i unabashedly and unashamedly want women in africa to have more access to abortion, and i'm not not ashamed to admit that it's partly because i realize that they need to reduce their fertility rate.

and, if you don't like that then vote republican to stop me from giving it to them.

and, if the democratic leadership won't say it, i will: if you don't believe in rights for women, then stop pretending you're a democrat. vote republican.

there should be a goal in the next democratic administration to ensure that, when they inevitably lose power, the next incoming republican administration does not reverse this policy.

they should be fighting to win this one for keeps.

listen.

i'm not interested in fear mongering and emotional manipulation. i want to look at data. let the republicans be the stupid party.

this is a map that measures where people are being born.

you'll notice something - countries with low birth rates are correlated with countries where women have rights. why is that? because, when given the choice, women tend to prefer to have a child or two, not become baby factories.

so, why do we have these unsustainable birth rates in the developing world and what do we need to do to take them down to the more sustainable rates we see in the developed world?

and, the answer is that we need to fight hard to ensure that women in third world countries have the abilities to make their own choices, by struggling against the systems of religious and patriarchal dominance, by educating them about specific things and by giving them better access to birth control, contraception and abortion.

and, all of the democratic candidates should stand up and say this - or be grilled as to why they don't support women.

this is a debate we need to have, and a debate we need to win, and a debate that the conservatives of the world need to concede their wrongheaded position on.

why do they let this woman publish?

she's a buffoon.

let the conservatives yell and scream, at the end of the day they'll need to explain why they're opposed to basic rights for women, and they're going to eventually lose this debate.

sanders should double down and repeat himself gratuitously - because he's right, and his position is both feminist and populist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/05/now-this-is-legitimate-graph/

what are my views on restorative v adjudicative processes nowadays? do i think we should have sentencing circles or fire and brimstone judges sending people up the river?

neither.

i think we should replace the process with a system of tort. and, i've already been over that.

this would be a fundamentally restorative approach in scope in that it would focus more on restitution than retribution, but it would retain the function of the judiciary to determine guilt and sentencing. in extreme cases, you'd have to remove people from the population, still, mostly due to the realities of mental illness. but, in most cases, the judge would order the offender to do something for the community and something for the victim, with the dual purposes of undoing whatever harm was done and reintegrating the person into the community.

i do think this is a novel approach to the text.

in an analysis of 1984, nobody expects the spanish inquisition.

https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2013/10/christian-imagery-in-george-orwells-1984.html

the "review" was too incompetent to even challenge.

i'll just ask for the judge to do it right.

so, in a situation where there's questions of racial bias, the citizen comittee is maybe a useful propaganda step. maybe that black guy wants some people that look like him to look at the case, and maybe he's too stupid to figure the system out.

but, they add nothing to the legal process, and in my case were just a waste of time.

and, i will reiterate that the statute should be revisited: there should be some process where i can choose to bypass such a thing, and go directly to court.

what the report they produced has - and is intended to have - is propaganda value, because many of these debates are mostly fought in the public arena. you may often have situations where the police are technically correct, but did something morally wrong. that is the purpose of bringing in this "citizen committee".

so, for example, let's say you had a situation where a white cop is accused of roughing up a black man. the cop may not have actually broken the law, but the situation looks bad. so, what you do is get a committee with some black people on it to say the cop didn't break the law. then, the report gets circulated to media, which is where the debate is actually happening.

in my scenario, i actually have a real legal argument because the cop actually really broke the law. i'm not making a moral appeal, and trying to gain concessions by appealing to public opinion. in fact, i don't really give a fuck about what popular opinion is at all. what i care about is the narrow, legalistic interpretation, which the citizen committee was completely incapable of even beginning to understand.

so, by actually having an actual case, i fell through the cracks of a system that is designed to manipulate the media.

when i file the judicial review, the request will be to put aside the citizen committee's analysis as irrelevant because the proper basis of review was correctness. we're not going to argue with them. we're going to just completely ignore them, as though they don't even exist - because, in context, they actually shouldn't. so, we're going to have the judge look directly at the initial report and carry through with the review that the citizen committee was incapable of doing.

and, listen - i told you from the very beginning that the phony report from the phony police department was going to be a waste of time. i told you they were stalling. i told you that there wasn't anything i could do but wait.

so, to suggest i was anything but completely correct would be disingenuous.

what you have to understand is that what they produced is not actually a legal document. these people have no formal legal training, and the exercise has no value in court.

so, i haven't lost a legal battle. i've just had to deal with a wasteful statute that's slowed the process down.

the legal battle will begin in earnest when i launch the appropriate judicial review, and finally get this mess in front of somebody qualified to rule on it.

and, i told you that ten months ago.

i mean, let's have this reality check, here.

the fact that a substantial number of americans - i would think less than a majority, probably - think they have the right to smoke and bbq in their yards at the expense of their neighbours' health is exactly why the rest of the world, including canada, hates america.

do you understand that?

so, fuck your bbq.

and, fuck america, too.

this is instructive, eh?

i mean, you certainly don't think i'm pro-american, do you?

and, if you're going to call me anti-american (or anti-australian, as it may be) for my position on this, that's fine.

i'd volunteer myself as anti-american for a thousand other reasons, anyways.

i can understand a certain level of cluelessness and ignorance about the dangers of second-hand smoke, and the need for people to change their existing patterns of behaviour. we're talking about a substantive change in how people behave and act, here. it's going to take time, education and effort to get people to stop doing this.

but, i can't forgive people that push back after being educated about it, that refuse to learn or that refuse to care.

so, no.

it's not an issue of "property rights".

it's a question of if you have an enough respect for the people around you to avoid doing things that harm, bother or annoy them.

and, if you don't, you're a piece of shit. simple.

stop.

find me the place in the universal declaration of human rights where it talks about the right to smoke.

because i can cite lots of similar documents that talk about the right to fresh air.

i am an anarchist.

i'm not a nihilist.

and, i actually think that most people would agree with me.

living in a residential area should mean

- you don't burn leaves
- you don't burn plastic
- you don't burn garbage
- you don't burn tobacco
- you don't burn marijuana
- you don't burn coal
- you don't burn dead animals

and, in time,

- you don't burn gasoline

if you want to burn things, move to the sticks.

no, really.

if you're living in an urban area, it's really hard to justify burning anything outside at all. it's completely backwards, primitive behaviour.

if you insist on the need to burn things outside, you should move to a barn on the outskirts of town.

if i were her, the immediate thing i'd do is buy a lot of foliage, and essentially try and smoke them out.

if they want to hang out in their yard and smoke, they should get used to giant plumes of sage and leaves going all night.

the basic idea underlying anarchist thought is that your rights end where the rights of others begin.

and, if you don't understand why barbequing and smoking in your backyard is infringing on the rights of others, you're an idiot and a lost cause.

i would support passing more strenuous bylaws that forbid barbequing in residential backyards. if you're going to have a barbeque, you should go to a park or a bar, where you're not bothering your neighbours.

i know it's easy enough to argue that this is some kind of infringement on your freedom, but it isn't. you don't have the right to unnecessarily pollute the air and bother your neighbours. you're just a disgusting, inconsiderate piece of shit that doesn't give a fuck about anybody except yourself, and you should be called out for it and ultimately fined for it by a local government that is insistent on upholding actual, meaningful rights to things like fresh air and an absence of unnecessary noise.

as it is, i would support the woman's law suit. if there wasn't enough evidence before that they're trying to cause a nuisance and bother her, there sure is now.

and, i would support charging each and every person that attends the event with causing a public disturbance and disturbing the peace.

if you disagree with me, i guess we don't want to live in the same sort of society, or have the same kind of concept of what freedom or anarchy means.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5853199/vegan-sues-bbq-neighbours/?utm_source=Article&utm_medium=MostPopular&utm_campaign=2014

there is a history of unwanted sterilization in the united states, often perpetuated by people that called themselves "progressives" (and were in truth usually the worst kind of reactionaries) and that's something that people that call themselves "progressives" have not done enough to take responsibility for and try to atone for.

but, if you have some kind of example of cia agents tracking down brown women in the global south and forcing them into unwanted abortions, i'd like to hear about it.

i mean, that is the issue, here - the tendency of the right to think it's up to the state to make reproductive decisions for women, via patriarchal and religious institutions, regulations, laws, customs and, in some cases, via flat-out rape and intimidation.

it's actually an example of right-wing demagoguery, and something that should be attacked head-on - because at some point this needs to stop. at some point, republicans need to stop reversing this policy.

so, it's easy to argue that sanders walked into a trap like an idiot, but i actually think he's right.

the scare-mongering and alarmism is coming from conservatives on this, who want to frame the issue as one of totalitarian governments seeking out and terminating brown children. that's not reality, and not underlying any sort of actual government policy; if that is your concern, you should be more afraid of elon musk and bill gates than bernie sanders or al gore.

rather, the idea is that if you give women educational opportunities and reproductive autonomy then they will freely choose to reduce the number of children they have, which is something you see across the divide between the developed and undeveloped world.

in countries where women have rights, they tend to prefer to have less children. so, it follows that a way to get the population under control is to give women more rights. and, if conservatives have a problem with that, they need to explain why they're opposed to women's rights.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/05/bernie-sanders-abortion-population-control/

like, how reliant is bell's inequality on the myth of euclidean orthogonality?

ok.

so, it seems like some people are figuring this out.

this is essentially what i'm actually saying:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/498c/57b589b4109cea874e3cd994fa646eba2be4.pdf

but, it doesn't eliminate the frustration of watching some introduce quantum mechanics using linear algebra over euclidean vector spaces.

but, it's true: this is the screwy doublethink business model of modern physics instruction.

they teach you things that are wrong, and force you to do it wrong, even if you can figure it out. they'll tell you you have to do it wrong before you can do it right, like a sick, twisted hazing ritual. and, then they do it over and over again.

so, you need to resign yourself to the fact that they'll teach you a different wrong thing next year, and then undo it the year after.

and, if they just told you how to do it right in the first place, they'd collapse their ponzi scheme: you wouldn't need eight years of physics, you'd need two or three.

"they generalize to hyperbolic vector spaces in the next level course".

oh, you son of a bitch.

(i don't think that's actually true.)

physicists should get this better than the internet seems to suggest they do, too. but, reading through threads full of poorly thought out reasoning is also useful in better articulating my own.

so, what i'm saying is that the vector space should be reflective of reality, which is curved. i'm not talking about "curved vectors". the vectors would be straight, in the curved vector space.

"woah", you say "how can something be straight in a curved space? crazy mathematician."

but, i must interject that you're a bad physicist, because every straight-line you've ever seen in your life has existed in reality, which is a curved spaced. this is not crazy. it's a first principle.

listen: i can empathize, but you need to relent. i went through this, too. they teach you it wrong every year, starting in like grade 11, until you get to the end and realize there isn't even such thing as a straight line. it turns kant and descartes on their respective heads. and, it's enough to make you give up and just fucking play guitar.

hyperbolic geometry isn't just some set of silly escherian drawings. it's the correct way to describe the space that particles move through, and thus necessary to understand in modelling their behaviour. you have to adjust to the point, even if it makes the math almost impossible.

but, you do this: you bring in these awful correcting terms to do basic newtonian mechanics, and you might grit your teeth, but you know you need to take it, like the bad medicine it is.

you need to start doing it in quantum physics, too. you need to discard the childish myth of orthogonality. you need to move completely out of the classical world.

and, to be clear: i'm not talking about co-ordinate systems. that's a relabelling process; it's a triviality.

what i'm talking about is:

1) the curvature of space. we should be able to do linear algebra in a curved vector space, but we have to make sure we're using the right rules, when we do.

2) the stability of space. this is more challenging, as it's going to require constant adjustments, not just lorentz-style multiplication factors. but, we know that space is not a static concept, and we know that these effects should be more powerful at the quantum level than at the relativistic scale.

so, i've decided to watch every video at the stanford youtube site in the order it was uploaded (with minor corrections to ensure series are in order), and the first thing in the list is an introduction to quantum mechanics. he first goes through a review of what was, for me, first year linear algebra (although it may have been a higher level course for non-honours students, or physics students, especially engineering physics students). and, there's an immediate problem that jumps up.

i never took a dedicated course in quantum mechanics like this (i did take a dedicated course in relativity theory), so it's somewhat of a different presentation, and seeing it plopped down on the table like this really exposes the nature of the problem i've been trying to draw attention to all of these years.

it's the geometry of space that's at the heart of these contradictions. he's building the whole thing up over orthogonal vector spaces, when we know damned well from relativity that space is curved (and probably hyperbolic). there's even an axiom of orthogonality, which is ridiculous, in context.

the point i keep trying to draw attention to is that the general field theory may very well come out in the wash if you stop doing relativity in hyperbolic space and quantum physics in euclidean space. so, how do you adjust? well it's actually a job for a mathematician, right?

in theory, these ideas ought to generalize if you just do them right. but, a hilbert space is going to be associative by assumption, and a corresponding vector space in a hyperbolic geometry isn't. so, that right there is going to screw up the math.

i've asked this question here a few times: if you were trying to understand space (which is both expanding and curved) using euclidean geometry (which is fixed and orthogonal) wouldn't you expect your reference frame to see an illusory multitude of non-existent dimensions?

i just have this nagging feeling that this is actually a lot easier than anybody realizes.

so, after recalibrating, i'm finally back on track and want to get most of this done before i stop to eat...