I Know You Are But what Am I

I Know You Are But what Am I? It's a child's game. It is much like Tic-tac-toe in that the game is played to a draw when Player 1 and Payer 2 are equally matched. Only when one Player is more anal retentive does he "win" by default. This is why the better move is to not play.

There is a poem and song lyric titled "The Drunk Driver Always Has the Right of Way." Sometimes even when you are right you must yield and let the impaired one have his way. This principle also applies in the game of habitual lying. The master liar states his lie. Everyone knows he is lying. He knows he is lying but he doesn't care because the war of attrition is afoot. The people who hear the lies point them out and refute the message being put forth. The liar lies some more. The refutation continues. Eventually, the refutation efforts wane due to sheer exhaustion. Besides, the level of repetition of the lies leads some people to believe them. That phenomenon exacerbates the futility of trying to outmaneuver the liar. He has an unlimited supply of false and misleading statements to use.

The childhood game goes like this. "You are a crybaby." The response is "I know you are but what am I?" This exchange goes on until the Player 1 gives up because Player 2 will never acquiesce. His is a world where he is the king, the master, the mogul who cannot be "one-upped." Eventually, everyone will leave him alone and criticized him behind his back. He becomes like the grumpy old demented grandpa who cannot be reasoned with only accommodated. The cognitive deficit becomes so severe that eventually he must be moved to supervises housing where he can rant and fuss to his heart's content and the staff placates him with "there, there we mustn't get the other residents all riled up.

The problem comes when the impaired one is the head of the household. He still has control of the checkbook and the other finances. Wresting control from him involves a legal battle royale, especially when he still has supporting associates who have something to gain by his absurd behavior.  

The conflict may very well result in the fall of the house. Maddness is highly destructive to everyone who contacts it. It is exceptionally destructive when an entire nation is the household. Eventually the mad one dies or otherwise reaches a state where he cannot function any longer and he fades away leaving a trail of devastation in his wake.

No-trump

It is far passed time to stop giving the new President, Donald Trump, free coverage for the insanity that he is exhibiting. He has set the stage for trying to get the American public to stop listening to the legitimate Press who refuse to blindly go along with all of the wild agenda items he is implementing.


Instead of reporting that "Trump said this or said that, did this or did that..." the media must concentrate on that which he did. "Steve Bannon says media should keep its mouth shut." "Sean Spicer repeats lies which are told to him." "EPA and other federal entities are muzzled by Executive Orders." "Gag order on FDA information endangers Americans health and safety." "EPA shackled by funding cuts and demands to have all scientific reports vetted by Republican Congress."

All of these types of reporting leave the current President out of the picture. He doesn't need any more coverage than he can obtain by tweeting his opinions and claims of being victimized by dishonest press reporting. The lies are only the smoke and mirrors to divert out attention from the actions he is taking without dissent. Congress is not standing up to the man because he is furthering THEIR hopes and goals. He is acting like a "one man wrecking crew."

Even if he is eventually deposed before the 2020 elections, he will have stripped more of the social policy, most of the environmental protections and all of the safeguards which have been put in place since the 1920s. Using the excuse of a need for security he is using collective fear to curtail dissent by striking out at a few of the first adopters of protest.

The people who voted for the man are probably lost to any counter attacks against him. The opposition needs only to point out the results and impacts of his decisions and policies. After all you can't insult a racist by calling him a racist, nor a Fascist by calling him a Fascist. In both cases the label is a badge of honor. But stopping the label making and concentrating on the outcomes of the bad decisions give people the opportunity to get behind the new message. We need to stop characterizing his as a twit even though and especially You Can't Argue With a Twit.