Tuesday, July 16, 2013


Yes, yes, I usually do these on Fridays, but...well...

1. Prosecutorial discretion.

You really have to wonder how much more blatant it will get before Congress will act:

The Treasury Department has admitted for the first time that confidential tax records of several political candidates and campaign donors were improperly scrutinized by government officials, but the Justice Department has declined to prosecute any of the cases.

Its investigators also are probing two allegations that the Internal Revenue Service "targeted for audit candidates for public office," the Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, J. Russell George, has privately told Sen. Chuck Grassley.

In a written response to a request by Mr. Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. George said a review turned up four cases since 2006 in which unidentified government officials took part in "unauthorized access or disclosure of tax records of political donors or candidates," including one case he described as "willful." In four additional cases, Mr. George said, allegations of improper access of IRS records were not substantiated by the evidence.

Mr. Grassley has asked Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to explain why the Justice Department chose not to prosecute any of the cases. The Iowa Republican told The Washington Times that the IRS "is required to act with neutrality and professionalism, not political bias."

But has the Attorney-General's office replied?

In a July 12 letter to Mr. Holder, Mr. Grassley asked whether the attorney general knew about the cases, who in the Justice Department decided against prosecution, and with which parties the “victims” in the cases were affiliated.

"Although this may not be indicative of wide spread targeting, any instance is cause for concern," Mr. Grassley wrote. "Even more alarming, in at least one instance TIGTA referred evidence of 'willful unauthorized access' to the United States Attorney’s Office, but criminal prosecution was declined. Decisions such as these directly impact the political process and should be subject to the scrutiny of the American public."

The IRS did not respond to a request for comment on Mr. George’s findings.

To borrow a slogan from a better-known new source: We report. You decide.

2. A curious request for counsel.

People ask me some very strange questions. One I had to field recently, from a younger colleague, set me back on my heels:

She: When is it okay to have an affair?
FWP: What? Why are you asking me this?

She: My husband has...lost interest.
FWP: That's very sad, but...you're aware that I'm a Catholic, aren't you?

She: Yes, but you're the smartest guy I know, so I figured...
FWP: Geez. I can't think what to say. You know I'd be against it, that I'd deplore it for reasons of conscience, but you want my advice on how to go about it?
She: Well...yes!

There are days I feel like changing my name, getting facial surgery, and moving without leaving a forwarding address. But my young colleague was persistent, and it was the middle of the workday, and besides, I don't know any plastic surgeons who'd accept payment in software, so...

FWP: I get the feeling you have someone in mind already for your...extra-marital adventure. Am I correct?
She: Yes, I do.

FWP: Well, is he married too?
She: Yes.

FWP: How many children does he have?
She: Two, a boy and a girl.

FWP: I seem to recall that you don't have any kids.
She: That's right.

FWP: That rules him out, at least if he's smart.
She: Huh? Why?

FWP: He has more to lose than you. The Prime Directive of Adultery is Equal Risk. You and your partner in illicit amour must be as equally placed in the world as possible. If he's married, you must be married. If he has kids, you must have kids -- and preferably the same number. If he has an income of X, you should have roughly the same. That way neither of you has a lever to use against the other.

My young colleague was nonplussed by my advice. Being young, she couldn't imagine how her "wine and roses" impulses toward her, ah, intended could possibly morph into "pistols at dawn." (The young tend to have this "But it can't happen to me" conviction about life's less pleasant possibilities.) However, the intended, whom I know well, is both older and more worldly wise, so even if she didn't believe me, his natural caution should prevail...I hope!

3. Some developments.

Paul Kersey, who specializes in writing on race relations and racial tensions, has posted an illuminating article at VDARE:

As I noted in a March 26, 2012 VDARE.com column as the Main Stream Media narrative of the martyrdom of St. Martin was unraveling, cities across the country were being forced to enact emergency curfews to deal with rising racial anarchy since Obama’s election in 2008.

“Obama’s sons” were out of control:

Kersey also makes mention of Colin Flaherty's widely praised -- and widely denounced -- book White Girl Bleed A Lot, which compiles a staggering amount of objective information about the upsurge in black-on-white violence of recent years: pure-quill journalism of the sort we no longer see these days. Flaherty's detractors dislike his book for precisely that reason...as if you couldn't have figured that out on your own.


lelnet said...

"Being young, she couldn't imagine how her 'wine and roses' impulses toward her, ah, intended could possibly morph into 'pistols at dawn.'"

This is, perhaps, a forgivable lapse, in one who has never actually experienced a relationship going sour. In one who is _presently experiencing_ exactly that (as this young woman plainly is), it is not so forgivable.

I thought of saying "try to take her admiration as a compliment, and ignore the less savory implications"...but I also would have trouble taking the admiration of anyone this...dense, as a compliment.

pdwalker said...

Send her to marriedmansexlife.com where she can learn how her and her husband can fix their relationship before they destroy it completely.