My concern is about ignorance; "Islamic" is rather irrelevant to me there except insofar as a lot of terrorism is Islamic. In fact, I'd say people are more likely to be ignorant of McVeigh and his ilk than of bin Laden. As for whether there's enough terrorism for awareness of it to reduce vulnerability to it, we'll have to agree to disagree there, but check the list. Not counting Mexican border incidents related to drug cartel warfare ( "significant" enough the State Department issued travel warnings and governors demanded federal aid to protect citizens) there have been an average of 2.5 terrorist incidents/year in the US alone since 2001, and number is significantly higher in many other countries. Of course, terrorism killed thousands of Americans in the US in 2001, and I think you'll be hard pressed to show sugar addiction has killed as many (particularly since the jury's still out on whether such a thing even exists, and I expect no proof).

I've seen plenty of commercials for both unhealthy and extremely healthy food; there's a whole industry for the latter based on people who share your views. Peoples preferences are disproportionately stacked in favor of food that's quick, cheap, easy and tasty, usually at the expense of health. The media and food producers don't make people buy those things, and I don't think all the activist American moms denying their kids ANY sugar have had much impact on the nations health.

Wikipedias article on the subject states
Above emphases mine. The issue of "relapse" is significant here, because the technical term for a human who ingests no sugar directly or otherwise is "corpse". It is sketchy, to say the least; while psychological dependence is "addiction-like", if it were addiction we wouldn't need the suffix.

Metabolism "works" with SUGAR. It is the one and only means by which our cells obtain energy; the whole reason we respire is to provide oxygen for our cells to metabolize sugar to get energy. I'm really not interested in getting into the specious "sugar is a toxin" debate, but as someone who's spent a FAIR amount of time in America as a child and adult, I can assure you that discussion is as much a part of public discourse as it is anywhere else. "Bouncing off the walls" was a reference to the anxiety and physical discomfort common in addicts experiencing withdrawal. There may be no scientific proof sugar literally makes people bounce off walls, but there's plenty of scientific proof excess sugar leads to excess energy that, among other things, typically produces excessive activity. Psychological dependence on ANYTHING is possible, of course; that's what OCD is. It's not an addiction except by the loosest and most generous definition. I've known a LOT of addicts over the years, and sugar addiction seems at least as ridiculous to me as you find the notion that someone ignorant of terrorism directed at them increases their vulnerability to it.

One of us certainly does.

Sugar isn't "added to everything". Apples don't have added sugar. Water doesn't have added sugar. Most bread doesn't have added sugar (though an addict would eat it anyway because it has a LOT of starch they can easily convert to sugar). If you're that worried about the issue, tackling it as "sugar is added to everything" is counterproductive. The problem is FAR more complex, involving far greater factors like:

People in industrialized countries have less time and money to obtain, prepare and consume healthy food, consequently encouraginges them to eat quick, easy, cheap and unhealthy food.

In America a variety of agricultural subsidies (primarily to large corporate farms who don't need them) exacerbate that problem by artificially lowering prices on unhealthy food, thereby creating market incentives to consume more of it.

Wealthy industrialized nations have more people who can and do consume food (among other things... ) excessively.

Jobs and recreation in such countries are increasingly sedentary, and eating candy while playing Super Mario burns less calories than sandlot football.

Boiling all that down to "there's too much added sugar" is rather missing the point; it may be convenient if one indulges the conceit that all Americans are fat, stupid and lazy, but in that case see my earlier statement on counterproductivity. That's not to say I disagree with reducing the amount of added sugar (especially artificial sugar, e.g. the infamous HFCS) but by itself it's simply treating a symptom. Regardless, just because people decline to use any self control doesn't make them addicts; the whole basis of addiction is that self control is no longer a relevant issue.

Ah, well, in that case, no problem; all states have curriculum standards home schools must meet just like conventional schools do. Setting aside cases where kids are home schooled because their parents lack confidence in traditional schols (with some justification), even parents who home school because they don't want their kids to accept, say, evolution, are still required to ensure their kids are VERY familiar with the concept as represented by science. Again, if your primary concern is the kids' education, checking standardized test scores might make you an ADVOCATE of home schooling where possible. It's amazing how much more development a childs education can receive when they're one of three rather than thirty. Partly for the reason you stated, I happen to support traditional schools, particularly public ones, and despair of the extent to which America often neglects them. However, I see nothing wrong with home schooling; I just don't think kids whose parents don't have that option should be doomed to a life of ignorance.

No, I don't, or I would have said so; it's certainly one of the many options, but the sandlot football game would be more appropriate (they can even use a spherical ball if you find that less offensive). When did this stop being about knowledge of terrorism and become about what's wrong with your caricature of America? Can we agree that such derogatory and inaccurate assumptions are beneath us both, or should I indulge a few as well?

Heh, it often seems that way, but, no, it should be a family decision since it impacts the whole family; if they decide the man should be the stay at home parent, that's equally legitimate whether it's conventional or not. Single income households ARE a luxury now--but were the norm in America until about a generation ago. That's why I said it's ironic that the same people most opposed to working mothers are the very ones whose economic policies have made it vital for mothers to work. I think most kids would benefit from a parent whose primary activity was raising them, but busting unions, gutting public education and ensuring girls with no access to abortion drop out of high school to raise kids by themselves doesn't foster that goal.

Yes, I do, but if the choice is between kids being taught by an inadequate parent or an inadequate teacher adequacy is off the table. In that case I'd probably pick the one who already has an established bond with the child and a strong interest in the kids current and future well being. I know which one has the greatest incentive to alleviate their inadequacy for the benefit of the child.