Commenter Archive

That clears things up; just needed to identify the "poverty" line.

And juice is by no means "just as bad" as soda.

Sea trash problem overstated. The common figures given for the amount of plastic waste in the ocean are derived from a model that essentially multiples miles of coastline by population size by quality of waste disposal practices. In this model, most of the world's theoretical sea trash originates from countries on the China seas, with the biggest culprits being China and Indonesia. So I get why Japan would have a problem, but its overfishing activities don't make it particularly sympathetic on problems of the commons.

In any event, once plastic is broken down by sun, salt, wind and waves to 1 mm, bacteria and microbes eat it. More here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/17/an-ocean-of-plastic/

No, there are not just two options here. People also do not get married for good reasons, and they make the choice willingly and in their own self-interest. I know some, and they are not fools, and certainly understand the long-term impact of the marriage penalty in the income tax code on couples making above-average incomes.

I guess the other option would be to lobby for expanded electronic privacy laws. But Apple better hope there is not a terrorist conspiracy in the news any time during that effort.

I don't think that's the lesson to take from this at all. If the law is not on Apple's side it doesn't benefit them not to comply. I think Apple's only option is to remove itself completely from the ability to assist the government, either by completely closing off any potential backdoor or leaving the encryption to third-party vendors.

I think you completely missed Richard's point, it's one thing to be unconcerned with what two consenting adults agree to do as to their personal relationship, but another when they have kids.

"Problem: More and more couples are refusing to do it."

I think its worth considering the reason the marriage rate has declined:

The decline in marriage was particularly steep for young women and for those with lower educational attainment. From 2008 to 2015, the report says, the marriage rate dropped more than 13 percent for young women with high school diplomas or less. At the same time, women who are college-educated have created a different trend. The number of women with college degrees who wed grew from 30 percent to 36 percent.

Women with degrees are more likely to follow what has been called a “success sequence” of college, then marriage, then children, said Sturgeon.

He said he believes most women still want marriage at some point, but young or less-educated women are holding out for economic improvements or better marriage-partner prospects. They have not necessarily been putting off having babies, though.

There are hints that marriage may recover somewhat, or at least decline a bit less. Sturgeon said the decline in the marriage rate has slowed and been less steep recently. "That would suggest that we are nearing the bottom," Sturgeon said.

Marriage is declining among those that lack assets, and increasing among those who do. There is an economic problem here at the core.

Hilarious.

I think there are a few people that survive a horrible divorce that have an irrational desire not to solemnize a subsequent relationship, though are fully committed to the substance of a marital relationship. There is also the promise to marry after some event occurs (like finalization of a divorce) that goes on so long that they forgot to take that step, maybe with a mistaken understanding of the law in their state.

The situation you describe where two people have decided not to get married, but hold themselves out as married to avoid the social stigma, is not a particularly attractive one for common-law marriage, it would give legal effect to a deception.

AFAIK, a common-law marriage still requires that the couple hold themselves out as a married couple, so there is some form of consent given.

Illinois permits any couple (straight or gay) to enter into a civil union, the main distinguishing feature appears to be it is not called marriage and it permits a couple to gain the benefits of marriage without losing any pension benefits that would otherwise have ended upon re-marriage.

6. I'm not convinced that marital or non-marital status is that important of a public issue unless kids are involved and there is a separation. The article also seems a bit foreign in its assumptions. In America the higher the household income quintile, the more likely the inhabitants are married. Worrying about tax breaks and asset-sharing among co-habitants is not the highest priority. I worry more about couples who cannot afford to be separated and at the same time be financially responsible for their child(ren).

I'm skeptical that political science profs have embraced some newfangled stats. I certainly don't see many making statistical arguments. A lot of politics is simply observational and pattern recognition. The betting markets went strong with Rubio after the Iowa caucuses because Cruz and Trump appeared to fit the pattern of people like Huckabee and Santorum, who make big waves but don't win. Trump simply doesn't fit the pattern.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that but for Trump, Hillary Clinton would be the most personally unfavored nominee of a major party in polling history. Link (currently showing poll average of 53.0% unfavorable; 40.8% favorable) This is not going to be an uplifting election.

Edit: same website has Trump's at 57.0% unfavorable; 36.4 favorable.

The order instructed Apple to advise the government of its "reasonable" cost of performing the services. It also instructed Apple to file a request for relief from the order some time this week if it believes compliance would be unreasonably burdensome.

So, I think how this shakes out is that Apple complains that compliance would be burdensome and costly and provides an estimated figure. The ball would then be in the government's court to agree to pay that amount. If it doesn't agree, then it sounds burdensome. The government might agree to pay that up to that amount after the work is performed subject to a later judicial hearing on "reasonableness."

The most likely explanation is that receiving welfare benefits is seen as harming work ethic. There is some support for this, extending unemployment benefits will increase unemployment to at least some extent. To me the question is whether there is any way to target benefits that would (a) be cost-effective, and (b) not harm the needy.

The ownership issues are strange because the phone was owned by the dead terrorist's employer and the employer has consented to the search. I think the main point though will be that Apple designed (or misdesigned) its system to give itself an exclusive ability that is necessary for law enforcement to perform a search approved by warrant.

The technological issues are beyond me. Someone more savvy than me seems to think that by making (or is it allowing) this software update feature, they've already done enough to cross some line. The order suggests that Apple be reimbursed its reasonable costs for this service, so it doesn't sound like simply flipping a switch.

Law enforcement has the power to ask courts to enter such orders as necessary for a criminal investigation. The Court entered the order already, but has given Apple time to respond with its objections or requests for modifications. I think its all going to come down to what is "reasonable."

It seems to me that the order allowed Apple to retain its product in its own possession if it wants. I suspect the concern for Apple is that once they have done this, the inconvenience will be less in future cases, it will be even more "reasonable" for Apple to assist in the future.

The government isn't asking Apple to open the door; Apple does not have that capability. The government wants Apple to use the software update feature to turn off an auto-erase function that would be activated in the event of incorrect password entries. It's more like asking the landlord to turn-off the security system in the building so that the police can safely knock down a door.

The FBI may have a number of good leads on a password, but what they want Apple to do is de-activate the self-destruct feature that would destroy the evidence if too many incorrect passwords are tried. (Barring that, the FBI will use brute force)

[N3] New Orleanians generally think gator tastes like carrion picked-up off the side of the road, so the Lent ruling here is really that it is OK for Yankees to eat gator for Lent.

Home-ownership isn't my preferred metric, it was one selected by the report to make their point. And if they wanted to adjust for variation in cost-of-living, they could have done that, but then their income metric would have cratered in California as well.

Historically, contraception bans were about upholding a high moral standards against promiscuity, and were mostly only passed in the North and West. The only former Confederate states to have such bans were Arkansas and Mississippi.

It may useful to use a class framework, rather than religious.

Separation of church and state is not a good reason by itself, particularly as many U.S. states had established churches and religious tests for a long time.

I think an explanation starts with the English-speaking world having higher "tradition" values in the Inglehart–Welzel cultural map, and religion is an aspect of tradition. Many of the early immigrants came for religious reasons during years of religious tumult in Great Britain and Northern Europe, which had largely dissipated by the time the later colonies were really settled.

Jeffersonian democracy is far less respecting of elite/establishment opinions on religion. Building democratic consensus in the States between heterogenous (Protestant) religious groups led to an armistice, not a hierarchical solution..

One of the most religious groups in the United States are descendents of slaves, and the historically black churches have remained important. Latinos also identify religion as very important to them. The more people come from third-world countries to the West (and not just the secular elites), the more religious Western countries will become.

From what I can tell, law school tuition helps subsidize other programs in most universities. There is no particular reason that a year of law school should cost more than a year of undergrad in most liberal arts programs.

re assimilation, CAP buries it's findings. It's unsurprising that Latino immigrants have fared well in Arizona. Assimilation rates are impacted by public education and density. California does relatively poorly at assimilation because fewer demands are made to learn English, and the schools (at least in L.A.) teach that Latinos are victims.

Looking at the figure on page 27 of home-ownership rates of Latinos, one might conclude that red-states do better at assimilation than blue states. That is no doubt due to high cost of housing in blue states, but that is still a creation of policy -- these states have higher preferences than affordable housing, and these preferences hinder assimilation.