What you believe isn't always what you know!

The next time one of your idiotic acquaintances of either extreme starts bitching about how the "gummint" controls the price of oil and overtaxes it, show them this. The Federal Government has taxed gasoline at just 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993. The tax is the only, repeat the only control the fed exerts on the price of gasoline, and it has remained unchanged for the last 21 years. If you live in NY or CA, your state is taxing a gallon almost 4 times as much. 60% of the federal tax goes directly back into infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc). How does your state, in my case Florida, spend the 54.3 cents (or more) per gallon it collects.?

Again, to put this into perspective, the fed's share of the price of a gallon of gas (averaging) is about 6%, while California, as the most egregious example takes 23%. The fed uses the vast majority of this revenue to fix and/or build infrastructure IN THE STATES! What does your state do with their much higher share? In fact, adjusted for CPI increases, the real impact of the 1993 tax of 18.4 cents/gallon is just over 13 cents today. I only went here this morning, because an acquaintance mumbled something yesterday about "gas prices dropping just before the election. but now they'll go back up because "they" control the price of gasoline." Somewhere Adam Smith is weeping. And if you don't get that reference, you're part of the problem, lol!

How much ammo?

        Before you get all pissed off at what I'm about to write, remember, I'm a 26 year military veteran, not some civilian waving the flag and claiming patriotism. I read today, that former Marine Andrew Tahmooressi has been released from jail in Mexico. Good.  I'm glad he's repatriated and free from jail, since I doubt he represented much of a threat to Mexicans.

     What I find puzzling and a bit troubling  are the various reactions of the media and politicians to his imprisonment and to his subsequent release.

Today, Faux News trumpeted the good news, citing the "efforts" of  (of course) conservative lawmakers and groups to secure his release. At no time, in the release I read,  did it even mention why the ex-marine was in jail. I say ex-marine specifically because as usual, the person's previous national service is interpreted by some as a mitigating circumstance or proof of character. CNN did mention as an aside, "several guns."

         Reality is this: the ex-marine had 3  weapons in his truck - a .45 pistol, a pump shotgun, and an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, all loaded . he also had  400 rounds of ammunition. Now I'm all for personal protection (actually I'm not)  if you need it, but 3 loaded guns and 400 rounds of ammo is a Ted Nugent level of nuts! What got him jailed (also unmentioned by most sources) is that in Mexico, possession of a weapon that is restricted to the military (like an AR-15 or an AK-47) is a federal offence, not just a crime, but a major crime. Tahmooressi's release was made by a Mexican judge who did it without ruling on his  guilt or innocence of the offence.

       OK, so what?  As a  military man, I am well aware that, in the main, military personnel are simply a microcosm of society, some better, some worse. The fact that a person is ex-military is not the relevant issue here, his or her character is. As proof, I will cite just a few examples:  Danny Rolling (5), Charles Whitman (16),  David Berkowitcz (8) , Sammy (the Bull) Gravano (16), Timothy  McVeigh (168), John Muhammad (10). These men all have something in common; they were all honorably discharged from the US military, and they all committed multiple unspeakably violent murders. The parenthetical numbers are the number of fellow humans who died at their hands after their honorable discharge.  This is a radically abbreviated list, by the way.

        Mr.  Tahmooressi is allegedly suffering from PTSD. Hell, let's concede that he  is actually suffering from PTSD.  Most of the ex-military serial killers cite PTSD or a similar militarily induced emotional problem as fundamental to their heinous acts against civilians.  What he did is a Federal crime in Mexico. Period. His status as a former US Marine is simply that - a former status, that is until Far Righters decided to somehow  use it to smear the current administration. It is possible, even probable, that Mr. Tahmooressi posed little threat to anyone, yet, a member of his immediate  family said he carried all those loaded guns because "they made him feel safer." Can you say "paranoia?"    

        So how do we differentiate between those vets who are exemplary and good citizens and those who are time bombs - I propose we do exactly as we would anyone else - by evaluating their actions.  If  they have PTSD - treat them, provide all the care available  for as long as necessary. If they violate the law in a foreign nation - well, what would we do if a former Mexican soldier did the same thing?

     It is estimated that in the UK as much as 10% of former military members are, or will be, in jail 

following discharge for some reason.  I  can't find 

numbers for the US, and won't try to extrapolate. I 

will say that I feel it appropriate and obligatory to 

honor the service of those who volunteer to 

defend the country. However, I would also state that having served doesn't in the least mitigate crimes committed post discharge, in fact, I would argue that perhaps we should  expect a bit more respect for law, rather than condoning , or explaining away such transgressions. Finally we should continue to hold all Americans accountable for their actions without creating imaginary "special circumstances" for some based, on actions in another time and place.