, it seems unacceptable for Spirit to use the regulations and legally not pay taxes on a source of income - tax avoidance. Here is what I believe is the root of the matter. In a revision to a federal rule written in January, airlines can exclude from their taxes fees earned on things deemed unessential to air travel [reference c)]. Senator Schumer suspects Spirit will lower their ticket price by the cost of the bag fees, and only pay taxes on the remainder. While I doubt Spirit will do that, I applaud them if they do. Why did the government revise the rule if it did not want the airlines to act upon it? If the government deems it is necessary to intervene, then why not simplify the tax code or require all fees and taxes be included in the price of a ticket so consumers can compare our flight options? Oh, I forgot, I am not a Guardians, therefore I can not be expected to understand the nuances and wisdom of the government's direction.

Senators Schumer (D, NY), Menendez (D, NJ), and Cardin (D, MD) have said they will pursue whatever measure works best if airlines do not relent [reference c)]. The bully pulpit seems to work as American, Delta, JetBlue, United, and US Airways have agreed not to follow Spirit's lead [reference d)] and consequently decrease the number of checked bags and increase the delays and commotion on our flights.

References:

a) http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/chuck_to_carry_on_vs_bag_fee_JN54gm5XPohAVqcxKCLenJ#ixzz0m8ENbkPX

b) http://www.spiritair.com/Policiesbags.aspx#CarryOnBag

c) http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/04/schumer-offers-bill-to-bag-car.html#ixzz0m8Kwi6o

d) http://www.newser.com/story/86345/5-airlines-agree-not-to-charge-fee-for-carry-on-bags.html

Foodies' Secret?

I suspect with some pride, my sister recently sent me an article about the restaurant selections in my home town of Wichita, Kansas. The 14 April 2010 article, Wichita Named "Best Kept Secret" For Foodies, posted on http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/90901159.html states: "A nationwide study reveals Wichita as a 'best kept secret' when it comes to food. Wichita was named among ten top cities for foodies. The study based its findings on unique and gourmet restaurants."

Home town pride is generally a good thing. The population in Wichita probably eats out more often than in other cities and supply meets the demand. The entrepreneurial spirit that created White Castle and Pizza Hut remains alive. My favorite Cal-Mex chain restaurant, On the Border, was in Wichita well before it came to the Chicago area. Nonetheless, the survey results surprise me and must be taken in the context of the size of the cities. There are far more unique and gourmet restaurants in Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, Seattle, and even Kansas City than there are in Wichita. The home town pride must be tempered with reality. While you can get good food in Wichita, generally speaking the food has the characteristics associated with Kansas and it residents: solid, safe, and good-value. Like Kansas though, there is nothing that particularly stands out for which people will travel there (e.g., such as in Seattle you must eat salmon, in New Orleans you must eat the barbeque shrimp). Other than Scotch and Sirloin, can one even get a great steak?

The article did bring back memories of places I have frequented that are no longer in Wichita. Amarillo Grill, for example, even though it was Texan in both its name and flavoring (mesquite) was always a place I greatly enjoyed. I have yet to find a Mexican restaurant in the northwest suburbs of Chicago that favorably compares to several restaurants in Wichita, but only Felipe's is still around. Grandy's was a fast, inexpensive, tasty way to clog my arteries. Well, at least Nu-Way remains.

101 Dalmatians

Donna moderated my early reaction to The 101 Dalmatians Musical. As she points out it is unfair to evaluate it against theatrical performances intended for adult audiences. Instead, consider it for what it is, a musical targeted for children – young children. It was better than watching Sesame Street on television. It conveyed the same politically correct lessons, but with more scene changes and live music. Cruella De Vil’s sultry Hot Like Me was incongruent with being children’s fare, but was not so much so to be completely out of place. Dinner at Rosebud was good, the real Dalmatians used sparingly throughout the play were cute, and time away from it all with my wife is always enjoyable, but the show was not my cup of tea.

Get your act together California

Admittedly it is a strange year in California. Tornado warnings in Los Angeles are an infrequent occurrence, yet it happened this week. Will someone please explain to me why Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger thinks the federal government owes California $6.9 billion? The logic I have heard is that since, he claims, Californians send more to the federal government than they receive back they are owed the money? Even if I accept the disputed claim and ignore the benefits all citizens of the country receive (e.g., defense of the nation, common currency), what is the basis of the argument? Where does it say we are to receive what we pay in? If that were the case, where is my money? Why is there a progressive income tax? Yes, I understand California has incurred a huge deficit and seems unable to take action to control spending or increase state revenues. Yes, I understand it is possible the federal government may not be reimbursing the state as it is obligated to do. Yes, I understand California by itself is one of the world's largest economies and bankruptcy threatens its foundation and would have adverse impacts on the nation. I also understand forty-five other states are facing a budget shortfall this year. For all states, I say, yes, the federal government should be held accountable to pay what it is committed to pay. Beyond that, though, I urge we accept that the nation, not just the states and local governments, are in financial crisis. We cannot afford to do what we do. Furthermore it is going to get worse, because when demand (technically the quantity demanded) starts to increase inflation will accompany it, the weakened dollar will not be financed by the foreign governments indefinitely, and interest rates will rise. The state and local government budget projections I see are based on the false assumption the cost of our debt (financed at artificially low short term rates) will remain constant. It cannot. There are no bailouts for any of us, and when political expediency grants them it is simply reallocating from, and probably shrinking, the pie. Our objectives must be to stabilize (e.g., do not spend more than you make) and then enlarge the economic pie.

Reference:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0120/Schwarzenegger-goes-to-Washington-to-collect-6.9-billion

Let us at least agree on the problems

I believe it is fair to assume there can be multiple, legitimate opinions on how to address a problem. The first step to assessing those opinions and options, is to define the problem. As a nation, though, we do not consistently define the problems to be addressed, which permits the politically expedient approach of blaming the other guy or taking statements or acts out of context. I am compelled to write this today after two events yesterday that I find frustrating. First, the politicians and pundits on every side provided analysis of Scott Brown's victory in the special Senate election in Massachusetts. What I learned yesterday is that the other guy is wrong and whatever the speaker favors has been endorsed. The other event I found frustrating yesterday was the congressional hearing before the House Armed Services Committee on the Fort Hood shootings. Oh come on, how can we expect to solve the problem if we do not acknowledge it was an act of terrorism? I recognize some may argue we do not know that it was an act of terrorism, that it may have simply been an act by a crazed individual and the word terrorism is inflammatory.

How is terrorism defined? Visual Thesaurus defines the term as follows:

• the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear; or
• the use of extreme fear in order to coerce people (especially for political reasons).

While the act was committed on a military base, the targets were known to be unarmed and not positioned for military action, especially by a member of their own force, effectively they were civilians. In conjunction with statements by the shooter, these definitions appear to be satisfied. If one is unwilling to accept that, I offer that the acts were intended to terrorize the victims and a broader population and therefore it was an act of terrorism.

Why will we not admit the obvious? Even President Obama acknowledged the effort to blow up the Northwestern flight to Detroit on Christmas Day was an "act of war", but he declined to call it a terrorist act and endorsed the position of treating the person who committed the "act of war" as a civilian with all associated privileges. What???

You may disagree with my position that the Fourth World War is underway, but can we at least agree the problems need to be defined, evaluated, discussed, communicated, and action taken? This seems such a simple proposition, why do we not demand it?