spotting a lie

1. A denial using formal  speech (I did not have sex ..)  2.  Distancing language (.. with that woman) 3. Qualifying language (in all candor ..) 4. Frozen upper body (..not fidgeting) 5. Unusually good eye contact  6. Smiling with eyes wide open (..a real smile involves squinting a little) 7. Using too much detail in irrelevant places 8. A too-strict chronology of events (sounds rehearsed) 9. Shaking the head (no) when expressing an affirmative (I will take a paternity test ..) 10. Turning anger into contempt (one-sided sneer ..Dick  Cheney) 11. Duping smile (OJ Simpson ..in court turning and smiling)

Ordinary misinterpretation

Hard to be neutral without coming across as partial and perhaps even disloyal. I remember in 2008 my father asking me “Bill, who do you think will be the next president ..?” I interpreted this as a request for information and, thinking back to some poll results, replied “Looks like Obama” He reacted with disgust and terminated our conversation. Since then he looks at me with suspicion and considers me an Obama fan with liberal views. He swiftly ends our discussions with “I know exactly where you’re coming from, Bill” and calls me a “behaviorist” ..which is a polite way of calling me a “socialist”. I’ve been an independent all my life. I think I see where I went wrong though. He wasn’t asking for an independent assessment ..so my answer appeared more like a preference than an forecast. He’s been that way all his life. When he asks me which team I think will win a football game ..he’s never looking for the answer that an odds-maker would give. Today I’m reading where Obama’s adversaries are accusing him of “appeasement to Iran” in response to his handling of Israel’s saber rattling. I may be going out on a limb here but I think I’m beginning to see a built-in tendency to interpret straightforward answers as prejudice bordering on disloyalty.

False sense of consistency

I’ve never known anybody who didn’t contradict something they said before. Myself included. So it doesn’t surprise me when I hear it coming from the President of the United States. The Obama administration has repeatedly insisted, “terrorists be brought to justice in U.S. federal courts rather than executed by military tribunals.” Last year however, Obama ordered the execution of an American-born terrorist (Anwar Awlaki) in a military drone-attack overseas. Today, Atty Gen Eric Holder said “..the president has the authority to target and kill American citizens overseas when those individuals pose a threat to this country .. the executive branch does not require judicial oversight or court order to do so.” So now republicans want the administration to explain why this doesn’t square with statements they made in the past. Since it’s not in our nature to be consistent with everything we say in the past; I say we let it go and move on. However, I don’t think it’s in our nature to understand that it’s not in our nature. Makes me wonder if the things we dislike in others are often the things we blindly dislike in ourselves. That’s probably why I hate politicians so much.