There is something fishy about institutions creating overseeing bodies comprised of their own members, like the special investigation units of police and the pretense they are the most qualified persons to check up on cops because they are cops. The college of physicians and surgeons is like that and the teachers and the lawyers, everyone gets in on it, we’ll take care of our own, you can trust us to be objective because we’re from the same field. Is that really the most trust worthy logic? I’m imagining off the top of my head an overseeing group made up of a cashier, a mechanic, someone from A&R, a flight attendant, a dishwasher and a bike courier. My money is on the imaginary group achieving more objectivity than the usual suspects. The headline in the news is how the jury at the George Floyd trial is the most diverse ever as though that’s the unusual thing, as though that is the story but the real story is that a non diverse jury helps assure corruption sleeps ok tonight. There was a band of six musicians and they liked to think they were sort of radical. One of them wrote the songs but all of them arranged them and performed them, different members did the lead vocal, different members took the solo, all of them toured together promoting the songs but only one person got paid when all that extra money was collected from the music played on airwaves or in licensed theatres. One song became a big hit in a movie after the director saw them perform the song in concert. They complained to the member who made all the extra money and he said he would solve the problem, he would pay everyone a certain percentage from now on. Nobody was entitled to inspect how much he earned or what portion of the pie he was carving or informed for how long he would continue to do this. Is that radical?