The editors of the Wall Street Journal scoff at Chicago Mayor Johnson’s proposal for ending “food deserts” on the South and West Sides:

Has Mr. Johnson considered why the stores are closing? In 2016 then-mayor Rahm Emanuel stood beside Whole Foods Co. CEO Walter Robb to celebrate the opening of the new store in Chicago’s Englewood neighborhood. The two cheered greater access to fresh fruit and vegetables and a healthy anchor for the community. By 2022 it had closed.

The city had subsidized the store with $11 million in tax financing, according to local PBS news station WTTW. But that wasn’t enough. After the closing in 2022, Whole Foods said the company “regularly evaluate(s) the performance and growth potential of each of our stores” in order to “position Whole Foods Market for long-term success.”

Walmart closed four stores in Chicago because they were losing tens of millions of dollars a year, and CEO Doug McMillon said annual losses had doubled in the past five years.

The problem isn’t corporate racism. It’s crime. In 2022 Chicago reported 54,000 thefts and a mere 4% resulted in an arrest. Of the 8,730 retail thefts, there were 1,450 arrests, or less than 17%, according to Wirepoints and the Chicago city data portal.

Chicago’s arrest rate for retail theft fell to 16.6% in 2022 from 42.5% in 2019. Retailers say there is little they can do when groups of people walk into their stores, grab arm-loads of merchandise and walk out with impunity.

No doubt Chicago’s government will bring its legendary efficiency to the grocery business, though we hope it does better than it does running the failure factories that are its public schools. But we wonder what Mr. Johnson will do to prevent theft at his government grocery chain. Will he consider the losses to be merely the cost of doing good socialist business?

The answer, of course, is in the statistics they produce above. When the city’s crime resolution rate is as low as it is, it isn’t providing the security that is its most basic mission. Mayor Johnson’s stores won’t be stores at all. They’ll be empty shelves with occasional deliveries that are bought and/or looted quicker than they can be replaced.

On the talking heads programs this morning nearly every individual interviewed on every network to which I listened was asked whether New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez should resign in the wake of his having been charged with illegal corruption. Nearly every one regardless of political party said he should resign. The more discreet said something along the lines of “he should consider very carefully…” which I interpreted as a way of saying he should resign without actually saying as much.

I found it amusing in a perverse sort of way. They all knew he was corrupt. Now they’re just doing damage control for a simple reason: if every corrupt senator were convicted or otherwise left office, you couldn’t get a bridge game together let alone do what is laughingly referred to as “the people’s business”. Sen. Menendez just violated what is called the “Goldilocks rule”.

My own preference would be that only constituents should be able to lobby senators and representatives. Foreign governments and companies are by definition not constituents. Violation of that rule should be grounds for removal.

Update

In the interest of fairness I think that what Justice Thomas has been doing may not be illegal or technically unethical but it is corrupt. If Supreme Court Justices want to lead “lifestyles of the rich and famous”, they should resign from the court and get jobs working for big law firms.

I’m going to confess that I do not have the time, ambition, or patience to read the annual reports of General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis. The profits of those three companies are being reported as having been $250 billion. When you dig a little deeper, as here at the Economic Policy Institute, that turns out to have been the profits over 10 years or $25 billion/year. When you take into count the capitalization of the three companies (Ford $50 billion, GM $45 billion, Stellantis $57 billion) which is $152 billion, that doesn’t seem quite so outrageous.

I’m not sure how they’re defining profits but let’s take them at face value. Ford’s cash on hand is $43 billion, GM’s $33 billion, Stellantis’s $54 billion. Where did the rest of the money go? It wasn’t paid out in dividends, especially not at GM. Executive compensation?

I sympathize with the hourly workers. I can understand how they think they’ve been screwed. And I think that top management is being paid too much. The Big Three are not thriving companies as their declining market shares illustrate. But I really don’t see how the companies can afford to spend twice as much to their hourly employees as they’re paying now. That’s how much the union’s demands come to. Perhaps someone can explain it to me.

Are they just preparing for a greatly reduced membership?

At Chicago’s Lyric Opera season tickets come in series. The various series differ somewhat in the operas included and the day of the week on which they are performed. Since I began subscribing to season tickets to Lyric Opera, now more than 40 years ago, I have subscribed to the same series. As it works out the series to which I’ve subscribed typically includes the opening night of the season.

Forty years ago the season opening of Lyric Opera was much different than it is now. Men wore suits or tuxedos. Women wore formal gowns, frequently having their hair and even makeup done for the occasion. Some wore full length furs. Last night I saw one man wearing a tuxedo (other than those playing in the orchestra) and perhaps half a dozen women wearing formal gowns, a few others wearing eveningwear. Last night garb ranged from the formal to completely informal—jeans and T-shirts. Fortunately, I saw no gym shorts and hoodies.

I won’t attribute any explanations to the change. It does seem less important and even less festive now.

The opera starting the Lyric season this year was Richard Wagner’s Der Fliegende Höllander, The Flying Dutchman. The title role was sung by Polish bass-baritone Tomasz Konieczny, Senta was sung by Tamara Wilson. The libretto is based on a superstition dating from the 18th or, possibly, the 17th century of a phantom ship sighted by sailors from the North Atlantic all the way to Borneo. The last sighting of the Dutchman was during World War II. It is viewed as an omen of impending doom.

Although I was not initially impressed by either principal’s voice, they did grow on me as the opera went on. BTW Dutchman is, mercifully, one of Wagner’s shorter operas, a mere two hours and twenty minutes, frequently performed as last night without intermission. I was less impressed by the supporting singers but the chorus was fantastic.

Wagner’s music is, of course, stupendous.

I detested the physical production. It consists of a single very drab set which, according to the director’s notes, is intended to remind us of a German prison camp. The same was true of the costumes. They were apparently projecting Naziism on Wagner which seems like a reach for me. I can only attribute the production as an ultimately vain attempt to appeal to modern audiences if such things exist. Remember that the opera dates from 1843. Tragic, romantic heroes had dominated literature, basically, in living memory then and the notion of such a hero who could only be saved from damnation in the form of being forced to sail the world’s oceans endlessly by the faithful love of a woman had considerable appeal for audiences 180 years ago but, apparently not now. Although she’s not saved by the hero (it’s the other way around—she saves him), representing Senta as a girl-boss is impossible. Therefore, she’s represented as a prisoner of the society and conventions of her time. Or something.

I will add reviews of the production and performances as they become available.

This is the first opera I have attended since early 2020.

Update

Chicago Sun-Times
At the Sun-Times Nancy Malitz was more favorably impressed by the production than I was:

Lyric Opera has assembled one of the finest casts in recent history to perform this saga of a doomed sea captain, known only as the mysterious “Dutchman,” who must sail the seas for seven years until he is given just 24 hours to land and win a woman’s love, or be tempest-tossed for another seven years (until he can try again).

But it’s director Christopher Alden’s production design that makes the first impression. Its vertigo-inspiring sets and creepy costumes by Allen Moyer, coupled with lighting by Anne Militello, literally rock the senses as if in a haunting dream. I sympathized with the audience member who grabbed the armrest near me as the show began.

The playing area is off-axis, a narrow shoebox shape that seems to float above the stage, tilted top left to lower right, like a bottle in a bad sea. It gives the alarming sense of the ship itself, the Flying Dutchman, being buffeted by a storm as the story begins. Although the floor doesn’t really rock, it certainly seems to, as the remarkable cast of sailors and citizens mimics the action of being rocked back and forth, up and down, by traumatic events of meteorological, and increasingly hallucinogenic, nature.

The role of the Dutchman seems custom-made for Polish bass-baritone Tomasz Konieczny, a brilliant veteran with a dark voice and gleaming, almost trumpet-like top, renowned for such complex characters as Wagner’s Wotan, Verdi’s Scarpia, and Berg’s Wozzeck. (He is well-remembered for his Wozzeck at the Lyric a few years back.)

Konieczny is joined by the thrilling American dramatic soprano Tamara Wilson as Senta, the woman on whom the hurried and desperate Dutchman sets his sights this time ashore. Wilson grew up in Chicago and has sung at the Lyric twice before; she is in her prime, with a huge voice capable of profound intensity and torment.

Lawrence A. Johnson pretty clearly saw the same opera I did:

One entered the Civic Opera House Saturday night hoping that, similar to the haunted captain of the Flying Dutchman, the curse of the company’s past 13 years may have finally been lifted.

That didn’t happen. The company’s season-opening performance of Wagner’s The Flying Dutchman was yet another shining exemplar of the leitmotif of the Anthony Freud era—first-class singing thoroughly undermined by a revisionist and execrable production.

The malefactor in this case is director Christopher Alden. In his last Lyric outing in 2000, Alden staged a Rigoletto that put the title jester in a large chair center stage where he sat and glowered at the audience throughout the opera with little interaction with Gilda or the other characters. That production was so widely reviled that Alden was effectively banned from the company roster for 23 years. Naturally it took Freud to bring back this spectacularly giftless hack.

and

Saturday night’s performance began well with superb singing and a striking unit set that evocatively depicted the deck of Daland’s vessel. Things begin to go seriously awry in Act 2. Instead of happy young girls working at their spinning wheels, the women’s chorus are unsmiling, proletarians in peasant scarves who move their arms in automaton-like, chopping motions (and not very well coordinated). Senta spends most of her time with her back to the audience staring at a Munch-like portrait of the Dutchman. All the male principals wear dark eye makeup like silent-film villains.

Alden’s artistic arrogance is on pretentious display in his “Director’s note” (always an ominous sign) where he has the audacity to wrap himself in the flag of a crusader against anti-Semitism. Alden says his misbegotten staging reflects “my desire to confront head-on the unholy connection between Wagner’s art and the spectres of Fascism and Antisemitism.” Right. That few audience members would get that without reading the note tells you how successful is this inspiration. If you prefer Wagner’s version of The Flying Dutchman you’re probably on the side of the forces of darkness and maybe even a Republican.

Alden’s patented shtick is to take all the humanity and naturalness out of every opera he touches. So characters constantly face walls or away from the audience, emotions are either absent or exaggerated and parodied. Characters become quasi-zombies (like Senta) or caricatures like Erik, her suitor, who is depicted here as a cringing neurotic, menacing himself and others with a long hunting rifle.

The director’s other brainstorm is to elevate minor roles into annoying omnipresent figures silently doing ridiculous things that detract from the principals. So the Steersman instead of disappearing after his opening aria, remains onstage as Daland’s confidante throughout the first act. The tiny role of Mary, who has told Senta of the Dutchman tale, is elevated into a constant irritating and unhinged presence—either hugging or brandishing the Dutchman’s portrait, or taking it off the wall and putting it back on a different wall over and over again. Will you please just get off the stage and go get a job at The Great Frame Up?

Alden saves his worst conceits for the final act. Unlike Wagner’s opera, as Alden’s says of his redo, “Our Senta is a rebel against her closed community identifying with the plight of the outcast.” Of course this is manufactured rubbish and has nothing to do with the actual opera or Senta’s character motivation as envisioned by the composer. So instead of Senta’s sacrificial suicide and a concluding vision of her and the Dutchman transfigured in death, Psycho Erik merely shoots her with his long gun. What an inspiring coda. Too bad tenor Robert Watson didn’t pull an Alec Baldwin and shoot the director in rehearsal instead.

What a waste of a first-class cast.

Dennis Polkow’s review, too, was consistent with my experience:

On opening night right from the familiar overture, there were issues of balance, an early entrance of the strings and a tentative “Dutchman” horn leitmotiv. When the curtain opened, the sailors were shouting so loudly that it was actually hard to hear the orchestra underneath them. Tempos were plodding all evening, an effect exaggerated by the decision to present the original one-act version, running nearly two-and-a-half hours without intermission.

Vocally, it was a rarity and a pleasure to hear a Daland (Finnish bass Mika Kares) and a Dutchman (Polish bass-baritone Tomasz Konieczny) that are vocally distinct in terms of color.

Chicago soprano Tamara Wilson certainly has the volume and the range for Senta; what was missing was the tenderness. Tenor Robert Watson was straining as Erik early on but grew more comfortable as the evening went on.

The decision to bring back controversial director Christopher Alden after a twenty-three year company absence is puzzling. With Alden, there is the tendency to superimpose ideas that work against the libretto’s intentions and distract from what the music itself sonically directs. To make the Dutchman a Holocaust survivor forgets or ignores the fact that he is doomed to the seas because of his own actions. For Senta not to jump into the sea to redeem the Dutchman obliterates the work’s message of love unto death and self sacrifice.

In 2019, the last “normal” year, new scripted television series for ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox began debuting on September 23, 2019. This year “normal” will not happen because of the ongoing strike of the Writers Guild of America.

The WGA has a lengthy history—it’s 90 years old, going back to the early days of talkies. A summary history of WGA strikes since 1960 would be:

Source

Recently, rather than relying on negotiators CEOs of Disney, Netflix, etc. have been meeting with union representatives.

While I think it’s likely that higher pay will result from the strike it’s hard for me to see how the union’s demands for residuals from streaming can be met. That segment simply doesn’t work that way. There will be no fall television season. If the strike goes on for another couple of months, which based on history it might, there won’t be January midseason, either.

Noting that Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman’s preferred attire would not pass muster for a worker in a fast food restaurant let alone the notionally more dignified U. S. Senate, the editors of the Washington Post take a stand:

We vote nay. Dressing formally conveys respect for the sanctity of the institution and for the real-world impact of the policies it advances. Putting on a suit creates an occasion for lawmakers to reflect, just for a moment, on the special responsibilities with which the people have entrusted them and on a deliberative process that at least aspires to solemnity. Judges are perfectly “able to choose” what they wear while on the bench, but court wouldn’t be court unless they put on black robes.

concluding:

At the risk of idealizing the place, the Capitol is, or should be, thought of as the temple of the world’s oldest continuous democracy. Within that, the Senate floor is its most sacred space. It was the setting for America’s most consequential debates on war and peace, freedom and slavery. Throughout history, those who participated in its proceedings dressed accordingly. Admittedly, the appropriate level of dignity is subjective; you know it when you see it. And when a senator comes to the floor in pickup softball gear, you don’t.

My own preferences are:

1. Work from home. The Senate should adopt rules and technology that allow them to meet officially from their homes.
2. Repeal the 17th Amendment

There are all sorts of points of departure I could take on this subject. Let’s go with this one. What is the end point of the present slippery slope in Senate decorum? I don’t think it’s Maine Sen. Susan Collins wearing a bikini on the Senate floor, a spectacle from which I’d just as soon be spared.

I very rarely cite The American Conservative but I thought Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s piece there, “The Federal Government Should Not Be Held Hostage for Ukraine Funding” worthy of comment. What follows is something between a fisking and a commentary. Sen. Paul opens:

Today I am putting leadership of the House, the Senate, and the President of the United States on notice. I will not consent to the expedited passage of any spending measure providing more American aid to Ukraine.

Continuing he writes:

Simply put: We have no extra money to send to Ukraine. Our deficit this year will exceed $1.5 trillion. Borrowing money from China to send to Ukraine makes no sense.

The federal government has three ways of obtaining the dollars it spends: taxation, borrowing, and extending credit to itself. “Taxation” includes both taxes and fees; the mechanism for extending credit is that the Federal Reserve purchases U. S. Treasury bonds which it is required to do by law. Here’s a breakdown of federal debt:

Here’s a scoresheet of Chinese ownership of U. S. federal debt:

Said another way China has not increased its holding of U. S. Treasuries for some time. Sen. Paul is incorrect. We aren’t borrowing from China. We finance most of the deficit by extending credit to ourselves.

Continuing:

Since the beginning of Russia’s war in Ukraine, the American taxpayer has provided Kiev $113 billion. Over the 583 days of war between February 24, 2022 and the end of this month, that average will come to $6.8 billion per month—or $223 million per day.

Some of that is supporting Ukraine’s war effort directly; some is humanitarian aid; some is supporting the Ukrainian government—that’s the largest chunk, I believe. Some of our direct support of the war effort has actually been subsidization of U. S. munitions companies.

Next:

This week, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky is in Washington to lobby Congress to approve the Biden administration’s $24 billion supplemental aid request.

When will the aid requests end? When will the war end? Can someone explain what victory in Ukraine looks like? President Biden certainly can’t. His administration has failed to articulate a clear strategy or objective in this war, and Ukraine’s long-awaited counter-offensive has failed to make meaningful gains in the east.

“What victory looks like” has actually been explained pretty clearly—at this point we are supporting Ukraine’s stated objectives which are

1. Return of all of the territory that was Ukraine’s prior to 2014 including Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk.
2. NATO membership for Ukraine and the unstated objective
3. Weakening Russia

I don’t believe Sen. Paul’s criticism is fair. You may disagree with those objectives but I think they’re pretty clear. My own view is that I do not believe that the first objective can be accomplished by anything short of direct U. S. involvement in the war which is likely to result in a nuclear exchange.

With no clear end in sight, it looks increasingly likely that Ukraine will be yet another endless quagmire funded by the American taxpayer. That’s why public support for the war is waning. A CNN poll from August shows that a majority of Americans now oppose Congress authorizing additional funding to Ukraine.

I think that’s a fair criticism.

The Senate leadership of both parties know this. That’s why they are trying to hold the federal government hostage by inserting the $24 billion aid request in a continuing resolution: to force our hand. Either we fund an endless war in Ukraine or the uniparty will shut down the federal government and make the American people suffer.

I am shocked, shocked to find political machinations going on in Washington!

This is a clear dereliction of duty, and I will not stand for it. My colleagues: As representatives of the American people, you should not stand for it. The bill that comes before us should be about funding our own government, not anyone else’s. I will do everything in my power to block a bill that includes funding for Ukraine.

I don’t think it’s dereliction of duty; I think it’s a disagreement on policy.

If that’s not bad enough, Senate leadership has prevented the implementation of effective oversight mechanisms to ensure that hard-earned American tax dollars don’t fall prey to waste, fraud, and abuse. As a result, besides the colossal costs of the war, we will end up paying a corruption tax.

Unfortunately, corruption runs deep in Ukraine, and there’s plenty of evidence that it has run rampant since Russia’s invasion. As Zelensky landed in New York earlier this week, we learned that corruption concerns in Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense resulted in the firing of six deputy defense ministers. This comes two weeks after the firing of Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov, who was removed after it was discovered that the Ministry of Defense had mishandled military contracts.

Last month, Zelensky fired all twenty-four regional military recruitment chiefs because they were “involved in illegal activities, including enrichment.”

Last October, we learned that U.S. shipments of grenade launchers, machine guns, rifles, bulletproof vests, and thousands of rounds of ammunition, were ending up in the hands of criminal gangs and weapons traffickers posing as humanitarian aid organizations.

I have been complaining about this myself for more than a year. Unfortunately, I believe that the only way to address it is risky—American civilian “boots on the ground”. Strict in-person oversight. If the Ukrainians won’t stand for that we shouldn’t support them. Even that is no guarantee but it’s better than just hoping for the best which appears to be present policy.

He concludes:

What are we doing? Is this fair to the American people? Millions of Americans are struggling each day to make ends meet. Millions of Americans are struggling to provide for their families and put food on the table. Can we honestly look our constituents in the eye and tell them that this is a good investment of their tax dollars?

Increasingly, especially as election day nears, that will be the critical issue not just on support for Ukraine but on controlling our southern border. The money we are spending on Ukraine and on “asylum-seekers” is not spent on domestic needs.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the number of times that Sen. Paul has voted for tax decreases. Budget items in excess of taxation are not limited to support for Ukraine. Put simply the amount we are being taxed does not cover the main budget items (defense, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt). If taxes do not increase, we must “borrow”. Simple as that. What does Sen. Paul have in mind?

I read this taxonomy of “narratives” about climate change at ImpactAlpha by Bob Eccles and Melita Leousi, hoping that it would produce more light than heat but having read it I’m not so sure. Here’s it’s opening passage:

ImpactAlpha, September 18 — The climate discourse by individuals and groups typically involves five narratives about the import and response to climate change. Some people are scientific, others skeptical. Some make moral arguments, others tout the opportunities. And, increasingly, many are warning of “doomsday” to spur urgency – or defeatism.

These narratives are “ideal types” that express themselves to varying degrees and in various combinations. We believe that recognizing the existence of these types can be helpful in fostering dialogue between people and groups who are addressing the challenges and opportunities of climate change (engaging with climate change deniers might naturally be harder).

with the following conclusion:

These are “ideal types” which we think can be a useful framing for fostering dialogue between people and groups who are addressing the challenges and opportunities of climate change.

To paint a stark example, take two groups that both use the Scientific Foundation as their dominant narrative, but one supplements it with the Doomsday Narrative and the other the Opportunity Narrative.

It would be natural for the Doomsayers to view the Opportunists as being overly optimistic and not having the proper sense of urgency. In contrast, adherents of the Opportunity view may find those warning of climate apocalypse to be shrill and failing to take a pragmatic view about the continued use of fossil fuels and the need for technological breakthroughs.

If well-meaning people who are concerned about climate change can’t talk to others simply because they talk about it in a different way, we will not be able to establish the social and political consensus necessary to address an issue that confronts us all, whatever our narrative.

The “narratives” are

• Scientific
• Skeptic
• Moral
• Opportunity
• Doomsday

For details on what is meant by each see the cited article. IMO framing the taxonomy in that way is itself somewhat argumentative.

My own view is that climate change models are weakly predictive, they are too susceptible to gaming, and that many of the strategies for dealing with anthropogenic climate change are questionable and/or are scams even if well-meaning, I don’t think that any strategy that does not involve nuclear energy, requiring China and India to reduce their carbon emissions, and, in all likelihood, carbon capture and sequestration are particularly serious. I think that some action is worthwhile but much of what is proposed is either ill-considered, regressive, or trying to accomplish something other than ameliorating climate change.

To understand why I say “weakly predictive”, cf. this passage by an article by Chad Small in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:

Global climate models and real-world observations mostly agree on average ocean warming over the last 40 years. But this agreement breaks down when you peel back that average and look at regional snapshots of sea surface temperature.

“If you have ever looked at [sea surface temperature] linear trend over the past 40 years, since 1979, where we have the set of products with a more accurate [sea surface temperature] estimate, you can see everywhere is warming—of course not uniformly,” Yue Dong, a postdoctoral research scientist at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, and one of the primary authors of a recent paper on this topic, said.

She adds that observed trends show a strong cooling trend in the Eastern Pacific and Southern Ocean, which goes against what the models predicted.

Putting it a little less kindly if the calculations to send a rocket to the moon had been as inaccurate as climate change models we’d have never reached the moon. Thousands of everyday industrial processes would be starting massive fires and explosions. Getting the directionality correct on average is not a high standard of accuracy let alone the “pretty accurate” assessment the models are frequently given.

In addition they are far too dependent on how and where measurements are taken. Moving sensors should not affect the predictions but they would. Too many are located near cities which means they’re measuring something else.

And, finally, the strategies proposed are guesstimates if not outright scams. Take carbon offsets, for example. The most recent scholarship suggests they don’t do much. Microsoft (or Google) shutting down its operations might have an impact; using carbon offsets to facilitate their emitting at will not so much.

My wife and I are both Jeopardy! fans. We watch when we can, dutifully answering the questions we know the answers for.

I would not make a good Jeopardy! contestant. While I have considerable knowledge of the subjects that interest me, e.g. history, philosophy, geography, languages (particularly classical languages), politics, science, the arts, literature, etc., I have very little knowledge of subjects in which I have little interest specifically contemporary popular music and sports and both of those loom large enough on the show as to make me a poor contestant.