Nate Bouknight, a real estate developer from East Norriton, Pa., said it now costs him about $60 to fill his Ford Explorer SUV, up about $17 from last month. The vehicle gets about 12 miles to the gallon.Apparently it never occurred to Nate that the extra gas his SUV requires is as much a factor in prices as the geopolitical situation. But hey, why get into a discussion about supply/demand, the ethics of capitalism and the complex situation surrounding oil and the countries that it comes from? We want our standard of living and convenience undisturbed, and cheap.
Bouknight said President Bush should do more to ease the high prices, adding he thought the call for an investigation into price gouging was just a sham.
source
Let's turn the statement around, just for fun: "President Bush said Bouknight should do more to ease the high prices, adding he thought the griping about price gouging while driving a recreational vehicle was just a sham." While I fully understand that the President of the United States will always bear the blame for negative pocketbook news just by virtue of his position (if nothing else), I also understand that it is easy to scapegoat without looking at one's own practices. My car gets more than double the gas mileage of Nate's, which could land him a net savings of at least $13 a tank over what he used to pay. If I would move closer to work, I could save at least half again.
It seems a little ironic that many of the same voices who used to endlessly shout the "No war for oil" cliche now accuse Bush of causing oil prices to go up by attacking Iraq. Unless one supports Hollywood's (à la Syriana) murky idea about the U.S. getting into political conflicts so that we can own oil that doesn't belong to us, it is pretty easy to conclude that if our only Middle East motive is petroleum, it doesn't make sense to spend billions on a war that hasn't even begun to turn Iraqi oil acres into US territories, or budge the price of crude oil downward.