If the Dems have their way they will figure out an "equality" tax surcharge that will be applied to the citizes of low-tax states so all citizens pay an equivalent tax rate in total. For instance, if the highest state taxes an income level at 8% and the state you live in taxes the same level at 4% there will be a Federal surcharge to bring your total tax bill equal to the total paid by the highest state resident. This will be labeled "fair share". The Supremes have essentially told Congress they can tax anything.

The problem is that some of us continue to use logic and reason in a society that is rapidly developing into an environment of broad labels, phrases and words that are used in the hope that the hearer will interpret them with assumptions that are not valid but allow the hearer to feel good and believe the speaker agrees with him/her. In addition to "diversity", "fairness", and "affordable" add "change", "inequity", "greedy", "poverty", "middle class", "rich". None of these words have an objective, common definition in the modern world.

Sudden change in education requirements in all grades without multi-year build up lead to failure. Current eighth graders didn't learn the new requirements in fourth through seventh but will be judged by them. Plus tests, bound by confidentiality agreements, will be purposely harder so the predictable low scores, lamented loudly without blaming the tests for being unfair, will both justify the need for Common Core and promote more revenue for the companies producing for support materials and teaching guides. Students are always victims of these social engineering experiments.

I remember when high schools had rifle teams and students & teachers had serious discussions about talked about hunting, ammunition and guns. 1. Common sense was a lot more common. 2. High school juniors and seniors were the results of an informal but culturally expected adult development program that produced burgeoning adults ready to live (and cope) in the real world. 3. Car trunks were expected to contain tools including sharp things; a rifle is just another tool.

fascinating inquiry.

Just as a tool is not weapon until used as such, an experiment is not a terrorist act just because it causes a fire or explosion in a reasonable location. In a large part, science is the organization of answers to the question: "I wonder what this does?" We seem to live in a world where we tell people to not mix ammonia and bleach but are reluctant to tell them why because knowledge of a poisonous gas implies a desire to use it for evil. Science teaching in high school used to be an open and informative subject with clear warnings about what not to do and why not to do it - dealing with elemental sodium and elemental mercury comes to mind. The chemistry book was not considered to be a limit to knowledge but an introduction to...

The problem for the "peaceful majority" seems to be one of appearance and the silence that implies consent. Other groups with minority populations of fanatics have not allowed the majority to be intimidated by the minority. For instance, all Irish Catholics were not assumed to be IRA fanatics because there were leaders speaking against them. If there are "main stream" Muslims comprising the "peaceful majority" where is the wide-spread repudiation, scorn and simple disagreement?

You and others are applying logic in a hypothetical argument with a liberal who knows a lot of stuff because "everybody knows it". I was simply giving an example of a knee-jerk answer because the truth is really inconvenient and obstructive to their agenda: Power to the (pre-selected right [that is, left] thinking) People.

The easiest answer is to claim that statistics lag behind events by years and despite living in an age of computers and instant communication it will be a decade before we are able to assess the real effects. This allows for predicting the future to be just as one wishes it to be.

I admit I'm a dinosaur. I also admit that I only adopt new things when they are useful and positive to income or well-being. I've long considered a ringing phone to be an invitation not a command; answering machines and voice mail support this concept. E-mail and texts are similar. I do not consider third party communications to require instant attention. I check them regularly when I reach a convenient stopping point in whatever real work I'm doing. If others consider this a personal insult, tough. Businesses that use social media to advertise should use specialists just as they hire accountants and lawyers. Not everyone needs to be intimately familiar with the tools or toys of others.

Another stance that is increasingly difficult to voice without being criticized: "I don't care what any two or more consenting adults do to or with each other."