[hrothgar]

Rachael Maddow has a must read blog post today about that whole IRS "scandal"...

http://maddowblog.ms...ed-scandal?lite

It turns out that the IRS investigations were NOT restricted to conservative groups. However, the internal IRS investigation that first brought this to people's attention was biased.

Quote

The Treasury inspector general (IG) whose report helped drive the IRS targeting controversy says it limited its examination to conservative groups because of a request from House Republicans.

A spokesman for Russell George, Treasury's inspector general for tax administration, said they were asked by House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) "to narrowly focus on Tea Party organizations."

The bias was in the report and this bias was ordered by congressional Republicans

Bwah, hah, hah

[Scarabin]

hrothgar, on 2013-June-27, 14:05, said:

Rachael Maddow has a must read blog post today about that whole IRS "scandal"...

http://maddowblog.ms...ed-scandal?lite

It turns out that the IRS investigations were NOT restricted to conservative groups. However, the internal IRS investigation that first brought this to people's attention was biased.



The bias was in the report and this bias was ordered by congressional Republicans

Bwah, hah, hah

I am puzzled. Do you consider maddowblog independent? If Issa believed Tea-party groups were targeted unfairly and asked IRS to investigate this I would not find it surprising or consider it showed bias.

[ArtK78]

Scarabin, on 2013-June-27, 23:08, said:

I am puzzled. Do you consider maddowblog independent? If Issa believed Tea-party groups were targeted unfairly and asked IRS to investigate this I would not find it surprising or consider it showed bias.

Except that the report would have to review "targeting" of all groups to determine if there was any specific targeting of conservative groups.

Quite frankly, as one who frequently submits applications for recognition of exemption to the IRS, I find this whole thing to be completely overblown. All organizations that state that they will be engaging in any sort of political activity and that seek exemption from tax should be subject to significant scrutiny, as the tax code provides for severe restrictions on the type and amount of political activity they may engage in and retain their tax exemption.

[Winstonm]

Scarabin, on 2013-June-27, 23:08, said:

I am puzzled. Do you consider maddowblog independent? If Issa believed Tea-party groups were targeted unfairly and asked IRS to investigate this I would not find it surprising or consider it showed bias.

Whether or not a particular person is conservative or liberal has no bearing on his ability to report facts accurately. It is only when ideology drives fact-twisting that there is a problem. Of course, less neutral observations will have a slant, but the story won't be spun from whole cloth, the latter now seeming to be the case with Mr. Issa's version of events.

[dwar0123]

Scarabin, on 2013-June-27, 23:08, said:

I am puzzled. Do you consider maddowblog independent? If Issa believed Tea-party groups were targeted unfairly and asked IRS to investigate this I would not find it surprising or consider it showed bias.

You really don't see how investigating something for bias by only looking at one side is intrinsically biased?

It's like trying to determine if a coin flip is truly 50/50 by only counting the results from when it turns up heads.

[barmar]

dwar0123, on 2013-June-28, 10:57, said:

You really don't see how investigating something for bias by only looking at one side is intrinsically biased?

It's like trying to determine if a coin flip is truly 50/50 by only counting the results from when it turns up heads.

Not really a good analogy, since anything you find out about heads tells you everything you need to know about tails as well.

A better analogy would be a die. Suppose it's supposed to be a normal 6-sided die, but you suspect someone has replaced it with a 7-sided die, with two 6s. If you compare the number of 1s and 2s that are thrown, you won't see any problem -- they'll be equal. Only when you look at the number of 6s and see that they're twice as frequent as others will you realize there's something wrong.

Of course, you could just plot the rate of all values, and then the problem with 6 will stick out as well. But that's where the analogy starts losing its ability to mirror the real world. In complex situations, it's hard to analyze all cases because there are too many. You have to narrow down your investigation, usually based on a particular hypothesis you're trying to prove or disprove. Even just figuring out how to categorize everything involves some bias -- are you looking for differences based on organization size (and is that number of employees or revenue), gender of upper management, political affiliation, etc.?

This is simply the nature of analysis of any complicated situation.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2013-June-28, 11:40, said:

Not really a good analogy, since anything you find out about heads tells you everything you need to know about tails as well.

A better analogy would be a die. Suppose it's supposed to be a normal 6-sided die, but you suspect someone has replaced it with a 7-sided die, with two 6s. If you compare the number of 1s and 2s that are thrown, you won't see any problem -- they'll be equal. Only when you look at the number of 6s and see that they're twice as frequent as others will you realize there's something wrong.

Of course, you could just plot the rate of all values, and then the problem with 6 will stick out as well. But that's where the analogy starts losing its ability to mirror the real world. In complex situations, it's hard to analyze all cases because there are too many. You have to narrow down your investigation, usually based on a particular hypothesis you're trying to prove or disprove. Even just figuring out how to categorize everything involves some bias -- are you looking for differences based on organization size (and is that number of employees or revenue), gender of upper management, political affiliation, etc.?

This is simply the nature of analysis of any complicated situation.

As far as the 7-sided die is concerned, the total amount of 1s and 2s compared to total rolls would indeed show a discrepancy with expectations. One should see a 1 in 6 occurrence for any particlular number. If numbers are only showing up at 1 to 7 clip, then something is amiss.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2013-June-28, 12:07, said:

As far as the 7-sided die is concerned, the total amount of 1s and 2s compared to total rolls would indeed show a discrepancy with expectations. One should see a 1 in 6 occurrence for any particlular number. If numbers are only showing up at 1 to 7 clip, then something is amiss.

True, but it wouldn't tell you that the problem is with the 6s unless you examined all cases. If you only look at 1s, and see that they're in a lower than expected proportion, you might just as easily conclude that the die is biased away from 1s, not toward 6s.

But the main point I was trying to make is that the real world is not as simple as coins and dies. It's not practical to examine all cases, and even determining what all the cases are is often not feasible. The real world doesn't fall neatly into a handful of obvious categories. You can't just tell the IRS "Examine all your applications for tax-exempt status, and tell is if any group is being unfairly scrutinized."

[dwar0123]

barmar, on 2013-June-28, 11:40, said:

Not really a good analogy, since anything you find out about heads tells you everything you need to know about tails as well.

if you only look at heads you know nothing about tails.

32 heads out of 32 examinations tells you nothing, using that data to suggest the coin is biased towards heads is stupid. I stand by my analogy.

[kenberg]

From the beginning it seemed likely to turn out this way. An organization has the job of reading many many applications for tax exempt status. They do not have the resources, or the inclination, to give each application the scrutiny that it is supposed to have. So they take shortcuts. A group with the name Tea Party Study Group For The Investigation Of Media Bias gets more scrutiny than a group titled Rosebush Plantings In Park Areas. We are shocked? And what do you know? The Study Group For The Liberation Of Hispanic Lesbians also gets a closer look.

Yes the rosebush planters may be the most political of the three, far too political to qualify for tax exemption. Could be so, but if time and resources are tight it's probably not the way to place your bets.

I expect the scandal, if there is one, is that those who have to decide on the applications, on who gets tax exempt status and who does not, take some shortcuts incompatible with idealism. Who woulda thought?

Of course the other scandal is that it was all breathlessly reported without any effort being made to see what was really happening. This is not exactly stunning news either.

Nor is it surprising that some pol, Republican in this case, figured how to game the facts.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2013-June-28, 20:31, said:

Yes the rosebush planters may be the most political of the three, far too political to qualify for tax exemption. Could be so, but if time and resources are tight it's probably not the way to place your bets.

Kind of reminds me of the controversies over racial profiling by police and TSA. We want these organizations to do the best possible job of protecting our safety. But then we hamstring them by saying they're not allowed to use certain clues to do their jobs more effectively because they would reflect racism.

[GreenMan]

barmar, on 2013-June-29, 19:50, said:

Kind of reminds me of the controversies over racial profiling by police and TSA. We want these organizations to do the best possible job of protecting our safety. But then we hamstring them by saying they're not allowed to use certain clues to do their jobs more effectively because they would reflect racism.

Dark skin != suspicious behavior.

[ArtK78]

kenberg, on 2013-June-28, 20:31, said:

From the beginning it seemed likely to turn out this way. An organization has the job of reading many many applications for tax exempt status. They do not have the resources, or the inclination, to give each application the scrutiny that it is supposed to have. So they take shortcuts. A group with the name Tea Party Study Group For The Investigation Of Media Bias gets more scrutiny than a group titled Rosebush Plantings In Park Areas. We are shocked? And what do you know? The Study Group For The Liberation Of Hispanic Lesbians also gets a closer look.

Yes the rosebush planters may be the most political of the three, far too political to qualify for tax exemption. Could be so, but if time and resources are tight it's probably not the way to place your bets.

I expect the scandal, if there is one, is that those who have to decide on the applications, on who gets tax exempt status and who does not, take some shortcuts incompatible with idealism. Who woulda thought?

Of course the other scandal is that it was all breathlessly reported without any effort being made to see what was really happening. This is not exactly stunning news either.

Nor is it surprising that some pol, Republican in this case, figured how to game the facts.

That is not how the Exempt Organization section of the IRS operates. There are no shortcuts. Each application is examined on its own merits.

Trust me, once one is reasonably familiar with the Form 1023 it is easy to tell if an organization deserves a more thorough examination than most.

[cherdano]

ArtK78, on 2013-June-30, 00:45, said:

That is not how the Exempt Organization section of the IRS operates. There are no shortcuts. Each application is examined on its own merits.

Trust me, once one is reasonably familiar with the Form 1023 it is easy to tell if an organization deserves a more thorough examination than most.

So I am pretty ignorant about this. But to me, it always seemed like on the merit, most of these groups (progressive or conservative) complaining about extra scrutiny should have had their applications rejected? These were all political organizations pretending to be social welfare organizations.

[blackshoe]

GreenMan, on 2013-June-29, 21:34, said:

Dark skin != suspicious behavior.

That's not the problem. The problem is that when dark skin + suspicious behavior results in police scrutiny, people start screaming "racial profiling! let him go!" whether there's anything to the suspicious behavior or not.

[GreenMan]

blackshoe, on 2013-June-30, 08:44, said:

That's not the problem. The problem is that when dark skin + suspicious behavior results in police scrutiny, people start screaming "racial profiling! let him go!" whether there's anything to the suspicious behavior or not.

It's not just that people who don't look white and middle class get targeted, it's that people who DO look white and middle class get passes. You may have heard of this experiment, where two bicycle thieves, one white and one black, tried to cut through a bike lock in a public park in broad daylight. The white guy was left alone, and one person even wished him luck. The black guy was hounded from the start, and almost everyone who saw him called the cops.

That's the insidious kind of racism: Things that bring the heat onto a dark person get a pass if white people do them. If your enforcement strategy varies by race or ethnicity -- ever heard of "driving while black"? -- then yes, you're racially profiling.

[blackshoe]

GreenMan, on 2013-June-30, 09:17, said:

That's the insidious kind of racism: Things that bring the heat onto a dark person get a pass if white people do them. If your enforcement strategy varies by race or ethnicity -- ever heard of "driving while black"? -- then yes, you're racially profiling.

Yes, I've heard of "driving while black". So? That's a kind of profiling that should be quashed. OTOH when the police get a report that some black person committed a crime should they, in looking for him, stop and question everyone, white or black, to see if he's the perpetrator?

[Cyberyeti]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-01, 00:26, said:

Yes, I've heard of "driving while black". So? That's a kind of profiling that should be quashed. OTOH when the police get a report that some black person committed a crime should they, in looking for him, stop and question everyone, white or black, to see if he's the perpetrator?

I used to work with somebody who was stopped so regularly for "being young and black in a nice car" he actually had a letter from one of the senior local police officers to show to the stopping officers with his car reg and stating that it was his car. This was the same guy who when thieves tried to nick his car stereo, they found they couldn't get the speakers out of the car because they were so heavy they couldn't physically lift them.

[GreenMan]

blackshoe, on 2013-July-01, 00:26, said:

Yes, I've heard of "driving while black". So? That's a kind of profiling that should be quashed. OTOH when the police get a report that some black person committed a crime should they, in looking for him, stop and question everyone, white or black, to see if he's the perpetrator?

Don't change the subject. If police get a report that some unknown person committed a crime they should stop and question everyone, white or black, but they don't. And if police or the TSA are just looking around for "suspicious behavior" they should look at everyone the same regardless of their color. But they don't. And when people object to that sort of profiling then they say that they're kept from doing their jobs by politically-correct people forcing them to include upstanding white citizens in the suspect pool.

[billw55]

GreenMan, on 2013-June-30, 09:17, said:

You may have heard of this experiment, where two bicycle thieves, one white and one black, tried to cut through a bike lock in a public park in broad daylight. The white guy was left alone, and one person even wished him luck. The black guy was hounded from the start, and almost everyone who saw him called the cops.

For the record, this was a stunt on a television program, not an experiment. TV programs are heavily edited, and (gasp) not always unbiased. We don't really know what happened in all the footage they didn't include in the broadcast.

That said, I mostly believe the result.