Fortunately we also have Android with its many high-quality app store alternatives[1] like the Amazon Appstore, and Google Play's low platform fees[2].
Can you explain this? Why would compound debt exist for blacks but not for anyone else? Why would poor American whites be labeled under "compound interest"?
Again, it is a metaphor, don't take to too literally.
Blacks were slaves, whites and immigrants were not.
Can you picture slavery as digging out of a hole (debt)? Until breaking even, you are subject to compound debt.
Yes, immigrants do well within a generation or two. Blacks have only had civil rights for a generation. White males not only have always rights but made them.
Yes, I'm generalizing based on skin color. That is literally what race is.
I think the idea is, poor whites don't need to pass through institutional racism like poor/rich black do. Of course poor whites have it worse than rich whites but they have more/easier opportunities to break through.
>You dismissed one assumption and named three more. Please explain which applies to Occam's razor.
Because there is a direct correlation between observable characteristics like obesity and poverty to health outcomes for people of all races. If a fat, poor white woman in Appalachia has heart problems in her 40s and receives low quality care, is that a result of systemic racism?
And as others have pointed out, we don't know the entire scope of genetic effects, but we know they exist to some degree (which was the whole point of the article).
Mortgages cause real estate to be more expensive than if everyone had to pay cash. So yes, mortgages payments are cheaper than rent. But rent would be much cheaper in a would without mortgages.
Look at the history of compromise that lead to the Electoral College -
Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:
There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.
Not in the Netherlands, most older kids (>12) bring a lunch box, usually filled with 4 slices of bread with cheese, meat, "hagelslag" or peanut butter (we call it peanut cheese and it is almost only peanuts). Children until 12 often eat at home during the afternoon although that is rapidly changing. Many children now spend lunch time at school, I think the cost is ~1 euro for some slices of bread with topping as mentioned before, they are helped by volunteer parents.
My 4y/o brings a box to school with 1 piece of fruit (some bring a cookie/oat bar or something but the school encourages fruit) and a bottle of water which is eaten around 10:15 I believe. I think this is only for young children.
By the way, if a kid forgets his or her fruit they make it point to share, I like that policy. Also I hear from colleagues more and more schools are switching to water only to battle weight increase in children, although this leads to some discussion :)
Edit: see below, the Netherlands is waking up I guess :)
In Belgium it's pretty much the same. Except that it's usually a cookie and a piece of fruit they bring (morning and afternoon snack).
Some schools (kindergarten, primary and secondary) do offer the possibility to buy lunches. But those are quite expensive (more than $2, for 4y olds in my kids' previous school) and not very healthy, since at that scale, cost of food matters a lot.
In Portugal, school lunches are subsidized (it's currently $1.6 per meal), but poor families pay only 50%, or zero if their income is low enough. So it sounds similar to the US.
On the other hand, there's no lunch bill, as kids have to purchase the lunch tickets upfront. I'm actually not sure what happens if the kid says he has no money; I'm pretty sure my classmates would be too embarrassed to do so. The few times one of them didn't have money, we either knew beforehand (and pooled money ourselves) or the kid just went hungry.
In the Netherlands lunch is usually sandwiches (with cold cheese) that children being themselves. A proper meal follows at 1730 at home. Some schools do school milk or school fruit, but usually it's bring your own. In high school cafeterias exist but do not come near what I see that US/UK schools feed their kids in not very nutritional food. Schools do not last all day, so most kids eat some more after school before going to sports or other hobbies. Many smaller kids go to after school care when both parent work.
In Australia, we provide lunches for our kids to take to school with them. Most schools have a 'tuckshop' where kids can buy treats (icecream, chips) by paying cash on the spot, or parents can order and pay for meals (typically online) beforehand. But that's usually on occasion as a treat and not a regular, daily, lunch provision.
In Sweden it's illegal to charge parents for anything as a school. We can do bake sales and such to fund a field trip for example (and if the money isn't raised, they save what was raised and push back the event until next time), but the school cannot base it's budget on parents paying or students paying for things.
That's the reality of an overwhelmed court system, they make choices to optimize. It's a system of trust, balanced by a Judge reporting abusive attorneys to The Bar, which means most subpoenas are actually what a Judge would sign.
In the case of this Louisiana Prosecutor, it seems like perhaps the courts are so overwhelmed they can't even get stacks of pre-signed subpoenas so they write their own. And the article states that when said Prosecutor has been called on it, a Judge issues a real subpoena. So yeah, meh.
That's not 'meh', that's totally upside-down from what it should be and any and all searches and seizures based on those diy subpoenas should be challenged and subsequently thrown out, as well as court cases that went through to conviction of a defendant based on one of those should be vacated.
This is exactly the sort of thing you should always fight against because it is bound to lead to abuses, if the judicial system can't keep up then things should grind to a halt, rather than proceed unchecked.
So people waive judicial oversight to make things go faster, and when that's not fast enough they just commit fraud, but it's not occurring to them that maybe they should break fewer laws themselves and choose fewer criminals to prosecute?
You see this pattern all over the place. Bosses want to break the rules but don't want to get in trouble for it. The solution is easy: give the workers goals that are impossible to meet without breaking the rules, while simultaneously telling them how important it is to follow the rules. Voila, your workers break the rules on their own initiative, and you're not culpable. Those who refuse to do so can be fired, totally legally, for not meeting their goals.
For example, you want your workers to put in a lot of overtime but you don't want to pay for it. If you tell them to do that, it would be illegal! So instead, you tell them that they need to produce this much output per week, and also tell them that if they clock in more than 40 hours per week they'll be fired. They'll start working off the clock on their own, and since they'll be fired if you find out about it, you'll remain safely ignorant!
It's no surprise that the same sort of thing would happen in prosecutors' offices. If they don't put away enough criminals, they'll be out of a job. They'll break the rules to do so, and keep it quiet so they don't get fired for that. And it's all according to plan, since the people in charge don't really like how the rules protect criminals.
That reminds me of that one time I was an Arstotzkan border crossing agent. The agents got paid by the number of people processed, and the party bosses kept adding new rules and requirements for processing people. So I had to alternate the days my family could eat with the days they could be warm.
It was that or break the rules. And a loyal Arstotzkan citizen would never do that.
(Papers, Please!)
Real-life systems are set up to encourage people to break the rules all the time. Consider it a dark pattern of governance.
