Thanks for the summary Nick.
Something that struck me in the book is this in Chapter 5:
The division that appeared at the turn of the twentieth century was not so much between denominations; it was more about how people viewed the world. On one side was what Martin Marty has called "Private Protestantism."8 Private Protestants promoted individual salvation and promised that personal morality would be rewarded in the next life. On the other side of that great divide was "Public Protestantism," a conviction that the way to God required the transformation of society. The latter laid the foundation for Democratic liberalism. The former provided the moral footing and rationale for Republican conservatism.This obviously looks highly plausible, and maps onto many things I have thought about evangelist versus traditional Christianity, but I haven't read into it yet and would love to hear comments about it. On the face of it that divide would also map neatly onto the non/authoritarian personality divide. For instance:
While the Social Gospel ministers confronted industrial life and sought human perfection through political reform, Moody defined his task differently: "I look upon this world as a wrecked vessel. God has given me a lifeboat and said to me, 'Moody, save all you can.'";a turn back to imagined simplicity, rather than move forward into growing complexity.
A nice summary; thanks Nick S!
Your introductory thought 1 resonates with me -- most of what they highlight is important and many of the identified trends have continued, but they seem thematically related instead of involving causation.
I wonder if the pivot in Chapter 4 is also a reflection of changing Republican attitudes toward government. As we all learn, Eisenhower created the Interstate Highway System, which certainly underscores a belief that government can build and do great things. Even Nixon still believed that the government had to do something when rivers caught fire, etc. But Regan's "the era of big government is over" sure feels like a concerted campaign to undermine government, and there hasn't been much backtracking since.
That makes me wonder if the causation runs the other way; if more public denunciations of government (growing from the fringe John Birch society to Regan to republican orthodoxy) is the source of the loss of trust in government. After all, if half of the people in government tell you it's corrupt, and they're there to see it... and they repeat it forever, is that really a "natural" decline in trust of government?
Good question. I am almost completely non-religious, so I don't have a good ear for the ways in which different strains of religious thought play out in public culture, so I'd be curious what other people think about that.
I would also say that the quoted paragraph about the Heritage foundation has a certain tension within it, in that saying that the New Right " gathered, organized, and put together [the right recipe]" could be a description of a "conspiracy" in action rather than a refutation.
I also wonder about the questions in 2, and how other developed (especially non-Anglo) countries compare to the US in terms of confidence in government. Undeniably, there have been massive interests pushing anti-government messages from the top down for decades, however much the grassroots may have been predisposed to agree.
There's this Anglo tradition of Millian minimal government/negative freedom liberalism, and I don't know how influential that is elsewhere.
1: Mossy, I found that interesting too. Also interesting was the focus on the growth of mega churches -- that getting people to church was the point, not inspiring them to change as a result of exposure to the church's message.
It makes it easier to draw in the whole community when you're not changing the community -- going well beyond the "meet them where they are" of the foreign recruitment insight.
And your second quote sure sounds like Noah's Ark, especially the boat metaphor. Let's save two of every kind and let God wash away the rest so we can start fresh sure plays into end times thinking.
Thanks, NickS!
The post-materialism part reminded me of my favorite work of futurology, The Greening of America, since the purpose of this genre as far as I'm concerned is to be preposterously and hilariously wrong.
Post-materialism seems to me as bad a description of the U.S as postracial.
Almost everyone is still worried about surviving and maintaining their standard of living, and if not worried for themselves, then worried for their children.
7: The megachurch stuff interested me too. My concern here is the experience I had with the boardinghouse stuff from the first section. As I read the book it was fascinating, obvious, explained a great deal; but when I probed I found there was almost nothing there.
Along with the kind of church that wants to promote social justice and the kind of church that is only concerned with personal salvation, it seems to me there is a third kind of church that believes the state should be an arm of the church and enforce the church's ideas on morality.
10: Good point, though they're not not necessarily inconsistent: "The only way to protect my borders is to extend them".
8.3: True, but maybe less true in 1965, especially if you were white (and at that time the political nation overwhelmingly still was).
The idea of "post-materialist politics" was something I've been drifting towards in my own thinking. From what little I know of practical politics, patronage has always been key to building and maintaining factions; in a wealthier society, patronage inevitably loses marginal utility.
Similarly, (TMVLK) classical 20th C mass parties (and civil organizations, unions, churches, whatever) depended on a lot on using and operating public spaces like clubs and community halls. As people gain more options for entertainment, and more private living space, those public spaces have to lose attractiveness and influence. In that regard, American suburbia and its vast houses would be consistent with an Anglo/non-Anglo divide (the UK would be a test case).
Maybe I ought to read something -- even the comments above -- but I find it hard to reconcile the term 'post-materialist politics' with the huge concerted effort on the part of one party to move wealth, by any means available, up the income scale. In essence, Reaganism was culture war rhetoric as a smokescreen for looting (a) government and (b) the non-rich.
Doesn't the "post-materialist politics" idea match up with the standard narrative about the 60s? From my recollections of the writings of those who were involved in the various student/social movements, most of them explicitly state that the economic and material security they experienced growing up gave them the confidence to demand improvements in other areas of life.
2.3: Your broader point makes sense, but it was Bill Clinton who said that "the era of big government is over."
15: Yes, that was what The Greening of America was all about. Baby boomers didn't care about money and material possessions!
14: I don't remember how Bishop puts it, but in my thinking, the idea is that the mass of voters, raised in the wealthy postwar, could easily forget how lucky they were, and how much politics-from-below, and how much state action, had been needed to get their families to that situation. For instance my middle-class father (b.1954, and I'm sure would vote Trump if he could) likes to rail against government and unions, although his life chances and those of his parents were spectacularly advanced by leftist politics (roughly contemporary with the New Deal). He also loves to rail against big business exploitation, but never connects the dots and recognizes the contradictions in his beliefs.
More simply, perhaps the middle class could forget being poor, while the rich remembered being richer.
(Belatedly, OP Intro.1 is very well put.)
My problem with the "post materialist" phrasing is it seems to be a very transparent attempt to avoid mentioning "race" and "Vietnam" by shouting "look at the hippies."
I propose there are two reasons that explain why trust in government peaked in 1965. Either black people started to use a new standard by which to judge government (i.e. equal treatment under the law) or white people who were privileged by it kept judging by the old standard.
In theory, I could look at old ANES data and test that. I don't think I'll find the time.
Bishop speculates that 1965 was a particularly disruptive and traumatic year in America. But notes that those declines in civic trust occur internationally
(Also to 20): For Europe the standard landmark is 1968* not 1965, but America wasn't the only country where shit hit in a period centered on 1965. Several European countries also had their own third-world fiascoes (Algeria, Suez, Congo, the Carnation Revolution), and a bunch of stuff also happened in a cluster around 1973. Bishop's sources in this bit start from 1987, NickS quotes a 1981 poll in the OP, so the data aren't just from the 1960s.
white people who were privileged by it kept judging by the old standard.
Except for about half of them, who started judging it by a higher one.
*Certainly argued by some to be a critical inflection point, though I don't know the history.
For Europe the standard landmark is 1968
I took European History post-1945 from a professor who toured Europe with his family (wife, baby) in 1968. He had a good story about how strikes in Paris made it hard for them to feed the baby, so they decided to go to Prague to see how Spring was getting on and then Soviet tanks arrived so they wound up somewhere in western Europe getting caught in big protests about Vietnam.
Obviously, in terms of political failure, we're overdue for that kind of mass reaction/protest. But I think we either don't have enough young people or smartphones make them too not-rioty.
Actually, I had thought the US landmark was also 1968 (Tet, Kennedy, King, riots, LBJ). Bishop (if he didn't fuck up his research) puts it in 1965, indicating it was all about the VRA and therefore indeed about race as Moby says. But to the extent similar tends exist other countries (especially Japan, maybe) I think Bishop may be on to something.
If somebody wants to take individual action to reverse the Big Sort while earning $5,000, I have friends in North Platte.
The divide in Protestantism (American protestantism) he mentions is a standard trope among historians of Christianity. What I think is missed is how much it was a reaction to what one might call Menckenism: the Scopes trial had quite a lot to do with it, and there, I think, the resistance to evolution grew out of William Jennings Bryant and the whole "Cross of Gold" business. In other words, Social and Biological Darwninism were confused in the minds both of their opponents and some of their supporters. Another way of looking at it is that part of the future Trump coalition was very badly beaten politically and in the culture wars, and went into a sulk that lasted nearly 50 years. Not until the desegregation of schools did they emerge from pietism.
But Marilynne Robinson, among others, points out how incredibly political and socially activist evangelical religion had been up till then.
24: I don't really know much about public opinion in other countries.
26.1: That was Stephen Jay Gould's argument. I think you could say that while most Biological Darwinists were not supportive of Social Darwinism, literally every Social Darwinist confused Social and Biological Darwinism. That's the only point they have that isn't "Fuck you, I got mine."
how incredibly political and socially activist evangelical religion had been up till then
Until when? 1925?
I mean, look at Prohibition as an example of the power of Protestant religiosity in the early part of this the last century. Of course, it was then a deeply progressive cause, like women's suffrage.
Yes. Assholes don't want a Catholic to get his drink on.
30 unintentionally to 29. But, yes, the accounts I have read suggest that the Scopes trial was the moment that turfed fundamentalism out of public life. Though, come to think of it, prohibition can't have helped.
Theologically it gets started earlier, of course. The Fundamentals were published in I think 1912. But at that stage it was a schism within Christianity over other things than public engagement.
My problem with the "post materialist" phrasing is it seems to be a very transparent attempt to avoid mentioning "race" and "Vietnam" by shouting "look at the hippies."
Bishop definitely talks about race, though I skipped that in my summary. In his description of what made 1965 he highlights integration of public schools and the Selma march. In fact, if 1965 was a turning point that would center the discussion more on race than Vietnam or Watergate.
[somewhat pwned by Mossy Character]
Maybe I ought to read something -- even the comments above -- but I find it hard to reconcile the term 'post-materialist politics' with the huge concerted effort on the part of one party to move wealth, by any means available, up the income scale. In essence, Reaganism was culture war rhetoric as a smokescreen for looting (a) government and (b) the non-rich.
The "post-materialist" phrase comes from the early 70s which, we know, was a period of relatively high economic equality.
32: Thanks.
26.1 is very interesting. And grimly amusing in that AIUI US eugenics (not the same as SD, I know, but still) had by far its greatest traction among middle-class professionals, not the vieux riches pushing the gold standard. Though I don't know where the middle class were in that fight.
Another way of looking at it is that part of the future Trump coalition was very badly beaten politically and in the culture wars, and went into a sulk that lasted nearly 50 years. Not until the desegregation of schools did they emerge from pietism.
Also worth mentioning that abortion wasn't a culture war issue until the 80s.
The next big shift occurred in the 1980s when political conservatives organized around the topic of abortion and the "moral majority" and Religious Right churches were borne. Since I was not alive in the days before the 80's conservative revival, I have included in my research many conversations I have had with both conservative and progressive evangelicals, Christians of varying denominations and Catholics. Whatever their position now, all related to me that before the 1980's, abortion was never a prioritized topic of the church except in minority groups. It was not a measure of one's Christianity as it seems to have become today, and being called a "Christian Democrat" was not an unusual nor taboo thing. This major shift came about not as a result of a new Christian doctrine or new book added to the Bible (there was no Dead Sea Scroll on abortion found in 1980...), but through political efforts by the GOP and conservative groups. This "political doctrine" became religious and scriptural doctrine for millions, without question.
To be fair, have you seen how they dressed small children in the 70s?
I'm wearing corduroy overalls and a wide-collared ruffled shirt right now motherfuckers
Not Pictured: A belief in individual salvation through personal morality.
listen let's not judge those of us people who have fantasized about holding the lifeless scalps of my their enemies as a quiet breeze flows through my their hair.
It's a normal part of personal development, I say.
I don't mean self-publishing it. I mean, publishing somebody else's.
I'm wearing corduroy overalls and a wide-collared ruffled shirt right now motherfuckers
Halford hadn't known that he'd lost a button! That night, when everyone was asleep, Halford went looking for his button. He stepped on an escalator. "This must be a mountain!" he thought, "I've always wanted to visit a mountain!"
Well, this liberal is happy that at least he is showing some respect for Native American culture.
Corduroy was ahead of his time. For reals.
It seems odd to characterize the start year of a trend as "the point of no return." That would be like saying "the fall of Rome reached its point of no return under Emperor Trajan," or something like that. The point of no return should refer to the point at which the trend becomes effectively unstoppable, which is usually not when it starts out.
Anyway, I was just thinking it was on topic because a good reaction to people having violent fantasies in which you are the victim is to try not to live or work near them.
Corduroy probably fantasized about scalping people who didn't want to buy him
NMM to Charles Krauthamer, you pervs.
My dad loved the "On the Road" segments.
||
So, I haven't read all the comments or even the post. My eyes can't focus on that much text at once. But there's some good news in MA that I wante dto share and I couldn't figure out which thread to put it in.
The Massachusetts Legislature just passed - even with DeLeo as Speaker of the House - a bill that raises the minimum wage to $15/hr AND established Paid Family and Medical Leave up to $850/wk! You would get 12 weeks for family leave, 20 for own illness, and some other amount to deal with disruptions related to active military deployment or the injury of a Veteran. The Governor hasn't signed it, but it won by a veto-proof majority.
So, it's one bright spot in a sea of depressing news.
|>
||Former gym owner has responded on FB to the crisis about immigrant children by ... offering a free "earthing" group session this weekend. What, you might ask, is "earthing"? Literally, you touch lie down on the ground on some dirt, thus helping to feel secure in the warm embrace of the earth.|>
||Oh, and you are supposed to stop wearing non-conductive rubber soles and go barefoot or, if you must, wear soles that conduct electricity, because this helps you pick up the electromagnetic force of the earth|>
feel secure in the warm embrace of the earth.
That and a wooden box and you've got death or Mickey Rourke's mistake in Kill Bill.
20 et seq: My problem with the "post materialist" phrasing is it seems to be a very transparent attempt to avoid mentioning "race" and "Vietnam" by shouting "look at the hippies."
From one of Bishop's sources:
This downward trend is replicated in almost every other case -- the major variation being in the timing and pace of decline, rather than the direction of the change.Assuming education and age are inversely correlated with racism, this counts against the race explanation. Also, consistent with 15:
[...]
Over time the trust levels of the better-educated decrease at a steeper rate, and in relative terms trust levels increase among the lesser educated. Thus, by the end of the time span [c.2000] the better educated have become less trustful than those with lower levels of education.
[...]
the young are now more likely to display lower levels of political trust and greater cynicism towards politicians and political institutions.
trust in government is decreasing most among groups that have benefited most from the progress of democratic governments during the late twentieth century. The better educated, for example, presumably have better paid careers and better life chances. And younger generations benefit from a society with higher living standards, and more freedoms, than their parents enjoyed.
I just saw this and I think it's a mess?
The differences in attitudes between "High-Tech" cities (compared to Low Tech cities) are: More interested in other cultures and places. More likely to "try anything once." More likely to engage in individualistic activities. More optimistic. More interested in politics. Volunteering increasing (but less overal than Low-Tech cities). Church attendance decreasing. Community projects decreasing. Club membership decreasing.
On the other side of the count "Low-Tech" cities were: More likely to attend church. Club membership declining but less rapidly than High-tech cities. Community projects increasing. Volunteering increasing. More active participation in clubs, churches, volunteer services, and civic projects. More supportive of traditional authority. More family oriented. More feelings of isolation. More feelings of economic vulnerability. More sedentary. Higher levels of stress. Political interest decreasing. More social activities with other people.
I find it hard to imagine how "volunteering increasing" can be true if "More active participation in clubs, churches, volunteer services, and civic projects" is not true. By definition, volunteer services are made of volunteers. This sounds like someone sticking their thumb on the scales. Similarly, I bet if you took the lid off the definitions of "individualistic activities" and "social activities" or "clubs" you'd find that Arugula-Eating Coastal Liberal Stuff TM has been classified into the first and Proper Conservative Stuff TM into the second.
Also, involving yourself in politics *is* volunteering, taking part in a civic and community project, and working with others.
In fact, if you trim the bits that are transparently different labels for the same thing or else self-contradictory you get an axis of optimism vs pessimism, which makes a lot of sense.
I find it hard to imagine how "volunteering increasing" can be true if "More active participation in clubs, churches, volunteer services, and civic projects" is not true.
I wonder how volunteering at your own kids' schools counts? Because that takes a lot of time, unless you want the other parents to think you're the asshole, and doesn't really seem to fit in the other categories.
65: In case you want to backslide:
The respondent's identification with the party of the incumbent president has a significant impact on trust in government (b=0.094) and there is a weak effect for trust to be slightly higher during Republican administrations (b=0.025). The key point for our discussion is the stability of education and age effects across models. [...] the impact of education and age are essentially unaffected by the inclusion of the party controls.Which suggests there are both rightist and leftist reasons faith in government has fallen, though perhaps the rightist reasons are more intense.
63-4 make a lot of sense. IIRC all Bishop's economic analysis rests heavily on Florida's "creative class" work, which I dismissed after reading one piece. He shows a bunch of economic divergences between 'creative' and non-creative cities, but defines the creative class so broadly as to include essentially everyone who works in an office. So all he's saying really is that the service sector's share of US GDP and growth has grown, and people go where the jobs are.
And if you map where the jobs are/n't, it should line up with an optimism/pessism map as Alex says.
And one more from the trust paper:
Family income ranked by percentile is positively related to political trust in 1958 (r=0.10), and negatively related in 1996-2000 (r=-0.03).Which is consistent with stuff here suggesting that the major polarization in the US is occurring among the relatively wealthy.
I'm sure the correlation is significant, but those are very weak.
«Assuming education and age are inversely correlated with racism, this counts against the race explanation.»
So the mid-60s race riots and the terror that middle and upper middle class people developed of mixed-class areas have disappeared from notice...
«The Massachusetts Legislature just passed - even with DeLeo as Speaker of the House - a bill that raises the minimum wage to $15/hr AND established Paid Family and Medical Leave up to $850/wk! You would get 12 weeks for family leave, 20 for own illness, and some other amount to deal with disruptions related to active military deployment or the injury of a Veteran.»
It is always easy to legislate unfunded mandates. A lot better but not as easy to have a state-organized health insurance system.
Romney created one for Massachussets, but isn't it curious that solidly democratic states like California, NY, and Massachussets before Romney never got around to setup one?
Wasn't it largely forced on Romney?
72: Wait, what? I don't think the race riots had anything to do with middle and upper middle class fears of mixed-class areas. I think it was largely the end of school and residential segregation by race that did it. White people with the means replaced legally-enforced segregation with geographically-determined de facto segregation. Wealthier black people had more freedom to live in better areas than they had before.
73: Not really strange. Back before the Republican Party decided that using the government to accomplish anything but enrich the wealthy was the Greatest Crime Ever, they proposed reforms like that MA's plan in Congress. The idea, originally pushed by the Heritage Foundation, was to use a largely market-based setup as a compromise to avoid the more publicly-funded options Democrats (or the Democrats to the left of various Clintons) usually wanted.
69 last:
Since a central part of the authoritarian disposition is characterized by feelings of pessimism (Adorno et al. 1950; Altemeyer 1996; Stenner 2005), we believe that those scoring high in authoritarianism will tend to believe the world is more threatening than do nonauthoritariansMy biases, they keep getting confirmed!
That might be a holiday here. I'm too busy doing liberal things like stealing cheese from Sarah Huckabee to be certain.
78: Right, I get to be unamerican and ruin it! (Should I also make the girls march with the socialists? I'm tempted but a third parade in the course of a month is a lot. Plus I'll get bitter when all my friends go out after and I take my kids to the pool or whatever we're doing that's fun for them. So I guess that's a yes?)
79: The socialists march on the 4th of July? What do their signs say?
I have become completely humorless about liberals or leftists joking that they are un-American. Conservatives are literally in league with foreign powers. They never get to wrap themselves in the flag ever again.
Speaking of un-American, the travel ban is now constitutional.
Also, it's a violation of the First Amendment rights of 'crisis pregnancy' centers to make them not lie about whether they can provide health care.
82: Here's the decision; Popehat has a summary for us non-lawyers. I'm going to consider all 5-4 rulings with Gorsuch in the majority illegitimate.
83: Is it that bad? What I'm seeing doesn't mention that provision.
Anyway, all the news whooshed into the travel ban, so I can't find any detail.
CA was requiring unlicensed crisis pregnancy centers to affirmatively disclose that they did not have health care providers on staff -- that requirement was identified as offensive to their First Amendment rights (because I don't pay enough attention, I'm a little confused about the procedural status -- the case is being sent back to the circuit court for reconsideration, but it'll have to be consistent with this opinion).
We need not decide what type of state interest is sufficient to sustain a disclosure requirement like the unlicensed notice. California has not demonstrated any justification for the unlicensed notice that is more than "purely hypothetical." Ibid. The only justification that the California Legislature put forward was ensuring that "pregnant women in California know when they are getting medical care from licensed professionals." 2015 Cal. Legis. Serv., §1(e). At oral argument, however, California denied that the justification for the FACT Act was that women "go into [crisis pregnancy centers] and they don't realize what they are." See Tr. of Oral Arg. at 44-45. Indeed, California points to nothing suggesting that pregnant women do not already know that the covered facilities are staffed by unlicensed medical professionals. The services that trigger the unlicensed notice--such as having "volunteers who collect health information from clients," "advertis[ing] . . . pregnancy options counseling," and offering over-the-counter "pregnancy testing," §123471(b)--do not require a medical license. And California already makes it a crime for individuals without a medical license to practice medicine. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Ann. §2052. At this preliminary stage of the litigation, we agree that petitioners are likely to prevail on the question whether California has proved a justification for the unlicensed notice.
Even if California had presented a nonhypothetical justification for the unlicensed notice, the FACT Act unduly burdens protected speech. The unlicensed notice imposes a government-scripted, speaker-based disclosure requirement that is wholly disconnected from California's informational interest. It requires covered facilities to post California's precise notice, no matter what the facilities say on site or in their advertisements. And it covers a curiously narrow subset of speakers. While the licensed notice applies to facilities that provide "family planning" services and "contraception or contraceptive methods," §123471(a), the California Legislature dropped these triggering conditions for the unlicensed notice. The unlicensed notice applies only to facilities that primarily provide "pregnancy-related" services. §123471(b). Thus, a facility that advertises and provides pregnancy tests is covered by the unlicensed notice, but a facility across the street that advertises and provides nonprescription contraceptives is excluded--even though the latter is no less likely to make women think it is licensed. This Court's precedents are deeply skeptical of laws that "distinguis[h] among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others." Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U. S. 310, 340 (2010). Speaker-based laws run the risk that "the State has left unburdened those speakers whose messages are in accord with its own views." Sorrell, 564 U. S., at 580.
Thanks. What I've seen only mentioned that they didn't have to mention that abortion, birth control, and prenatal care are things California will help you pay for if you are poor.
87: Wha? Don't lots of states require fortune tellers, etc. to affirmatively disclose that what they're doing is just for entertainment? (Especially in states like PA where, like giving unlicensed medical care, "real" fortune telling is against the law.) I don't see how this is any different, from a First Amendment perspective.
Mistress Cleo says America is in trouble.
So, presumably you could require every healthcare facility to have a notice that they had licenses and forbid those that don't from making claims that imply such. That would probably be close to useless against 'crisis pregnancy centers', but might not be a bad idea overall. If just to see what the chiropractors do.
Answering my question, I suppose the difference is that by not including that warning they're committing the crime in question (fortune telling/psychic reading/whatever), while the crisis pregnancy centers don't actually claim they'll commit an act of medicine, they just wave their hands vaguely in that direction.
The irony is that in Casey the Court aka Justice Kennedy held that it affirmatively does NOT violate the First Amendment to require doctors to recite a mildly anti-abortion script before performing an abortion. But somehow this situation is different because [some nonsense designed to mask the real reason everyone knows this is different].
But this is likely to be the another step towards something that's been clearly on the horizon for years, using the first amendment to constitutionalize business libertarianism. In that sense that the ipinion is such results-driven hackery is almost comforting, although large corporate defendans will also probably benefit from results-driven hackery. What a way to run a democracy.
I would like to formally apologize for all the time I've spent over the last year thinking of Kennedy as at least better than the plausible alternative. I still don't want him to retire, but only because I don't want him replaced by a younger worthless bag of garbage.
No, he is better than his plausible alternative. But, you know, so was Stalin for Russians in 1941.
The Supreme Court was supposed to make union dues unconstitutional today too, right? Is that still happening?
That's scheduled for Wednesday.
Only for public sector unions (which are mist of union membership in the US), but yes, that will definitely happen soon.
using the first amendment to constitutionalize business libertarianism
Isn't that what the Lochner (sp?) court did, without using the big words because assholes didn't need theory before FDR made them work for it?
93: Presumably somebody is going to bring a test case to make that explicit?
So, I had just been reminded that to make the travel ban seem less like a religious test, they stuck in North Korea (and Venezuela). But now North Korea has always been a great partner rules by a great guy.
So, presumably you could require every healthcare facility to have a notice that they had licenses and forbid those that don't from making claims that imply such.
Isn't that basically the law already?