How concerned should we be about the omicron variant of the COVID-19 coronavirus, asked President Joe Biden in a speech to the nation this afternoon. “We should all be concerned about omicron, but not panicked. If you’re not fully vaccinated you are right to be concerned,” he correctly stated. Biden also observed that almost every American who has died in the past year of COVID-19 infections was unvaccinated.
Biden acknowledged that the new omicron variant of the coronavirus sweeping through the country is extremely contagious and likely to cause a lot of breakthrough infections among folks who are vaccinated. However, he did emphasize that evidence indicates that vaccinated people who do experience breakthrough infections are much less likely to become severely ill or die.
In July, Biden pointed out, 90 million Americans eligible for vaccination had not yet been inoculated. But that number has now dropped to 40 million. Biden also said that fully vaccinated people can enjoy the holiday safely with their friends and neighbors who are also vaccinated. “I got my booster shot as soon as they were available, and just the other day, former President Trump announced that he had gotten his booster shot,” Biden said.
Biden declared that the U.S. was not going back to March 2020, when much of the country locked down at the beginning of the pandemic. Why not? Because 200 million Americans are vaccinated, the health care system is better prepared to protect health care workers and to treat those who do fall ill, and officials know how to protect K-12 students so that schools won’t close down.
Biden outlined further steps his administration is taking to address the omicron wave. The federal government is setting up 10,000 new vaccination and 20,000 new free testing sites across the country. In addition, the federal government is purchasing half a billion at-home COVID-19 tests that will be distributed to households for free starting in January. (This will help, but it’s too little too late to help Americans cope with the omicron surge.) In addition, 1,000 military medical personnel are being deployed to hotspots where hospitals are already being overwhelmed by COVID-19 patients.
Visibly angry, Biden stated, “Look, the unvaccinated are responsible for their own choices, but those choices have been fueled by dangerous misinformation on cable TV and social media.” He added: “You know, these companies and personalities are making money by peddling lies and allowing misinformation that can kill their own customers and their own supporters.” That, Biden declared, is “wrong, it’s immoral! I call on the purveyors of these lies and misinformation, stop it. Stop it now.”
Back in May, I wrote about how Texas has become a major magnet for people “voting with their feet” from other states. I built on a Washington Post article addressing that issue. More recently, Texas Monthly and Farhad Manjoo of the New York Times have published additional articles on the same topic, both of which shed some further light on these matters. Overall, both articles reinforce my and others’ previous conclusion that Texas’ success is primarily due to cheap housing (thanks to having dramatically weaker land-use restrictions than many states on the east and west coasts), low taxes, and extensive job opportunities created in part by relatively low regulation.
Here’s Manjoo’s summary of Texas’ appeal:
As the Golden Gate shuts, the Lone Star beckons. If you’re looking for an affordable, economically vibrant city that is less likely to be damaged by climate change than many other American cities, our data shows why Texas is a new land of plenty. For the many hypothetical life scenarios I ran through our quiz, the suburbs around Dallas — places like Plano, McKinney, Garland, Euless and Allen — came up a lot. It’s clear why these are some of the fastest-growing areas in the country. They have relatively little crime and are teeming with jobs, housing, highly rated schools, good restaurants, clean air and racial and political diversity — all at a steep discount compared to the cost of living in America’s coastal metropolises.
Manjoo also notes, as have other analysts, that much of the in-migration to Texas (about 42% in 2019) comes from California, which suffers by comparison because of its much higher taxes and living costs.
Here is the Texas Monthly’s summary of Texas’s growth:
The Texas population grew by about four million people in the past decade—far more than any other state in raw numbers, and enough as a percentage to make it the third-fastest-growing state in the nation over that period, behind Utah and Idaho. Roughly 3,800 more people move here every week than move out of state. Tick down any list of the fastest-growing cities in the country, and Texas shows up again and again. Fort Worth, Austin, and San Antonio all landed on the list of cities with a population gain of at least 100,000 over the past decade, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, which released its latest data in August. Frisco easily topped the list of large cities, followed by a lot of other suburbs and exurbs, such as New Braunfels, McKinney, and Conroe….
That growth, of course, has come with plenty of hand-wringing about everything from an overheated housing market to fears of a hostile takeover by liberal coastal elites. News headlines have stoked those worries in the past two years. And then there was Greg Abbott’s 2018 campaign slogan: “Don’t California My Texas.” But perhaps unsurprisingly, partisans may have it wrong.
For one thing, despite all the public focus on Californication, there are intriguing signs that many of the newest arrivals share key characteristics with lifelong Texans. Many are coming for abundant jobs, lower taxes, fewer regulations, and a more reasonable cost of living…..
The Texas Monthly also emphasizes how much of the states gain in population comes from ethnic and racial minorities (particularly Hispanics and Asians), and that the state has been a magnet for immigrants from abroad, as well as domestic migrants from other parts of the US.
The article further notes that, despite much speculation the contrary, the influx of foot voters may have only a modest impact on Texas’s political balance:
[A]ccording to Derek Ryan, a GOP political consultant who leads voter-targeting efforts for candidates up and down the ballot, there’s very little data to support either argument—that Texas is growing more conservative because of ideological sorting or that it’s becoming more liberal at the hands of Californians…
According to Ryan’s best analysis, 50.4 percent of his possible new Texans were likely Democratic voters, and 49.6 percent were likely Republicans. “So, you know,” he said, “we hear a lot about these people moving from blue states and bringing blue-state politics with them, but it doesn’t necessarily appear that that’s the case. It’s closer to right in the middle. There are certainly some hard-core liberals moving here that are still voting that way, but it appears that it’s a wash as far as Republicans versus Democrats.”
As the article mentions, this undercuts both conservative worries that migration will lead to the “Californification” of Texas and concerns (mostly on the left) that foot voting will lead to a “big sort” in which polarization is exacerbated by people increasingly moving to homogeneous ideological enclaves. It turns out that people with a wide range of political views like to move to places with ample job opportunities, cheaper housing, and relatively low taxes. Both articles also mention that the parts of Texas experiencing the most growth are ones that are racially and ethnically diverse, with large immigrant communities. This suggests that people are increasingly open to living in diverse areas, and that – at the very least – foot voting is not contributing to ethnic and racial segregation.
In Chapter 5 of my book Democracy and Political Ignorance and Chapter 6 of the more recent Free to Move, I go over several reasons why both “big sort” concerns and worries that migration will fundamentally alter the political balance of states are overblown. So far, at least, the Texas experience is consistent with my analysis.
The story of Texas’s success with foot voters is not just about the policies of the GOP-dominated state government. Most of the fast-growing parts of the state discussed in the above-referenced articles have Democratic-controlled local governments, most notably the cities of Austin, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and most of their respective suburbs. The Democrats who govern these cities have little love for GOP policies on social issues. But, unlike Democratic-controlled local governments in some other states, they set up relatively few obstacles to new housing construction and job creation.
As I have previously emphasized, acknowledging Texas’ success in attracting foot voters does not mean we have to approve of all of the state’s policies. Progressives and others can learn valuable lessons from some of the policies, even as they rightly decry abuses as the awful SB 8 anti-abortion law, and Texas’ Republicans’ reprehensible role in efforts to overturn the 2020 election. In my previous post on Texas and foot voting, I also explain why the state’s success is in significant part based on policies that the national GOP has moved away from. Republicans, too, can stand to learn some lessons from Texas.
I should also note that nearly all of the data on Texas’ success in attracting migrants predates the enactment of SB 8. If SB 8 remains in force (it might still be invalidated either by Texas state courts or by further federal litigation), it could potentially reduce the state’s attractiveness to foot voters.
Although I personally support broad abortion rights and hate SB 8, my tentative judgment is that – for the vast majority of potential migrants – housing costs, taxes, and job opportunities matter far more than abortion. Among other considerations, birth control provides a valuable alternative to abortion for many (though admittedly not all) women, while substitutes for housing and job opportunities are harder to come by. Over the last decade or two, variation in abortion restrictions does not seem to have been a significant driver of migration decisions.
But, due to the influence – up till now – of Roe v. Wade – we don’t have any recent evidence of the impact of abortion restrictions as draconian as those of SB 8. If the law remains in force, its impact on Texas’ appeal to migrants remains to be seen. It’s certainly possible I am underestimating its potential effects.
With that important caveat, Texas’s success in attracting foot voters deserves recognition, and provides useful lessons for other states. Liberal publications such as the Times, the Post, and the Texas Monthly deserve credit for acknowledging that and for their efforts to investigate the issue.
Back in May, I wrote about how Texas has become a major magnet for people “voting with their feet” from other states. I built on a Washington Post article addressing that issue. More recently, Texas Monthly and Farhad Manjoo of the New York Times have published additional articles on the same topic, both of which shed some further light on these matters. Overall, both articles reinforce my and others’ previous conclusion that Texas’ success is primarily due to cheap housing (thanks to having dramatically weaker land-use restrictions than many states on the east and west coasts), low taxes, and extensive job opportunities created in part by relatively low regulation.
Here’s Manjoo’s summary of Texas’ appeal:
As the Golden Gate shuts, the Lone Star beckons. If you’re looking for an affordable, economically vibrant city that is less likely to be damaged by climate change than many other American cities, our data shows why Texas is a new land of plenty. For the many hypothetical life scenarios I ran through our quiz, the suburbs around Dallas — places like Plano, McKinney, Garland, Euless and Allen — came up a lot. It’s clear why these are some of the fastest-growing areas in the country. They have relatively little crime and are teeming with jobs, housing, highly rated schools, good restaurants, clean air and racial and political diversity — all at a steep discount compared to the cost of living in America’s coastal metropolises.
Manjoo also notes, as have other analysts, that much of the in-migration to Texas (about 42% in 2019) comes from California, which suffers by comparison because of its much higher taxes and living costs.
Here is the Texas Monthly’s summary of Texas’s growth:
The Texas population grew by about four million people in the past decade—far more than any other state in raw numbers, and enough as a percentage to make it the third-fastest-growing state in the nation over that period, behind Utah and Idaho. Roughly 3,800 more people move here every week than move out of state. Tick down any list of the fastest-growing cities in the country, and Texas shows up again and again. Fort Worth, Austin, and San Antonio all landed on the list of cities with a population gain of at least 100,000 over the past decade, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, which released its latest data in August. Frisco easily topped the list of large cities, followed by a lot of other suburbs and exurbs, such as New Braunfels, McKinney, and Conroe….
That growth, of course, has come with plenty of hand-wringing about everything from an overheated housing market to fears of a hostile takeover by liberal coastal elites. News headlines have stoked those worries in the past two years. And then there was Greg Abbott’s 2018 campaign slogan: “Don’t California My Texas.” But perhaps unsurprisingly, partisans may have it wrong.
For one thing, despite all the public focus on Californication, there are intriguing signs that many of the newest arrivals share key characteristics with lifelong Texans. Many are coming for abundant jobs, lower taxes, fewer regulations, and a more reasonable cost of living…..
The Texas Monthly also emphasizes how much of the states gain in population comes from ethnic and racial minorities (particularly Hispanics and Asians), and that the state has been a magnet for immigrants from abroad, as well as domestic migrants from other parts of the US.
The article further notes that, despite much speculation the contrary, the influx of foot voters may have only a modest impact on Texas’s political balance:
[A]ccording to Derek Ryan, a GOP political consultant who leads voter-targeting efforts for candidates up and down the ballot, there’s very little data to support either argument—that Texas is growing more conservative because of ideological sorting or that it’s becoming more liberal at the hands of Californians…
According to Ryan’s best analysis, 50.4 percent of his possible new Texans were likely Democratic voters, and 49.6 percent were likely Republicans. “So, you know,” he said, “we hear a lot about these people moving from blue states and bringing blue-state politics with them, but it doesn’t necessarily appear that that’s the case. It’s closer to right in the middle. There are certainly some hard-core liberals moving here that are still voting that way, but it appears that it’s a wash as far as Republicans versus Democrats.”
As the article mentions, this undercuts both conservative worries that migration will lead to the “Californification” of Texas and concerns (mostly on the left) that foot voting will lead to a “big sort” in which polarization is exacerbated by people increasingly moving to homogeneous ideological enclaves. It turns out that people with a wide range of political views like to move to places with ample job opportunities, cheaper housing, and relatively low taxes. Both articles also mention that the parts of Texas experiencing the most growth are ones that are racially and ethnically diverse, with large immigrant communities. This suggests that people are increasingly open to living in diverse areas, and that – at the very least – foot voting is not contributing to ethnic and racial segregation.
The story of Texas’s success with foot voters is not just about the policies GOP-dominated state government. Most of the fast-growing parts of the state discussed in the above-referenced articles have Democratic-controlled local governments, most notably the cities of Austin, Houston, Dallas, and the bulk of their respective suburbs. The Democrats who govern these cities have little love for GOP policies on social issues. But, unlike Democratic-controlled local governments in some other states, they set up relatively few obstacles to new housing construction and job creation.
As I have previously emphasized, acknowledging Texas’ success in attracting foot voters does not mean we have to approve of all of the state’s policies. Progressives and others can learn valuable lessons from some of the policies , even as they rightly decry abuses as the awful SB 8 anti-abortion law, and Texas’ Republicans’ reprehensible role in efforts to overturn the 2020 election. In my previous post on Texas and foot voting, I also explain why the state’s success is in significant part based on policies that the national GOP has moved away from. Republicans, too, can stand to learn some lessons from Texas.
I should also note that nearly all of the data on Texas’ success in attracting migrants predates the enactment of SB 8. If SB 8 remains in force (it might still be invalidated either by Texas state courts or by further federal litigation), it could potentially reduce the state’s attractiveness to foot voters.
Although I personally support broad abortion rights and hate SB 8, my tentative judgment is that – for the vast majority of potential migrants – housing costs, taxes, and job opportunities matter far more than abortion. Over the last decade or two, variation in abortion restrictions does not seem to have been a significant driver of migration decisions. But, due to the influence – up till now – of Roe v. Wade – we don’t have any recent evidence of the impact of abortion restrictions as draconian as those of SB 8. If the law remains in force, its impact on Texas’ appeal to migrants remains to be seen.
With that important caveat, Texas’s success in attracting foot voters deserves recognition, and provides useful lessons for other states. Liberal publications such as the Times, the Post, and the Texas Monthly deserve credit for acknowledging that and for their efforts to investigate the issue.
“The end of the pandemic will not be televised,” write Princeton historian David Robertson and University of Maryland pharmacy professor Peter Doshi in the health care journal BMJ. “There is no universal definition of the epidemiological parameters of the end of a pandemic,” they point out. “By what metric, then, will we know that it is actually over?”
After reviewing the history of three 20th century influenza pandemics, including the Spanish Flu pandemic that killed an estimated 675,000 Americans, Robertson and Doshi find that there will be no dramatic “end.” Instead, the pandemic will “gradually fade as society adjusts to living with the new disease agent and social life returns to normal.”
Robertson and Doshi point out that the tolls of previous pandemics were not recorded with daily updates on digital dashboards that anyone can easily access through the internet. “Pandemic dashboards provide endless fuel, ensuring the constant newsworthiness of the covid-19 pandemic, even when the threat is low,” they argue. “In doing so, [pandemic dashboards] might prolong the pandemic by curtailing a sense of closure or a return to pre-pandemic life.” Their advice? “Deactivating or disconnecting ourselves from the dashboards may be the single most powerful action towards ending the pandemic.”
In May 2020, just three months into the COVID-19 pandemic when there had been only 1.4 million cases and 82,000 deaths in the U.S., I cited an article in which New York Times science reporter Gina Kolata asked, “When will the Covid-19 pandemic end? And how?” She noted that pandemics medically end when disease incidence and death rates plummet as herd immunity is achieved through either mass infection or mass vaccination. On the other hand, epidemics socially end when people grow tired of panic mode and learn to live with a disease.
In June 2021, as increasing numbers of Americans were getting vaccinated, I suggested that the end of the pandemic and a return to normalcy was in sight because daily COVID-19 deaths were approaching those of a bad flu season. I concluded that “barring an outbreak of a new highly transmissible and vaccine-resistant COVID-19 virus variant, normality is well in sight if not already here.”
President Joe Biden gave a White House speech on July 4 “celebrating Independence Day and Independence from COVID-19.” Biden did, however, caution, “Don’t get me wrong, COVID-19 is—has not been vanquished. We all know powerful variants have emerged, like the Delta variant, but the best defense against these variants is to get vaccinated.”
Well, a highly transmissible and vaccine-resistant variant has indeed emerged, but there are hopeful indications that it may cause less severe disease. And the best defense remains vaccination and booster shots.
A truly amazing best case scenario would be that infections from an exceptionally contagious yet extremely mild omicron variant speed the process of achieving herd immunity that could immunize us at least somewhat against future coronavirus variants. In any case, the BMJ authors may well be right that turning off our screens might improve our mental health—still, it will not make the virus go away.
“The end of the pandemic will not be televised,” write Princeton historian David Robertson and University of Maryland pharmacy professor Peter Doshi in the health care journal BMJ. “There is no universal definition of the epidemiological parameters of the end of a pandemic,” they point out. “By what metric, then, will we know that it is actually over?”
After reviewing the history of three 20th century influenza pandemics, including the Spanish Flu pandemic that killed an estimated 675,000 Americans, Robertson and Doshi find that there will be no dramatic “end.” Instead, the pandemic will “gradually fade as society adjusts to living with the new disease agent and social life returns to normal.”
Robertson and Doshi point out that the tolls of previous pandemics were not recorded with daily updates on digital dashboards that anyone can easily access through the internet. “Pandemic dashboards provide endless fuel, ensuring the constant newsworthiness of the covid-19 pandemic, even when the threat is low,” they argue. “In doing so, [pandemic dashboards] might prolong the pandemic by curtailing a sense of closure or a return to pre-pandemic life.” Their advice? “Deactivating or disconnecting ourselves from the dashboards may be the single most powerful action towards ending the pandemic.”
In May 2020, just three months into the COVID-19 pandemic when there had been only 1.4 million cases and 82,000 deaths in the U.S., I cited an article in which New York Times science reporter Gina Kolata asked, “When will the Covid-19 pandemic end? And how?” She noted that pandemics medically end when disease incidence and death rates plummet as herd immunity is achieved through either mass infection or mass vaccination. On the other hand, epidemics socially end when people grow tired of panic mode and learn to live with a disease.
In June 2021, as increasing numbers of Americans were getting vaccinated, I suggested that the end of the pandemic and a return to normalcy was in sight because daily COVID-19 deaths were approaching those of a bad flu season. I concluded that “barring an outbreak of a new highly transmissible and vaccine-resistant COVID-19 virus variant, normality is well in sight if not already here.”
President Joe Biden gave a White House speech on July 4 “celebrating Independence Day and Independence from COVID-19.” Biden did, however, caution, “Don’t get me wrong, COVID-19 is—has not been vanquished. We all know powerful variants have emerged, like the Delta variant, but the best defense against these variants is to get vaccinated.”
Well, a highly transmissible and vaccine-resistant variant has indeed emerged, but there are hopeful indications that it may cause less severe disease. And the best defense remains vaccination and booster shots.
A truly amazing best case scenario would be that infections from an exceptionally contagious yet extremely mild omicron variant speed the process of achieving herd immunity that could immunize us at least somewhat against future coronavirus variants. In any case, the BMJ authors may well be right that turning off our screens might improve our mental health—still, it will not make the virus go away.
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot called again Monday for a new ordinance allowing the city to sue gang members and seize their property, despite pushback from civil liberties groups.
In a speech addressing rising violence and crime in Chicago, Lightfoot called for, among other things, the Chicago City Council to pass a “Victims Justice Ordinance” similar to Illinois’ Streetgang Terrorism Omnibus Prevention Act. The ordinance would allow the city to file civil lawsuits against suspected gang members, recover damages, and forfeit property connected to alleged gang activity.
“Gangs are violent, dangerous and ruthless,” Lightfoot said. “They do not care who they hurt in their quest for money and territory. We need to not just seize their cash, but their assets as well. We need to take away the profit motive by depriving them of blood money, along with locking them up.”
Lightfoot tried to distinguish the ordinance from the “rightfully discredited forfeitures of the 1990s,” which have been the subject of bipartisan reform efforts across the country over the last decade.
“We will go into court, before a judge with a civil lawsuit where we will have the burden of proving that particular assets—cars, property, businesses—are in fact the proceeds of gang activity,” Lightfoot said. “The defendants will be represented and like in any civil case, a judge will determine if we have proved our case. And when we do, we will dedicate a portion of the proceeds to support victims, witnesses, and survivors in Chicago.”
Lightfoot first proposed the ordinance in September, but it was roundly criticized by civil rights groups, who say the civil forfeiture law it’s based on didn’t live up to its promises.
Colleen Connell, executive director of the ACLU of Illinois, said in a statement in September that the Chicago City Council should “quickly reject the Mayor’s proposal to use a recycled city version of a harmful state civil asset forfeiture law.”
Under civil asset forfeiture, police can seize property suspected of being connected to criminal activity without charging the owner with a crime.
Because such cases are civil, not criminal, the defendants, contrary to Lightfoot’s claim, aren’t entitled to a lawyer; they bear the cost of going to court to fight for the return of their own property.
“Taking property from people—including innocent family members and others—is not an effective way to reduce gun violence,” Connell said. “Similar attempts have been tried in surrounding cities, and the public promises of forfeiture of gang member assets did not materialize.”
Illinois attorney John Mauck told local news outlet WTTW earlier this year that the state statute is lightly used and rarely successful at recovering assets. Mauck represented three former Latin Kings gang members who were targeted under the state law. The cases against them were ultimately dismissed after seven years.
Freddy Martinez, executive director of the police accountability nonprofit Lucy Parsons Labs, says Lightfoot’s plan “is just another of her administration’s poor and narrow-sighted approach to social ills. This is her doubling down on the same failed and racist ‘tough-on-crime’ policies from the 1980s.”
A 2017 analysis by Reason of five years of forfeitures in Chicago found that the city had initiated more than 23,000 seizures for $150 million in cash and property over that period. The data, obtained by Lucy Parsons Labs, showed that, while forfeitures happened all over the city, low-income neighborhoods bore the brunt of asset forfeiture.
Seized property ranged from a cashier’s check for 34 cents to a 2010 Rolls Royce Ghost with an estimated value of more than $200,000. Police also seized Xbox controllers, televisions, nunchucks, 12 cans of peas, a pair of rhinestone cufflinks, and a bayonet.
“The research we’ve provided to Reason shows police are using these perverse incentives to take money from everyone they can get away with,” Martinez says. “Despite the rhetoric, the truth is these programs seize, on average, just hundreds of dollars. They’re not busting Noriega.”
In her speech, Lightfoot said that this year alone the Chicago Police Department and other law enforcement had seized nearly $27 million in cash and $442 million-worth of drugs in the city. “And we need to keep our foot on the gas,” she said.
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot called again Monday for a new ordinance allowing the city to sue gang members and seize their property, despite pushback from civil liberties groups.
In a speech addressing rising violence and crime in Chicago, Lightfoot called for, among other things, the Chicago City Council to pass a “Victims Justice Ordinance” similar to Illinois’ Streetgang Terrorism Omnibus Prevention Act. The ordinance would allow the city to file civil lawsuits against suspected gang members, recover damages, and forfeit property connected to alleged gang activity.
“Gangs are violent, dangerous and ruthless,” Lightfoot said. “They do not care who they hurt in their quest for money and territory. We need to not just seize their cash, but their assets as well. We need to take away the profit motive by depriving them of blood money, along with locking them up.”
Lightfoot tried to distinguish the ordinance from the “rightfully discredited forfeitures of the 1990s,” which have been the subject of bipartisan reform efforts across the country over the last decade.
“We will go into court, before a judge with a civil lawsuit where we will have the burden of proving that particular assets—cars, property, businesses—are in fact the proceeds of gang activity,” Lightfoot said. “The defendants will be represented and like in any civil case, a judge will determine if we have proved our case. And when we do, we will dedicate a portion of the proceeds to support victims, witnesses, and survivors in Chicago.”
Lightfoot first proposed the ordinance in September, but it was roundly criticized by civil rights groups, who say the civil forfeiture law it’s based on didn’t live up to its promises.
Colleen Connell, executive director of the ACLU of Illinois, said in a statement in September that the Chicago City Council should “quickly reject the Mayor’s proposal to use a recycled city version of a harmful state civil asset forfeiture law.”
Under civil asset forfeiture, police can seize property suspected of being connected to criminal activity without charging the owner with a crime.
Because such cases are civil, not criminal, the defendants, contrary to Lightfoot’s claim, aren’t entitled to a lawyer; they bear the cost of going to court to fight for the return of their own property.
“Taking property from people—including innocent family members and others—is not an effective way to reduce gun violence,” Connell said. “Similar attempts have been tried in surrounding cities, and the public promises of forfeiture of gang member assets did not materialize.”
Illinois attorney John Mauck told local news outlet WTTW earlier this year that the state statute is lightly used and rarely successful at recovering assets. Mauck represented three former Latin Kings gang members who were targeted under the state law. The cases against them were ultimately dismissed after seven years.
Freddy Martinez, executive director of the police accountability nonprofit Lucy Parsons Labs, says Lightfoot’s plan “is just another of her administration’s poor and narrow-sighted approach to social ills. This is her doubling down on the same failed and racist ‘tough-on-crime’ policies from the 1980s.”
A 2017 analysis by Reason of five years of forfeitures in Chicago found that the city had initiated more than 23,000 seizures for $150 million in cash and property over that period. The data, obtained by Lucy Parsons Labs, showed that, while forfeitures happened all over the city, low-income neighborhoods bore the brunt of asset forfeiture.
Seized property ranged from a cashier’s check for 34 cents to a 2010 Rolls Royce Ghost with an estimated value of more than $200,000. Police also seized Xbox controllers, televisions, nunchucks, 12 cans of peas, a pair of rhinestone cufflinks, and a bayonet.
“The research we’ve provided to Reason shows police are using these perverse incentives to take money from everyone they can get away with,” Martinez says. “Despite the rhetoric, the truth is these programs seize, on average, just hundreds of dollars. They’re not busting Noriega.”
In her speech, Lightfoot said that this year alone the Chicago Police Department and other law enforcement had seized nearly $27 million in cash and $442 million-worth of drugs in the city. “And we need to keep our foot on the gas,” she said.
Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order Sealing the File since the file contains sensitive information about the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, and in support thereof would show unto the Court the following:
[1.] Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant, Patricia Marshall, on June 9, 2020. The case has been diligently litigated. A number of records and documents have been filed with the Court and exchanged among the parties. Many of the records and documents are sensitive and contained confidential information and other information should not be disclosed and used only in the litigation of this case.
[2.] Plaintiff has provided a broad range of information and documents, including manipulated photos of herself posted by the Defendant, libelous postings about herself made by the Defendant, private conversations between herself and third parties, and other confidential information.
[3.] The information and documents provided could be detrimental to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s career and reputation. Some of the documents contain false accusations made by the Defendant claiming that the Plaintiff engages in prostitution, as well as other vile and disgusting acts. The Defendant also incorrectly accused the Plaintiff of being a Nazi, and other dangerous moral ideologies. The various postings made by the Defendant about the Plaintiff are injurious to the Plaintiff’s character and legal career, and as such, these documents and the file should be sealed.
[4.] The Plaintiff requests this Court to enter an order sealing the court file and record during the course of this litigation, and that the documents used and produced in this litigation remain confidential, and that they be used only for purposes of this litigation.
[5.] In support of her Motion, the Plaintiff relies upon the pleadings and other papers filed in this matter to date.
[6.] Plaintiff requests a waiver of the requirement for a brief in support of this Motion.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order sealing the court file and record during the course of this litigation, ordering that the documents used and produced in this litigation remain confidential, and ordering that they be used only for purposes of this litigation.
Judge Carlton Reeves denied the motion today, “essentially for the reasons stated in the defendant’s opposition brief[],” which points to various procedural defects in the motion (and in particular the lack of legal argument). But I think that the motion was likewise substantively unsound: In our legal system, lawsuits generally can’t take place under seal—and that’s especially so, I think, when the lawsuits are aimed at suppressing defendants’ speech.
The public is entitled to monitor how the legal system deals with such attempts to restrict speech; and while that does further highlight the allegedly libelous material, I think that’s a necessary function of a system which doesn’t just say “trust us to decide things in secret” but rather “we are your public servants, and you can monitor how we are deciding things.” For more, see Fargo v. Tejas, Manhattan Telecommunications Corp. [MetTel] v. Granite Telecommunications, LLC, and Parson v. Farley.
Here, by the way, are Judge Reeves’ general views on sealing from a different case:
This case began when Jason Anderson filed a discrimination action with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Halliburton. Halliburton then agreed to mediate with Anderson through the Commission’s alternative dispute resolution program. Mediation led to a settlement agreement, in which Halliburton agreed to “rehire [Anderson] as a Project-Specialist Safeguard III; BC503-ESG or comparable position based on [the] successful completion of pre-employment screening.” Two years after the agreement was signed, the Commission filed this suit, alleging that Halliburton violated the agreement by refusing to hire Anderson.
After the close of discovery, Halliburton moved for summary judgment. Halliburton submitted documents in support of that motion, and has asked the Court to place some under seal. The Commission has made a similar request regarding documents submitted in opposition to Halliburton’s motion.
Citizens have a common law right to view public documents, including those submitted to a court. This is an important right, as citizen inspection of court records can uncover abuses of the judicial system. For this reason, courts in the Southern District of Mississippi require “clear and compelling reasons” to shield a document from public view.
Halliburton asks that certain documents be sealed because they contain Anderson’s sensitive medical information. In the Southern District, this is a clear and compelling reason to seal documents. As Halliburton has taken great care to designate only relevant portions of its exhibits for sealing, the relevant documents — parts of Exhibits 1, 5, 7, and 11 attached to its motion for summary judgment — will be “sealed from public access only, with CM/ECF access permitted to the litigants’ counsel.”
Halliburton’s request to seal its entire memorandum in support of its motion is another matter. Halliburton has yet to “fil[e a] properly redacted versio[n]” of that memo in the docket, a step courts in the Southern District typically require before sealing an unredacted pleading. Halliburton’s motion to seal its memo is DENIED without prejudice to its refiling.
The Commission says that all the documents it submitted in opposition to Halliburton’s motion should be sealed, as they “include Mr. Anderson’s personal information, such as his home address, date of birth, and medical information.” This is a curious assertion, as many of the referenced documents contain little or no reference to Anderson, let alone any sensitive information about him. For example, one document is merely screenshots of a public webpage. Furthermore, unlike Halliburton, the Commission moved to seal documents after placing them on the Court’s docket. Such prior placement of documents in the public view suggests that the reasons for shielding them are neither clear nor compelling.
In short, the Commission has not requested a surgical sealing that carefully balances the public’s right to inspect documents against Anderson’s right to privacy. Instead, it has simply asked to seal every document related to its opposition to Halliburton’s motion for summary judgment. Granting the Commission’s request would bar the public from seeing any of its opposition to Halliburton’s motion. Such privacy is appropriate for private arbitration, not public adjudication particularly given that “the documents sought to be sealed are exhibits to a dispositive motion,” which means that “the weight afforded to the public’s common-law right of access is necessarily greater.”
The Court will not scrutinize every one of the Commission’s exhibits to determine which portions may require sealing. If the Commission believes that there are interests strong enough to justify removing currently public documents from the Court’s docket, it may file a motion explaining those interests in detail. The Commission’s motion to seal is DENIED in its entirety, without prejudice to its refiling.
Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order Sealing the File since the file contains sensitive information about the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, and in support thereof would show unto the Court the following:
[1.] Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant, Patricia Marshall, on June 9, 2020. The case has been diligently litigated. A number of records and documents have been filed with the Court and exchanged among the parties. Many of the records and documents are sensitive and contained confidential information and other information should not be disclosed and used only in the litigation of this case.
[2.] Plaintiff has provided a broad range of information and documents, including manipulated photos of herself posted by the Defendant, libelous postings about herself made by the Defendant, private conversations between herself and third parties, and other confidential information.
[3.] The information and documents provided could be detrimental to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s career and reputation. Some of the documents contain false accusations made by the Defendant claiming that the Plaintiff engages in prostitution, as well as other vile and disgusting acts. The Defendant also incorrectly accused the Plaintiff of being a Nazi, and other dangerous moral ideologies. The various postings made by the Defendant about the Plaintiff are injurious to the Plaintiff’s character and legal career, and as such, these documents and the file should be sealed.
[4.] The Plaintiff requests this Court to enter an order sealing the court file and record during the course of this litigation, and that the documents used and produced in this litigation remain confidential, and that they be used only for purposes of this litigation.
[5.] In support of her Motion, the Plaintiff relies upon the pleadings and other papers filed in this matter to date.
[6.] Plaintiff requests a waiver of the requirement for a brief in support of this Motion.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order sealing the court file and record during the course of this litigation, ordering that the documents used and produced in this litigation remain confidential, and ordering that they be used only for purposes of this litigation.
Judge Carlton Reeves denied the motion today, “essentially for the reasons stated in the defendant’s opposition brief[],” which points to various procedural defects in the motion (and in particular the lack of legal argument). But I think that the motion was likewise substantively unsound: In our legal system, lawsuits generally can’t take place under seal—and that’s especially so, I think, when the lawsuits are aimed at suppressing defendants’ speech.
The public is entitled to monitor how the legal system deals with such attempts to restrict speech; and while that does further highlight the allegedly libelous material, I think that’s a necessary function of a system which doesn’t just say “trust us to decide things in secret” but rather “we are your public servants, and you can monitor how we are deciding things.” For more, see Fargo v. Tejas, Manhattan Telecommunications Corp. [MetTel] v. Granite Telecommunications, LLC, and Parson v. Farley.
Here, by the way, are Judge Reeves’ general views on sealing from a different case:
This case began when Jason Anderson filed a discrimination action with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Halliburton. Halliburton then agreed to mediate with Anderson through the Commission’s alternative dispute resolution program. Mediation led to a settlement agreement, in which Halliburton agreed to “rehire [Anderson] as a Project-Specialist Safeguard III; BC503-ESG or comparable position based on [the] successful completion of pre-employment screening.” Two years after the agreement was signed, the Commission filed this suit, alleging that Halliburton violated the agreement by refusing to hire Anderson.
After the close of discovery, Halliburton moved for summary judgment. Halliburton submitted documents in support of that motion, and has asked the Court to place some under seal. The Commission has made a similar request regarding documents submitted in opposition to Halliburton’s motion.
Citizens have a common law right to view public documents, including those submitted to a court. This is an important right, as citizen inspection of court records can uncover abuses of the judicial system. For this reason, courts in the Southern District of Mississippi require “clear and compelling reasons” to shield a document from public view.
Halliburton asks that certain documents be sealed because they contain Anderson’s sensitive medical information. In the Southern District, this is a clear and compelling reason to seal documents. As Halliburton has taken great care to designate only relevant portions of its exhibits for sealing, the relevant documents — parts of Exhibits 1, 5, 7, and 11 attached to its motion for summary judgment — will be “sealed from public access only, with CM/ECF access permitted to the litigants’ counsel.”
Halliburton’s request to seal its entire memorandum in support of its motion is another matter. Halliburton has yet to “fil[e a] properly redacted versio[n]” of that memo in the docket, a step courts in the Southern District typically require before sealing an unredacted pleading. Halliburton’s motion to seal its memo is DENIED without prejudice to its refiling.
The Commission says that all the documents it submitted in opposition to Halliburton’s motion should be sealed, as they “include Mr. Anderson’s personal information, such as his home address, date of birth, and medical information.” This is a curious assertion, as many of the referenced documents contain little or no reference to Anderson, let alone any sensitive information about him. For example, one document is merely screenshots of a public webpage. Furthermore, unlike Halliburton, the Commission moved to seal documents after placing them on the Court’s docket. Such prior placement of documents in the public view suggests that the reasons for shielding them are neither clear nor compelling.
In short, the Commission has not requested a surgical sealing that carefully balances the public’s right to inspect documents against Anderson’s right to privacy. Instead, it has simply asked to seal every document related to its opposition to Halliburton’s motion for summary judgment. Granting the Commission’s request would bar the public from seeing any of its opposition to Halliburton’s motion. Such privacy is appropriate for private arbitration, not public adjudication particularly given that “the documents sought to be sealed are exhibits to a dispositive motion,” which means that “the weight afforded to the public’s common-law right of access is necessarily greater.”
The Court will not scrutinize every one of the Commission’s exhibits to determine which portions may require sealing. If the Commission believes that there are interests strong enough to justify removing currently public documents from the Court’s docket, it may file a motion explaining those interests in detail. The Commission’s motion to seal is DENIED in its entirety, without prejudice to its refiling.
It is difficult to keep up with the ever-mutating scientific consensus on masks. In the early days of the pandemic, White House COVID-19 adviser Anthony Fauci told the public not to bother with them before abruptly adopting a wear-a-mask-any-mask stance. After vaccines became widely available last winter and spring, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said the vaccinated no longer needed to wear them, and then reversed course after determining that the delta variant was much more contagious than the original strain. And the CDC’s support for mask mandates in schools rests upon a study that has now been substantially debunked.
Enter Leana Wen, a medical analyst for CNN and former president of Planned Parenthood. Wen is one of cable news’ most vigorous supporters of coercive COVID-19 measures: She previously suggested that the government should prohibit unvaccinated people from traveling (and, perhaps, from leaving their homes at all). During a CNN appearance on Monday, Wen made the provocative statement that the commonly used cloth masks are essentially useless at preventing the spread of the omicron variant.
“Don’t wear a cloth mask,” she said. “Cloth masks are little more than facial decorations. There’s no place for them in light of omicron.”
.@DrLeanaWen: "Don't wear a cloth mask. Cloth masks are little more than facial decorations. There's no place for them in light of Omicron." pic.twitter.com/Kpoj18sxdi
Huh? As Townhall‘s Spencer Brown points out, Wen’s view of the science contradicts the guidance from the White House and the CDC, which holds that cloth masks are good enough. In fact, the CDC has specifically instructed people not to wear N95 masks.
Wen is a supporter of mandates, so perhaps she thinks the higher quality masks should be required in some settings. Yet if she’s right, it means the masks that the overwhelming majority of people are wearing in order to comply with mandates—in public schools, on public transportation, in many workplaces, gyms, and even social settings—aren’t doing any good. They represent another element of pandemic hygiene theater: a public health requirement that makes people feel safer without offering them much actual protection.
Against the initial strain, some studies found that mask wearing helped to decrease the spread of COVID-19; others were more mixed. Delta and omicron, of course, are significantly more infectious, and thus Wen’s contention that the commonly-used masks aren’t doing very much is probably correct. This should be an argument for getting rid of all mask mandates, not making the mandates stricter. The government checking the quality of people’s masks would be an absurd overreach; the mandate is already difficult to enforce, as people constantly (and understandably) pull their masks beneath their noses in order to make it easier to breathe.
It would be better for the public health bureaucracy to admit that we cannot mask our way out of the pandemic. At this point, COVID-19 is too contagious to be effectively constrained by the tools at the government’s disposal. It would take transforming into a China-style totalitarian state: This is a path the U.S. government is constitutionally, morally, and practically prevented from taking.
It’s time to end mask mandates in schools, on airplanes, and in other settings where they are required. Rational policy makers should conclude that these mandates’ failure weakens their legitimacy.
