Posted on June 17, 2013 by Steven Hayward in Culture, Television

Another Totally Frivolous Pop Culture Post

So a week or so ago on my post on “Jay Leno For President,” I noticed that frequent Power Line commenter David Hill’s FB identification reads: “Works at Veridian Dynamics.”  No way!  This is almost as good as spotting the Fred Hirsch Social Limits to Growth reference on The Big Bang Theory.  Better Off Ted (the home of Veridian Dynamics) was one of my favorite short-lived shows (not as short-lived as Firefly, grump, grump), partly for its straight up satire of conglomerates like GE, as shown in this first 30-second video of their riff on the environment (sorry for the poor quality—it’s the only version out there on YouTube):

But there was also the fact that the show’s lead, Jay Harrington, was a doppelganger for my then boss, Arthur Brooks of AEI, including even their voices.  If I ever get round to writing a sitcom about Washington think tanks, Harrington will obviously have to play Brooks.  Check out 30 seconds of Harrington (“Ted”) in this promo video, and then check out Arthur Brooks, and you’ll see what I mean:

But wait!  There’s more.  Hill said I was the first person ever to notice his Better Off Ted reference.  But then another commenter, Philip Goerling, upped the game with a much more obscure pop culture reference, saying he’d thought about seeking a job at Yoyodyne Propulsion.  Now, you have to get up pretty early in the morning to sneak a Buckaroo Bonzai reference past me.  If you want to know how early in the morning, check out the green bumper sticker on my Volkswagen Eurovan:

Posted on by Scott Johnson in Iran, Obama Foreign Policy

Understanding Iran’s election

It really shouldn’t be difficult to understand Iran’s presidential election, assuming you pay attention to such things. If you get your news from the mainstream media, however, it might be close to impossible to understand it. As Paul demonstrates, going a little bit out of your way online you can quickly find just about everything you need to know about the election and the winner, one Hassan Rouhani. Take, for example, Avi Isacharoff’s “The regime wanted him to win.”

Let there be no doubt. The Supreme Leader remains the Supreme Leader. A Western diplomat who spoke to AFP described the list of presidential candidates as “not in shades of grey, but all black” and emphasized that “all candidates with a chance of winning are either related to the leader or to the security apparatus.”

A friend points out that Rouhani carries into office credentials stretching back to the Iranian revolution. He was an early follower of Ayotollah Ruhollah Khomeini. He joined Khomeini in exile in Paris and followed him into Iran. He subsequently moved through Iran’s political system. He was Iran’s top nuclear negotiator with the EU3 – Britain, France, and Germany – and his boasts of having prolonged those negotiations while Iran expanded its nuclear program became a key point of contention during the election.

The new man has his uses. He can make utterly meaningless noises that can be construed by the mental midgets of the Obama administration as “a potentially hopeful sign.”

You can take a good guess whom Prime Minister Netanyahu had in mind with his slightly more guarded reaction: “Regarding the elections in Iran, we do not delude ourselves,” Netanyahu said yesterday. “The international community must not be caught up in wishful thinking and be tempted to relax the pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear program.”

Posted on by Paul Mirengoff in Barack Obama, Poll

Obama’s approval rating plummets

President Obama’s approval rating is down to 45 percent, according to a CNN/ORC poll of 1,014 adult Americans. 54 percent disapprove of his job performance.

A month ago, the same pollsters found that 53 percent approved of the Obama presidency while 45 percent disapproved. Thus, his numbers have, in essence, flipped — a turnaround of 8 points if one focuses on the “approval” side.

Although the decline in Obama’s approval applies pretty much across-the-board — to the economy, foreign affairs, terrorism, the deficit, illegal immigration (where he is down 40-56) — the reversal is probably best explained by the accumulation of scandals that have emerged in recent months. The number of Americans who think Obama is honest has dropped 9 points over the past month, to 49%.

As for the NSA revelations, the picture is mixed. Only 35 percent approve of the way Obama is handling “government surveillance of U.S. citizens,” compared to 61 percent who disapprove. But 51 percent say he was “right” in “gathering and analyzing information on the phone calls of most Americans in an attempt to locate suspected terrorists.” Forty-eight percent say he was “wrong” to do this.

The concept, it appears, is considered less offensive than its execution by this president. President Bush fared somewhat better on both of these questions when they were asked in mid-2006. Miss him yet?

Obama’s most dramatic loss of approval has occurred among adults under the age of 30. He experienced a jaw-dropping 17 point decline among this cohort in just one month.

I bet the decline was even steeper among those recent Ohio State grads whom he urged to trust the government.

Young voters tend to be volatile voters. They also seem to have a libertarian streak. And, of course, they are only just beginning to encounter the real world in which they hope to thrive during the coming, challenging decades.

These Millennials are the answer to the following question that so preoccupies the Republican establishment these days: how can the Republicans ever win the presidency again without increasing their appeal to Hispanics?

Posted on by Paul Mirengoff in House of Representatives, Immigration

Boehner reportedly will apply the Hastert Rule to immigration reform [Updated]

The Washington Examiner reports that Speaker Boehner will not bring a comprehensive immigration-reform plan to the floor if a majority of Republicans don’t support it. This is normal Republican policy in the House (it’s known as the Hastert Rule). I had speculated, however, that Boehner might waive the rule in the case of immigration reform legislation by applying a lower threshold, say one-third support.

The Examiner reporter, David Drucker, cites multiple sources for his report, including Rep. Tom Cole. From what I’ve heard, Drucker, whose wife is the NRCC finance director, tends to have reliable GOP sources.

Boehner, of course, is not bound by what unnamed aides are telling reporters. Moreover, his views may be less categorical than the Examiner story implies. He may, in other words, be leaving more wiggle room than has come through “in translation.”

But there is an underlying political reality that may be driving Boehner toward strict adherence to the Hastert Rule when it comes to immigration. As one of Drucker’s sources notes, House Republicans are likely to suffer a greater voter backlash in the 2014 elections if they back the wrong immigration reform bill than if they simply do nothing on the issue.

Many in the Republican establishment believe that doing nothing is a formula for losing national election after national election. But this though need not induce panic among individual House members who are focused on 2014. All of them were elected in a year when the Hispanic vote overwhelmingly favored Democrats and and turned out in record numbers.

UPDATE: Here’s one bit of potential “wiggle room” I see for Boehner. The House passes immigration reform legislation that falls far short of what the Senate has passed and what the Senate Dems (plus Rubio, Graham, et al) deem acceptable. In conference, the Republicans cave. The House leadership then insists that there be an up-or-down vote now that the bill is back from conference.

In this scenario, the Senate Dems (plus Rubio, Graham, et al) get their amnesty legislation through the House with only a fairly low level of GOP support.

Posted on by Scott Johnson in IRS, Obama Administration Scandals

The other IRS scandal, cont’d

In “The other IRS scandal” John took a look at the IRS treatment of pro-Israel charities. The experience of some pro-Israel groups suggested that they had been subject to harassing and discriminatory treatment based on their support of policies that conflict with those of the Obama administration. John called for The House committees that looking into the IRS scandal to put this topic high on their agenda.

My daughter Eliana advances the story a bit further in “The IRS vs. pro-Israel groups.” Moving beyond the complaints of pro-Israel groups themselves to testimony from the IRS itself, Eliana reports:

Applications of pro-Israel groups for tax-exempt status are routinely routed to an antiterrorism unit within the Internal Revenue Service for additional screening, according to the testimony of a Cincinnati-based IRS agent.

Asked whether Jewish or pro-Israel applications are treated differently from other applications, Gary Muthert told House Oversight Committee investigators that they are considered “specialty cases” and that “probably” all are sent to an IRS unit that examines groups for potential terrorist ties.

Muthert’s testimony lumps pro-Israel groups into the same basket as all groups with any “foreign activity.” Yet no pro-Israel group has been associated with terrorism. That remains the domain of such terrorist front groups as the Holy Land Foundation and its unindicted co-conspirators including CAIR and ISNA. I wrote about CAIR’s appearance in the case against the Holy Land Foundation in “Coming clean about CAIR.”

An open question remains. Has Obama’s IRS applied similar scrutiny to pro-Palestinian groups? In August 2010 the Treasury Department issued a statement marking the beginning of Ramadan with these evocative paragraphs:

The Treasury Department fully supports the ability of American Muslims – and Muslims worldwide – to fulfill their religious obligations through charitable giving and seeks to advance charitable giving at home and abroad, while protecting the charitable sector from the threat posed by those who seek to abuse this sacred obligation. In recent years, Treasury has strengthened its partnership with the charitable sector and donor community to promote transparency and to safeguard against such abuse.

The Treasury Department will continue to work closely with the charitable sector and Muslim American communities to promote our common goals of safe and effective charitable activity and to protect the sector from exploitation by terrorist organizations. We look forward to the continued development of this partnership.

Obama himself vowed to work with Muslims in the United States to facilitate “zakat” (Islamic charitable giving, under which such outfits as the Holy Land Foundation had operated) in his Cairo speech. Has the IRS treated Muslim charities on par with pro-Israel charities? It seems absurd that they should be treated similarly, but one wonders whether they have achieved this level of parity in the Age of Obama.

Posted on June 16, 2013 by Steven Hayward in Energy Policy

What Is Obama Up To on Keystone?

Obama can’t vote “present” on the Keystone pipeline forever, though he can probably string it out a while longer.  He won’t want to punt it to the next president, though, because it might be a Republican who will approve it on Day One.  Maybe Obama could just propose an alternate route through Guantanamo, since Gitmo is going to need a new use soon, right?

Last month I predicted:

What Obama may do is tentatively approve Keystone along with a major policy shift that will please environmentalists and subject Keystone to further and perhaps fatal delays. There is talk that the administration may expand the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to require that proposed projects like Keystone document their impact on global warming in the permit approval process.

About two weeks ago the Obama administration quietly and without fanfare took a step that might accomplish the double game of “approving” Keystone subject to conditions that mean it cannot be built.  Last week, the news dribbled out that the Obama administration, as a part of a seemingly minor rule-making about energy standards for microwave ovens, slipped in a recalculation of the “social cost of carbon” that could potentially tip the scales heavily against the Keystone pipeline—among other energy-intensive developments—in the course of the required cost-benefit analysis that subsequent rule-makings have to conduct.

Here’s how Bloomberg reported the story last week:

Buried in a little-noticed rule on microwave ovens is a change in the U.S. government’s accounting for carbon emissions that could have wide-ranging implications for everything from power plants to the Keystone XL pipeline.

The increase of the so-called social cost of carbon, to $38 a metric ton in 2015 from $23.80, adjusts the calculation the government uses to weigh costs and benefits of proposed regulations. The figure is meant to approximate losses from global warming such as flood damage and diminished crops.

With the change, government actions that lead to cuts in emissions — anything from new mileage standards to clean-energy loans — will appear more valuable in its cost-benefit analyses. On the flip side, environmentalists urge that it be used to judge projects that could lead to more carbon pollution, such as TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone pipeline or coal-mining by companies such as Peabody Energy Corp. (BTU) on public lands, which would be viewed as more costly.

Combine this with stories, such as this one from Politico, that say Obama is getting ready to roll out some strong executive-based climate policies in July, and you can begin to connect the dots here.  Obama will be able to “approve” Keystone subject to further cost-benefit review, which will subsequently kill the project on cost-benefit grounds, or will impose such onerous “mitigation” costs on TransCanada that they have to withdraw their application.  Obama will be able to say he “let the process” go forward.

But the pathway might not be that easy.  Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute observes:

The President may be aiming for July, but I doubt that the administration will release anything before the Senate votes to confirm Gina McCarthy as EPA Administrator.  That’s because what the White House is likely to propose is a bunch of further rules regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

White House climate czar Heather Zichal said as much when she spoke at the same conference Gore spoke at on Tuesday. “Our focus moving forward will be on executive actions.”  That is going to make many Senate Republicans angrier than they are now about unilateral administration actions and therefore more likely to try to block a vote on McCarthy’s nomination.

All I can add to this right now is that Power Line is polishing up a Green Weenie for Obama.  Meanwhile, memo to Senate Republicans: better sit on Gina McCarthy’s EPA nomination.

P.S.  Haven’t had time yet to check out this new microwave oven rule, but if it’s anything like the (non)-performance standards the government has imposed on light bulbs, dishwashers, and shower heads, better go out an stock up on replacement microwave ovens soon.

Posted on by John Hinderaker in Conservatism

Happy Fathers’ Day!

I hope that every father had as happy a Fathers’ Day as I did. It started with going to church, a fun outdoor ceremony. Then we all–my wife and I and three of our four kids–packed up a picnic lunch and drove to a park near Lake Harriet in Minneapolis. We took a number of photos, of which I will share only a few. Here, Ali and Kathryn carry the cooler to our picnic site:

My son brought his dog Harper, a mutt that seems to be mainly German shorthaired pointer, with some pit bull and other unknown breeds mixed in. My son saved her from the pound, as she had been adopted and returned more than once and was about to be put down. At a year or two old, she is extremely energetic:

Harper is the sort of dog that can drive you crazy with her superhuman energy, but someday some miscreant might threaten you in her presence, in which case…well, it’s a really, really bad day for the miscreant.

I took this photo of my wife Loree, Harper, Eric, Kathryn and Ali, just moments before…well, hold that thought:

So we were resting in the shade when 15 or 20 young people, carrying ladders, an accordion and other paraphernalia, came along and started setting up three or four feet from our picnic blankets. Shakespeare in the park! They set up their “proscenium”–string in the grass, actually–and started practicing sword fighting and wailing in unison. It was a little much. So, having considered and rejected the idea of waiting until the players were midway into their act and letting Harper off the leash, we set out to walk around Lake Harriet–part way, anyway.

Hours later, after working in the garden and swimming in the pool, we grilled sensational steaks and had dinner on our screened-in porch–since a severe thunderstorm warning was in effect, nothing unusual for Minnesota in June. I’m sure I’ve had a better steak sometime, but I can’t exactly remember when. The one missing kid, Laura, who just got married, as some readers will remember, called to say Happy Fathers’ Day. For those who took note of her wedding, here she is on her honeymoon in Grand Cayman, snorkeling:

Does any of this have any public, or political, significance? One would prefer to say No. But the truth is that private life, as exemplified by the Fathers’ Day that my family has just enjoyed, is increasingly controversial. Whether anything is private–that is, none of the government’s business–is, these days, debatable. We have heard much in recent years about an alleged split between social and libertarian conservatives. In my opinion, that division is overblown. What all conservatives want, in essence, is to be left alone. Call yourself a social conservative or a libertarian, it doesn’t matter: on Fathers’ Day, you just want to enjoy your private pursuits. You want to picnic with your children and enjoy a somewhat over-the-top dog. But lurking in the background is another force, which goes by the name Liberalism, that doesn’t want you to have a private life. Liberalism wants to enlist you in the state’s project, whether you like it or not. It wants to replace family life with something else, something more modern. Which is why Fathers’ Day has a somewhat subversive aura.

So, we say: Happy Fathers’ Day!