Divisive Speech

I got called out today for using divisive speech. I have to admit that it probably could be construed in that manner. In my defense I have read recently that lying must also bear intent to deceive and therefore our President is not guilty of prevarication. In the same vein my intent was not to be divisive but to encourage people who are not in agreement with me to change their ways. Decisively and rapidly. However, I have been a bit out of sorts since the election and I may have expressed my sentiments crudely. Anyway, I admitted that my inner child had escaped and gave voice to his inner sentiments much in the same way that I will sometimes allow a curse word to pass my lips. Now, I was raised to believe that using profanity was the surest indicator of a low quality vocabulary but, you have to admit it, sometimes you just can't make the same point with polite speech. Anyway, I hastened to assure my accuser that I was ready, willing and able to meet with anyone to discuss policy in a sane manner, sans profanity and ridiculous allegations such as the President being born in Kenya. I reserve the right to demand verifiable sources and, for the record, I do not consider Infowars or Breitbart News to be either verifiable or sources since they make the stuff up on the go.

I was as stunned as Chuck Todd when KellyAnne Conway let the words “alternative facts” slip out. She surely choked on her tongue as soon as those words were loosed but Chuck was on that like a duck on a Junebug. To his credit he said that alternative facts were falsehoods when I probably would have used the word “lies.” But I am not as erudite as Chuck. Nor do I have a high profile job to protect. I noticed today that the Dallas Daily News (this is in Texas) wasn't as erudite as Chuck either and called that and other statements “lies.” Which brings to mind that Congressman from our state most likely to secede to yell out at President Obama “you lie!” Now, that was what I call a divisive statement but it had the general affect of uniting the GOP and Tea Partiers (is there a difference any more). I've got to tell you. Had I been President Obama I would have stopped right there and demanded satisfaction from him by a duel of a game of HORSE. Suitably humiliated he surely would have crept back to his lair never to be heard from again but the President took the high road. You know, “when they go low, we go high.”

The point here being where in the world were those people who now eschew divisive speech eight years ago when the President-to be was mouthing off about the lack of a birth certificate and allegations that Barack Obama was not a citizen. Where were those people who now want to give President Trump a chance when the GOP was riding the wave of President Obama being a closet Muslim (and, so what said Colin Powell) and the founder of ISIS with plans for him and Valerie Jarrett to hand over the United States to the Muslims? How would that work anyway? Would it be like giving the keys of the car to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and telling him to take it for a spin? I might be getting close to divisive speech again so I'm going to beat my inner child back into his corner and tell him to just keep quiet. We're having a grown-up conversation.

So, anyway, back to my offer. I am capable of discussing matters of policy without resort to personalities (I think). In any case, I'm willing to try but be warned, I intend to take notes and use them to hold you to what you say and I will not allow you to use “alternative facts” nor will I just take your word that you never said that even if that is what our President does. If the conversation gets surly I will demand recompense in the form of some kind of battle. I'm not very sports inclined so I will choose crossword puzzles in order to have my honor restored. We really need to rethink our prohibition on duels but perhaps limit them to things that will not demand that a life must be taken. After all, it took three duels I think to restore Andrew Jackson's honor and I believe he was actually shot a time or two. And we all know about poor Alexander Hamilton who died at the hand of Aaron Burr.

But, these are the times that try men's souls. I don't mean to plagiarize that phrase but I don't remember who to credit. Anyway, I didn't make that up. Our President (yes, our President) has brought the institutions of democracy to their knees through accusations of stupidity and threats to take on the Chinese in the South China Sea and he has humiliated the National Park Service by insisting that they photoshopped either the crowd at his inauguration or at the Women's March. Take your pick but his crowd was bigger because he said so and he could see all the way to the Washington Monument. At least he didn't claim to see all the way to Russia. And then to prove it he went to the CIA and stood in front of the stars with no name and repeated the, well, alternate fact as if to invoke their power.

So, Steve Bannon told us today to just shut up. He told our fourth estate to just shut up and listen for a while. All except Twitter which he gave permission to continue as before. And, therein lies the tactic for the loyal opposition. All that is needed is for a designated person to make an allegation, maybe on Twitter, that his wardrobe is looking a little stunted. Maybe suggest a different color or style of tie. Another photo of him pretending to sign his 4000^th executive order might do the trick. Then he could go tweet that he always knew that he could do more executive orders than Obama, massively more, more executive orders. Or that he knows how to dress and everyone else is doing it wrong. He knows because he has his own clothing line and because he is just smarter.

My Take is this. I can't wait to get to the point where these things have to be debated. One quote says that hardship creates character but another one says that it only exposes character. Oh, I'm sorry. Was that divisive?