On May 2, Spirit Airlines ceased operations after it failed to get the US government to bail it out of the latest in a series of untenable situations — at least two of which the US government put it in to begin with.

As of 2023, Spirit was the seventh largest air passenger carrier in North America, and largest in the “ultra-low cost” category.

Like many businesses, Spirit had taken some hard knocks during the COVID-19 panic, and like many businesses it had availed itself of government grants and loans to stay afloat. By way of recovery, the company explored possible mergers, first with Frontier and then with JetBlue.

The former deal didn’t work out. The latter, which would have made the combined companies the fifth largest US airline, worked out just fine … until the US Department of Justice sued, predicting “higher fares, fewer seats, and harm [to] millions of consumers.” A judge agreed.

Spirit’s stock price tanked. The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection twice in two years, reducing the size of its fleet and the number of people it employed in a desperate race to achieve solvency and remain in business. All because the US government decided it, rather than the market, knew what the market needed.

Then, on February 28, the US regime attacked Iran — and, by way of an attendant massive increase in fuel prices, attacked Spirit Airlines yet a second time. That attack proved fatal.

Maybe Spirit would have failed even absent the massive jet fuel price increases.

Perhaps the proposed merger with JetBlue would have dragged that airline down, too, instead of profitably folding Spirit’s assets into a more efficient operating environment.

And maybe all of Ted Bundy’s victims were mere moments away from choosing suicide when he strangled them to death instead.

We’ll never know, will we?

What we do know is that the US government’s murder of Spirit Airlines will almost certainly result in (checks notes) “higher fares, fewer seats, and harm [to] millions of consumers.”

Airlines come and airlines go. Some of the brands I grew up with — Pan Am, TWA, Northwest — have gone under or merged with others in the 21st century alone.

It’s not always as obvious that government was behind those disappearances as it is responsible for the death of Spirit, but you can always count on government to reduce your choices and increase your costs — while claiming to do the opposite.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Today’s decision by this illegitimate Supreme Court majority strikes a blow against the Voting Rights Act,” US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) thundered. It is “designed to undermine the ability of communities of color all over this country to elect their candidate of choice.”

File under “every accusation is a confession.”

SCOTUS’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais quashed the argument that Louisiana is not just permitted, but required, to gerrymander congressional districts for the purpose of ensuring that candidates from — and claiming to collectively represent because REASONS — particular racial groups are nearly guaranteed to win election. Good for the court.

Jeffries is big mad. Why?

His criticism assumes, absent any rational basis, that all members of any “community of color” can, will, and must choose to support and vote for ONLY candidates from that “community.” And it assumes, again absent any rational basis, that voters who are not members of that “community” can, will, and must choose to support and vote ONLY for candidates who aren’t part of said “community.”

That view is no different its essence than claims that black people — ALL black people — prefer fried chicken and watermelon for lunch between the crack binges they go on right after picking up their welfare checks. And that white people —  ALL white people — keep robes, hoods, and nooses hanging in their closets to haul out for entertainment purposes between meals of white bread and cheap domestic beer with methamphetamine chasers.

Jeffries is, in other words, openly and virulently racist.

The Fifteenth Amendment to the US Constitution provides that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

The right to vote does not imply any guarantee of Pantone Matching System [TM] closeness in skin tone between the candidates elected and the voting majorities in districts. Nor should it.

If you’re voting on the basis of skin color, You. Are. A. Racist.

If you choose to vote, there are many other things to base your vote on than the candidates’ races, and almost all of those things are better criteria.

What are the candidates’ positions on the policy issues you care about?

Are the candidates of good moral fiber?

Are the candidates upstanding and contributing members of the whole district “community” rather than just beholden to one racial subgroup of that community?

“Representative government” is difficult if not impossible even with no racism involved. Assuming that all people of a particular sex, occupation, ZIP code, etc. have similar interests or needs is just as irrational as basing such assumptions on race.

I suspect there are still quite a few racists among us, although thankfully fewer than there used to be.

But if we’re going to engage in the charade of “representative government” (I consider that a myth and a fantasy), we shouldn’t cater to them by drawing districts to  enshrine their views in that system.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

In the wake of Cole Tomas Allen’s alleged attempt to assassinate US president Donald Trump and/or other political officials, journalists, and general-purpose celebrities come the usual calls for “gun control” because that’s just how things work.

My preferred argument against such nonsense leans hard on morality (it’s evil to infringe on the unalienable human right to self-defense) with a chaser of overall practicality (more than 100 million Americans own several hundred million guns and won’t be giving them up without a fight you do NOT want to witness).

However, it occasionally it seems worthwhile to change lanes and instead examine just how well “gun control” actually works in practice.  This is one of those times.

On April 21, Allen boarded an Amtrak train in Los Angeles, California.

California generally, and Los Angeles specifically,  have some of the strictest “gun control” laws on the books, and Amtrak only allows firearms to be carried in locked, checked baggage, with prior written notice/declaration, none of which conditions Allen complied with.

After switching trains in Chicago, IL, he arrived in Washington, DC, on April 24 and checked into the Washington Hilton. Like California, Illinois and the District of Columbia have strict “gun control” laws on the books, none of which Allen complied with.  The Hilton forbids firearms on its premises other than those carried by “law enforcement personnel.” Allen ignored that rule.

The following day, carrying the 12-gauge shotgun and .38-caliber pistol he’d brought with him over a trip spanning more than 2,000 miles in, from, and through various “gun control” zones, he attempted to charge  a security checkpoint and reach the hotel’s International Ballroom, intending violence.

“Gun control” had chance after chance after chance to prove it could thwart Allen’s plans.

And. It. Didn’t.

Whoa … violent criminals don’t obey “gun control” laws and private venue gun rules any more than they obey other kinds of laws and rules? Whodathunkit?

It’s not that the laws and rules aren’t adequately enforced. The only way to reliably prevent Allen from traveling from LA to DC with guns would have been to force him to travel on foot and buck naked … after which he’d have almost certainly been able to buy a gun on the street if he wanted one.

“Gun control” laws aren’t just evil and impractical, they’re stump-stupid.  As a solution to the violence of criminals they make about as much sense as a gaudy new White House ballroom.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY