the word 'powerful' is so often used in reference to a lobby group or a particular lobbyist. but shouldn't we be more descriptive - mmmm - persistent in our definition of "power". it isn't the power of persuasive rhetoric or rigorous statements of proofs. when we talk about lobbying power, the specific relationship is lobbyist <-> politician (or some representative). so, my primary focus here is not lobbyist groups concerned with individual or environmental issues; i'm concerned with those most apt to gain power and wield it with their money. for lobbying is not an unjust activity as such, but what is the dynamic between the lobbyist and politician, what is the originary instrument of persuasion: dolla dolla bill ya'all dogma or reflection, openly considering evidence with no view to entrenched opinion maintenance. we need people with an allegiance to their methodology, not their conclusions. but this is not a unique problem for government. socially, conversations are strained not just along political or religous lines, but really anything that calls into question anything remotely moral in nature. and now, like in previous centuries, science is again battling morality, this time from the incumbent position.

how can we in the social sphere work towards political transcendence, affecting some sort of real change deserving of the power in numbers we have while acknowledging the fallout from our wealth disparity, specifically the cool kids table in the distance with the lobbyists and politicians justifying each other's existences while we who birthed and sustain them diddle each other and look at shiny objects.