AN UNSHAKABLE TRUISM - DUCK IF YOU'VE HEARD THIS ONE BEFORE..

Just when you're sure you have literally "had it" with all politicians and their lies - along comes a "truism" - "something so obvious or self evident as to be hardly worth mentioning except as a reminder" and comes along in the nick of time.

My truism was a headline on the front page of Friday's USA Today's News section a week or so ago: "Senate declares self clean on ethics".

Before further comment: Please keep in mind that I'm the sort of guy who puts his upper plate under his pillow each night in the fervent hope he will be rewarded by the tooth fairy.

So, yes, I'm sure some of you disbelievers may not agree at first with the "Good News" headline, but that's only because you haven't heard the supporting evidence.

 But, if you're so inclined, you may want to start your own personal  fact check with Stanley Brand - an ethics lawyer who allegedly has a history of advising "The Senate Ethics Committee"  - the authors of the proclamation about current Senate ethics.

Stan's strong support for that report included a rebuttal to those "usual suspects". You know, like the "Ethics Watchdog Groups" . He made it abundantly clear : "they (those guys) want every peccadillo to be investigated like a federal crime."

One assumes his ill chosen peccadillo reference had nothing to do with the 1972 Democratic Presidential candidate Wilbur Mills who, when confronted in the wee hours of the morning with stripper Fanne Foxe, jumped into the DC Tidal Basin as part of his escape plan. 

We know this because Wilbur (no friend of Mr. Ed) was a Representative - not a Senator.

Despite that - and as you could no doubt expect - there were those usual soreheads nosing around  - folks like the supposedly non-partisan "Campaign Legal Center" (CLC) who had the gall to criticize the committee's findings, and even suggested the committee should be renamed the "Congressional Dead Letter Office".

The CLC disagreed with the Senate ethics committee's conclusion that of the 613 allegations of  wrongdoing received since 2007, the committee was forced to dismiss more than 90% of same.

The watchdog group then pointed out that only 75 complaints have even led to "preliminary investigations" by the ethics committee and those resulted in most if not all of those investigations forcing the committee to issue  9 slap-on- the wrist -letters to Senators saying basically "you shouldn't have done that."

In fact, in examining the total of the committee's vigilant efforts during the 9 year period since 2007 - when it's first report came into existence -the CLC appeared to have been hampered in their investigative diligence due to the committee's presumed irrefutable claims:

(1) There were not enough facts to prove wrongdoing - (13 of 55 cases last  year). (2) No Senate rule governing the alleged activity - (36 of  55 cases in 2015) and (3) Five of seven cases in which the committee carried out those "preliminary  findings" had to be dismissed as inadvertent or minor technical violations.

Unfortunately,  there was no comment by the ethics committee about possible complaints of suspected insider trading involvement which subsequently enriched the Senator's benefit package.

The  Ethics Committee said the remaining few (?)cases were apparently so insignificant that none of those was made public by the committee; and they did not respond to a request by USA Today for further comment. 

But, here's the "good news" part. What the results did prove is the prescience back in 2007 of both Senate leaders at that time.

When the then Democratic Majority Leader Senator, Harry Reid assessed the pending ethics proposal change leading up to the formation of the Ethics committee, he pronounced it:

 "the most significant legislation in ethics and lobbying reform we've had in the history of this country".

And not to be outdone, then Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, stated:

"I believe that we owe it to the voters as well as the institution to come to a fair agreement and pass this legislation". 

Of course, you remaining naysayers could argue that back in 2007, the Senate DID reject the idea of setting up an independent office to investigate the ethical breaches of members - but,  even with that minor caveat, look at the incredible progress we've made since then regarding both ethical Senatorial behavior as well as that of lobbyists. 

On a lighter note -and only if  you believe in coincidence - the very same week of the committee's report another "annual" but definitely "unplanned" report was released on national TV.

You may have missed it though; as this one appeared on the Cartoon Channel (CC)

The C.C. spokesperson being interviewed was none other than Wiley Coyote - who proudly revealed in a surprise non-scheduled question and answer session with none other than ace reporter Daisy Duck  he also had determined that in 2015 there had been no findings of anything improper going on at the chicken coops he was assigned to guard "either".

Unfortunately, he was NOT as convincing as the Senate Ethics Committee. This was due to Daisy's sharp reportorial eye that suggested to her the possible presence of both chicken feathers and gizzard remains in the corner of Wiley's enormous mouth.

At first Daisy had graciously concluded Wiley must have developed a a speech impediment due to his poor diction, just as the coyote claimed initially, but upon further close up inspection by the observant duck reporter his claim simply did not hold up and she turned him in on the spot to her viewers.

In Daisy's follow-up and expanded article she claimed Wiley was not only a liar but clearly a misogonist.

She based this latter conclusion on Wiley's subsequent national TV press conference where he attacked her credentials as a expert chicken and gizzard remains spotter and then explained it all away with his on air suggestion it may well have just been Daisy's "time of month".

Who knew?

HOW BAD CAN IT BE?

Ever wonder why it is so difficult to admit you were wrong? My wife and I have played a little "wrong" game for some time now in which the following scenario takes place in one form or another:

He: "Well yes, I did think that way before - but, I was wrong."

She: "What? You are really finally willing to admit that you can be wrong?" I thought you were  NEVER wrong!"

He: "Well there was that time back in 1955  - when I was wrong".

She: "I can't wait to hear more. What was that all about?"

He: "Well, that's a long time ago and my memory is cloudy,  but as I recall, I thought I was wrong about something , but, thankfully later that day I found out I was really right - and it was my original  conclusion that was wrong"

She: "That must have been really gratifying!"

He: "Hey, that's the kind of guy I am - always willing to fess up when the situation dictates that it's appropriate. You ought to try it."

(That was also the "first time" I had to have my upper plate repaired)

So, quickly  or as quickly as you can cover such a complex subject- here are five reasons for the problem that I've edited from a PhD- Guy Winch - who provides us with some info as to the causation for a negative trend that seems to be growing exponentially - a seemingly inability to admit we were wrong.

 His contention is that refusing to admit you were wrong is not just plain stubbornness - there may be something deeper involved.

(1) Admissions of wrong doing (or simply being "wrong") are terribly threatening to some because they have problems separating their actions from their character.

 If they did something wrong - they often conclude they must be bad people - or at the very least ignorant or stupid - a conclusion that obviously provides a threat to their self-esteem.

(2) The act of apologizing might open the door to guilt for some of us - but for the non-apologist the reaction can be much stronger - and open the door instead to both shame and embarrassment.

While a slight twist on the first reason, it's saying that while guilt makes us feel bad about our actions - shame makes some folks feel bad about their selves - who they are - and  per Winch - quite often makes shame a far more toxic emotion than guilt.

(3) Admitting that they are wrong is not seen as an opportunity by non-apologists to resolve interpersonal conflict. This is tricky.

 Instead, the fear is that their admission will now only open the floodgates to further accusations and conflict. Their concern is that the other person who has now heard one admission of wrong doing from  them will consequently pile on all the previous offenses for which they refused to apologize. ("The Hole in the Dike" theory?) 

(4) Non- apologists also fear that by admitting a mistake they will have assumed all responsibility and , (therefore) released the other person from any culpability.

For example, when arguing with a spouse they fear an apology on their part will exempt the spouse from taking any of the blame for the disagreement - despite the fact that most arguments have as a key ingredient some responsibility for each participant. (It isn't the first unkind word that causes the argument - but the response from the other person who has received it.)

(5) Finally, we have to address the possibility that some non-apologists are simply reluctant to give up their anger and apologize.

 Actually, there are some folks who are quite comfortable with their anger, irritability, and emotional distance. Unlike most of us, they often fear the experience of emotional closeness and vulnerability and find it to be extremely threatening. 

It's the classic fear while in a hot dispute that - by lowering your guard  -even slightly - you will make your psychological defenses crumble. As a result these folks fear the possibility that by opening those floodgates to a well of sadness and despair they will leave themselves  powerless to stop it.

They are convinced they will become vulnerable and if they admit those deep pent up emotions it will surely  be a disaster, particularly if the other person does not respond with the love, caring and support they so desperately need but are afraid to ask for. We all fear rejection.

I can recall a conversation with a fellow newbie therapist who confessed he made himself a good listener to his new boss for both the bosses work and personal problems - only to find that the carefully constructed boss/employee  relationship quickly crumbled when he - the therapist -  was not willing to be as outspoken or revealing about his own inner work and personal thoughts.

At that time -I also discovered it is not unusual for a new counselor who after  providing unconditional non-threatening listening for their client in those first few valuable sessions  - he/she is now expected to openly respond to a whole lot of client's questions about his/her own mishaps in life. 

If, via their inexperience, the counselor agrees to go along early on during the process he/she  most often loses that valuable transference factor that is key to providing what the client needs to make progress.

In most cases many of us recognize (unless we're in a relationship with some sort of a sadist or an equally insecure individual ) that quite often (but not always) opening up can often lead to a far deeper emotional closeness and trust toward the other person; thus deepening our relationship satisfaction depending on the severity of the infraction..

Okay, enough of the counseling protocol  - my attempt here was just to share some insight as to what may possibly be going on with that person in your life who you find so unwilling to admit they were/are wrong. 

Will an awareness of all of this improve a relationship?  Hey, it's a crap shoot!

All I know is a simple rule that I put in place to increase both honesty and bonding (for my supervisors as well as my kids) was to remind them when they  had screwed up - (just like I did before them) was: "Come to me early - you have a friend. Come to me late - you have a judge!"

 Let's face it. The benefits of confession and admitting you are/were wrong has a direct effectiveness correlation to the frequency with which it is employed and the sincerity that accompanies the admission.

There is such a thing as going to that "well' too often - but it's a start. 

C'mon - How Bad Can It Be? 

NOW YOU SEE IT - NOW YOU DON'T

It's not really because I just found out there is no tooth fairy.There aren't enough teeth left in my mouth to become concerned. Besides I have no unreasonable financial expectations when I soak my upper plate each night before retiring.

My comment also has nothing to do with dental hygiene or gene heredity. No, instead, once more it has to do with an old curmudgeon's light hearted jab at our media.

Today's target is all those political polls - the reliability of the polling  - the previous unreliable assurances given us by the media - and the "now you don't" typical explanation or rationale when we find out - once again -  that Dewey didn't really beat Truman in the 1948 presidential election.

To those of you who have been told for weeks that Trump was an Iowa "shoo-in" by the caucus method you may feel cheated in belatedly discovering that part of that methodology included the flipping of a coin to determine who really would be declared the Iowa winner - with pretty much the same result in the NFL playoffs.

No, instead you were provided with the same informational incisiveness that you received from the media when covering Y2-K in 1999/2000.

It's called "prestidigitation" folks: "Now you see it - Now you don't" - and in Trumps case it possibly may not be all that "Presidential either ."

OK, there were three points belatedly made as to why the pollsters and their work product were "WRONG" - according to an "expert" source from Notre Dame - of all places - whose first name is Darren-  and who should not be confused with a popular male character in Bewitched.

While tempting - I'll stop the analogy right there due to a need for brevity and two pending appointments. 

Darren W. Davis- a political science professor who specializes in public opinion and political behavior - has furnished us via the USA Today front page with rationale behind the alternate ending of this scary movie - called "The Iowa Caucus".

 He is  joined in the article by Amy Walter from the Cook Political Report - who belatedly explains to us that New Hampshire polls may be even more unreliable.

One suspects it's another version of : "I'm sorry - I thought you saw the bus approaching behind you - or I would have warned you." 

This opinion as well as that of Darren's may or may not  be similar to a race track tout whose expertise you may no longer want to rely on after you bet the mortgage payment on a horse that came in with an 8th place finish.

Taking the analogy further I believe at the track it's called "hedging your bet".

Amy also spoke uncharitably about Trump's "polarizing nature "as a possibly  contributing factor. It's Walter's view that this alleged character flaw "helped turn out people who don't want to see him win."

Let's go back to Darrren's 3 point rationale to justify not informing either Chicken Licken or Henny Penny (possibly devout Trump followers):" the sky is indeed falling." 

(1) This is an extremely volatile political climate driven by an angry electorate     whose voting preferences are difficult to gauge. (Obviously confirming the above suggestion the coin flip approach is indeed not any more easy to predict than if it took place in the NFL playoffs).

(2) Pollsters low-balled turnout among evangelical voters and underestimated Cruz's get-out-the vote operation. (What? You mean these guys do count for something?)

(3) The Iowa Caucuses are uniquely difficult to predict, with a quirky process and lots of last minute deciders.

(A Fourth unrelated reason for the surprise results and which possibly was too late at press time was the revelation by Darren that "I always thought that Bernie Maddeen looked suspicious.)

Let  me repeat my premise that my gripe was strictly with the media press and not the Iowa election results. I truly didn't care if Trump won or not.

Did I fail to mention that in any of my past political blogs? 

.

PICIOUS

DID I FORGET TO METNIONT HAT IN MY PREVIOUS PLOGS?