We are told that we are on the wrong trajectory. We are foreclosing. Recessing.

We are unhappy about the direction of the country. We are told we need a change. When times are tough, it seems there are two ways Americans can go: we can polarize and itemize, pick and choose our Constitutional issues and vote according to uncompromising ideals, or we can band together, fortified by our cohesive strength, and help to lift each other up. In my lifetime, I have seen the country do this once, in the aftermath of 9/11. My parents and their parents have seen similar moments of grief and hope interspersed throughout the last century, turning points when great accomplishments were made possible by the peoples belief in a common cause. It seems to me that we may be on the cusp of such a turning point in this election year, and that if pushed hard enough, we may find the gumption to not only push back, but push forward. With this in mind, it is my firm conviction that Americans can and will sacrifice on a personal level in order to obtain some societal gainwe have done so numerous times in the past 12 years, forfeiting civil liberties in the name of national security, and young soldiers lives in the name of bringing democracy to the middle east. We have shown that in order to strengthen ourselves as a whole, we are willing to give as individuals, and in that vein there is no reason to assume that the pressing and urgent issues at hand today cannot be solved by and large by we, the people. Al Gore and his $300 million Alliance for Climate Change ad campaign tell me every evening during my binge reality TV time that there is no more pressing moral issue than solving the global climate crisis, and to some extent, I agree. We didnt wait for someone else to guarantee Civil Rights, or storm the beaches at Normandy, or send a man to the moon! the spots proclaim, evoking the capacity of American innovation and our self-image as the worlds moral and scientific leader. Who else but us could tackle such an issue, and show the world how its done? There is perhaps no better way to mobilize the American masses then to play to our egos, and so I say: Well done, Al! Now all we need is the solution. It seems obvious, though important, to point out that in order to solve this problem, one variable must be emphasized, and that is the burning of fossil fuels. Simply put, this variable must be reduced (or, ideally, eliminated) in order to quell global warming. To those that believe that global warming is an over-hyped myth, a media

phenomenon created to scare us off oil, I say that youre entitled to your opinion, and that really, it doesnt matter. Oil is simply too expensive and too limited to continue to be the crux of our fuel economy. It is going to run out, and most of it is controlled by nations unsympathetic to our issues with gas prices. Even it you dont think its an environmental problem, you cant deny it has become a massive economic problem. Thus, the argument stands: we must reduce our reliance on oil. In America, a land largely dominated by and designed around automobiles, this variable not only affects the economy and the global oil market, but more importantly, it affects almost every citizen who needs to get to work, pick their kids up from day care, or buy a carton of milk, and to that end it is largely an individual variable, multiplied by the millions of cars that hit the road every day. Again, this all seems obvious, and it brings me to my obvious conclusion: that in order to solve this problem, we are going to have to drive less. I say drive less instead of drive differently because auto manufacturers, though clearly working toward the possibility of hybrid/electric/corn-fed cars, have stated time and time again that the transition will inevitably be slow, arduous, and wrought with opposition, which it certainly has been to this point. With that in mind, until the gas variable is reduced by fuel-efficient or environmentally friendly cars (presumably when they become the industry standard, are affordable, and make up the majority of cars in the country, a transition that at the current rate could take decades,) we must then decrease it by the only means available, which means on that individual level of driving less, if at all. Heres where that individual sacrifice idea comes in. Solutions to problems of this nature are often arbitrarily decided, in order to be more fairthings like the military draft, the random audit, and the speeding ticket are largely luck-of-the-draw, but serve a compelling societal and governmental interest. You may not be the one chosen, but someone has to be. In this instance, I think it best to go the way of the draft, which discriminates based on sex because of the interest of the armed forces in maintaining a maledominated, physically tough fighting corps. The sexes are usually seen as equal under the law, but sometimes, differentiation is acceptable. And now, Ill go ahead and say it: women are terrible drivers. Even though men get into more accidents every year, I have no doubt that those accidents are largely caused by women. Have you ever been on a freeway behind a minivan? Or in a carpool line? I mean really. (I should make it clear that I am a woman, and my own driving ability is no exception.) With this in mind, I find it only fitting that the less adept, and less likely users of automobiles (men drive more, which also explains having more accidents,) should stop using them altogether.

And so we come to a logical solution: In order to solve global warming and the growing oil crisis, women should no longer be able to drive. By taking away a womans right to drive, we will HALVE the number of drivers polluting, congesting and generally mucking up our nations roads. We will see increases in carpooling and ride sharing, and voters will support (in many cases demand) the expansion and improvement of public transportation systems. With demand for gas dramatically decreased, oil companies will be forced to lower their prices, assuaging demands on drivers pocketbooks. And I guarantee a more than 50% decrease in auto-related fatalities. Now, there will naturally need to be some exceptions to this rule. I propose this ban on women drivers only expand to private drivers, of their own carsthat is, bus drivers, Fed Ex employees, etc, will still be able to drive company transportation as a part of their jobs. 16 year-old girls will still be able to obtain licenses to this effect, but will no longer be able to drive themselves to school. I have no doubt that many people will express outrage and disbelief at this idea, but really, if you think about it, its a lot less ridiculous than allowing Prohibition, or for that matter, the Patriot Act. Naturally this will require a restructuring of many lives, and for some, it will not be easy. The rewards, however, will greatly outweigh these inconveniences. Aside from the obvious environmental and economic benefits, an increased public interest in transportation will lead to better, more cohesive communities, where people carpool and ride the bus together. Women will walk more, and get more beneficial exercise- can we solve the obesity epidemic as well? Why not! This solution will positively affect many aspects of an individuals life, but requires only one sacrifice. Now, naturally there needs to be some degree of give-and-take. As women will be sacrificing a right that they have previously enjoyed, it seems only fair that men do the same during the interim of this experiment. I propose the following sacrifice for many of the same reasons as I proposed the first: Men may drive more, but they vote less. Also, women were denied the right to vote for over a century of this nations history. Men are less likely to become personally involved in political action, and tend to be more out of touch with current issues. So, it seems, the natural counter to the womens sacrifice is for men to lose their right to vote. Again, this will serve a compelling societal interest as men will need to express their political views in terms of persuading women, dialog will open across the sexes that will ensure more discussion of issues too often put on the back burner, such as education, health care and the environment. Advocating and perpetuating war, issues so often prioritized by men, will seem less relevant in

the face of a domestic-minded electorate. Because they will not be heard on election day, men will have to become more politically involved outside of the voting booth if they want their voices heard. The balance of power, thrown off by women loosing the right to drive, will undoubtedly be leveled out by their increased importance in the democratic process. Will everyone be happy about this compromise? Of course not! But the more important question is WILL IT WORK? Clearly, it has enormous potential. There are real, serious problems at work in our country, and it is apparent that we Americans are capable of great personal sacrifice in order to overcome them. We must band together to heal and strengthen this nation, and we must turn to radical solutions if we are to enjoy the effects of change in our lifetime. So you: Stop driving! And you: Stop voting! And together, we can set this ship aright.