Tuesday, January 13, 2015

1998 Media Solutions

Hi! Happy Tuesday!

What is absolutely riveting about this 2 hour corporate media discussion  in 1998 is just how quaint it is. Today's total corporate take over the of media and subsequent complete loss of media credibility since the deregulation in 1996 by Bill Clinton makes this panel discussion seem silly.

The compelling reason for posting this on a blog specifically about solutions and not whining is that these folks suggest solutions throughout the two hours, especially Farai Chideya and Mark Crispin Miller. Well done. It is about the solutions. The state of affairs since then makes this post a cautionary tale about what we are up truly up against trying to change things.

We now live in an era where only a handful of corporations own most of the TV and radio stations these days.  This fact is reflected in our voided expectation of any media responsibility or objectivity. It is all opinion now. It is either Fox News on the right, MSNBC on the left or CNN for a complete ear bleed and inanity.

Finally, what is truly refreshing is that in 1998 Fox News was not the corporate punching bag, but rather Time Warner. It is so refreshing not to see Fox News getting beat up, at all. How I long for those days. This entire two hours does not contain one disparaging remark of Fox News. For that alone this video is a must watch. The integrity of the Time editor is so out-of-date, so adorable by any standard today that you want to hug him.  He seems  respectable yet at the time was 1998's "Fox News" corporate punching bag! Wow! Truly thought provoking stuff about how the state of media affairs has declined from then-to-today. If our corporate media today had any legitimacy maybe folks like Snowden wouldn't have to go to extreme, illegal measures just to be heard. All hail the corporate media masters! Woot!




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LakXgkaJOQ4

Well come! and Well met!










Friday, January 2, 2015

Scale Breaking Points: Census Consensus

Hi! Happy New Year!

Two posts today! Woot! 

In my previous blog post I recommended we mandate in our next US Constitution upgrades be required as scale and time invalidate our rights. However, I only recommended a general solution. Here I recommend two specific solutions for assessing breaking points.

Allow Scale and Time Appeals

One way to assess breaking points is to allow a new kind of legal appeal or precedent of time and scale. In my previous blog post I lamented that the founders did not think to include an amendment that forbids waiving rights.

However, let us assume for the moment that we keep things the way they are. Assume people are allowed to enter into arbitration agreements in lieu of trial-by-jury. The breaking point could be assessed by allowing for a legal appeal by scale. If some contract or law includes waiving a right then the judgement can be appealed for reason of scale. If the arbitration were deemed a manifestation of scale or time then the appeal wins.

The legal quagmire that would ensue then would expose the breaking point, in this case courtrooms do not have enough capacity. The quagmire would be the motivation to amend the constitution.

The amendment to the US Constitution might go something like below.

Right to Scale Amendment

Any law suit is voided when rights are waived and waiving those rights are done so on a premise of cost, practicality, feasibility, time and other issues of scale.

Census Consensus

The right to scale mentioned above is kinda obvious. Any time we are waiving our rights this should be a big red light: amend the US Constitution.

The more subtle one is capturing attitude change due to time shift. Examples of attitude shifts are:
  1. 100% shift where trial-by-jury that is mostly snubbed by Americans today. 
  2. 50% shift where Americans are deeply divided on guns.
  3. New rights such as abortion where Americans have never spoken as a people.
How do we capture the breaking points of time and scale?

My solution is census consensus. First we need to upgrade the census to be real-time via electronic updates. Albeit the web, phone or other device people need to be counted in real-time. We should institute a new US Constitution requirement that a real-time census be allowed, warts and all.

I do not advocate direct democracy. However, that should not prevent our representatives from knowing without polling how Americans feel on the important rights issues, including new rights like abortion.

All of our rights should be subject to census consensus. Breaking points of scale and time can be assessed by a census consensus. Changes to public attitudes over time can be monitored directly and not by polling, but a real-time census. People being counted as part of a census should include their rights attitudes. As rights attitudes change then amendments to the US Constitution are mandated.

Census Consensus Amendment

The US Government will institute a real-time, electronic census that counts not only people but people's attitudes about rights. Any change of ten percent over ten years in rights attitudes mandates a US Constitutional amendment to reflect the attitude change.

No Fear

Every generation should be extremely comfortable amending the US Constitution as reflects that generation's attitudes.  For too long we have treated the US Constitution as sacred and something revered when it is far more important for every generation to own the US Constitution by amending it fearlessly to reflect the sensibilities of the day.

Well come! and Well met!















Scale Design: Perpetual Change

Hi! Happy New Year !

Zappy New Year! Wait, time for some Douglas Adams zappiness:

F/X: ZAPPY BURSTING SOUND WHICH IS ALSO A BIT SCREAMY AS THE CHAIR BURSTS INTO A TERRIBLE MONSTER

The topic of this blog post:

The point of this blog post is to humbly recommend we as a people necessarily require provisions to mandate  change in our next constitution as scale and time invalidate the constitution. We can no longer afford to treat the US Constitution as a fixed paradigm requiring rare change.

Affirmation

I have long studied early American History starting from when the Mayflower first landed until around 1840. One of the things that becomes abundantly clear is that the US Constitution affirmed existing attitudes and practices for the existing people. The US Constitution did not invent new attitudes and practices. Our attitudes towards trial-by-jury and guns have dramatically changed since 1789 and we have not taken upon ourselves to reflect those changes. 

Scale Example: Trial By Jury

Today trial-by-jury no longer exists in the US except in very rare cases. For example, you cannot buy health care insurance without giving up your right to trial-by-jury. Instead, one must agree to arbitration. This is true with credit cards and so many agreements today. Not a single health insurance plan is available that allows you to retrain your right to trial-by-jury. Every single health insurance policy requires an arbitration agreement. Just on this fact alone I claim we  no longer are the United States of America because our rights can be so easily voided. It is too bad the founders didn't think to include an amendment to the Bill of Rights that forbids citizens from ever waiving their rights or entering contracts signing away their rights.

Why has binding arbitration replaced trial by jury? Today most of us chafe and resent jury duty. It is a demeaning process that judges who are you based upon answering a set of degrading questions. I have an easy out for anyone looking to get dismissed 100% of the time in a jury pool: tell the judge you firmly believe in jury nullification.

Why has binding arbitration replaced trial by jury? Here is a brief run-down given my understanding:
  1. Affirmation in 1789. Trial by jury was a common practice until 1789. In lieu of any official British government court in the colonies then the citizens commonly took it upon themselves to convene juries. Trial by jury was a venerated practice of self-government. So much so the it was insisted to be included as an individual right in the Bill of Rights. Citizens today do not enact jury trials ever on their own to resolve conflicts. Trial by jury would not be a right Americans insist on today as a Federal right.
  2. Mountain of law. The law builds upon itself every day. Every day legal precedents are set, new laws are passed and a mountain of law means a trial becomes complicated and convoluted.
  3. Speedy trial right waived. The right to a speedy trial is waived. 
  4. Courtroom bottleneck. We did not scale the need for trials with our access to courts.
  5. Population. We just have more people. 
  6. Cost. Lawyers and trials have become hugely expensive. 
Can we say we live in America when we no longer have trial-by-jury except in rare cases?

Time Example: Right to Bare Arms

Until well after 1789 guns were a necessity in the US with no standing military. Citizen defended their frontier boundaries. Today we have fixed boundaries, a military and police. Attitudes have changed. Today less than 50% of Americans have a gun in the home. Even more important however than attitudes changing with respect to time is that the second amendment have been void since 1948. That was the moment you as a private citizen were no longer are allowed to own the same arms as the government so the second amendment is neutered. We are not allowed to own any nuclear weapon, bombs, cannons or any other kind of weapon of mass destruction. If the government decided to impose tyranny by force upon its citizen then we have no defense against WMDs that only the government owns. And now there are drones with Hellfire missiles exclusive to the government. How hard would it be for the government to assassinate you?

The Solution

Time-and-time again the US Constitution has been voided by scale and we have done nothing. In the 1800s the number of representatives were fixed at 435 for no rhyme or reason other than the number of representatives was becoming unmanageable. No thought or care was given to what it means to be an American and having equal, adequate or meaningful representation.

So how do we fix this scale problem, this time problem? The point of this blog post is not to propose fixes to the trial-by-jury problem, the second amendment or representation. The point of this blog post is to humbly recommend we as a people necessarily require provisions to mandate change in our next constitution as scale and time invalidate the constitution. We can no longer afford to treat the US Constitution as a fixed paradigm requiring rare change. Arbitration is 100% proof that the trial-by-jury system is 100% broken and no longer a right. We need to force ourselves to upgrade the US Constitution when these breaking points are reached. I cannot buy health care without signing away my rights. How can we say we are Americans when are rights are so trivially voided?

Well come! and Well met!