BULLSEYE

I recently read Obama and McCain and Iran by Thomas Sowell of the Hoover Institution, published in Real Clear Politics last month.

Sowell contrasts McCain and Obama on the question of Iran, and draws comparisons to Hitler and Nazi Germany in the 1930’s, and what we now face with a potentially nuclear Iran. The stakes are much, much higher today than they were more than 65-years ago during WWII.

Thomas Sowell’s piece is prerequisite reading for Islam’s War Doctrines Ignored written by Raymond Ibrahim of MESH (Middle East Strategy at Harvard), which I’ll present tomorrow, including a look at Obama’s and McCain’s Foreign Policy stances.

Here is your “assignment”:

Obama and McCain and Iran

By Thomas Sowell

Now that the two parties have finally selected their presidential candidates, it is time for a sober-- if not grim-- assessment of where we are.

Not since 1972 have we been presented with two such painfully inadequate candidates. When Election Day came that year, I could not bring myself to vote for either George McGovern or Richard Nixon. I stayed home.

This year, none of us has that luxury. While all sorts of gushing is going on in the media, and posturing is going on in politics, the biggest national sponsor of terrorism in the world-- Iran-- is moving step by step toward building a nuclear bomb.

The point when they get that bomb will be the point of no return. Iran's nuclear bomb will be the terrorists' nuclear bomb-- and they can make 9/11 look like child's play.

All the options that are on the table right now will be swept off the table forever. Our choices will be to give in to whatever the terrorists demand-- however outrageous those demands might be-- or to risk seeing American cities start disappearing in radioactive mushroom clouds.

All the things we are preoccupied with today, from the price of gasoline to health care to global warming, will suddenly no longer matter. …

BULLSEYE rarely contains sports commentary, but as a life-long Packers fan I’m compelled to sound off on the latest Brett Favre matter.

I believe Brett Favre is the greatest quarterback in NFL history; but I’m a “homer,” too. In cities like San Francisco, Miami and Baltimore, you may have an argument on your hands for Joseph “Cool Joe” Clifford Montana, Jr., Daniel Constantine “Dan” Marino, Jr., and John Constantine "Johnny" Unitas, respectively.

Fans in other NFL cities will no doubt have their picks.

With that said and emotions aside, I believe the Packers made the right decision with respect to Brett Favre’s future with the team.

Here are some noteworthy statements made by Favre at his Retirement Press Conference on March 6, 2008:

“Seems like just yesterday we were here. Well, I think we all know why I'm here. … But I am officially retiring from the NFL and the Green Bay Packers …”

“… I know there's been comments and issues in the press lately about why I'm leaving, whether or not the Packers did enough, whether or not Ted and Mike tried to convince me to stay. None of those things have anything to do with me retiring, and that's from the heart. …”

“I've given everything I possibly can give to this organization, to the game of football, and I don't think I've got anything left to give, and that's it. I know I can play, but I don't think I want to. And that's really what it comes down to. Fishing for different answers and what ifs and will he come back and things like that, what matters is it's been a great career for me, and it's over. As hard as that is for me to say, it's over. There's only one way for me to play the game, and that's 100 percent. Mike and I had that conversation the other night, and I will wonder if I made the wrong decision. I'm sure on Sundays, I will say I could be doing that, I should be doing that. I'm not going to sit here like other players maybe have said in the past that I won't miss it, because I will. But I just don't think I can give anything else, aside from the three hours on Sundays, and in football you can't do that. It's a total commitment, and up to this point I have been totally committed.”

The Green Bay Packers took him at his word. From the Packers’ Statement, July 11, 2008:

“Brett earned and exercised the right to retire on his terms. We wanted him to return and welcomed him back on more than one occasion.”

… Brett's press conference and subsequent conversations in the following weeks illustrated his commitment to retirement.

“ … The finality of his decision to retire was accepted by the organization. At that point, the Green Bay Packers made the commitment to move forward with our football team.”

“ … As always, the Packers will do what's right and in the best interest of the team. …”

The Packers’ statement closed with class and in classic Packers fashion:

“As with all Packers greats, Brett's legacy will always be celebrated by our fans and the organization, regardless of any change in his personal intentions.

Brett and Deanna will always be a part of the Packers family.”

Why should the Packers prolong the inevitable?  I think a lot of fans, including myself, are tired of Favre's "retirement" drama at the end of each season.

Good luck and thanks for all the great memories, Brett; we’ll miss you on Sundays!

TheTrue Gentleman

By John Walter Wayland

The True Gentleman is the man whose conduct proceeds

from good will and an acute sense of propriety

and whose self-control is equal to all emergencies;

who does not make the poor man conscious of his poverty,

the obscure man of his obscurity,

or any man of his inferiority or deformity;

who is himself humbled if necessity compels him to humble another;

who does not flatter wealth,

cringe before power,

or boast of his own possessions or achievements;

who speaks with frankness but always with sincerity and sympathy;

whose deed follows his word;

who thinks of the rights and feelings of others rather than his own;

and who appears well in any company;

a man with whom honor is sacred and virtue safe.

Godspeed, Tony Snow!

Reverend & Urologist Jesse Jackson
What do 17^th century southern slave-owners and Rev. Jesse Jackson have in common?

Hint: “I want to cut his nuts off.”

Excerpted from South Carolina Slave Laws Summary and Record:

… the 1690 code explicitly spelled out the punishment for those who struck a white person and for runaways. First offenders were severely whipped, followed by slitting the nose and burning "some part of his face with a hot iron" and even death for those who attacked whites a second or third time. Enslaved blacks found off the plantation without written permission from their master were considered runaways. Those who ran away more than once could be branded with an R on their cheek and might suffer the loss of an ear. Castrating male slaves and branding an R on the left cheek of female slaves punished a fourth offense. A fifth failed attempt could be punished by either cutting the tendon in one leg or sentencing the enslaved person to death.

I can’t help but wonder whether this comment in Obama’s Father’s Day speech hit a little to close too home for Jackson .

“… But if we are honest with ourselves, we'll admit that what too many fathers also are is missing - missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.”

When I put Jackson’s remarks in the context of “Jim Crow,” one might argue that Jackson has deep seeded feelings of resentment toward Obama for his inter-racial bloodlines.

From Ferris State University’s Jim Crow Museum:

… Whites were superior to Blacks in all important ways, including but not limited to intelligence, morality, and civilized behavior; sexual relations between Blacks and Whites would produce a mongrel race which would destroy America …

Obama speaks the truth on this issue. Step aside Reverend, your time has come and gone.

Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less.

Today’s Opinion page of the Wall Street Journal included A Bipartisan Fix for the Oil Crisis , written by Joseph Petrowski , President at Gulf Oil.

In a mere 700-words, Petrowski lays out some – what I believe to be – simple truths for both political parties about our current oil crisis and ways to fix it. 

As president of Gulf Oil, New England's largest independent petroleum company, and as someone who has spent his life in and around energy markets, I find the tone and substance of the current debate about our energy policy to be profoundly disappointing.

Partisan sides are using a serious crisis to advance political agendas, create political attack sound bites, and launch hearings to "expose" the culprit. Pick your favorite: speculators, Big Oil, environmentalists, China, India, etc.

This is not leadership.

A fundamental misunderstanding of how markets work, and how an effective government can support the private sector, is delaying remedies that will bring down energy prices now. These remedies are to be found in both supply and demand – and both Democrats and Republicans need to demonstrate their command of this fact. Energy is too important a cornerstone of domestic prosperity and international stability to be used as a debating prop.

To Democrats:

Supply must be increased, and that will require more drilling.

We can responsibly drill. The technology to find, drill and recover oil has evolved tremendously, and careless drillers will fear tort lawyers more than government regulators. The claim that the oil companies are sitting on leases and not drilling defies all logic. With oil at $135 per barrel and drilling rigs renting at $300,000 per day, there are no idle rigs anywhere. Furthermore, economic decline – and war induced by basic resource struggles – are greater threats to the environment and American workers than drilling.

Your claim that any oil we drill for now will not come on line for five years or longer – and will thus have no effect on prices today – is incorrect. Unlike past oil crises, where the spot price of oil (that is, today's price) rose more than forward prices, the oil price for delivery in 2012 is trading at $138 per barrel. The market is sending a clear price signal that our problem is in the future – because we do not have the will to curb demand or increase supply.

How many houses would someone invest in if there were a future guarantee that the price would not decline? It is anticipation of ever-increasing prices that fuels the mania.

The oil market, however, has more than anticipation; it has a well-defined forward price signal. This is a key component of the added $25-$40 per barrel in current oil prices. Congressional hearings and "make it go away" legislation will not stop that. Demonstrate the national will to address the supply and demand issues now and it will.

As forward prices decline, watch how quickly the spot price comes down.

To Republicans:

Efficiency is a huge source of new energy. It is scandalous that we have let the mileage standards decrease over the past 25 years. Whether through mandates or tax policy, active government intervention is needed. Republicans have to stop acting as if the "market" is some pristine state of nature that is not subject to active shaping.

The latest farm bill, ethanol and sugar tariffs, the cost of the Iraq war and Bear Stearns all make that reasoning ring hollow. So when some "free marketeers" attack annual biofuel subsidies of $4 billion, fleet mandates, or government research and development expenditures, it is hard not to view this criticism as at best naïveté, and at worst hypocrisy.

Finally, can we stop with the nonsensical talk of "energy independence," the end of petroleum, and postured, ineffectual boycotts of Exxon Mobil? We cannot, should not and will not be independent in a global economy, and petroleum is not going to disappear.

A more accurate metaphor is the global energy market as a giant bath tub where more withdrawals (Chinese and Indian) are being made every day. The only consistent new supply to that tub is coming from periodically unstable and unfriendly places (Nigeria, Russia, Iran, Venezuela).

Our national interest is to add more energy, use it more efficiently, and diversify its source and type. This will serve to lessen the power of any one choke point (geography, nation or source).

Using market mechanisms and the private sector (admit it, Democrats) alongside an engaged, effective and focused government (admit it, Republicans), true leaders can solve this crisis decisively.

Finally, some real common sense.

How many of you remember this historic speech by President Kennedy?

Yesterday, Fox News’ Brit Hume reported that the Obama campaign was looking into giving a campaign speech in Germany at Berlin’s historic Brandenburg Gate.

Call me crazy, but I think Obama taking some pundits’ comparison of him to John F. Kennedy a wee bit to far?

It looks like Tears for Fear was right; “Everybody Wants To Rule The World.”

And Jesse Jackson’s no doubt going to need a bigger “snips” for the job.

Most my age will recall that the Brandenburg Gate was the backdrop for speeches supporting German freedom by Presidents Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton. One problem though for Obama, all three were already president when they spoke.

Thomas Steg, spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, says she has voiced "great skepticism as to whether it is appropriate to bring an election campaign being fought not in Germany -- but in the United States -- to the Brandenburg Gate."

The spokesman went on to say:

"No German chancellor candidate would think of using Washington's National Mall or Red Square in Moscow for rallies, because it would be considered inappropriate."

Global Warming Guru, "call me" Al GoreFOX News reports that the rise in greenhouse gases, while troubling for some, including scientists and some world leaders, is not so bad for plant life.

The French Press Agency reports that a group of German scientists have found that increasing exposure to carbon dioxide can actually boost crop growth.

Researchers at the Johann Heinrich von Thunen Institute sprayed plants with carbon dioxide jets so that the air around the plants is equivalent to what some scientists predict will be the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by the year 2050.

Hans-Joachim Wiegel, one of the researchers, said that by spraying the plants "output increased by 10 percent for barley, beets and wheat."

Cue Homer Simpson…

FACT: Congressional Job Approval, 18.5%

FACT: More than 75% percent of Alaskans support exploration and production on the Coastal Plain of ANWR. Polling conducted in April of 1995 by the Dittman Research Corporation demonstrated that a vast majority of Alaskans support opening ANWR to oil and gas exploration. Arctic Power, the non-profit citizens organization representing Alaskans promoting Coastal Plain development, has over 10,000 members and endorsements from groups spanning the economic spectrum including miners, fishermen, tourism operators, labor unions, banks, teachers and many others.

Click to continue reading…

"The next president must be willing to break with the energy policies, not just of the current administration, but the administrations that preceded it, and lead a great national campaign to achieve energy security for America.”

 -Senator John McCain, June 17, 2008

On Tuesday, June 17, 2008, in Houston, Sen. John McCain proposed lifting the ban on offshore drilling as part of his plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil and help combat rising gas prices.

According to CNN , McCain's plan would let individual states decide whether to explore drilling possibilities.

Unfortunately, John McCain’s plan doesn't go far enough since it would not extend that same opportunity to Alaska even though its Governor and people favor drilling in ANWR.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin Petitions Reid on ANWR

Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska submitted a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on the importance of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to address the energy crisis. Sen. Reid is a staunch foe of opening ANWR and has a long track record blocking ANWR legislation. Gov. Palin sent an official letter to Reid stating how ANWR could provide 1 million barrels of oil a day and provide relief at the pump for all Americans over time.

The Governor, like the Alaskan Governors before her, is extremely passionate about how Alaska holds the answers to much of America’s energy dilemma and that Alaskans have been shouting this solution for decades. Palin strongly supports opening the 10-02 Area of ANWR to oil and gas development as well as environmentally responsible development of the outer continental shelf (OCS). ANWR and OCS are headline news across the nation now due to the record level prices of oil and gasoline.

ANWR production will benefit the nation with long-term jobs in all 50 states for services and infrastructure construction and maintenance. Federal taxes from oil production totally over 200 billion dollars would be used to fund alternative energies and future energy development for over 3 decades to come. ANWR oil is worth 1.3 trillion dollars to the nation at today’s prices.

Senator Reid, along with Senator Clinton, Senator Cantwell of Washington State and Senator Kerry have all worked hard to foil Alaskans attempt to supply America with much needed oil. Their arguments against Alaskan oil development are tinged with environmental rhetoric and economic statistical excuses that are often straight out of Sierra Club pamphlets. Senator Reid’s state of Nevada does little to help the nation energy wise and produces no oil and has only one refinery for diesel and asphalt. Nevada relies on other states for all its transportation fuels. Half of Nevada’s electricity comes from coal and natural gas, yet for these two resources Nevada’s imports the lion share of its needs from out of state.

Governor Palin’s letter was copied to the President, Vice President, Secretary of the Interior and the Alaska Congressional delegation.

Click to read Gov. Palin's letter to Sen. Reid on ANWR...

New York Times’ science columnist John Tierney, recently asked the following question: Are environmentalists doing themselves — or the environment — any favor by denying States the right to decide whether there should be oil drilling off their shores?

Noting that those in favor of offshore drilling argue that it may be better to do it under the strict environmental controls of America than to “outsource” the job to places like Nigeria, Tierney approaches the question from the perspective: How is this fight about offshore oil going to affect efforts to control greenhouse emissions?

Tierney reasons that if environmentalists and their allies like Senator Barack Obama carry the day over those who want to drill; like President Bush and Senator John McCain, there would be a little less oil on the world market, which would keep prices a little higher and thereby discourage consumption. That would mean fewer greenhouse emissions.

However, Tierney believes this would be a minor effect, and it has to be balanced against the long-term damage to environmentalists’ cause. Aside from being distraction from the serious new danger of global warming, the fight over offshore drilling makes them vulnerable to the old charge that they prefer hype to science.

Tierney goes on – in my opinion – to strengthen his argument with this:

Offshore drilling has made a photogenic enemy for environmentalists since the famous spill off Santa Barbara in 1969, but its risks have been greatly exaggerated. During the debate over allowing offshore drilling in 1984, the Times editorialized in support of the drilling and offered this response to the opponents:

Why risk populated or ecologically fragile coasts, they say, when oil is available elsewhere? There surely is some risk of damage. But the technology of containing spills and vigor of regulation have come a long way since Santa Barbara. No serious spill has marred the harvesting of four billion barrels from 12,000 drilling rigs in American waters since 1970. Statistically, tankers bearing imported oil now pose a much greater environmental danger.

… Since then the risks have shrunk further. A 2003 report from the National Research Council noted that only 1 percent of oil that entered U.S. waters during the 1990s came from extraction operations (like the offshore platforms in the Gulf of Mexico). Even if you combined that amount with the oil spilled by tankers, it amounted to only 3 percent of the total — and only 1/20th as much oil as entered the water through natural seepage from the ocean floor.

Of course, an oil spill concentrated in one spot can harm the local environment, but banning offshore drilling doesn’t lessen the risk of big oil spills — it simply makes it more likely there’ll be a spill from a foreign tanker. In 1989, when Congress moved to ban drilling off the New Jersey coast, this ban was criticized by Lawrence Schmidt of the state’s Department of Environmental Protection:

I think what’s happening in Congress right now is a knee-jerk reaction to oil spills from tankers. The risks of an accident from a tanker carrying in either foreign crude or refined petroleum are many, many times greater than the risk of an oil spill from an offshore exploration or production platform.

In any case, since this kind of oil is mainly a local problem, what’s wrong with letting the locals decide if they want to take the risk? Even if the federal ban is lifted, states would still have the right to forbid drilling off their coasts, and many have already promised to do just that.

Environmentalists made good arguments for states’ rights when they fought against corporations and the federal government to allow state regulation of the greenhouse emissions from cars. But if states are competent enough to set their own policies on something as complex as global warming, why can’t they decide if drilling rigs should be allowed to operate off their shores?

Two Can Play That Game

As I see it, if states like New Jersey, California and Florida are unwilling to promote "the general welfare” of our nation by banning offshore drilling, so be it; states’ rights and everything… but the federal government should strongly consider withholding certain federal dollars to these states until they reconsider their position. There is certainly precedence for this sort of action.