Once upon a time, a man hired a worker who refused to do what he was asked.
The man wanted the worker to help safeguard his family and home, to watch out for his interests.
Whenever the man asked for help, the worker was always too busy to help him, but helped others, using the man’s money.
It isn’t that the worker was underpaid or had no benefits. Only the very best was good enough for the worker. The accommodation was good, some would say it was opulent. There were generous provisions for travel, meals, and expenses. There were opportunities to rub shoulders with the rich and famous, to appear on radio and television, to write to the media and be listened to. There was no shortage of people wanting to wine and dine the worker.
When the man finally gave up and wanted to fire the worker, he first received an assurance that all would be well, that his needs were foremost. But then the worker turned to the people he’d helped, using the man’s money and asked them to protest against the man, using the media to stop him complaining and the law to stop him taking action.
How did the man get into this mess?
It have been because the man was too trusting, too easy-going, too laid-back. He was part of “The Silent Majority” and now the chickens were coming home to roost.
It may be too late, but the man wants to take back control of his life and create ground rules for moving forward, set boundaries, and make real checks and balances that can’t be undone.
The worker has a funny name, it is “legislator,” and soon there will be a chance to make changes.
Some interesting questions arise:
will enough men and women stand up and take action; or will they sit back and leave it to someone else; and will the legislator’s lackeys obfuscate the truth; and will scare tactics prevent change.
And the biggest questions of all:
Is there a leader capable of mobilizing enough people to overcome the vested interests that don’t have the best interests of the people at heart? Are the people so jaded they will accept the legislators who are in the pockets of vested interests because they have an otherwise-acceptable platform?
