The awful truth about lies and liars

Imagine - if you will - a news conference being held in Miami by Tony Sparano (that's the new head coach of the Miami Dolphins), and imagine he is announcing the new players taken in the NFL draft, including the name of the new starting quarterback.

With some fanfare, he introduces the new player - Claire Marino - and announces she would be the starting QB for the Dolphins this coming season. Claire steps forward and asserts that she is qualified to be starting QB because she had spent 16 years married to Dan while he played QB for the Dolphins. She also claims has spent the last six years with Dan while he has been announcing football for a national TV audience. During that period of time she has became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, along with the nickel defense and she is now completely comfortable with the other terminology of the Dolphins offense. A quick survey of Dolphins fans shows that 50 percent of those polled supported the move.

Does this sound idiotic or unbelievable to you? I guess it would, but then sports fans are not gullible or stupid enough to buy into such an illogical fantasy.

But wait a minute, as a columnist, I talk politics - not sports.

Hillary Clinton has made the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and, amazingly, 50 percent of Democrats polled agree with her. Be mindful she has never run a City, County, or State. When told Hillary Clinton has experience because she has eight years in the White House, Dick Morris, a former presidential adviser said, "so has the pastry chef."

I'm sure Hillary just got confused because she had to dodge so many bullets after she landed in Bosnia - just after she had brokered the peace accord in Ireland. Yes, her vast experiences demonstrate she is ready to be the Commander-In-Chief. According to her, anyway.

Politicians have their own jargon and nearly all of it is some form of lies and deceit. Unfortunately 50 percent of the electorate buys into those lies. Abraham Lincoln would be amazed at how many people fit into the "all of the time" category.

And lest you think I am an Obamaphile, Hillary's opponent has yet to directly address his ill-advised relationship with his Pastor Wright. Every statement Obama makes on the subject is designed to convey an impression that is at odds with the actual words. His deceit is just more subtle than Hillary's.

Unfortunately most people just assume that honest government without lies and deceit is the norm, but that is just not reality. Candid and honest government would take unprecedented honesty on the part of politicians - a rare thing indeed - not to mention an alert (and honest) news media to monitor politicians' 'honesty' and report the discrepancies without bias.

Dealing with sources

If you've been writing a column for a number of years, as I have, your predictability as to how your article will be received gains accuracy with time &ldots; except that occasionally you get a surprise, and sometimes when it's not even your birthday.

I have had the opportunity to cover uncounted numbers of political campaigns; national, statewide, and local, and have heard candidates speak off the cuff, attended political party meetings, professional organizations, civic associations and heard candidates and elected officials discuss proposals and met with various levels of bureaucrats to discuss potential solutions to important problems.

Maybe I have become jaded, because I really loathe those in the public arena who lie and expect me to accept what they say as the "gospel truth." It boggles the mind that any of them think I (and other journalists) won't check their story, especially since they ought to know that an editor is going to check mine.

I once wrote campaign speeches, as a way to augment my base pay and to pay the rent. There was one particular individual, a South Carolina member of Congress, who ran on the basis of wanting to serve his district honorably and help develop meaningful change. He was bright, and he had a genuine feel for needs of the voters in his district. He was elected and went to Washington, DC, to serve. Unfortunately, once in office, he changed and became exactly the kind of politician that he claimed he detested. Within a year, we talked about how he had changed and was no longer serving his district, but instead he was campaigning every day, trying to raise the "necessary funds" to get reelected.

One evening we were sitting outside on the porch of his rural home and I told him that I didn't think I wanted to continue working with him because some of his claims and statements were bordering on the edge of willful deceit. He didn't need to make those claims as his fellow legislators had accepted him and he had a bright future ahead if he worked hard and remained honest. His dream was to become the governor of the state - and in my opinion - he could have attained that lofty position.

He was a little shocked to hear that I didn't want to continue working with him because he had carried his district by a huge margin and his job was guaranteed as long as he wanted it. That in turn meant I had a well-paid position and didn't have to bounce around free-lance writing political speeches to hopefuls on the political circuit. He was open to me about what he had claimed and found neither remorse nor any desire to clear up his false statements. In fact that night he proved to me that he had learned the art of practicing 'situation ethics.'

He then told me that if you're going to tell a lie, make it a whopper based on the premise the more outrageous the lie, the more likely it is to be believed. At the time, I wrote off his advice as hogwash and I watched him continue to serve and raise money, and wondered why his constituents were so gullible.

For another two years, the deceit continued, undiminished and he was not being held accountable. I knew I was watching a man self-destruct and he ultimately was forced to resign in a scandal-ridden debacle.

I don't believe that all officials - elected or appointed - lie constantly, but I can assure you that I also don't find that they are candid and transparent, especially when there are charges of wrongdoings or false claims. Sometimes I think it would be easier to put lipstick on a pig than to get the truth out of some politicians.

There are many times in this business of reporting that I get insiders calling me to tip me off about possible misdeeds. When I confront the miscreant, I am inevitably asked, "Who told you that," or "Where did you hear that?" They obviously feel the need to attack the messenger and avoid dealing with the charge.

I really do understand governmental workers. In many ways, it is their job protection to go into a defensive mode and deny or puff responses to the inquiry of any situation. They want me to go away, so they sometimes tell me they can't talk about it and usually refer me to a Public Information Officer or some flack who, they think, knows how to handle my questions. Usually I am asking an unexpected question, and a candid answer could cause the loss of a job.

I can appreciate when a government employee or supervisor gets into his hunker-down mode, but I can't accept the outright lies. I usually tell the target, or one of a group that I am investigating, "If you don't know - then you don't know. That is nothing to be ashamed of. But to make it up or pretend you have inside knowledge - when you really don't know - don't lie to protect yourself - because if you think about it - I must know something - or I wouldn't be asking in the first place."

Everybody lies . . .

Those of you who watch the television show House know that the main character - a brilliant but rather sociopathic doctor - constantly says: "Everybody lies." This really is an interesting show - as my friend Anthony Alfonso from Miami pointed out to me a few months back. I don't watch much television but this series has more real life situations about lies and liars than all of the television programs combined.

I have noticed - both in comedy and drama - many have defined the topic of lies and liars. Groucho Marx once said that his brother Harpo was an honest guy but, "You had to keep your eye on him."

Ronald Reagan, when asked about his approach to treaties between the Soviet Union and the United States, he said: "Trust but verify."

And finally, today the most popular new reality show on television involves strapping people up to a polygraph machine and asking them questions like: "Do you always wash your hands after going to the bathroom?" and "Have you ever thought about killing your husband?"

If you want to know why this show is so popular - it is because everyone lies. In case you didn't know, polygraph evidence is not admissible in most instances. In fact, there are state and federal laws prohibiting the use of most lie detector tests in the workplace. Yet these same tests are still widely used in many other instances.

The reason they are inadmissible in courts is because they will not uncover the best liars, namely those who lie without any physical reaction. I also am not sure why they are prohibited in workplace investigations, especially since the government allows law enforcement agencies to use them in screening their employees.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Council - all use polygraph evidence, almost on a yearly basis, to screen and verify what their agents are telling them about cases or suspected criminal activity. Nobody likes a corrupt federal agent.

Of course, on the other side of the coin, do you really want to have everyone around you being radically honest or honest to a fault? We walk a thin line on this dilemma.

Regardless, liars and their lies are an essential problem in our society and in the political arena. Frequently there is no direct evidence of misconduct and the circumstantial evidence is, after all, circumstantial. It's unfortunate - but that's reality.

. . . except me

And that's no lie..