Hmmmmm ....... [the sound of - painful - thinking and pondering].
On reflection, if asked (you can be certain that none of my acquaintances has done so), I could have explained the difference between lobbyists, government relations consultants and think tanks. Kinda, possibly, maybe and then perhaps. Well, yesssss .... but you do it so much better than my stumbling efforts; makes me glad I keep you at my beck and call, Sir.
As they say, but seriously now .....
Yes, I could have enumerated the types and such but once it is coherently done, as you have done, it simultaneously seems both benign (it's just another business!) and sinister (these guys really DO influence government and they're for sale!). As with so many things, it is in the eye of the beholder and each individual time one looks the view is somewhat different and (again, simultaneously) more/less benign and less/more sinister.
Reality is an ever-changing thing and it follows that the way we view that ever-changing reality must therefore also be ever-changing which then means that the benign / sinister conundrum continues anew each day.
Unfortunately, always having to deal with an ever-changing conundrum is more than most folk can manage so we rely on our notions of what a party stands for (Us; not Them!), a particular policy (what does my guy say?) and similar shortcuts that are definitely not well thought out. But, we already know that most folks don't really think about policy, etc. - shades of Kim Campbell's assertion of an election being no place to discuss policy?
I'd say that, on balance, this is more of a good news story. If nothing else, it suggests that we're free to use our own imagination (and the internet's powerful distribution tools) to come up with new ways to push messages.
I read what you say and I can't help thinking, "David is REALLY a glass half full kind of guy!" I say that not with derision but from the perspective of (my own personal) cynicism at the multitude of ways that organizations can influence the government without us being any the wiser.
Of course, I have you on my side, Sir, to assist me in extending the "reach" of my myopic eyesight that just doesn't see a whole lot about which to cheer. As I say, that it is simply my own cynicism tonight but I don't feel a whole lot of hope.
Hmmmmm ....... [the sound of - painful - thinking and pondering].
On reflection, if asked (you can be certain that none of my acquaintances has done so), I could have explained the difference between lobbyists, government relations consultants and think tanks. Kinda, possibly, maybe and then perhaps. Well, yesssss .... but you do it so much better than my stumbling efforts; makes me glad I keep you at my beck and call, Sir.
As they say, but seriously now .....
Yes, I could have enumerated the types and such but once it is coherently done, as you have done, it simultaneously seems both benign (it's just another business!) and sinister (these guys really DO influence government and they're for sale!). As with so many things, it is in the eye of the beholder and each individual time one looks the view is somewhat different and (again, simultaneously) more/less benign and less/more sinister.
Reality is an ever-changing thing and it follows that the way we view that ever-changing reality must therefore also be ever-changing which then means that the benign / sinister conundrum continues anew each day.
Unfortunately, always having to deal with an ever-changing conundrum is more than most folk can manage so we rely on our notions of what a party stands for (Us; not Them!), a particular policy (what does my guy say?) and similar shortcuts that are definitely not well thought out. But, we already know that most folks don't really think about policy, etc. - shades of Kim Campbell's assertion of an election being no place to discuss policy?
I'd say that, on balance, this is more of a good news story. If nothing else, it suggests that we're free to use our own imagination (and the internet's powerful distribution tools) to come up with new ways to push messages.
I read what you say and I can't help thinking, "David is REALLY a glass half full kind of guy!" I say that not with derision but from the perspective of (my own personal) cynicism at the multitude of ways that organizations can influence the government without us being any the wiser.
Of course, I have you on my side, Sir, to assist me in extending the "reach" of my myopic eyesight that just doesn't see a whole lot about which to cheer. As I say, that it is simply my own cynicism tonight but I don't feel a whole lot of hope.