All indications are that the recent rise in price of gasoline is not the result of speculators, but is another example of the "solution for the problem" Bush/Cheney cabal.
This has been their typical method of operation; have a solution for a problem before it becomes a problem, then present the problem. For example, the invasion of Afghanistan was on Bush's desk prior to 9/11 and those plans were to invade before the snows fell in that country, sometime in mid-October. How convenient the 9/11 mass murders happened, even though not a single supposed hijacker came from Afghanistan.
Then came the anthrax mailings followed rapidly by the 900+ page document known as the USA PATRIOT Act. Are we to believe that document was written in a matter of days? It is more plausible to accept that it was already written in the early months of the cabal, maybe even prior to their being placed in office by the Supreme Court.
There have been other examples of having the solution and then presenting the problem. But the recent one is the gasoline "problem" in order to give our landscape away so the oil industry can drill. This "solution" is about as worthless as those mentioned in the previous paragraph. To begin drilling now will have absolutely no effect on the price of gasoline. In fact, by the time there is any gasoline coming from the proposed drilling the price per gallon may well be more than double what it is now, not less. Hence, there would be no relief for the consumer, but huge profits for the mega-oil companies.
As a secondary kick in the teeth to the American consumer, there is absolutely no guarantee any of the oil obtained from our soil will actually be consumed on our soil.
This "solution" is but another "con job." The oil companies already have over 40 million acres in which to explore and drill, but they want more. This is but another example of taking from the taxpayer what is theirs and giving it to corporations in the name of "privatization."
In this case a better solution is alternative energy source exploration and development, not more drilling which will only hinder actual progress toward becoming less dependent on that commodity.
Obama is now saying we may have to "give in" and allow drilling offshore in order to gain alternatives. I believe that is ill-thinking and another con.There are other sources that could be available should we put our resources to work at developing them. For example, the Japanese have announced they have an automobile that runs on water that travels at 80 kilometers/hour for an hour on very little water consumed. There are alternatives to electricity, such as wind and solar, which could be further developed. We just need to concentrate on alternatives rather than on satisfying the mega-oil companies.
