From the mind of critic: “If we don’t walk the walk, if we were for something before we were against it, against it before we were for it, or are supremely against a certain concept if our opponent uses it, but are stalwart suppoorters of that same concept if used by who we support, are we hypocrites? If all the things we say we’re for, or even a few of those things are enacted by our opponent, do we really wanna make positive change if we come out vehemently opposed? Or are we only inetersted in improving our image, and will say anything to anybody if it puts us one step ahead of the person next to us? Authenticity and quality of character have always been important factors in public life and amongst elected officials, but exponentially now. We’re entering a collective turning point in our evolutionn as a species and as a country, where we can go one way or the other. I’m not refering to left vs. right, which is a drama the media has made bigger, while simultaneously exposing it’s flaws and furthering the conversation about it. The real battle is us versus them. The us is people without political power and influence vs. the people who do. Using the power of the pen to further our own needs over the needs of others, is the ultimate goal of those people in power, which is how they use the power of their office and of business simultaneously. If we’re against something like a president using too many excutive orders that’s fine, but we must be against it across the board. We can’t claim it’s perfectly fine for one president to, and not for another. If that is what we claim, then we are part of the problem because our word can never be trusted. We can either be turstworthy or hypocritical, we can’t be both, and neither can our country or political system. Walking the walk means authentic action, not fake rhetoric” 🙂