(Spanish) El perico dice lo que sabe, pero no sabe lo que dice.

(English) The parrot says what he knows, but doesn’t know what he says.

A Maryland court recently ruled that if a woman consents to sex at any point, she cannot withdraw her consent after the act has begun (“Court: Woman can’t say no after start of sex,” Associated Press, Oct. 31). I say, good for Maryland — even if they do have a long way to go, at least they’re heading in the right direction. Other states need to join the movement and get rid of these sad liberal policies from recent decades protecting rape “victims.”

I still don’t understand how anyone ever came up with the idea that such women are victims. Only witches could make the stronger sex act on such base impulses; it’s the men who are the real victims in these cases. It’s just another habit we need to break. In the past several decades, our once-proud nation has been steaming ahead under the guidance of the liberal agenda. We’ve instituted sexist policies that favor women over men and enable women not only to have sex out of wedlock, but also to blame men for it.

Haven’t the liberals had their fun? It’s time to get this nation back on track, and we’ve been doing a pretty good job these past few years. This is not the time to start backsliding. Liberals are a bunch of parrots: They say what they know they “should” say — what the devil wants them to say — but they don’t know the meaning behind what they’re saying. When they say that a woman should be protected from rape, it’s as much of a euphemism as claiming to be “pro-choice.” These pretty words hide the real meaning — they want to sacrifice living souls in the latter case, and take away a man’s right to make decisions about when he wants to have sex in the former.

According to a poll attached to an article about the Maryland decision, only around 40 percent of people agree with the court’s decision. This is the root of the problem. Because we are a representative democracy, in order to make real progress we have to sway the majority; otherwise this stride forward will simply be overturned after the next election.

Easy ways to move the masses involve propaganda and scare tactics. (It’s too expensive to present sound arguments, simply because there are too many people who are apathetic or stupid or have had their reasoning abilities permanently damaged by liberalism.) You never have to worry much about people if you scare them. If people are scared of you, you can get away with almost anything because they won’t risk sticking their necks out to complain. Sure, there’s the worry that if you scare them too much (but not enough to actually grab power) you’ll get locked up. But that’s usually only if you kill people or injure small children (and even these can be taken care of by the right lawyers).

But even if you don’t want to go to that extreme, there are smaller things you can do to instill fear, and over time they add up. It’s best to divide and conquer in this case — let women work themselves into a frenzy about “getting raped;” get people on the border scared of illegal immigrants wanting to steal their jobs; make sure people are primed to suspect anyone remotely different in appearance or behavior as a potential terrorist.

This is why the Bush administration is one of the best we’ve had — how many people have come knocking since we started random bombings, other than those few liberal whiners who are still holding out? This frees up the government to do what needs to be done. I know I certainly won’t complain about the administration taking away a couple of silly, little rights. I’m no terrorist, and I’m certainly never going to be “raped,” so why should I risk my neck for those sinners who bring punishment on themselves? I know they’ll never come for me.

Kate is disgusted that she was even able to write that. Chastise her at kltang@stanford.edu.