Forgive me for repeating myself, but stories like this drive in insane.

Gasoline prices in Amarillo have shot up dramatically in just two days. They stand at roughly $3.69 per gallon for regular unleaded. Three days ago they were – what? – $3.39, or something like that.

http://www.connectamarillo.com/news/story.aspx?id=898675#.UZV0cUoo6t8

I read something online that an Oklahoma refinery breakdown might be the cause. So what’s the deal? Do dealers panic? Is it the wholesalers who are panicking?

We motorists are now suffering a bit of sticker shock because of this dramatic jump in the price of petrol. But we all know what’s likely to happen if the prices start to recede. They’ll go back down, but the retailers sprinkled around Amarillo aren’t going to let the bottom fall out any time soon. They bring it down a penny or two at a time in most cases.

The cynic in me believes they’re hanging on for dear life to the profits they’re accruing from the price spike, although one of those retailers keeps telling me he sees little actual profit from the sale of gasoline. Whatever, dude.

An NPR story the other morning told an interesting story of how the worldwide energy market is changing. The world’s biggest consumer of oil – the U.S. of A. – is becoming one of the world’s biggest suppliers of oil. Shale oil discoveries in the Dakotas have uncovered a vast potential supply of oil that reportedly dwarfs what the Saudis have under their ground. The No. 1 consumer nations likely are going to be China and India, both with developing and rapidly growing economies.

NPR reports that the United States is moving toward self-sufficiency once the oil is developed and the gas starts flowing from pumps.

Will that allow us some price stability? Will it prevent the kinds of spikes we see whenever some potentate passes gas (no pun intended) in a Middle East nation?

I don’t know how many more of these price shocks I can stand.

Have you ever done something and then – after you’ve done it – started kicking yourself without mercy, all the time saying “Why didn’t I do this long before now?”

Of course you have. We’ve all done it. Today brought one of those moments to me … once again.

I went to the Thomas E. Creek Veterans Medical Center in Amarillo this afternoon and enrolled in the veterans health care program. That’s it. I’m enrolled fully in a program that’s been waiting for me for, oh, about 43 years.

Since I don’t have a full-time job and am paying through the nose for health insurance, I decided to take the plunge. I’ve known for a long time that the Creek medical center is a good one. All the veterans I know sing its praises.

Today, I got a glimpse of what they’ve been telling me.

I rolled into the Veterans Administration hospital parking lot today around 1:25 p.m. I walked into the lobby, asked someone there for the business office. He told me to step to my right and sign the book. I did. When I did, a woman asked me if I needed help. I told her I was there to enroll for VA benefits. She said, “Great, have a seat. Looks like you’ll be the next name called … and thank you for your service to the country.”

I sat down, grabbed something to read and about 90 second later, heard my named called.

I met a service officer named Jose. He took me to his office. We sat down and in less than one hour I was enrolled fully in a program for which I’ve been eligible since Aug. 20, 1970, the day I separated from the U.S. Army.

I’m fully insured. The only expense is for a co-pay is for prescription medications. I am scheduled to meet a VA doctor in a couple of weeks. The doc will look me over, declare (I hope) that I’m healthy and I’m in the system.

I sat in Jose’s office for a moment after it was done. “I cannot believe I waited until I’m an old man to do this,” I said.

He smiled, extended his hand and said, “Welcome aboard.”

So … the president goes on national TV, says the temporary commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service has been asked to resign over a controversy involving conservative political groups’ activity, calls the allegations of harassment “inexcusable,” and the story ends.

Right?

Hardly.

Still, I’ll give the president huge props for taking the steps needed to try to get ahead of this story, which in my view overshadows the Benghazi controversy by a good bit.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/16/chastened_obama_fires_irs_chief_releases_emails_118446.html

Barack Obama has been beset in recent days with a triple-whammy of trouble: the lingering Benghazi controversy involving the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate, the IRS matter and then the seizing of phone logs of Associated Reporters and editors.

The president on Wednesday sought to put a couple of those tempests down, the IRS and Benghazi. I think he made some headway on both fronts.

The IRS matter poses a potentially serious breach of trust. IRS officials reportedly hassled “tea party patriot” groups’ applications for tax-exempt status. Obama called the allegations “outrageous” and vowed to get to the bottom of them. Then he announced the resignation of IRS boss Steven Miller, who reportedly was planning to quit anyway. He vowed to work “hand in hand” with Congress in probing the matter.

House Speaker John Boehner insists that resignations and firings might not be enough. He wants to see people jailed. Come on, Mr. Speaker, take what you can get and move on.

The IRS matter needs a quick resolution. The Benghazi matter needs it too.

An hour before announcing Miller’s resignation, the White House released email transcripts stemming from the Benghazi attack. They seem to back up the White House’s version of what happened that night when four American officials died in a terrible fire fight, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens. Chaos took over and no one seemed able to get the straight story out to the public.

Right-wing media outlets, though, are keeping the Benghazi story alive by suggesting a coverup has taken place. They want some political scalps, notably former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who’s considered by many a sure-fire candidate for president in 2016.

Is the Benghazi story over? No more than the IRS story is over. Republican congressional leaders have picked up the scent and the hunt is on to harvest some political hay.

Their hatred for the president, though, carries some huge risks for them if they pursue either story with anything that looks like too much gusto. We’ve all seen how badly these political attacks can end – particularly for the pursuer.

It’s amazing to me how quickly bipartisan outrage turns into a partisan contest over who should be angrier over some allegedly scandalous act.

The Internal Revenue Service brouhaha is the latest example.

President Obama has declared that the IRS’s admitted targeting of conservative interest groups is “outrageous.” He has vowed to pursue this matter quickly and get to the bottom of what happened when IRS officials hassled “tea party patriot”-type organizations over their tax-exempt status. I heard him call those actions what they are and I believe he means what he says when he pledges a rapid and thorough investigation.

Heads should roll over this.

But those on the right now are suggesting the president should be – get this – impeached over it. Why? Well, because he’s the president and he is in charge of every single act that every single bureaucrat who works in the executive branch of government commits.

Did then-President George W. Bush deserve to be impeached because some functionaries in his administration hassled left-wing protest groups because they opposed our war effort in Iraq? Of course not. President Bush was no more personally responsible for those rogue bureaucrats than President Obama is today over those who might be running amok within his administration.

We need to settle down here.

The IRS may have committed a serious mistake in targeting right-wing groups in the manner that’s being alleged. We don’t yet have all the facts.

I’ll take the president at his word that he deems these alleged activities to be unacceptable. I do hope he’s able to hold those responsible accountable for their actions and if they went beyond acceptable federal procedures used to investigate whether these groups qualify for tax-exempt status, they they need to lose their jobs.

For now, let’s quit hyperventilating.

Sometimes people say things that get so close to the line that you can’t tell if they’ve crossed it.

That’s true with the written word. Letters to newspaper editors at times get so close to that line that you have to wonder that very thing. One such letter appeared recently in the Amarillo Globe-News. It came from someone with whom I am acquainted. I’m still scratching my head over it.

This woman wrote that Muslims need special scrutiny if they seek to enter the country. The trigger for that comment was the Boston Marathon bombing allegedly committed by two brothers, both practicing Muslims. One of them is dead, the other is being held in a federal holding facility.

“All immigrants, Muslims in particular, allowed in America must be thoroughly vetted prior to entry, regardless of cause. They also must accept American laws – sharia law has no place here – and they must be monitored periodically for attitude changes. No citizenship can be allowed until assimilation is complete,” she wrote.

Setting aside the idiocy of trying to determine “attitude changes,” or determining whether someone’s “assimilation is complete,” the letter drips – in my eyes, at least – with hatred.

The letter writer asserts that although “not all Muslims are terrorists” she said “most terrorists are Muslims.” Oh really?

I guess she knows something none of the rest of us knows about every act of terror committed in this country. Assassination of abortion providers or the bombing of abortion clinics? Mass shootings at, say, an Arizona political event, a Colorado movie theater, a Connecticut elementary school? Were those acts of terror done by Muslims?

How about the myriad threats made against, oh, the president of the United States that the Secret Service must investigate? Done by Muslims?

I am not condoning any singular dastardly act done by Muslims or by any other cowardly individual or group. But these kinds of missives from individuals who seek to single out people based on their faith – even if their faith has been hijacked by religious perverts – sicken me to the max.

Then she concludes her note with this: “I believe President Obama – a supposed Christian – does not think it would be difficult to turn America into a Muslim country. In this regard, I believe all doubt is gone.”

Did this letter cross the line into outright hate speech? If it didn’t, it’s too close to call.

Old habits do have this way of hanging on.

One of them appears to be reading newspapers. You know, those things that used to get tossed on our front porches. It had all those news stories and commentary in them. They made people angry, sad, happy, curious … all of those things at once even.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune has decided to restore daily newspaper delivery after scaling back its print publication to three times a week.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/business/media/in-new-orleans-times-picayunes-monopoly-crumbles.html?pagewanted=all&_r=3&

Good call, T-P.

I come from the old school. I’ve learned how to adapt to the new way of presenting my own thoughts – as this blog demonstrates. I have a Facebook account and I tweet 140-character thoughts daily. I’m getting this new social media thing.

A big part of me, though, is glad to see that others out there apparently share my view that a newspaper belongs in one’s hands, enabling us to turn pages and to skip past things we don’t want to read and soak up those items that capture our attention.

As the New York Times link attached here notes, New Orleans residents didn’t much like reading their “newspaper” online. Neither did advertisers. Thus, the company that owns the Picayune lost money. So, the company is going to restore its daily print edition. It won’t return in quite the same form. But the paper is taking a step back toward a formula that enabled it to make a lot of money.

Welcome back, Times-Picayune.

I’ve known Paul Harpole for quite a few years, long before he became a city commissioner and mayor of Amarillo.

And I’ve developed great respect for him. But I cannot fathom how he can put any kind of positive spin on the hideous voter turnout in this past Saturday’s municipal election.

The turnout attracted 6.9 percent of the city’s registered voters. Harpole was re-elected mayor with 82 percent of the vote in a two-person race, which was the only contested seat on the City Commission ballot.

He told the Amarillo Globe-News’s Kevin Welch, “I’m not pleased (with the turnout) but it’s higher than some off-year elections. But it’s not high enough.” But it’s higher than “some off-year elections”? That sounds a bit to me like positive spin.

No, the election history in Amarillo is one of maximum apathy. It astounds me.

I remember well the 1996 special election to determine whether the Amarillo Hospital District should sell Northwest Texas Hospital to a private health-care provider. That measure drew 22 percent of the district’s registered voters. Four out of five voters sat that one out. But judging by the reaction of local officials to that turnout, you’d have thought the city had experienced a smashing breakthrough in civic involvement.

In 2011, with three open seats on the commission, including the mayor’s seat, turnout was about 15 percent.

Single-digit turnouts for municipal and other local elections are not cause for any kind of positive spin.

Harpole indicated that people must be satisfied with the job commission members are doing. That’s a valid point. But why don’t people turn out to affirm the job their public officials are doing on their behalf? That seems to be the question of the day.

I’m running out of ways to say this, but local elections have more of a direct impact on people’s lives than state and national elections. City commissioners set tax rates that property owners have to pay. They determine the level of public service that people receive directly.

It’s critical that the public takes part in determining who serves on our behalf. Ninety-four percent of the city’s registered voters decided they didn’t care. What’s worse, the number of non-voters grows even more when you measure it against those who eligible to vote but who haven’t even bothered to register.

Pathetic.

Ari Fleischer served as President George W. Bush’s press secretary and has been a fairly vocal critic of the Obama administration.

Here’s what he tweeted today about the Internal Revenue Service’s revelation that it hassled tea party activists and groups: “I’d b shocked if WH told IRS 2do it, but when O vilifies Tparty & VP likens them 2 terrorists, bureaucrats follow the culture.”

I’m hoping Fleischer is right, that the president did not tell IRS agents to ruffle tea party feathers just for the sake of getting even with that wing of the Republican Party.

But the man does make a point about what bureaucrats will do when their higher-ups say unkind things about their foes. It’s probably unlikely that they acted on orders handed down from the West Wing of the White House. They merely could have assumed it was all right to hassle tea party organizations and their organizers just because President Obama and Vice President Biden made those angry comments about them.

We all know, though, what happens when we assume too much, correct?

It appears to me that a few low-level agency bosses have created a monstrous headache for a president seeking to build a legacy. This isn’t the one he had in mind.

I love watching golf on TV. I particularly love watching Tiger Woods play golf on TV – and one of my bucket-list events is to see Woods play in person before he hangs up his clubs for keeps, or before I, um, kick it.

An intriguing feud erupted into the open this past weekend at the Players Championship between Woods and Sergio Garcia, one of Woods’s contemporaries on the PGA Tour.

Here’s my take on what ought to happen now: Sergio, put a sock in it, concentrate on playing golf and stop whining about whether Tiger Woods is enough of a gentleman to suit your taste.

http://msn.foxsports.com/golf/story/tiger-woods-wins-the-players-championship-sergio-garcia-falters-051213

These two young men seem to dislike each other. They came onto the PGA scene at roughly the same time; Tiger debuted a couple of years earlier than Sergio. Tiger began winning almost immediately. He won his first of 14 – and likely still counting – major championships in 1997. Sergio’s record in majors? Zero. Tiger has won 78 PGA tournaments overall. Sergio’s PGA record? Eight.

Garcia called Woods out during Saturday’s third round at the Players. They were paired together. They hit tee shots. Tiger hit a shot toward the green just as Sergio was taking a cut at his ball on the other side of the fairway. Crowd erupted. Sergio’s timing was thrown off. Sergio hit a bad shot and then blamed Tiger for not showing proper course etiquette. 

It went downhill from there. The two men sniped at each other publicly.

The Players Championship ended badly for Garcia and quite well for Woods, who won the event on Sunday while Garcia faltered badly down the stretch.

Here’s my advice to Sergio. If you’re going to take pot shots at the No. 1 player in the world, a guy aiming to become the greatest golfer who ever walked on Planet Earth, you’d better have the goods to back up your snarky talk.

Benghazi, Shmenghazi …

I am not denigrating the loss of lives in the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. I mourn the deaths of the four Americans who died in that terrible attack and firefight. But I’m beginning to wonder whether Republicans’ continuing keen interest in the aftermath of the attack isn’t politically motivated.

The Internal Revenue Service apology for pestering tea party activists in an election year is another matter. This one is troubling in the extreme.

http://thehill.com/video/house/299209-issa-irs-apology-for-tea-party-targeting-dishonest

U.S. House Government Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said this morning that the IRS “mea culpa’s not an honest one.” Maybe so. Maybe not.

But the IRS has admitted that it dogged tea party activists for a year prior to the 2012 presidential election. Agents reportedly placed conservatives under closer scrutiny on tax matters, leading some to accuse the agency of political harassment.

What needs to be settled immediately is whether this was done under orders, or with the tacit approval of those in the White House.

I’ll be clear on this point: I am not a tea party supporter and I truly hope that the IRS acted on its own, that some rogues within the agency took matters into their own hands and that the White House is not involved in any way.

But this matter has to be cleared up quickly. If the IRS acted on its own, those individuals involved need to be identified, fired and prosecuted.

Some Republicans have compared the Benghazi kerfuffle to the Watergate scandal that took down an administration in 1974. The closer comparison might be the alleged IRS activity. I hope that it’s false, but the nation needs answers.