With the climb in gas prices at the pump, it is only common sense that we need a vast change in our way of living to bring them back down, or at least, check their double digit inflation. But it's not a "Republican" issue, as some would have you believe. While Democratic spinsters have successfully spun the blame to Bush, just as GOP spinsters successfully spun the blame for the 2000 spike to Clinton, the truth is, it is ALL of our policymakers, of both parties, but notably among the democrats who point  fingers at the Republicans, who should shoulder  the blame equally.

Our best solution to this crisis is a long term, multifaceted solution. Truth is, it's not the automobile that is driving our demand for oil as much as it is power demand. Without reducing consumption, which is itself badly needed, we can drive down the power demand through several simple steps, most of which have encountered significant Democratic opposition.

First and foremost, we need to develop nuclear power. This power source has not yet begun to reach its potential because of irrational fears fueld by very real and equally avoidable accidents at sites such as Chernobyl. Our fears of a major catastrophe, however, are grossly inflated holdovers from a Cold War mentality that should have come down with the Berlin Wall. The fact is, we can do so much more with nuclear power if we would not enact legislation against it out of ignorance. In this area, the environmental movement (predominantly Democrat, Socialist, and Green) has successfully lobbied our legislators to strictly limit development, to the detriment of sustaining the way of life we have all seemed to indicate we desire.

Second, we need to develop and harness wind power. The power of the wind has encountered NIMBY (Not in my backyard) mentality that, on the one hand, wants the benefits that wind power can offer, but, on the other hand, does not want it to intrude on their way of life, or, notably, their view (as in the case of Ted Kennedy's opposition to the wind farms offshore in Massachussetts). Areas such as the Texas Panhandle, while having nearly unlimited potential in the high winds that are so common throughout our area, can only do so much in providing wind power to the rest of the nation, as much power is lost in transmission. Again, it has been opposition by liberal environmental groups, who have acted out of fear that these turbines will further endanger wildlife, that has kept this technology from greater advances.

We also need to develop and harness solar power. We can and should use passive solar techniques as much as possible, but we should also actively explore ways to further use this resource to its fullest potential.

We also need to evaluate our driving habits. 70 miles per hour is a nice convenience, and it may occasionally be necessary, but it isn't always necessary. If we can decrease our speed (I know, I hate the idea, too...but my wallet loves it more than I hate it!), we can not only enhance our life quality (by appreciating what is around us and living less stressed lives), we can help the environment and drive down demand. By ridesharing we can develop personal relationships that can further enhance the quality of our lives.

But we cannot, and should not, ignore the need to increase supply while decreasing our demand. We need to drill in ANWR, we need to drill on the continental shelf, we need to extract oil from tar sands and shale. Doing so will not only bring JOBS to Americans, but will ensure that we are not as greatly affected by the instability of third world nations as we historically have been. The obstructionists to further drilling (as well as to increased refining capability) are obvious: it's pretty much one of the mantras of the DNC.

But while much blame goes to the DNC, not all of it does. To increase supply, we also need to further the production of ethanol and alternative fuels, such as biodiesel, ideas to which few Republicans are friendly. And, most controversially, I believe, we need to legalize industrial hemp, which is, by the way, different from marijuana, although the two plants are closely related. You CAN legalize hemp without legalizing marijuana (although I advocate both). Hemp oil has tremendous possibilities that can only be explored with a steady, consistent supply.

The problem with a solution that relies solely on decreased demand is that it has the danger of reducing us to a third world nation. Sure, the Old West may seem idyllic to a romantic such as myself, but the simpler way of life has its costs in reduced life expectancy due to poor nutrition, access to medical care and communication, all taken for granted in a modern, industrialized nation. To maintain our standard of living in those areas, we need to couple decreased demand with an increased supply. That's going to require a lot of bold, forward thinking on the part of all of our politicians of any stripe, and on our citizens. We need to approach the solutions with the same zeal as we approached the fight in World War II: we're all in this together, and our party identity does not matter as much as finding real solutions do.