Ira wrote:

Yesterday the guy in front of me at the Getty station was putting more than $65 worth of gas into his tank that cost $25 to fill when his car was new. Time to unload that SUV, Mister, I thought, and I felt bad for the guy. After all, when he bought his truck he didn't bargain for $4.00 gas.

My attitude changed when I saw his bumper sticker. I felt embarrassment, chagrin, a dash of admiration, sadness...but most of all perplexity. Is he that dense? Does he not see that the last eight years has been a debacle when it comes to American leadership at home and around the world -- with who knows what consequences? Just in the matter of his fill-up, was he not aware that the President of the US never once asked the Detroit manufacture of the grossly inefficient vehicle he was pouring money into to try for better mileage? How come you're not angry, mister? I wanted to ask him.

Judging by his bumper sticker, he wasn't angry at the president, and he would probably be more angry at me for sounding 'negative.' The bumper sticker said: "Thank You Mr. Bush for Keeping Us Safe."

.....

He's insulated himself from seeing the world. He'd probably tell me that we need to drill more and the price will come down. Could I say to him that the price wouldn't come down, that demand for gas will always rise to the supply? That if gas went down in price even temporarily we'd simply build bigger Hummers and jack it up again? Could he ever accept the idea that sometimes less is more? That maybe the way to alternative (and cleaner?) energy is to disengage from oil, and not keep chasing after it? And that we've had a president with no fire under him to revolutionize the way this country uses energy?

Guys, it's your turn: two against one.

--------------------

Mike responds:

You don't believe in logic, but trust feelings. You don't look for facts, but suggest a theory and then look for a sliver of coincidence. How can anything I say dissuade you?

-------------------

David adds

Maybe Ira's message is a start, for which I say thanks. I'm not excited about it, though it highlights several things clearly:

• how Ira's "analysis" does not need any factual data -- just personal opinions are needed,
• how previous authoritative explanations about the causes of oil prices are wasted efforts,
• how Ira refuses to acknowledge the successful squelching of terror attempts in the US -- let alone express some gratitude,
• and how any excuse is reason enough to start another anti-Bush tirade.

----------------

Ira comments:
Sorry, David, but it was all facts. The guy filling his SUV? $65. Fact. When his truck was new, it cost him $25 to fill it. Fact. It was a 2001 SUV: so it was bought around the time Bush assumed office -- and it was under the Bush watch that gas prices soared. It's a fact that Bush never urged automakers to make more fuel efficient cars.

You say the facts show Bush is not to blame for $4.00 gas, that it's all supply and demand. But the Saudis say supply is ample, that speculative run-ups are causing the problem, or that the weak US dollar is.

Point is: it all happened on Bush's watch. The Mets fired Willie Randolph. Is he to solely to blame for their lackluster season? Or for their collapse at the end of last season? Plenty of blame to go around, right? Plenty of "causes." Billy Wagner can't hold a late inning lead, for example. But the Mets fired Randolph. And that's a fact. It happened under his watch.