ENLIGHTENED VERSUS ACCESS

To pay for enlightenment is one thing, access another. Though some will argue they are one and the same, they are not. Especially in politics. It is common knowledge that without funds or position or both, access for the common rabble to their elected officials, most particularly those in Washington, is near impossible.

Our own recent experience less than a few years ago is a case in point. Contacting either the Washington or local office we got the same canned run around by staff members barely old enough to vote. What a lot of those in power don't understand or don't want to understand, this is part of the current pushback. Politicians of all stripes have come to believe the folks are here to serve them, not the reverse.

It is more obvious than the looks on the faces now of the elitists given Trump's refusal to disappear. It's the "What the hell happened?" look in light of Trump's persistent and increasing traction with voters. At the basis of this, as it nearly always is, lay a deep-seated, we're-entitled corruption. This is not new.

The difference between paying for enlightenment and paying for access is like that between a "security inquiry" and a "criminal investigation." Which one do you think best describes the function and purpose of the Federal Bureau of Investigation? Lobbyist are well known and despised for paying for access. And rightfully so. The next time you see an enlightened lobbyist will be the first time.

A New York newspaper recently published a list of funds for so-called "speaking engagements" one of the current presidential aspirants received in just the past two years. Forget the common folk, even to a big time hedge fund runner the amount is hardly chicken feed.

One can only hope those who forked out the big fees, given the changes coming, get more enlightenment and less access in the future as the masses, thanks to the Internet, get more enlightened. To quote a noted biblical line the masses need to comprehend seriously: "Above all get understanding."