Hey Trinity, LOL. I didn't mean to give the perception of sour grapes on popularity. What I really meant was that people in power(leaders), have the 'gift' of persuation. Usually over large groups of people. This type of person controls the crowd by pleasing the crowd. However, if the crowd disagrees with the person, then the person is powerless. So here is the paradox; the crowd controls the power of the person, the person uses the crowd as one voice. The crowd manipulates the person, and the person manipulates the crowd.
So, when a person without the 'gift' of persuation is against the crowd and their leader because of an injustice, who wins? Definately not this person. The leader is not going to give up the power over the crowd in order to serve one person. Would Bush be our president if he made a proposal that 95% of this country disagreed with during the elections? In order to persuade a leader, we must first convince the crowd. Right now, our crowd is not large enough to be worth listening to. We need to set educational examples that baits the crowd. When we have a large enough crowd, the leaders will sacrafice power if they choose not to listen.
