Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller, forced to resign in the conservative-targeting scandal, was set to leave that post anyway, as early as June. Ooooh, talk about “forceful” action, eh? ...Former NAACP Chairman Julian Bond says it was proper for the IRS to target tea party groups because they “are admittedly racist,” are “overtly political” and are “the Taliban wing of American politics.” Once upon a time, people would think before they spoke. How unbecoming. ... The IRS is not the only federal agency that targets political “enemies.” The Competitive Enterprise Institute says the EPA “gives info for free to Big Green groups 92 percent of the time” but “denies 93 percent of fee waivers requests from (its) biggest conservative critics.” We're shocked. ... German authorities say they've arrested a gent who served as an accountant for a band of Somali pirates who hijacked a German oil tanker three years ago. The New York Times says the man was responsible for the bookkeeping that divided the ransom between “participating pirates.” Wow, even piracy has gone corporate. ... The National Center for Public Policy Research is calling out Comcast for being hypocritical. The nation's largest cable TV provider has banned gun and ammo advertising but continues to run, and profit from, programs that “consistently glorify gratuitous displays of gun violence.” Hey, what's a little hypocrisy when you can have your cake and ban it, too?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.