Guns and Gas

It's been a week of guns and gas, and it won't be the last one either. Seemingly unrelated. But what we're seeing is the legacy of the Bush administration as it begins to unwind before our eyes.

Guns, or more specifically gun ownership, has moved front and center with the Supreme Court's latest decision. This shouldn't come as any surprise. Wayne LaPierre, the Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association basked in the win -- saying: "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom." He's right of course, this is a significant ruling, and the result will be that all manner of gun control laws will be challenged in the courts. This was an inevitability, once the second term of the Bush administration was in place... and an activist court was installed. The shifting conservative nature that has been cemented in place will loom large, whomever resides in the White House after this next election. And the Courts agenda won't stop at gun ownership, there's no doubt that challenges to Roe vs. Wade are moving through the Courts -- and will clearly be in the sights of the Supreme Court shortly. After 8 years of neo-conservative policy, the Bush administration will be the gift that keeps on giving.

At the same time, the spiraling cost of gasoline seems -- on the surface -- somewhat less clearly in keeping with the Bush agenda. Yet I would argue it is. America has in fact had bafflingly low oil prices for some time. Why is it that gas is so much more expensive in Europe? The New York Times has a piece that makes that abundantly clear. While most European governments have levied significant gas taxes -- the US stands alone as keeping gas virtually untaxed. The discrepancy is staggering if you look at the Times chart:

What is clear is that European governments have been encouraging conservation, while US administrations (long before Bush of course) have been subsidizing gas consumption, and encouraging therefore gas consumption. There's no doubt that America's thirst for oil was driven by relative low costs, but in retrospect, Bush's decision early on not to ratify Kyoto and to maul government research into what is now being acknowledged as the Global Climate Crisis makes sense. Every decision it seems has been crafted to support Big Oil. So today, as oil companies take record profits, and prices reach record levels, the administration has the audacity to suggest that opening up protected national lands to drilling would lower the price of gas. Gas prices drive profits, and there is really no doubt that the Bush administration's roots in oil, both he and Cheney, have figured in the decision to drive demand and profits at the cost of long term national security and the environment.

Guns and gas = fear and greed.

So, what do these two seemingly unrelated subjects have to do with each other? They are both aimed to drive fear. People who are comfortable, safe, well-fed, and economically stable are difficult to govern. But fearful citizens spend every waking hour thinking about how to feed their families and keep a roof over their heads.

Gas prices will have huge impact on far more than leisure travel and commuting to work. Already, the cost of shipping is raising prices at the grocery store. Air travel prices will rise, as will shipping of most goods and services. Your local delivery man, restaurant, even the guy who cuts your hair will raise prices. This is so clearly inevitable, it can't be an accident. Months ago, George Bush went to Saudi Arabia to ask the Saudi Royal family if they would increase production and lower oil prices. Very publicly, with George Bush in the photo op, they said simply: "no." What was notable then is just how much effort it takes to set up a presidential visit. You never put the president in a room without knowing the answer the question he's going to ask. That "no" was choreographed. It was a heads up to America, that President Bush had tried, but the Saudi's had refused. Yet, has George Bush made that same exodus to Dallas? To talk to the heads of the oil companies who have the same finger on lever that controls prices? No, clearly not.

Oil prices are going to rise, and the steepest rise will be on the watch of the next president, who is likely to be a Democrat. One thing is certain, oil prices will rise -- and the impact will be terrifying. Raising oil prices is terrorism at its best.

We're heading into a time of fear, and we're arming the citizenry with handguns just as unemployment, poverty, and loss from climate related-natural disasters are all on the rise.

Perhaps these are all terrible coincidences. And no one should know better than Dave Lesar, the CEO of Halliburton, the oil services firm that is also one of the largest private contractors to the US Military. Why doesn't President Bush stop by with his vice-president and former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney, after all -- the three Houston good old boys should be concerned about the cost to American's as oil prices rise? Well, that visit won't happen anytime soon, because Lesar and Halliburton have relocated from Houston to Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. Said Lesar, he wants to focus on customers in energy Hungry Asia.

I wonder what they know that we don't?

Comments

[VinnieTheSnake]

You can't have my gun. I've got it to protect myself from the government. And if, as you say, unemployment and poverty are going to bring gun-toting folks to my door, I'm prepared for that, also.

[Bobrobert]

Idiots that compare US gas consumption to Europes are so stupid their parents must want to disown them!!!

EXCUSE ME!!!

Busses and trains take you everywhere in Europe.

Cars are used - sometimes - on weekends.

Europeans fill their tanks less that 10 times a year.

Take your comparison and place it where the light does not shine.

Remember to vote all.

:-)

PS ***over 4110 killed in Iraq war, over 30,333 wounded in Iraq war***

[tc399]

My comments tend never to be posted on this forum., but the "We're heading into a time of fear, and we're arming the citizenry with handguns just as unemployment, poverty, and loss from climate related-natural disasters are all on the rise." still rankles.

If you cannot arm your own citizenry and trust them to protect themselves and the government, are they citizens, or subjects? Who then, DO you trust, if not the citizenry? The army, because you pay them? Can you pay them to shoot down their fellow citizens? I doubt it.

[RememberTheAlamo]

Well spoken point . . . .dittos

[Sundialsvc4]

Steve, I trust the People of the United States. All 300 million of 'em, including lil' ol' you and lil' ol' me.

I trust them a WHOLE LOT more than I trust the ~1,000 people who presently hold the reins of power in this country.

We live in a very peculiar society. It was a society that, for example, drove the people of Britain almost to witt's-end ... and then ... this chaotic mass of fish suddenly became a school. It won the war, in the east and in the west ... then became a chaotic mass of fish again (even as the British people sacked Sir Winston Churchill).

It may well be that the meltdown of the United States Dollar (specifically, of its position as "the only currency that can be used to buy and sell oil" ... a dumb idea to start with) will be the straw that ... created a highly-organized "school" that will in-a-stroke put Impeachment right back on that table and Actually Do It.

We'll see. But there's always that critical mass .. always that mad-as-hell point when all-of-the-sudden you are facing 300 million faces and all of them are seeing you for what you are.

So, yeah. I trust 'em with their guns. All 300 million of 'em. What I don't trust is the ~1,000 stone-hearted crooks who regard My Constitution as "a blee-blee piece o' paper."

[drkazmd65]

well put Sundail!

[WIpatriot]

Fear, yes, my pretties, fear and more fear. Good.

[ToeJamSam]

Why the people of Europe have tolerated the outrageous taxes on gasoline without social upheaval is remarkable. But then again, perhaps it isn't: Europeans are "subjects" to their tyrannical, greedy governments, not citizens with inalienable rights-- such as the right to defend themselves or change a bad government.

[timothyi]

Well, how about this, ToeJam?: the people of Europe have MORE freedoms than we do, not fewer. They actually GET something for their taxes. Instead of a dysfunctional government run by corporatist cronies, and illegal wars draining the public coffers, they get free health care, free university tuition, effective schools, longer life expectancies, lower infant mortalities, shorter workweeks, longer paid vacations, guaranteed maternity leave, and peaceful, egalitarian, balanced, clean, low-crime societies with freedoms unheard-of here in the US, and by the way, they do it without turning into a police state that has incarcerated 2% of their populations.
Under this hideous administration the US is devolving into a tinpot dictatorship where only the rich have any power and the rest get the scraps. WE are the ones that are subjects.
Maybe THAT's why Europeans tolerate their tax rates.

[Berettasskeeter]

You forgot to mention the high unemployment, the dysfunctional societies resulting from rather uncontrolled immigration policies, the poor government health care, poor education policies and outcomes resulting from the government largesse, lower infant birthrates, poor workplace productivity, and rising crime rates among Muslim residents/citizens.
Please be honest.
Semper fi

[kramskoi]

"Why the people of Europe have tolerated the outrageous taxes on gasoline without social upheaval is remarkable."

...over the next four years you are going to learn the answer to this one...we may soon bear witness to similar prices for gas and then, perhaps we'll see tested the convictions of those 300 million who'd storm washington in revolution...i would'nt bet on it though...americans will pay whatever the cost to keep their biggest entitlement barreling down the highway unrestrained by any efforts at conservation on the part of individuals themselves or government...Detroit will continue to roll out mediocre mpg vehicles until american drivers are ready to trade luxury for "true" efficiency...

i wonder why we have'nt seen the rollback to 55 mph yet...no one has even suggested it...there would surely be some pissed off drivers but it would force every vehicle into its most efficient speed range...on a sixty mile commute i could count on one hand the number of cars i pass while driving 62 mph...i need a calculator for the ones that pass me...it seems that as gas prices rise, people are driving faster...

All solutions currently being offered are supply side...reducing prices and encouraging consumption and complacency once again...until the real emergency arises where it will be too late to deal with...

"We have only two modes"complacency and panic."
"James R. Schlesinger, the first energy secretary, in 1977, on the country's approach to energy

[realityczech4u]

i wonder why we have'nt seen the rollback to 55 mph yet...no one has even suggested it...there would surely be some pissed off drivers but it would force every vehicle into its most efficient speed range...on a sixty mile commute i could count on one hand the number of cars i pass while driving 62 mph...i need a calculator for the ones that pass me...it seems that as gas prices rise, people are driving faster...

---------------------------------------
Maybe because time is a more valuable resource than fuel. And why stop with 55? Cut it back to 35 mph like it was during WWII. That way it will take twice as long for everyone to get where they're going and for goods to be shipped from A to B.

I find myself wondering why at least 49 out of 50 of the dweebs that I see drive by have their windows up and A/C blasting. Turning off the A/C yields an immediate 10%+ in fuel economy. This holds true until wind resistence from the open windows negates it at approx. 45 mph.

[tc399]

"We're heading into a time of fear, and we're arming the citizenry with handguns just as unemployment, poverty, and loss from climate related-natural disasters are all on the rise."

Here's some news: The citizenry has been armed since 1776, which is why we are called The United States of America and not the Unites States of England.. Simply because a few thousand people in D.C. don't have to hide in gear of a predator anymore doesn't mean we are 'arming the citizenry". What it means is the citizenry, and you say that like we are a herd of violent predators just waiting to get our hands on a firearm, has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court to actually have the rights we established for ourselves by the Constitution.

If you don't want to be armed, you are free not to be. Why not go all the way and proclaim the fact , on a sign on your front yard, that you don't believe citizens have the right to own a firearm for self defense and that you don't have one?