INFLUENCE IS NO GOVERNMENT: who first (and last) said that, and what did he, or she, mean by it? It would presuppose that a politician was a bonded practicing professional of some one kind, someone who might, it was assumed, be depended-upon to act honestly and in good faith, according to the way in which they were licensed, without ever fearing the possibility of influence. The ultimate paradigm of any profession that is truly that, would be the atmosphere of the surgery, where it is expected that one is not free to break in on operations. Similarly, it is to be assumed that when engaged formally in any activity of the highest seriousness, interruption of any kind amounts to contamination. To be bonded, to be licensed in some way means one has as an individual, as a group, been entrusted to carry on according to good-faith application of rules and regulations previously agreed-upon pertaining to one’s profession, which one is sworn to observe, and, to say it once again, it would be contamination, to say the least, to break in on even an ordinary appendectomy, in order to advise how one thinks the whole thing ought to go. What is strictly implied by the notion of governance is just another example of what is supposed to go along with practicing as that sort of a professional that is called a politician. You are supposed to know what it is that you are supposed to be doing in some competent way, and, further, it is to be supposed that you shall not prostitute your practice.