The Need for Order, or “Do Something” Syndrome

Wednesday, December 19, AD 2012

In light of the horrific massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, it is disappointing but not altogether surprising that the calls to just do something to stop the violence rang out before the middle of the day. I’ll address the disgusting behavior of the mass media in a later post, but wanted to focus this post on the reactions and what they might say about our overall attitudes about life and society.

Gun control activists, grieving with obvious sympathy and empathy for the victims, and of course concerned primarily about the human toil of this tragedy, took to twitter and other outlets to immediately call for stricter gun laws. Ignoring that Connecticut is hardly a modern incarnation of the wild west, they seemed to imply that if we only tightened regulations and banned guns with menacing-sounding names, then we could ensure that no more mass murders of this kind would ever occur again, so long as we all shall live.

There are many legal, constitutional, and logical arguments to be made against further restrictions on gun ownership, and Jeff Goldstein makes just about all of them here. To me the strongest arguments against the gun control crowd are the practical ones. An obviously troubled young man murders his mother, then walks to her school and guns down children  and the thing we’re discussing afterwards are guns? Aside from the fact that even worse crimes have been perpetrated without a single firearm being deployed, we’re missing the big picture when we’re debating the mechanism for carrying out a massacre and not the underlying cause or causes.

Another recurring theme is that this incident is further proof that there is no God. Deroy Murdock expressed this sentiment in the conservative on-line journal of opinion, National Review online.

 Just in time for Christmas, a reputedly almighty God must have been on break Friday morning when Adam Lanza massacred 20 Connecticut school kids. These six- and seven-year-olds were far too young to choose wrongly between good and evil — that choice being the way that believers typically explain how a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, omnibeneficent God allows such atrocities. Atop the ongoing mayhem of Hurricane Sandy, the carnage in Syria, and the burgeoning power of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, it should be clearer than ever that no one up there watches over us Earthlings. We are on our own.

Of course we’ve all heard this before and have addressed this in myriad ways.

What hadn’t occurred to me is there is a certain commonality between those who use tragedies like this to further the fight for control and others who use it to push an atheistic agenda. Granted there is overlap between the categories, but for now we’ll treat these as separate attitudes.

Continue reading...

32 Responses to The Need for Order, or “Do Something” Syndrome

  • This is the basic affliction at the heart of progressivism. In short, the premise underlying “Do Something” Syndrome is that if only we pass some kind of law, then whatever horrible thing that just happened won’t ever happen again.

    In fairness to advocates of gun control, I think the less emotive of them would merely contend that enhanced controls would lessen the likelihood of these sorts of things. What regulations we have now, what the enhancements might be, a reasonable hypothesis about the effect of those enhancements, and the costs as well as the benefits of those enhancements are things to which they devote no thought (and when gun aficionados get talking about their hobby, you realize you know diddly/squat about guns). The whole point seems to strike attitudes.

    And what attitudes. Look at the remarks of Prof. Erik Loomis and then recall the remarks of Prof. Krugman about Gabrielle Giffords, et al. People who own guns are class enemies to these types. The rest does not matter.

  • the less emotive of them

    Unfortunately not a majority of the total class of anti-gun zealots, or at least not a vocal majority.

    FYI, you are no longer on moderation, Art.

  • “Just in time for Christmas, a reputedly almighty God must have been on break Friday morning when Adam Lanza massacred 20 Connecticut school kids. ”

    Atheists so often have a theological sophistication that would shame a snake handler in the Ozarks. My guess is that concepts like free will, original sin, divine foreknowledge as opposed to predestination, etc, are as foreign to Mr. Murdock as intelligent commentary. How National Review has fallen over the past few decades.

  • Some of them acknowledge those concepts, Don, but simply reject them as our way of rationalizing evil. I think there are some that can be engaged and perhaps brought to the light. Mr. Murdock does not strike me as the type. This is not the first time he’s engaged in simple hysteria.

  • I apologize n advance.

    I’ve been around a long time. I remember when you could buy a revolver in Sears and walk out with it in a holster – you couldn’t conceal it, though. We must have had thousands of mass killings a year in those days.

    It’s not about public safety or “What about the children?”

    It’s about control over you and me.

    The zombies don’t know how to think. They are told what to think.

  • “It’s about control over you and me.

    The zombies don’t know how to think. They are told what to think.”

    They are good Fascists in the making.


  • How National Review has fallen over the past few decades.

    Richard Lowry allows his stable a great deal of rope (while they are producing real time commentary of a type unknown in American political journalism prior to about 1998). The lapse of time between when he had ample justification to hand a pink slip to John Derbyshire and the time when Mr. Derbyshire was actually shown the door was just shy of six years. Richard Lowry ihas now where near the sophistication of Buckley, but then again, Mr. Buckley was a fairly singular figure who had no true peers among magazine editors of his era. National Review does not look bad compared to peer publications.

  • The modern world needs a better class of atheist:

    “Early in 1926 the hardest boiled of all the atheists I ever knew sat in my room on the other side of the fire and remarked that the evidence for the historicity of the Gospels was really surprisingly good. “Rum thing,” he went on. “All that stuff of Frazer’s about the Dying God. Rum thing. It almost looks as if it had really happened once.” To understand the shattering impact of it, you would need to know the man (who has certainly never since shown any interest in Christianity). If he, the cynic of cynics, the toughest of the toughs, were not-as I would still have put it — “safe,” where could I turn? Was there then no escape?”
    CS Lewis, Surpised by Joy

    One of the depressing aspects of the current era is how few people are concerned about whether something is true or false, probably because fewer people than in previous generations, at least on a proportional basis, have the intellectual heft and depth of knowledge to make that determination. Also our society has been so penetrated by subjectivism that the very concept of truth is viewed as unimportant.

  • I think you find proportionately fewer people who have been liberally educated in a certain way – studying philosophy and theology and the classics. The thing is, I doubt this needs to be imposed on everyone’s tertiary education. It should, however, be much more available to those who are receptive to it.

    You see this at National Review. Richard Lowry has his stable of academics (Stanley Kurtz, Victor Davis Hanson, Mackubin Thomas Owens). None of these men, however, have the sort of learning that Erik v. Kuenhelt Leddhin had.

  • Sometimes I think Vox Nova exists to confirm our theories.

    “But how can you blame me for this horrible crime? I didn’t do anything,” you and I might object.

    That is precisely the problem. You and I didn’t do anything.

  • Mr. Zummo,

    I congratulate you for your stern fortitude as evidenced by your going to that site and not barfing all over your keyboard.

    Whenever an evil (likely Obama voter) man (woemn don’t do it) massacres debilitated, disarmed victims other evil, Obama voters scream about disarming the te innocent and virtuous.

    When an evil Obama voter kills people that evil, Obama voter is guilty not me. Maybe it’s what psychologists call “projection.” Evil Obama people are evil through-and-through and cannot see that everyone is not evil.

    They exhibit a stark deficit of self-awareness.

  • Glenn Reynolds at “Instapundit” posts that gun control is about “a statement of naked power by one American culture over another.”

    As the higher education bubble bursts VN geniuses won’t get work in academia. Still, they can have stellar careers running concentration camps.

  • ^can we leave the weird Obama-focused comments and Nazi allusions out of this

    and while i share the skepticism of the gun-control advocates but i’m not much a fan of Instapundit’s libertarian reductionism either.

  • Agreed, Art. But it is worth noting that (i) who does? and (ii) those of us of a certain age encountered EvKL only in the pages of the National Review. If you did not read NR, you were pretty much guaranteed to have never heard of him.

  • to put in a word for “compassionate conservatism,” i think it was (and still can be, in a different form) a good rhetorical move to combat media stereotypes/public perceptions. as someone who’s more interested in the cultural side of conservatism than the Glenn Beckian “Woodrow Wilson was a Nazi progressive/big government=fascism” side (caricature but you get my point — maybe i’m reading too much into other blogs’ comment sections,) i think in the coming years conservative politicians should identify what exactly they think a lean, efficient government should do, as opposed to generic references to the leviathan state. to me it’s not so much whether government is big or small, as opposed to if it’s helping/harming in select areas. a good past example of this would be the welfare issue.

    i’m hair-splitting some, but there definitely needs to be a broader GOP economic message than the current tax/regulation-focused one.

  • and apologies if the “whether government works” seems too similar to Obama’s comment in his first inaugural. i think it’s one of his better pieces of rhetoric though, even if it doesn’t much match up with his actual policies.

  • I thought Megan McArdle summed up the “do something” mindset pretty concisely in her long but very good response to the current gun hysteria:

    There’s a terrible syllogism that tends to follow on tragedies like this:

    1. Something must be done

    2. This is something

    3. Therefore this must be done.

    It would certainly be more comfortable for me to endorse doing something symbolic–bring back the “assault weapons ban”–in order to signal that I care. But I would rather do nothing than do something stupid because it makes us feel better. We shouldn’t have laws on the books unless we think there’s a good chance they’ll work: they add regulatory complexity and sap law-enforcement resources from more needed tasks. This is not because I don’t care about dead children; my heart, like yours, broke about a thousand times this weekend. But they will not breathe again because we pass a law. A law would make us feel better, because it would make us feel as if we’d “done something”, as if we’d made it less likely that more children would die. But I think that would be false security. And false security is more dangerous than none.

  • i agree with the above but i don’t like saying “there’s little to be done.” of course i can’t think of a great solution myself without lazily saying “it’s complex” but clearly something has changed for these types of things to be more common (maybe it just seems like that? i’m younger so i dunno what things were like the ’50s or other eras.) i’m interested in some of the broader factors (violent entertainment, videogames, isolation combined with these things) though i don’t know how much of a role they played in this particular case.

  • It’s all good. Obsessing on guns distracts you from the impending economic catastrophe.

  • Opportunistically politicizing the grief and horror to the point of being on scene was a chilling imposition adding to the horror. The silence of dealing with overwrought insane behavior of few is deafening. There must be some gov. dept. in HHS that could point out that a gun control plan won’t stop deviants and miscreants etc. – or not. Mental health is the issue. But …
    Distraction of the many from the doings of gov. missions won the day.
    So, it’s all good ’til next time.

  • “This is not the first time he’s engaged in simple hysteria.”

    I guess Deroy Murdock still seriously needs some Xanax — his fears did, after all, come to pass with regard to the GOP and the Senate. But who doesn’t need some anti-anxiety measures when they contemplate the far worse horror of little children gunned down in their classroom at Christmastime? Still, I am put in mind of yet another remark by C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape, who tells Wormwood at one point that since the “Enemy” (God) has clearly told His followers that suffering is to be expected and is essential to redemption, a faith that is destroyed by war, pestilence, or other catastrophes was probably not all that strong to begin with.

  • i’d be OK with someone like Murdock at NRO (although i think there’s a debate to be have on how meaningful a conservatism can exist apart from Christian influence) if they didn’t frame their atheism in the ways i might’ve when i was 15.

  • The administration needs to do something alright…like get the hell out of the way. But I have a bad feeling that isn’t about to happen.

  • Politicians have to tread warily. I remember the shock to public confidence when, in a moment of irritation, then French prime minister Lionel Jospin told a reporter, “The government can’t do everything.” It is generally believed that that piece of ill-judged candour cost him the election.

    In the UK, in the wake of the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres, the reasoning among politicians and permanent officials was that a government that issues licences for hand guns will be blamed for their misuse, whereas a government that bans them can blame the illicit arms trade. No one was naif enough to believe a ban would prevent future outrages.

  • The inconsistency of liberal imbeciles (redundent) is . . . consistent.

    Inconsistency #!: All gunowners are responsible for any and all deranged, mass murders. No Moslem is responsible for 10,000 world-wide jihad attacks since 2001.

    Inconsistency #2: All gun owners are responsible for all gun deaths: including “Fast and Furious.” No gay (except Sandusky) is guilty scores of child molestations.

    I am victim of an FBI check and open a record if I buy a gun. That’s why we have gun shows.

    There are no background checks on gays and moslems.

    I will not be lectured on human rights, “What about the children!”, or violence by people that Idolize Che, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, Stalin, . . . they killed 100,000,000 people in the last century. Nor, who are using the coercive force of the state to take away our human rights.

  • Bravo T.Shaw! You are on a roll lately!

  • Mike Petrik,

    It is not likely you would have heard of Erik v Kuenheldt Leddhin. Acadmic literature has small audiences composed of scholars, teachers, and students. A modest number of academics reach a general audience through publications like the New York Review of Books and the Wilson Quarterly, and, nowadays, blogging.

    I doubt the intellectual quality of NR has suffered a whole lot in the last 30 years, but the sort of intellect cultivated is certainly different. Stanley Kurtz is a social anthropologist. You did not see much of that among the starboard intelligentsia ca. 1960, which consisted of intellectual historians, literary scholars, and theoretical economists, as well as generic men-of-letters like Whittaker Chambers.

  • There was a YouTube the other day about an golden eagle attempting to carry off a toddler. It seems it was photoshopped.

    My wife notes that online at MSNBC, a number of comments about this were about banning photoshopping.

    So comes the end of Virtue.

  • If the state makes gun-control the law and self-defense illegal, and innocent people are murdered, because, without gun protection, and because of the law, the state then becomes liable and maybe and ought to be sued for being an accomplice before the fact of the murder of innocents. A “citizens’ arrest”, the ability of citizens to arrest and hold a criminal until police arrive has been discounted, actually making “citizens’ arrest” into assault and battery of the individual who has not been tried and found guilty by a court of law. Based on the sovereign personhood of the citizen endowed by our Creator who constitutes the state and government, the sovereign person, chooses and decides if and when to carry armed protection. The failure of the state to protect the innocent person, (as in Sandy Hook, Conn.,) who is a citizen, is a cause for a negligence lawsuit against the state and taxation without representation. The innocent were not protected by those sworn to protect them. Gun control as “Do Something” is double jeopardy for all citizens, as all living people have suffered jeopardy of life when a murderer is at large.

  • Phillip: The Eagle, as in St. John, the Evangelist, is the symbol of the swiftness of God’s Justice and the symbol of America’s Freedom. All virtue will be besmirched. and where was the mother of the toddler? Somehow, I cannot imagine the eagle carrying off the stroller.

  • Mary,

    Obama is not only denying Americans civil protection, he is tearing away the bonds that once united us in peace and prosperity.

    “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama June 14, 2008.

    On the Friday before election 2012, Obama told his supporters at a campaign rally – inside a public high school – to vote for revenge!

    “Eat the Rich!”

    Is it any wonder we seem to be devolving to a state wherein it will be a common occurrence to need to fight for one’s life?

  • Deroy Murdock is a fool.

    Notice that the media does not extol the success of gun control in the City of Chicago, where owning a gun is virtually illegal – and how many murders occur there each year?

Waiting for Superman

Wednesday, August 17, AD 2011

Well, when Michelle Bachmann promises something she really shoots for the moon.

At a town hall meeting in Greenville, S.C., today, Michele Bachmann said if she became president gas prices would fall dramatically.

“Under President Bachmann you will see gasoline come down below $2 per gallon again. That will happen,” Bachmann said, according to The Hill.

There’s no word on whether she added that that the rise of the oceans would begin to slow as well.

Certainly there are things that the federal government could do to help cut gas prices.  Lowering gasoline taxes, opening up more areas for drilling and cutting back on regulations might put a dent on gas prices, but these measures would only go so far.  Oil is a global commodity.  Or, to quote from one of the snarky commenters at NRO, what is she going to, make the Chinese stop consuming oil?

Daniel Foster also helps put her comments into perspective.

The only policies I can think of that would surely accomplish the $2.00 a gallon target are:

1) The seizure by force and nationalized exploitation of a large proportion of the world’s oil supply.

2) The massive federal subsidization of fuel costs.

3) The fomenting of a second global recession as bad as or worse than the last one, complete with negative global GDP growth.

Gas prices could fall below $2 per gallon were Bachmann to get elected, but it would not principally be due to policy measures of the government.

This sort of political messiahnism is an annoying trend in our politics, but it’s doubly depressing coming from a conservative.  It’s one thing for a leftist like Barack Obama to promise the sun, the moon, and the stars, but one would not expect such unrealistic promises from someone touting themselves to be a limited government conservative.

Unfortunately this lack of perspective on the office of the presidency and the powers within that office runs both ways.  

Continue reading...

24 Responses to Waiting for Superman

  • Is a pro-lifer who doesn’t reject 10-to-1 cuts-to-revenue really too much to ask? Thing is there are plenty of bloggers who fit the bill. Just no presidential candidates. Shouldn’t I expect at least as much from my president as I expect from bloggers?

  • “Shouldn’t I expect at least as much from my president as I expect from bloggers?”

    Beats me as to why RR. I expect things from bloggers that I would never expect from Presidents and vice versa. In regard to revenue I think the term you are really searching for is “taxes” as almost all “revenue” received by government consists of good old fashioned taxes. Any candidate who pledges never to use “revenues” when he means “taxes” will at least earn a thumbs up from me.

    In regard to Bachmann, she needs to learn that every misstatement she makes will reach a national audience. As to the substance of her claim, I doubt it is possible. However, I have no doubt that if all restrictions in regard to drilling were lifted in the continental US that prices might well decline, at least initially.

  • However, I have no doubt that if all restrictions in regard to drilling were lifted in the continental US that prices might well decline, at least initially.

    Undoubtedly, though perhaps not for a long time and not by the amount needed to get us below $2. Regardless, I’d favor removing these restrictions.

  • Removing all EPA restrictions in regard to gasoline mixtures might have a downward impact on price. Bachmann, or any candidate, could gain quite a bit of voter enthusiasm by simply noting the various ways in which government regulations increase the cost of gasoline at the pump.

  • Too many politicians and their staffs miss opportunities by simply going with a dramatic tag line instead of doing basic research and providing a list of policy recommendations that could grab voter support. In our soundbite age I think they underestimate too many voters.

  • President Bachmann cannot possibly make things worse than would Obama with four more years.

    Four more years!!! Obama has not finished us, yet.

  • I think part of Obama’s issue lies in the fact that he’s so intelligent. I obviously don’t mean wise. I mean intelligent. And when you’re like that, you think and talk till the cows come home, and you believe every word you say. Intelligent (and not so intelligent) people believe you, too. Those who are wise don’t.

  • France is a very intelligent country.

  • There are real things we can do to reduce consumption of petroleum products, though $2.00 per gallon is very unlikely. Furthermore, I don’t think that Bachmann has considered these things.

    Convert all rail road transportation to electric and use nucler power plants to provide the electricity,
    Convert all major cargo shipping to nuclear – precedence has been set with 10 nuclear powered air craft carriers and 40 nuclear powered submarines

    True, these measures would reduce diesel vice gasoline consumption, but it’s a start.

    And yes, France is intelligent with 70+ % electricity from nuclear and the lowest electricity prices in Europe. The Iralians de-nukes themselves after Chernobyl. Now they import their electricity from nuclear France.

    Furthermore, nuclear energy can be used to provide the heat necessary to make liquid fuels from coal via the Fischer-Tropsch process. The process isn’t all that efficent or cost effective right now, but that’s because we constrain the cost of the heat source to make drilling in the ground in lands of Islamic fascism so much more attractive.

    BTW, the US actually gets most of its imports of oil from Canada. This frees up Islamic oil for Europe. Who gets rich? Govt politicians on oil taxes and the sultans intent on our destruction. But really, we could generate our own oil or even move away from a fossil fuel based economy. How about boron for combustion:

    Use nuclear electricity to provide de-oxidized boron. It can be done. Graham R.L. Cowan proposed this idea at a pro-nuclear power Yahoo message board more than a decade ago. He wrote the article linked above for the International Journal of Nuclear Hydrogen Production and Applications, Volume 1, Number 3, 2008. And yes, obviously the article is a serious one with lots of chemical equations and calculations for the detractor.

    I am always amused when philosophers and theologians and especially politicians (left or right) start talking about energy. Here’s the basic rule: energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, only interchanged. Start there. Then when you use the facts you’ll see high oil and gas prices are caused by us and are entirely artificially created through greed. Do you really think the oil companies would like to see Graham Cowan’s idea succeed?

  • pat,

    Can you provide evidence of 0 intelligence?

    I agree he is not wise. Nor is he charitable, experienced, hard-working, knowledgeable, honest, or skilled in anything except glibly shilling this ruinous “three-card monte” game/Ponzi scheme. He is not a leader. A leader would not divide we the people into hate-filled factions (figuratively) clawing at each other.

    One of our biggest national problem is the millions of terrorists (clueless academics, “intellectual/obama conservatives”, gov union thugs, looters, moochers) that think 0 is “so intelligent.”

    PS, That 0 above is not “O.”

  • Mrs. Bachmann and her husband are a remarkable pair of dynamos. That having been said, she seems to lack a sense of the relationship between acts and consequences. She seems to think that consequences are what you wish for and not things you have to investigate and understand.

    If we were to finance road construction and maintenance out of gasoline excises and auto registration fees, these assessments would have to be a great deal higher – by a factor of about 7. The retail price of gasoline is not unreasonable, all things considered.

    If Bachmann wants to be a leader, she might tell her audience that the relative prices of various goods and services fluctuate in a market economy and that as long as overall levels of production and income are not declining, there is no point in complaining unless the price dynamics are a function of monopoly power or deficient public policy.

  • Couldn’t have said it better myself. There is no such thing as a political savior, and even the real Savior refused to be one for His followers who were hoping he’d overthrow the Romans and reestablish the Davidic dynasty. I know a lot of people don’t like the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils, but to be honest, I think that’s probably the best criteria to use… Don’t go looking for someone who will save the world and solve all our problems; just find the one who is likely to cause the least damage.

  • Gasoline was $2/gallon just 2.5 years ago. A double-dip recession is not inconceivable.

    “Under President Bachmann you will see gasoline come down below $2 per gallon again. That will happen.”

    I have no doubt because she will foment “a second global recession as bad as or worse than the last one, complete with negative global GDP growth.”

  • RR: You mean the Third Global Recession in 2013.

    The world is entering Global Recession II at this moment and, FYI, three follows two.

    We now know the Zero. Tele-Prompter-in-Chief will loquaciously aver, “It wasn’t me!” and, “We need to spend more!”

    Bachmann caused Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain to borrow more than they will ever be able to repay. Only way out: troubled debt restrucure wherein the owners of debt securities are repaid less and get it later than contract.

    Bachmann caused the German economy to stop growing.

    Bachmann caused the ECU to decline to issue one-Euro bonds.

    Bachmann is telling the Chinese how to destroy their economy.

    Ach du leiber! Michelle has global clout!

  • Another way would be to put the dollar on the gold standard. But then that $2.00 tied to gold would be the equivalent of about $10 of today (if not more). So nominally, yes, gas would be $2.00 a gallon (maybe less). But it would feel like $20 a galllon (or more).

  • I remember a Saturday Night Live skit fromt he late ’70s (when it was at least marginally funny). Dan Akroyd was playing Jimmy Carter, and gave a talk on how to cure inflation. The plan was to print lots of money and give it to everyone so that, even if prices rose, we’d all be millionaires and could afford it.

    What is the difference between that plan and quantitative easing?

    Rather than giving the money to everyone, it’s only given to a few well connected?

  • c matt, the difference is that we have no inflation right now.

  • What I meant to get at is that there’s a difference between intelligence and wisdom. Obama is very intelligent. Sometimes I think that gets in the way of real wisdom. Intelligence is just that. It’s like an I.Q. that’s just been measured. All it tells you is capacity. It doesn’t tell you whether it’s used in the right way. I think people often mistake the one for the other. I.Q. tells you nothing about a person’s morality, their common sense, their wisdom, or their actions toward other human beings or God. It simply measures your intelligence. Now what you do with it is a very different matter.

  • We’re finding out that there’s a lot more to what makes a person than I.Q. There’s their spiritual aptitude, as one might call it. Then there’s simply their spiritual state. Are you saved or not? Etc. You get the point.

  • “. . . we have no inflation now.”

    We have no jobs now.

    We have no money now.

    We have Obama’s inflated ego. He’s pushing on us his far-left ideology and fundamentally changing America for the worse.

  • I’m old enough to remember how quickly and how far the price of gasoline fell after President Reagan let the Carter-era price controls on gasoline and so-called windfall profits tax on domestic oil production lapse. The media’s talking heads and editorial-page scribblers predicted, of course, the result would be nothing but woe for the American consumer and huge profits for the oil companies who’d gouge them. None of the talkers and scribblers apologized afterward for (a) their errors nor (b) their calumnies.

    With both the practical example of history and the theory of the free market to support her contention, I’m confident Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann is correct. If she is elected President and has a co-operative Congress (instead of the Pelosi-Reid led bodies of Democrat obstructionist bodies President Bush ended his term with), she could act to restore a free market to production and supply of gasoline and this would dramatically lower prices at the pump.

  • Question: is government a business–and/ or should it be run that way? just wondering. Not quite the econnomics or political science type, but would like to hear from someone.