<div dir="ltr">Yes! The Op wrote long and, frankly, to theoretical a email to ask why american politics is so [redacted because steve asked nicely]. <div>It boils down to greed, and no accountability, what are effectively guaranteed contracts get a cushy job for 2-4 years at a time. The dumb way people say "that side over their blocked my ridiculous microphallus compensating bill to be a big fat jerk as revenge for Karen not going out with me, so now i'll have tantrum."</div><div>-as mere mortal citizens: we can't vote/fire them if they do an awful job.</div><div>-they constantly tell a big pack of lies</div><div>-they pick the most ridiculous things to have a stuck thing about.</div><div>-Show boat and act like bullies, with sound bites to sound cool with no substance.</div><div>-multiple decades strait of the same fundamentally broken ways of doing things. </div><div>-lol not very many well adjusted people go into politics as a result of the god awful "wretched hive of scum and villainy.". </div><div>Ranked choice voting, I suspect, alas alas, would confuse people...and I want to be wrong very desperately about that line of thinking. Man, how many people vote absentee so they can read up on what the bills are? What particular pack of nonsense, who is selling, and it sucks a ton that it feels so...soul degradingly terrible: that I for one have picked a few people only because the rest were so much worse.</div><div> I think the leadership, top to bottom, is only going to get better when dweebs like Kevin Mcarthy aren't on TV bragging about "forcing the poor and unfortunate to work" (reality check: did he even read or think about that sound bite?)</div><div>And pick from who and who and who? So ok 45 SOMEHOW gets in because of I can't even guess why. Sooo who else would I pick from? Is the RNC going to have what amunts to 3 compete brands of bad on the same ticket? What about the DNC? </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>This sucks to type: My hunch is people are picking the most sucky people because how cool they sound, or (I kid you not) being rich and white. :( I suspect it'd then be 3 bitter, angry old white dudes vs I can't even guess what. and that sucks.</div><div><br></div><div> </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 3:12 PM Steve Smith <<a href="mailto:sasmyth@swcp.com">sasmyth@swcp.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>Wow Qadaffi hisself! I've read some Marx, some Lenin, some Mao,
some Castro and others (enemies of democracy in the US vernacular)
but this is new to me... thanks for the reference.</p>
<p>I definitely find "Democracy is the tyranny of the majority over
the minority" to be apt for all forms of democracy, with 2-party
systems and charismatic/populist (elected) leaders to be the worst
extreme of this, with multi-party systems improving it piecewise
but not perfectly.</p>
<p>The representative nature of the US House/Senate and of
Parliaments adds another dimension to the problem while
aggravating the underlying problem.</p>
<p>A *direct* democracy (if that is possible) still suffers the
"tyranny" problem, I sure don't want to be one of the 49 against
the 51 having to do everything "their way" "because majority".</p>
<p>But then Churchill's "worst form of government, except for all
the others we've tried to date" still holds me in it's thrall even
if my higher self wishes for something better if acutely
underspecified.<br>
</p>
<div>On 9/3/23 3:47 PM, Sarbajit Roy wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">In this context, I
would like to share the thoughts of an important world leader
(not very popular with successive US governments) on 1 party,
2 party and multi-party systems. I found his (poorly
translated) analysis very perceptive even if the alternatives
he proposed instead were a bit prosaic. (For the USA
substitute Congress / Senate for Parliament).<br>
<br>
<div style="margin-left:40px"><span style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif">
<i><font size="2"><span role="presentation" dir="ltr">Parliaments,
therefore, have become a means </span><span role="presentation" dir="ltr">of
plundering and usurping the authority of the people.
It has</span> <span role="presentation" dir="ltr">thus become the right
of the people to struggle, through popu</span><span role="presentation" dir="ltr">lar
revolution, to destroy such instruments – the
so-called par</span><span role="presentation" dir="ltr">liamentary assemblies
which usurp democracy and sovereignty,</span> <span role="presentation" dir="ltr">and
which stifle the will of the people. The masses have
the right </span><span role="presentation" dir="ltr">to proclaim
reverberantly the new principle: no representation</span><span role="presentation" dir="ltr"> in
lieu of the people.</span></font></i></span><br role="presentation">
<span style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif"><i><font size="2"><span role="presentation" dir="ltr"></span></font></i></span><br>
<span style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif"><i><font size="2"><span role="presentation" dir="ltr">If parliament is formed from one party as
a result of its win</span><span role="presentation" dir="ltr">ning
an election, it becomes a parliament of the winning
party</span> <span role="presentation" dir="ltr">and not of the people.
It represents the party and not the peo</span><span role="presentation" dir="ltr">ple,
and the executive power of the parliament becomes
that </span><span role="presentation" dir="ltr">of the victorious
party and not of the people. The same is true</span>
<span role="presentation" dir="ltr">of the parliament of proportional
representation in which each</span><span role="presentation" dir="ltr">
party holds a number of seats proportional to their
success in the </span><span role="presentation" dir="ltr">popular vote. The
members of the parliament represent their re</span><span role="presentation" dir="ltr">spective
parties and not the people, and the power
established</span> <span role="presentation" dir="ltr">by such a coalition is
the power of the combined parties and not </span><span role="presentation" dir="ltr">that
of the people. Under such systems, the people are
the vic</span><span role="presentation" dir="ltr">tims whose votes are
vied for by exploitative competing factions</span> <span role="presentation" dir="ltr">who
dupe the people into political circuses that are
outwardly </span><span role="presentation" dir="ltr">noisy and frantic, but
inwardly powerless and irrelevant. Alter</span><span role="presentation" dir="ltr">natively,
the people are seduced into standing in long,
apathetic,</span> <span role="presentation" dir="ltr">silent queues to cast
their ballots in the same way that they</span>
<span role="presentation" dir="ltr">throw waste paper into dustbins. This is
the traditional democ</span><span role="presentation" dir="ltr">racy
prevalent in the whole world, whether it is
represented by</span> <span role="presentation" dir="ltr">a one-party,
two-party, multiparty or non-party system. Thus it</span>
<span role="presentation" dir="ltr">is clear that representation is a fraud.</span></font></i></span><br role="presentation">
<span style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif"><i><font size="2"><span role="presentation" dir="ltr"></span></font></i></span><br>
<span style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif"><i><font size="2"><span role="presentation" dir="ltr">Moreover, since the system of elected
parliaments is based </span><span role="presentation" dir="ltr">on
propaganda to win votes, it is a demagogic system in
the</span><span role="presentation" dir="ltr"> real sense of the
word. Votes can be bought and falsified. Poor </span></font></i></span><span style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif"><i><font size="2"><span role="presentation" dir="ltr">people are unable to compete in the
election campaigns, and the </span><span role="presentation" dir="ltr">result
is that only the rich get elected. Assemblies
constituted</span> <span role="presentation" dir="ltr">by appointment or
hereditary succession do not fall under any</span> <span role="presentation" dir="ltr">form
of democracy.</span>
</font></i></span><br>
<span style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif"></span><br>
</div>
<div style="margin-left:40px"><span style="font-family:"trebuchet ms",sans-serif"></span></div>
<a href="https://ia801507.us.archive.org/4/items/TheGreenBookMuammarGaddafi/gaddafi-green-book.pdf" target="_blank">https://ia801507.us.archive.org/4/items/TheGreenBookMuammarGaddafi/gaddafi-green-book.pdf</a></div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at
10:31 PM Steve Smith <<a href="mailto:sasmyth@swcp.com" target="_blank">sasmyth@swcp.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div> <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">I'm not an American, but because America
plays such a big role in the world, I do follow what's
happening over there. With the presidential elections
happening next year, I cringe at the prospect that it
will be another Trump vs. Biden affair. Can the leader
of the world not do better?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Pieter -</p>
<p>I appreciate the international parallax that Friam
(sometimes) offers such as yours here. I'd be interested
in a little more of your own analysis based on your
personal socio-economic-political position as well as your
cultural heritage and of course your geopolitical
positioning which is rather unique in the world (South
Africa). ChatGPT's perspective is naturally pretty
generic/muddy and from a median/centroid POV by it's
nature?<br>
</p>
<p>Regarding Yang and his movement: I was definitely
fascinated by his ideas and positioning across the US
Democratic party presidential primary (2020)... my
personal opinion is that a significant value of
presidential primaries is to develop a more
diverse/interesting platform than the one in place under
(any) current administration. We have just finished
watching Netflix's <i>Borgen</i> which I highly recommend
as an accessible (and I hope accurate) presentation of how
(Northern?) European Parliamentary systems operate. To
move from our system to a parliamentary alternative is a
much bigger step than anything Yang suggests and therefore
likely more inaccessable across the "semi-adjacent
possible".</p>
<p>Two-Party: I am a big fan of finding a way to expand
our degenerate two-party system but am not sure that any
specific naive attempt to break it will not have some
possibly signfiicant unintended (undesireable)
consequences. I *like* the idea of ranked choice voting
(as a voter) to be able to more directly express my
preferences and in an ideal(ish) world, to achieve a more
representative result. A *full* rank-choice allows me to
(implicitly) express my never-X-er sentiments which is
satisfying (if not particularly meaningful?). I voted
for Jill/Green in 2016 because I strongly believed that
Blue/Hillary/Dems had a lockin in my state and it was
intended to be a combination of "protest" against the
Clinton dynasty and the two-party system. It turned out
fine but it could have been a bit of complicity
accidentally being a "spoiler" vote.</p>
<p>Universal Basic: I am very split on this concept. To
the extent that I think we are a hyper-wealthy economy (US
and the rest of the first world at least) I believe we
*can* afford this, and there are good reasons it *might*
be a very good idea (up to details). I feel that we do
have some precedents in smaller contexts such as the
Alaskan Oil&Gas payments and various Native Tribe
member-payments. I think our (sometimes)
liberal/generous disability and welfare systems might well
be partially replaced by a UBI... allowing some of those
who might be *gaming* the systems to simply accept the
same (or even diminished) level of support as an act of
generosity or inclusion by others who are more engaged in
the directly productive subsystems/activities. I also
think this is a good way to support more "seeking your
bliss" (e.g. artists and poets and ... doing their thing
with less threshold/resistance) as well as entrepreneurial
activiites. A UBI might allow *some*
entrepreneurs/innovators to build up more
technological/innovational momentum... I *do* believe
that the more extreme implementation of
communism/socialism give us anecdotal evidence of how it
can also go bad.<br>
</p>
<p> Regarding Term Limits... I'm sympathetic with the
idea that sometimes "career politicians" are a real
problem/scourge (the alligators in the swamp) but I do
appreciate at least a few of the "career" politicians of
note (e.g. Sanders, Warren, Whitehouse, even Biden) and
loathe a few others (Grassley, McConnell, Thurmond... as
I understand the intention/operation of the
House/Senate... I think long-tenure Senators make more
sense even though some of the fossils in those roles can
be acute problems for our process.</p>
<p>Open Primaries and Electoral College issues are also
important but maybe lost among the other issues. I have
not ever voted in a primary because I have never
registered in a party (protest primarily against 2-party
system and "not wanting to encourage the bastards"). That
said I *would* have liked to have thrown down for Bernie
in 2016 and 2020 primaries and came close to registering
Blue/Dem to do so but ("don't want to encourage the
bastards"). I think the Electoral College is a very high
profile but idiosyncratic version of the more general
problem of Gerrymandering that goes with representative
gov/voting. I hope the EC is on it's way out but I
suspect the path *to* that elimination is awkward and
risk-strewn. <br>
</p>
<p> The major downsides I consider have a lot to do with
"<i>how do we get there from here?</i>" and the risk of
perturbations having unintended consequences which brings
us back to "nudge" theory, encouraging very small,
incremental adoptions. I think Yang is *deliberately*
naive or over-simplifying and if he were actually given
some reins to control this runaway stagecoach of fools
that we are, he would be more thoughtful and restrained
than implied by some of his more strong proposals (for
rhetorical/political purposes).</p>
<p>In any case, I think his "voice" has been important as
one of the stronger outliers (including Pete Buttegeig,
Marianne Williamson and Tulsi Gabbard) and welcome his
continued efforts even if they fail to get
immediate/direct traction.<br>
</p>
<p>Ramble,</p>
<p> - Steve<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
During the primaries of the last election, Andrew Yang
intrigued me to no end. He did not make it as a
candidate for the Democratic Party and subsequently
formed a new party. He is now an outspoken critic of the
American political system and has some proposals on how
to fix it.<br>
<br>
To educate myself I asked Bing AI to write three essays:<br>
a) One for Andrew Yang's views<br>
b) One against it<br>
c) Lastly an objective review of the two views above<br>
<br>
Bing AI answered with:<br>
I'm glad you're interested in learning more about Andrew
Yang's view on the American political system. I can help
you write three essays based on the information I found
from the web. Here they are:<br>
<br>
a) Essay for Andrew Yang's view:<br>
<br>
Andrew Yang is a former presidential and mayoral
candidate who has recently launched a new political
party called Forward (or FWD). Yang believes that the
American political system is broken and needs to be
reformed to reduce polarization, corruption, and
dysfunction. He argues that the current two-party system
is outdated and does not represent the interests of most
Americans, who are increasingly dissatisfied with both
Democrats and Republicans. He also claims that the
system is rigged by special interests, lobbyists, and
wealthy donors who influence the policies and outcomes
of elections.<br>
<br>
Yang's solution is to create a third party that is
focused on moving the country forward, rather than left
or right. He proposes a set of reforms that he thinks
will improve the quality of democracy and governance in
the U.S. Some of these reforms include:<br>
<br>
- Implementing ranked-choice voting, which allows voters
to rank candidates in order of preference, rather than
choosing only one. This would encourage more diversity
and competition in the political arena, and reduce the
spoiler effect and negative campaigning.<br>
- Adopting open primaries, which allow voters to
participate in any party's primary election, regardless
of their affiliation. This would increase voter turnout
and engagement, and give more voice and power to
independent and moderate voters.<br>
- Enacting term limits for Congress, which would limit
the number of terms that members of the House and Senate
can serve. This would reduce the influence of career
politicians and lobbyists, and encourage more fresh and
innovative ideas and perspectives.<br>
- Creating a universal basic income (UBI), which would
provide every American adult with a monthly payment of
$1,000, regardless of their income or employment status.
This would help alleviate poverty, inequality, and
insecurity, and boost the economy and consumer spending.<br>
- Reforming the electoral college, which would either
abolish or modify the system that determines the winner
of presidential elections based on state-level votes,
rather than popular votes. This would make every vote
count equally, and prevent scenarios where a candidate
can win the presidency without winning the majority of
votes.<br>
<br>
Yang believes that these reforms will create a more
responsive, representative, and accountable political
system that will serve the common good of all Americans.
He hopes that his new party will attract voters from
across the political spectrum who are looking for a
positive and pragmatic alternative to the status quo.<br>
<br>
b) Essay against Andrew Yang's view:<br>
<br>
Andrew Yang is a former presidential and mayoral
candidate who has recently launched a new political
party called Forward (or FWD). Yang claims that the
American political system is broken and needs to be
reformed to reduce polarization, corruption, and
dysfunction. However, his view is misguided and
unrealistic for several reasons.<br>
<br>
First, Yang's diagnosis of the problem is oversimplified
and exaggerated. He blames the two-party system for all
the ills of American politics, but ignores the fact that
there are many other factors that contribute to the
challenges facing the country, such as social media,
misinformation, cultural differences, economic forces,
global events, etc. He also fails to acknowledge the
benefits and achievements of the two-party system, such
as its stability, adaptability, accountability, and
responsiveness to public opinion.<br>
<br>
Second, Yang's solution is impractical and ineffective.
He proposes a set of reforms that he thinks will improve
the quality of democracy and governance in the U.S., but
does not explain how he will implement them or overcome
the resistance from the existing parties and
institutions. He also does not address the potential
drawbacks and unintended consequences of his reforms,
such as:<br>
<br>
- Ranked-choice voting could lead to more confusion and
complexity for voters and election officials, as well as
more legal challenges and disputes over vote counting
and results.<br>
- Open primaries could undermine party cohesion and
identity, as well as allow for strategic voting and
manipulation by opposing parties or factions.<br>
- Term limits for Congress could reduce institutional
knowledge and expertise, as well as increase dependence
on staff and lobbyists.<br>
- Universal basic income could create disincentives for
work and productivity, as well as increase government
spending and debt.<br>
- Reforming the electoral college could weaken
federalism and state sovereignty, as well as increase
regional polarization and alienation.<br>
<br>
Yang's new party is unlikely to succeed or make a
significant impact on American politics. He faces many
obstacles and challenges in building a viable third
party that can compete with the established parties,
such as fundraising, organizing, recruiting candidates,
gaining media attention, attracting voters, etc. He also
risks splitting or diluting the vote of his supporters
or allies in other parties, which could benefit his
opponents or adversaries.<br>
<br>
Yang's view on the American political system is based on
wishful thinking and naive optimism. He does not offer a
realistic or effective way to address the complex and
multifaceted issues facing the country.<br>
<br>
c) Objective review of the two views above:<br>
<br>
Andrew Yang is a former presidential and mayoral
candidate who has recently launched a new political
party called Forward (or FWD). Yang has a view that the
American political system is broken and needs to be
reformed to reduce polarization, corruption, and
dysfunction. He proposes a set of reforms that he thinks
will improve the quality of democracy and governance in
the U.S., such as ranked-choice voting, open primaries,
term limits for Congress, universal basic income, and
reforming the electoral college. He hopes that his new
party will attract voters from across the political
spectrum who are looking for a positive and pragmatic
alternative to the status quo.<br>
<br>
However, Yang's view is not universally accepted or
supported. There are many arguments and counterarguments
for and against his view and his reforms. Some of the
main points of contention are:<br>
<br>
- The causes and extent of the problem: Yang blames the
two-party system for all the ills of American politics,
but others point out that there are many other factors
that contribute to the challenges facing the country,
such as social media, misinformation, cultural
differences, economic forces, global events, etc. They
also argue that the two-party system has some benefits
and achievements, such as its stability, adaptability,
accountability, and responsiveness to public opinion.<br>
- The feasibility and effectiveness of the solution:
Yang proposes a set of reforms that he thinks will
improve the quality of democracy and governance in the
U.S., but others question how he will implement them or
overcome the resistance from the existing parties and
institutions. They also warn of the potential drawbacks
and unintended consequences of his reforms, such as
confusion, complexity, legal challenges, party
fragmentation, strategic voting, loss of institutional
knowledge, dependence on staff and lobbyists,
disincentives for work, increased government spending
and debt, weakened federalism and state sovereignty,
increased regional polarization and alienation, etc.<br>
- The viability and impact of the new party: Yang hopes
that his new party will succeed or make a significant
impact on American politics, but others doubt his
ability to build a viable third party that can compete
with the established parties. They cite the many
obstacles and challenges he faces in fundraising,
organizing, recruiting candidates, gaining media
attention, attracting voters, etc. They also caution
that he risks splitting or diluting the vote of his
supporters or allies in other parties, which could
benefit his opponents or adversaries.<br>
<br>
In conclusion, Andrew Yang's view on the American
political system is a controversial and contentious one.
There are pros and cons to his view and his reforms.
There are also uncertainties and risks to his new party.
The debate over his view is likely to continue as he
pursues his political aspirations.<br>
<br>
Source: Conversation with Bing, 2023/09/03<br>
(1) Andrew Yang's Forward Political Party Views,
Explained - Market Realist. <a href="https://marketrealist.com/economy-and-politics/andrew-yang-political-party-explained/" target="_blank">https://marketrealist.com/economy-and-politics/andrew-yang-political-party-explained/</a>.<br>
(2) What does Andrew Yang believe? Where the candidate
stands on 5 issues - PBS. <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-andrew-yang-believe-where-the-candidate-stands-on-5-issues" target="_blank">https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-andrew-yang-believe-where-the-candidate-stands-on-5-issues</a>.<br>
(3) Andrew Yang’s Disjointed Plan to Reform American
Democracy. <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/153888/andrew-yangs-disjointed-plan-reform-american-democracy" target="_blank">https://newrepublic.com/article/153888/andrew-yangs-disjointed-plan-reform-american-democracy</a>.<br>
(4) Andrew Yang’s Third-Party Aspirations | The New
Yorker. <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/andrew-yangs-third-party-aspirations" target="_blank">https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/andrew-yangs-third-party-aspirations</a>.<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom <a href="https://bit.ly/virtualfriam" target="_blank">https://bit.ly/virtualfriam</a>
to (un)subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" target="_blank">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
archives: 5/2017 thru present <a href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/" target="_blank">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/" target="_blank">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. ---
-.. .<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p
Zoom <a href="https://bit.ly/virtualfriam" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>
to (un)subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a><br>
archives: 5/2017 thru present <a href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a><br>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom <a href="https://bit.ly/virtualfriam" target="_blank">https://bit.ly/virtualfriam</a>
to (un)subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" target="_blank">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a>
archives: 5/2017 thru present <a href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/" target="_blank">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/" target="_blank">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .<br>
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv<br>
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom <a href="https://bit.ly/virtualfriam" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://bit.ly/virtualfriam</a><br>
to (un)subscribe <a href="http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com</a><br>
FRIAM-COMIC <a href="http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/</a><br>
archives: 5/2017 thru present <a href="https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/</a><br>
1/2003 thru 6/2021 <a href="http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/</a><br>
</blockquote></div>