Chicago News Weekly 2150 S. Canalport Ave. Suite 4-C14 Chicago, IL 60608 312. 877. 5151
Vol. 3 No 7
Thursday, May 22, 2025
Chicago News Weekly is published weekly on Thursday. www.cnwmedia.com
advertising@cnwmedia.com editorial@cnwmedia.com
Subscription $104 year
E notes
The Lost Art of Being Neighborly
The more we advance in a world that has the tendency to isolate and separate us from one another, the more difficult it is to forge meaningful associations and to be in relationship with others. The corruption and new crimes that have come into existence as a consequence of the ever-evolving technology and digital world have put self-protection and mistrust at the forefront of how we relate to others. This forethought prevents us from reaching out to neighbors and peers, most of whom we no longer know as we once did.
How is it that we live in buildings with neighbors next door—separated only by walls—and we don’t know them? We need to ask this question. I have to admit, I recently met my neighbor to the south of me. I shared with her that I thought the unit was empty because the owner had mentioned wanting to upgrade the physical appearance. He never mentioned it had been done, and I never heard a sound from the unit, nor had I ever seen her enter her apartment. She shared in response that she travels and is gone most of the time.
The point is that the sense of “neighbors” no longer carries the meaning of community that it once did. Our communities were once our streets, our block, our building, or the cul-de-sacs in which we lived. So what is community these days? It certainly is a word that gets used in so many different contexts.
One thing I know for sure is that there are lots of people after Generation X who consequently feel like they don’t truly belong anywhere. It’s so strange when it seemed that creating community was once as simple as reaching out within our neighborhoods. People shared the connection of where they lived and common interests—beginning with maintaining the order of their neighborhood. It seemed a natural pursuit. Protecting those interests conjured up so many more shared concerns, like the quality of schools in their district, property taxes, law enforcement, employment opportunities, community churches, social clubs, community sports and recreation, etc.
These and so many other reasons peo-
ple once came together and connected have dissipated into thin air over the years as the advancement of the new world of social media and technology replaces the very foundations of human connection. Have you observed your teenagers lately? They may travel in a group together only to sit and text each other rather than actually converse verbally with one another. The truth is, they are not good at participating in such exchanges—exchanges that require tolerance, discipline, and mutual respect. So much so that when they actually do participate in a physical conversation with seasoned conversationalists, they are overly sensitive to the normal stimulus of face-toface interaction. They often confuse our animated involvement as rude, aggressive, or even disrespectful. We speak in various modes of tone, affect, and emotion. We are involved in the conversation—meaning that we express passion, which may be reflected in the elevation of our voices, demonstrating excitement or disagreement and more. Yet we maintain our respect for one another by showing regard for each other’s thoughts, positions, opinions, perspectives, and thinking—even when they differ from our own. We conduct ourselves cordially and move on. But today’s sociopolitical climate is one that often lacks regard for another’s point of view.
I recognize the inability of younger generations—raised on technology that replaced the muscle-building of engagement—to truly listen to the person they're talking to. What should be a conversation often becomes a platform for them to hammer their position, never considering what the other person has said. You see this all the time demonstrated by politicians. It’s very sad and definitely indicative of those who are not interested in hearing another’s viewpoint. That sort of attitude is the first step in stunting growth and creative expression. Such rationale assumes their way is the only way.
And if that were true, how then are we
ever to come together if I cannot appreciate your outlook—if I can’t see through your eyes based on your experiences, religion, education, and so on? If we can only connect with people based on their status, religion, political stance, etc., how then can we ever come together and grow by learning from one another? Such a way of being is stifling. If you are a rational person, clearly you can see this.
To form the bonds that eventually solidify into long-lasting friendships, we must first be willing to rise above the walls of suspicion and doubt dividing us from the individuals who inhabit our neighborhood, block, community, or building. Once, we were taught to respect others. If someone was too different in a way that impacted us negatively, we walked away and didn’t create a bond. We were taught to distinguish good from bad. Today, children are taught to fear those they do not know. Understanding that community is as much a part of survival as safety has its merit. When we take a proactive approach, we can harmoniously unite with our neighbors and build a network of support that contributes to the well-being of all involved. This old-fashioned way of connecting with others is what lifelong friendships come from. When you hear people say, “We grew up together, like sisters,” that’s what they’re talking about. In my childhood community, we referred to it as extended family. It was easy for my father to help neighbors out financially when a loved one passed, or for my mother to prepare a meal for a member of the church who had fallen on hard times. Somehow, those wise people knew that together we win—and as enemies, we will be defeated.
Introducing ourselves to neighbors needn’t be complicated. If you are new to your neighborhood, sending letters of introduction to your closest neighbors can satisfy some of their curiosity. Invite
Kai EL’ Zabar Editor-in-Chief
photo credit: Dot Ward
Special Feature
U. of C. Senior Named Knight-Hennessy Scholar, Will Attend Stanford Law
The University of Chicago announced that fourth-year student Samantha Taylor has been accepted to Stanford Law School. The news was received joyously by the aspiring lawyer, who has built her life around fighting for the causes she’s most passionate about.
Clear in her pursuit of a legal career, Taylor said, “If I’m presented with an opportunity but find that it challenges my principles or the type of impact that I’ve committed myself to making, I immediately know that it’s not worth it.”
Taylor has been named a Knight-Hennessy Scholar, a prestigious program that provides each recipient with up to three years of support for graduate study at Stanford University. The program recognizes students working to address complex challenges facing the global population. For Taylor, an Odyssey Scholar, the chance to continue her education without the financial burden that often defines the journey is invaluable.
Pursuing a double major in public policy and philosophy, Taylor now has the opportunity to deepen her education in social justice and public policy. She plans
to begin law school in the fall of 2025 with a focus on civil rights and criminal law.
The Knight-Hennessy Scholars program is a multidisciplinary, multicultural graduate scholarship that provides financial support and leadership development opportunities to students committed to positive global impact. Scholars engage in experiences that prepare them to become visionary, courageous, and collaborative leaders.
Taylor’s academic interests are deeply personal, shaped by her upbringing in Chicagoland and her first-hand encounters with racial inequity and mass incarceration—experiences that affected both her community and her own life.
“I remember being present at a mass shooting during an eighth-grade graduation party,” she said. “This and other experiences have and continue to shape my life, and influence how I enter into different spaces and situations.”
The summer of 2020 and the civil rights movements following the deaths of George Floyd and Trayvon Martin gave Taylor a social compass and cemented her drive to make a difference.
“My goal is to address mass incarceration and how it disproportionately affects Black people,” she said. “That time period has always been at the forefront of how I’ve viewed society. Because I’ve been given so much access to education without burden, I feel like it’s my responsibility to go forward in life using this opportunity to lift people up who don’t have the tools to solve the issues my family, friends, and neighbors have lived with.”
Reflecting on her time at UChicago, Taylor described a wealth of experiences—from research to internships— with organizations such as the University’s Institute of Politics, the Policing Project in New
York City, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. These opportunities helped guide the next steps in her professional path.
“My goal is to address mass incarceration and how it disproportionately affects Black people,” she emphasized. “The best opportunity for me to do that would be in a public defense capacity where I’m able to directly help, but I’m also interested in focusing on systemic intervention through appellate law.”
Long-term, she sees herself transitioning into politics to become “an even bigger advocate for legislation that helps build towards a world that I feel is more representative of equity and justice.”
When she considers the importance of her philosophy degree, Taylor credits it with giving her the “critical mindset” needed to pursue new social solutions—skills emphasized by the Knight-Hennessy program. More broadly, she said the University of Chicago gave her the confidence to strive for her goals.
“It’s a place that allows you to ask the big questions in pursuit of knowledge and truth,” she said. “UChicago allows one to travel avenues that challenge the status quo, or the normative standard of what people accept the world to be.”
Finally, Taylor received interview support from the College’s Office of National Fellowships, which assists students and alumni applying for nationally competitive awards such as the Knight-Hennessy. The National Fellowships team helps students identify and articulate how their unique talents and distinctive journeys prepare them to make a better world.
THE BOOK OF DAVID I’m Tired of Everything Being About Race, Especially When It’s a Cover for Failure
OnSunday, May 18, 2025, activist Ja’Mal Green posted a video on X featuring Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson giving a speech at a church. What should’ve been a unifying message quickly turned into yet another tonedeaf moment where race was used as both a shield and a sword.
Here’s what Mayor Johnson said: “The detractors that will push back on me and say the only thing that the mayor talks about is the hiring of Black people. No, what I'm saying is when you hire our people, we always look out for everybody else. We are the most generous people on the planet... We just make somebody a family member... Business and Economic Neighborhood Development – Black woman. Department of Planning and Development – Black woman. Infrastructure Deputy Mayor – Black woman. Chief Operations Officer – Black man. Budget Director – Black woman. Senior Advisor – Black man.”
If that statement doesn’t sit right with you, you're not alone. Ja’Mal Green— one of the few people left with a spine
and an ounce of intellectual honesty— responded with a truth bomb: “If a white mayor said this, we would be in the streets screaming. We can't have it both ways. This is an outrageous thing to say. We need to hire people who are right for the job, not because of their race.”
And he’s absolutely right. Can you imagine if Donald Trump stood at a podium and listed off all the white people he hired, then claimed white people were the most generous on the planet and essentially said, “That’s why I hire them”? The media would have gone nuclear. MSNBC would be running red-alert graphics. The New York Times would call it fascism. Every progressive talking head would scream racism, white supremacy, and demand resignation by lunchtime.
But when a Black mayor does it, we’re supposed to nod, clap, and pretend this is somehow progress?
Let’s not skip over the part where Mayor Johnson says Black people are “the most generous people on the planet.” That’s not just racial essentialism—it’s downright absurd. I happen to have a book on my shelf called Cobalt Red: How the
National news
Blood of the Congo Powers Our Lives by Siddharth Kara. In it, the author documents the horrific reality of modern-day slavery in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where over 400,000 human beings—many of them children—are mining cobalt with their bare hands for our smartphones and electric vehicles. You know who’s running those mines? Other Africans. That’s not a legacy of colonialism—it’s current, active exploitation. But we’ll never hear Mayor Johnson condemn that. Why? Because it doesn’t fit the narrative. It’s easier to keep repeating that America is evil, that slavery is a uniquely Western sin, and that if we just hire enough “play cousins,” all our problems will magically disappear. This is the intellectual dishonesty that drives me crazy. Mayor Johnson constantly points the finger at Republicans, at white people, at America itself, for every systemic failure—yet turns around and does the very thing he condemns: hires based on skin color, not skill. And when you question it? You’re racist. According to his logic, when Donald Trump hires white people, he’s Hitler. But when Brandon Johnson hires only
Lauren Burke, NNPA Contributor
Black people, it’s called “equity.”
Let’s be real: this race-first approach isn’t just unfair—it’s failing. Johnson’s approval rating is circling the drain at under 10%. Even Black Chicagoans are fed up. They’re tired of being pandered to with empty rhetoric while their neighborhoods face rising crime, business closures, population loss, and a city drowning in red ink.
Mayor Johnson brags about having the “Blackest administration in Chicago history” while overseeing one of the worst-performing city governments in recent memory. Maybe it’s time he stops hiring based on who he considers “family” and starts hiring based on who can actually do the job.
Enough with the race games. We need leaders who care more about results than identity politics. Chicago—and America—deserves better.
After a Week of Battling Health Care Cuts, Congressional Black Caucus Talks Strategy
During a session with reporters on May 15, six members of the Congressional Black Caucus discussed their battle to push back on massive cuts to health care and messaging strategy.
Lauren Victoria Burke NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent During a session with reporters on May 15, six members of the Congressional Black Caucus discussed their battle to push back on massive health care cuts and their messaging strategy. Chairwoman Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Rep. Troy Carter (D-LA), Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-WA), Rep. Robin Kelly (D-IL), Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX), and Rep. Jennifer McClellan (D-VA) attended the media session.
The interviews took place a day before Republicans on the U.S. House Budget Committee failed to advance President Trump’s budget plan. Though the budget failed to move forward—because GOP members want even deeper cuts to social programs—the committee is scheduled to meet again late in the evening on Sunday, May 18.
“We understood the assignment. We understood that the bulk of the cuts that were going to fund these tax cuts were going to come from, you know, on the backs of people’s health care,” said McClellan in response to a question from Black Press USA. “Nationwide, they’re going to strip 13.7 million people off of health care—off their health insurance. In Virginia, that’s going to be a little over
200,000. And it’s going to blow a hole in our state budget,” she added.
The members were also asked why Democrats have focused so heavily on Medicaid, despite the proposed budget cutting funding across numerous areas—including education, another major concern.
Crockett explained why health care remains a central issue for Democrats.
“You see that people are upset. The country did not respond in the way that you would normally think they would respond to somebody being assassinated. And so, health care is a really big issue— but also, we have the numbers… House Dems on the Budget Committee have a website that they set up that literally lists how many people are impacted in each
of the districts,” Rep. Crockett said. She was referring to the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City on December 4, 2024. He was allegedly killed by 26-year-old Luigi Mangione, who had posted online about an ongoing health problem with his lower back.
The battle over health care has persisted since the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010 during President Barack Obama’s administration. Since then, Republicans have pushed for greater privatization of the health care system, while Democrats have advocated for expanding coverage—particularly through programs like Medicaid.
Dawn Montgomery, Culture Critic NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent
Record Viewership, Record Racism
The WNBA can’t have it both ways. Black players deserve better. “When players have to be resilient without protection, that’s not inspiration—that’s exploitation. If the WNBA won’t protect its players, it doesn’t deserve its fans.”
“You a monkey!”
That’s what an Indiana fan allegedly yelled at Angel Reese as she stepped to the free-throw line at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis on Saturday. And the league still hasn’t done a damn thing.
When Angel Reese and Caitlin Clark entered the league last season, everything changed.
More people started watching women’s basketball. Viewership went up. But so did the hate — racist fans, nasty comments online, and an atmosphere that’s gotten hostile, especially toward Black players.
There should be zero tolerance for racism in this league. Period.
Instead, the WNBA is willing to look the other way as long as ticket sales keep climbing. No one in charge seems worried about what these players are going through — mentally or physically. That has to change, and it starts at the top.
During that Chicago Sky versus Indiana Fever game, fans made monkey noises while Reese was at the line. One fan shouted, “You a monkey!” After Clark’s technical foul on Reese, Fever fans kept at it. I’ve watched the footage. This behavior is flat-out unacceptable, and the league needs to step up — in a real way.
Let me be straight about Cathy Engelbert: Yes, she’s helped the league grow, but she’s failing these players now. The league has outgrown her. She needs to go. That might be the first real step toward fixing this mess. These players deserve protection.
I’ve been watching the WNBA since day one, and I’ve never seen this level of hatred — especially when Reese and Clark play each other. The Sky and Fever will meet five more times this season. If nothing changes, this gets worse. Someone could get hurt.
The solution isn’t complicated: Fine or suspend teams when these incidents happen. Make organizations tighten up their security and crowd control.
If the fan base can’t behave, the team should consider playing without fans.
Drastic? Maybe. But player safety comes first.
I’ve loved this league from the beginning. I held season tickets for the Atlanta Dream from their first game. Back then, the arenas were packed with respectful fans, and players felt safe. That feeling is gone now.
This isn’t the league I fell in love with. It’s become a place that doesn’t protect its Black players. It ignores the concerns raised by fans, players, and reporters when they speak up.
THE WNBA MUST BELIEVE THEIR PLAYERS, FANS, AND MEDIA MEMBERS.
Players and reporters have been talking about how toxic it gets in Indiana. Last September, the WNBA said: “The WNBA is a competitive league with some of the most elite athletes in the world. While we welcome a growing fan base, the WNBA will not tolerate racist, derogatory, or threatening comments made about players, teams, and anyone affiliated with the league.
League security is actively monitoring threat-related activity and will work directly with teams and arenas to take appropriate measures, to include involving law enforcement as necessary.”
The WNBPA recently released a statement: “The WNBPA is aware of reports of hateful comments at yesterday’s game in Indianapolis and supports the WNBA’s current investigation into this matter. Such behavior is unacceptable in our sport. Under the WNBA’s ‘No Space for Hate’ policy, we trust the league to thoroughly investigate and take swift, appropriate action to ensure a safe and welcoming environment for all.”
I don’t trust them to “thoroughly investigate” anything. They should have been ready for this a long time ago. So I’m talking directly to you, the fans. We have to be the change ourselves.
If you’re at a game this season, do this: If someone says something racist or inappropriate, try to record it and tell security immediately If you see a player or fan being mistreated, find security
After the game, email the home team about what happened Then, email the WNBA with the same details. Copy a reporter if you can
We need real documentation — not just tweets. Accountability starts with proof.
Your voice matters. What you see and hear at games matters. The league knows this. Its “No Space for Hate” campaign is just empty words if they don’t back it up. So speak up. Report
what you see. Record it if you can. Tell the team. Tell the league. Tell the media. Change won’t happen on its own. But we can push for it.
This league has always been about fighting through adversity. But when players have to be resilient without protection, that’s not inspiration—that’s exploitation. If the WNBA won’t protect its players, it doesn’t deserve its fans.
Protect the players. Believe them. Have their backs.
Dr. Sanja Rickette Stinson CNW
Your Next Requires a Release
Grit. Grace. Grime. And God: As entrepreneurs—especially those of us who lead with purpose—it’s easy to get entangled in the idea that success is holding it all together. We build, we grind, we sacrifice. We pour sweat and soul into the dream. And when we finally make something out of nothing, the hardest thing to do… is to let go. But here's a hard truth: your next breakthrough, your next level, your next legacy—requires a release.
Letting go doesn’t mean giving up. It means recognizing when the assignment has shifted. When the season has changed. When the grace has lifted. And when the grime—the constant grinding without growth—is no longer serving our soul.
The Entrepreneur's Dilemma: A question I believe every entrepreneur might be asking yourself. What if It’s Time to Let Go? We are conditioned to push through. To hustle harder. To outwork the doubt. That’s the grit in us. And yes, grit matters. But grit without discernment can keep you bound to an expired vision. Sometimes, grit is knowing when to grind—and grace is knowing when to release. Many entrepreneurs fall into the trap of clinging to what they built, even when it’s burning them out. We tell ourselves, “I start-
ed this. I have to finish it.” But the truth is— some things you were only meant to start. Others will carry it forward. "Legacy isn’t about possession—it’s about divine positioning. It’s not found in buildings or programs, but in the lives, you’ve impacted, the hearts you’ve lifted, and the purpose you’ve helped others discover. True legacy is measured by the eternal difference you made in obedience to God’s call."
Role of Grace: What I know is that you can’t hustle what only heaven can hand you. Grace is the flow that reminds us we’re not doing this alone. It’s not just our brains, branding, or balance sheets. It’s divine alignment. And if the Spirit isn’t in it, we’ll find ourselves producing out of pressure, not purpose. When the door starts to close, don’t force it. God's “next” often begins with a “no longer.”
We must learn to trust that same God who gave us the vision is also the God who signals when it’s time to shift. “To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.” –Ecclesiastes 3:1 This includes your business. Your calling. Your dream. Be clear about this “your impact doesn’t end—it evolves.
Grime and the Illusion of Control: Here’s the part many won’t tell you: some of us stay stuck
not because we lack options, but because we fear the release. We’ve mistaken busyness for fruitfulness. We confuse loyalty to the vision with bondage to the past. As for grime— those late nights, the constant problem-solving, the weariness in your spirit—isn’t always a sign of passion. Sometimes, it’s a warning. A nudge that it’s time to reimagine, reassign, or retire a role you were never meant to carry forever. Letting go is sacred work. It’s when we remember that this journey is not just about profit margins—it’s about purpose management.
Release Is Where Reinvention Begins: Your next stage—whether it’s launching something new, mentoring others, or simply resting— requires an empty hand and a willing heart. Yes, your hands may be calloused from the work. Yes, your heart may ache at the thought of stepping back. But you were never meant to hold on forever. You were meant to plant, to prune, and to pass it forward. Sometimes the greatest business decision you’ll ever make isn’t expanding—it’s exiting.
Legacy: Beyond the Hustle: You’re not just building income. You’re building impact. And impact doesn’t die when you shift directions. It multiplies when you’re obedient.
You’ve sown in tears, built in storms, and survived seasons that others couldn’t see behind the brand. That’s the grime and grit. But now, you must invite in the grace to go forward. Here’s the spiritual truth: you don’t have to carry everything. You’re not the source—God is. And when you release what no longer fits, you make room for what only He can supply.
Release Is Not Retreat—It’s Realignment: If you’re at the crossroads today, wondering whether to stay or step out—ask yourself:
• Am I operating in purpose or out of pressure?
• Has my peace left the place where I’m still trying to plant?
• Do I trust God enough to release this, even if I don’t see what’s next?
Your next requires a release you to
(1) Release the role:
(2) Release the Identity:
(3) Release the fear
And step into the bold unknown—where purpose meets peace and legacy is born, not from what you held on to, but from what you had the faith to let go.
Lawndale Christian Development Corporation Named Finalist in Two Chicago Prize Initiatives
Organization recognized for leadership in equitable development and community revitalization in North Lawndale
The Lawndale Christian Development Corporation (LCDC) has been named a finalist in two of the four projects selected for the prestigious 2025 Chicago Prize—a $10 million grant competition from the Pritzker Traubert Foundation that supports transformative, community-led real estate development on Chicago’s South and West Sides.
This rare double recognition highlights LCDC’s decades-long commitment to equitable development and grassroots empowerment in North Lawndale. The two finalist initiatives—Reclaiming Chicago Initiative and Energizing an Economic Ecosystem for North Lawndale—showcase how partnerships grounded in community vision can drive impactful, sustainable change without displacement.
“LCDC is fortunate enough to be involved in two of the four finalist projects for the Pritzker Traubert Foundation’s Chicago Prize,” said Richard Townsell, Executive Director of LCDC. “It speaks volumes about North Lawndale’s resilience and how the Quality of Life Plan, led by the North Lawndale Community Coordinating Council, is still a living, breathing document. Our goal is redevelopment without displacement. The people who have weathered the highs and lows of this neighborhood should be the first to benefit from what’s to come. To God be the glory.”
A Dual Path to Transformation
The Reclaiming Chicago Initiative, led by United Power for Action and Justice with LCDC as a key partner, addresses decades of disinvestment through largescale housing redevelopment. The project includes the construction and rehabilitation of single-family homes across North Lawndale, Back of the Yards, Chicago Lawn, and Greater Roseland—79 homes are currently under construction, with 80 more shovel-ready in 2025.
In tandem, LCDC is leading Energizing an Economic Ecosystem for North Lawndale, a bold vision focused on economic mobility through job creation, entrepreneurship, infrastructure investment, and workforce development. At the center of this initiative is the upcoming One Lawndale Children’s Discovery Center, a community anchor. Partner organizations include the North Lawndale Employment Network, New Covenant Community Development Corporation, the North Lawndale Community Coordinating Council, and the Discovery Center.
“These two finalist projects represent the breadth and depth of LCDC’s approach—rooted in people, powered by faith, and driven by justice,” said Michael McMurray, LCDC Board Chair. “We are committed to building neighborhoods that thrive without pushing people out.”
Building a Legacy of Community-Led Change
For over 35 years, LCDC has been a trusted institution in North Lawndale—creating more than 300 units of affordable housing, supporting small businesses, offering financial wellness programs, and advancing policy change to uplift longtime residents.
LCDC’s leadership in these two Chicago Prize finalist projects affirms its role as a critical architect of community resilience. North Lawndale is one of only five neighborhoods represented among the finalists, and LCDC is the only organization participating in two of the four selected initiatives. Each finalist is eligible to receive either the $10 million Chicago Prize or a $650,000 matching fund grant, with winners to be announced in fall 2025.
“The Chicago Prize is an investment in creating a better Chicago,” said Bryan Traubert, co-founder and chairman of the Pritzker Traubert Foundation. “Realizing these community-led visions strengthens families, communities, and our entire city.”
As North Lawndale steps into this next chapter, LCDC and its partners continue to champion a vision of prosperity that is inclusive, sustainable, and led by the very residents who have shaped the neighborhood’s spirit for generations.
Chicago Arts Commissioner Addresses Federal Funding Cuts Amid Local Challenges
Inresponse to recent federal funding cuts to arts and cultural programs, Chicago's Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events (DCASE) is reaffirming its commitment to supporting local artists and organizations.
The Trump administration's decision to rescind grants from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) has directly impacted several prominent Chicago events. Notably, the Chicago Architecture Center's Open House Chicago lost a $30,000 grant, and the Gene Siskel Film Center's Black Harvest Film Festival saw a $20,000 award canceled. Despite these setbacks, both organizations plan to proceed with their events, albeit with strained resources.
In a statement, DCASE Commissioner Clinée Hedspeth expressed deep concern over the federal cuts, emphasizing the essential role of city-level support in sustaining the arts. "In this time of un-
certainty, the grant programs and financial support provided by DCASE will be more essential than ever in sustaining and strengthening the work of artists and arts organizations," Hedspeth stated.
However, DCASE itself is facing internal challenges. Over 200 artists and cultural leaders have signed a letter to Mayor Brandon Johnson, citing dysfunction within the department, including staff turnover and delays in grant disbursements. The letter, organized by the advocacy group Artists for Chicago, calls for increased transparency and accountability within DCASE.
One significant casualty of the combined federal and local funding issues is Links Hall, a performance art venue that announced it will close in June due to financial strain after losing a crucial DCASE CityArts grant. The grant, previously valued between $80,000 and $120,000, was a significant portion of the venue's operating budget.
Despite these challenges, DCASE con-
tinues to offer support through programs like the CityArts grants, which provide general operating funds to nonprofit arts organizations. Eligibility criteria and application details are available on the city's official website.
Commissioner Hedspeth remains committed to advocating for the arts sector and is actively engaging with affected organizations to understand their needs and provide assistance. "This is a challenging time, and it is vital that we stand together to ensure the continued health and vibrancy of our cultural landscape," she affirmed.
As Chicago's arts community navigates these turbulent times, the collaboration between city officials, artists, and organizations will be crucial in preserving the city's rich cultural heritage.
For more information on DCASE programs and support, visit cityofchicago. org/dcase.
The Company That Sold Trust
How Johnson & Johnson engineered poppies, pushed pills, and quietly profited from a crisis that killed hundreds of thousands
The courtroom was beige and forgettable. The company on trial was anything but.
In the summer of 2019, Oklahoma’s attorney general stood before a district judge and accused Johnson & Johnson—yes, that Johnson & Johnson—of acting as the quiet kingpin in America’s opioid epidemic. Not Purdue Pharma. Not just the Sacklers. But the company that made Band-Aids, baby shampoo, and children’s Tylenol. For over a century, Johnson & Johnson cultivated a reputation so pristine that it was almost untouchable. It was the company families turned to in moments of pain, fear, or illness. It made the products people trusted to heal their children, soothe their ailments, and signal safety. It wasn’t just about corporate greed—it was about misplaced trust, weaponized branding, and the price of public naïveté.
In Illinois alone, opioid overdoses claimed over 3,000 lives in 2022—nearly double the number of homicide deaths that year. In Cook County, the toll has been especially brutal, with Black communities on the West and South Sides facing disproportionately high fatality rates. Chicagoans have watched entire blocks hollow out, parents bury their children, and grandparents step in as guardians—again.
Steven Koch Photography
Malachi Webster Staff Writer
So yes, this trial happened in Oklahoma. But the story—this story—is about what’s been hiding in plain sight across America, including in our own neighborhoods. When the company your mother trusted for baby powder turns out to be one of the largest suppliers of opioid ingredients in the world, you have to ask: what else have we overlooked?
The lawyers called it a public health emergency. The judge called it a public nuisance. At the end of the trial, Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay $572 million. The ruling was brief but devastating: Johnson & Johnson’s conduct had “compromised the health and safety of thousands of Oklahomans.”
The judgment would later be overturned on appeal. But in a small courtroom in Norman, Oklahoma, the company that had spent over a century building trust was publicly, legally named as part of an epidemic that had already claimed over 400,000 lives nationwide—and counting. The documents entered into evidence—emails, PowerPoints, sales scripts, supplier contracts—told a story not of an accidental contributor, but of an orchestrator.
To understand Johnson & Johnson’s role in the opioid crisis, you have to start where the painkillers do—not in pharmacies, but in poppy fields.
The Sales Pitch
In the 1990s, a J&J subsidiary based in Tasmania—Tasmanian Alkaloids—developed a genetically modified poppy plant called “Norman,” bred to produce high concentrations of thebaine and oripavine. These are the chemical building blocks for powerful synthetic opioids like oxycodone, hydrocodone, and oxymorphone.
That was the play: control the source. Through Tasmanian Alkaloids and its U.S.-based processor Noramco, Johnson & Johnson became the dominant supplier of raw opioid ingredients to nearly every major pharmaceutical company in the U.S. Purdue Pharma, the creators of OxyContin, was among the largest.
By 2015, Johnson & Johnson was supplying more than 60% of the active ingredients used to make opioid pills sold in the United States. According to one DEA report, the company controlled a stunning share of the world's legal narcotic material— at one point, responsible for up to 80% of global oxycodone production inputs.
In 1998, Purdue signed a deal to buy 100% of its thebaine supply—key to manufacturing OxyContin—from J&J’s Noramco. It was a lucrative, long-term relationship. And it wasn’t the only one. Their drugs didn’t just show up in orange bottles—they made the contents that filled those bottles. And because the supply chain was legal, federally approved, and highly profitable, there were few questions—at least at first.
Behind the soft lighting and family branding was an industrial narcotics empire hiding in plain sight. In the same years that its subsidiaries dominated the supply chain, Johnson & Johnson was developing and selling its own opioid products through Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a division it had owned since 1961.
Duragesic, a fentanyl-based patch, launched in 1990. Later came Nucynta, a pill-based synthetic opioid approved by the FDA in 2008.
Internally, the mission was clear: expand the market. That meant targeting patients far beyond endof-life cancer care. Janssen sales reps were trained to pitch opioids for chronic back pain, joint pain, and routine post-operative recovery. They downplayed risk. They emphasized quality of life. They used language the industry had perfected over years of shaping medical opinion: “low abuse potential,” “pseudoaddiction,” “undertreatment of pain.”
The term “pseudoaddiction” became gospel in pain clinics. It suggested that drug-seeking behavior in patients was not a sign of addiction but of inadequate dosing. The cure? More opioids.
And J&J made sure that message stuck.
Influence by Design
To spread this message further, Johnson & Johnson invested heavily in pain advocacy groups, medical journals, and continuing education programs for doctors. These initiatives emphasized opioids as a humane solution to chronic pain and portrayed addiction risks as overstated.
At medical conferences, Janssen-funded speakers argued passionately that opioids were being unjustly vilified. These voices were often influential doctors or researchers, whose credibility lent weight to Johnson & Johnson’s strategic messaging.
Sales representatives, trained meticulously, flooded doctors’ offices with assurances about safety profiles, leaning heavily on selectively chosen studies and testimonials that minimized addiction risks. They hosted dinners and events designed to subtly influence prescribing behaviors, always careful to remain within the boundaries of legality.
Johnson & Johnson also used regulatory channels to their advantage. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) sets annual quotas for opioid production. Behind closed doors, J&J subsidiaries lobbied persistently for higher quotas, arguing public health demanded ample opioid availability. The result: production limits soared, flooding the market with more opioids than ever.
Over the next two decades, Johnson & Johnson spent millions funding pain organizations, advocacy groups, and medical societies that pushed for looser prescribing standards. These included the American Pain Foundation, the American Geriatrics Society, and the Joint Commission, which created hospital guidelines still in use today.
They didn’t need to place an ad that said “More Pills.” They just needed doctors to believe that under-treating pain was more dangerous than overprescribing opioids.
This wasn’t fringe influence. It was the institutional center of American medicine—molded, funded, and co-written by one of the most trusted corporations on earth.
The Lie That Lingered
By the late 2000s, red flags were everywhere. Emergency rooms were overwhelmed. Entire counties saw more opioid prescriptions than residents. Still, Johnson & Johnson stayed largely out of view. That’s partly because their branded opioids never held a dominant share of the market. Purdue had OxyContin. Insys had Subsys. Mallinckrodt was flooding the market with generics. But Johnson & Johnson
making the base ingredients for all of them.
Their defense was always the same: we made a tiny fraction of the pills. But they never talked about how many kilograms of raw oxycodone and hydrocodone they manufactured—only that it was approved by the DEA.
What’s rarely mentioned: those DEA quotas? Johnson & Johnson lobbied to expand them.
The Oklahoma Files
In 2019, Oklahoma became the first state to bring Johnson & Johnson to trial for its role in the epidemic. Unlike other companies that settled early, J&J chose to fight in court. That turned out to be a mistake.
The trial revealed hundreds of internal documents. Emails showed executives debating how aggressively to market Nucynta to general practitioners. Sales presentations encouraged reps to downplay risks and avoid the word “addiction” entirely. Managers shared strategies for targeting nursing homes and high-prescribing physicians.
And then there was the supply chain— contracts showing Purdue Pharma purchasing 100% of its thebaine requirements from J&J’s Noramco division. Judge Thad Balkman didn’t mince words. He ruled that Johnson & Johnson had “caused an opioid crisis that is evidenced by increased rates of addiction, overdose deaths, and neonatal abstinence syndrome in Oklahoma.”
The award: $572 million
It was the first opioid trial to end in a judgment against a manufacturer. And while it would later be reversed on ap-
peal, the evidence was now public—and damning.
A Strategic Retreat
In 2021, facing mounting legal pressure, Johnson & Johnson agreed to a $5 billion nationwide settlement—without admitting wrongdoing. It was a strategic retreat aimed at protecting their broader reputation.
Under the terms of the deal, the company agreed to exit the opioid business entirely in the U.S. Noramco and Tasmanian Alkaloids were sold off. The damage, however, was already done.
Even after exiting the opioid market, the consequences lingered: hundreds of thousands dead. Families shattered. Communities permanently scarred.
The company had moved on—publicly emphasizing vaccines and sustainability initiatives, quietly distancing itself from the opioid years.
No More Tears
In 2025, longtime health journalist Gardiner Harris released No More Tears: The Dark Secrets of Johnson & Johnson. It was the first book-length investigation into the company’s role in the opioid epidemic.
Drawing on whistleblower interviews, sealed depositions, and internal memos, Harris documented a company that had built its pharmaceutical strategy around pain—and then built its public image to conceal it.
One former executive, quoted anonymously, put it this way: “We weren’t trying to be villains. But we also weren’t trying to be heroes. We were trying to stay ahead of Purdue, stay off the radar, and stay paid.”
The book laid out how deeply the company embedded itself in medical education, federal lobbying, and even DEA quota-setting. According to Harris, J&J had once petitioned for increased opioid production limits while simultaneously funding messaging that cast opioids as underprescribed.
It wasn’t just about drugs. It was about narrative control.
Exporting the Model
As Johnson & Johnson pulled out of the U.S. market, parts of its pain franchise quietly moved overseas.
In Brazil, India, and South Africa, versions of Nucynta continued to circulate—often accompanied by marketing materials that echoed the same language J&J used in the States two decades prior: “High control.” “Fast relief.” “Low abuse potential.”
In nations with less regulatory oversight and greater unmet pain needs, these drugs were framed as breakthroughs. Critics saw echoes of a familiar playbook: build trust, sell relief, downplay risk.
And although Johnson & Johnson no longer officially sold opioids, the infrastructure it helped create—the research, the branding, the network of partners— remained in place.
International watchdogs, including the WHO and the Pain & Policy Studies Group, raised concerns about “opioid liberalization” campaigns taking hold in developing markets. In some cases, the same medical experts who once helped shape U.S. prescribing practices were now conducting speaking tours abroad. The epidemic had gone global. And much of the scaffolding was built by
like
The Disappearance Act
By the time No More Tears hit bookshelves, Johnson & Johnson had already rebranded. Its consumer health division was spun off. Baby products were updated. The logo was modernized. It leaned into vaccine development, sustainability, and social impact.
For most consumers, the opioid chapter never even happened.
And yet, the numbers remain: over 700,000 Americans dead from opioid overdoses since the late 1990s. Roughly 2.5 million people still living with opioid use disorder. Entire towns hollowed out. Families torn apart. Children orphaned.
And behind it all, a company that built its empire on trust—then sold that trust, one pill at a time.
History may remember Purdue as the face of the opioid epidemic, but the machinery behind it—legal, logistical, and cultural—was built by giants who wore the mask of responsibility.
Johnson & Johnson didn’t just profit from the crisis; it helped design the system that made it possible.
And unlike many of its peers, it walked away with its name intact. The consequences endured by individuals, families, and entire towns stand in stark contrast to the relative impunity enjoyed by the company itself. For those seeking justice or closure, the scars of this epidemic are permanent.
But in boardrooms and shareholder calls, the lessons were merely strategic. The machine adapts, evolves, and moves on—until someone else, somewhere else, pays the price.
companies
Johnson & Johnson.
Laura Miller Managing Editor
HEALTHY LIVING
The Gut-Brain Connection Is More Than a Buzzword
Your gut contains a vast network of neurons, hormones, and bacteria collectively known as the gut microbiome. It’s so central to emotion regulation that scientists often refer to it as the “second brain.” In fact, about 90% of the body’s serotonin — the neurotransmitter responsible for mood, sleep, and appetite — is produced in the gut, not the brain. But when your diet is loaded with fast food — high in saturated fats, refined carbs, and sugar, and low in fiber — the balance of bacteria in your gut shifts. This can reduce serotonin production and increase inflammation, both of which are strongly linked to mood disorders like anxiety and depression.
“The mammalian gut microbiome is like a forest,” Dr. Eugene Chang of the University of Chicago told the university's news service in 2023. “When you damage it, it must recover in a specific order. A Western diet doesn’t support that recovery because it lacks the nutrients for the right microbes at the right time.”
A 2022 review published in Nutrients found that diets high in processed foods
were associated with a 33% increased risk of depression. And in a separate meta-analysis in The Lancet Psychiatry, adolescents with poor diets were significantly more likely to experience mental health issues — including anxiety, low self-esteem, and poor cognitive performance.
The Real Impact: Mood Swings, Brain Fog, and the Crash Cycle
When you eat a fast-food-heavy meal, here’s what happens:
Blood sugar spikes, then crashes, leaving you irritable or fatigued.
The lack of fiber starves your gut bacteria.
Chronic intake promotes low-grade inflammation, increasingly linked to depression and anxiety.
The brain receives less serotonin, impairing your ability to regulate emotions. Many people report feeling unusually anxious, tired, or mentally foggy after a string of fast food meals — not realizing their lunch may be triggering their low moods.
Why This Matters More in Certain Communities
Here’s where it gets even more complicated: not everyone has equal access to the foods that support a healthy gutbrain connection.
In many predominantly Black and Brown neighborhoods, food deserts — areas without nearby grocery stores or affordable, fresh produce — are more common. Meanwhile, fast food chains are overrepresented in those same areas.
A 2020 study by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity found that fast food advertising targets Black youth more aggressively than any other demographic group. Combined with limited healthy options, this creates a perfect storm for chronic disease and mental health disparities.
That means gut health — and by extension, mental health — isn’t just about personal choices. It’s also a structural issue that affects who gets access to the tools for healing.
Healing the Gut, Lifting the Mood
The good news? Even small changes can make a big difference. Gut bacteria respond quickly to diet — sometimes within days.
Here are a few serotonin-friendly food swaps:
Instead of fries: Roasted sweet potatoes or plantain chips (bonus: fiber and resistant starch)
Replace soda: Try sparkling water with citrus or unsweetened kombucha (a fermented, gut-friendly drink)
Add fiber-rich foods: Lentils, oats, bananas, and leafy greens
Include fermented foods: Yogurt with live cultures, kimchi, sauerkraut, or miso
This isn’t about shame — everyone craves comfort food. But understanding the gut-brain connection gives us a new lens to think about what we eat, how we feel, and how we can take back control. Your gut isn’t just digesting your lunch.
The A.I. The answer.is...
Today, any day—at any time of day—we are bombarded with a flood of stories articulating current affairs through a barrage of buzzwords meant to capture what is occurring.
So let’s take a look at what we get a daily dose of as we navigate the social and political terrain, encountering each day something described as “unprecedented.”
Here are some common buzzwords used daily in the political arena, along with their definitions and explanations of how they interconnect:
Transparency
Definition: The quality of being open and honest about policies, decisions, and processes, allowing public scrutiny.
Interconnection: Transparency builds trust and accountability, and is often linked to good governance and anti-corruption efforts.
Accountability
Definition: The obligation of politicians and officials to answer for their actions and decisions.
Interconnection: Closely connected to transparency; accountability ensures that actions are publicly scrutinized and justified.
Crisis Management
Definition: Strategies and actions taken to
handle urgent and potentially damaging situations.
Interconnection: Demonstrates leadership and control during political scandals or emergencies.
Populism
Definition: A political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people, often contrasting "the people" against "the elite."
Interconnection: Often used to gain mass support, sometimes oversimplifying complex issues.
Divisiveness
Definition: The tendency to create or deepen divisions within society or groups.
Interconnection: A rhetorical tactic used to rally supporters or vilify opponents.
Polarization
Definition: The process by which opinions become more extreme and divided.
Interconnection: A natural outcome of divisiveness, leading to reduced compromise and increased ideological conflict.
Legitimacy
Definition: The perception that a government or authority has the right to rule.
Interconnection: Dependent on transparency and accountability; public support and fair processes enhance legitimacy.
Policy Platform
Definition: The set of positions and proposals a candidate or party endorses.
Interconnection: Communicates vision and values; helps differentiate candidates and influences voter alignment.
Electability
Definition: The likelihood that a candidate will win an election.
Interconnection: Influences campaign strategy and messaging, often centered on broad appeal rather than ideology.
Voter Suppression
Definition: Tactics aimed at reducing voter turnout or access to the ballot.
Interconnection: A controversial practice that undermines the legitimacy of electoral processes.
Partisanship
Definition: Strong allegiance to a political party or ideology.
Interconnection: Fuels polarization and heavily influences voting behavior and policy positions.
Lobbying
Definition: The act of attempting to influence policymakers on behalf of special interests.
Interconnection Summary with Constitutional Crisis
A constitutional crisis can emerge when key political actors violate or challenge foundational norms amid extreme polarization or divisiveness. These crises often expose weaknesses in accountability mechanisms and can be exploited by populist or divisive actors. They may result from disputes over election outcomes, government authority, or policy platforms—and in turn, impact electability and erode public trust.
Recent and Historical Examples of Constitutional Crises
1. The 2020 United States Presidential Election and Aftermath
Situation: Disputes over election results, unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud, and efforts to overturn certified outcomes led to a constitutional crisis, culminating in the January 6 Capitol riot.
Impact: Challenged the legitimacy of the democratic process, strained accountability, and exposed deep societal polarization.
Interconnection: Highlighted how populist rhetoric can erode constitutional norms and how partisanship and lobbying influence electoral integrity.
2. The 2019–2020 Brexit Negotiations and the UK’s Political Deadlock
Interconnection: Affects policymaking and can compromise transparency and legitimacy when opaque or excessive.
Interconnection Summary
Many buzzwords are deeply interconnected within the political landscape. For example, populism often leverages divisiveness and polarization to mobilize support, while transparency and accountability are critical for maintaining legitimacy. Conversely, tactics like voter suppression threaten electoral legitimacy, and lobbying can impact policy decisions in ways that erode public trust. These concepts—individually and together—shape political discourse, strategies, and governance outcomes.
Another much bandied about term these days is whether or not we are in a constitutional crisis.
Constitutional Crisis
Definition: A situation in which institutional or constitutional rules are challenged or broken, leading to a breakdown in the normal functioning of government or the legal order.
Interconnection: Often stems from or leads to legitimacy issues, especially when polarization or divisiveness cause institutions to contest each other’s authority. Such crises can be triggered by disputes over policy platforms or election outcomes and often threaten government transparency and accountability.
Situation: The UK faced a constitutional crisis during Brexit, particularly during the proroguing of Parliament by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, which was ultimately challenged in court.
Impact: Raised questions about legitimacy, transparency, and the constitutional norms surrounding parliamentary sovereignty.
Interconnection: Demonstrated how populist-driven divisiveness, as seen in the Brexit campaign, can provoke constitutional instability and erode trust in institutions.
3. The 2007–2008 Kenyan Crisis
Situation: Post-election violence and disputes over the legitimacy of the electoral process plunged the country into a constitutional crisis.
Impact: Undermined public trust in electoral institutions, heightened polarization, and led to violent conflict.
Interconnection: Underscored the critical role of constitutional protections and how their breach can threaten democratic stability and national cohesion.
Potential Impacts of a Constitutional Crisis
Erosion of public trust in government and institutions
Questions over the legitimacy of leadership or electoral outcomes
Disruption of policy-making and everyday governance
Intensification of societal divisiveness and polarization
Increased need for judicial or international intervention
Risk of authoritarianism or arbitrary government actions
This report is brought to you by the Chicago News Weekly staff to assist in your dayto-day understanding of the current political landscape.
Laura Miller Managing Editor
Is the Paradox of Choice Holding Us Back in Love?
Ifthere’s a thing called the paradox of choice, is one of the places we’re experiencing it the most in the world of online dating?
I can’t help but think back to the romcoms of the early 2000s—those charming, nostalgic films that always had some variation of a plot: a 28-year-old returns to their high school reunion, searching for their old crush or prom date, wondering what happened to them over the years. There’s a magical look back at their teenage years, and, in the end, the two reconnect. The meeting turns into something meaningful. Something lasting. It’s a story that feels wholesome because it reflects the simplicity of connection before the internet made us feel like we were always one click away from someone else.
I actually know several people whose real-life “reunions” followed that same path. They found a connection they weren’t expecting—rekindled something that had been dormant for years. It wasn’t about a perfect match or a profile picture. It was about human history. It was raw. It was real. And it could last. But what happens now, in an age where the "what happened to my high school crush?" question can be answered with a quick social media search? Where we no longer need to be at a reunion to find the “one that got away”? Where, instead of longing, we satisfy that curiosity in an instant?
Welcome to the age of abundance. Welcome to the age of too much information.
From Reunion to Swipe: A Shift in Expectations
Remember Facebook Dating? For millennials, it was like the last oasis where things still felt authentic. Sure, it was part of a digital network, but it still felt like a small, semi-intimate way of connecting with people from your past without feeling like you were just another profile in the mix. There was still a sense of “who you are” versus “how many likes you get.” But then the swipe culture took over. It wasn’t just Facebook. It was everywhere—Tinder, Bumble, Hinge, and the countless others. Suddenly, we weren’t just meeting people who lived in our city, or even our country. We were meeting the world.
And in this world of endless choices, something subtle began to shift. We stopped seeing each person as a unique connection and started viewing them as just another potential option. With the swipe of a finger, someone goes from “I’m interested in this person” to “I’m done.” But is that really how connec-
tions are made?
We now live in a time where the choices are endless, and yet, many of us feel more isolated than ever. So much has changed, and much of it feels like a paradox. Why are we more connected than ever, yet more single than we’ve been in decades?
A recent study from the Pew Research Center highlighted this disconnect: more than half of Americans using online dating apps report feeling frustrated by the experience, and yet, they keep swiping. Maybe it’s not just about finding the perfect match anymore—it’s about the idea that someone better might be just one swipe away. And that uncertainty keeps us always searching, but never really settling.
Is Too Much Choice Preventing Us from Choosing?
If we’ve learned anything about the human condition, it’s that we thrive in simplicity. There’s comfort in limited options because we can focus. We can make choices that feel intentional. But when we’re flooded with options, we start to treat people as commodities. And with every swipe, the weight of connection gets lighter.
Think about the rom-coms again: there was never an abundance of options for the protagonist. Sure, maybe there was the classic love triangle—but ultimately, the “one that got away” was just one person. There was something finite about it that made it valuable. Now, that feeling of finite possibility has been replaced with infinite swiping, a constant loop of faces and names that never feel real enough to hold onto.
Here’s the thing: the right person won’t check all of your boxes. This isn’t a dating app version of House Hunters. If that’s the mindset, we’ve lost sight of what real connection looks like. It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the perfect match is just around the corner when there are literally millions of profiles out there. But maybe we’ve lost something important in that search: the ability to see someone for who they truly are, not just the perfect fit for our checklist.
The Cost of Too Many Choices
So, why are so many Americans single? Is it because we’ve become too picky? Is it because the idea of “settling” feels outdated? Maybe it’s because we’ve forgotten what it means to be vulnerable in the face of imperfection.
As we swipe endlessly through profiles, our emotional bandwidth is depleted. We’re more likely to give up on someone before we even learn about them—be-
cause there’s always another option. And that makes it harder to truly connect. In a world of endless options, we have forgotten the beauty of limited possibility. We’ve been conditioned to believe that we deserve the perfect match,
forgetting that the right person might not look like the one we imagined, but instead will surprise us in ways we never expected.
The Art of Culture ART WARE Chicago Reunion
For those who have frequented Chicago’s avant-garde creative scene over the years, Art Ware Chicago conjures up memories of good times—and even better times.
More than just a gallery and boutique, Art Ware Chicago was a cultural hub where magic happened and art was cultivated. It was the place to meet artists and craftsmen from Chicago and around the world—both the masters and the emerging. A conduit for connection, it brought together art collectors, creators, connoisseurs, and “culture keepers”—those who champion and preserve positive community culture through shared experiences.
Art Ware transformed a retail environment into a center for art, culture, education, and entertainment. It hosted a multitude of artists across disciplines and media, showcasing their unique skills and imagination through magnificent works. A cultural icon, Art Ware Chicago preserved, celebrated, and passed on heritage—its history, traditions, and core values.
It embodied and reinforced the true meaning of community. People came not only to experience art, but for the conversations, the camaraderie, the familiar and the new. In keeping with the culture many of us grew up in, hospitality was central—warm, friendly, and welcoming. The refreshments were always spot on and delicious, just enough to make every guest feel appreciated.
The hostess, Akosua Bandele—artist extraordinaire and shop owner—was ever delightful and gracious. She greeted everyone with a smile and treated each person in a way that made them feel seen, valued, and special.
Art Ware Chicago lives on in the hearts and memories of all who experienced it. Who could forget the wearable sculptures that Akosua is known for?
From earrings and brooches to bracelets and rings, her jewelry is sculpture. It was a sad day when Art Ware relocated to North Carolina, but it has continued to live on as a traveling, mobile space—carrying its spirit from one corner of the world to another.
This week, Art Ware Chicago returns to the Center for Inner City Studies, located at 700 East Oakwood Blvd, Chicago, IL 60653. Join us from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. for a reunion filled with creativity, connection, and community. Looking forward to seeing you there.
Photo Credit:Marvin Sin
Cannes Noir Black Cinema at Cannes Film Festival
Each May, the French Riviera becomes the epicenter of global cinema during the Cannes Film Festival—one of the most prestigious and selective film festivals in the world. Founded in 1946, Cannes is where films go not just to premiere, but to make history. Winning here—or even being invited—is a stamp of global artistic credibility. But despite its glamour, Cannes has long struggled with representation, particularly when it comes to Black talent on screen and on the red carpet.
In 20=25, two Black-led films have made waves: “My Father’s Shadow,” directed by Akinola Davies Jr., and Highest 2 Lowest, Spike Lee’s reimagining of Akira Kurosawa’s “High and Low.” The former is a powerful Nigerian drama about two brothers reconnecting with their father during a turbulent 1993 Lagos election. It’s the first-ever Nigerian film accepted into Cannes’ official selection—a massive milestone for Nollywood. It appears in the “Un Certain Regard” section, which focuses on bold, emerging voices and innovative storytelling styles [source: AP News].
Spike Lee’s Highest 2 Lowest stars Denzel Washington as a troubled music mogul, alongside A$AP Rocky and Ice Spice. Though screened “out of competition”—meaning it’s not eligible for the main Palme d’Or prize—it still received a Cannes slot, reflecting both reverence and restraint. The film’s themes of race, class, and justice echo loudly in the context of modern America [source: Wikipedia].
Denzel Washington, already a Cannes legend, was surprised with an honorary Palme d'Or for his lifetime contribution to cinema. But even in this moment of recognition, the contrast was stark: media coverage noted how Washington was largely ignored by French photographers, highlighting an ongoing discomfort with how Black excellence is received in elite spaces [source: SF Chronicle].
This wasn’t an isolated incident. Kelly Rowland went viral after a tense interaction with a red carpet usher, and Dominican actress Massiel Taveras made headlines after an usher appeared to physically block her grand entrance and
cape reveal. These moments—recorded, shared, and dissected—underscore a larger truth: even at the pinnacle of cinematic prestige, minority stars still face disproportionate scrutiny and are often treated with less reverence than their white counterparts [source: Essence].
In contrast, Black excellence is showing up in force this year: Halle Berry sits on the festival’s official jury, helping to determine the year’s top awards.
Filmmaker Mati Diop (Senegal/ France) returns to the Croisette with her short film, reinforcing Cannes’ slow but real embrace of African and diasporic perspectives.
Still, for Black filmmakers and stars, Cannes remains a double-edged sword: a platform of unmatched prestige, but one where cultural and racial bias often lurk just beyond the spotlight.
As My Father’s Shadow and Highest 2 Lowest make their mark at Cannes, they also represent a broader moment—where Black filmmakers and stars are not just present but celebrated on one of cinema’s most iconic stages.
A Steak Night Date Night at Home
You’re planning to please and to impress, so preparing a delicious meal for your loved one is the perfect choice. One meal comes to mind when I think of “date night,” and that’s Steak au Poivre with a side of roasted garlic mashed potatoes and creamed spinach—my go-to love potion.
Seriously, Steak au Poivre is the way to go! It’s a tried-and-true recipe of mine: strip steaks seared until medium-rare, then smothered in a creamy cognac sauce that rivals the best steakhouses. Serve it with mashed potatoes to sop up every last bit of the sauce.
The combination of the peppercorn crust and creamy cognac-shallot sauce with the seared beef is intensely flavorful and downright impressive. This classic French steak is easy to make and hits the spot every single time.
This recipe makes enough for two— perfect for a date night dinner!
In case you’re wondering what cut of beef is best for Steak au Poivre, go with beef filets—the classic choice. Knowing how to cook a good steak will take you far in life, but knowing how to cook a great Steak au Poivre will take you even further. This dish stars a peppercorn-crusted, pan-seared filet topped with the most utterly delicious sauce you’ve ever tasted. When I’m making steak sauce, I love to sear the steaks in the same cast-iron skillet I’ll use to make the sauce. That way, all those meaty, savory juices and bits go right into the pan sauce. To bump up the beefy flavor even more, I add a crushed beef bouillon cube to the sauce. It adds a richness and savoriness that’s truly out of this world.
½ cup brandy or cognac ¾ cup heavy cream
Instructions:
1. Preheat the oven to 400°F.
2. About 30 minutes before cooking, remove the steaks from the refrigerator. Pat them dry with paper towels and season all over with salt. Set aside.
The key to this recipe is having every ingredient ready to go within arm’s reach—it moves fast! The second the steaks go into the oven, you’ll need to start the sauce. Then, as soon as the sauce is ready, spoon every blissful drop over the steaks and prepare to fall in love. Again, this recipe makes enough for two—perfect for a cozy date night at home.
Beef filets are the classic choice for this dish, but you can also use a New York strip.
Making the Sauce
Cognac or whiskey work great—you just need ½ cup to deglaze the pan. If you want to skip the alcohol, use beef broth. It won’t give you quite the same depth of flavor, but it will still be delicious.
Ingredients:
2 (6-oz.) beef filets (about 1½ inches thick)
1 tsp. kosher salt, plus more to taste
2 Tbsp. whole multicolor peppercorns
1 Tbsp. olive oil
2 Tbsp. salted butter
1 Tbsp. Dijon mustard
½ beef bouillon cube, crumbled
3. Place the peppercorns in a zip-top bag and use a rolling pin or heavy-bottomed skillet to roughly crush them. Place the crushed peppercorns in a shallow dish. Press the filets into the peppercorns to create a crust on both sides. Reserve any leftover crushed peppercorns (you should have about 2 teaspoons).
4. Heat the oil and 1 tablespoon of butter in a 10-inch heavy-bottom skillet over medium-high heat. Add the steaks and sear until a dark crust forms, about 2 minutes per side. Transfer the steaks to a baking sheet and place them in the oven. Cook to your desired doneness—about 5 to 6 minutes for medium-rare (130°F internal temperature). Let the steaks rest on a cutting board.
5. Meanwhile, reduce the skillet heat to medium. Add the remaining 1 tablespoon of butter, the Dijon mustard, bouillon cube, and reserved peppercorns. Whisk to combine.
6. Remove the skillet from the heat and carefully deglaze the pan with the brandy, allowing it to bubble as the alcohol cooks off. Return the pan to the heat and bring to a boil. Let the brandy reduce slightly, stirring and scraping up the flavorful bits from the bottom of the pan—about 1 minute. Whisk in the heavy cream and simmer, stirring frequently, until thickened and reduced by about half, 4 to 6 minutes. Taste for salt.
7. Serve the steaks with the sauce spooned generously over the top and the remaining sauce on the side. Add your mashed potatoes and creamed spinach, and enjoy!
A Luxe WardrobeBuilding
So, you want to be that it girl who walks into the room and every head turns because you’re dressed so exquisitely. You’re top-notch quality from head to toe. People whisper, “She must have a stylist.” You’re classy, stylish—and you look rich. You scream luxury!
So how do you get there on a working girl’s salary without going into debt?
Today’s prices for the best quality luxury items place them outside the average person’s reach. More and more women in pursuit of a C-suite position—or hoping to land a “man of value”—are being forced to rethink their strategy. They're learning to navigate leadership, cultivate self-awareness and emotional intelligence, and adopt an enterprise mindset to thrive and succeed. But more importantly: how do you dress the part?
In doing so, many have turned to alternative ways to look the part without overspending. Characters like Samantha Jones and Carrie Bradshaw in the critically acclaimed TV series Sex and the City shed light on the career woman’s pursuit of the coveted wardrobe—and its rewards.
While building a luxury wardrobe remains an aspiration shared by many, it’s hard not to dream as iconic handbags and shoes are flaunted by celebrity style icons. However, today’s economic climate is steering us back toward the essentials.
Focus on Classics More Than Trends
If you want to look well-dressed, think like the wealthy. Start with high-quality, go-to pieces that work across seasons and years. Think: a tailored coat, a crisp white button-down, and classic leather boots— staples that form the backbone of a timeless wardrobe.
Making smart purchases of items that are both timeless and versatile—rather than trendy—is a solid strategy. In style terms, that means classic pieces like a beautifully structured tote or a wear-with-everything trench coat. These deliver more lasting value than fast-fashion alternatives.
This shopping strategy not only helps you build a refined wardrobe but also encourages better spending habits and more thoughtful purchases. Your wardrobe is an investment.
Keep a Luxe Wish List
If you’ve ever realized that the perfect piece to complete your outfit is missing from your closet, that item should be on your wish list. Whether it’s an edgy Chelsea boot or a tailored pair of jeans (think Jackie Kennedy or Carolyn Bessette-Kennedy), every luxe wardrobe has its essentials.
You have no place in your corporate climb for tattered jeans—you’re not a rock star, a reality show star, or Beyoncé. Think instead of a sleek belt with
C.L.
Blackburn Contributing Writer
jewelry-like hardware as an understated yet eye-catching accent. The perfect hat and gloves? Must-haves. These finishing touches fill the gaps that elevate your look.
Create a “My Wardrobe” Fund + The One-In, One-Out Rule
Imagine finally splurging on that impeccable cashmere knit you’ve been eyeing—or the ultimate work-to-cocktails dress that carries you through any occasion—but there’s no space in your overstuffed closet. That’s where the “one-in, one-out” rule comes in handy.
For every new piece you add, part with something that no longer serves you—or sell a well-worn favorite to fund a luxurious upgrade you’ll reach for again and again. This keeps your wardrobe intentional and curated, filled only with pieces you’re genuinely excited to wear.
Building a Luxe Wardrobe on a Budget: A Step-by-Step Guide
Creating a wardrobe on a budget takes a plan, strategic shopping, maximizing what you already own, and prioritizing quality over quantity. Focus on buying versatile basics, thrifting, and making thoughtful choices to avoid impulse purchases.
Here’s a more detailed approach:
1. Evaluate Your Current Wardrobe: Before buying anything new, take stock of what you already have. Identify gaps— whether work attire or casualwear—and make a list of what you truly need.
2. Prioritize Quality Basics: Invest in timeless essentials like a well-fitting blazer, a white button-up
shirt, and dark denim that pairs well with multiple items.
3. Thrift and Shop Consignment: Explore thrift stores and online consignment platforms for hidden gems at a fraction of retail cost.
4. Look for Sales and Discounts: Be patient. Wait for end-of-season sales, clearance events, and promo codes to snag luxury for less.
5. Consider Alterations:
A small tailoring investment can turn a budget-friendly piece into a custom-fit treasure.
6. Elevate with Accessories: Scarves, belts, and jewelry can transform basic outfits without draining your bank account.
7. Repurpose and Upcycle: Give new life to old clothes by altering them, adding embellishments, or using them as inspiration for new outfits.
8. Borrow or Swap:
Share with friends or participate in clothing swaps. It’s sustainable, cost-effective, and fun.
9. Use the “333” or “80/20” Rule: The Project 333 method recommends wearing 33 items for 3 months. The 80/20 rule suggests that 80% of your wardrobe should be foundational basics, with 20% as personality pieces.
10. Shop Smart:
Avoid impulse buys and fast trends. Choose pieces with staying power. You don’t have to be wealthy to look like you are. With a little strategy, planning, and polish, you can build a luxe wardrobe that turns heads—and doesn’t break the bank.
