Lady Ricochet readers: If you were upset about potentially losing your right to bear an oversize soft drink in New York City, perhaps you will take comfort in knowing that at least some rights remain vigilantly protected by the Bloomberg regime:

The command was read [in February] at 10 consecutive roll calls. Each of the city’s 34,000 officers, in theory, got the message: For “simply exposing their breasts in public,” women are guilty of no crime.

Whether any officer encountered such a brave-hearted, bare-chested soul is not clear, nor is the reason for the Police Department’s concern about such matters in the dead of winter...

“I thought you had to have body paint,” a female officer said.

“No,” the first replied. “You don’t need that.”

144109-NY_SODA_BAN_25314715

(Mayor Michael Bloomberg points to that which is legal in New York City.)

The audience question at an otherwise sleepy conference that allowed the IRS to ever so slightly frontrun the revelation that it targeted conservative organizations was, in the event, planted by the IRS

The Internal Revenue Service wrote and planted the question asked on May 10 that led to the IRS scandal, the questioner said in a statement today.

Celia Roady, a partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP in Washington, said she received a call May 9 from Lois Lerner, the mid-level IRS official in charge of tax-exempt organizations. Both were planning to attend a tax conference the next day in Washington.

Here's the question that was asked:

“Lois, a few months ago there were some concerns about the IRS’s review of 501(c)(4) organizations, of applications from tea party organizations. I was just wondering if you could provide an update.”

Just wondering, baby. An IRS official scripted that breezy question, so that the IRS could appear to be nonchalantly coming clean about a minor infraction that it knew would be revealed in a few days. This is almost theatrically evil. 

Rob, let's get to work on the screenplay, shall we? We're going to need a parking garage.

This week, we've been told over and over just how much members of the Obama administration know they didn't know.

It's the week of:
• the IRS I dunno,
• the Benghazi blame dodge,
• and the AP-AG answer refusal/alleged recusal.

But today I discovered something else that a member of the administration maybe didn't know she didn't know. And this time it hit close to home. You see, last summer, I had the audacity to suggest that the Department of Education ought to fine Yale University for failing to report multiple cases of sexual assault--as required by law. And if they didn't, then what's the point of having an Office for Civil Rights, anyway?

Within days, the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education, Russlynn Ali, took to the pages of The Huffington Post to call me out by name, attack my op-ed, and call into question my credibility:

"Mr. Harden's post makes a number of inaccurate and misleading claims...He suggests that "a significant fine" should have been levied against Yale "if the government wants to send the message that it takes the law seriously." He concludes that "it looks as if a well-connected university like Yale is considered above accountability."
Not one of these characterizations is accurate. "

... With respect to Mr. Harden's disappointment that OCR did not fine Yale -- the law does not authorize OCR to assess fines.

Lo, and behold: Ten months later, I'm scanning the headlines this morning and what do I see?

Yale Fined $165,000 For Underreporting Sex Offenses

Following a seven-year investigation, the Department of Education has fined Yale $165,000 for failing to report four incidents of forcible sex offenses...

Is it possible that Russlynn Ali really didn't know that her office has authority to levy fines? Hmm...

That got me thinking: It's natural for us to be skeptical at all the political amnesia coming out of the White House these days. The lack of self-knowledge in the Obama Administration may well be unprecedented in the history of political corruption. But maybe, just maybe, there are some hacks in this administration who are so incompetent--so blissfully ignorant as they went about accidentally using the IRS as a political war machine, and going all police state on the news media--that they really, actually, truly didn't know anything that they or anyone else around them was doing, or did, or asked them to do, or even had authority to do.

How else would you explain the fact that the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the Department of Education went on record saying the Department of Education had no authority to levy fines against Yale University ten months before the Department of Education did exactly that?

I can't stop asking myself: What didn't the Assistant Secretary not know she didn't know?

One more question: What would you all say is the more dangerous trait in a politician, anyway? The tendency to lie? Or the tendency to not know what the hell you're doing?

tabula rasa
Joined
Jun '10

I've had occasion recently to read or re-read most of the works of C. S. Lewis. It's been a great experience, but it has caused me to ponder an issue that was often on Lewis's mind: Lewis was never comfortable with the modern world, and had an active dislike for much of it.  

His literary world was that of Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene, and the first Queen Elizabeth. His religious world was orthodox Christianity (with the miraculous and supernatural included)-- which he saw fading before his eyes. On the other hand, he didn't try to live a 16th century existence. When his wife was diagnosed with cancer, she underwent the most modern treatments available, and there's some indication if may have extended her life.

So here's the question: Are there things you hate about the modern world? Are there things you love? Are there things about the past and its traditions that you wish would re-enter 21st century life?

I'll start with things I like about the modern world:

1. Air travel.

2. Modern medical care (including antibiotics and modern surgical techniques).

3. Hot water on demand.

4. Air conditioning.

Things I dislike about the modern world:

1. Even though I like email and the other gadgets (including the fact that I can make this Ricochet post), I HATE the idea that we can never really get away from work (some call it the "electronic leash").

2. I hate the idea of cable TV with hundreds of channels.

3. I hate the fact that Americans, on average, read significantly fewer books than in the past.

4. I despair at times about what's happened to the American family.

5. Sitting down to dinner with family and friends and watch people at your table pay far more attention to their iPhone than to the people at the table.

Things I'd like to bring back from the past:

1. John Wayne as the kind of hero we admire.

2. More Americans returning to the active religious life.

3. The 5.3% illegitimacy rate (it's +40% now) of 1960 (along with a bunch of other traditional values).

4. The great writers: there may be a Shakespeare, a Dickens, a Cervantes, or an Austen out there, but they aren't Updike, DeLillo, Roth, Pynchon, or John Irving (I know this is like putting a target on myself--blast away).

Feel free to criticize my choices. But also add what you like, hate, and wish to reinvigorate into the modern world.

Back in January I posted here lamenting the sudden absence of Milt Rosenberg from the WGN radio lineup. Today I was gratified to discover that he has launched his own program on the Internet. Appearing as his first guest is friend of Ricochet Mark Steyn. What’s not to like about that?

If you’re unfamiliar with Mr. Rosenberg you can consider yourself blessed to discover him now. If, like me, you were a regular listener to his show on WGN, you can consider yourself equally blessed to hear his voice once again.

Welcome back, sir.  We’ve missed you.

(And a note to the management at WGN: I haven’t listened to your station since Milt Rosenberg’s last show.)

While we're all lost in the Benghazi, DOJ, and IRS scandals (and the anticipation that the President will eventually just decide to hit for the cycle and quarter troops in the homes of Americans), it bears noting that an earlier White House exercise in making the Constitution an outhouse accessory came back to the fore this week. From Damon Root at Reason:

In a decision handed down Thursday morning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that Obama violated the Constitution by making a recess appointment to the National Labor Relations Board in 2010 when the Senate was not actually in recess. In an unprecedented move two years later, when the Senate was holding pro forma sessions for the precise purpose of denying him the lawful ability to make a recess appointment, Obama simply ignored this legal impediment and made four purported recess appointments anyway, including the addition of three members to the NLRB.

In its decision, the 3rd Circuit strongly rejected Obama’s unilateral action. “Nothing in the text of the Clause or the historical record suggests that it is intended to be a type of pressure valve for when the president cannot obtain the Senate‘s consent, whether that be because it has become dysfunctional or because it rejects a president‘s nominations,” the court held. Indeed, the opinion continued, under the government’s interpretation, “If the Senate refused to confirm a president‘s nominees, then the president could circumvent the Senate‘s constitutional role simply by waiting until senators go home for the evening.” So much for the separation of powers.

This is the second major ruling against Obama’s recess appointments. In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit voided all three of the president’s 2012 additions to the NLRB. As Chief Judge David Sentelle held in that case, Obama’s actions “would demolish the checks and balances inherent in the advice-and-consent requirement, giving the President free rein to appoint his desired nominees at any time he pleases, whether that time be a weekend, lunch, or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely displeased with its inaction.”

play

Direct link to MP3 file

need-to-know1

This week, Jay (on location in Oslo, Norway) and Mona welcome the WSJ's Best of The Web columnist James Taranto. He discusses the IRS and the Associated Press scandals and gives us a tour of even more controversies currently flying under the media radar. James also explains why our current Alinsky-style of government doesn't work, nor does the media circling the wagons for the administration. Also, Mona gets audited (!), current events are making Jay more comfortable with Ayn Rand, Jewish charities appear to also be getting unfairly targeted, an in-depth discussion of Benghazi, and Jay gives us a live report from the Oslo Freedom Forum. 

Don't miss any musings from Jay and Mona. Subscribe to this podcast by following the instructions here 

Help Ricochet by supporting our advertisers!

Get a free audio book on us. Go to AudiblePodcast.com/NTK today

125x125
Big John
Joined
Feb '11

So, now that summer is here, we will replace our DVR patterns with off-season fare like AMC's Longmire and USA's Psych and Burn Notice. We also cycle through Netflix collections of British stuff. We loved Foyle's War and Inspector Lewis, and have  now started George Gently. We need more stuff to watch in our Instant Queue while we escape the Texas heat. What are some recommendations, fellow Ricochetti?

Check out my op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal about the crazy campus overreach coming from the Department of Education and the Department of Justice: 

The scandals roiling Washington over the past two weeks involve troubling government behavior that had been hidden—the IRS targeting of conservative groups and the Justice Department's surveillance of the Associated Press, among others. Largely overlooked amid the histrionics has been a shocker hiding in plain sight. Last week, the Obama administration moved to dramatically undermine students' and faculty rights at colleges across the country.

The new policy was announced in a joint letter from the Education Department and Justice Department to the University of Montana. The May 9 letter addressed the results of a year-long joint investigation by the departments into the school's mishandling of several serious sexual-assault cases. The investigation determined that the university's policies addressing sexual assault failed to comply with Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

But the joint letter, which announced a "resolution agreement" with the university, didn't stop there. It then proceeded to rewrite the federal government's rules about sexual harassment and free speech on campus.

... The letter rejects the requirement, established by legal precedent and previous Education Department guidance, that sexual harassment must be "objectively offensive." By eliminating this "reasonable person" standard—which the Education Department has required since at least 2003, and which protects the accused against unreasonable or insincere allegations—the right not to be offended has been enshrined in a federal mandate.

You can read the whole piece here.

Before anyone calls me on Godwin's Law, I'd just like to say that I don't believe in Godwin's Law. (For reasons we can perhaps discuss another time.)

Anyway, to my headline. Though I'm not saying Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler are peas in a pod, I do think there are certain similarities going on in the way their administrations work - as I argue in more detail here.

Did Obama personally order the IRS to persecute Tea Party and Conservative charities? I doubt it. No more than he directly ordered his Department of Justice to launch those two raids on Gibson; nor than he ordered the EPA to launch its various hit jobs on the coal industry.

But then, he didn’t need to. It’s called the Fuhrer Prinzip. You don’t need to get a direct order; you just need to anticipate the leader’s wishes and act accordingly. Get it right and much career success will follow. Get caught and the leader can plausibly deny that he didn’t know anything about this nefarious scheme which of course, had he known, he would have nixed.

The thing I love about you Americans is that you take your checks and balances very seriously. And your guns. If this goes on much longer, you're going to need them all.

Western Chauvinist
Joined
Dec '10

Republicans are, once again, squandering a critical opportunity. Mitch McConnell's "The truth will come out, no matter how long it takes" is cold comfort to those of us with any sense of urgency about the disastrous course this country is on, and any experience with Republican "effectiveness" in fighting this administration. And John Boehner's Deputy Sheriff Barney Fife, "I want to know who's going to jail!" idiocy is entirely missing the point.

There are three critical common elements in Scandalpalooza. First and foremost (and to be repeated ad nauseum) these scandals all had the intent (and likely effect) of affecting the electoral outcome of the 2012 campaign. The Benghazi cover-up was intended to deceive the American people about the foreign policy incompetence of Barack Obama's administration. The IRS refusal of tax-exempt status to political advocacy groups in opposition to Obama's policies was political suppression, straight up. And the AP scandal was about keeping the administration's media lapdogs on a short leash (The White House didn't need to know who leaked "sensitive classified" information to the media about the bin Laden get, because the leak came from within the White House to burnish Obama's war on man-caused-disaster cred!). 

All three scandals prove Lord Acton's axiom, "All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." They are the best arguments made for limited government in 30 years! How much better to have real-life examples of incompetence and injustice perpetrated on  citizens by their overextended, grossly powerful government than having to make the philosophical case of the Founders to philosophical/historical illiterates (thank you, government education!)? Even liberals are noticing the truth of the matter (cf, Chris Matthews, et al.). We should use this opportunity to dismantle the IRS, abolish the income tax, and implement a consumption tax. Taxes paid at the register are devoid of opportunities for political corruption. If conservatives can't make the case now, we never will.

And finally, there may never again be a better opportunity to discredit big government progressive Democrats with the American public. The Left's argument has long been, "big government isn't bad, as long as the right people are in charge." Well, the "right" people were in charge when all this scat hit the fan. Even Democrats are not to be trusted with big government. Big government serves the interests of Big Government Democrats, not the people, and now we know, they're not to be trusted -- period. 

Don't talk impeachment. It doesn't matter who gets fired or who gets jail time. What matters is pushing back hard against the power-grubbing, crony-capitalist statist agenda. We may never get another chance like this.

o-ANTI-ISLAM-FILM-570

I'm in New York, where I attended the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty's annual Canterbury Medal Dinner last night. This year's winner, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, spoke about the rising threats to religious liberty. You can read his remarks here.

The Becket Fund is something of an ACLU for religious liberty. Their events tend to look like the World Parliament of Religions. Last night's official program included a Pentecostal minister, an LDS leader and an Orthodox Jewish rabbi (if it means anything for a Lutheran to have a favorite Orthodox Jewish rabbi, this guy, Meir Soloveichik, is mine). Also, I got to see Ricochet's own Bill McGurn.

Last night's dinner was festive, but the overall climate is difficult. A highlight for me was meeting members of the Green family, owners of the Hobby Lobby stores. At great cost to themselves, they're refusing to abide by HHS regulations that violate their religious liberty. The Becket Fund has taken on their case, for which oral arguments are next week before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

This is a long way of introducing what I remain worried about this morning. Of the many poor responses to the Benghazi tragedy, one of the worst was how some of our political leaders deliberately led people to believe Benghazi occurred because of someone exercising his rights of speech and religion. Further, they suggested, this should lead to voluntary or forced limits on religious expression. From Reason magazine's "Hall of Shame" on this point:

Fourteen days after Ambassador Chris Stevens was murdered by Islamists, President Barack Obama stood up in front of the United Nations and  declared that the "message" of a movie virtually no one will ever see "must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity," that "the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam," and that we all should "condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims."

Stephen F. Hayes' piece in The Weekly Standard this morning is a must-read. He briefly and clearly explains what remains troubling about the latest version of the talking points story, including concerns about how our country came to blame a YouTube video maker.

Religious liberty is the canary in the coal mine of civil liberties. And I suppose it should be no surprise that even presidents fail to appreciate its importance. But kudos to the Becket Fund for defending our rights to religious liberty, no matter our religion, against threats by local, state and federal governments.

All you 24 fans can grab your popcorn and beer because Jack is back. Fox is rekindling the popular show as a miniseries called 24: Live Another Day, starring Kiefer Sutherland.

jack-bauer

Unfortunately, it will run at half the length, with 12 episodes instead of the full 24. The show will be in chronological order but will skip some hours and is expected to kick off on Fox in the summer.

While I can’t wait to hear Jack Bauer say in those raspy tones, “Do Your Job!” and kick some terrorist butt, I’m disappointed by the 12-episode series. A big part of the excitement of 24 is the seamless ride through the entire day. I wonder how much that will change by skipping hours.

While this new “limited edition” of 24 is being slated as a “miniseries,” I’ve noticed that most dramatic series these days run about half the time they used to. Nothing is more frustrating, and unsatisfying, than settling in for a good show and having it over in 10 episodes (Game of Thrones!). Just when you’re really getting into it, it’s over. And even worse is when, after three or four episodes, they play a re-run or take a break for several weeks (ahem, Lost!).

I remember the days when a series started in late summer or fall, ran straight for 25 to 30 weeks, and then the re-runs would start. But, those were the good ole days.

I understand the shortened seasons are due to money. It’s just more expensive to make television now. But isn’t advertising more expensive too? Don’t you make money with every show you air whether there are 12 episodes or 24—especially if it’s a popular series? If anyone can explain this trend to me, I’d appreciate it.

As for the show, any other 24 fans out there looking forward to seeing some subtle conservative-minded antics on display and good old-fashioned heroism that spawned “Jack Bauer for President” bumper stickers? I, for one, can’t wait. It will be a welcome relief from watching news of real-life scandals where there aren’t any Jack Bauers to save the day.

There's no real reason to post this, except I think it's cool:

CkHRf9Z

I found it, and some other cool Cold War stuff, here.

For some reason, this stuff still seems more thrilling to me than an iPhone.

Because now, even more information has come out.

Start with the fact that we have yet another resignation:

President Obama on Thursday appointed senior budget adviser Daniel Werfel as the acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, as that agency manages a scandal stemming from its targeting of conservative groups. The appointment is effective May 22.

More changes in the IRS leadership team were announced Thursday as well, with Joseph Grant, Commissioner of Tax Exempt/Government Entities Division, planning to retire on June 3, according to an IRS statement.

Obama on Wednesday demanded and accepted the resignation of the acting IRS commissioner, Steven Miller. The president said it is important to have a new leader for the organization while it attempts to put in safeguards to ensure the special screening of political advocacy groups does not happen again. Werfel has agreed to remain in the new job through Sept. 30.

Anyone who thinks that Grant’s resignation is just coincidental likely would be a good target for those seeking to unload subprime mortgage packages. Also, this is yet another nail in the coffin of the claim that responsibility for bad behavior was confined to low-level employees.

It’s also worth noting that the latest incredibly ridiculous excuse for the IRS scandal—courtesy of incredibly ridiculous people—is that the IRS abuses were justified by a “doubling” of claims from tea party groups for tax exempt status since the Citizens United ruling. The problem is that this excuse is utterly shredded by, you know, facts:

Applications for tax exemption from advocacy nonprofits had not yet spiked when the Internal Revenue Service began using what it admits was inappropriate scrutiny of conservative groups in 2010.

In fact, applications were declining, data show.

Top IRS officials have been saying that a “significant increase” in applications from advocacy groups seeking tax-exempt status spurred its Cincinnati office in 2010 to filter those requests by using such politically loaded phrases as “Tea Party,” “patriots,” and “9/12.”

Both Steven Miller, the agency’s acting commissioner until he stepped down Wednesday, and Lois Lerner, director of the agency’s exempt-organization division, have said over the past week that IRS officials started the scrutiny after observing a surge in applications for status as 501(c)(4) “social welfare” groups. Both officials cited an increase from about 1,500 applications in 2010 to nearly 3,500 in 2012. President Obama ask Mr. Miller to resign on Wednesday.

The scrutiny began, however, in March 2010, before an uptick could have been observed, according to data contained in the audit released Tuesday from the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration.

The number of 501(c)(4) applications for all of 2010 was actually less than in 2009.

“It doesn’t bear out the statement that there was a surge in 2010,” said Bruce Hopkins, a tax attorney specializing in nonprofits. “That’s inconsistent with what Lois said last week.”

Facts don’t matter to liars, of course. But they should and do matter to those of us who are morally decent and intellectually honest.

tabula rasa
Joined
Jun '10

My electronic version of National Review just arrived. I, of course, went to Steyn, Lileks, and Long first. I can get to that other stuff any time. Steyn has a great column on the savaging of Niall Ferguson and Jason Richwine (Ferguson's apology was, as Steyn called it, a "self-neuter"). Rob imagines how the talking points for Pearl Harbor and 9-11-01 would have been handled by the Obama Administration.

But the first line of James Lileks' column wins line of the day (or week):  "Second terms are the price a man pays for the hubris of thinking he deserves one."

And may his hubris continue to be dealt back to him.

Roman Genn's cover picture of Hilary Clinton is a classic. I hope he'll post it for us.

Bill Buckley would be proud of his magazine, and Ricochet should be proud of its guys (btw, when will Steyn be back for a podcast?)

play
Core Constituency

Direct link to mp3 file

It's another action-packed edition of the Ricochet Podcast, as we're joined by Texas governor Rick Perry and National Review columnist and author Kevin Williamson. The governor explains why he won't accept federal heath care dollars, why the President has come to his state twice in the past month, and what the immigration issue looks like from the perspective of a border-state governor. Plus he personally invites Rob to don a ten gallon hat and shuffle off to Dallas!

Then Kevin Williamson stops by to talk about his new book The End Is Near and It’s Going To Be Awesome: How Going Broke Will Leave America Richer, Happier, and More Secure  as well as his unique brand of theater etiquette. Also, the growing IRS scandal (Kevin has been doing some superlative writing and reporting on the topic). Finally, James describes what it's like to live in the anti-Texas, and a primer on how to stop Obama at the mid-terms. 

Music from this week's show:

Vida La Vida by Coldplay

The Ricochet Podcast opening theme was composed and produced by James Lileks

EJHill has a statement he'd like to read. 

Help Ricochet by supporting our advertisers! 

Get a free audio book and 30 free days of Audible on us! Go to audiblepodcast.com/ricochet today!

James Lileks' new book Tiny Lies is here. Available for only $1.25. Get your copy today!

1_small_medium_medium

As noted over on the Member Feed, I spoke to the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin about Attorney General Eric Holder's claim that he recused himself in the case of the Justice Department obtaining extensive phone records from the Associated Press, yet said that there was likely no written evidence of that fact. For the benefit of the Ricochet audience, I thought I'd share with you what I told her:

The recusal issue is just plain strange, but shows how irregular things are getting at the Justice Department. There must be a recusal in writing to at least the Deputy Attorney General -- he couldn't make it public at the time because the whole search was secret, but it must still exist.  Otherwise, how will others know how far the recusal goes, when it takes effect, what the grounds are, and so on?  Does the AG just give oral recusals when he doesn't feel like answering a question?

I cannot think of another example of this kind of surveillance of the media that was both (a)  this broad and (B) didn't turn out to be unauthorized. The only comparable instance are cases where a court tried to get a journalist to reveal a source. But I cannot think of actual monitoring of reporters and editors. If something like this had ever come up during my time in the Bush Justice Department, I would have said it was unconstitutional.

I have a lot to write about.

I’ll start with the fact that the president has asked for the resignation of Steven Miller, the acting director of the IRS. There was a lot of tough talk from the president about how the IRS’s actions were supposedly inexcusable and intolerable, but note that the IRS makes it very difficult to actually bring it to account for any abuses it engages in:

The IRS has usually done an excellent job of stifling investigations of its practices. A 1991 survey of 800 IRS executives and managers by the nonprofit Josephson Institute of Ethics revealed that three out of four respondents felt entitled to deceive or lie when testifying before a congressional committee.

The agency also has a long history of seeking to intimidate congressional critics: In 1925, Internal Revenue Commissioner David Blair personally delivered a demand for $10 million in back taxes to Michigan’s Republican Sen. James Couzens—who had launched an investigation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue—as he stepped out of the Senate chamber. More recently, after Sen. Joe Montoya of New Mexico announced plans in 1972 to hold hearings on IRS abuses, the agency added his name to a list of tax protesters who were capable of violence against IRS agents.

Meanwhile, for anyone who is still under the ridiculous impression that the IRS didn’t engage in any abuses when it came to its treatment of tea party groups …

The Internal Revenue Service asked tea party groups to see donor rolls.

It asked for printouts of Facebook posts.

And it asked what books people were reading.

I don’t envy anyone who is tasked with trying to defend this behavior, although some port-side commentators are still desperately trying to do so because, in this case, the IRS targeted people they don’t like.

I’m going to link to an excerpt a bunch of material courtesy of Jim Geraghty’s excellent Morning Jolt below. Excerpt one:

At the time when tea party groups were targeted, Miller was a deputy commissioner who oversaw the division that dealt with tax-exempt organizations.

The report by the Treasury inspector general for tax administration does not indicate that Miller knew conservative groups were being targeted until after the practice ended. But documents show that Miller repeatedly failed to tell Congress that tea party groups were being targeted, even after he had been briefed on the matter.

Excerpt two:

The director of the Internal Revenue Service division under fire for singling out conservative groups sent a 2012 letter under her name to one such group, POLITICO has learned.

The March 2012 letter was sent to the Ohio-based American Patriots Against Government Excess (American PAGE) under the name of Lois Lerner, the director of the Exempt Organizations Division.

As Geraghty points out, this shows that “low-level employees” weren’t the ones primarily responsible for this scandal. Excerpt three:

In February 2010, the Champaign Tea Party in Illinois received approval of its tax-exempt status from the IRS in 90 days, no questions asked.

That was the month before the Internal Revenue Service started singling out Tea Party groups for special treatment. There wouldn’t be another Tea Party application approved for 27 months.

In that time, the IRS approved perhaps dozens of applications from similar liberal and progressive groups, a USA TODAY review of IRS data shows.

As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months. With names including words like “Progress” or “Progressive,” the liberal groups applied for the same tax status and were engaged in the same kinds of activities as the conservative groups. They included:

  • Bus for Progress, a New Jersey non-profit that uses a red, white and blue bus to “drive the progressive change.” According to its website, its mission includes “support (for) progressive politicians with the courage to serve the people’s interests and make tough choices.” It got an IRS approval as a social welfare group in April 2011.
  • Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment says it fights against corporate welfare and for increasing the minimum wage. “It would be fair to say we’re on the progressive end of the spectrum,” said executive director Jeff Ordower. He said the group got tax-exempt status in September 2011 in just nine months after “a pretty simple, straightforward process.”
  • Progress Florida, granted tax-exempt status in January 2011, is lobbying the Florida Legislature to expand Medicaid under a provision of the Affordable Care Act, one of President Obama’s signature accomplishments. The group did not return phone calls. “We’re busy fighting to build a more progressive Florida and cannot take your call right now,” the group’s voice mail said.

Like the Tea Party groups, the liberal groups sought recognition as social welfare groups under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, based on activities like “citizen participation” or “voter education and registration.”

And finally, excerpt four from Geraghty:

Eight months passed without word from the agency about the group’s application, Ryun said. In February 2012, Ryun’s attorney contacted the IRS to ask if it needed more information to secure its non-profit status as a 501(c)3 organization. According to Ryun, the IRS told him that the application was being processed by the agency’s office in Cincinnati, Ohio—the same one currently facing scrutiny for targeting conservative groups—and to check back in two months.

As directed, Ryun followed up with the IRS in April 2012, and was told that Media Trackers’ application was still under review.

When September 2012 arrived with still no word from the IRS, Ryun determined that Media Trackers would likely never obtain standalone non-profit status, and he tried a new approach: Starting over. He applied for permanent non-profit status for a separate group called Greenhouse Solutions, a pre-existing organization that was reaching the end of its determination period.

The IRS approved Greenhouse Solutions’ request for non-profit status in three weeks.

Tell me again how this is not a scandal.

As expected, the White House continues to blame everyone but itself for the scandal. The newest scapegoat is the Treasury department. Because God forbid that the White House itself start taking some responsibility for how unbelievably awful this scandal has gotten. Dana Milbank is one of the worst columnists around, but unlike the Obama administration, at least Milbank has eaten his Wheaties:

… Nixon was a control freak. Obama seems to be the opposite: He wants no control over the actions of his administration. As the president distances himself from the actions of “independent” figures within his administration, he’s creating a power vacuum in which lower officials behave as though anything goes. Certainly, a president can’t know what everybody in his administration is up to — but he can take responsibility, he can fire people and he can call a stop to foolish actions such as wholesale snooping into reporters’ phone calls.

Mitt Romney had his faults as a presidential candidate. But anything would be better than having a pretend president right about now.

Albert Arthur
Joined
Oct '11

I was once arguing with an old college buddy on Facebook about abortion when one of his Facebook friends (a woman that we went to school with, but with whom I'm not friends) chimed in that her own abortion had been no different than "having a wart removed."

... That's some serious denial.

So what's the craziest thing a liberal has told you? I'm talking real conversation stoppers here; the kind of the thing that you can't even respond to because it's so nuts.

Tech exec gives a speech to a bunch of educators. “The good news” he says, “is that my online education business will pay teachers a million dollars a year.” The crowd cheers. “The bad new is that I’ll only need six of you.”

Hah! Now here is the reality. From Inside Higher Ed:

The Georgia Institute of Technology plans to offer a $7,000 online master’s degree to 10,000 new students over the next three years without hiring much more than a handful of new instructors.

Georgia Tech will work with AT&T and Udacity, the 15-month-old Silicon Valley-based company, to offer a new online master’s degree in computer science to students across the world at a sixth of the price of its current degree. The deal, announced Tuesday, is portrayed as a revolutionary attempt by a respected university, an education technology startup and a major corporate employer to drive down costs and expand higher education capacity.

Georgia Tech expects to hire only eight or so new instructors even as it takes its master’s program from 300 students to as many as 10,000 within three years, said Zvi Galil, the dean of computing at Georgia Tech.

The university will rely instead on Udacity staffers, known as “mentors,” to field most questions from students who enroll in the new program. But company and university officials said the new degrees would be entirely comparable to the existing master’s degree in computer science from Georgia Tech, which costs about $40,000 a year for non-Georgia residents.

Recall Alex Tabarrok’s three advantages to online education: 1) leverage of the best teachers; 2) time savings; 3) individualized teaching via new technologies. All will likely be at play here.

OBike

Further proof that a huge swath of academic research being done today results from researchers daring each other to see how bizarre their projects have to get in order to scare off funding. From Science Daily:

Men's upper-body strength predicts their political opinions on economic redistribution, according to new research published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

...  The researchers collected data on bicep size, socioeconomic status, and support for economic redistribution from hundreds of people in the United States, Argentina, and Denmark.

In line with their hypotheses, the data revealed that wealthy men with high upper-body strength were less likely to support redistribution, while less wealthy men of the same strength were more likely to support it.

"Despite the fact that the United States, Denmark and Argentina have very different welfare systems, we still see that -- at the psychological level -- individuals reason about welfare redistribution in the same way," says [researcher Michael Bang] Petersen. "In all three countries, physically strong males consistently pursue the self-interested position on redistribution."

Men with low upper-body strength, on the other hand, were less likely to support their own self-interest. Wealthy men of this group showed less resistance to redistribution, while poor men showed less support.

There are a couple of crumbs of crazy here. First is the fact that someone actually underwrote this study (although it becomes more intelligible when you learn that the research came out of California and Denmark). Second is the fact that -- reading this account, anyway -- it's not clear that the findings actually support the conclusion. Based on this account, there seems to be an awful lot of variability within the strength classes based on income. Maybe the spread is tiny by comparison to the difference between groups, but you can't tell from how this is written.

What rankles the most, however, is the characterization of opposing redistribution as the "self-interested position." We're talking about the confiscation of property here, albeit legally. If you think it's more important to retain a chunk of your income to support your wife and kids than to have that money deployed to make sure that the CEO of Solyndra has just the right Montblanc rollerball on his desk, is that really the apex of avarice?

What about those who think minimizing redistribution is the practical position? Those who acknowledge the need to pay taxes and are probably even amenable to a social safety net, but who believe that, beyond that threshold, it quickly devolves into a sucker's game for all involved? If a logically thought-out position results in you keeping more of your own money, does that still render it intrinsically greedy?

QuickerBrownFox
Joined
Oct '11
v6wiI

National Review writer and friend of Ricochet Kevin Williamson relates a story from tonight where he took matters into his own hands, quite literally.

"The lady seated to my immediate right (very close quarters on bench seating) was fairly insistent about using her phone. I asked her to turn it off. She answered: “So don’t look.” I asked her whether I had missed something during the very pointed announcements to please turn off your phones, perhaps a special exemption granted for her. She suggested that I should mind my own business.

So I minded my own business by utilizing my famously feline agility to deftly snatch the phone out of her hand and toss it across the room, where it would do no more damage. She slapped me and stormed away to seek managerial succor. Eventually, I was visited by a black-suited agent of order, who asked whether he might have a word."

He ends by stating that there's talk of criminal charges. I would never have done what Kevin did (or at least I'd like to think so; you never quite know), despite the murderous thoughts going through my head had I been in that situation. I'm a passivist and draw the line at physical contact and destruction of property. I'm also a wuss. But I also believe in a societal order that often involves unwanted physical contact.

Spanking, for example, is fine within the context of the family and parochial schools. Anyone on a crowded sidewalk or subway should expect to get pushed around a little. For intentional contact, if a pedestrian isn't paying attention and is in the line of a car, he should expect to get pushed or grabbed and have little recourse under good Samaritan laws, save for reasonableness. In other words, the general rule of "no unwanted physical contact" is conditional, albeit a very strong condition.

I'm torn on it, and not only because I love me some Kay-Dubs. I think Kevin should be civilly liable for any damage he caused, but I'm not sure if what he did is morally, criminally, or socially wrong. I think it's probably morally wrong, as it was a hot-headed move and from a libertarian perspective, violated the non-aggression principle by initiating contact. But I think criminal prosecution would be silly in this case, as the civil system is adequate to remedy this. Even if his behavior isn't what we want to encourage on a blanket basis, I would certainly never press charges against him. Socially, he was right and should be celebrated as an American Hero. I reserve the right to feel differently tomorrow.

What do you think? Should small-time vigilantism, with the backing of societal norms, be acceptable? Can you think of scenarios where initiation of physical contact with strangers would be acceptable?

twmoat_bulworth

If we had no New York Times, where would we get our morning humor? From "An Onset of Woes Raises Questions on Obama Vision," today:

Yet Mr. Obama also expresses exasperation. In private, he has talked longingly of “going Bulworth,” a reference to a little-remembered 1998 Warren Beatty movie about a senator who risked it all to say what he really thought. While Mr. Beatty’s character had neither the power nor the platform of a president, the metaphor highlights Mr. Obama’s desire to be liberated from what he sees as the hindrances on him.

First things first. If you are not familiar with the film (heck, even if you are), read John Podhoretz's brilliant review from 1998.

OK, so Obama wants to go Bulworth? What would that mean? The point of Bulworth is that a senator stops being a phony who says what he has to and starts promoting socialism. No, really. A major part of the film is when, um, Warren Beatty starts rapping about socialism.

My husband asks, "How would Obama even "go Bulworth"? Let us know just how liberal he is? Let us know he hates the GOP leadership? We got it, em kay?"

And who better to illustrate that than Dita von Teese, a Vargas girl made flesh.

Behold: Dita is wearing the first-ever 3D-printed dress, created by designer Michael Schmidt:

With the help of architect Francis Bitonti, Schmidt used digital rendering technology to design the dress and then collaborated with Shapeways, a 3D printing company, to create the dress with a fabric-like substance called powdered nylon. The final product was painted black and covered with 12,000 black Swarovski crystals.

 

Dita von Teese via Stylite.com

The gown is made of thousands of plastic joints that are tiny enough to allow the material to drape like fabric. Bitonti started with Schmidt's iPad sketch of the gown and then created a computer model of the "network of curves" of Dita's body to match the gown to her shape. "Her body actually became an input for the software," he said

The technology is intriguingly disruptive, in that it hands a jealously guarded creative pursuit -- fashion design -- to the hoi polloi. "You can use an iPhone app to take 40 photos of an object, and the software will then stitch the photos together so you can recreate, modify and print the design," explained Duann Scott, a "designer evangelist" at Shapeways, the 3D printing startup that manufactured the gown. 

For now, anyway. From Politico:

Tonight's episode of Hardball saw Matthews delivering a rare, unforgiving grilling of the president as severe as anything that might appear on Fox News.

"What part of the presidency does Obama like? He doesn't like dealing with other politicians -- that means his own cabinet, that means members of the congress, either party. He doesn't particularly like the press.... "

"So what part does he like? He likes going on the road, campaigning, visiting businesses like he does every couple days somewhere in Ohio or somewhere," Matthews continued. "But what part does he like? He doesn't like lobbying for the bills he cares about. He doesn't like selling to the press. He doesn't like giving orders or giving somebody the power to give orders. He doesn't seem to like being an executive.”

Okay, obviously this isn't going to last. They'll all come purring back to Master, begging forgiveness. This is an adolescent temper-tantrum. It'll all be over in a trice, and the lickspittle press will be licking and spittling with enthusiastic abandon at every part of Obama's anatomy.

So, for now anyway, let's enjoy it.

Feel free to collect and post your own favorite examples below.  

Below, a meditation for times of scandal, in the words and voice of T.S. Eliot.

Does the "resignation" solution to scandal show that we live in an era in which there is no statesmanship?  Are we "resigned" to this state of affairs?

 T.S. Eliot.  "Difficulties of a Statesman" from Coriolan

  

The first thing to do is to form the committees:
The consultative councils, the standing committees, select committees and sub-committees

. . . I a tired head among these heads . . .

What shall I cry?

We demand a committee, a representative committee, a committee of investigation
RESIGN RESIGN RESIGN

Rick-Perry7-1024x683

Ricochet members, please join us tomorrow at 8AM PT/11AM ET for another live recording of the Ricochet Podcast with guests Texas governor Rick Perry and author and columnist Kevin Williamson. 

Come by and listen and chat with your fellow members -- maybe even get a shout out on the show. It happened to Franco, it can happen to you. 

What's that -- you're not a member? Correct that mistake immediately and join now!

Loading
Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In