Quick: someone call a chiropractor for California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa. He's overreached so far his arm may separate from his shoulder. Even some key figures in his party are suggesting he needs an adjustment. F-a-s-t.
Washington, D.C., is in the grip of scandals, the economy is stumbling and a host of other challenges are weighing me down - which is why I prefer to dwell on more obscure subjects, such as a battle raging behind the scenes over the 2020 Olympics.
As amateur news hounds gain power and influence through social media, the definition of "journalist" has ripened for philosophical debate. But now it's becoming a legal issue – one that could hamper efforts to protect the news profession at the very time federal lawmakers are awakening to the need to do so.
There's good news and bad news in the twin terrorist outrages of the horrific running over and hacking to death of a British soldier and the Boston Marathon bombings. The good: intelligence agencies had some of these young terrorists on their radar. The bad news: having them on the radar did little good since the murderers still successfully completed their planned butchery.
IRS apologists are furiously trying to change the subject from the outrageous targeting of political opponents by the IRS to a policy debate over forced disclosure of contributions to groups that engage in political speech. The story is that a deluge of applications forced the IRS to cut corners and the targeting scandal was an accidental result of mismanaging that flood. From there the apologists pivot to demanding a new crackdown on political speech, forced disclosure of donors, or both. But the story is a fairy tale and the "solutions" are unconstitutional.
As part of the brash rash of wire-brush scouring on the Teflon coating that routinely seals the Obama presidency, a large heavy-duty cast-iron deal has been made of the IRS conducting audits on Tea Party-affiliated organizations. But scratch the surface and it makes a sort of perverse sense.