LIAR, LIAR - HMMMM, PANTS DON'T LOOK TOO BAD!

I truly love this country but, do admit to having a fetish regarding liars. I can't stand them - but, may need to clarify my position here.

All of us have lied at one time or another. I had one friend back in the 60's who, when I questioned her about something she had told me, claimed, "That's not lying - that's mental reservation." Here's somebody who paid attention in catechism classes.

I liked that. The issue was not all that important and it suggested a certain amount of ingenuity on her part.

Unfortunately, the practice - 50 years later- of spinning, failing to reveal important facts (mental reservation?) or, of juggling the words to mislead someone, has become a strong candidate for Horse of the Year in a race against the favorite, "Outright Lying".

Where is the Fels Naptha laundry soap when you really need it?

In a past blog I related a story about another woman who's precocious son was persistent in demanding to know something. After observing several Santa Clauses while shopping with Mom in downtown Pittsburgh he insisted, "There really is no Santa Claus, right Mom?"

After much deliberation she said, "You're right honey. There is no Santa Claus."

The son was "destroyed" and continued to cry until Mom recanted, saying,"Please don't cry. Mommy lied."

I'll never forget that story and it's impact. I was the son and cried all the way back to my college classes at Grove City - uncertain which of Mom's statements was the real lie.

OK, I "lied" about the last part in a feeble attempt to inject some humor into the story - and, that's part of the problem in today's society: "When is a lie - a lie?"

It's getting harder and harder to determine what a lie is; and whether the person relating something is as Gabby Hayes often said, " a goshdarn polecat liar- dagnabbit!"

To make it even more difficult in these litigious times, we now anxiously await the Supreme Court to eventually inform us whether or not the telling of a lie is protected by the First Amendment- Freedom of Speech.

Now to all of you men who have instructed your kids to tell a telephone caller you're not home, or even extending the possible consequences to females in the bedroom - this could get pretty scary.

Fortunately, the subject of the litigation is not "convenient" lies. It is whether or not someone wrongfully claiming military service to get a job and later presenting the requisite supporting medals, is protected by the Constitution as simply exercising his or her free speech.

Now, my own emphasis here is for me to keep from lying by suggesting that the subject of this blog and my treatment of same is an example of original journalism.

I have to admit to having read an excellent discussion of the subject this morning in a Washington Post column by Robert Barnes ("The High Court: Is lying protected speech? Military-medal case on track for Supreme Court?")- (Sunday March 27, 2011)

The subject is intriguing. Is lying unconstitutional? The Valor Act was passed by Congress in 2005 to address the apparent increase in folks falsely insisting they were distinguished members of the Armed Forces - with the use of someone elses medals to apparently advance their claims.

The Act allows for a fine and/or a six month prison term. Apparently the impact of the Act has not scared people off. Perhaps it's the appeal of 3 square meals a day in a cushy prison during a tough economy.

This blogger has seen no sign that we are experiencing a rapid ascent along a continuom toward the resumption of telling the truth. However, there is no denying the subject matter has gained considerable interest in certain quarters.

Barry Bonds current trial regarding lying to a Grand Jury about his use of steroids while under oath, is in all the papers. Roger Clemons trial regarding lying to Congress is on the horizon.

If one can get past the titillating testimoney of Bond's 9 year mistress during the period of his two marriages as to how taking steroids changed the size of "his junk" as well as his sexual performance - we may eventually find out if he lied - or not.

Apparently this alleged lie is important based on the news the government invested $6 million in their attempts to prosecute him for doing so. Bonds appears to have more attorneys involved than the government so one assumes he has some interest in the subject as well.

Lying to the government appears to carry more "No-No" than simply lying about a non-existant service record and buying medals in a pawn shop.

It definitely surpasses in importance of either mental reservation or tall tales about the existance of St. Nick.

Stay tuned for the Supremes to make a decision. In the meantime, let's find out if Sir Barry's pants are on fire or not.