Never fear, Ryan is here ...

Well, why you two tools are dipping around asking the government what it will do, or knocking both them and the private sector, I was doing research, thus the headline (read nothing into calling you "tools", I'm just doing some healthy ribbing ....).

First, some corrections to some your previous comments.

1.) I find it rather juvenile, and beneath your intellect Jambo to simply blurt out that the oil companies are "gouging" us. I know there's a tendency to say this off the cuff because the "good" they trade in is essential to modern life itself, but making the biggest legal profit they can is EXACTLY what they're supposed to do, they ARE a private business. The commodity of oil is in the 401k's and mutual funds of countless Americans from municipal workers like firemen, to Wall Street day traders, and oil CEO's owe it to them to turn the healthiest profit possible. And unless you have demonstrable evidence of gouging, which is illegal the last time I checked, please "check" that wild accusation at the door. Oil is the only private industry in which people claim record profits are evidence of mismanagement! Essential or not it is still a PRIVATE industry, and until Senorita Hillary Chavez nationalizes it, it has the right to legally squeeze every dollar out of their product they can, period. And FYI, no one is MAKING people snap up Hummers, F150's and Vans by the but load. That demand drives up the price as much as anything else, and that can be proved unlike the ominous claim of gouging.

2.) Titus used the government's involvement in cleaning up (literally) the US meat industry as an example of proper government intervention to solve an incessant problem. BAD example. And the reason is of your own proclamation - The Jungle. Written by a private citizen, bought in droves by other private citizens, the same private citizens whom then turned around and demanded from their elected representatives that something be done. So unless the author wrote the book on a government grant, the government didn't "act", it reacted. This was the consummate rugged American individual making a difference. A better example is the Manhattan Project, I'll give you that one, but it was a military program in essence. Ran like an army base, under the command of an army general, hell, even Oppenheimer answered to him, and any conservative worth his salt would agree that if there's one government arm we are willing to expand and throw money at, its the military.

3.) All I heard from you guys concerning the Rumsfeld cabal was their lack of planning, foresight, and lateral thinking. That is exactly what I was trying to do with my post on what the Arab "street" would look like without oil as a profitable export. You know, SINCE WE ARE AT WAR THERE and 99% of Islamic terrorists originate from there in one way or another (training etc) with the West as their declared enemy. Never mind that I added in that post that American interests are still better served by a policy that "watches America's interests" concerning our energy independence regardless of its effect on the Arab street, Titus still asks if I think the US should defer her energy security in order to keep Saudi's in Rolls Royces. Again, cliff noting my posts. And Jambo says it sounds as if I am "sympathizing" with the Arab street ... never mind that I was in essence advocating that democratization should coincide with a future drop in oil prices so that the "rag heads" as Jambo referred to them in a text to me, would have something to do in a post oil world besides strap bombs to themselves and walk into Kosher delis. Never said that we shouldn't get independent, but that we should be ready if the rest of the world follows suit and all of Mesopotamia subsequently goes to hell (even more then it is now I should say).

4.) And then the both of you presume to lecture me on how China would still buy enough oil to keep the Mid East flush with cash even if we moved on to an alternative energy source ... again, never mind that I clearly wrote a caveat in that same post which read, "this assumes that all oil consuming nations would move on to our new energy source." What are you guys doing - one reads the post then the other texts a summary to save time? Sheeeesh.

Now, to the subject line .........

Yes, the federal government has done things right in the past, read: had efficient programs. We could probably put together a list in a few days or weeks of all the properly functioning ( read: cost to result/profit ratio) programs, and it would probably be a healthy size book. However, were we to do the same with private sector solutions to everyday problems and inconveniences that face Americans, we would need about 10 lifetimes to document it, and all the paper the rain forest could spare.

In that vein, the entrepreneurial spirit that was unleashed in America as the words "We hold these truth self evident ..." were penned, is once again going to solve this issue.

Airlines. I think its safe to say none of the ones in operation today were set up to be profitable with oil at $120 a barrel. It simply can't be sustained. A few years back the founder and CEO of Jet Blue embarked on a rather ambitious project. He wanted his airline to have their own "strategic reserve" of oil, and the means to refine it. He wanted to do what so many successful companies do, cut out the middle man, namely EXXON, Shell, etc. Didn't happen. The red tape, the sheer cost, "the governments lack of vision" as he put it ... the thing never got off the ground. And this is a very enterprising fellow, it would have taken a lot for him to just "give up" on the idea. He has subsequently, on good terms, resigned as Jet Blue's CEO. Then recently he bought a house in Brazil. More importantly he bought an airline company in Brazil, or rather, founded one. Why? And I must give Jambo kudos for mentioning the reason in a prior post. Brazil's non Rain Forest protected land is divided up into separate regions for separate crops. And the amount of land set aside for Sugar Cane developing is only being used (farmed) for Sugar Cane at a puny 2% of the total land allotted. Short math says 98% of the"Sugar Cane designated" soil isn't yet being farmed. He bought a large chunk of that, why? Enter Sir Richard Branson, founder and CEO of Virgin Airlines (you know, the Aussie with the Rod Stewart hair and more money then Trump). Last year he vowed to fly (he's a pilot too) an airplane fueled 50% on bio fuel - sugar. The founder of Jet Blue, not to be out done, says that he is building a conversion factory that will have him on 100% bio sugar fuel within 2 years. Branson adds that were the US government to subscribe to their business practice of sugar fuel we could have 85% of all US vehicles on the stuff within 5 years and oil would drop to under $40 a barrel in the first 24 months!

The kudos to Jambo was over noting the potential of sugar.... beet sugar, but sugar nonetheless. And further praise is given to the private sector. They aren't doing this for "carbon neutral" footprints (although they'll undoubtedly use that angle as good PR). Its because mother necessity has come knocking and they have the vision to open the door. It is EXACTLY what I and other conservatives predicted would happen - the private sector, when it became necessary over either supply or cost, would answer the energy call. Not the government, not a bureaucracy, not "taking" windfall profits nor touring (impractical) solar plants.

Enterprising young men from the private sector have written the energy version of "The Jungle." Now go ahead government, do what you do best ....... react.