In a piece at Rolling Stone Matt Taibbi laments the sorry state of today’s journalism:

During the Trump-Clinton presidential race three years ago, I wrote:

The model going forward will likely involve Republican media covering Democratic corruption and Democratic media covering Republican corruption. This setup just doesn’t work.

The al-Baghdadi story is a classic example of what happens when that dynamic is allowed to play out to its logical conclusion. From Fox to the New York Times, all of the major commercial outlets this weekend were more consumed with telling audiences who benefited politically from the al-Baghdadi mission, than getting the facts about that mission out.

This is a disservice to audiences, who deserve to know the basics. Who is al-Baghdadi? How did he come to be the leader of ISIS/ISIL? Why was he in Idlib? The story of this person ought to have been a mix of the enraging and the sobering. Al-Baghdadi was reportedly involved in all sorts of atrocities, from beheadings to crucifixions, but he seems to have become radicalized by America’s invasion of Iraq.

This ought to have been a moment to reflect on what’s happened in the last twenty years, and if our policies across multiple administrations have been the right ones. Would we even be launching operations against such a person if we hadn’t invaded Iraq all those years ago? What’s the endgame? What do the people of the region think?

All of this has been subsumed to the only story left that matters in the United States – who’s winning Twitter at any given moment, Trumpers or anti-Trumpers? News outlets are now so committed to pushing one or the other narrative that they are falling prey to absurdities like the Post’s “austere cleric” headline.

I have been criticized here for falling for “rightwing political correctness”. If I have fallen victim to rightwing agitprop, so has Matt Taibbi. I think a more accurate way of viewing my criticism of the WaPo’s headline which, like Mr. Taibbi, I thought was absurd, is that I am viewing it more as journalists used to as is Mr. Taibbi.

If we are going to separate into one set of media outlets aligned with the Democratic Party and another aligned with the Republican Party, neither particularly reliable, as it is openly in the United Kingdom, I think we should have libel and defamation laws like those in the UK. Here in the U. S. we have a very high standard. Actual malice must be proven to prevail in a libel suit while it is practically impossible for a public figure to prevail in a defamation suit against a media outlet. In the UK, the burden of proof in a defamation suit is on the defendant. That would be a drastic change.

I would prefer a more judicious media but, alas, that is probably not to be had.

In a piece at Bloomberg Tyler Cowen expresses distress over the wildfires and blackouts in California:

The fires in Northern California — and the resulting power blackouts, affecting millions and running for days on end — show just how many nodes of failure Americans are willing tolerate or even encourage.

The practical and moral failings in this matter are so numerous it is hard to know where to start.

How about this: Systemic blackouts are commonly associated with nations such as Haiti or Pakistan, not the United States. Yet here is California, America’s biggest and probably most innovative economy, treating a blackout as some kind of unavoidable natural event. Why is this development not seen as an unacceptable outrage?

The No. 1 responsibility of a power company is to supply its users with power. So when the first-order response to a pending major problem is to cut the power for days, that is clear-cut evidence that the systems are badly designed.

High on the list of America’s failings would be its wanton disregard of climate change. True, it is difficult to pinpoint particular events as caused by climate change. It is entirely plausible, however, that climate change has made the fires more likely or more intense, due to the greater heat, dryness and wind.

Yet the U.S.’s carbon emissions are increasing. Even when there are successes in the fight against climate change, such as fracking natural gas to replace coal emissions, the benefits to the climate are an afterthought for most people.

In other words: Parts of our natural environment are deteriorating around us, and we are responding passively and defensively rather than with a dynamic, can-do attitude.

Add American liability law to the list of culprits. Because of legal liability from past fire-related events, the share price of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), the public utility in California, has fallen from almost $50 to about $5 over the span of a year. It is thus no surprise that the utility is afraid of further fires and will limit them simply by pulling the plug on everyone’s power connections.

I’ll cut him off there. First, he misspeaks. A publicly-owned company’s #1 responsibility is to preserve the investment of its stockholders. Unless it does that it will be unable to provide the goods and services that are its #2 responsibility. California state law renders PG&E responsible for fires started by its equipment. That’s why its stock has collapsed.

I see the problem a little differently than Tyler does. California has a problem distinctly Californian but not unique to California. It has objectives that are in direct conflict with one another. Among these are its need to grow, a desire to preserve California’s natural beauty, California’s fragile ecosystem, and its tax base.

As you can see from the pie chart at the top of this page, California is highly dependent on the real estate and construction industries which account for about a quarter of the entire economy. Indeed, between government and its handmaiden economic sectors, i.e. those whose revenues derive mostly from tax dollars, and real estate and construction, that accounts for more than half of economic activity in the state. Add the financial sector and you’re around 2/3s of the whole economy.

Just about 40 million people call California home. That’s four times as many as lived there in 1950 and ten times as many as lived there in 1920. By comparison Illinois is about 50% larger than in 1950 and 100% larger than in 1920. New York State, too, has about 50% more people than in 1950 and 100% more than in 1920. Obviously, California’s population is growing very rapidly.

But, unlike Illinois or New York, California natural environment doesn’t lend itself to a large population. Unlike those states it has historically been quite sparsely populated. Equally obviously, there’s a conflict between preserving California’s natural beauty with the economic necessity of a huge and growing population. People control where and how housing may be constructed by means of restrictive zoning laws.

California can be wild as it has always been or it can be managed. But California is also home to the U. S.’s environmental conservation movement and that conservation movement has limited the state’s ability to manage its land.

People need electricity but unmanaged land lends itself to wildfires. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Yesterday President Donald Trump spoke in Chicago before a conference of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. WGN reports:

CHICAGO (WLS) — For the first time since taking office President Trump visited Chicago on Monday morning.

Trump spoke at the International Association of Chiefs of Police Conference at McCormick Place, addressing a wide range of topics, including efforts to reduce crime and paying respect to Chicago police officers wounded in the line of duty.

ABC7 Political Reporter Craig Wall spoke exclusively with the president, and asked him why Chicago had been such a frequent target.

“Well, all you have to do is take a look at your numbers, where you have 500 and 600 murders over the year,” Trump said. “You have all the problems that you’ve had. It can be straightened out with proper management.”

The president blamed the murders and shootings on Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson, Mayor Lori Lightfoot, and Chicago’s status as a sanctuary city.

Whatever Police Superintendent Johnson’s problems Chicago’s homicide rate cannot be laid at his door and Mayor Lightfoot has only been mayor for a few months. The homicide rate has actually declined a bit since she took office. Its peak was under her predecessor, Rahm Emanuel.

And any tolerance of illegal immigration is only tangentially related to Chicago’s high homicide rate. Most of Chicago’s homicides are young black men killing one another or people caught in the crossfire, take place in a half dozen of the city’s neighborhoods, and are gang-related.

The reasons for the gangs are complex. It doesn’t help that they have been hand in glove with corrupt city, county, and state governments. One of the reasons for the rise of black gangs is a collapse of the family structure among urban blacks. The young men need social support and protection from somewhere so they turn to gangs.

Judging from the FBI’s statistics the high homicide rate among young urban black men cannot be explained purely by appealing to race. The rural black homicide rate is just about the same as the rural white homicide rate.

Illegal immigration, particularly from Mexico and Central America, is, indeed, tangentially related to the lack of economic opportunities for young black men since entry level jobs which they might have taken are now being done by immigrants from Mexico and Central America, many of them illegal.

In his Wall Street Journal column Walter Russell Mead comments on the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi:

The Washington Post may have hastily changed its embarrassing headline for its obituary of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi—“austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State”—but that won’t be the end of the West’s difficulties in understanding and responding to the multifaceted crisis in the Middle East.

Movements like ISIS don’t spring from nowhere. It took centuries of decline, serial humiliations at the hands of arrogant European imperial powers, and decades of failed postcolonial governance to produce the toxic mixture of bigotry and hate out of which Baghdadi and his adherents emerged. That toxic brew won’t quickly disappear. Angry, alienated and profoundly confused people—many young and at best half-educated—will continue to find the message of ISIS and similar groups seductive. Baghdadi’s death isn’t the end of ISIS, and the collapse of the U.S.-backed order in northern Syria could provide conditions for its re-emergence as a serious military force.

Arabs of the Middle East should not be offered any solace on his passing. For nearly a millennium they were ruled by non-Arabs, first by Turks and then by European colonizers. They will not achieve what they presumably consider their rightful place in the world by nurturing vipers like Abu Bakr in their collective bosom but by dint of effort, industry, and practicing the virtues that Islam teaches rather than the hate spread by takfiri like Abu Bakr.

Is it my imagination or has the entire world lost its mind? Some people are attacking Trump unjustly; others are defending him unjustly. They do so with equal vehemence. I don’t see how they presently have enough information to do either.

The Washington Post’s announcement of the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi can only be described as unhinged. My religion prohibits me from rejoicing in anyone’s death but he was clearly an unspeakably evil man. He won’t be the last. He won’t even be the last head of DAESH.

I’m seeing a lot of scrambling around by European companies, trying to prepare for a Brexit they aren’t even sure will materialize and whose contours they don’t know.

People are using dangerous drugs to turn their 7 year old boys into girls and, presumably, vice versa. At 7 being curious about your sexuality is normal. Wearing Mommy’s high heels is not a sign of gender dysphoria. One of the most manly young men of my acquaintance ran around in a pink tutu at that age.

Chicago’s teachers have been on strike for eight days. The longest teacher’s strike in Chicago history was, I believe, 19 school days back in 1987. At this point no one appears to be really sure what will resolve the strike. They appear to be striking to prove something to Mayor Lori Lightfoot.

Rather than summarize Lizzy Francis’s article about what it means to be middle class at Fatherly, which I found rather uninsightful, I’ll give you my thoughts on the subject. The difference among the social classes is the amount of risk you bear, some due to your circumstances and family connections, some due to the behaviors in which you engage and the choices you make.

My favorite definition of our social classes is that being upper class means that, no matter how badly you screw up, you will not be allowed to fail. You should be able to think of people who may be characterized that way easily, e.g. Teddy Kennedy or George W. Bush. If I had engaged in the behaviors they did and made the choices they made, I’d’ve been ruined or, at least, my life would have been greatly impeded. They, on the other hand, became a U. S. senator and president of the United States, respectively.

I am decidedly middle class. My grandfather and grandfather’s grandfather back as far as anyone can reckon were middle class. If someone of the lower classes were to engage in the behaviors which Teddy Kennedy and George W. Bush did, his or her life would have been permanently blighted. They’d’ve been imprisoned. That’s what it means to be lower class.

One of the markers of social class is how you perceive risk. Pursuing anthropology as a career, as Ms. Francis has, is an incredibly risky proposition. Being able to prosper in it depends on a large number of very iffy factors. That she did not perceive it as such either tells us she’s a dope or middle class.

It is being reported that the leader of DAESH, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has been killed during a raid by U. S. Special Forces. I will repeat what I said when Osama bin Laden was assassinated. It is of symbolic significance but don’t exaggerate its strategic significance.

Just as Al Qaeda and its affiliates continue to operate, not only will DAESH continue to operate, there will continue to be radical Islamist terrorist organizations whatever they’re called. Such organizations are endemic in Islam for reasons I’ve outlined previously and will continue to spring up as long as Islam itself exists.

That’s not a call to exterminate Islam—merely acceptance of reality. Modern communications and personal empowerment mean that we will need to be on watch for violent Islamist terrorist attacks with the potential of killing tens or even thousands of people forever.

At Bloomberg Justin Fox recounts the decline and very slight recovery of the bowling business:

In the late 1970s, just over 9 million Americans belonged to bowling leagues. As of 2017-2018, 1.34 million did. This decline has been much discussed, with political scientist Robert D. Putnam’s famous 1995 essay and 2000 book “Bowling Alone” citing it as a symptom and cause of “declining social capital” in the U.S. due to the “social interaction and even occasionally civic conversations over beer and pizza that solo bowlers forgo.”

Putnam admitted in the book, though, that “only poetic license authorizes my description of non-league bowling as ‘bowling alone.’” Instead, bowling was shifting from something that blue-collar workers did after their shifts to something that kids did at birthday parties and adults as part of a night out with friends.

That’s really just the tip of the iceberg. In 1980 there were about 10,000 bowling alleys in the United States with the average bowling alley having 8 lanes. Now there are as third as many alleys and the average store has 26 lanes. Throughout the Midwest there were thousands of bars which had a couple of lanes of bowling attached. Most of those are gone now.

Contrary to what you might conclude from reading Mr. Fox’s piece, bowling alleys have always derived most of their revenue from their bars. Selling upscale mixed drinks might be new but the importance of their bar business is the same.

Some other tidbits. String pinsetters began to catch on in the United States in the early 1990s when Brunswick began selling a Swiss pinsetter here. I think they may eventually have acquired the Swiss manufacturer. And, as the graph Mr. Fox includes in his piece suggests, labor productivity in bowling alleys actually began to rise in the 1990s after years of stagnation when proprietors began automating their operations. Important factors in that were bar management systems, point-of-sale systems, automatic scoring machines, and backroom computers that tied it all together.

I would also suggest that changing demographics has a lot to do with with bowling’s decline. Also average hours worked per worker per year may have something to do with bowling’s decline and rise.

I agree with the slug of Nobel award-winning economists Esther Duflo and Abhijit Banerjee’s op-ed in the New York Times:

On their own, markets can’t deliver outcomes that are just, acceptable — or even efficient.

but their broader claim, that incentives don’t work at all or work very little, is obviously overblown. How else do you explain the hundreds of thousands of Americans who are fleeing high tax states for low tax ones? Or that changes in tax policy result in easily measurable changes in behavior? Or, frankly, that people don’t just routinely blow through red lights on the street?

I would like to see a more extensive treatment of the conditions under which incentives work or do not.

As to whether tax incentives are good policy I would much rather see tax policy be limited to raising money than changing behavior if only because it’s hard to measure the effects of anything along multiple planes simultaneously.