Ron Paul stabs Joe Biden in desperate bid for attention.

       In an effort to get any billing at all despite winning yet another Republican straw poll; Ron Paul fatally stabbed Vice-President Joe Biden in the neck with an uncooked lasagna noodle that had been sharpened, according to anonymous sources.  Paul, who is consistently listed as an "also ran" by the media despite winning nearly every straw poll was apparently in a rage over the attention being received  by Herman Cain.
       "I just don't understand," Paul was quoted as saying. "something might have happened 20 friggin' years ago and this becomes an issue.  I thought we still had high unemployment.  I mean, What the hell?"
       Paul was detained by capital police for most of an afternoon before being released on his own recognizance, since members of congress are incapable of wrongdoing.  He was referring, of course to the flap over allegations of sexual harassment dating to when Cain was in charge of the National Association of People who Spit in Food.  In a news story broken by politico, it was disclosed that perhaps there was something that happened resulting in a settlement, which included a gag order.  One alleged victim, apparently completely ignorant of what a gag order entails, said she will come forward with her story anyway.
       This just in, apparently, not to be outdone, Rick Perry has challenged Mitt Romney to settle the Primary election "Texas Style."  Apparently this entails the two contenders taking turns kicking each other between the legs until one gives up.  Mr. Romney the current leader in every way except those involving numbers or math, could not be reached for comment.  Michele Bachmann, ever the voice of reason, stated "I don't believe that's how it works, but I guarantee a Bachmann victory if that is how it has to be."  She further stated that she looks forward to running against Mrs. Clinton in November.

       If you need me to tell you this was satire you are a sad, sad individual.

In Defense of Herman Cain: A progressive, flat, regressive tax.

       I was listening to the news on the way home from work, as is my wont, and they were discussing the oddly controversial 9-9-9 plan that Herman Cain has cooked up.  For those unfamiliar with it, his plan is to have all taxes boiled down to a nine percent income tax, a nine percent corporate tax, and a nine percent sales tax.  You know like in Sim City.  This post is not about whether I agree or disagree, or even what a valid opinion might be, or even if he stole the idea from Sim City.  Rather it is a vocabulary primer for the obviously under-educated media.
       You see they were calling Herman Cain's plan a "Regressive" tax.  Now I may not be the sitting chair of the political sciences department of a university; but I do know that a tax that is equal to nine percent of earnings, regardless of income, is not regressive.  It is flat.  One light argue that it is a regressive tax since the rich would miss that nine percent a lot less, but while that may be true, it is a misnomer.
       A regressive tax is one like they had in medieval times.  the poor pay a higher percentage of their income than the rich.  In this example of course the rich, being lords, pay nothing.  But this does illustrate what a regressive tax is.  Conversely a "progressive" tax is one where the rich pay a higher percentage than the poor.  This is the type that most Americans would consider "fair".  This is based on our long held belief in the "ability to pay principle".  The rich can afford to pay a higher percent because they have so much.  Ten percent tax on one million still leaves you nine hundred thousand.  Ten percent tax on one thousand dollars leaves you only nine hundred.  Don't be offended at these simplifications, remember this is for journalists to read, and if they could understand simple concepts, they would have useful occupations.
       Now it wouldn't bother me that this taxing plan was mis-categorized; except that Rick Perry's plan to have a "flat" twenty percent tax was called exactly that by the same media, in the same news story.  Possibly they like Perry better because he provides more sound bites.  I don't know.  I do know that the percentage involved does not matter unless it changes up or down by income level.  Nine percent for all is nine percent for all.  Twenty percent for all is twenty percent for all.
       So let's review:  if you plan to tax people at a flat rate of nine percent it is somehow a "regressive" tax, but if you raise that by eleven percent, up to twenty, it suddenly metamorphoses into a flat tax.  It must be the media's bias in favor of people who provide good audio clips.