Not a Bull's Notion

international | miscellaneous | opinion/analysis Monday February 27, 2006 06:30 by Seán Ryan

Indybook - Table of Contents and First Chapter

The story begins......

The first chapter of the first Indybook is presented, along with a list of links to the other chapters.

The first chapter is Titled: A rant and the shape of things to come.

And that about sums it up.

Contents:

I - A rant and the shape of things to come - Below
II - A quick journey through enslavement - sometimes called our educational system - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74008
III - Employment and the results of slave training - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74011
IV - The Church: Wannabe Slave-Masters of the State - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74031
V - Social Welfare an oxymoron for the state - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/73962
VI - Crime, a child of need or greed? - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/73972
VII - Much ado about nothing - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74534
VIII - God - the possibilities beyond a reasonable doubt - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74165
IX - Society - a tool for the few to burden the many - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74132
X - Democracy - the upside down pyramid - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74494
XI - Time and Motion - paradox - Old masters and new contenders like Bertie Ahern - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74171
XII - Self the singular now of what is a multi-dimensional travelling mapmaker - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74265
XIII - Us, electrons who collide and light up the night - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74070
XIV - Nuclear War 21st. century style - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74048
XV - Body Language, Subliminal Advertising and Terrorism - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74090
XVI - Probability - God actually favours the chancer - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74447
XVII - Music and the rhythm of Gods - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74518

Chapter I.
A Rant and the shape of things to come

Anarchy.

Do as you will and to let that be the whole of your law.

Is it possible to act deliberately without using your will?

Surely every choice made, despite at times being forced to narrow decisions by threat or otherwise is still a product of the will?

What is the difference between being a human and being part of humanity or its more dilute form, Irish society?

Is there some cosmic yardstick with which we can quantify humanity?

Humanity is that which makes us similar to each other, but better than animals. It sounds deep and wonderful. Yet no two humans are or would want to be the same.

As for being better than animals, did they have a say in this? Does a cat think it is better than a mouse? Is it? Does the aids virus think it is better than us? I say think, as you will.

It would be fair to say humanity is an idealised average that any human may approach but will never reach. This is of course because once a person changes, the emphasis of humanity shifts and changes to accommodate and encompass this person and the rest of mankind, i.e. you take a step forward, and it takes a step forward. It is with this in mind I would say, he who lets humanity dictate his will, has truly put the cart before the horse.

It sounds to me like humanity and God are similar. Some other similarities include, both God and humanity claim to make us human, when one does a good deed it can be the will of God or an act of humanity, and when one commits a crime, it can be an act against humanity or it can be a sin.

Yet humanity is more corporeal than something that is imagined, its processes and effects are seen and felt all over our planet. Plus unlike God, humanity should be in the service of man and not the other way round, as it is in the practiced tenets of democracy, capitalism and communism.

The idea of free will is more greatly realized through humanity than through any singular human. For instance, it would be considered morally wrong for an individual to exact revenge for some perceived or actual misdeed against him. Yet for humanity revenge/punishment is par for the courts, not to mention some societies taking the odd excursion or two into genocidal practices. Indeed it can be shown that humanity defies the morality that it itself has defined. Humanity is a hypocrite, in that it defines rules that it does not see itself as being subject to. See what I mean about God and humanity being similar?

Again this brings home the seeming duality of humanity and God. It would even be correct to surmise that for humanity all things are possible (given time).

Where is the substance of humanity? It is describable, yet it cannot be defined definitively as it is constantly on the move.

It's not that I am trying to equate or replace God with humanity. I am saying that the idea of humanity is as vague and as ethereal a notion, as is the notion of a God.

And I am saying that humanity is not that which makes us human. Humanity is what those who wield the power would decree for us to be. Humanity is two separate entities, one being what can only be described as wishful thinking and the other being a murderous, contemptible beast.

Humanity in my opinion, has become a disease and it is funny that God and humanity are so similar, because the two main carriers for humanity and God, are Church and State, either sucking and feeding off the other until either the time that they merge, reassert their re-commitment to their original roles, or the time that their roles reverse.

To me humanity can only start to be summed up, by calling it a seething mass of contradictions. For everyone who possesses an opinion or a conviction, there is someone else who disagrees. From here a kind of evolution takes place, and opinion and conviction seem to be governed by survival of the fittest. The fittest being mob rule, as opposed to being something with substance, something that is self evidently correct.

It is in this line of thinking, that I bring in the idea, that humanity is a chaotic system, and that the core, of the concepts of good and evil, will never possess any solid foundation, other than that of threat.

So much for humanity, or rather so much for what humanity has become.

Some may argue that I go too far in my criticisms. I think not, and will justify each remark later. Of course this will not satiate all, but it may help to know that this is a work that reflects my opinion solely, and that it is ok to disagree with me. I consider myself to be a practicing hypocrite, in that I reserve the right to change my opinion on any subject, at any time without consultation, warning or apology.

Is there a single theory that sums up all that we are?

A famous author and the founder of the Scientology movement, L. Ron Hubbard once wrote a short story about simplifying why mankind does what mankind does. He told us that all the knowledge of man was condensed in steps, and finally all of humanity's knowledge was condensed into a single word and this word was "survive".

The word "survive" might not sum up all that we are, but it does sum up what some of us are very are good at doing. It seems to me, that this word is the guiding principle in politics. There are no actions aimed at improving the state, or its conditions. Instead every act and motion is geared at either the political party's survival or the survival of the politician, him or herself. This is the true evil behind politics and it is why we see, and will continue to see, generations of the same families and others, who swim in the same little polluted puddle, that is the genetic gene pool that makes up government.

Are any of these people fit to rule?

Of course not, they just make and know the rules and are in a position where they can capitalise on them and then set it up for their children, so that they can do it too. This is why a politician will never express a conviction about an issue, on which public opinion is not clear and decisive, or unless there is a plan to make, or have made, public opinion. Once a conviction is expressed, people will line up into those who support it and those who abhor it, with those who support it outweighing those who don't support it. This is of course if the pr's and shit spreaders have done a good job. When it backfires the pr's and the shit spreaders work like their jobs depend on it and sort it all out most of the time. This can threaten a politician's or a political party's survival and it is therefore mandatory, that nobody within our political system, must ever use initiative or take a risk to themselves. Would you like to be on a battlefield with one of these fuckers? And what is survival, if not a battlefield?

The general method of rule therefore is to sit back and let the show run itself, when times are bad, blame it on one's predecessors, and when times are good, take the credit for it.

A good example at this point is the Celtic Tiger (although I myself feel this kitty wasn't such a good thing). Our government would have us believe this was a result of good economic policy and belt tightening. However it is seldom pointed out that our Celtic Tiger first roared, as foreign investment having achieved a foothold, sought to take over the running of our lives and destinies. We provided cheap labour, cheap facilities and lots of arse licking for our American betters. How could we but succeed?

The proof of what I am saying is easily seen in our dependence upon the success of American and other foreign markets. And by the promise to uphold a lie spread by Bertie Ahern. He promised many moons ago that Ireland would require a referendum before Ireland would deny its neutrality policy. I say our supposed neutrality policy has been in a constant state of denial since its lurid and hazy inception (and besides, because this policy is not enshrined in our constitution, it does not require a referendum to change it). Yet we still maintained and allowed American personnel and their weapons of mass destruction to use Shannon airport as a staging point in their invasion and subsequent massacre of the Iraqi people and many more before them.

Mary Hearney seems to believe and is famous for adding, that anyone who disagrees with the government about the continual support we give to the American war machine is anti-American (as if this somehow made one less Irish). Funnily enough, I must be one of the only people in the country whom she described correctly. I am very anti-American.

I fail to see why a nation packed with people who communicate with each other via gunshot wound, (and whose primary method of dealing with other nations is the same) should take it upon themselves, to tell the world how to behave. They've all but been in a perpetual state of war, since the genocidal colonization of their nation. This in itself shows the American way of life, to be fundamentally opposed to our pacific traditional way of life. We have more in common with the original and indigenous peoples of the Americas than the current occupiers.

And what's this about not letting smaller and weaker nations possess weapons of mass destruction, short of using them on them, or selling them to them that is? More than 10,000 butchered in Afghanistan are surely an example of mass destruction, not only does America employ and deploy weapons of mass destruction, it is a weapon of mass destruction.

America the land of the brave and of the hero is after all the only nation ever to have nuked another, in the mushroom cloud sense of the idea. This being especially heinous, when a mere demonstration of a nuke, would almost certainly have ended the war with Japan. It is not termed a deterrent for nothing you know, and I believe nuking someone to demonstrate a nuke's deterrent characteristics, is a small bit on the side of hypocrisy.

It has been more than two years since the 9/11 attack on America and there has not been one since, at least not from an external source that is. Yet not a single American news broadcast misses mentioning terrorism and the 9/11 attack, many Irish news broadcasts harp on and on about it too.

Who is the terrorist? (Hint think of the term state sponsored terror). Even the anthrax seems to have come from internally. It is highly possible and very likely, that the anthrax originated in one of America's biological weapons research and storage facilities. It is also interesting to note, that no facility, whether it be a biological weapons facility or a chemical weapons facility, has ever been inspected by the UN.

Does evolution govern the formation of matter from the elements?

Matter obeys the laws of cause and effect, as do humans to a point, yet when one looks at Quantum Mechanics, cause and effect get thrown out the window, in that the concepts of cause and effect can become the one entity, i.e. effects can be their own causes. (The electron behaving as a wave or wave particle duality. More about this later.)

We also have the problem that Quantum Mechanics introduces the idea, that all events require an observer (see Schrödinger's Cat). This is seen as a wave function. Everything is probability, until an observation coalesces it into an event. It is at this point that the electron stops behaving as a wave and becomes a particle.

God fans would normally at this point say, that the beginning of the universe had to have had an observer, and that this observer would have been God. Allow me to point out, that all observation comes after the actual event, we can observe the universe now and at some point if and when we can break the light speed barrier or perfect quantum tunnelling, we can shoot to the edge of the universe catching up with the light from the original big bang and observe it, if this is possible.

We have the shadowy observation of the big bang right now, in that we have the theory, the background radiation, and it seems that all the galaxies are flying away from each other. This will get clearer over time when we eventually observe it or all but observe it.

People ask, "Why are we here?" the answer is simple, we are here to witness. We as observers are fundamental to cause and effect. Without us as observers the universe would just be probability (by observe I mean, to be effected by or witness to an event). Life can be placed at the centre of the universe, in much the same way as the church put the earth at the centre of the universe in the Middle Ages. It is a great pity that scientists, who have given us so much, always try to show, how unimportant man is in the great scheme of things. Could survival of the fittest be redefined with the word fittest meaning best observers? It seems to me that the universe containing sentient and somewhat self-aware beings is the factor that allows a process that is quantum mechanical in essence, to become a universe of relativity and atoms. Could it be that foresight, insight and hindsight are some of the ultimate forces in the universe?

Just as I'm beginning to sound like a hippy let me say sight is governed by light as are the boundaries if they exist of the universe. Love is neither the eternal driving force nor is it the eternal message; light is both the carrier and the message.

Is Humanity trying to dictate and control the evolution of man? Anyone who feels this way see earlier about humanity moving after the individual has moved. In which system must the master move in his servant's footsteps? Humanity has always been most violently shaken by individuals and small groups of individuals, not by its own dictates. I speak of individuals like Einstein, Bach, Nietzsche, Pasteur and Galileo not to mention the millions of others all of whom were individuals first and Jung's collective consciousness personified second, if at all.

Is big brother watching us because he is universally bound to do so?

Is the ultimate fate of the universe governed, not by contraction and big crunch, not by continual expansion and entropic heat death, but by one last observation before the universe blinks and again becomes pure probability?

How does evolution explain politicians without suggesting that society is now the creature that evolves, leaving man singular either to become a parasite or a worker ant?

Where does consciousness fit into the Big Bang theory?

Does M theory take the hand of God from the singularity at the instant of the big bang or does it pass the buck and place it at the beginning of time in the 11th Dimension? (This is not really a fair question as it supposes the dimension of time is a precursor and enabler of the 11th Dimension, whereas M theory says this is the other way round.)

Where does the will of the many outweighing the will of the few theory break down, as do all supposed universal laws at some point? (Except for entropy of course.)

How come with many religions, it is the case that one must weigh the odds, and then believe in God? Then when one is a member, one is expected to adhere to blind faith. In which the process of questioning, which I may add, is the very process that decided them in the first place, becomes sinful.

What is free speech with laws about censorship, slander and libel?

What good is the data protection act without a data gathering law?

Why do Christians insist they have free will, when the very notion contradicts the notion of an absolute God?

Why after 800+ years of slavery and landlordism, do we again start to relinquish control of our country (this time willingly), to another foreign power, even though the idea of unity and sovereignty as demanded and commanded by our constitution, forbid and deny this?

What does Military Neutrality mean? To put these two words together is blasphemy, because they attempt to dampen the meaning of neutrality. A more suitable phrase might be 'Nearly Neutral', or perhaps, 'Not Neutral'.

Na Gardaí Siochana, whose name literally means guardians of the peace, whose peace did they guard at Shannon Airport?

Is it, or is it not illegal to shoot someone? The Law would seem to say yes but the Gardaí who are supposedly subject to the same law, say a resolute no and kill John Carthy to prove their point. They went another step thumbing their noses at the law in general when they baton charged a crowd of people, who were saying that they were unhappy with the way Irish society was supposedly working and is heading (I speak of course of the ill fated anti-capitalist protest). It is interesting to note that some months later at another and much more disruptive demonstration, that not a single farmer was jailed for failing to display road tax on his tractor. Knowing how the Gardaí relish the opportunity to make a few bob working the traffic scam, I find this very striking.

Is this an example of the case that when enough voices, or more to the point, the right voices say no, a law becomes irrelevant?

When did priests and other representatives of the Catholic Church become above the Law? Or were they ever beneath it to begin with?

Isn't it time to privatise the courts who believe that financial fines for drug abuse, prostitution etc., are punishment and not just a way of taxing practices that they feel themselves morally superior to. In fact the government, in my opinion are an example of a privatised organisation, why not de-privatise those fuckers.

If the love of money is the root of all that is evil why is the demanding of it seen as justice?

Does the buying of justice not at least sound a few alarm bells? Not to mention the fact that bringing money into the process, what with rich and poor making up society, makes it a non-possibility that all could be presumed and or treated as equals. (I concede that having a judge present, nullifies this possibility too, but at least I must commend judges for their overall goodness and a want to do what is right, despite working in a system that defies logic and that is painfully and obviously, an example of the existence of an Irish joke).

Wouldn't it be better also to privatise the Gardaí and the army, at least then I'd be able to buy a say, in how they operate.

Oops too late, somebody got there before me, I wonder who? The protection of banks and others, and their money transferrals now take precedence over the protection of my life, limb and property.

It also appears that the protection of American war interests in Shannon airport, take precedence over life, limb and property too, in fact protecting foreign interests from some of the very same life and limb, on Irish property, that their own title has foresworn them to protect. In other words those who have sworn to protect us from within or without our country, put the want of a foreign government to invade, dominate and decimate another foreign country, into the barrel of a gun and pointed it at Irish citizens in this country.

Why is it, that if any other uniformed and armed military force of foreign nationality, pointed weapons at unarmed Irish citizens, on Irish soil, that this would be seen as an act of war, at least I would consider it one and yet, the Gardaí and the army have done nothing wrong? What does this say of a supposed Irish government, that they were only too willing to point weapons at Irish citizens, on the behalf of foreign powers? I reckon if Sadham had taken this approach he wouldn't have got into half as much trouble.

I would love to hear how the army's commander and chief, the president feels about this. I don't criticize individual Gardaí or army personnel here, I criticize the system (Then again, "I was following orders", was not seen as a valid excuse at the trials in Nuremberg). I go along with the old adage, that most of the people are mostly good most of the time. I also believe that most people join the Gardaí with a genuine want to make, or to help make society a better place. Plus those who don't know any better can't do any better. This is not to say, that as with all walks of life, that there aren't some total shites too.

Of course one can just hear the bullshit and waffle the government will answer this charge with. Yes, Irish troops and the Gardaí were acting under the direction of the Irish government at all times. When we feel the security of the state is at risk, we stand by the decision to resort to violence when necessary. The government is very willing to debate with Irish citizens at gunpoint when security of the state is the issue. But when somebody who has the power to strike back, puts the state in an immediate, and clear and present danger it's off to the courts in Europe and a few letters of protest for our brave leaders. I speak of course of England threatening to irradiate Ireland with Windscale or Selafield or whatever that nuclear toilet is currently labelled.

What about RTE? Someone explain to me, the difference between a television license and the crime of extortion, without saying the government told them they could do it. I mean for fuck sake if we changed our flag to the stars and stripes, we would then have a national television station mostly.

Why would we consult with an American, who honestly believes that democracy can be forced on a nation, via war, about issues of government and peace in Northern Ireland (Considering that the peace talks are of a consequence that denies that rule may be imposed on a people without their consent)? This is further complicated when that smiling goon, Tony Blair is added to the picture.

Why would we send a person who believes a $50 million jet, a big spike and a Bertie Bowl, to mention but a few, take precedence over health, education, transport, homelessness and in general, life, to represent us in issues dealing with issues of government and peace in Northern Ireland? I may also add that if any of these ideas fail to bear fruit, it is not down to the government having seen sense.

Not to mention the fact that Bertie also whole-heartedly supports the notion that a democracy can be violently imposed on a nation.

To make this even more ludicrous, they all claim that peace, may only be arrived at by decommissioning. I can see why decommissioning is important, but I cannot see how any of the above three possess the balls, to even bring it up.

Peace is arrived at by not killing people, which in turn requires the want, not to kill people.

What about this? What is the difference between Fine Fail and Fine Gael? And don't answer me with the crap about holding out for the 32 counties (in the question the word, "is", brings us into the present tense). Other than one having a large rural membership, and the other, a large urban one, and of course one of them constantly being in power, and the other not, are there any ideological or fundamental differences? Here's a better one, what is the difference between Fianna Fail and the P.D.'s? Finally the mind boggling, what is the difference between the P.D.'s and Fine Gael? Not including in the answer the differences between Fine Fail and Fine Gael or the answer to the difference between Fine Fail and the P.D.'s. Look at the complexity that can arise over issues that should be apparent if not indeed obvious. No wonder politics has become a science, the science of bullshit and codology.

Are we forever damned to the same thing, no matter what shower gets voted in?

Has Irish media become subservient to the state and others? Or better still, why has Irish media become subservient to the state and big business, considering they were born out of opposition to either?

Surely the media should be those who police the powers that be. This is not a job that they need to be elected to do. At least this is what their distant ancestors did or at least tried to do.

The voice of the people has become the call of the siren, luring the doomed into the mouths of big business. The media is no longer driven in the search for truth, and the protection of its wards, it's driven by profit. The tendency is to water down issues and then not follow through. It seems the media are the last to know anything worth knowing, preferring instead to lie and whore for their advertising minded masters. There are one or two exceptions that would make this issue nearly worth debating.

Evermore and evermore, we see and hear the infallible moral majority, condemn prostitution.

Sex between consenting adults is perfectly legal, it is the making of money from it, that is illegal, yet even the Catholic Church, by far the most ancient of rock chuckers in this country, demands money for its services. They in fact even have their own bank. Not to mention that they pay no taxes. Even prostitutes pay taxes via the morally purifying fine, and furthermore the Church or the Justice System has no problem banking their money either.

Come to think of it I can pick up my phone, after having a look through the daily papers and talk in a very sexually explicit manner, to a girl of my choice, and because these girls are pimped by big business and telephone companies, no laws are broken. Yet If I were to pay a prostitute to talk, "dirty" to me, the law is broken.

I'm beginning to see the picture here. Morality is only a label. The real issue lies with who the pimp happens to be. For instance if the girl is her own pimp, she is breaking the law. If Eircom is her pimp, then everything's fine.

This line of reason begs the question, are most laws providing for the rich to prey on the poor? Well put it this way; why not make a list under two headings. Heading one, "criminal laws", and list any law that applies to all citizens. Heading two, "social responsibilities", and list our responsibilities to society and the state. It doesn't matter if lots of your entries occur in both columns or if lots of entries are related to each other. When the list is complete, use this method to tidy the list up a bit. Go through each entry and try to think of an exception to it. For instance, if you had paying taxes in the, "social responsibilities", section and not paying taxes, in the "criminal laws" section and it occurred to you, that somebody had been naughty and that you yourself believe, they got away with it. Turn your pencil upside down and rub out both entries. Next entry and so on and on until you go through them all. Now have a think back to all the exceptions. Did they have a predominantly high social status, or a predominantly low social status, or was it a nice and fair mixture of the two?

Does the state believe that a lot of women, who also happen to be citizens, would aspire to become prostitutes?

Surely the want, or the need to become a prostitute, reflects the value, or for that matter values, the state has invested into these people.

The state by fining and criminalizing these women tends to keep them working as prostitutes, in order to sustain a standard of living and pay the fines. Imagine a young girl trying to pull herself out of this cycle, when it states in her curriculum vitae that she has a criminal conviction for prostitution.

Surely it would be better not to fine these people, if only for the reason that they, who would like to think themselves better, should sleep easier. I mean surely the lifestyle itself, is punishment enough if considered by those who feel they know better.

Sex that doesn't produce a victim needs to be taken out of the hands of the majority and given back to those who consent and particularly so when the vast majority condemns orgies.

Sex is everywhere. Sex is used to sell everything; from toilet paper to computers (Sex does produce a victim in advertising). It's only when an individual decides to sell some that the idea of legality arises.

There are plenty of marriages around where the husband provides for the family in return for amongst other things, sex. Even the church will sanction the act of sex for money, provided that nobody involved spells it out. In fact it wasn't so long ago that the church was only too willing to spell out a wife's marital duties.

There are many young women out there, who earn a living and I use the word "living" lightly, for being unmarried mothers. Now I'm not for a moment suggesting that unmarried mothers are inferior. I'm suggesting that the state treats them as second class citizens. It is only recently that unmarried mothers threw off the chains of workhouses and were recognised as human beings. Even now they still wait for social equality. The constitution sees the family as being sacred to it. Employment and society in general are set up to facilitate families with two parents. Fair enough both parents will probably have to work just to make ends meet. Single parent families get fucked. The parent will be separated from the kids for extended periods due to employment and then have to pay a stranger to act as a pseudo parent. Or if the parent doesn't work they live well below the poverty line. Irregardless as to whether this parent works or not, living above the poverty line is a dream to most.

It's also interesting to note, that there is nobody in government or combination, of other premature ejaculators, that could form a government at present that would think of condemning this large body of voters, or their young future voters, to their faces, now that they have had some of the unclean status lifted. Yet they literally condemn Irish women without ever having the balls to say it out loud. Do they see children from single parent families as being less Irish; will their children in turn be less Irish again? Is it possible that in the future, that we could have a race of Irish people, who are capable of breeding the Irishness out of themselves? Is it possible to breed the Irishness out of a group of Irish people? Is it in fact part of the political mandate that this and other supposed Irish governments have tried to implement? Our constitution seeks to empower the individual citizen not disenfranchise him or in this case her, not to mention that our constitution sees the idea of a peerage as a non Irish one, and I would suggest that this "mistake" be rectified or clarified, one or the other and sooner rather than later.

Again I am not demonising unmarried mothers. In fact I think a lot of marriages are a waste of time and effort.

I feel that the state is now in the same position as the church was, when it dictated marital duties and obligations (not that it still doesn't try). By this I mean that marriage is now an institution within the grasp of political control. Taxation for instance is different for a married person than for a single person. The state can grant a divorce (even though they cannot say who should and who should not get married), this is not within the power of the individual (in Ireland anyway), families with parents who are married are treated differently than unmarried mothers and fathers.

I could be cynical and say just because the state endorses it, that marriage is a waste of time. Good old-fashioned values belonged in the good old fashioned times, if ever there were any.

But I would prefer to go at this issue from a different angle.

For a long time a curios phenomenon has puzzled people studying evolution and people studying anthropology, and it is called hidden ovulation.

It seems that the female of the human species is the only creature whose time of fertility is hidden from her mate. All other species have obvious displays or behaviours, that show when the time for fertilization is at hand, except of course those who replicate without the need for a partner, like single celled creatures and members of the Dáil.

The most probable answer at this time is that females require both a good provider and a good genetic material donor. Hidden ovulation allows the woman to marry a wealthy man and have a poorer, but genetically better man father her children without causing her marriage and financial security to fail (If she isn't found out that is).

This theory as to why women have hidden ovulation has always bothered me. In that something about it has always felt illogical to me. For instance, hidden ovulation can backfire when unwanted pregnancy occurs, and destroy a marriage also. Evolution tends to bestow gifts that do not have such a high rate of backfires. This idea of getting the right environment and the right genetic material as being the goal of hidden ovulation seems to be a sword of Damocles. It does not easily allow for birth control and yet this is what the theory is all about.

Plus it doesn't help make her offspring more viable, from a genetic perspective. Well it does, but as the following example shows, it is only a hairs breath away from providing the opposite to what is wanted. Genetics can be cruel. Imagine breeding Pamela Anderson with Einstein, to get good looks and brains. What if the child ends up with Albert's looks and Pamela's brains (I am not slagging Pammy's I.Q. here I am praising Einstein's)?

Another reason that I feel this theory doesn't hold water, is today's breakdown in what is traditionally the description of a family. Far more people today choose not to marry and thus destroy the theory, as to why hidden ovulation occurs, as it is now the case that a financially secure husband is no longer a requirement, if ever it was, for the average woman. (Yes a woman may now provide a stable environment herself and still the hidden ovulation goes on.)

I think that the modern trend in single parent families is partially a response mechanism to the uselessness tag that society and government have placed upon the vast majority of people in this country. I think the trend is an evolutionary if not a revolutionary trend in response to society and as a direct consequence to hidden ovulation itself.

I believe hidden ovulation itself is a response to society in that a woman does not have to bow to the will of the many in how she conceives; this is a form of contraception that is very effective. This also encourages diversity and may show that anarchistic tendencies are an evolutionary trait.

It is also the people who are ignored, saying that if there are enough of us then we cannot be ignored.

I would suggest that when this call began that it was the time to start listening and acting.

But for those of us, who are more into control than reason, the call is at best unheard and at worst it is ignored.

We live in an era of electronics, quantum mechanics and space exploration, yet the vast majority are expected to stick labels on the sides of boxes, or enquire as to whether one requires fries with one's burger.

Are these jobs needed?

A begrudging yes is the answer. My problem lies with the making of these professions a lifetime commitment and worse a lifetime commitment to others, not under the jurisdiction of our constitution. Is this what our country asks for now? Our ancestors, who have given so much for our freedom, should have done so that we now give up our zest for life. Our country only asks for two things, despite the promises of our Constitution, that we work and that we vote. If only it would ask for more.