The editors of the Chicago Tribune via Yahoo News remark on the ward remap just approved by the City Council. Here’s the new breakdown:

The battle royale over Chicago’s ward remap appears to be over. The City Council’s Black and Latino caucuses had been tussling for months about the decennial redrawing of aldermanic boundaries, but it seems as if both sides have reached a compromise.

The new map lays out 16 Black-majority wards along with a ward with Black plurality, Ald. Walter Burnett’s 27th Ward. The proposed map also establishes 14 Latino wards, one less than the Latino Caucus had sought, as well as an Asian-majority ward, a first for the city.

then the explanation:

The compromise speaks to what really motivates too many on the City Council — the ceaseless quest to accumulate more clout.

Before backroom wheeling-and-dealing prevailed, the Latino Caucus appeared to embrace the ideal that everyday Chicagoans should play an integral role in the remap. The caucus aligned itself with Change Illinois, a civic advocacy group that led an effort to craft a remap that incorporated citizen input. The caucus had hoped to pit that document, known as the “People’s Map,” against the Black Caucus’ map in a referendum that would appear on the June 28 primary ballot.

When the Latino Caucus failed in that bid, its members still had a choice: Put an earlier Latino Caucus map up against the Black Caucus map in the referendum and let Chicagoans decide the democratic way, through a vote. Or, put themselves first, shut voters out of the process, and cut a deal that gives them a more favorable set of ward boundaries ahead of the 2023 city elections.

Naturally, they selected the latter alternative. Finally, the implications:

Focusing attention on crafting a fair, sensible ward remap that incorporates the will of voters doesn’t have to mean that all other aldermanic work and City Hall functioning must stop, or even get short shrift. City Hall is supposed to multitask. And if giving voters a say in the remap puts another task in each alderman’s in-basket, then so be it.

The disappointing outcome of this year’s remap debacle exposes a core problem in how Chicago redraws its ward boundaries every 10 years. The process is never going to be fair as long as it remains the sole purview of the politicians who stand to benefit from keeping the effort behind closed doors, where they can carve up whole communities into gerrymandered fiefdoms.

Aldermen should, for once, put the interests of everyday Chicagoans above their own and work with Springfield to craft legislation that would put the city’s decennial remapping in the hands of an independent citizens commission. That would take the process out of its current Star Chamber environment, and give voters a voice that has been muted for far too long.

This year’s remap must be the last in which Chicago voters get shoved to the side.

I think they’re dreaming. Maximizing clout means maximizing the amount of money not just for the wards they notionally serve but, more importantly, for themselves.

I believe there are implications other than those to which the editors draw attention. To understand what is happening you should know more about the demographics of Chicago’s 50 wards and how they have changed over time.

The first column is the year in which the map was approved, the second is the major ethnic/racial group, and the third the number of wards with a majority of that group. What do you notice? The number of wards with black majorities has declined substantially over time, the number of wards with Hispanic majorities has increased, and the number of wards with white majorities has remained the same. Meanwhile, the absolute number of Asians has increased to the point where one ward has an Asian majority.

I have written about this previously and everything is proceeding precisely as I have predicted. I believe that total black “clout” peaked in 2019 with the election of Lori Lightfoot as mayor, running in the run-off against Toni Preckwinkle who is also black. Hispanic “clout” lags because, frankly, they don’t vote. I don’t know what percentage of Chicago’s Hispanic population are eligible to vote but only 13% of Chicago voter turnout in the presidential election was Hispanic, so that might give us some idea. In other words Chicago Hispanics are already punching over their weight.

And white “clout” is not declining. If anything it’s increasing, able to set black and Hispanic politicians against one another.

My own opinion is that a) Chicago’s overall population will continue to decline (I think it already has since the census was taken); b) Chicago’s black population will decline faster than that of any other group; c) Chicago’s Hispanic population may already have peaked; and d) over time we won’t speak of “Hispanic population” any more than we do of “Irish population” or “German population” although those were encountered frequently in years gone by. We’ll just talk about the white population and Hispanics will be an ethnicity among the white population just as the Irish, Germans, and Italians are.

The Biden Administration’s KGB DGB is a step too far for Lev Golinkin at The Nation:

Jankowicz’s experience as a disinformation warrior includes her work with StopFake, a US government-funded “anti-disinformation” organization founded in March 2014 and lauded as a model of how to combat Kremlin lies. Four years later, StopFake began aggressively whitewashing two Ukrainian neo-Nazi groups with a long track record of violence, including war crimes.

Today, StopFake is an official Facebook fact-checking partner, which gives it the power to censor news, while Jankowicz is America’s disinformation czar.

If the Biden administration is serious about combating threats such as white supremacy, perhaps it should first reflect on the old Roman question: Who will guard the guardians?

Losing the support of The Nation is a pretty good sign that the move you’re making is extreme.

At Project Syndicate Richard Haass considers the bleak prospects for negotiating an end to the war in Ukraine:

One possibility for the West would be to link the entire relationship with Russia to Russia’s actions in Ukraine. This would be a mistake, though, because Russia can affect other Western interests, such as limiting the nuclear and missile capabilities of Iran and North Korea, and the success of global efforts to limit the emissions that cause climate change.

The good news is that, as the prisoner exchange demonstrates, profound differences over Ukraine need not preclude conducting mutually useful business if both sides are willing to compartmentalize. But protecting the possibility of selective cooperation will require sophisticated, disciplined diplomacy.

For starters, the US and its partners will need to prioritize and even limit their goals in Ukraine. This means renouncing talk of regime change in Moscow. We need to deal with the Russia we have, not the one we would prefer. Putin’s position may come to be challenged from within (or he may succumb to reported health challenges) but the West is not in a position to engineer his removal, much less ensure that someone better replaces him.

Likewise, Western governments would be wise to put off talk of war crimes tribunals for senior Russian officials and stop boasting about helping Ukraine target senior Russian generals and ships. The war and investigations are ongoing, and the Russians need to see some benefit in acting responsibly. The same holds for reparations.1

Similarly, although Russia will likely find itself worse off economically and militarily as a result of initiating this war of choice, the US government should make clear that, contrary to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s remarks, America’s goal is not to use the war to weaken Russia. On the contrary, the US should underscore that it wants the war to end as soon as possible on terms that reflect Ukraine’s sovereign, independent status.

I honestly don’t think the Biden Administration is willing to go along with that program or, at least, I see no indications it is. One might retort that who cares as long as the terms are agreeable to the Ukrainian government? IMO the Ukrainian government will be pressed to reject anything that isn’t acceptable to Washington and to all appearances both sides are sticking to maximalist objectives.

The editors of the Washington Post accuse President Biden of “magical thinking”:

The White House has been suffering from magical thinking on inflation, and, sadly, that continues.

For much of last year, the Biden administration wrongly told the American public that rising prices would be short-lived. When it became clear that inflation would not come down on its own, the White House began a blame game. One of its favorite talking points is to pin inflation on greedy corporations for hiking prices too much. That just doesn’t add up. Corporations did not become far more greedy in the past few months. What’s really going on is basic economics: There’s high demand for a lot of stuff and inadequate supply because of the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, China’s lockdown, crushed supply chains and not enough workers. That’s a classic recipe for higher prices.

They conclude:

It’s wishful thinking that inflation is going to come down much by Election Day. To show voters he is on top of the problem, Mr. Biden needs to do more than blame someone else for high prices.

Yesterday I demurred from linking to the editors’ of the Wall Street Journal’s characterization of President Biden as the “George Costanza president”—everything he thinks he should do, he should do the opposite instead.

I wish the WaPo editors had elaborated on what they think the remedy is. I think that the focus of regulation needs to be redirected, there need to be greater incentives for business investment, fewer incentives not to work, and, difficult to achieve but most important of all, confidence in stability of policy. I presume the WaPo editors’ preference is already in process—a quarter million people are crossing our southern border each month. Will those additional people primarily allow us to increase production or will they primarily increase demand? I think the latter.

Adam Andrzejewski of OpenTheBooks reminds us that officials at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Anthony Fauci chief among them, are receiving royalties from pharmaceutical companies in addition to their government salaries:

We estimate that between fiscal years 2010 and 2020, more than $350 million in royalties were paid by third-parties to the agency and NIH scientists – who are credited as co-inventors.

Because those payments enrich the agency and its scientists, each and every royalty payment could be a potential conflict of interest and needs disclosure.

Recently, our organization at OpenTheBooks.com forced NIH to disclose over 22,100 royalty payments totaling nearly $134 million paid to the agency and nearly 1,700 NIH scientists. These payments occurred during the most recently available period (September 2009 – September 2014).

At least some of those royalties are for things that were developed using funds provided by the NIH:

Among the 51 scientists (doing experiments involving inventions for which they were being paid royalties) was Anthony Fauci, then- and current director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Fauci received $45,072.82 between 1997 and 2004 for a patent license on an experimental AIDS treatment. NIH funded that treatment with $36 million.

That is a corrupt practice. If it is not outright illegal, it should be. At the very least as Mr. A. notes, it is a conflict of interest and should be reported as such.

And people wonder why institutions are losing the confidence of the American people. It’s just not as easy, try as they might, to keep corruption as secret as it used to be.

In the past I’ve mentioned that Russia is powerfully irredentist. To save you the trouble of looking it up, that means advocating the return of territories that formerly belonged to it. As this article by Sushant Singh at Foreign Policy reminded me, Russia ain’t the only country that is powerfully irredentist:

For decades, India’s Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)—the Hindu nationalist organization with close links to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—has put forward the idea of Akhand Bharat or an “unbroken India.” The proposed entity stretches from Afghanistan on India’s western flank all the way to Myanmar to the east of India as well as encompassing all of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself has mentioned the idea: In a 2012 interview, when he was still the chief minister of Gujarat, he argued that Akhand Bharat referred to cultural unity.

Last month, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat told a public gathering that India will become Akhand Bharat in 10 to 15 years, providing the first timeline for a Hindu nationalist pipe dream. Besides heading the RSS, Bhagwat is a very powerful figure in today’s India because of his personal relationship with Modi. The BJP is one of a few dozen institutions that comes under the direct control of the RSS, which now holds the most power since it was founded in 1925. Modi was a full-time RSS campaigner before it assigned him to the BJP, and he considers Bhagwat’s late father to be a mentor. Indian corporate leaders and foreign diplomats recognize Bhagwat’s clout, visiting him at RSS headquarters in Nagpur, India. His words must be engaged with seriously, not dismissed offhand as the fantasies of an old man.

The idea of Akhand Bharat is a core tenet of Hindutva ideology, a century-old doctrine of Hindu nationalism. Now, with its own map and nomenclature, it is being taught to students in RSS-run schools across the country.

Such an aspiration places today’s India in head-to-head conflict not just with Pakistan and Bengladesh but, since India and Pakistan are among the very largest Muslim countries, with all of Islam. India’s ambitions might extend as far as Malaysia and Indonesia, the largest country with a Muslim majority.

There are other irredentist countries, Poland, for example. And then there’s China. Both India and China claim Tibet as part of their rightful territories.

I’m curious as to how India would accomplish the extension of its boundaries to include the farthest extent of its ancient empire but Mr. Singh does not enlighten us on that.

At 1945 retired U. S. Army Col. Daniel Davis presents a view of the Russian-Ukrainian War that may surprise many Americans, particularly those sitting in Washington, DC—the Russians are winning. After outlining the history of the conflict to date, he describes the present status:

Russia appears to be using tactics that mimic what worked for them in Mariupol: surrounding a city with ground troops, cutting off Ukrainian forces’ ability to get reinforcements (or food, water, and fuel), then relentlessly pounding Ukrainian positions with artillery, rocket fire, and airstrikes, progressively shrinking the ring around the city.

Eventually, Russian troops move in with infantry and armor to strike the defenders when they are at their weakest, capturing the city. The pattern has proven effective and is presently being reprised in numerous Ukrainian strongholds in the Donbas. Russia’s strategy in the Donbas is coming into sharper relief with the capture of each major town, and it doesn’t bode well for Kyiv.

There is a pocket-forming around the Ukrainian troops in the northern shoulder of the Donbas. Russia is seeking to surround the UAF troops in this pocket by saturating key Ukrainian strongholds with heavy bombardment, attempting to peel off more cities on the outside of the pocket, progressively forcing UAF defenders either further west – or trapping them in the pocket and then destroying them by fire and later ground troops.

After taking Izyum, Popasnaya, and moving on Severdonetsk, Russia is now heavily investing Lysychansk, Kramatorsk, and Slaviansk, each a city of 100,000 or more. There are tens of thousands of Ukraine’s best, most experienced troops manning the frontlines in the Donbas. If Russia successfully takes enough cities there, cutting the UAF troops off, they can reprise their bloody tactics used to destroy Mariupol.

offering this disquieting assessment:

Whether Putin has enough troops, ammunition, and time to complete the destruction of the UAF positions in the Donbas without mobilizing some portion of its reserve forces is an open question. What is clear, however, is that Russia’s current operations are slowly strangling Ukrainian troops in the Donbas and that despite optimistic rhetoric out of Kyiv and Western capitals, the battle is trending towards a Russian tactical success, possibly within two months.

Militarily speaking, there is very little hope that even all the promised support of heavy weapons and ammunition from the West can be delivered to the front, the Ukrainian troops adequately trained, and firepower brought to bear in time to change the course.

He also thinks that both Ukrainian and Western leaders’ public statements are misleading their respective publics. He concludes:

Gambling that current battlefield trends don’t hold, hoping that Ukraine can hold on in the Donbas, and believing that UAF will eventually drive Russia back to its country, do the people of Ukraine a disservice. Even if it works out that way – an improbable prospect – it would take years to accomplish and result in such a staggering loss of Ukrainian life that it would be a pyrrhic victory. The better course is to engage in negotiations to do whatever it takes to end the fighting, end the killing of Ukrainian people, and hasten the day when rebuilding can start. However, continuing to base policies on pride and hope will almost certainly cause thousands more preventable deaths in Ukraine.

which should look familiar to regular Glittering Eye readers. My highest concern after the “thousands more preventable deaths in Ukraine” is that panic-stricken Western leaders, taken by surprise by increasingly brutal and destructive advances by the Russians will do something hasty and foolish.

The editors of the Chicago Tribune via Yahoo News warn that Boeing’s announced moving of the headquarters from Chicago to DC is a warning:

The hurt felt by Boeing’s departure is all about perceptions about Chicago. And, specifically, its beleaguered downtown.

The Loop hasn’t just gone through a rough patch lately — it’s been put through the wringer.

Even as downtown begins to gradually loose itself from the pandemic, COVID-19′s ravages have left an indelible mark on the Loop’s hectic, bustling vibe. Marquee restaurants have shut down. Workers are coming back, but offices have far from fully rebounded; the downtown vacancy rate is up to 19.7% as of the end of March. That’s worse than the 17.9% mark at the end of December. Retail vacancy along the Magnificent Mile is also worryingly on the rise. And recent outbreaks of violent crime have heightened a wariness about just how safe downtown streets and CTA train platforms are.

Lightfoot hasn’t formally announced her reelection bid, but all signs point to her pursuit of a second term. As she winds down her first term in office, she faces a bevy of top-shelf priorities: tackling the intractability of citywide violent crime; bringing to fruition her pledges to revitalize long-neglected neighborhoods on the South and West sides; implementing genuine, lasting police reforms; and ensuring that the just-announced Bally’s casino in the River West neighborhood gets done in a way that enhances the city rather than diminishes it.

One of those priorities must also be the future health and viability of Chicago’s downtown.

I think they’re being far too kind. Rather than continuing the work done by her predecessors as mayor to preserve Chicago, Mayor Lightfoot has consigned Chicago to the same fate as has befallen Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland. It’s a lot easier to maintain a reputation than it is restore a reputation once lost. Rather than being “the City That Works” our reputation under Mayor Lightfoot is “the City Whose Downtown Was Looted”. I don’t think it can be remediated. Homicides and robberies expanding from the South Side to tone-y Northside neighborhoods won’t help.

Adding more police officers probably won’t help. We already have a larger police force relative to our population than New York or Los Angeles. The CPD is also a victim of bad reputation.

I found this post by Ryan Cooper at American Prospect depressing. His main point is that fiscal stimulus “works”. After a lengthy discussion of the 2009 America Recovery Act he adds:

In the future, austerity politics is going to rear its head. President Biden is already starting to boast about cutting the budget deficit like Obama constantly did. It’ll be critical to remember this period the next time a recession rolls around—we may have some inflation now, but that only proves that stimulus works, and anyway modestly rising prices are better than mass unemployment. John Maynard Keynes was right all along.

What do I find depressing about it? First, his flat dismissal of actual events:

The Great Recession saw one stimulus under President Bush of $152 billion, and the $831 billion Recovery Act—or about 7 percent of 2008 GDP put together.

What is missing from his account is that the Great Recession was over by the time the ARRA had disbursed a single penny. If fiscal stimulus did anything about the recession, it was that provided by the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 under George W. Bush, not the ARRA. Any effect of the ARRA is conjecture. I think it’s likely that it produced asset inflation.

The second thing is that Keynes never taught that debt-financed fiscal stimulus was always good. Quite to the contrary Lord Keynes’s proposal was that a shortfall in aggregate demand could be remediated by debt-financed fiscal stimulus up to the limit of aggregate product. More spending after that would just produce inflation. We’re living the empirical evidence of that right now.

He also said that the debt incurred by fiscal stimulus during economic downturns should be paid down through taxation during expansions. As I read it the primary difference between Keynesianism and modern monetary theory is that MMT advocates don’t believe that, since the U. S. is a fiscal sovereign, we don’t ever need to pay down that debt. In other words what Mr. Cooper proposes isn’t Keynesianism or modern monetary theory. It’s what I have characterized as “folk Keynesianism” and it’s not just wrong but dangerous.

What is the correct conclusion from the last 20 years? A correctly timed, sized, and structured fiscal stimulus can, indeed, make up for a shortfall in aggregate demand but poorly timed, sized, or structured stimulus does none of that.

What should we do? We should produce more.