On Nov. 6, I’ll vote for a liar for president

No matter how I try to rationalize it, I’m going to vote for a liar for president of the United States. And, no matter how I try to ignore history, I realize that I likely have always voted for a liar for virtually any political office.

I do not know anyone who has not told a lie. Size and intent of the lie does not matter; lies are lies. I know that lies come in a variety of shades, some of which have become socially acceptable. Honey, does this dress make my ass look fat? A man who answers no lies to protect the dignity of the woman. Oh, don’t worry about those few extra pounds. You still look hot to me. The woman who says that protects the frail ego of a man. When the pet rabbit dies, mom or dad tells little Bobby I’m sure Hoppy went to heaven.

We lie to protect the feelings of others. But we still lie, because we know absolute truth corrodes relationships.

But politicians lie to manipulatively establish and maintain relationships. Lies fertilize the ground on which campaigns are constructed. Candidates at all levels of politics lie, cheat, and deceive. Google “political lies” and explanations of why they lie abound.

Advertisement

A rich man’s insider trading deserves prison

The American government wants Rajat K. Gupta to go to prison for up to a decade. He wants to go to Rwanda to do community service and call that sufficient punishment for his crimes.

A jury convicted Gupta in June of conspiracy and securities fraud for leaking Goldman Sachs boardroom secrets to billionaire hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam.

This was an insider trading case: Rajaratnam got the tips; Gupta provided them. Result: Because of Gupta’s tips, Rajaratnam’s hedge fund, the Galleon Group, illegally earned or avoided loss totaling $17 million, said the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The presidential debates: Mitt, Barack, and the supersecret handshake

Mitt and Barack are going to have a likely contentious sit-down Wednesday night at the University of Denver’s Ritchie Center. Well, probably more like a stand-up. In most past presidential debates, the contenders have stood behind lecterns. I’m guessing, because I don’t know the rules that will govern this debate. I don’t if they’ll be standing, and if so, how far apart they’ll be, and how far from the moderator. I don’t know the design or color of the lecterns or whether Barack gets the presidential seal on the front of his, or whether they’ll wear identical suits and the same color ties. I don’t even known how they’ll address each other (“Mr. President” or “you socialist swine” or “Governor” or “you flip-flopping spineless pile of rat turds”). I know they’ve been told what issues will be covered (egads!) but not what questions will be asked.

I don’t know much else other than what the Commission on Presidential Debates tells me. The commission, a non-profit and (presumably) nonpartisan organization, has been arranging the debates since 1987. But it’s remarkably silent on the details of the debates’ particulars. Neither the commission, nor Mitt, nor Barack will tell us the rules governing just about everything at the debate.