Forget the flat tax. Our tax system started out as a flat tax, although you could argue there were two tax brackets--0 and 10%, as the tax was only levied on the wealthy. After the system had grown into a pyramid with rates as high as 90%, in the 80's Reagan's reform flattened it to only 3 brackets. It has now grown back to, what, 6 brackets? With a surtax here and an AMT there, etc. Flat taxes sound nice, but don't work. They don't stay flat. The Fair Tax makes it none of the Government's business how much money I make, or how much I spend. So two words: Fair Tax.

Twice over the last three years, I have gotten letters from the IRS claiming that I owed thousands of dollars in additional taxes. Both times, when the dust settled, the problem was the IRS's inability to apply their own instructions, or perform basic arithmetic. In the tax code, the government has levied a duty on each of us that, in general, is impossible for us to perform. That's why there is such a thing as a "tax accountant". Now, apparently, the IRS's job has become impossible for it to perform, as well.

I'm not sure which planet you inhabit, but here in the US, we ASSUME he did nothing until someone PROVES otherwise.

Translation: "All accusations are valid, no proof is necessary, and any punishment is justified because all men are pigs." Also, "Multiple accusations are an acceptable subsitiute for proof"

I have always known that my only defense--to always act professionally and always treat others with respect--could never be suffusient. Even if I completely trust whoever I'm talking with or joking with, there might be someone standing just around the corner waiting (hoping) to get offended. Any time I'm alone with a woman for whatever reason (such as performance counseling or work evaluation), I am vulnerable to whatever charge that person would care to bring. And there is no defense against that, since such meetings are required and confidential.

As a supervisor in the Air Force, I received training on sexual harrassment law--we derisively called it "sensitivity training". Here are the main points I took away from that. 1. The law is stacked heavily in favor of the accuser, and against the accused. 2. No actual threat of retaliation, or promise of job enhancement for sexual favors (dare I say "tit for tat"?) is actually required. Any action, real or imagined, that makes the accuser "uncomfortable" is sufficient. And the definition of "uncomfortable" is solely at the discression of the accuser. 3. Even if the accusation is frivolous; even if I'm completely exhonerated, I would still always have a record of "having been accused.

To "lack of the conditional form", I should have added, "notice the emphasis on one's own actions, rather than someone else's reaction to it."

Re: NBC's "apology" An apology from someone doesn't believe he owes an apology goes: "I apologize if anyone was offended." An actual apology goes: "I apologize for doing something offensive." Notice the lack of the conditional form.

Welcome to the 21st century. It'll look a lot like the 19th, if the EPA has its way.

Maybe the producers should get the work on PBS. Isn't it their mission to educate the public on relevant issues? Provide a balance to the commercial networks?