Re: [FRIAM] Is my government too big?

[Roger Critchlow]

I asked how 300 million people settled on 0.0725 government
employees/capita for 30 years and continued arguing the whole time about
whether the government was getting too big.  Did they not know that the
size of the government/capita had stabilized?  Did they not understand that
the number of teachers, policemen, firemen, tax collectors, and inspectors
scaled with the size of the population?  Are our elected officials too
stupid to understand or explain this?  Are you all laughing at me because
this is something that every school girl knows?

Owen, the glass is half full.  I swear by 1+1=2, the glass is half full.
 And it's all going to turn out just the way it does, no matter how you
feel about it.

And not to further contribute to your self-centered hijacking of this
thread, but, Obama took the hardest job in the world, hardly anything
turned out as anyone expected or might have wished, but he did the job.  If
you're disappointed, then that's between you and your expectations.  If you
want a braggart for president, vote for Romney, he's clearly the sort who
can confidently take credit for anything that happens, with only a few
mis-steps on the way to victory.

But start your own thread and stop projecting your personal depressions
over every question raised on this mailing list.

-- rec --

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

Re: [FRIAM] Is my government too big?

[Sarbajit Roy]

Why are we having this discussion ? You folks have a President who
knows and operates on the Heisenberg Principle.

>His desire to hear the case raises the obvious question: Why didn’t he just 
>make it >himself? “It’s the Heisenberg principle,” he says. “Me asking the 
>question changes >the answer.”

On 9/15/12, Russ Abbott  wrote:
> Michael Lew has a very nice
> profileof
> Obama in Vanity Fair.
>
> *-- Russ Abbott*
> *_*
> ***  Professor, Computer Science*
> *  California State University, Los Angeles*
>


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

Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | TheEconomist

[Jochen Fromm]

The whole subject is embarrassing. 18 people, including an innocent 
Ambassador, have been killed for nothing.


Yet people who do crazy things are not necessarily crazy. Although the riots 
in the Arab world may appear strange to us - after all what has a stupid 
YouTube film of an odd Egyptian to do with Americans - they do not mean that 
people are crazy. This is what Aronson's First Law (from the psychologist 
Elliot Aronson) says: "People who do crazy things are not necessarily 
crazy".


The idea is that if we are unaware of the social circumstances that prompted 
their actions, we are tempted to conclude that they are caused by a 
deficiency in character like stupidness or insanity. But in some situations 
people may do crazy things, because they are compelled to act in crazy ways. 
It is the abnormal situation that drives them to extreme behavior.


The question is what makes such behavior seem reasonable to those who carry 
it out in this case? Preachers under pressure who blame Americans for 
everything?


-J.

- Original Message - 
From: Owen Densmore

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Fwd: America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | 
TheEconomist


My interest is not the extremists, but the fact that the leaders and 
majority do not protest against them, do not make themselves heard.


So it is about religion, but it could equally be about the NRA or racism or 
human rights or whatever.  Where the majority is silent.  And the leaders do 
not lead.


Not that I don't understand the religious issues, and your clear points 
against them (and with which I am sympathetic), but that I'm looking at 
another, broader issue that seems to appear not only in religions but many 
other areas.


Is it not striking to you that the leaders and majority are silent?  We know 
many Muslims here in Santa Fe who are sane and gracious.  They deplore the 
extreme events. But they have not yet found a platform for inserting Islam, 
the Good Parts, and their deploring the extremists, into the public 
discourse.


  -- Owen




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] faith, zombies, and crazy people (was America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist)

[glen ropella]

On 09/14/2012 06:56 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> For me, consciousness is a point of view, and any telic system has a point
> of view.  Zombies are telic systems, no?

That's a great question.  I would answer no.  Zombies cannot be telic
(as I understand that word, of course) because they are enslaved by
their context.  They are not ends in and of themselves.  They are tools
whose purpose has been installed in them by some non-zombie actor.

FWIW, the Rosenites would disagree with me.  They'd claim that a zombie
(were such possible) would be an organism closed to efficient cause
(agency).  From this, they claim such closure allows anticipation,
which, in turn, allows final cause (purpose) ... all without any
requirement for _consciousness_ ... but with a requirement for
reflective self-reference (aka closure).  Getting from reflection to
consciousness might not be that hard.  And I support them in their
quest. ;-)  But they haven't proven the closure to me.  I believe we
organisms are only partially closed (to any of the causes).  Complete
closure, in any of the causes, looks more like death to me.  So, there's
something missing from their framework ... to the limited extent to
which I understand it.

Now, we might be able to reverse engineer a tool's purpose from its
attributes.  And in that sense, a zombie might express a goal or purpose
and be called "telic" ... but that purpose would not be its _own_.
Perhaps a tool is telic, but it's not autotelic.

And this is where "faith" and "crazy" enter.  When we can't reverse
engineer a person's purpose ... or more accurately ... when we can't
empathize ... we can't tell ourselves a story in which context their
actions make sense, then they're "acting on faith" or they're crazy.  It
is this ability to empathize ... for your neurons to be stimulated
similarly to your referent's by observing their behavior ... that
presents us with the zombie paradox.  On the one hand, telling a
believable story turns you into a _machine_, a tool, without personal
responsibility or accountability.  ("My parents made me this way!")  But
on the other hand, not telling a story makes you alien, crazy, a wart
that has to be removed.

Interesting people walk that fine line between adequately explaining
themselves but leaving just enough craziness and mystery to preserve
their identity, to avoid being a zombie.  I usually fail and am often
accused of being a tool. >8^)

> Anyway, if you are curious, it's laid out in the conversation with the
> Devils Advocate on page 16 of the attached. 
> 
> Let me know what you think, if you have time to look at it. 

I will read it.  Thanks.  But in case it's not obvious, you must know
that I don't take this stuff very seriously.  I only think/talk about
this stuff to distract me from work.  ;-)  So, it's unlikely that I'll
be able to give it the attention that it and you deserve.

-- 
glen  =><= Hail Eris!


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

Re: [FRIAM] faith, zombies, and crazy people (was America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist)

[Nicholas Thompson]

Glen, 

Wow!  This Zombie thing is WAY more complicated than I thought it was.  
Although I haven't read any Kant first hand, I hear him lurking in the
background.  For me, a thermostat/furnace system is a telic system.  It acts
in such a way as to maintain a set point.  So do I, sometimes.  Me and my
furnace: we are telic systems.  

All the best, 

Nick



-Original Message-
From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf
Of glen ropella
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 9:49 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] faith, zombies, and crazy people (was America and the
Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist)

On 09/14/2012 06:56 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> For me, consciousness is a point of view, and any telic system has a 
> point of view.  Zombies are telic systems, no?

That's a great question.  I would answer no.  Zombies cannot be telic (as I
understand that word, of course) because they are enslaved by their context.
They are not ends in and of themselves.  They are tools whose purpose has
been installed in them by some non-zombie actor.

FWIW, the Rosenites would disagree with me.  They'd claim that a zombie
(were such possible) would be an organism closed to efficient cause
(agency).  From this, they claim such closure allows anticipation, which, in
turn, allows final cause (purpose) ... all without any requirement for
_consciousness_ ... but with a requirement for reflective self-reference
(aka closure).  Getting from reflection to consciousness might not be that
hard.  And I support them in their quest. ;-)  But they haven't proven the
closure to me.  I believe we organisms are only partially closed (to any of
the causes).  Complete closure, in any of the causes, looks more like death
to me.  So, there's something missing from their framework ... to the
limited extent to which I understand it.

Now, we might be able to reverse engineer a tool's purpose from its
attributes.  And in that sense, a zombie might express a goal or purpose and
be called "telic" ... but that purpose would not be its _own_.
Perhaps a tool is telic, but it's not autotelic.

And this is where "faith" and "crazy" enter.  When we can't reverse engineer
a person's purpose ... or more accurately ... when we can't empathize ... we
can't tell ourselves a story in which context their actions make sense, then
they're "acting on faith" or they're crazy.  It is this ability to empathize
... for your neurons to be stimulated similarly to your referent's by
observing their behavior ... that presents us with the zombie paradox.  On
the one hand, telling a believable story turns you into a _machine_, a tool,
without personal responsibility or accountability.  ("My parents made me
this way!")  But on the other hand, not telling a story makes you alien,
crazy, a wart that has to be removed.

Interesting people walk that fine line between adequately explaining
themselves but leaving just enough craziness and mystery to preserve their
identity, to avoid being a zombie.  I usually fail and am often accused of
being a tool. >8^)

> Anyway, if you are curious, it's laid out in the conversation with the 
> Devils Advocate on page 16 of the attached.
> 
> Let me know what you think, if you have time to look at it. 

I will read it.  Thanks.  But in case it's not obvious, you must know that I
don't take this stuff very seriously.  I only think/talk about this stuff to
distract me from work.  ;-)  So, it's unlikely that I'll be able to give it
the attention that it and you deserve.

--
glen  =><= Hail Eris!


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

Re: [FRIAM] Is my government too big?

[ERIC P. CHARLES]

Roger,
Two points: 
1) Being a third party kind of guy, with no particular loyalty for or against
Obama (though keeping a healthy fear of Romney), I share Owen's frustration at
Obama's inability/unwillingness to clearly articulate his successes. His
overall record includes a surprising number of major successes that few seem to
know about. 

2) I don't think anyone has a problem with the government scaling in needed
ways to the population. Yes, as cities get bigger, they need more police
officers, firemen, etc. When people complain about "the growth in government",
I think what they are really complaining about is the proliferation of new
laws, especially when they involve "mission creep", in which the government
starts to regulate newer and less necessary parts of their lives. When there
are too many rules for people (i.e., legislators) to keep track of, you start
to get schizophrenic sounding contradictions, which are necessarily enforced
arbitrarily. Much of our problems could be solved if, at least for a short
period, we convinced legislators to brag about how many laws they repealed,
rather than them feeling they had to justify their existence by proposing and
passing new laws. To make matters worse, when the per capita size of government
remains the same, and the number of new laws continues to grow at staggering
rates, it must be the case that enforcement of the old laws and regulations
starts slipping. This means even more arbitrary enforcement and uncertainty. 

Eric

P.S. Not a Federal issue, but: I have a friend who does some fun looking pistol
competitions, and have been considering getting the licenses to participate.
The PA gun law is 126 pages thick. When getting the quick summary from my
friend, I was surprised to learn, for example: 1) There is no license required
to own and carry a non-concealed, loaded firearm. 2) The license to carry a
concealed weapon is easy to get, and will even let you drive with a concealed
loaded pistol on your person! 3) If you are hunting with have a rifle (or any
long-barrel gun), and accidentally lay it in plain sight in the passenger seat
of your car, that is a big crime, even if you have said permit. If anyone could
explain how that combination of laws makes sense.


On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 04:28 AM, Roger Critchlow  wrote:
>
>
>I asked how 300 million people settled on 0.0725 government employees/capita
for 30 years and continued arguing the whole time about whether the government
was getting too big.  Did they not know that the size of the government/capita
had stabilized?  Did they not understand that the number of teachers,
policemen, firemen, tax collectors, and inspectors scaled with the size of the
population?  Are our elected officials too stupid to understand or explain
this?  Are you all laughing at me because this is something that every school
girl knows?


>>
>
>
>
>
>>Owen, the glass is half full.  I swear by 1+1=2, the glass is half full.  And
it's all going to turn out just the way it does, no matter how you feel about
it.
>>
>
>>And not to further contribute to your self-centered hijacking of this thread,
but, Obama took the hardest job in the world, hardly anything turned out as
anyone expected or might have wished, but he did the job.  If you're
disappointed, then that's between you and your expectations.  If you want a
braggart for president, vote for Romney, he's clearly the sort who can
confidently take credit for anything that happens, with only a few mis-steps on
the way to victory.
>
>>
>
>>But start your own thread and stop projecting your personal depressions over
every question raised on this mailing list.  
>>
>
>>-- rec --

>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
>




Eric Charles
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601



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

Re: [FRIAM] faith, zombies, and crazy people

[glen ropella]

On 09/15/2012 06:59 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> Wow!  This Zombie thing is WAY more complicated than I thought it was.  
> Although I haven't read any Kant first hand, I hear him lurking in the
> background.  For me, a thermostat/furnace system is a telic system.  It acts
> in such a way as to maintain a set point.  So do I, sometimes.  Me and my
> furnace: we are telic systems.  

I disagree about the furnace, obviously.  I could argue from the
dictionary, but I'll spare you that. ;-)  How about if I launch the
argument from the concept of "stigmergy"?

Any artifact, however intuitive it's interface, will be [mis-|ab-]used.
 To boot, its use (proper or not) will produce side effects not intended
by the designer.  Hence, any artifact like your furnace doesn't
_express_ or _have_ a goal or purpose so much as one is ascribed to it
by observers.

It's this perspective that allows me to enjoy graffiti, even gangster
tags, so much more than some people.  I even enjoy some forms of
vandalism (though I can't bring myself to participate).  A more benign
form of vandalism are the relatively new "unconferences" and things like
collaborative fiction.  Hell, even open-ended nonlinear games like grand
theft auto help demonstrate the (absence of) telos in artifacts.

No, I maintain that the only objects capable of expressing purpose or
tending toward a goal are those with actor status, those identifiable
(but non-atomic) units who act as their own agents.  Everything else is
premature conclusion and wishful thinking on the part of some observer.
 (Perhaps your furnace is not really a furnace!  It just acts that way
when you're not around.)

-- 
glen  =><= Hail Eris!


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

Re: [FRIAM] faith, zombies, and crazy people

[ERIC P. CHARLES]

Glen of course the next step in a discussion like this is for someone
to ask you what evidence you have that any actual thing has more "actor status"
than a thermostat. Answering this questions adequately requires 1) taking into
account the complexity of what a thermostat accomplishes and 2) not pretending
than everything people do is magically undetermined. 

And... you have to avoid inter-defining "show's purpose" and "has actor
status". If they are synonyms, then your claim that
"the only objects capable of expressing purpose or
tending toward a goal are those with actor status"
doesn't help explain anything.

Eric

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 10:29 AM, glen ropella  wrote:
>
On 09/15/2012 06:59 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>> Wow!  This Zombie thing is WAY more complicated than I thought it was.  
>> Although I haven't read any Kant first hand, I hear him lurking in the
>> background.  For me, a thermostat/furnace system is a telic system.  It
>acts
>> in such a way as to maintain a set point.  So do I, sometimes.  Me and my
>> furnace: we are telic systems.  
>
>I disagree about the furnace, obviously.  I could argue from the
>dictionary, but I'll spare you that. ;-)  How about if I launch the
>argument from the concept of "stigmergy"?
>
>Any artifact, however intuitive it's interface, will be [mis-|ab-]used.
> To boot, its use (proper or not) will produce side effects not
>intended
>by the designer.  Hence, any artifact like your furnace doesn't
>_express_ or _have_ a goal or purpose so much as one is ascribed to it
>by observers.
>
>It's this perspective that allows me to enjoy graffiti, even gangster
>tags, so much more than some people.  I even enjoy some forms of
>vandalism (though I can't bring myself to participate).  A more benign
>form of vandalism are the relatively new "unconferences" and things
>like
>collaborative fiction.  Hell, even open-ended nonlinear games like grand
>theft auto help demonstrate the (absence of) telos in artifacts.
>
>No, I maintain that the only objects capable of expressing purpose or
>tending toward a goal are those with actor status, those identifiable
>(but non-atomic) units who act as their own agents.  Everything else
>is
>premature conclusion and wishful thinking on the part of some observer.
> (Perhaps your furnace is not really a furnace!  It just acts that way
>when you're not around.)
>
>-- 
>glen  =><= Hail Eris!
>
>
>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
>
>
>




Eric Charles
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601



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

Re: [FRIAM] Is my government too big?

[Douglas Roberts]

:)

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Roger Critchlow  wrote:

> I asked how 300 million people settled on 0.0725 government
> employees/capita for 30 years and continued arguing the whole time about
> whether the government was getting too big.  Did they not know that the
> size of the government/capita had stabilized?  Did they not understand that
> the number of teachers, policemen, firemen, tax collectors, and inspectors
> scaled with the size of the population?  Are our elected officials too
> stupid to understand or explain this?  Are you all laughing at me because
> this is something that every school girl knows?
>
> Owen, the glass is half full.  I swear by 1+1=2, the glass is half full.
>  And it's all going to turn out just the way it does, no matter how you
> feel about it.
>
> And not to further contribute to your self-centered hijacking of this
> thread, but, Obama took the hardest job in the world, hardly anything
> turned out as anyone expected or might have wished, but he did the job.  If
> you're disappointed, then that's between you and your expectations.  If you
> want a braggart for president, vote for Romney, he's clearly the sort who
> can confidently take credit for anything that happens, with only a few
> mis-steps on the way to victory.
>
> But start your own thread and stop projecting your personal depressions
> over every question raised on this mailing list.
>
> -- rec --
>
> 
> 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
>



-- 
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

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

Re: [FRIAM] faith, zombies, and crazy people (was America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist)

[Robert Holmes]

You guys clearly know too much about philosophy and not enough about
zombies. Your notion that there is a single type of zombie has long been
discredited. Here's a handy chart that I hope can inform your discussion.

http://www.geekologie.com/image.php?path=/2010/10/05/zombie-chart-full.jpg

—R

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Nicholas Thompson <
nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Glen,
>
> Wow!  This Zombie thing is WAY more complicated than I thought it was.
> Although I haven't read any Kant first hand, I hear him lurking in the
> background.  For me, a thermostat/furnace system is a telic system.  It
> acts
> in such a way as to maintain a set point.  So do I, sometimes.  Me and my
> furnace: we are telic systems.
>
> All the best,
>
> Nick
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On
> Behalf
> Of glen ropella
> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 9:49 AM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: [FRIAM] faith, zombies, and crazy people (was America and the
> Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist)
>
> On 09/14/2012 06:56 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> > For me, consciousness is a point of view, and any telic system has a
> > point of view.  Zombies are telic systems, no?
>
> That's a great question.  I would answer no.  Zombies cannot be telic (as I
> understand that word, of course) because they are enslaved by their
> context.
> They are not ends in and of themselves.  They are tools whose purpose has
> been installed in them by some non-zombie actor.
>
> FWIW, the Rosenites would disagree with me.  They'd claim that a zombie
> (were such possible) would be an organism closed to efficient cause
> (agency).  From this, they claim such closure allows anticipation, which,
> in
> turn, allows final cause (purpose) ... all without any requirement for
> _consciousness_ ... but with a requirement for reflective self-reference
> (aka closure).  Getting from reflection to consciousness might not be that
> hard.  And I support them in their quest. ;-)  But they haven't proven the
> closure to me.  I believe we organisms are only partially closed (to any of
> the causes).  Complete closure, in any of the causes, looks more like death
> to me.  So, there's something missing from their framework ... to the
> limited extent to which I understand it.
>
> Now, we might be able to reverse engineer a tool's purpose from its
> attributes.  And in that sense, a zombie might express a goal or purpose
> and
> be called "telic" ... but that purpose would not be its _own_.
> Perhaps a tool is telic, but it's not autotelic.
>
> And this is where "faith" and "crazy" enter.  When we can't reverse
> engineer
> a person's purpose ... or more accurately ... when we can't empathize ...
> we
> can't tell ourselves a story in which context their actions make sense,
> then
> they're "acting on faith" or they're crazy.  It is this ability to
> empathize
> ... for your neurons to be stimulated similarly to your referent's by
> observing their behavior ... that presents us with the zombie paradox.  On
> the one hand, telling a believable story turns you into a _machine_, a
> tool,
> without personal responsibility or accountability.  ("My parents made me
> this way!")  But on the other hand, not telling a story makes you alien,
> crazy, a wart that has to be removed.
>
> Interesting people walk that fine line between adequately explaining
> themselves but leaving just enough craziness and mystery to preserve their
> identity, to avoid being a zombie.  I usually fail and am often accused of
> being a tool. >8^)
>
> > Anyway, if you are curious, it's laid out in the conversation with the
> > Devils Advocate on page 16 of the attached.
> >
> > Let me know what you think, if you have time to look at it.
>
> I will read it.  Thanks.  But in case it's not obvious, you must know that
> I
> don't take this stuff very seriously.  I only think/talk about this stuff
> to
> distract me from work.  ;-)  So, it's unlikely that I'll be able to give it
> the attention that it and you deserve.
>
> --
> glen  =><= Hail Eris!
>
> 
> 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

Re: [FRIAM] Is my government too big?

[Owen Densmore]

Well, I apparently was not clear:
1 - You are absolutely right about the size of gvt, love the graph, thanks!
2 - Obama knows this and could still the silly argument by pointing it out.
3 - He remains oddly quiet.
4 - I find this worthy of blame.
5 - But this is still fascinating, outside of the political sphere.
6 - Sorry if I hijacked the thread.

   -- Owen

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Roger Critchlow  wrote:

> I asked how 300 million people settled on 0.0725 government
> employees/capita for 30 years and continued arguing the whole time about
> whether the government was getting too big.  Did they not know that the
> size of the government/capita had stabilized?  Did they not understand that
> the number of teachers, policemen, firemen, tax collectors, and inspectors
> scaled with the size of the population?  Are our elected officials too
> stupid to understand or explain this?  Are you all laughing at me because
> this is something that every school girl knows?
>
> Owen, the glass is half full.  I swear by 1+1=2, the glass is half full.
>  And it's all going to turn out just the way it does, no matter how you
> feel about it.
>
> And not to further contribute to your self-centered hijacking of this
> thread, but, Obama took the hardest job in the world, hardly anything
> turned out as anyone expected or might have wished, but he did the job.  If
> you're disappointed, then that's between you and your expectations.  If you
> want a braggart for president, vote for Romney, he's clearly the sort who
> can confidently take credit for anything that happens, with only a few
> mis-steps on the way to victory.
>
> But start your own thread and stop projecting your personal depressions
> over every question raised on this mailing list.
>
> -- rec --
>
> 
> 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] The Silence of the Lambs

[Douglas Roberts]

In the spirit of not hijacking threads, yet maintaining a bit of continuity
from the last couple of conversations:

Well, I apparently was not clear:
1 - You are absolutely right about the size of gvt, love the graph, thanks!
2 - Obama knows this and could still the silly argument by pointing it out.
3 - He remains oddly quiet.
4 - I find this worthy of blame.

--->  At this point I would like to reiterate a comment which received no
response in it's original thread, in which the complaint was also being
made there that none of the community leaders were speaking out this
another religious outrage.  Here's the comment which garnered no response:

*Of course, Owen, we could be asking the same thing about the "good"
Catholic community regarding all the years of child sex abuse and coverups
in that religion.*


Maybe it would be easier for people to respond if this comment were turned
into a question:

*So, why is it that the leaders of the Catholic community have largely
remained largely silent in the wake of repeated revaluations of rampant
child sex abuse in their church?*

No, the use of "rampant" was not a pun.  Child sex abuse is clearly,
demonstrably, endemic to the Catholic way of life.  Could it possibly be
the requirement that Catholic priests be quote *celibate *end quote* *that
is the reason for this?

Child sex abuse is a crime that should carry the death penalty, in my
opinion.  The act of child rape essentially ruins a victim's life.  Yet,
the Catholic church nearly always protects the guilty clergy member,
stealthily moving him from parish to parish without ever warning his new
"flock" of his deviant, harmful sexual predilections.

Why is it, then, that the leaders of the Catholic community have remained
largely silent on this issue, except to occasionally lash out at those who
dare to criticize their church?

---> End of new thread.

5 - But this is still fascinating, outside of the political sphere.
6 - Sorry if I hijacked the thread.

-- 
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

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

Re: [FRIAM] The Silence of the Lambs

[Douglas Roberts]

I suppose subject line for this one could have been "Warning, anther turd
in the pool".

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

> In the spirit of not hijacking threads, yet maintaining a bit of
> continuity from the last couple of conversations:
>
> Well, I apparently was not clear:
> 1 - You are absolutely right about the size of gvt, love the graph, thanks!
> 2 - Obama knows this and could still the silly argument by pointing it out.
> 3 - He remains oddly quiet.
> 4 - I find this worthy of blame.
>
> --->  At this point I would like to reiterate a comment which received no
> response in it's original thread, in which the complaint was also being
> made there that none of the community leaders were speaking out this
> another religious outrage.  Here's the comment which garnered no response:
>
> *Of course, Owen, we could be asking the same thing about the "good"
> Catholic community regarding all the years of child sex abuse and coverups
> in that religion.*
>
>
> Maybe it would be easier for people to respond if this comment were turned
> into a question:
>
> *So, why is it that the leaders of the Catholic community have largely
> remained largely silent in the wake of repeated revaluations of rampant
> child sex abuse in their church?*
>
> No, the use of "rampant" was not a pun.  Child sex abuse is clearly,
> demonstrably, endemic to the Catholic way of life.  Could it possibly be
> the requirement that Catholic priests be quote *celibate *end quote* *that
> is the reason for this?
>
> Child sex abuse is a crime that should carry the death penalty, in my
> opinion.  The act of child rape essentially ruins a victim's life.  Yet,
> the Catholic church nearly always protects the guilty clergy member,
> stealthily moving him from parish to parish without ever warning his new
> "flock" of his deviant, harmful sexual predilections.
>
> Why is it, then, that the leaders of the Catholic community have remained
> largely silent on this issue, except to occasionally lash out at those who
> dare to criticize their church?
>
> ---> End of new thread.
>
> 5 - But this is still fascinating, outside of the political sphere.
> 6 - Sorry if I hijacked the thread.
>
> --
> Doug Roberts
> drobe...@rti.org
> d...@parrot-farm.net
> http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
> 
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>
>


-- 
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

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

Re: [FRIAM] The Silence of the Lambs

[Owen Densmore]

Sorry to be late responding .. we're getting ready for a trip to Italy for
6 weeks and boy, does that require a LOT of work!

As I understand it, you're pointing out that the catholic church was
culpably silent on the child sex scandals.  I TOTALLY agree!

I'd like to distinguish between organizations and the community.  Although
the organization failed as you say, the community did not.  There was huge
outcry by the members of the church against the culpable actions of the
organization.  Also, there was considerable outcry by the priests (as
opposed to bishops etc.)

I've had several similar but less severe differences with the church.  The
local bishop, for example, sent a memo to all his staff and priests, and
asked for it to be read at mass.  I started telling my priest about this
and he stopped me after the first words, with a vehement outburst about how
the vast majority agreed with me.  And they were later quite open about
this.

What I have discovered about religion is that this organization vs
community is important.  All organizations out there: please raise your
hand if you are perfect!  I know a guy who had to raise his voice, via a
web site, about the Bad and Ugly at LANL.  I can point you to "liberal"
groups within most organizations which do speak out and do have
organizational leaders who do so as well.

The discussion on child abuse was so much discussed from the pulpit that I
learned a great deal.  One was a plea to protect homosexuals within the
community, child abuse is orthogonal to homosexuality.  Another was that
the  percentage of child abuse in various organizations (recently the NFL
for example) is often the same degree and handled as badly.

Any way, I see your points and agree with them.

   -- Owen

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

> In the spirit of not hijacking threads, yet maintaining a bit of
> continuity from the last couple of conversations:
>
> Well, I apparently was not clear:
> 1 - You are absolutely right about the size of gvt, love the graph, thanks!
> 2 - Obama knows this and could still the silly argument by pointing it out.
> 3 - He remains oddly quiet.
> 4 - I find this worthy of blame.
>
> --->  At this point I would like to reiterate a comment which received no
> response in it's original thread, in which the complaint was also being
> made there that none of the community leaders were speaking out this
> another religious outrage.  Here's the comment which garnered no response:
>
> *Of course, Owen, we could be asking the same thing about the "good"
> Catholic community regarding all the years of child sex abuse and coverups
> in that religion.*
>
>
> Maybe it would be easier for people to respond if this comment were turned
> into a question:
>
> *So, why is it that the leaders of the Catholic community have largely
> remained largely silent in the wake of repeated revaluations of rampant
> child sex abuse in their church?*
>
> No, the use of "rampant" was not a pun.  Child sex abuse is clearly,
> demonstrably, endemic to the Catholic way of life.  Could it possibly be
> the requirement that Catholic priests be quote *celibate *end quote* *that
> is the reason for this?
>
> Child sex abuse is a crime that should carry the death penalty, in my
> opinion.  The act of child rape essentially ruins a victim's life.  Yet,
> the Catholic church nearly always protects the guilty clergy member,
> stealthily moving him from parish to parish without ever warning his new
> "flock" of his deviant, harmful sexual predilections.
>
> Why is it, then, that the leaders of the Catholic community have remained
> largely silent on this issue, except to occasionally lash out at those who
> dare to criticize their church?
>
> ---> End of new thread.
>
> 5 - But this is still fascinating, outside of the political sphere.
> 6 - Sorry if I hijacked the thread.
>
> --
> Doug Roberts
> drobe...@rti.org
> d...@parrot-farm.net
> http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
> 
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>
>
> 
> 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

Re: [FRIAM] The Silence of the Lambs

[Douglas Roberts]

A thoughtful and well articulated response Owen, thanks.

We only appear to differ regarding your distinction between "Organization"
and "Community".  The way look at it is that if you voluntarily join an
organization, you have become a part of it.  Period.  If you allow that
organization to continue to fail a moral obligation, every member of that
organization shares an equal part of the blame.  There is no "them" and
"us" in the Catholic church.  There is you. Deal with your problems.

--Doug

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Owen Densmore  wrote:

> Sorry to be late responding .. we're getting ready for a trip to Italy for
> 6 weeks and boy, does that require a LOT of work!
>
> As I understand it, you're pointing out that the catholic church was
> culpably silent on the child sex scandals.  I TOTALLY agree!
>
> I'd like to distinguish between organizations and the community.  Although
> the organization failed as you say, the community did not.  There was huge
> outcry by the members of the church against the culpable actions of the
> organization.  Also, there was considerable outcry by the priests (as
> opposed to bishops etc.)
>
> I've had several similar but less severe differences with the church.  The
> local bishop, for example, sent a memo to all his staff and priests, and
> asked for it to be read at mass.  I started telling my priest about this
> and he stopped me after the first words, with a vehement outburst about how
> the vast majority agreed with me.  And they were later quite open about
> this.
>
> What I have discovered about religion is that this organization vs
> community is important.  All organizations out there: please raise your
> hand if you are perfect!  I know a guy who had to raise his voice, via a
> web site, about the Bad and Ugly at LANL.  I can point you to "liberal"
> groups within most organizations which do speak out and do have
> organizational leaders who do so as well.
>
> The discussion on child abuse was so much discussed from the pulpit that I
> learned a great deal.  One was a plea to protect homosexuals within the
> community, child abuse is orthogonal to homosexuality.  Another was that
> the  percentage of child abuse in various organizations (recently the NFL
> for example) is often the same degree and handled as badly.
>
> Any way, I see your points and agree with them.
>
>-- Owen
>
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>
>> In the spirit of not hijacking threads, yet maintaining a bit of
>> continuity from the last couple of conversations:
>>
>> Well, I apparently was not clear:
>> 1 - You are absolutely right about the size of gvt, love the graph,
>> thanks!
>> 2 - Obama knows this and could still the silly argument by pointing it
>> out.
>> 3 - He remains oddly quiet.
>> 4 - I find this worthy of blame.
>>
>> --->  At this point I would like to reiterate a comment which received no
>> response in it's original thread, in which the complaint was also being
>> made there that none of the community leaders were speaking out this
>> another religious outrage.  Here's the comment which garnered no response:
>>
>> *Of course, Owen, we could be asking the same thing about the "good"
>> Catholic community regarding all the years of child sex abuse and coverups
>> in that religion.*
>>
>>
>> Maybe it would be easier for people to respond if this comment were
>> turned into a question:
>>
>> *So, why is it that the leaders of the Catholic community have largely
>> remained largely silent in the wake of repeated revaluations of rampant
>> child sex abuse in their church?*
>>
>> No, the use of "rampant" was not a pun.  Child sex abuse is clearly,
>> demonstrably, endemic to the Catholic way of life.  Could it possibly be
>> the requirement that Catholic priests be quote *celibate *end quote* *that
>> is the reason for this?
>>
>> Child sex abuse is a crime that should carry the death penalty, in my
>> opinion.  The act of child rape essentially ruins a victim's life.  Yet,
>> the Catholic church nearly always protects the guilty clergy member,
>> stealthily moving him from parish to parish without ever warning his new
>> "flock" of his deviant, harmful sexual predilections.
>>
>> Why is it, then, that the leaders of the Catholic community have remained
>> largely silent on this issue, except to occasionally lash out at those who
>> dare to criticize their church?
>>
>> ---> End of new thread.
>>
>> 5 - But this is still fascinating, outside of the political sphere.
>> 6 - Sorry if I hijacked the thread.
>>
>> --
>> Doug Roberts
>> drobe...@rti.org
>> d...@parrot-farm.net
>> http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
>> 
>> 505-455-7333 - Office
>> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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] Size of government graph

[Pamela McCorduck]

I inadvertently deleted the message with the size-of-government graph. Would 
whoever posted that please send to me? pam...@well.com

Thanks.

P.


"Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that 
station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show."

Charles Dickens, opening lines of David Copperfield





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

Re: [FRIAM] Size of government graph

[Douglas Roberts]

Sounds like you might have had a case of "itchy delete key finger", Pamela.

Quite understandable, given the recent FRIAM flood.

Here rec's message that has a link to the graph:

This graph shows the government employees in the US, all levels of
government, divided by the population of the US.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=87170

Color me surprised.  The government/capita has been 0.0725+/-0.0025 since
1982.  Variation in the last digit, 0.0001, represents ~31500 employees in
our current population of ~315 million, so there's room for a lot of wiggle
there.  But it looks like a resource limited growth curve that met its
limit 30 years ago and has danced around the limit since then.

This graph shows the federal government employees in the US divided by the
population of the US.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=87182

The federal/capita fell from 0.016 to 0.009 over these 60 years, most
steeply under the Clinton administration.  The only federal/capita
increases in the last 60 years were during Johnson's "Great Society" and
Reagan's administration.  The most recent federal contraction started under
Bush1 in 1988 and has brought us from 0.013 to 0.009 federal
employees/capita.  Obama's stimulus started to reverse the trend, but he's
now running the leanest federal/capita in the last 60 years.

The rough constancy overall since 1988 is a crowd sourced result combining
decisions made by 50 state and ~87000 local governments while the federal
government shrank.

So, what's a big government?  Are there any other national statistics for
comparison?

-- rec --


On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Pamela McCorduck  wrote:

> I inadvertently deleted the message with the size-of-government graph.
> Would whoever posted that please send to me? pam...@well.com
>
> Thanks.
>
> P.
>
>
> "Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that
> station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show."
>
> Charles Dickens, opening lines of David Copperfield
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 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
>



-- 
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

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

Re: [FRIAM] The Silence of the Lambs

[Owen Densmore]

So you bought into the USA "organization"?

You pay taxes that kill people, that fight wars you detest.

This may seem absurd, but I have kept a passport valid over the years since
I realized I don't buy completely into the USA organization.  I may find I
have to leave.

At least the church has come out vocally against all wars.

.. and I'd prefer we carry on over a beer, not over bits!

   -- Owen

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

> A thoughtful and well articulated response Owen, thanks.
>
> We only appear to differ regarding your distinction between "Organization"
> and "Community".  The way look at it is that if you voluntarily join an
> organization, you have become a part of it.  Period.  If you allow that
> organization to continue to fail a moral obligation, every member of that
> organization shares an equal part of the blame.  There is no "them" and
> "us" in the Catholic church.  There is you. Deal with your problems.
>
> --Doug
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
>
>> Sorry to be late responding .. we're getting ready for a trip to Italy
>> for 6 weeks and boy, does that require a LOT of work!
>>
>> As I understand it, you're pointing out that the catholic church was
>> culpably silent on the child sex scandals.  I TOTALLY agree!
>>
>> I'd like to distinguish between organizations and the community.
>>  Although the organization failed as you say, the community did not.  There
>> was huge outcry by the members of the church against the culpable actions
>> of the organization.  Also, there was considerable outcry by the priests
>> (as opposed to bishops etc.)
>>
>> I've had several similar but less severe differences with the church.
>>  The local bishop, for example, sent a memo to all his staff and priests,
>> and asked for it to be read at mass.  I started telling my priest about
>> this and he stopped me after the first words, with a vehement outburst
>> about how the vast majority agreed with me.  And they were later quite open
>> about this.
>>
>> What I have discovered about religion is that this organization vs
>> community is important.  All organizations out there: please raise your
>> hand if you are perfect!  I know a guy who had to raise his voice, via a
>> web site, about the Bad and Ugly at LANL.  I can point you to "liberal"
>> groups within most organizations which do speak out and do have
>> organizational leaders who do so as well.
>>
>> The discussion on child abuse was so much discussed from the pulpit that
>> I learned a great deal.  One was a plea to protect homosexuals within the
>> community, child abuse is orthogonal to homosexuality.  Another was that
>> the  percentage of child abuse in various organizations (recently the NFL
>> for example) is often the same degree and handled as badly.
>>
>> Any way, I see your points and agree with them.
>>
>>-- Owen
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Douglas Roberts 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  In the spirit of not hijacking threads, yet maintaining a bit of
>>> continuity from the last couple of conversations:
>>>
>>> Well, I apparently was not clear:
>>> 1 - You are absolutely right about the size of gvt, love the graph,
>>> thanks!
>>> 2 - Obama knows this and could still the silly argument by pointing it
>>> out.
>>> 3 - He remains oddly quiet.
>>> 4 - I find this worthy of blame.
>>>
>>> --->  At this point I would like to reiterate a comment which received
>>> no response in it's original thread, in which the complaint was also being
>>> made there that none of the community leaders were speaking out this
>>> another religious outrage.  Here's the comment which garnered no response:
>>>
>>> *Of course, Owen, we could be asking the same thing about the "good"
>>> Catholic community regarding all the years of child sex abuse and coverups
>>> in that religion.*
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe it would be easier for people to respond if this comment were
>>> turned into a question:
>>>
>>> *So, why is it that the leaders of the Catholic community have largely
>>> remained largely silent in the wake of repeated revaluations of rampant
>>> child sex abuse in their church?*
>>>
>>> No, the use of "rampant" was not a pun.  Child sex abuse is clearly,
>>> demonstrably, endemic to the Catholic way of life.  Could it possibly be
>>> the requirement that Catholic priests be quote *celibate *end quote* *that
>>> is the reason for this?
>>>
>>> Child sex abuse is a crime that should carry the death penalty, in my
>>> opinion.  The act of child rape essentially ruins a victim's life.  Yet,
>>> the Catholic church nearly always protects the guilty clergy member,
>>> stealthily moving him from parish to parish without ever warning his new
>>> "flock" of his deviant, harmful sexual predilections.
>>>
>>> Why is it, then, that the leaders of the Catholic community have
>>> remained largely silent on this issue, except to occasionally lash out at
>>> those who dare to criticize their church?
>>>
>>> ---> End o

Re: [FRIAM] The Silence of the Lambs

[Douglas Roberts]

True, my citizenship is American.  Not exactly the same as voluntarily
joining an organization, but close enough for the sake of this discussion.
 However I don't make excuses for America.  Nor am I silent about
criticizing it's weaknesses, which I believe is the point you were
complaining about on the past three FRIAM threads.

--Doug


On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Owen Densmore  wrote:

> So you bought into the USA "organization"?
>
> You pay taxes that kill people, that fight wars you detest.
>
> This may seem absurd, but I have kept a passport valid over the years
> since I realized I don't buy completely into the USA organization.  I may
> find I have to leave.
>
> At least the church has come out vocally against all wars.
>
> .. and I'd prefer we carry on over a beer, not over bits!
>
>-- Owen
>
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>
>> A thoughtful and well articulated response Owen, thanks.
>>
>> We only appear to differ regarding your distinction between
>> "Organization" and "Community".  The way look at it is that if you
>> voluntarily join an organization, you have become a part of it.  Period.
>>  If you allow that organization to continue to fail a moral obligation,
>> every member of that organization shares an equal part of the blame.  There
>> is no "them" and "us" in the Catholic church.  There is you. Deal with your
>> problems.
>>
>> --Doug
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry to be late responding .. we're getting ready for a trip to Italy
>>> for 6 weeks and boy, does that require a LOT of work!
>>>
>>> As I understand it, you're pointing out that the catholic church was
>>> culpably silent on the child sex scandals.  I TOTALLY agree!
>>>
>>> I'd like to distinguish between organizations and the community.
>>>  Although the organization failed as you say, the community did not.  There
>>> was huge outcry by the members of the church against the culpable actions
>>> of the organization.  Also, there was considerable outcry by the priests
>>> (as opposed to bishops etc.)
>>>
>>> I've had several similar but less severe differences with the church.
>>>  The local bishop, for example, sent a memo to all his staff and priests,
>>> and asked for it to be read at mass.  I started telling my priest about
>>> this and he stopped me after the first words, with a vehement outburst
>>> about how the vast majority agreed with me.  And they were later quite open
>>> about this.
>>>
>>> What I have discovered about religion is that this organization vs
>>> community is important.  All organizations out there: please raise your
>>> hand if you are perfect!  I know a guy who had to raise his voice, via a
>>> web site, about the Bad and Ugly at LANL.  I can point you to "liberal"
>>> groups within most organizations which do speak out and do have
>>> organizational leaders who do so as well.
>>>
>>> The discussion on child abuse was so much discussed from the pulpit that
>>> I learned a great deal.  One was a plea to protect homosexuals within the
>>> community, child abuse is orthogonal to homosexuality.  Another was that
>>> the  percentage of child abuse in various organizations (recently the NFL
>>> for example) is often the same degree and handled as badly.
>>>
>>> Any way, I see your points and agree with them.
>>>
>>>-- Owen
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Douglas Roberts 
>>> wrote:
>>>
  In the spirit of not hijacking threads, yet maintaining a bit of
 continuity from the last couple of conversations:

 Well, I apparently was not clear:
 1 - You are absolutely right about the size of gvt, love the graph,
 thanks!
 2 - Obama knows this and could still the silly argument by pointing it
 out.
 3 - He remains oddly quiet.
 4 - I find this worthy of blame.

 --->  At this point I would like to reiterate a comment which received
 no response in it's original thread, in which the complaint was also being
 made there that none of the community leaders were speaking out this
 another religious outrage.  Here's the comment which garnered no response:

 *Of course, Owen, we could be asking the same thing about the "good"
 Catholic community regarding all the years of child sex abuse and coverups
 in that religion.*


 Maybe it would be easier for people to respond if this comment were
 turned into a question:

 *So, why is it that the leaders of the Catholic community have largely
 remained largely silent in the wake of repeated revaluations of rampant
 child sex abuse in their church?*

 No, the use of "rampant" was not a pun.  Child sex abuse is clearly,
 demonstrably, endemic to the Catholic way of life.  Could it possibly be
 the requirement that Catholic priests be quote *celibate *end quote* *that
 is the reason for this?

 Child sex abuse is a crime that should carry the death pena

Re: [FRIAM] Size of government graph

[Pamela McCorduck]

thanks, Doug.

Honestly, I'm following the argument with great interest. Lack of time has 
prevented me from joining in, not lack of opinions.

P.


On Sep 15, 2012, at 3:27 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

> Sounds like you might have had a case of "itchy delete key finger", Pamela.
> 
> Quite understandable, given the recent FRIAM flood.
> 
> Here rec's message that has a link to the graph:
> 
> This graph shows the government employees in the US, all levels of 
> government, divided by the population of the US.
> 
> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=87170
> 
> Color me surprised.  The government/capita has been 0.0725+/-0.0025 since 
> 1982.  Variation in the last digit, 0.0001, represents ~31500 employees in 
> our current population of ~315 million, so there's room for a lot of wiggle 
> there.  But it looks like a resource limited growth curve that met its limit 
> 30 years ago and has danced around the limit since then.
> 
> This graph shows the federal government employees in the US divided by the 
> population of the US.
> 
> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?graph_id=87182
> 
> The federal/capita fell from 0.016 to 0.009 over these 60 years, most steeply 
> under the Clinton administration.  The only federal/capita increases in the 
> last 60 years were during Johnson's "Great Society" and Reagan's 
> administration.  The most recent federal contraction started under Bush1 in 
> 1988 and has brought us from 0.013 to 0.009 federal employees/capita.  
> Obama's stimulus started to reverse the trend, but he's now running the 
> leanest federal/capita in the last 60 years.
> 
> The rough constancy overall since 1988 is a crowd sourced result combining 
> decisions made by 50 state and ~87000 local governments while the federal 
> government shrank.
> 
> So, what's a big government?  Are there any other national statistics for 
> comparison?
> 
> -- rec --
> 
> 
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Pamela McCorduck  wrote:
> I inadvertently deleted the message with the size-of-government graph. Would 
> whoever posted that please send to me? pam...@well.com
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> P.
> 
> 
> "Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that 
> station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show."
> 
> Charles Dickens, opening lines of David Copperfield
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Doug Roberts
> drobe...@rti.org
> d...@parrot-farm.net
> http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
> 
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
> 
> 
> 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

"Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life, or whether that 
station will be held by anybody else, these pages must show."

Charles Dickens, opening lines of David Copperfield





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

Re: [FRIAM] Is my government too big?

[Roger Critchlow]

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 8:24 AM, ERIC P. CHARLES  wrote:

> Roger,
> Two points:
> 1) Being a third party kind of guy, with no particular loyalty for or
> against Obama (though keeping a healthy fear of Romney), I share Owen's
> frustration at Obama's inability/unwillingness to clearly articulate his
> successes. His overall record includes a surprising number of major
> successes that few seem to know about.


What you're ignoring is the hundreds of millions of unprincipled dollars
poised to take anything Obama says and twist it into an attack ad.  How do
you argue with people who don't care about your arguments except as an
opportunity to extract a sound bite that misrepresents them?  You give them
as little to work with as is possible.  An itemization of this
administration's accomplishments delivered in Obama's voice would be a
cornucopia to the Republican SuperPAC's.

Meanwhile, out of nowhere, Sam Bacile's homage to Mohammed arrives, like
some horrible caricature of Republican campaign ads -- who cares about
facts as long as it works, the responsible parties hidden behind layers of
aliases, the really effective bits added in post-production overdubbing and
editing.

DNFTT

-- rec --

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] One more, I'm afraid. Who started this, anyhow?

[Douglas Roberts]

This has been gnawing on me for a day.  Finally, as I was out on the
mountain bike oxygenating my brain this morning the reason that this one
statement below bothered me crystallized.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Steve Smith  wrote:
>
>
> The shrill voices against Islam (or even "ahem" Mormons) are not helping,
>


Tolerance is a highly over-rated "Christian value".  That whole 'turn the
other cheek thing' simply provides the excuse to allow ludicrous, immoral,
or downright evil actions to be allowed to continue unabated.  Want
examples?

   - child sex abuse in the Catholic church
   - atrocities committed in the name of Islam
   - Hitler's Brown Shirts, The Hitler Youth Program
   - cult religions -- I know: that doesn't narrow the field at all.  Ok,
   let's be generous and define Jim Jones' cult, Scientology, and the Morman
   thing as "cult religions".  Why? because they all evolved during modern
   recorded history. The events that led to their emergence are all clearly
   recorded for all who care to read about it.
   - the other religions
   - political corruption

Why did each of these things evolve and prosper, if only for a period?
 Because sufficient numbers of people tolerated them.

Respecting a person's right to believe in a cause that clearly resonates is
one thing.  Tolerating irrational, abusive, and amoral actions performed in
the name of those causes itself comprises an amoral act.

Just because people have the right to believe in whatever value set appeals
to them does not mean that they are not sometimes due criticism.  To hide
behind the veil of "tolerance" in the face of clearly amoral (or perhaps
just plain stupid) behavior is to allow these anti-social behaviors to
spread like the cancer they are.

But, (be aware, complete and total reversal is coming): perhaps the human
race deserves no better than to be forced to stand out in the middle of
this shit storm we have created.

Finally, as a strangely related side-note: look at this global
fundamentalist Islamic uprising that was caused because some asshole made a
movie which depicted Mohammad  as a philanderer.  And now compare this to
the reaction when "The Life of Brian" was released in 1979.  You cannot
possibly say that TLOB was any less respectful to the cult figure named
Jesus than this latest opus was to the cult figure named Mohammad.  Yet
here we are with the political correctness police grilling Nakoula Basseley
Nakoula over "The Innocence of Muslims."

Ludicrous.

--Doug

-- 
Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

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

Re: [FRIAM] Is my government too big?

[Roger Critchlow]

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 8:24 AM, ERIC P. CHARLES  wrote:

> Roger,
> Two points:
>
> 2) I don't think anyone has a problem with the government scaling in
> needed ways to the population. Yes, as cities get bigger, they need more
> police officers, firemen, etc. When people complain about "the growth in
> government", I think what they are really complaining about is the
> proliferation of new laws, especially when they involve "mission creep", in
> which the government starts to regulate newer and less necessary parts of
> their lives. When there are too many rules for people (i.e., legislators)
> to keep track of, you start to get schizophrenic sounding contradictions,
> which are necessarily enforced arbitrarily. Much of our problems could be
> solved if, at least for a short period, we convinced legislators to brag
> about how many laws they *repealed*, rather than them feeling they had to
> justify their existence by proposing and passing new laws. To make matters
> worse, when the per capita size of government remains the same, and the
> number of new laws continues to grow at staggering rates, it *must *be
> the case that enforcement of the old laws and regulations starts slipping.
> This means even more arbitrary enforcement and uncertainty.
>
> Leaving aside the fact that Ron Paul and Paul Krugman were arguing on TV
about the number of government employees just last Sunday,
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/the-zombie-that-ate-rand-pauls-brain/
has
a link to the video, this is the third "change the subject" response I've
received:

1) The federal government is only getting smaller because it's outsourcing
essential services to private contractors.

2) When people say government is big, they mean the money.

3) When people say government is big, they mean the laws.

These are all interesting points, but I don't have any statistics to offer
one way or the other.

My puzzle is that I truly believed that the nature of bureaucracies was to
bloat, but these numbers don't support that hypothesis.  Why?  Are the
results peculiarly American?  Do they vary between cultures?  Is there a
right size for government?  Can we stop arguing about big (at least in
numbers of employees) and start working on better now?

-- rec --

PS - The Pennsylvania gun laws gave me a chuckle, because I can imagine how
that mess started.  I had ancestors carrying long guns around western
Pennsylvania in the 18th century, there's a 1790's will by a great^n uncle
bequeathing his rifle to his brother and his whiskey still to his father,
unless dad got carried away, in which case mom should sell it.

This life-style lead directly to the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion.  Western Pennsylvania
rebelled and militia from the rest of the state had to invade itself to
suppress the rebellion, all during the 8 years of George Washington's
presidency.  You're talking about a place with very complicated attitudes
about firearms that go way back.

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

Re: [FRIAM] Is my government too big?

[ERIC P. CHARLES]

Well... "yeah"... on that point... but Ron Paul isn't saying the government has
been growing too big for the last 30 years. The graph you sent showed a BIG
increase in government per-capita employment between 1950 and 1970, and Ron
would probably argue that it was too big in 1950. If I get to put my
Libertarian hat on , then government is WAY too big, plus all
the other things I mentioned. In particular, federal government is way too big.
You can't argue for linear scaling there, because the federal government
shouldn't be doing most of the things that require that growth model (no fire
department, etc.). The size of the necessary permanent-defense force doesn't
scale with the population, our borders haven't changed in quite a while. The
size of the judiciary maybe does, but I'm not sure what else. Besides, if
anything technology should have dramatically reduced the size of the necessary
federal government over the past 50 years regardless of population growth, as
human calculators are rarely needed anymore, hand inspection of goods is less
necessary, most messages these days are transported electronically, and
everyone can type their own memos. 

Most people though, are not Libertarians. I was trying to give them the benefit
of the doubt that there WAS a real thing they were complaining about, while
also recognizing your point that it could not possibly be an increase in the
size of the government. I can now see why that seemed a bit like thread
hijacking to you, but it did not seem so to me at the time.

Eric

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 07:32 PM, Roger Critchlow  wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 8:24 AM, ERIC P. CHARLES <<#>> wrote:
>
>Roger,
>Two points: 
>
>2) I don't think
>anyone has a problem with the government scaling in needed ways to the
>population. Yes, as cities get bigger, they need more police officers, firemen,
>etc. When people complain about "the growth in government", I think what they
>are really complaining about is the proliferation of new laws, especially when
>they involve "mission creep", in which the government starts to regulate newer
>and less necessary parts of their lives. When there are too many rules for
>people (i.e., legislators) to keep track of, you start to get schizophrenic
>sounding contradictions, which are necessarily enforced arbitrarily. Much of
>our problems could be solved if, at least for a short period, we convinced
>legislators to brag about how many laws they repealed, rather than them
>feeling they had to justify their existence by proposing and passing new laws.
>To make matters worse, when the per capita size of government remains the same,
>and the number of new laws continues to grow at staggering rates, it must
>be the case that enforcement of the old laws and regulations starts
>slipping. This means even more arbitrary enforcement and uncertainty.
>
>
>
>
>>Leaving aside the fact that Ron Paul and Paul Krugman were arguing on TV
about the number of government employees just last Sunday,

 has a link to the video, this is the third "change the subject" response I've 
received:
>>
>
>>1) The federal government is only getting smaller because it's outsourcing 
>>essential services to private contractors.
>>
>
>>2) When people say government is big, they mean the money.
>>
>
>>3) When people say government is big, they mean the laws.
>>
>
>>These are all interesting points, but I don't have any statistics to offer 
>>one way or the other.
>>
>
>>My puzzle is that I truly believed that the nature of bureaucracies was to 
>>bloat, but these numbers don't support that hypothesis.  Why?  Are the 
>>results peculiarly American?  Do they vary between cultures?  Is there a 
>>right size for government?  Can we stop arguing about big (at least in 
>>numbers of employees) and start working on better now?
>>
>
>>-- rec --
>>
>
>>PS - The Pennsylvania gun laws gave me a chuckle, because I can imagine how 
>>that mess started.  I had ancestors carrying long guns around western 
>>Pennsylvania in the 18th century, there's a 1790's will by a great^n uncle 
>>bequeathing his rifle to his brother and his whiskey still to his father, 
>>unless dad got carried away, in which case mom should sell it.   
>>
>
>>This life-style lead directly to the 
>>.  Western Pennsylvania 
>>rebelled and militia from the rest of the state had to invade itself to 
>>suppress the rebellion, all during the 8 years of George Washington's 
>>presidency.  You're talking about a place with very complicated attitudes 
>>about firearms that go way back.
>

>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
>




Eric Charles
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 166

[FRIAM] fewer but better laws

[Mike Oliker]

Eric,

I think this is brilliant.  I would love to see 10 years of law removal.
I'm afraid Obamacare lost me the second I heard about its size.  It is
disenfranchising, not only for the voters, but for the congressman who
couldn't digest it.  

We pass laws, and if they don't work we add complications.  If the courts
nullify parts, we add workarounds, until we have something incomprehensible,
ineffective for its intended purpose, but very good at gumming up the works.
Consider the pointless mess campaign finance reform laws have become.

I love creativity and am always open to trying something new -- but real
creativity includes a willingness to see if it worked, undo the damage, and
try something different if it doesn't.  The governments (federal, state) are
weak on step 2.  

The useful distinction here is may be complexity vs. complication, and a
bias towards control.  Huge bodies of laws and rulings may give the illusion
of control and certainty, but they deaden the vast network of interactions
which make us up.  The Federal Reserve, managing one to two key variables
(the discount rate and the reserve requirement) is more effective than the
huge bodies of regulation which are so ripe with unintended consequences
(e.g. the Mark to Market rule).

-Mike Oliker

"Message: 10
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 10:24:06 -0400
From: "ERIC P. CHARLES" 
To: Roger Critchlow 
Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Is my government too big?
Message-ID: <1347719046l.2158618l...@psu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Roger,
Two points: 
1) Being a third party kind of guy, with no particular
loyalty for or against
Obama (though keeping a healthy fear of Romney), I share
Owen's frustration at
Obama's inability/unwillingness to clearly articulate his
successes. His
overall record includes a surprising number of major
successes that few seem to
know about. 

2) I don't think anyone has a problem with the government
scaling in needed
ways to the population. Yes, as cities get bigger, they need
more police
officers, firemen, etc. When people complain about "the
growth in government",
I think what they are really complaining about is the
proliferation of new
laws, especially when they involve "mission creep", in which
the government
starts to regulate newer and less necessary parts of their
lives. When there
are too many rules for people (i.e., legislators) to keep
track of, you start
to get schizophrenic sounding contradictions, which are
necessarily enforced
arbitrarily. Much of our problems could be solved if, at
least for a short
period, we convinced legislators to brag about how many laws
they repealed,
rather than them feeling they had to justify their existence
by proposing and
passing new laws. To make matters worse, when the per capita
size of government
remains the same, and the number of new laws continues to
grow at staggering
rates, it must be the case that enforcement of the old laws
and regulations
starts slipping. This means even more arbitrary enforcement
and uncertainty. 

Eric

P.S. Not a Federal issue, but: I have a friend who does some
fun looking pistol
competitions, and have been considering getting the licenses
to participate.
The PA gun law is 126 pages thick. When getting the quick
summary from my
friend, I was surprised to learn, for example: 1) There is
no license required
to own and carry a non-concealed, loaded firearm. 2) The
license to carry a
concealed weapon is easy to get, and will even let you drive
with a concealed
loaded pistol on your person! 3) If you are hunting with
have a rifle (or any
long-barrel gun), and accidentally lay it in plain sight in
the passenger seat
of your car, that is a big crime, even if you have said
permit. If anyone could
explain how that combination of laws makes sense."


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

Re: [FRIAM] fewer but better laws

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 9/15/2012 8:37 PM, Mike Oliker wrote:

fewer but better laws

I'm afraid Obamacare lost me the second I heard about its size.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43472


   What Is the Net Budgetary Impact of the Coverage Provisions
   Taking Into Account the Supreme Court's Decision?

CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the 
ACA will have a net cost of $1,168 billion over the 2012--2022 
period---compared with $1,252 billion projected in March 2012 for that 
11-year period---for a net reduction of $84 billion.

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

Re: [FRIAM] One more, I'm afraid. Who started this, anyhow?

[Arlo Barnes]

I'm afraid I have not been following the news, but wasn't some of the
discussion about Muslims who have no opinion on the video or don't take it
seriously being antagonized? If so, I think the tenet that nobody has the
same religion, just their own views of what they say their religion is may
be a useful way to consider the issue.
-Arlo

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

Re: [FRIAM] faith, zombies, and crazy people (was America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist)

[Arlo Barnes]

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:

> You guys clearly know too much about philosophy and not enough about
> zombies. Your notion that there is a single type of zombie has long been
> discredited.

Not to mention the original meaning, which is somebody who was slipped a
poison that gives the appearance of death, but can be reversed later after
they are dug out of the grave and drugged to become servants - often to be
the motive force of a crime so that the schemer can act with impunity due
to the zombie scapegoat.
It brings another whole level to the discussion about free will.
-Arlo James Barnes

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

Re: [FRIAM] faith, zombies, and crazy people (was America and the Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist)

[Curt McNamara]

And to tie this into the other discussion:

The CDC is looking out for you:
http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/zombies/#/page/1

Curt

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Robert Holmes wrote:

> You guys clearly know too much about philosophy and not enough about
> zombies. Your notion that there is a single type of zombie has long been
> discredited. Here's a handy chart that I hope can inform your discussion.
>
> http://www.geekologie.com/image.php?path=/2010/10/05/zombie-chart-full.jpg
>
> —R
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Nicholas Thompson <
> nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Glen,
>>
>> Wow!  This Zombie thing is WAY more complicated than I thought it was.
>> Although I haven't read any Kant first hand, I hear him lurking in the
>> background.  For me, a thermostat/furnace system is a telic system.  It
>> acts
>> in such a way as to maintain a set point.  So do I, sometimes.  Me and my
>> furnace: we are telic systems.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On
>> Behalf
>> Of glen ropella
>> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2012 9:49 AM
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>> Subject: [FRIAM] faith, zombies, and crazy people (was America and the
>> Middle East: Murder in Libya | The Economist)
>>
>> On 09/14/2012 06:56 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>> > For me, consciousness is a point of view, and any telic system has a
>> > point of view.  Zombies are telic systems, no?
>>
>> That's a great question.  I would answer no.  Zombies cannot be telic (as
>> I
>> understand that word, of course) because they are enslaved by their
>> context.
>> They are not ends in and of themselves.  They are tools whose purpose has
>> been installed in them by some non-zombie actor.
>>
>> FWIW, the Rosenites would disagree with me.  They'd claim that a zombie
>> (were such possible) would be an organism closed to efficient cause
>> (agency).  From this, they claim such closure allows anticipation, which,
>> in
>> turn, allows final cause (purpose) ... all without any requirement for
>> _consciousness_ ... but with a requirement for reflective self-reference
>> (aka closure).  Getting from reflection to consciousness might not be that
>> hard.  And I support them in their quest. ;-)  But they haven't proven the
>> closure to me.  I believe we organisms are only partially closed (to any
>> of
>> the causes).  Complete closure, in any of the causes, looks more like
>> death
>> to me.  So, there's something missing from their framework ... to the
>> limited extent to which I understand it.
>>
>> Now, we might be able to reverse engineer a tool's purpose from its
>> attributes.  And in that sense, a zombie might express a goal or purpose
>> and
>> be called "telic" ... but that purpose would not be its _own_.
>> Perhaps a tool is telic, but it's not autotelic.
>>
>> And this is where "faith" and "crazy" enter.  When we can't reverse
>> engineer
>> a person's purpose ... or more accurately ... when we can't empathize ...
>> we
>> can't tell ourselves a story in which context their actions make sense,
>> then
>> they're "acting on faith" or they're crazy.  It is this ability to
>> empathize
>> ... for your neurons to be stimulated similarly to your referent's by
>> observing their behavior ... that presents us with the zombie paradox.  On
>> the one hand, telling a believable story turns you into a _machine_, a
>> tool,
>> without personal responsibility or accountability.  ("My parents made me
>> this way!")  But on the other hand, not telling a story makes you alien,
>> crazy, a wart that has to be removed.
>>
>> Interesting people walk that fine line between adequately explaining
>> themselves but leaving just enough craziness and mystery to preserve their
>> identity, to avoid being a zombie.  I usually fail and am often accused of
>> being a tool. >8^)
>>
>> > Anyway, if you are curious, it's laid out in the conversation with the
>> > Devils Advocate on page 16 of the attached.
>> >
>> > Let me know what you think, if you have time to look at it.
>>
>> I will read it.  Thanks.  But in case it's not obvious, you must know
>> that I
>> don't take this stuff very seriously.  I only think/talk about this stuff
>> to
>> distract me from work.  ;-)  So, it's unlikely that I'll be able to give
>> it
>> the attention that it and you deserve.
>>
>> --
>> glen  =><= Hail Eris!
>>
>> 
>> 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
>>
>
>
> 
> FRI

Re: [FRIAM] fewer but better laws

[Russ Abbott]

Small is beautiful, but sometimes big and complex are necessary. There are
some computer programs that are essential to keep society running that are
necessarily big and complex. Or for a natural example, virtually everything
in biology is big (in terms of the number of things interacting) and
complex. Yet it works better than anything we have been able to build.

*-- Russ Abbott*
*_*
***  Professor, Computer Science*
*  California State University, Los Angeles*

*  My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688*
*  Google voice: 747-*999-5105
  Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/
*  vita:  *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/
  CS Wiki  and the courses I teach
*_*



On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:

>  On 9/15/2012 8:37 PM, Mike Oliker wrote:
>
>  I'm afraid Obamacare lost me the second I heard about its size.
>
> http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43472
> What Is the Net Budgetary Impact of the Coverage Provisions Taking Into
> Account the Supreme Court’s Decision? CBO and JCT now estimate that the
> insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of $1,168
> billion over the 2012–2022 period—compared with $1,252 billion projected in
> March 2012 for that 11-year period—for a net reduction of $84 billion.
>
> 
> 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