A great part of America is our mixing and matching foods from all over. When I lived in Southern California, I could get from the ethnically Jewish woman who ran the local bagel shop a bagel with any type of topping, including "pizza" and "Mexican" salsa. The diner near my office (run by Cambodians) had (in addition to hamburgers)  "Mexican" plates with tacos and enchiladas, and terriyaki plates, all served with a pickle spear (apparently someone had told these Cambodians that Americans always have a pickle with their lunch). The lunch crowd at the diner included workers from the nearby factories, truck drivers, engineers, sales reps, landscapers, etc. - nothing like food to get everyone together!

This is the second time I have heard Rob note that the true working people of "Hollywood" tend toward conservative. Hence, I was intrigued when walking past "base camp" of a major studio production that is filming in the city in which I work to note many "NOBama" and pro-second-amendment bumper stickers on the cars of the mechanics who are working there. The filming is of a chase scene for The Amazing Spiderman II.

As a former Californian, now resident in upstate New York, whose children have moved elsewhere, I see this happening. With few exceptions (Tom Galisano of Paychex a notable exception - he moved out of upstate New York and made a lot of noise pointing out it was specifically because of the taxes), the already rich stay (inertia if nothing else). But, the next generation of potentially rich go elsewhere to start their businesses.

I understand that in recent years California's income tax rates become more "progressive," income tax revenue in any given year increasingly depends on the income of a relatively few people with the highest incomes. Those incomes tend to be quite volatile (and who earns them keeps changing) because those very high incomes depend more on one-time events, like selling a business, cashing in stock options, receiving exceptional bonuses, etc., than on continuous incomes. With taxes based on a few volatile incomes, tax revenue becomes volatile and less predictable.

As to why the Left goes so heavily for abortion, the Left is thoroughly tied to old-fashioned (1960's) feminism, so in their thinking women have no power in general. Abortion is one place where where a woman can exercise absolute power. Now, you and I know that the premise (women have no power) is false, but if you are stuck in that mindset, you can convince yourself that being able to exercise absolute power in this one area is essential.

There's a difference between allowing your life experiences to inform your opinions and letting your feelings and emotions overrule reason when setting public policy.

Rob Portman's statement gave the impression that his new position was based entirely on feeling. Setting public policy based on feelings without interference by reason is what liberals do.

And in the middle of the night last night (11:59 p.m.), the New York state assembly passed its annual budget, which like the annual state budgets for as long as anyone can remember, was worked out in secret by 3 (well, this year 4 because of some odd procedural maneuvering) men in a room.

Typical of the brilliance [sarcasm] we New Yorkers get in our legislators, the budget law includes a significant rise in the minimum wage, but then a subsidy to employers who hire teenagers because too many teenagers do not find jobs [at the existing minimum wage].

With legislators who put together stuff like that, being unfree is a given.

And the leftist wing was (and remains) more than happy to lie about its intentions, and to paint false pictures of its promises. Conservatives have a much harder time being so dishonest because conservatives instinctively respect people. Therefore, conservatives can't follow the leftists' post-1964 path.

Ah yes. People trying to do their thing and disrupting the entrenched. Particularly when government is maintaining the entrenched (here the taxi industry).

I have enjoyed watching Uber (www.uber.com) disrupt the cab industry. Uber allows users to call for a "black car" on almost a moment's notice. Although "black cars" (chauffeured luxury sedans) are more expensive than taxis, some people are willing to pay for the luxury. But, until now, getting one has required advanced planning with a particular provider. And taxi regulations prevented black cars from being hailed on the street. Uber interacts with multiple providers of black cars to make them available on demand. Cab monopolies are upset because they're losing their most lucrative customers.

The CEO of Uber was recently interviewed by the Wall Street Journal about his thoughts that as "driverless cars" become generally available, we will someday be able to use electronic communication to summon one at our whim - and it may be relatively inexpensive, since we would be paying for only the car, and we won't have to pay for a driver.

If people want to interact via SideCar, let them choose. No one's forcing them.

Continuing the observations of KC Mulville above, the "authorities" analyze that data and determine that your child fits some pattern that calls for "official intervention." Possibly even forming a conclusion that the parents are engaging in "abusive" conduct. If you think "official intervention" on the basis of the data is OK, what about when your child's data gets mixed up with data for another child, and the "official intervention" is prescribed for your child based on the wrong data. Or, your child's data will get split up, and the "authorities" see only part of the data on your child, and draw negative implications from the incomplete data.

No, the first people putting this data probably won't do that - they're too busy trying to gather the data. But, after the basic data systems are working, bureaucrats will be looking for things to do with the data to justify their own employment.

How about votes in proportion to the taxes paid?

• If done on a per dollar basis, then those with more "skin in the game" get more say (which reduces the tendency to vote for goodies you think someone else will pay for). 
• Or if done on the basis of the marginal percentage tax rate, would quickly drive to a flat tax (so everyone who pays gets the same vote).

There were sound reasons the original system favored property owners - they were likely somewhat educated, and they were vested (had "skin in the game").

Yes. My anecdotal experience with people who are concerned with wealth or income inequality is that they want the power to decide who gets what. 

Alternatively, if the graph were global instead of US-only, the top 1% income earners globally include most of the US "middle income."

Our son is in the Air Force. It's in his nature to protect and to defend others, particularly those less able to defend themselves. In high school he rose up to defend a Muslim classmate who was being ridiculed by some bullies because of her conservative dress. He wants everyone to be able to live their lives in peace, and hates to see bad actors trying to prevent such peace.

I assume you've checked whether formal "inactive" status is available, and whether that stalls the continuing education requirements. 

Real estate and its financing are areas where people with legal training should be sought occasionally for promotions, transfers, etc. (I wouldn't know how much the formal law license might be). 

I'm generally opposed to burning bridges (or ships). But, I realize I'm generally on the extreme end of "keep my options open" spectrum - it's the reason I went to law school instead of to business school. With a law degree, I could work either the business side or the law side of corporate life. With a business degree, I could work only the business side. Now I'm a manager in the law department of a large corporation, and spend far more time studying spreadsheets than reading law.

As others have said, the education is not wasted, even if the degree and the license might not be necessary for specific jobs.

I do love the audacity of putting front and center that Obama is either unwilling or unable to make executive decisions. Too bad most of the electorate won't see it, and that even if they did, we're 4 months (or 4 1/2 years) too late.