Is the difference race, media, community?

Rioting occurred in Ferguson, Missouri after Michael Brown was shot by police. Rioting occurred in Baltimore, Maryland after Freddie Gray died in police custody. Yet, when John Paul Quintero was fatally shot allegedly when his hands up were up and his back was towards the Wichita, Kansas police (reference), there was no public outcry. Why?

Reference: Potter, Tim. "Lawyer: Man Had Hands up When Fatally Shot." The Wichita Eagle 30 May 2015: 1A+. Print.

Among the Beautiful People

Thursday evening after work, I went with two colleagues to Javier’s Cantina and Grill at Crystal Grove in Newport Beach, California (http://javiers-cantina.com/). I am not saying I am cheap, but I am not one to spend four dollars for valet parking when there is free parking forty feet away. Biologists say cars are inanimate, yet I sensed my rental Toyota Corolla would feel inadequate if they positioned it next to the Phantom Drophead Coupé in the valet parking. The maitre d' pleasantly surprised me by allowing us to eat at the restaurant. I am sure I had nothing to do with our getting in. Perhaps he heard the hint of European accent in Sandy’s voice. Maybe the much younger Megan was sufficiently hip, in an Illinois way. Regardless, he chose to seat us instead of directing us to Taco Bell. Thankfully I did not blind anyone with the sun reflecting off my milky pale skin. Yes, I had on a long sleeved shirt, but if I sat at a different angle my balding head could be dangerous. I did not see a sign posted with the dress code but I am confident my party was the only one in which no one had plastic surgery. I suspect Javier’s selected us for an outreach program to those less fortunate in the community. The food was good and the atmosphere was relaxing, in an awkward way. As for the other clientele, at least physically, some of the beautiful people really are beautiful.

Economic education and politics

Given the excessive partisanship in the United States today, I look for the opportunity to focus on points of agreement - there are many - instead of the constant barrage from all sides on points of disagreement. It seems as though The New York Times is a channel of the "progressive" political perspective. I hoped the 07 June 2010 article by Patrick McGeehan, Does Studying Economics Make You More Republican?, based on the Federal Reserve Bank of New York study Is Economics Coursework, or Majoring in Economics, Associated with Different Civic Behaviors?, would raise another point of agreement. Unfortunately as the Fed's study is being popularized by commentators, beginning with Mr.McGeehan, with characterizations of Republicans and Democrats leading to more divisiveness. Our political discourse seems to be based on the model that one defines a caricature of the opposing perspective and then attacks the caricature in hopes of discrediting those who do not hold your position. This approach seems prevalent regardless of political perspective. This is particularly frustrating given the fiscal irresponsibility of both major political parties. While there is a difference in velocity, both political parties have been directing the country toward financial disaster through recklessly wasteful spending. I am fortunate not to know any political ideologues personally (albeit some occasionally display such characteristics from time to time) which perhaps explains why I know no one who is presently satisfied with any political party. If my experience is representative, then why is our political environment so partisan?

My area of emphasis in my undergraduate studies was in macroeconomics. The Economics faculty tended to be monetarists, whereas most universities at the time tended to tilt towards forms of Keynesianism. I no longer have the familiarity to assess whether the schools (Florida Atlantic, Nebraska-Lincoln, North Carolina, and Purdue) from which the Fed's study was based were from a particular school of thought. I suspect there is a positive correlation, influencing the outcomes.

References:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/does-studying-economics-make-you-more-republican/
http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr450.pdf

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

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?