A Modest Proposal

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of gender struggles.

Men of the world, it is time to cast off your chains of oppression and fight the tyranny which imposes its will upon you, denying your right to choose what to do with your own body. For far too long, the unenlightened forces opposed to choice have dictated what ought to be a personal, private decision. No man should be marginalized or treated as a second-class citizen for what he chooses to do with his own body.

Men, it is time to stand up for your innate right to rape! March! Chant! Take to the streets! Demand your rights!

Men, unite to overturn this unconstitutional law which infringes on our right to privacy. The government must not legislate morality. The state must not impose its religious views on others. Who are they to say what is right or wrong for me?

In the first third of a woman’s life, roughly up until her thirtieth birthday, a woman is not fully developed, either physically or mentally. During that time before she reaches full personhood, the state has no interest at all in regulating rape. She should be freely available to any rapist who chooses her. Once a woman reaches the age of thirty, her husband may decide to allow any rapist he wishes to have access to her. Without the husband’s permission, a rapist must show evidence of an urgent need for sexual release before raping a woman of this age. Of course, unmarried women have not reached full personhood and may be raped at any age. Beyond the age of sixty, in order to avoid emotional damage to the rapist, a woman may only be raped after placing a paper bag over her head.

If you don’t believe in rape, don’t do it!

Some will say that I am pro-rape, but that is not the case at all. I am pro-choice. I want rape to be safe, legal, and rare. Even though rape is currently illegal, it still occurs, but it is forced into the back alleys and shadows of society, where rapes are performed in unsanitary conditions which endanger the safety of the rapist. Once rape is legal and brought out into the open, we can take steps to assure that rapists are not injured by coat hanger rapes.

If you can’t trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a penis?

In addition, we will have the opportunity to encourage men to seek alternatives to rape. For instance, they may decide to alternate between rape and some other outlet such as wife beating, masturbation, or sex with a hired partner.

The benefits of safe, legal rape do not end with the man. Women reap the rewards as well. It is well known that men know what is better for a woman than she knows herself. Without rape, a woman may live her life as a noncontributing drain on society, dependent on the productivity of men, without a quality lifestyle. A rapist is truly doing a woman a favor, in spite of the fact that she is not man enough to recognize it.

Oftentimes women will present irrational arguments against safe, legal rape. They are simply enemies of choice. If you are not a man and have never had the experience of being a rapist, then you simply can not relate to what these men are going through. The decision to rape is a deeply personal matter which often comes at a very difficult and emotional time in a man's life, and if you have never been in his shoes, you have no basis to judge his decision. Although we welcome women to support our cause, any woman who opposes legalized rape is not entitled to an opinion.

Men! You have a right to autonomy and self-determination! Demand your rights!

Be a voice for choice! Keep the US out of my black windowless van!

Men of all countries, unite!

Who is the enemy?

There is one thing that all three candidates for president agree upon: America is facing a dangerous enemy which must be fought and defeated.

The disagreement regards the identity of that menacing threat.

John McCain sees the threat as Islamic Jihad, recognizing the importance of winning each battle in the global War on Terror.

B. Hussein Obama and the lame filly Hillary Clinton want to surrender to the terrorists and turn all of our attention to the real threat facing America: oil companies. The tough talk which McCain directs at those who seek to commit horrific acts of mass murder in American cities is reserved for Exxon, whose crime is running a profitable business.

In Sunday’s lovefest with former Clinton press secretary George Stephanopoulos, Hillary sounded like she was preparing a military strike on Exxon.

My longer-term plan is, yes, to put an excess profits tax on the oil companies above a certain level of profit. You see, I really believe we've got to start right now demonstrating a willingness to take on these oil companies. I voted against the big oil giveaway in the 2005 energy bill. My opponent voted for it. I'm on record as taking on the oil companies.

Both of the Democrat candidates want to place a “windfall profit tax” on the oil companies because they feel the need to create the perception that they are “doing something” about high gas prices. But instead of addressing the economic conditions driving the price of gas, they resort to demagoguery by conjuring up a villain to blame and meting out punishment on that villain. It’s easier than dealing with the real issues, particularly because revealing the root causes of rising gas prices will show that they themselves are a part of the problem.

The oil companies find oil. They drill for it. They pump it out of the ground. They transport it. They refine it. And they deliver it to the gas station so that we can fill our tanks. They produce a product which keeps our society working. Without them, all economic activity in America would come to a halt in days. For all of that work they make a profit of roughly 16 cents per gallon.

For all their talk of energy independence and reducing our dependence on foreign oil, the government has blocked every option to increase domestic oil production. Congress, under pressure from radical environmentalists, has prevented us from drilling for our vast oil resources in ANWR and along the Gulf Coast, or from building any new refineries for more than thirty years. This leaves us trying to meet 2008-levels of demand with 1970-level production capacity.
The same environmentalists have blocked the construction of nuclear power plants for thirty years, in spite of the fact that we now have the technology to build plants which are safer and much cleaner than coal or natural gas. As a result, our natural gas production is consumed to product electricity, when it could be used more effectively to power mass transit – a shift which would both reduce emissions and alleviate some of the demand for gasoline.

Congress’ most recent meddling involves forcing us to use corn for energy rather than for food. Leftist environmentalists have long searched for ways to drive up the price of gasoline in order to force people to drive less. Ethanol is one of their most successful ploys. A gallon of ethanol costs more and powers a car a shorter distance than a gallon of gasoline, and it is not any friendlier to the environment. But reducing the food supply has driven food prices up around the world. As the price of corn is driven up, the price of milk and beef also increases, because cows eat corn. Transportation costs for every product increase as gas becomes more expensive, and the ripple effect drives inflation across the board.

The Government has made a real mess of the energy and food markets, and what do they get for it? While Exxon profits 16 cents per gallon of gasoline, the average Federal and state tax on a gallon of gas is 47 cents.

Hillary and Obama look at this government-created disaster and come to the conclusion that the solution is to tax the oil companies some more. Hillary is saying “Me too” to McCain’s gas-tax holiday gimmick, but substituting a windfall profit tax "to pay for it". Consumers pay the tax regardless of how it is collected or what name it bears, to this proposal is all smoke and mirrors. Obama is running ads showing him walking through a gas station declaring that he will “tax Exxon Mobile’s $40 billion in excess profits.” This is not even intended to address the problem of insufficient domestic oil production. Instead, the objective is quite clearly to rally the economically illiterate voters who make up the bulk of the Democrat base these days to support “their hero” who will stand up for them against the evil “big oil companies.”

Beyond the demagoguery, what will a “windfall profits tax” actually accomplish? It certainly will not bring gasoline prices down. As a rule, when you tax something you get less of it. Perhaps Obama intends to repeal the laws of economics as he imposes his “windfall profits” tax above and beyond the 35% corporate tax rate which Exxon already pays. To discover the results of such a tax it is not necessary to rely on economic theory alone, because we have real-world data. In 1980 the Carter administration slapped the oil industry with a similar “windfall profits tax”. The Congressional Research Service found in a 1990 analysis that the tax reduced domestic oil production by 3% to 6% and increased oil imports from OPEC by 8% to 16%. If Obama gets his way, oil imports will soar, gas prices will increase even more, and dangerous dictators around the world will increasingly line their pockets with money which may someday buy weapons to use against us. Yet Obama promises to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, which he says costs Americans $800 million a day.

Today Exxon is under fire for buying back $2 billion of its own stock instead of adding that money to the $21 billion it will invest in energy research and oil exploration this year. But if oil companies foresee that their profit from new exploration will be expropriated by government, they will certainly invest less, not more, in new production. The windfall tax kills the incentive for oil companies to produce more oil domestically, a necessary step to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring prices down by meeting demand.

Clinton and Obama desperately want to be seen as leaders in establishing a coherent energy policy, but their words and actions are in direct contradiction. They want lower prices but don't want more production to increase supply. They want oil "independence" but they've declared off limits most of the big sources of domestic oil that could replace foreign imports. They want Americans to use less oil to reduce greenhouse gases but they protest higher oil prices that reduce consuption. They want more oil company investment but they want to confiscate the profits from that investment.

Picking the right battles is a key responsibility of the President. We have a choice to make in November. Will we elect a President who sees a vital American industry as the most pressing threat we must confront? Or will we instead choose a man who is committed to defeat the Islamic militants determined to bring mass murder to American cities once again?

It's a horse race

Hillary has been saying that she is betting on the filly "Eight Belles" in the Kentucky Derby. In the 133-year history of the Kentucky Derby, only 3 fillies have won, a far better track record than females hold in presidential politics.

Clinton, campaigning across the Ohio River in Indiana, said she’s putting her money on the sleek, gray beauty named Eight Belles, who has handsome lineage but crummy odds against 19 competing colts at the Derby.

“I hope that everybody will go to the derby on Saturday and place just a little money on the filly for me,” Sen. Clinton told supporters in Jeffersonville, Ind., ABC News reports. “I won’t be able to be there this year - my daughter is going to be there and so she has strict instructions to bet on Eight Belles.”

“It looks like it could be the year for the girls!” said trainer Larry Jones. “Eight Belles I’m sure would want to endorse Hillary!!!”

Check here to see how that worked out for Hillary. Maybe it is not the year for the girls after all. Could this mirror the presidential race? If betting on a novelty in a horse race is not a winning plan, maybe its not such a great idea in picking the leader of our nation, either.

When pigs fly

I have many things to be thankful for in my life. My relationship with Jesus Christ is by far the biggest. An amazing wife and three great kids are near the top of the list. Friends, being part of a vibrant church, a home to live in, and good health are up there as well. A cool job where I get to design the brains of the next generation fighter jet is down a bit from that. Quite a ways down the list from those things is the fact that I am not a Democrat “superdelegate”.

Right now these Democrat Party elites are between a rock and a hard place. Many are facing a conflict between voting for the person they feel would be the best president, the person who would be best for the party, the person who can actually win in November, and the desires of their constituents. Regardless of how they vote, they will tick off a significant portion of the people who they depend on to re-elect them.

The safest course of action would be to state that they will vote with the majority of their constituents. I think that most people would accept that reasoning.

But just for fun I am going to step into that horrible parallel reality where I am a Democrat superdelegate, one of the chosen few who have been bestowed by The Party with the power to overturn the will of the unwashed rabble who are too dumb to know what they really want. I would feel that it was my duty to cast my vote in a way which would advance my vision for what is best for America, which as a Democrat would mean advancing a Democrat agenda.

But that still doesn’t make it a simple question. I would have to weigh a number of issues: which candidate most closely matches my views? Which candidate would be effective at implementing the Party platform? Which candidate will unify and strengthen the Party? Which candidate has the broadest coattails to help elect Democrats to Congress? Which candidate can actually win the general election?

When I compare the candidates on the issues, there is very little difference. They are both toeing the Party line on taxes, health care, and so forth. Obama reminds us that Hillary voted for the war in Iraq and he didn’t, but he wasn’t even in the Senate five short years ago when that vote occurred. In hindsight, both candidates say they would have voted against the war, but we will never know how he would have voted based on the information and political reality of 2003.

In terms of the ability to effectively lead the nation, run the government, and implement Democrat policy, both candidates show a worrisome lack of experience. Neither has a significant track record of success. Obama is green, and not just behind the ears. He arrived on the national scene barely three years ago, and moving into the Senate office building is pretty much the biggest accomplishment on his resume. It is very telling that Hillary is portraying herself as the battle-scarred veteran in this contest. She has ridden her husband’s coattails all the way to her present position. Seven years in the Senate is more than three, and Hillary’s years as First Lady might count for something, but she is still far from confidence-inspiring. Hillary has an edge here, but not much of one.

After this brutal nomination process, the ability to unify the Party and the nation will be important. A few months ago, I would have said that Obama was the one who could do that, as Hillary is a polarizing figure, and Barack seemed to be floating above the mire of politics. Lately, however, he has come crashing to the ground as revelations of his views, his history, and the people he has aligned himself with have contradicted his image as a uniter who transcends political and racial divisions. It would be hard to say that Hillary now has an advantage here, but it is no longer a clear-cut win for Obama. I have heard speculation about Al Gore being the solution, but that would disenfranchise all the voters, not just half. Those people who were excited about the prospect of a black man or a woman as the candidate would all be disappointed if the party elites delivered another fat white guy – especially one who already lost once.

In terms of coattails, there is a stark difference between the candidates. Bill Clinton has been networking for decades, long before he was President, and Hillary used her time as First Lady to expand her own network of political alliances as well as to plug into the network which Bill had already established. Obama, Mr. Johnny-come-lately, can’t come close to matching Hillary’s ability to carry more Democrats into office across the country.

Overriding all of these considerations is the crucial question: who can beat John McCain on November 4? It doesn’t do any good to have the best possible person for the job if he can’t get elected. The polls right now show Hillary having an edge in the matchup against John McCain. In key battleground states, Hillary has a clear advantage. Moreover, the momentum is clearly moving in Hillary’s direction. Barack Obama peaked on Super Tuesday, and has pretty much stalled out since then. Meanwhile, Hillary is surging. Of the ten most populous states, which combined account for half of the nation’s population, Hillary won seven. Nearly a third of Hillary’s supporters say that they would vote for McCain over Obama. Voters nationwide are experiencing “buyer’s remorse” as they begin to see exactly what kind of person Barack Obama really is, and wonder if he can be elected President, and more importantly, if they really want him to be President. I would have to conclude that Hillary is electable and Obama is not.

In the real world where I would never dream of promoting Hillary Clinton, my loyalty is not for sale. But as a Democrat Party Elite, I would be accustomed to the gravy train and all of the perks which my prominent position entitle me to. Knowing what I know about both candidates, I would have to conclude that Hillary would be in a position to offer better swag to thank me for my support. Of course that is negotiable, and I would be open to hear Obama’s offer.

Shortly after Super Tuesday, Obama seemed to be on the roll, and the case could be made that superdelegates who voted for him were expressing the will of the majority of their party. Since then, several key factors have shifted, and I believe that if, heaven forbid, I was a Democrat superdelegate, I would have to vote for Hillary.