Politicians give speeches in which they promise to combat poverty at gala dinners that cost tens of thousands of dollars to throw while wearing tailor made suits, while wearing solid gold cuff links. The meals served at these extravaganzas can include up to six or seven courses. This abundance of food often causes some unique moments. During speeches at these events, for example, often something particularly applause worthy is said. This could possibly be about the tragedy of poverty or just how important the fight against it is but regardless, the people at their tables are moved to become involved in the sentiment and show their whole-hearted support. They do this by applauding. This happens without a hitch for most of the people, but not all. Some of the people attending will have their forks full of fillet mignon or duck confit or chocolate mouse in mid arc on their way to their mouths at these moments pregnant with well meaning forcing them into making a split second decision to either halt that arc and put down the food laden silver or to continue their current course to their mouths so they can be part of the applause that echoes off the hundreds of square feet of hardwood floor and makes the marble pillars of the ballroom quake. It's always surprising just how many end up clapping fervently with everyone else around them as their teeth work the gourmet food. They clap and clap while thinking that the menu was better last year.
All this fanfare to exude an air of financial success which seems to be the only measure of success left today. Humans who want other humans to follow their lead need to appear successful. Why would anyone want to follow a failure? Since today's measuring stick of success is money, leaders and humans who want to be leaders need to appear financially successful. This becomes the priority. So, instead of a discussion of what matters—poverty for example—all the effort is put into looking successful. The waste of time and resources is shameful. What's even worse is the muddling of facts and skewing of reality that occurs when the 'leaders', who are the spokespeople for this issue, say things not to help make a positive change, but to make sure that they keep their power. It's almost a conflict of interest. If these 'leaders' are successful and actually eradicate whatever issue that they speak against, they lose the very thing that provides them with power. Not that anyone has to worry about them being effective. How can they possibly be effective when being effective is not their priority? What are the chances of any serious issue in our world being resolved when they are all merely means to the ends of keeping a job, keeping power and of keeping intact an image of success that so much effort goes into sustaining?
