Friday’s Forum
Steven L. Taylor
·
Friday, March 28, 2025
·
57 comments
OTB relies on its readers to support it. Please consider helping by becoming a monthly contributor through Patreon or making a one-time contribution via PayPal. Thanks for your consideration.
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor Emeritus of Political Science and former College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored
A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog).
Follow Steven on
Twitter and/or
BlueSky.
There will be no consequence for Kennedy for endangering children.
West Texas children treated for vitamin A toxicity as medical disinformation spreads alongside measles outbreak
The measles outbreak and vitamin A overdoses are the real life consequences of RFK Jr.s’ cranial-rectal inversion. I pity the children more so than their gullible parents.
I enjoy watching Trump move to kill FEMA. It hurts Republican states most of all.
In many flood-prone areas of the country [focused on FLA, TX, LA], private companies will not issue homeowners insurance. The only policy available is through FEMA. Next hurricane that wipes out neighborhoods in those states that voted largely for Trump.. will see each family receive zero dollars.
This will have the effect of making large parts of those states economically non-viable unless you have hundreds of thousands in the bank to rebuild.
If only there was some sort of government entity that could do something about this!
Is this an assault on religious freedom?
Greg Abbott and Ken Paxton join forces to shut down Plano mosque’s project
@Scott:
Religious freedom for me, not for thee.
As I understand, muslims in non-muslim countries mainly practice Sharia in the context of family law e.g., inheritance, child custody, that sort of thing. Plus dietary law of course.
Here is what the Google AI came up with:
The bigotry runs strong in Texas, shithole state.
RFK has no medical training. He should not be advocating for specific medical treatments.drugs. He does not the expertise to do so. Unfortunately, its a sad fact that in out tribalized world people will follow his advice just because he has been appointed by Trump and is now a tribal leader. He opposes vaccines like many/most MAGA people do and supports the vitamin/additivs industry which finances much of the radical right.
This so reminiscent of Trump advocating for specific drugs which were shown not to work and stuff like bleach and shoving light scopes down into people. I will admit that I am sensitive to this not just due to my profession but because I had to stay up all night managing a pt who drank bleach and required an espohagectomy. We ended up coding her off and on all night but they died anyway.
Steve
steve: one medical professional to another, I’m sorry. That is never not heartbreaking
@charontwo:
It should be noted that the acceptance of Sharia law in the context of the family is at the discretion of the participants. The dispute is always subject to review under civil procedures. Practically, this isn’t any different than a Jew or Catholic allowing a Rabi or Priest to decide a family dispute.
@steve: This is a question you may not know the answer to but does RFK Jr have any liability in using his position to advocate any specific treatment? Does he risk being sued? And does he have any qualified immunity?
Since he would have to be defended, I, as a taxpayer, would have to foot the bill.
I suspect, as always, the law is on the side of those with power.
‘Honour-based’ abuse in England increases 60% in two years
Global political influence may make assault and forced marriage more frequent and severe, say experts
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/07/honour-based-abuse-in-england-increases-60-in-two-years
@Sleeping Dog:
Sharia can be specified in things like antenuptial agreements. It can guide how things like wills are drawn up.
@Fortune: I assume you are referencing the conversation of religious laws versus secular laws. A turn to a more authoritarian form of human relations, particularly marital, seem to be on the rise many places. On the far right fringes of Christian practice there is a drive to limit, if not outright, ban no-fault divorce. Then there is the embedding into law the concept of Covenant marriages, which also impacts marriage differently than conventional marital laws.
@charontwo:
I had a couple of real estate closings over the years where my clients got specific Islamic mortgages. The mental hoops everyone had to jump through to claim there was no interest was comical and annoying.
I did make the lenders repeatedly explain to me why the interest wasn’t interest just to be annoying. I don’t really care how people want to organize their lives, but it’s wildly easy to get cheated when you have to lie to your god to get a loan.
@charontwo:
In Minnesota about 20 years ago, a pre-nup was adjudicated that included included the requirement for Sharia. When the marriage came apart the woman sued for divorce under civil law and the husband’s claims under the pre-nup were denied, with the courts declaring that the state always had the final say.
I doubt it would be much different anywhere else.
@Fortune:
I’m against all intrusion by religion in the public sphere. Are you? Or is it only about Muslims? Because right now today freedom in this country is not under attack by Muslims, but by Christians. Do you agree, or are you just a garden variety bigot?
Apparently VP Vance and his main squeeze will stay on the United States Military base when they visit Greenland.
I thought it was in the Constitution that an American Vice-President has to take the heat from angry citizens overseas.
Nixon visits Caracas in 1958.
Pussy.
So, I arrived at the office around 7:50 am today, and there’s a swarm of coworkers printing, signing, and numbering documents, and placing them in 3-ring binders. This is not terribly unusual with very big, labor intensive proposals. Except this one was due rather far away through city traffic at 10 am.
Yikes.
I did my best to stay out of their way (No, I didn’t offer to help*). I figured they’d be done by 8:15 or so.
They finally closed the boxes of binders and got on their way at 8:50…. It bears mentioning the most adhered to rule in all government acquisitions is that if you’re not present with your proposal at the appointed time, it won’t be received**.
They did make it. Or so they claim.
*I’d only slowed them down as someone would have had to bring me up to speed. I never take help when I’m in a similar situation.
** I once witnessed someone who arrived one second, literally one second, after the deadline, and they were turned away, It’s a rather tragic story.
Another time I was one minute late, but this office used a punch clock that stamped the time on the entry sheet, and the assistant in charge kept it five minutes slow to allow for those nearly on time to make it.
@Mister Bluster:
It’s a face-saving exercise after the VP and/or his wife were rejected by Greenland proper. They’re visiting a remote U.S. military base that’s located on the northern part of the island of Greenland, and not actual Greenland. Sounds like punishment for something–maybe for saying “I think we are making a mistake” on the Signal chat that he thought the president would never see.
@Michael Reynolds: I think I’m a disestablishmentarian accommodationist.
@Charley in Cleveland:
I agree with you. I think the real mystery is how RFK Jr became head of Canadas HHS, and caused their measles outbreak.
Speaking of what the president would never see (or hear), I don’t think enough has been said about the fact that the president was not in the loop on the military offensive’s final approval. The chat group was still hashing out the geopolitical implications. So the final go-ahead was given by who… Miller and Hegseth? Shouldn’t the president be the one to greenlight an attack after hearing those considerations and the operational details?
@Kathy:
It works that way with US acquisitions also (at least in DoD). Very few bidders would trust the mail system to deliver on time. We also, during bidders’ conference, would specifically point out the date and time of required proposal delivery including time zone and whether it was Standard time or daylight savings time. Why all the precision? Because contracting has to be scrupulously fair and any error or anomaly can be cause for protest.
@Fortune: @Fortune: “I think I’m a disestablishmentarian accommodationist”
I would never have guessed that someone could find a way to make “troll” a fourteen-syllable phrase.
So glad I sold my US stock market assets a couple of weeks ago. I could no longer see much of a probability of an upside gain. However, downside seemed much more probable.
@Fortune: How does your belief factor into situations where government does not have specific disestablishmentarian practices, laws, procedures, or principles?
ETA (@wr): Like your reply, too. On the other hand, who knew he had the voca to pull it off?
@Scott: Same! Chaos monkeys are bad for business.
@Eusebio:
Doesn’t that depend on what Congress is willing to define as misuse of authority?
@just nutha: In the US? I can’t think of any.
Not all the big law firms are run by cowards. I’m pleased that WilmerHale, formerly Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering, is pushing back against Trump’s thuggery. Obviously a certain library clerk who worked for the firm back in 1973-4 had a lasting, inspirational impact. Had I not updated all those CCH binders, and properly re-shelved all those Federal Supplements, things might have gone very differently.
@Fortune: How do “In the US? I can’t think of any” and “‘Honour-based’ abuse in England” relate to each other and what is your position on “honour-based” abuse to begin with?
Too much “source” and not enough “Fortune” yet again. So sad. :*( You may well be trying to make important points but no one can tell.
@Scott: Good ol “crunchy moms” and their love of everything except something with a proven medical history of working.
Saw a post from one of them the other day where they lost one of their 5 children to measles. They said that measles “isn’t that bad”…
Colloidal silver for all!!
Social Media allowed them to gather and re-enforce their insanity well before RFK jr came along. Now he’s just giving them a louder mouthpiece/justification ugh..
@just nutha:
I assume when Michael Reynolds said “in this country” he was referring to the US. I cited the example of England as a country where sharia isn’t enforced but you can see the violence caused by importing extra-legal family customs from Muslim cultures.
@Scott:
These days most federal acquisitions are uploaded to the government’s portal. The upload function stops working at the deadline, too. More and more states are switching to online proposals as well, but most still do them in person.
For in person processes, you can send them by post or a delivery company, unless it’s indicated no proposals will be received by such means. In all my years at this job, I’ve seen a proposal delivered by post only once. We’ve never sent one that way.
We’re way too careful about such things. If we need to fly to present one, the rule is it goes in the carry on luggage. Checked luggage can get misplaced or lost. Things like that.
Often when we stay late, during supper we share horror stories about late arriving participants.
Hmm, what does it mean when a commenter has no real identity behind their comments:
* They don’t use a real name
* They don’t identify any place they live or have ever lived
* They don’t identify anything specific about their work, or their schooling
* They never reference any friends or family members
* They don’t respond to questions about what *they* think about stuff
* They DO have what appears to be an obscure reference that exactly is the thing that rebuts someone’s statement. It is so consistent it makes you wonder if they have a day job. Of course, the assertion often lacks any citation, or the citation doesn’t say what is claimed, or is from an obvious propagandist source.
What sort of person is that, do you think?
@just nutha: “Too much “source” and not enough “Fortune” yet again. So sad. :*( You may well be trying to make important points but no one can tell.”
Are we really doing this again?
Our government is sending people to foreign torture camps without even a chance to call a lawyer, the mission statement of the EPA is now to make cars cheaper and free polluters to pollute, we’re aiding the deaths of uncountable numbers of children around the world thanks to the ruination of USAID, Social Security is reportedly on the verge of collapse and on and on and on and on…
And so I ask: Is it really the right use of our time to keep holding out the football for the troll, assuring ourselves that this time for real if we phrase our responses to him in exactly the right way, he will start making actual arguments and become a valued member of this community?
People have tried this, time and time and time again. I’m sure Matt B still has red marks on his forehead from banging his head against this wall. Even I have tried.
This guy is a fucking troll who exists to waste our time. He’s never going to clarify any of his gnomic pronouncements, because what he wants is people paying attention to him.
He and the rest of the trolls seemed to go away for a little while, and this place was much more interesting then, because people could actually talk to each other.
@Fortune: Again, what’s your point? Yet another missed opportunity to communicate a potentially important point* lost. Moreover, disestablishmentarian accommodation is to loose a term to focus what you actually mean. The argument can be made (indeed has been during my lifetime) that commitment to disestablishmentarianist accommodation requires government to allow practices that would be forbidden outside of a religious setting. In the case of “honour-based” abuse, such an argument would be morally offensive and reprehensible, but philosophically consistent. One would have to assume that because your claim is to disestablishmentarian accommodation, you would fall on the side of wanting to honor the government’s commitment to the rule of law. On the other hand, you argue against DEI as a tool for solving discrimination because of its philosophical inconsistency–that it requires discrimination to solve a discrimination problem. Congratulations! Prosecuting honour-based assaults in the UK (and the US for that matter) requires trampling on the genuinely held (according to the perpetrators of the assaults at least) religious beliefs of devout practitioners of religions. The UK has no constitutional objections to such trampling. The US seems to. Where do your loyalties fall?
*(And yet, a point that might not show any distinction from what MR believes. Have I inadvertently stumbled upon the problem?)
@wr: Yeah, I’m afraid I’ve taken a stroll down the Matt Bernius road (no offence intended, Matt). For me, the problem is that I spent 20 or so years (probably longer considering how often people came to me with such questions even before I became a teacher) helping students formulate the arguments they wanted to make rather than the arguments I wanted to hear. Sometimes an inconsistency so glaring pops up that I simply can’t resist replying to it.
It turns out that I, too, have responsibilities to the lurkers. Despite my protestations to the contrary. My apologies. 🙁 (And I can’t even promise that I will try to do better. And will note that snarking at the same trolls isn’t really much different.)
ETA: I REALLY HATE these new emojis with the full “whites of the eyes” appearance. I hope that other people don’t get them on their feed from here.
AETA: (I’m secretly hoping that he’ll Kinsey gaffe at my note at the bottom and say something like “Haw, haw, haw, gotcha!! I’ve been trolling y’all all along and you kept falling for it.”)
Trump has sworn in Alina Habba as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey.
@Scott:
Just a historical aside to the issue of of Islam and law, but one of the first teachers I had on the subject mentioned that since it’s founding it has been a religion deeply concerned with the law. Mostly due to the chaotic nature of 7th century Arab society and the nature of the times, wherein the Arabs felt deeply compelled to unite in a big hurry due to the existence of the great powers, Byzantines and the Persians.
By the time Christianity came to Europe there had been centuries of Roman law and domination. An existing common set of, and sense, about law existed so they didn’t feel the level of pressure to use religion in the same way the Arabs did. Islam has been called “the religion of law” because of this.
@CSK: The next however many years* a US attorney term is will be the best years of her entire career. My condolences to the people of New Jersey, though.
*The innertubes tell me the term is 4 years and is subject to Senate approval. I don’t see any reason the Senate wouldn’t approve such an obviously qualified candidate given their recent track record, but you never can tell…
@Jay L Gischer: If you’re talking about me: would you give personal information to the kind of person who supports firebombing Teslas?
@Eusebio:
A valid point, but I suspect the reason nobody is paying much attention is this was pretty much the condition of Trump’s first term. He loves the game but not the actual work and responsibility. He tried to delegate nearly everything to his son in law and his cabinet. This resembles the fake business show “You’re Fired” actually. Trump only chooses the people and does not try to fix any of the problems they are tasked to solve himself. He is the blameless King who somehow maintains status for picking the wrong or incompetent person by being the person who fires them.
Probably the oldest trick in management, if you ask me.
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
Well, if she’s been sworn in, I guess she got the Senate approval.
She said she’d “make New Jersey great again.”
From parking garages to MAGA…
@CSK:
I’d look for many criminal enterprises to move there. Remember she said it was more important to have good looks than to be smart? Criminals will love a stupid US attorney.
@Kathy:
I do recall that. As far as Trump is concerned, regarding women, she’s probably right.
According to a headline is the WaPo, “Trump wants to reshape the Smithsonian.”
I don’t want to think about what that might mean. Or entail.
@Mister Bluster:
@Eusebio:
It’s really quite funny.
Greenland is a fairly small country, where almost everybody knows most everybody else, at least at one or maybe two removes.
And where fishing and an Arctic climate mean you depend upon other people to actually survive.
So, that’s how it works.
It’s a community.
Probably a hard thing for MAGA and political opportunists to figure out.
Being idiots.
Si, does this mean that the US will invade Greenland?
https://x.com/acyn/status/1905690882281738508?s=46
@CSK: I zoned on the “sworn in” part. My bad. 🙁
ETA: I’ll go with he wants to make the buildings hexagonally-shaped. It sorta possible, so I’m probably wrong.
It seems kinda silly to firebomb a Tesla. If you just have the patience to wait, they’ll burn themselves to the ground.
@Min: It would seem to, sadly. 🙁
Incidentally, re Tesla being firebombed
Musk has firebombed it.
He just doesn’t fully realise it yet.
He’s crossed Chancellor Merz, President Macron, Prime Ministers Starmer, Carney, and Tusk.
And perhaps more importantly, the states concerned.
Germany, France, UK, Canada, Poland.
Crossing a state is unwise.
There will be a reckoning.
It may be delayed, so long as it’s deemed expedient to pander to the Toddler.
But anyone who expects Musk’s ventures in Europe to flourish in the medium to longer term is rather naive.
@dazedandconfused:
This is a crucial point about Islam and law.
The relations of religion, historical contingency, and political sociology, is a very interesting topic.
Christianity developed within the matrix of romanitas, and then of the Christianized barbarian successor states, and the East Roman Empire.
By the time it became politically dominant, it had half a millennium of adapting to well established legal and political structures.
And the emergent medieaval European states were never so fragile as to be overruled by purely canonical legal authority.
Even at the peaks of clerical power in the 12th century, or during the Reformation.
By contrast, Islam was a legal/political project from the outset.
And the Hindic and Sinic modes were conditioned by either “religion” as the basis of the social order in the Hindu world, or in China by the elite concepts of “religious” philosophy, either in service (Confucianism) or detachment (Taoist/Sino-Buddhist).
Meanwhile, Judaism, which might have been similar to either Islam or the “eastern” modes, had to adapt to being a “religion of exiles”.
The amusing thing, is you now get US “Christianists” , both evangelical Protestant and Catholic “ultras” both scrabbling to attempt to create a concept of a modern Christian polity, and for some reason consumed by paranoia about Muslim political theory.
@JohnSF: I sorta get the paranoia about Muslim political theory. After all, it’s not “christianist” political theory. The current crop is in it to take over the world. It’s almost as though they don’t understand/know/believe their own prophetic/theological theories and premises.
“Christianist” political concepts are really rather novel, and half-baked, at best.
Not to mention the massive differences between modern Evangelical Protestant, Catholic. and Orthodox variants on the theme.
Whereas Islam was, in a way political/legal from the outset.
But insufficiently so: the Muslim world general trajectory was to an Islamic juridical/religious system working under nominally Muslim, nomadic derived, absolutist monarchies.
Hence the recurrent tendency to attempt to reconstitute politics on an Islamic basis .
Of which the “Muslim Brotherhood” aka “Ikhwanites” are just the most recent iteration.
Their problem being: Islamic law got dead-ended with the rapid emergence of the Omayyad/Abbasid despotic states.
By contrast, the “christianists” have never had a coherent Christian basis of a legal/political order at all.
Even the best attempts at such (Papal ascendancy, Calvinist Geneva, early New England) were crippled by the fundamental issue that so much of their priors were derived from non-Christian Roman and Germanic origins.
They could attempt to go to Judaic principles, but those in turn just were incompatible with the post-Roman Christian basis.
In short: you can’t get there from here.
@dazedandconfused:
It was really not “Arabs felt deeply compelled to unite in a big hurry”
The East Romans and Sassanid Persians had wrecked each other in the “middle east” in the 7th Century wars.
The Arab Islamic armies that had unified north-east Arabia were able to exploit the mutual destruction of the East Roman and Persian states.
And conquest fed upon conquest, and upon the long-standing antipathies of Greeks, Egyptians, Syrians, Mesopotamians, Persians, etc
Once the nascent Islamic empire secured Syria, it was then able to secure Iraq, and then conquer Iran and Egypt.
It was really contingent: had either the Persians or the East Romans not been crippled by mutual war and internal dynastic struggle, simultaneously, things might have turned out very differently.