Friam

Fwd: Winds of Change

Classic

List

Threaded

39 messages Options

Prof David West

Re: Fwd: Winds of Change

Social activists on list - take note. :)

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1571746374/ref=pe_113430_22293040_pd_re_dt_dt3

davew

On Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 08:42 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

Great Catch, Robert. I am afraid my finger was hovering over the send button. Gawd I have such naïve fingers. I did wonder, though, about the pension claim. And also, I am not so keen on term limits, unless lobbyists also have them. Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2012 8:09 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: Winds of Change

You might want to check this out first: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/congressional-reform-act/
Robert C

On 1/7/12 5:01 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

I don't think I've ever done a chain letter before, but I thought this one was worth making an exception.

On the other hand, I have so little respect for the voters of this country who allowed us to get into our current state.

But still...

Winds of Change....

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.

<snipped/>
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Paul Paryski

Re: Fwd: Winds of Change

In reply to this post by Gary Schiltz-4

Alas it would be unprofessional to elaborate. Sorry, Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Schiltz <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sun, Jan 8, 2012 3:16 pm
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: Winds of Change

Care to elaborate on 'we created small "crises" to create change.'?

Don't remember where I saw it (bumper sticker, email...), but "I'll consider thinking of a corporation as a person when Texas puts one to death."

Gary

On Jan 8, 2012, at 3:21 PM, Paul Paryski wrote:

And as long as corporations are considered to be legal persons who can make unlimited political contributions and create super pacs, nothing will change. I believe that, unfortunately, real change will only come with tragic, painful crisis and perhaps "collapse" (ref. Jarred Diamond). This was one of the conclusions a number of us in the UN came to and we sometimes created small "crises" to create change.

cheers on a snowy day, Paul

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Re: Fwd: Winds of Change

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

Owen -

While I'm on it: I feel disenfranchised this year because the Dems don't have a primary too.

My parents used to (re)register every election for whatever party had the most interesting primaries. Then one day they woke up died-in-the-wool Republicans.

The old saying goes "if you are not liberal when you are young and conservative when you are old, there is something wrong". My variation is "if you are not idealistic when you are young and pragmatic when you are old, there might be something a little awry". I was *much* more enamored of the conservative ideals when I was young (because I was growing up in a time when liberal ideals were in the water, as it were, and conservatives were busy trying to regain that ground... perhaps as they are again?).

Pragmatism and worldly experience lead me to embrace liberal idealogy, or at least spirit much more as time went on. I want to live in a world of happiness and abundance, not fear and scarcity. Some might argue that I'm on the wrong side of the "ticket" for this, but the bottom line for me is seeking to frame the very real problems of the world in a way that allows them to be solved and not to require the domination of any group over any other (including the tyrannical majority of democracy over it's minorities).

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

Owen -

Isn't this what Americans Elect (among other things) trying to address? After the initial flurry of discussion about this group, I've seen nothing else here.

I was disturbed by certain things about them but as an alternative mechanism, maybe they are worth more attention?

- Steve

While I'm on it: I feel disenfranchised this year because the Dems don't have a primary too. Why not, for heven's sake? Shouldn't we presume that a better Dem might emerge over the last few years? Is it a law that the current party cannot have a primary?

I don't know if its too late for me to register Republican .. or if NM has an Independent registration that can vote in both primaries. But I can't help liking the guy wanting to stop having wars.

glen ropella

Re: Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

Steve Smith wrote circa 12-01-09 01:51 PM:
> Isn't this what Americans Elect (among other things) trying to
> address? After the initial flurry of discussion about this group, I've
> seen nothing else here.
>
> I was disturbed by certain things about them but as an alternative
> mechanism, maybe they are worth more attention?

I still get e-mails from them asking for money. I've answered 223 of
their stupidly dichotomous questions and voted on 20 of them. I've seen
nothing from them but solicitations for money. I won't give them any
money. I have way too many established charities knocking.

At this point, I'm inclined to write them off.

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Greg Sonnenfeld

Re: Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

I wouldn't worry about their bad questions or money requests. Just
ignore those until they are fixed and vote in the primary :P

****************************
Greg Sonnenfeld

“The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be
sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.”

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:17 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Steve Smith wrote circa 12-01-09 01:51 PM:
>> Isn't this what Americans Elect (among other things) trying to
>> address? After the initial flurry of discussion about this group, I've
>> seen nothing else here.
>>
>> I was disturbed by certain things about them but as an alternative
>> mechanism, maybe they are worth more attention?
>
> I still get e-mails from them asking for money. I've answered 223 of
> their stupidly dichotomous questions and voted on 20 of them. I've seen
> nothing from them but solicitations for money. I won't give them any
> money. I have way too many established charities knocking.
>
> At this point, I'm inclined to write them off.
>
> --
> glen
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: Fwd: Winds of Change

In reply to this post by Paul Paryski

Tease :-)

On Jan 9, 2012, at 2:01 PM, Paul Paryski wrote:

Alas it would be unprofessional to elaborate. Sorry, Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Schiltz <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sun, Jan 8, 2012 3:16 pm
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: Winds of Change

Care to elaborate on 'we created small "crises" to create change.'?

Don't remember where I saw it (bumper sticker, email...), but "I'll consider thinking of a corporation as a person when Texas puts one to death."

Gary

On Jan 8, 2012, at 3:21 PM, Paul Paryski wrote:

And as long as corporations are considered to be legal persons who can make unlimited political contributions and create super pacs, nothing will change. I believe that, unfortunately, real change will only come with tragic, painful crisis and perhaps "collapse" (ref. Jarred Diamond). This was one of the conclusions a number of us in the UN came to and we sometimes created small "crises" to create change.

cheers on a snowy day, Paul

Steve Smith

Re: Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

In reply to this post by Greg Sonnenfeld

What is everyone (else's) current take on the Americans Elect at this
point? I just took the time to (re)sign up and go through about 100
questions and then looked at the draft candidates and at the "questions"
being put forth for debate by the candidates somewhere down the line.

Overall I was much more impressed with the situation than I was in the
past.

The debate "questions" being put forward were hampered in quality by
the source... "the unwashed masses" are going to come up with a lot of
whackadoodle things, or if not whackadoodle ideas, whackadoodle
expressions of perfectly good ideas. I tried "voting" on about 100 of
the questions (some of the most popular, but mostly the "most recent".
It wasn't clear I was helping... I'm hoping the questions get rendered
down more (but also well) as many questions were variations on each other.

> I wouldn't worry about their bad questions or money requests. Just
> ignore those until they are fixed and vote in the primary :P
>
> ****************************
> Greg Sonnenfeld
>
> “The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be
> sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.”
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:17 PM, glen<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Steve Smith wrote circa 12-01-09 01:51 PM:
>>> Isn't this what Americans Elect (among other things) trying to
>>> address? After the initial flurry of discussion about this group, I've
>>> seen nothing else here.
>>>
>>> I was disturbed by certain things about them but as an alternative
>>> mechanism, maybe they are worth more attention?
>> I still get e-mails from them asking for money. I've answered 223 of
>> their stupidly dichotomous questions and voted on 20 of them. I've seen
>> nothing from them but solicitations for money. I won't give them any
>> money. I have way too many established charities knocking.
>>
>> At this point, I'm inclined to write them off.
>>
>> --
>> glen
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

glen ropella

Re: Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

I'm still waiting for them to say something interesting. I'm watching
some candidates. I won't commit to sending them my social security
number and birth date until I have evidence that they're credible.

FYI, I enjoy this website re: americans elect:

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/category/americanselect/

Steve Smith wrote at 03/14/2012 03:08 PM:

> What is everyone (else's) current take on the Americans Elect at this
> point? I just took the time to (re)sign up and go through about 100
> questions and then looked at the draft candidates and at the "questions"
> being put forth for debate by the candidates somewhere down the line.
>
> Overall I was much more impressed with the situation than I was in the
> past.
>
> The debate "questions" being put forward were hampered in quality by
> the source... "the unwashed masses" are going to come up with a lot of
> whackadoodle things, or if not whackadoodle ideas, whackadoodle
> expressions of perfectly good ideas. I tried "voting" on about 100 of
> the questions (some of the most popular, but mostly the "most recent".
> It wasn't clear I was helping... I'm hoping the questions get rendered
> down more (but also well) as many questions were variations on each other.
>> I wouldn't worry about their bad questions or money requests. Just
>> ignore those until they are fixed and vote in the primary :P
>>
>> ****************************
>> Greg Sonnenfeld
>>
>> “The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be
>> sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.”
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:17 PM, glen<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Steve Smith wrote circa 12-01-09 01:51 PM:
>>>> Isn't this what Americans Elect (among other things) trying to
>>>> address? After the initial flurry of discussion about this group,
>>>> I've
>>>> seen nothing else here.
>>>>
>>>> I was disturbed by certain things about them but as an alternative
>>>> mechanism, maybe they are worth more attention?
>>> I still get e-mails from them asking for money. I've answered 223 of
>>> their stupidly dichotomous questions and voted on 20 of them. I've seen
>>> nothing from them but solicitations for money. I won't give them any
>>> money. I have way too many established charities knocking.
>>>
>>> At this point, I'm inclined to write them off.
>>>
>>> --
>>> glen
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Greg Sonnenfeld

Re: Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

If you want I could ask the regional coordinator to give you guys an
e-mail so you could discuss your concerns.

****************************
Greg Sonnenfeld

“The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be
sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.”

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:44 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I'm still waiting for them to say something interesting. I'm watching
> some candidates. I won't commit to sending them my social security
> number and birth date until I have evidence that they're credible.
>
> FYI, I enjoy this website re: americans elect:
>
> http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/category/americanselect/
>
>
> Steve Smith wrote at 03/14/2012 03:08 PM:
>> What is everyone (else's) current take on the Americans Elect at this
>> point? I just took the time to (re)sign up and go through about 100
>> questions and then looked at the draft candidates and at the "questions"
>> being put forth for debate by the candidates somewhere down the line.
>>
>> Overall I was much more impressed with the situation than I was in the
>> past.
>>
>> The debate "questions" being put forward were hampered in quality by
>> the source... "the unwashed masses" are going to come up with a lot of
>> whackadoodle things, or if not whackadoodle ideas, whackadoodle
>> expressions of perfectly good ideas. I tried "voting" on about 100 of
>> the questions (some of the most popular, but mostly the "most recent".
>> It wasn't clear I was helping... I'm hoping the questions get rendered
>> down more (but also well) as many questions were variations on each other.
>>> I wouldn't worry about their bad questions or money requests. Just
>>> ignore those until they are fixed and vote in the primary :P
>>>
>>> ****************************
>>> Greg Sonnenfeld
>>>
>>> “The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be
>>> sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:17 PM, glen<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Steve Smith wrote circa 12-01-09 01:51 PM:
>>>>> Isn't this what Americans Elect (among other things) trying to
>>>>> address? After the initial flurry of discussion about this group,
>>>>> I've
>>>>> seen nothing else here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was disturbed by certain things about them but as an alternative
>>>>> mechanism, maybe they are worth more attention?
>>>> I still get e-mails from them asking for money. I've answered 223 of
>>>> their stupidly dichotomous questions and voted on 20 of them. I've seen
>>>> nothing from them but solicitations for money. I won't give them any
>>>> money. I have way too many established charities knocking.
>>>>
>>>> At this point, I'm inclined to write them off.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> glen
>>>>
>>>> ============================================================
>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
> --
> glen
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Gillian Densmore

Re: Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

That might help. I know I used to get emails from them mostly about what to make there logo to look like. Part of the problem at least on my end is lac of transperency and comunication. Maybe I needed to somehow know I needed to watch the forums or something. Even then discus ala FRIAM would(V) helped at least in my case.

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Greg Sonnenfeld <[hidden email]> wrote:

If you want I could ask the regional coordinator to give you guys an
e-mail so you could discuss your concerns.

****************************
Greg Sonnenfeld

“The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be
sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.”

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 4:44 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm still waiting for them to say something interesting. I'm watching
> some candidates. I won't commit to sending them my social security
> number and birth date until I have evidence that they're credible.
>
> FYI, I enjoy this website re: americans elect:
>
> http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/category/americanselect/
>
>
> Steve Smith wrote at 03/14/2012 03:08 PM:
>> What is everyone (else's) current take on the Americans Elect at this
>> point? I just took the time to (re)sign up and go through about 100
>> questions and then looked at the draft candidates and at the "questions"
>> being put forth for debate by the candidates somewhere down the line.
>>
>> Overall I was much more impressed with the situation than I was in the
>> past.
>>
>> The debate "questions" being put forward were hampered in quality by
>> the source... "the unwashed masses" are going to come up with a lot of
>> whackadoodle things, or if not whackadoodle ideas, whackadoodle
>> expressions of perfectly good ideas. I tried "voting" on about 100 of
>> the questions (some of the most popular, but mostly the "most recent".
>> It wasn't clear I was helping... I'm hoping the questions get rendered
>> down more (but also well) as many questions were variations on each other.
>>> I wouldn't worry about their bad questions or money requests. Just
>>> ignore those until they are fixed and vote in the primary :P
>>>
>>> ****************************
>>> Greg Sonnenfeld
>>>
>>> “The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be
>>> sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 3:17 PM, glen<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> Steve Smith wrote circa 12-01-09 01:51 PM:
>>>>> Isn't this what Americans Elect (among other things) trying to
>>>>> address? After the initial flurry of discussion about this group,
>>>>> I've
>>>>> seen nothing else here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was disturbed by certain things about them but as an alternative
>>>>> mechanism, maybe they are worth more attention?
>>>> I still get e-mails from them asking for money. I've answered 223 of
>>>> their stupidly dichotomous questions and voted on 20 of them. I've seen
>>>> nothing from them but solicitations for money. I won't give them any
>>>> money. I have way too many established charities knocking.
>>>>
>>>> At this point, I'm inclined to write them off.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> glen
>>>>
>>>> ============================================================
>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
> --
> glen
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

glen ropella

Re: Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

I don't think it would help me. An e-mail directly to me might make me
feel like one of the cool kids. But my main concern is the sense that
Americans Elect is a corporation, not a democratic process. Don't get
me wrong, I'm all for corporations to the right purpose and context.
But AECorp seems a bit shadowy to me. If I were pressed to be concrete
about my feelings, I'd have to say that it's just too difficult to
investigate the clique members involved. And when I do find some new
piece of data about them, it's nefarious ... like the identities of the
largest funders and the evolution from Unity08.

I just don't get the feeling AECorp has my best interests in mind.

Not that that's a big deal. The Demopublicans don't have my best
interests in mind, either. But at least they admit that they're
political parties, whose sole purpose is to help politicians get (and
stay) elected as long as they tow the party line. That seems more
authentic than a shadowy corporation that claims it's not a party,
funded mostly in secret by long-term behind-the-scenes political players.

These data should be prominent on their website, not hidden in PDFs I
have to hunt for. And even if they privately sent _me_ all that data
and it was all above board, I would still wonder why it wasn't on the
website so anyone could see it immediately.

Gillian Densmore wrote at 03/15/2012 06:42 PM:

> That might help. I know I used to get emails from them mostly about what
> to make there logo to look like. Part of the problem at least on my end
> is lac of transperency and comunication. Maybe I needed to somehow know
> I needed to watch the forums or something. Even then discus ala FRIAM
> would(V) helped at least in my case.
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Greg Sonnenfeld <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> If you want I could ask the regional coordinator to give you guys an
> e-mail so you could discuss your concerns.

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

This article sums up my feelings on the subject:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46692982

--Doug

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don't think it would help me. An e-mail directly to me might make me
feel like one of the cool kids. But my main concern is the sense that
Americans Elect is a corporation, not a democratic process. Don't get
me wrong, I'm all for corporations to the right purpose and context.
But AECorp seems a bit shadowy to me. If I were pressed to be concrete
about my feelings, I'd have to say that it's just too difficult to
investigate the clique members involved. And when I do find some new
piece of data about them, it's nefarious ... like the identities of the
largest funders and the evolution from Unity08.

I just don't get the feeling AECorp has my best interests in mind.

Not that that's a big deal. The Demopublicans don't have my best
interests in mind, either. But at least they admit that they're
political parties, whose sole purpose is to help politicians get (and
stay) elected as long as they tow the party line. That seems more
authentic than a shadowy corporation that claims it's not a party,
funded mostly in secret by long-term behind-the-scenes political players.

These data should be prominent on their website, not hidden in PDFs I
have to hunt for. And even if they privately sent _me_ all that data
and it was all above board, I would still wonder why it wasn't on the
website so anyone could see it immediately.

Gillian Densmore wrote at 03/15/2012 06:42 PM:

> That might help. I know I used to get emails from them mostly about what
> to make there logo to look like. Part of the problem at least on my end
> is lac of transperency and comunication. Maybe I needed to somehow know
> I needed to watch the forums or something. Even then discus ala FRIAM
> would(V) helped at least in my case.
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Greg Sonnenfeld <[hidden email]

> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> If you want I could ask the regional coordinator to give you guys an
> e-mail so you could discuss your concerns.

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

Bad as things are, now, I fear that a third “party”, by any name, would further divide the non crazy vote.

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 10:02 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

This article sums up my feelings on the subject:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46692982

--Doug

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> If you want I could ask the regional coordinator to give you guys an
> e-mail so you could discuss your concerns.

Steve Smith

Re: Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

I share your (various) doubts about the people behind the AE process, but I *do* welcome the concept of a more open and engaged and egalitarian process for supporting existing politicians who are not insiders at the big show (e.g. Kucenich, Gary Johnson) and for maybe finding/exposing/supporting people who *don't* already play in politics (or at least not nationally).

I'm not particulary deluded (or misiguided?) by the AE folks into believing they have my best interests at heart... I suspect they recognized that this was an inevitable development and wanted to be in control of whatever part of it they could. That alone is a little nefarious.

But to be honest, the important question is "what *would* be a better process/circumstance for all of this?"   Who *could* foster/muster something like this.   I'd be equally (differently) scared if it were GoogleZon doing it... like
Vote.Google.com ?   Maybe someone like EFF could do something less muddied by conventional money and politics?

Certainly not FRIAM or TED or ???...

It is an interesting "experiment" even if it is openly flawed in some (not so?) obvious ways...   I'm less interested in believing this will lead to first-order useful/meaningful results for the next election than I am in understanding what this class of "meddling" can mean for our whole process.

As for Doug's article.. I'm not very inclined to like anything I hear from big-money traders about politics, if just on principle.

I think the concept that putting oneself (and career) on the line by going on the ballot and risk being voted out of the process "by the process" is interesting but probably both not very thought through and hyperbolic at the same time.

I'm hoping that this election year brings some qualitatively new things, and ideally ones I am more impressed with than the 2000 and 2004 elections. The "draw" of 2000 and the *re-election* of Bush in 04 were both fairly big things in politics in my opinion (not ones I welcome, especially in retrospect, but big things nevertheless).

I think our only viable option at this point is to give Obama 4 more years to unlimber the rest of his skills and experience now that he's had time to settle in, learn some ropes, lay some foundations. Maybe the public are tired of their obstructionist congresspeople and will elect some more who are interested in getting things done. Or maybe the divisiveness will continue and expose itself yet more?

Meanwhile, 2016 is sure to be a hoot.   I predict things will have changed as radically by then as we could wish, if not neccesarily in an appealing direction.

- Steve

This article sums up my feelings on the subject:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46692982

--Doug

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don't think it would help me. An e-mail directly to me might make me
feel like one of the cool kids. But my main concern is the sense that
Americans Elect is a corporation, not a democratic process. Don't get
me wrong, I'm all for corporations to the right purpose and context.
But AECorp seems a bit shadowy to me. If I were pressed to be concrete
about my feelings, I'd have to say that it's just too difficult to
investigate the clique members involved. And when I do find some new
piece of data about them, it's nefarious ... like the identities of the
largest funders and the evolution from Unity08.

I just don't get the feeling AECorp has my best interests in mind.

Not that that's a big deal. The Demopublicans don't have my best
interests in mind, either. But at least they admit that they're
political parties, whose sole purpose is to help politicians get (and
stay) elected as long as they tow the party line. That seems more
authentic than a shadowy corporation that claims it's not a party,
funded mostly in secret by long-term behind-the-scenes political players.

These data should be prominent on their website, not hidden in PDFs I
have to hunt for. And even if they privately sent _me_ all that data
and it was all above board, I would still wonder why it wasn't on the
website so anyone could see it immediately.

Gillian Densmore wrote at 03/15/2012 06:42 PM:

> That might help. I know I used to get emails from them mostly about what
> to make there logo to look like. Part of the problem at least on my end
> is lac of transperency and comunication. Maybe I needed to somehow know
> I needed to watch the forums or something. Even then discus ala FRIAM
> would(V) helped at least in my case.
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Greg Sonnenfeld <[hidden email]

> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> If you want I could ask the regional coordinator to give you guys an
> e-mail so you could discuss your concerns.

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Gillian Densmore

Re: Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

I feer the only way to 'get things' done is to convert to a technocracy and possible a parimenatarian one at that-but short of that--yeah my issue with AECorp is it isn't transparent-not that the democracts/repubs are but that'd be a start if possible-i'm also a little wary of having to supply my social to "be involved" it's bad enough that the JC wants my social for virtualy everything. But yeah- what happend to the promise by AE to be a better process and be a direct election etc. oO ?

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I share your (various) doubts about the people behind the AE process, but I *do* welcome the concept of a more open and engaged and egalitarian process for supporting existing politicians who are not insiders at the big show (e.g. Kucenich, Gary Johnson) and for maybe finding/exposing/supporting people who *don't* already play in politics (or at least not nationally).

I'm not particulary deluded (or misiguided?) by the AE folks into believing they have my best interests at heart... I suspect they recognized that this was an inevitable development and wanted to be in control of whatever part of it they could. That alone is a little nefarious.

But to be honest, the important question is "what *would* be a better process/circumstance for all of this?"   Who *could* foster/muster something like this.   I'd be equally (differently) scared if it were GoogleZon doing it... like
Vote.Google.com ?   Maybe someone like EFF could do something less muddied by conventional money and politics?

Certainly not FRIAM or TED or ???...

It is an interesting "experiment" even if it is openly flawed in some (not so?) obvious ways...   I'm less interested in believing this will lead to first-order useful/meaningful results for the next election than I am in understanding what this class of "meddling" can mean for our whole process.

As for Doug's article.. I'm not very inclined to like anything I hear from big-money traders about politics, if just on principle.

I think the concept that putting oneself (and career) on the line by going on the ballot and risk being voted out of the process "by the process" is interesting but probably both not very thought through and hyperbolic at the same time.

I'm hoping that this election year brings some qualitatively new things, and ideally ones I am more impressed with than the 2000 and 2004 elections. The "draw" of 2000 and the *re-election* of Bush in 04 were both fairly big things in politics in my opinion (not ones I welcome, especially in retrospect, but big things nevertheless).

I think our only viable option at this point is to give Obama 4 more years to unlimber the rest of his skills and experience now that he's had time to settle in, learn some ropes, lay some foundations. Maybe the public are tired of their obstructionist congresspeople and will elect some more who are interested in getting things done. Or maybe the divisiveness will continue and expose itself yet more?

Meanwhile, 2016 is sure to be a hoot.   I predict things will have changed as radically by then as we could wish, if not neccesarily in an appealing direction.

- Steve
This article sums up my feelings on the subject:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46692982

--Doug

On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:58 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don't think it would help me. An e-mail directly to me might make me
feel like one of the cool kids. But my main concern is the sense that
Americans Elect is a corporation, not a democratic process. Don't get
me wrong, I'm all for corporations to the right purpose and context.
But AECorp seems a bit shadowy to me. If I were pressed to be concrete
about my feelings, I'd have to say that it's just too difficult to
investigate the clique members involved. And when I do find some new
piece of data about them, it's nefarious ... like the identities of the
largest funders and the evolution from Unity08.

I just don't get the feeling AECorp has my best interests in mind.

Not that that's a big deal. The Demopublicans don't have my best
interests in mind, either. But at least they admit that they're
political parties, whose sole purpose is to help politicians get (and
stay) elected as long as they tow the party line. That seems more
authentic than a shadowy corporation that claims it's not a party,
funded mostly in secret by long-term behind-the-scenes political players.

These data should be prominent on their website, not hidden in PDFs I
have to hunt for. And even if they privately sent _me_ all that data
and it was all above board, I would still wonder why it wasn't on the
website so anyone could see it immediately.

Gillian Densmore wrote at 03/15/2012 06:42 PM:

> That might help. I know I used to get emails from them mostly about what
> to make there logo to look like. Part of the problem at least on my end
> is lac of transperency and comunication. Maybe I needed to somehow know
> I needed to watch the forums or something. Even then discus ala FRIAM
> would(V) helped at least in my case.
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Greg Sonnenfeld <[hidden email]

> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> If you want I could ask the regional coordinator to give you guys an
> e-mail so you could discuss your concerns.

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Re: Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Glen -

I agree that "winner-take-all" system highly reinforces a
(superficially) polarized 2-party circumstance...

Gil -

I used to be pro-Technocracy, but as a Technologist myself, I don't
trust/believe in my own peers any more than than I do the *rest* of the
unwashed masses. While I find the *irrational* nature of many who are
not trained/educated in *some* rational system difficult to communicate
with, I am perhaps even *more* frustrated/disappointed with those whose
education/training *includes* a good grounding in a rational system yet
still manage to transgress against that perspective at the drop of a
hat. I'm not *sure* technical literacy is necessary but it *is*
definitely *not* sufficient! In fact many of the biggest boneheads I
know have PhDs in science or engineering! The Fascists of Hitler's and
Mussolini's regimes were significantly Technocratic, totally in love
with the technology of the time (who brought us the Blitzkreig and the
V2, etc. ?)

I'm sure there is an apt quote, but my made up version for the moment is
that as sad as it is to have a heart without a head, it is much sadder
to have a head without a heart...

All -

The 2-party system and big money has certainly kept me in the silent
minority camp... voting only in 76, 80, 00, 04, 06, 08, 10 . I didn't
*like* (trust?) many if any of the candidates during my 20 year hiatus
and it wasn't until 00 that I came to *dislike* anyone enough to try to
vote against them. By 04 I was ready to raise both hands (cast multiple
votes?) if that was what it took... to no avail.

I'm not sure what the money problem is exactly. I do believe we have
one, and I see it manifest itself in the huge amount of campaign
advertising, including nasty mudslingery... but I am sure it also
finances some much dirtier tricks as well.

Obama's campaign having drawn out the long tail of campaign (lots and
lots of small contributors) seems in principle to help, or at least be a
good start. I'd like to believe that if he kept his campaigning this
round to participating in debates, he'd do fine against the opposition
as it has exposed itself to be fairly lame. *someone* would take it
upon themselves to recycle the mud-slinging generated by the primary
candidates against their ultimately "least undesirable" candidate.

I'm sure there are folks here who like Romney or Gingritch or even
Santorum... I frankly don't get it, but I know others who either *do*
like them or at least resent/fear Obama & Co enough to give it back to
the same party that brought us the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/etc. crowd.
I'm guessing this number come November will show itself to be somewhat
less than 50% of the voting public. A landslide *for* a sitting
President who has barely been able to wade halfway out of a half of the
swamps he volunteered to drain is a strong vote *against* his opponents.

I'm probably *most* interested in what "we, the people" can do... what
is *our* (mis)play in this ongoing debacle?

Yes, a change in voting system (away from winner-takes-all) is probably
critical, but *we* probably need to make that happen... the "powers that
be" have little or no incentive to do so.

Yes, money translates to political power too easily and perhaps too
invisibly... but how do we contribute to that? How do we undermine or
find alternatives to that?

Yes, our media amplifies and distorts signals and participates in
(unhealthy) feedback loops and plays into the polarization and the
big-money-influence problems.. But how do *we the people* help change
that?

My first line of defense, which I'm not always proud of, was reflected
in my lack of voting for 20 years. "don't encourage the bastards!" was
my refrain. But a softer and maybe more effective version is "don't
reinforce the divisive hyperbole and rhetoric".

Sure it feels good to nail the whole problem in one swift blow of our
hammer-like intellect (wit?), but does it actually help solve the
problem? Is our hyperbolic solution du-jour actually *doable*? Is
there a path from here to there, or is it just some Utopian fantasy we
have contrived to match our equally Dystopian fears? Is there even a
*there* there? (apologies to fans and haters of Gertrude Stein).

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one in the canoe who knows that when
it is rocking wildly, the best thing you can do if you don't want it to
tip is go "low and to the center" while everyone else is hanging wildly
out to either side screaming at the others to "quit tipping the
boat!". It would be nice to get back to actually paddling and steering!

I'm guardedly hopeful to hear Diamandis'/Kotler's "Abundance" message
and while it does fit into the Technocratic or more Techno-Utopian
scenarios I suppose.... it is only *one* ingredient in the recipe...
If magically our technical systems catch up with themselves and quit
just "pushing forward" a series of unintended consequences as they
handle to obvious, the mundane and the consequences of the last round of
*solutions* (and I don't discount the possibility... ) *how* do we (WE,
the entire global multi-cultural population of humans and any other
sentients we recognize... Cetaceans, Aliens-among-us, whatever) quit the
nonsense we have come to embrace as our birthright (various forms of
arrogant ethno-culturo-centrism, etc.) and truly begin to engage in
*enlightened self-interest*?

A phrase like "Enlightened Self Interest" is diabolically hard to
realize... I've been seeking it personally for most of my self-aware
life and not only do I have huge questions about my own success, I find
few of those who claim to have succeeded to be further from it than
those who are not even actively seeking it!

As I remember the line from the movie (after Tom Wolf's novel) "Bonfire
of the Vanities": "JUST GO HOME AND BE GOOD PEOPLE!". If only it were
as easy to do as to say...

- Steve

> Steve Smith wrote at 03/16/2012 10:54 AM:
>> But to be honest, the important question is "what *would* be a better
>> process/circumstance for all of this?" Who *could* foster/muster
>> something like this. I'd be equally (differently) scared if it were
>> GoogleZon doing it... like
>> Vote.Google.com ? Maybe someone like EFF could do something less
>> muddied by conventional money and politics?
> Personally, I think the 2-party lock-in is ensured by winner-take-all
> competitions. If we could move to another voting system, we'd see more
> 3rd party viability and more multi-dimensional choices. That would even
> fix, to some extent, the money problem because more bins for the money
> implies more distributed money. I also think it would solve some of the
> vitriol problem. It would be more difficult to make ad hominem attacks
> if there are more people to attack. Even morons like me would be forced
> to discuss the issues more and the icons less ... again because there
> are more icons.
>
> It doesn't matter where a 3rd party or lone candidate comes from, as
> long as our elections are winner-take-all, there will always be only 2
> viable parties. You can see this to some extent in the states who
> allocate their delegates by percentage, rather than maximum percentage.
>

Owen Densmore

Re: Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

Administrator

Larry Lessig apparently has two interesting views on AE

1 - Anonymous contributions: He's not bothered by them, mainly because not even the AE candidates will know who they are, thus not having power over the candidate.

2 - Occupy AE: If enough of us jump on AE, it could swing it in a favorable direction.

Just google to find more.

What bothers me most is that many of the initial popular supporters of AE have not said much lately: Tom Friedman for one.

-- Owen

glen ropella

Re: Disenfranchised? Americans Elect?

Owen Densmore wrote at 03/18/2012 12:02 PM:
> Larry Lessig apparently has two interesting views on AE
>
> 1 - Anonymous contributions: He's not bothered by them, mainly because
> not even the AE candidates will know who they are, thus not having power
> over the candidate.

Re: Lessig's anonymity argument. I found this comment interesting:

http://www.johnlumea.com/2012/03/the-shadow-super-pac-of-centrism.html

"But, for some observers, it is not down at the granular, personal level
of quid pro quo that the opportunity and the risk for corruption is most
evident at Americans Elect. Rather, it is up at the systemic, process
level — the level that, in order to see what's going on, requires a
wider-angle lens that Lessig seems unwilling to use."

As I see it, this is the same extent of the disagreement between Steven
Aftergood of Secrecy News and Wikileaks. They're both on the same side,
but Aftergood is willing to accept a little secrecy (or bureaucratic
viscosity in the flow of information) in the name of rationality whereas
Wikileaks identifies secrecy itself as part of the problem. I happen to
come down on the open side in both arguments. I.e. I don't buy Lessig's
argument at all. There is only anonymity for the individuals, not for
the _corporation_ we call Americans Elect (which has an executive team
and a board of directors with powers beyond those of the "delegates").

In more positive news:

https://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2012/03/gao_expands.html

"A classified GAO review of FBI counterterrorism programs has been
completed, and a GAO investigation of the role of contractors in
intelligence is in progress."

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org