Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Highway Robbery

It is time for a friendly rant. Here is what is bugging me today:
Gas Prices - Are you kidding me? Someone needs to step up here. I am not naming names but his name rhymes (appropriately enough) with TUSH. As I mentioned in my last post, we didn't have this problem under the previous administration. Is it a coincidence that Bush and Cheney have a lot of oil interests and oil buddies? Is it also a coincidence that the names of the members of the energy advisory group to the administration were kept secret?
Let's see, during the history of the "W" administration, the reason for the high gas prices were blamed first on the attacks on 9/11. After a few years of milking that, they decided that there had to be a new reason to blame the pump thuggery. Thank God for Hurrican Katrina! After sucking all the oil connections with Katrina, they reason that something new has to have the blame. I heard it this morning on the Today show. Ready? It is a combination of having to change over to summer fuel formulas combined with the . . . wait for it . . . THE SOUND ECONOMY!
Let's see. If I remember correctly, the Clinton administration ventured into the summer months too, with the summer mixture of gas intact (as per law). It seems to me that the economy during the Clinton admistration was, let me think, THE BEST IT HAS EVER BEEN! Next.
There is also talk about how there aren't enough refineries and that keeps the prices high because the limited amount that can be refined. Then you have Republican pundits screaming that the Democrats held up the tapping of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and that kept the price high because we are too dependent on foreign oil. Let's see. Where are we going to refine this new oil from the ANWR? They should at least get the story straight.
Enter the corn-ethanol discussion. Getting fuel from corn sounds reasonable. The US can put out the corn, by golly. Here is the rub, though. The skeptics say that once you pay for the process (which isn't cheap), and factor in all the fossil fuels needed to make the ethanol (powering the process, trucking the supplies, etc.), we wouldn't be any better off.
I am not hearing a rebuttal for this argument so let me offer my own. SO WHAT? Everything at first is expensive. I remember when the calculator I can by at the Dollar Tree for a buck, cost about $20. Once the process is set up, improvements are made and the costs go down. It has to start somewhere. And, once the process becomes faster, cheaper, and more efficient, more things can be powered by it (like factories and trucks). I don't necessarily think corn ethanol is ultimately the answer, but I do believe that anything that can transition us away from the finite supply of fossil fuel (not to mention the ecological problems with it), HAS to be a step in the right direction.
I claim to be an independent voter, but I have been accused of being a staunch Democrat. However, you show me an Independent during the Bush administration, and I will show you a staunch Democrat. Don't get me started on the so-called "War on Terror"!








11 comments:

HollyGL said...

Nicely put, Jeff. I agree with everything you said - and I'm not in an especially agreeable mood today... :)

Two Write Hands said...

A-freaking-MEN!

Rodger said...

Jeff --

Can we say -- price gouging! Needless to say, you make some insightful and humorous points here. It was better under Clinton. And if Bush's management of our country is any indication of his past management of a major league baseball team -- we're in for a world of hurt.

It's time to run the Republicans out of office.

Vancouver mermaid/Montreal photographer said...

Tell me how you really feel, Jeff. I'm afraid you're holding back a bit.

I just filled up at $1.30 a litre in Vancouver. OUCH.

Two Write Hands said...

By the way, I forgot to say how much I love the graphic element in this post!

Jeff said...

holly/stephanie/epiphany: I love all three of you, btw. From my way of thinking, it is hard to disagree with. Hope your day got better and more agreeable.

Two write: Well daggonit, it needed to be said! And I take pride in my graphics. Remember my testicle graphic (http://psychosomaticwit.blogspot.com/2006/08/do-you-believe-in-miracles.html)? ;)

Rodger: Whoever gets elected (no matter what the party), it better be the right fella or gal. We just won't know if it is until its too late. Well, on second thought, we kind of knew about Bush after the Bush/Gore debates, didn't we?

Mermaid: Litre? Thank God the US is still on the English system. I know the math is easier in the metric system, but practical application is lacking in my caveman-like mind. Meters, litres, and kilometers are practically nonsense words here. So, what did you pay in English, about $4.70 per gallon? How is gas taxed in Canada?

Stepping Over the Junk said...

Well done. I hear what you're saying and all but I can't comment further because I am still laughing so hard at that photo!

HollyGL said...

Um, Jeff, just wanted to let you know that I tagged you on my blog. :)

Charles said...

So how many years will it be, before we are using are feet like the Flintsones.

Chris said...

I could handle the prices a little better if I didn't just read that BP made 8 billion in profits in the most recent quarter.

Jeff said...

Steppping: Yeah, I like my choices for images - usually.

Holliphany: Um . . . boy am I late acknowledging this feedback item. ;)

Charles: Yabba Dabba Doo!


Chris: Yep, and BP isn't alone. Of course, the oil companies SAY that the profits come from other areas in their business than gas prices. Frankly, I don't care where they get it. I want balance.