The only thing that is clear is that prices appear to be coming down from where they peaked, and more price declines are predicted.

 I wonder, though, whether the politicians who have repeatedly assured us of their "grave concern" will have their characteristic short attention span if the prices drop enough to stop the hollering.

 If they do move on to the next crisis d'jour without learning the how and why of the recent spike and subsequenct drop in gas prices, though, it will send a clear message to whoever is responsible that they can get away with it. It will then only be a matter of times before similarly positioned individuals in other industries look for ways to simulate the process in their fields, and maybe then even the politicians will be motivated to find solutions instead of just soundbites. 

Brad Pardee 
Editor

 In the days and weeks leading up to this decision, there were many press releases and pronouncements from people on both sides of the abortion issue. As I listened, I noticed something interesting in the remarks of abortion rights supporters. One of their oft-stated concerns was that banning this procedure was the first step on a slippery slope which placed all abortions at risk of being banned.

 As I heard this argument being made, I was reminded of some of the debates over gun control, particularly in the months since the massacre at Columbine High School. As gun control advocates made proposals to limit the access to handguns, groups like the National Rifle Association expressed their concern that limiting access to some firearms was the first step on a slippery slope which placed all firearms at risk of being banned. Does anybody else see a parallel here?

 Granted, the media coverage of these two slippery slopes was by no means even. While the NRA was portrayed as uncompromising extremists, opponents of the partial-birth abortion ban were generally portrayed as unswerving defenders of freedom. This is not particularly surprising, given the percentage of the media who support gun control and legal abortion. The news media is frequently unable to distinguish between reporting and editorializing, and that's particularly true on "hot button" issues such as these.

 What I have not heard much of, however, is a questioning of whether the concerns about slippery slopes are valid. I'm not sure, in either of these cases, that they necessarily are.

 The fact is that these all-or-nothing scenarios don't apply in other areas of constitutional rights. Freedom of speech has not been damaged by laws prohibiting slander or libel. The prohibition of human sacrifices is not a threat to general religious freedom. In these cases, as well as others, we have been able to clearly delineate what is not protected without endangering what is. What is it, then, that makes abortion and gun control different? Two things, I think.

 First, I think we see our elected officials as political gamesmen instead of public servants. How many times have we seen popular legislation derailed because somebody tacked on an unrelated amendment that destroyed the consensus? Our politicians have not convinced us that they can pass these kinds of clearly delineated laws without somebody trying to sneak a politically-motivated booby trap onto the coattails.

 Secondly, we have shown ourselves to be an apathetic and intellectually lazy people. When somebody proclaims a crisis, we respond, often without bothering to ask if the crisis in question is real or imagined. Political activists know this, and they aren't likely to stop sounding the alarm bell until we stop answering it.

 I'm not going to say that there are no slippery slopes we ought to avoid, but these aren't two of them. Unless we learn to distinguish between what is and is not a threat to freedom, we will find ouselves cast as the boy who cried, "Wolf", and that's when we will be vulnerable to a threat that is real.