Jack has now been a part of our pack for about a year and a half. He’s obviously still a juvenile but is maturing.

It may have escaped your attention but last week the Chicago City Council passed a resolution that had national if not international importance. At ABC 7 Chicago Jessica D’Onofrio, Craig Wall and Eric Horng report:

CHICAGO (WLS) — A large crowd gathered in Daley Plaza after the Chicago City Council passed a controversial resolution calling for a cease-fire in Gaza on Wednesday.

Some also marched in the streets.

The council meeting became tense at times, with people in the audience shouting out and some being escorted from council chambers.

The council vote became dramatic, with Mayor Brandon Johnson casting the tie-breaking vote. Resolutions are typically passed quickly and without controversy, but the council spent months on this topic.

Alderwoman Rossana Rodriguez-Sanchez, who spearheaded the cease-fire resolution, hugged a colleague and wiped away a tear after the final vote.

“I mean, I am very overwhelmed emotionally. I’m very grateful for all the colleagues that supported the resolution,” she said.

It ended months of debate over the war in Gaza that caused great division in the city council.

That was on full display as the council debated the non-binding resolution for the third time. The only Jewish alderperson made a passionate plea against it.

“How do you support a revolution that allows a terrorist regime to stay in power, so that it can continue to attack the world’s only Jewish state?” said 50th Ward Alderwoman Debra Silverstein.

Mayor Brandon Johnson cleared the chambers and recessed for an hour after repeated disruptions by pro-Palestinian supporters in the gallery. When debate resumed, it was civil, but urgent.

Chicago is the largest city whose city council has called for a ceasefire in Gaza. If the ceasefire they’re calling for actually took place it would not mean an end to violence. It would mean that all of the violence would be perpetrated by Hamas and members of other radical Islamist groups.

Why do I say it has everything? My first reaction was that the resolution was an indication of the loss of influence of Jewish voters in Chicago’s politics. Can you imagine IDF civilian truck repairman Rahm Emanuel casting the deciding vote in support of this resolution? Me, neither.

I don’t think that issues like this are the concerns of city governments at all.

Also, keep in mind that calling for a ceasefire without calling for Hamas to surrender and disarm itself is materially genocidal. So, we have a city council taking a materially pro-genocide position.

Note, too, that the debate was disrupted by pro-Palestinian demonstrators. Why was that not insurrection?

The Trib’s editorial calls the resolution “hateful”.

The vote was largely along racial/ethnic lines.

In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal John H. Cochrane explains why, despite his what might generously be referred to as his flaws, many Americans continue to support Donald Trump:

Democrats and traditional Republicans are flummoxed. How are 4 in 10 of our fellow citizens ready to vote for Donald Trump? Democrats deplore Trump supporters as racists who must be saved from their ignorance. Traditional Republicans dream that some policy plan or another attack on Mr. Trump’s character might sway his voters.

We ought to listen instead. What motivates Trump supporters? Simple: They want their country back.

They might have lost a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan. What was the sacrifice for? In the botched peace and withdrawal, they concluded that the foreign-policy elite don’t know what they’re doing. They are hesitant about Ukraine, Iran and Taiwan because the same crew is in charge. They’ll back an America that fights to win, but they don’t want their sons and daughters to die for America only to lose slowly.

In the 2007-08 financial crisis, they lost a house, a job or a business. They learned that the people in charge of the financial system don’t know what they’re doing. ObamaCare sent them a health-insurance card that doesn’t work well when they get sick. They wonder: Do any of the policy wonks who promote this stuff actually use it themselves? They looked at Hillary Clinton and saw her insincerity, her nonprofit collecting millions, the way she said Trump supporters belong in a “basket of deplorables.” They gambled on Mr. Trump.

Then the establishment blew up. They saw the Federal Bureau of Investigation harass Mr. Trump’s appointees, much of official Washington fashion itself “the resistance,” the Russia-collusion hoax, years of pointless investigations.

In 2020 Covid hit. Trump supporters initially went along, trusting institutions. But the pandemic soon exposed the politicized incompetence of the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the scientific establishment. Lockdowns destroyed lives. Officials made up rules and ramped up censorship. Inquiries about whether the virus came from a lab leak, or anything negative about masks or vaccines, became “misinformation” subject to censorship. Trump supporters saw media, tech companies and national-security bigwigs suppress the news of the Hunter Biden laptop just in time for the election.

When schools went remote, parents found out what was actually going on inside the classrooms. Teachers were coaching students to hate themselves, their country and their religious traditions and sexualizing young children. The FBI treated angry parents as domestic terrorists. After Oct. 7, Trump supporters learned that universities are incompetent and politicized and disdain people like them. They saw that once-trusted mainstream-media outlets had become political advocates long ago.

Voters see the chaos of a dysfunctional immigration system spill into their neighborhoods. They see crime overwhelming and shutting down cities where officials refuse to enforce laws. They see the homeless invading public spaces.

They aren’t proud of Mr. Trump’s actions after the 2020 election. But 91 felony counts, some brought by prosecutors who campaigned on a promise to get Mr. Trump, and most unrelated to the election? Bonnie and Clyde didn’t have this much legal trouble! And now disqualifying Mr. Trump from the ballot? “Destroy democracy to save democracy” is no longer a joke. The existence of the deep state seems to be confirmed with every outrage.

Why I continue to oppose Trump and will not vote for him is explained by a passage from the New Testament, Matthew 7:18:

A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

I do not believe that Mr. Trump is a good man. Furthermore he does not have the personal skills or understanding of the law and the federal government to accomplish even what his supporters reasonably want. I don’t believe that any good can come from a second Trump term.

Although he doesn’t say it outright James Joyner’s recent post strongly suggests, through his reference to an episode of The West Wing, that he finds the U. S. response to continuing attacks by what are blithely referred to as “militant groups” in the Middle East inadequate. He sounds more fatigued than anything else.

My own reaction is that I’m skeptical that it’s a just use of military force. For such to be just it must:

• Have a just objective
• Use just means
• Have a just authority

Retaliation against those who killed American soldiers in Jordan last week would be just but retaliation against people who had nothing to do with those deaths would not. The large number of targets strongly suggests it is not a just retaliation. The means are just enough.

But President Biden did not seek Congressional approval which he would need to have done to have a just authority for his actions. Consequently, I’m skeptical the actions are just and echo James’s conclusion:

So the tiresome game of tit for tat continues.

Well, I’ll say this about John Judis. He doesn’t mince words. Today John B. Judis has a highly negative post about President Biden’s foreign policy accomplishments at Compact. Here’s the summary:

Success in foreign policy can be gauged by whether an administration can see beyond immediate events and anticipate and head off trouble before it arises. By that measure, the Biden administration has been an abysmal failure.

and I agree with Mr. Judis’s assessment of why the Biden foreign policy has failed:

The misjudgments of the Biden administration and the wider establishment may have also stemmed from adherence to a foreign-policy idealism, mixed with tough-guy hawkishness that has gotten the United States in trouble before. The administration has portrayed itself as the defender of democracy against autocracy and of “a rules-based order [against] one governed by brute force,” but the conflicts of nations continue to defy these antinomies.

although I’m not in complete agreement with his point by point analyses. He goes into some depth on how President Biden has failed in each of the following cases:

• Negotiating a new treaty with Iran
• Withdrawing from Afghanistan
• The war in Ukraine
• Israel’s war in Gaza

which is a succinct explanation of why President Biden won’t be running for re-election on the basis of his foreign policy accomplishments. Fortunately for him, Americans don’t much care about foreign policy.

Domestically, President Biden has successfully gotten quite a bit of legislation enacted and, IMO his most important accomplishment, he concluded the federal declaration of the COVID-19 epidemic. His legislation reminds me more than anything else of the old wisecrack about a wife being a person who supports you through the troubles you would never have had if you hadn’t been married. Considering that 80% of American households consider themselves worse off now than pre-COVID it will be hard for President Biden to run on his domestic record.

All of which explains why he’s running on the platform of not being Donald Trump. That’s a pretty low bar. 330 million Americans can say the same thing.

Nearly every day I encounter a serious news or opinion piece that strikes me as unintentionally funny. This morning it was this piece by Erin Banco at Politico with the caption “US intelligence officials estimate Tehran does not have full control of its proxy groups”:

Intelligence officials have calculated that Tehran does not have full control over its proxy groups in the Middle East, including those responsible for attacking and killing U.S. troops in recent weeks, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The Quds Force — an elite branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps — is responsible for sending weapons and military advisers as well as intelligence to support militias in Iraq and Syria as well as the Houthis in Yemen. The groups have varying ambitions and agendas, which sometimes overlap, but Tehran does not appear to have complete authority over their operational decision-making, the officials said.

Why funny? A number of reasons. First, you don’t need an expert to tell you that. Anyone with even a casual familiarity with the history and societies of the Middle East could tell you that. It’s one of the region’s problems. The Ottoman had central control. Arab tribes do not. That’s why the Ottoman ruled the Arabs for most of the last millennium.

And it also confirms what I’ve been saying around here. Deterrence is extremely difficult in the Middle East. When you are attacked by Group A, if you retaliate against Group A it doesn’t deter Group B. And, worse, when you are attacked by Group A, if you retaliate against Group B, it definitely doesn’t deter Group A. It may even encourage them. That these groups are composed of irregulars adds an additional layer of complexity.

My view is somewhat different from the conventional one. Irregulars are criminals and should be treated as criminals. They don’t fall under the laws of war. The people supporting such criminals aren’t protected under the laws of war.

This may be controversial but I think that when an actual country is providing support to irregulars it falls into a gray area in the laws of war. I recognize we do it, too, but I believe that’s an error on our part.

My first preference would be to avoid the fractious Middle East, leaving it to countries that are more ruthless and less scrupulous than we are but, obviously, that ship has sailed. Given that reality, I think we should notify Iran that we consider criminal acts supported by Tehran to be acts of war against the United States and that they’re forfeiting any protection under the laws of war by supporting such groups. That, undoubtedly, is too bellicose. What are the alternatives when you can’t avoid the situation, you are under attack, no counter-attack will be an effective deterrent, and an effective deterrent is too bellicose?

You might find former CPS CEO Paul Vallas’s comments at Illinois Policy as interesting as I did:

When Chicago Public Schools announced 77,000 technology devices worth over $23 million went missing during the 2021-2022 school year, the response from Chicago Teachers Union leadership was status quo: a call for more funding.

There wasn’t a condemnation for stolen property. There wasn’t a call for student, teacher or school accountability. Their solution was for each of CPS’ 646 schools to get a technology coordinator to safeguard these devices.

That would require spending $49.5 million in salary and benefits to hire another 468 technology coordinators, based on the averages for the existing 178 CPS tech folks.

That’s CTU math: save $23 million by spending $49.5 million.

Here’s the CPS’s scorecard:

The CTU seems to believe it’s impossible to improve student outcomes unless the entire city’s treasury is funneled into the schools. And in this, they have an ally in the mayor, who in his first six months has capitulated to the CTU to the tune of a $271 million infusion for CTU-dominated schools – consisting of a $226 million windfall from the tax increment financing surplus and the city absorbing an additional $45 million in school district pension costs.

With the new teachers contract expiring next summer, the CTU appears poised to insist on even more. The last contract cost the school district a staggering $1.5 billion and made CPS teachers among the highest-paid big district teachers in the nation. Yet it did not extend the school day or year by a single minute. It also failed to prevent the union from engaging in three work stoppages and shutting down the school campuses for 77 straight weeks, with devastating consequences.

CTU President Stacy Davis Gates repeats tired rhetoric, claiming the driving force behind negotiations on a new contract is “inequity and injustice that Black and Brown students and their families experience in this city.” Davis Gates is demanding smaller class sizes, more bilingual support staff to serve asylum-seekers’ children and building time into the school day for teachers to collaborate. In other words, less instructional time and higher salaries.

Full-time positions in CPS increased by 18.7% in the past three years, with 45,159 full-time positions budgeted for 2024, despite enrollment declines. The district now has one full-time employee for every seven student and one teacher for every 15 students.

Just to place all of that in some context there is no straight line relationship between spending per student or students per classroom and student achievement. Sure, there are some cases when spending more money or reducing class size will improve outcomes but Chicago is not one of those cases and spending increases and reducing classroom size has diminishing returns to scale anyway.

My thoughts on improving the Chicago Public Schools don’t comport perfectly with Mr. Vallas’s. For example, I think that the CPS would be better off if it were divided into multiple districts. It’s way beyond the point where there are increasing efficiencies with scale. And don’t even get me started on the massive injustice of Chicagoans paying the entire freight for the cushy retirements of Chicago teachers while paying for the retirements of the whole state’s retired teachers as well.

I think that Gustav Gressel of he European Center for Foreign Relations is ignoring some basic things in his three scenarios (positive, intermediate, and negative) for the war in Ukraine. If you’re interested in his scenarios go to the post.

The first thing he’s ignoring is that the reason “the West” isn’t supplying the Ukrainians as fast as he and the Ukrainians want is not because they’re being stingy but because they can’t. Both the United States and Europe have been deindustrializing so must for the last 30 years that we don’t have the ability to maintain the stocks required for our own defense and produce as many more weapons as the Ukrainians want.

The second thing is that there is a drastic mismatch among U. S. military doctrine, the Ukraine’s flag officer corps, and its troops which cannot be remedied in the near term. Ukrainian military doctrine remains influenced by Russian military doctrine which could hardly be more different from ours (think: human wave tactics). Ukraine has a dwindling supply of young men to conscript so it’s conscripting older men and, because of its military doctrine, sending them into a meat grinder. This does not look like the path to victory for Ukraine.

Given enough time we could cultivate a new Ukrainian flag officer corps with different military doctrines and more young Ukrainian men could be produced. As Lord Keynes put it, in the long run we’re all dead.

Find more statistics at Statista

I found Rainer Zitelmann’s post at FEE Stories, questioning narratives in the United States about income inequality strangely crabbed. Here’s the core of it:

f a thesis is repeated hundreds of times, many people believe it; if it is repeated millions of times, hardly anyone doubts it. The United States in particular is repeatedly cited as an example of how the “gap between rich and poor” is constantly widening. But two experts from the Office of Tax Analysis at the U.S. Treasury Department and the U.S. Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation have now demonstrated in an almost 50-page essay in the renowned Journal of Political Economy that this thesis is simply not true.

The left-wing French economist Thomas Piketty, who is regarded as the principal proponent of the thesis, calculated that the income share of the top one percent of the wealthiest Americans has more than doubled since 1962. Among other things, he uses this to justify calls for taxes on the rich to be raised as high 90 percent and for all young people to be “gifted” a lump-sum of 120,000 euros in start-up money from the state.

The two authors come up with a figure that sounds far less dramatic. The top one percent’s share of pre-tax income in the United States increased from 11.1 percent (1962) to 13.8 percent (2019), i.e. by 2.7 percentage points. However, after taxes and transfer payments are taken into account, the increase was only 0.2 percentage points (from 8.6 to 8.8 percent).

I don’t believe that the question of income inequality can be discussed intelligently without considering what sort of country we want.

What has happened over the last 50 years is that the aggregate income of people in the top quintile of income earners has risen while those of other quintiles has fallen. If you want a country in which 20% of the people pay the taxes that allow the lowest 20% to receive government benefits that keep them out of dire poverty while the 60% in the middle struggle and the taxes of that top 20% are kept low by issuing ourselves credit, you’re in the right country. That is a country of profound economic and ultimately social and political inequality. Since it’s a positive feedback system, it also cannot work.

That such a large percent of those in that top 20% of income earners are government employees of one form or another makes it just all that much less workable. So, for example, a police officer or fire fighter married to a teacher may well be in that top 20% of income earners. Remember, too, that about half of all healthcare spending comes from government spending. It’s just not a workable system and it would collapse entirely without the ever-rising public debt that keeps it afloat.

I also know that it’s a lot harder for ordinary, hard-working people in the private sector to own houses, buy cars, or send their kids to college than it used to be. Where we’re headed is not really the United States as it has been and an increasing number of Americans don’t like the direction in which we’re heading.