A NYTimes editorial today decries the Senate's ineptitude in grappling with the nation's energy crisis.

Of course, the NYTimes is right--the competing nostrums offered by Democrats and Republicans are equally misguided. Neither opening new areas to drilling or a crusade against mostly imaginary speculators is going to have a significant impact on prices at the pump anytime soon.

The Times isn't shy about calling out congress for its lack of political courage. Though to be fair, stepping in front of the political freight train that is energy prices isn't really courage, it's more like suicide. But the Times displays its own particular brand of cowardice by blaming legislators for faults that originate with their own readers.

One telling quote:

"This political theater — for that is all it was — exacted a price. It diverted the nation from the intellectually rigorous debate over energy policy it needs to have (and should have) in an election year"

So the Times is suggesting that the Senate--and the Presidential candidates, too, I assume--should have a debate around that fact that gas prices really aren't that high and there's no good policy that will bring them down again any time soon.

Boy, that ought to sell.

Yes, it would be great if we had politicians who would slap some sense into us and whom we in turn would follow rather than tar and feather. But I find it hard to blame those that represent us for being skeptical about the likely outcome of any such truth-telling.

But I'm not elected. I'll say it. We need high gas prices. Nothing else will prompt us to reverse our energy profligacy.