TAXPROF ROUNDUP: The IRS Scandal, Day 857.

MEGAN MCARDLE: How Grown-Ups Deal With ‘Microaggressions.’

We used to call this “rudeness,” “slights” or “ignorant remarks.” Mostly, people ignored them. The elevation of microaggressions into a social phenomenon with a specific name and increasingly public redress marks a dramatic social change, and two sociologists, Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning, have a fascinating paper exploring what this shift looks like, and what it means. (Jonathan Haidt has provided a very useful CliffsNotes version.)

Western society, they argue, has shifted from an honor culture — in which slights are taken very seriously, and avenged by the one slighted — to a dignity culture, in which personal revenge is discouraged, and justice is outsourced to third parties, primarily the law. The law being a cumbersome beast, people in dignity cultures are encouraged to ignore slights, or negotiate them privately by talking with the offender, rather than seeking some more punitive sanction.

Microagressions mark a transition to a third sort of culture: a victim culture, in which people are once again encouraged to take notice of slights. This sounds a lot like honor culture, doesn’t it? Yes, with two important differences. The first is that while victimhood is shameful in an honor culture — and indeed, the purpose of taking vengeance is frequently to avoid this shame — victim status is actively sought in the new culture, because victimhood is a prerequisite for getting redress. The second is that victim culture encourages people to seek help from third parties, either authorities or the public, rather than seeking satisfaction themselves.

In other words, it’s the Code Duello, but for cowards.

MORE ON REP. JARED POLIS (D-CO): Mothers of sons falsely accused of rape hammer congressman who called for expulsion of innocents. “Being expelled from college does not simply lead to transfer to another college, as permanent disciplinary records with ominous findings make it difficult or impossible to enter another institution or find employment. Furthermore, the profound and lasting emotional trauma associated with a false accusation, just as for victims of assault, is not a matter to be taken lightly. Many victims of false accusations suffer from PTSD, depression and other health issues as a result of their experiences.”

If you watch the video, Polis’s laugh (at about 1:54) is rather creepy.

AT AMAZON, fresh deals on bestselling products, updated every hour.

Also, coupons galore in Grocery & Gourmet Food.

Plus, Kindle Daily Deals.

And, Today’s Featured Digital Deal. The deals are brand new every day, so browse and save!

CONGRESS SHOULD MAKE GREATER USE OF IMPEACHMENT AS A TOOL FOR DISCIPLINING LOWER-RANKING OFFICIALS: Lawmaker seeks impeachment of EPA chief. “A resolution introduced Friday by Rep. Paul Gosar calls for the removal of Gina McCarthy as EPA administrator for making false statements on multiple occasions during congressional testimony. The resolution has 20 co-sponsors.”

REMEMBER, SHE ALSO HAD A WHITE HOUSE CONNECTION: Woman who introduced Rolling Stone to Jackie leaves UVA.

Emily Renda, the sexual assault activist who introduced Rolling Stone to “Jackie,” a woman who lied about being gang-raped, has left the University of Virginia.

Her reason for leaving is the fallout from the now-discredited Rolling Stone article. The unraveling of the article, coupled with the attacks on Renda in the media, have led to a year of “all hell and hopelessness.” Renda has decided to go to law school far away from U.Va., and told Vanity Fair that she has abandoned her work with sexual assault survivors.

“I don’t want to say it’s been the worst year of my life, but it has been the worst year of my life,” Renda said.

Renda met Jackie in the spring of 2014, while working as an activist. Jackie told Renda her story of being gang-raped by fraternity members at a party (parts of this story appeared differently in the story Jackie told Rolling Stone). Renda would later share Jackie’s story during testimony before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, omitting Jackie’s name.

Well, it was a pretty bad year for the falsely accused frat guys, too, who suffered a sort of University-sanctioned lynching.

More on the White House connection here:

Emily Renda, a UVA advocate for sexual assault victims, has been identified as the person who helped steer the author of the Rolling Stone article to the student identified in the story only as “Jackie” who said she was gang-raped by seven university students. Ms. Renda had previously met with the White House Task Force to Protect Students Against Sexual Assault, a committee created by President Obama. The administration says it sought her input as a “stakeholder” on the issue. . . .

The U.S. Department of Education has declined to answer Freedom of Information requests for telephone logs and other information that might show to what degree, if any, the White House orchestrated the rape story at a time when it was pushing hard to expand the role of the federal government in combating sexual violence on college campuses. The Institute on Government and Media Integrity has asked Congress to further inquire.

So far, I don’t think UVA is talking, either. In fact: Review of Univ. of Va.’s debunked gang rape to remain under wraps.

An independent review of the University of Virginia’s handling of a student’s gang rape allegations will not be publicly released because of privacy concerns.

The review focuses on the Charlottesville school’s handling of an alleged gang rape that was reported in graphic detail by Rolling Stone magazine. The piece was later retracted.

In an email from the school’s Freedom of Information Act officer late last month, U.Va. rejected a request from The Associated Press to publicly release an executive summary of the review.

The officer cited a letter from a U.S. Department of Education official who said its release would violate the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act.

How convenient for all concerned. Was the official Catherine Lhamon, by any chance?

REPEAL THE HOLLYWOOD TAX CUTS! Although, in the case of North Carolina, it’s a Hollywood Handout.

The program, which last year replaced a more expensive film tax credit, received $10 million in the last fiscal year. The House proposed $40 million annually, while the Senate wanted it kept at $10 million. The state chapter of Americans for Prosperity called the appropriation a “Hollywood handout” and urged email recipients to oppose the spending.

“In lean times for families and small businesses, handing hard-earned tax dollars to Hollywood film executives is reprehensible and irresponsible,” group spokesman Joseph Kyzer said in a release.

Film industry supporters argue movies, TV series and commercials generate jobs that make grant payments a net positive for the state. Film boosters blamed the loss of the tax credit program for keeping productions out of the state.

As I noted in the Wall Street Journal a while back, these things are just cronyism:

Of the nine “Best Picture” nominees in 2012, for example, five were filmed on location in states where the production company received financial incentives, including “The Help” (in Mississippi) and “Moneyball” (in California). Virginia gave $3.5 million to this year’s Oscar-nominated “Lincoln.”

Such state incentives are widespread, and often substantial, but they don’t do much to attract jobs. About $1.5 billion in tax credits and exemptions, grants, waived fees and other financial inducements went to the film industry in 2010, according to data analyzed by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Politicians like to offer this largess because they get photo-ops with celebrities, but the economic payoff is minuscule. George Mason University’s Adam Thierer has called this “a growing cronyism fiasco” and noted that the number of states involved skyrocketed to 45 in 2009 from five in 2002.

In its 2012 study “State Film Studies: Not Much Bang For Too Many Bucks,” the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that film-related jobs tend to go to out-of-staters who jet in, then leave. “The revenue generated by economic activity induced by film subsidies,” the study notes, “falls far short of the subsidies’ direct costs to the state. To balance its budget, the state must therefore cut spending or raise revenues elsewhere, dampening the subsidies’ positive economic impact.”

Like most government subsidies, these serve mostly to benefit the people who dole out the cash. In this case, it seems largely about letting state politicos hobnob with Hollywood types and feel special.

WALKER ABRUPTLY CANCELS APPEARANCE AT CALIFORNIA GOP CONVENTION: AS Stephen Kruiser writes, “Republican candidates don’t schmooze the California GOP for votes, electoral or otherwise. They come here for the same reason Democrats who are assured of winning here do — money. There are a lot of big donors here to court, and it probably isn’t a good sign that Walker is canceling.”

TIME TO WET THE BED: The Hillary campaign should start panicking, Matthew Continetti writes at the Washington Free Beacon:

In early July, during another rough patch for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, Dan Pfeiffer took to CNN to reassure his party. Pfeiffer used to be President Obama’s top communications aide. The title of his op-ed was “Stop the bed-wetting: Hillary Clinton’s doing fine.” Bed-wetting, Pfeiffer explained, “is a term of art in Obamaland.” Ah, the president and his acolytes. Such sophisticates.

Clinton shouldn’t panic, Pfeiffer argued, because she remains ahead in polling and in fundraising, because Bernie Sanders “is not Barack Obama,” and because “Hillary Clinton circa 2015 is not Hillary Clinton circa 2008.” Elections, after all, “are about fundamentals,” and “the fundamentals point to a decisive if hard fought victory for Clinton.” Of course, “A lot can change in the coming months.”

No kidding. As we enter the fall campaign season, Pfeiffer’s case seems laughably self-assured and unpersuasive. Now is precisely the time for Clinton and her team to wet the bed—indeed, they may already be doing so.

But won’t wetting the bed risk shorting out the advanced microprocessors inside the exoskeleton?

THE TRUTH ABOUT DONALD TRUMP’S GOLF GAME (VIDEO):  “We already have a bad golfer in the White House. Can we survive another?”

Heh. If you liked the Attaaaaaaaaack Waaaaaaatch videos poking fun at our current duffer in chief, you’ll like this one.

LET US STOP PRETENDING THAT THE IRAQ WAR WAS THE WORST THING EVER. Especially when, as Glenn has pointed out on numerous occasions, regime change in Iraq was a bipartisan issue from the 1990s until, oh, about the time Saddam was captured in late 2003, and that Joe Biden and Barack Obama were taking credit for Bush’s winning of the surge as an election year talking point in 2012.

Given Iraq’s current state, perhaps someone should ask Colin Powell if he still thinks you, “you break it, you own it” applies to the current administration, now that he’s an Obama Democrat.

THE FAILURE OF SWEDEN’S IMMIGRATION POLICY: Look North, Chancellor Merkel.

SAY SEE IT WITH GRAPHS: From Madisonian Constitutionalism to Wilsonian Statism?

WHO CREATES THESE DEFINITIONS: A Toast to Reasonable Drinking.

RUPERT MURDOCH OWNS THE WORLD: Or at least the part of it with exotic bare breasts.

INSOMNIA THEATER (BACK TO SCHOOL EDITION!): BRAINWASHING PROGRAM AT THE UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE—This week’s edition takes us back to 2007, when the University of Delaware’s Office of Residence Life used mandatory activities to coerce students into changing their thoughts, values, attitudes, beliefs, and habits to conform to a specific university-approved social, environmental, and political agenda. After FIRE waged a campaign calling attention to the Orwellian curriculum, the university terminated the program, effective immediately. Since that initial victory, however, there have been continued attempts to reinstate the coercive elements of the program. This video explains the program’s invasive thought-reform activities; the horrified reactions of students, faculty, and the press; and FIRE’s response.

If you want to learn more, you can also check out this award-winning article by Adam Kissel. The program was so bad I even devoted nearly an entire chapter to it in my book Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate.

ANOTHER IDIOT SELF IDENTIFIES: