just what were you thinking, buddy?

it all comes down to abortion, really. this judge, judge roberts or something, sucks. he is just some hack that pushes a christian/elitist agenda via a bench and gavel -- and i guess that's ok. that is the way the system was set up. but there has to be a high correlation between western religions and fascism.

seriously, have there ever been more judgmental sects than the jews, christians and muslims? these people are worse than pythagoras killing fools because he didn't understand the square root of two, or irrational numbers -- thinking of course that the discovery of such numbers would shake the cosmology of his sect.

here are some tips for you: if your religion wants you to do anything, it sucks -- it looks to control you more than it does to help you find a significant relationship with the creative force. if your religion tells you that other people are not living their lives as they should be, you are part of a psychotic cult, and you should kill yourself in a closet without asking others to join you.

oh, and did i mention that not only do i not give a fuck about the ridiculous laws under this obsolete constitution, but i could really give a fuck less about who they put in a little black robe to interpret either the laws or the constitution? (ok, i am going to pay attention, but for reference more than reverence.) and most of all, i could care less about whether or not women can have abortions.

this is a point that i would like to stand on. there are many, many, many developments in the past 200 or so years that have made the constitution obsolete, and just below the advent of the nuclear age and above the outcome of the civil war rests universal suffrage.

when the framers of the constitution lived, you had to be a white, land-owning man to vote. and i suppose that if you understand that all rights insured by a constitutional republic are paid for by property taxes, that might seem logical to you. it sure seems logical to me. with the advent of universal suffrage (meaning collectively women, non-whites and non-land-owners), a peculiar thing happened. all of a sudden, the united states became a little (ok, a lot) less representative.

you see, back before this suffrage, the electors and the electees were from the same groups (rich, white, male). this seems to be the way that it should be. ideally, a representative government would have a similar structure to a sample in mathematical statistics. you would want it so that the smaller group (sample, electees) is a microcosm of the larger group (population, electors).

but oddly enough, with universal suffrage, what does this sample look like? i know, rhetorical question. that's right, they are all still white, land-owning men. now i can't say a lot about white, as i believe that whites are a majority in the united states (though i am not the least bit interested to look and see if that is correct).

land owning is pretty significant, though. as i mentioned, all of the rights insured by the constitution are contingent upon property ownership. though i could certainly go into some depth on the matter, i will simply point out that if a right is violated and the government must right the wrong, it is done with funding that comes from taxes ... property taxes. without the property taxes, there is no money to pay someone to protect your rights.

not that you really have rights to begin with. they are more like limits on how much the government can do to use you as its base for building a stronger future ... with the hopes that at some point in the future we may have either world domination or world peace, or better still: both. remember, think globally.

but back to my point, once women, in specifics, were allowed to vote and participate in government, we really needed a new structure. with demographics so easily split in two, the answer seems obvious to me. a government should have two positions (one male and one female) where ever there is one now. two presidents. two supreme courts. twice the number of congressmen.

i am no longer interested in wasting my time defending issues that pertain to women, and not to men at all. men have as serious of problems in american life as women do. in fact, we are more violent, more absent, more ignorant and more counter-productive to the furthering of the species.

and on top of that, when i look at the way that society is set up (not meaning the government or the financial system), i see a giant rat race designed with the express purpose of man's procurement of woman. power, wealth, strength, success, skill ... each of them serves only the purpose to differentiate who the men are that deserve the line share of the women.

i find it kind of insulting that women have gone along with this for so long, when implied is what all men KNOW, that women have all the power in the world with them wherever they go. and moreover, i find it down right perverted that women are beginning to measure themselves in these same terms. there is a more respectful way for us all to live, i am sure of it. and i am sure that it begins with women having as much say in the future as men do, which is not the same as women being allowed to have as much say in the future as men do -- as semantic as the difference may be.

i do hold some relevant minor beliefs.

1. i believe that abortion is not a wise decision. most of the time, i would suggest having the baby and letting the fates have their say in life.

2. i believe that it would be more detrimental to society to not allow abortion than to allow it. there is no threat of abortion killing off the species. but i can assure you that without abortion, there would be more crime. logic is as follows: no abortion = more unwanted children; more unwanted children = more crime; ergo no abortion = more crime.

3. i believe the express purpose of putting judge roberts on the supreme court is to outlaw abortion. because of his age, it is possible that he will cast a vote for as many as 50 years (given an increase in life expentancy).

4. i believe that because it is a decision that affects a woman's own body, and not a man's body, that a woman should decide by her own values (which may or may not include input from the man) on an abortion. and that whether or not she tells the man is also her own decision. in short, i pass judgment on neither. this translates to law as saying that no man should be part of any legislation for or against abortion.

in contrast with that last one, i actually think that it is the duty of any man to support a woman in her decision.

i remember we had these dogs once. pete and repeat were their names. half german shepherd, half pit bull. pete was a boy (shortly thereafter killed by a car), and repeat a girl (who lived a long and normal life with with a nurse who was one of my sister's closest friends).

on the day that repeat had gotten fixed -- often an abortion for farm dogs, as it was for my own dog -- none of the dogs were allowed near her. she had one of those stupid collars on, and laid all night on the couch, and maybe for a day or two following that. the entire time, the dogs were banished to the out-of-doors.

but pete, he sat there on the front porch, and any time a dog approached the house, he stood tall with the hairs on the back of his neck standing straight up, barking out some sort of machismo code that no one was coming near his sister until she was fine -- no fights were fought. this is as it should be.

men are better creatures than what they seem to be. and really, the guidance they lose searching for women, they gain it back in spades they have women in their lives. there is certainly method to the madness. but men are utterly lost without the guidance of women. and whatever we can do to repay them for our survival, we should do.

really, i don't have a clue what i am talking about. and to stress that, it actually took me a long time just to have anything to say on this matter. sure, i rambled on senselessly once again, but ... fuck it.