Category Archives: presidential election, candidates, trump, rubio, cruz, clinton, sanders, kasich

Lying Effectively in Public- A Primer or We Should Withdraw from the Solar System Because, Let’s Face It, the Rest of the Planets Just Aren’t Pulling Their Weight

 

By Bil Lepp Copyright 2017

I have to say that I am professionally insulted by the standard of lies that have been making the news in past weeks.  And though I don’t want to aid the competition, I feel compelled to share a few pointers on successful lying, so as to not tarnish the reputation lying in general.

I am five time champion of the West Virginia Liars’ Contest.  I lie for a living.  I stand in front of huge crowds. Huge.  And tell them lies.  They love it.  They give me standing ovations that are very long. Very.

No, seriously, that is my job. I am a professional storyteller who specializes in tall-tales, fibs, and untruths.  Look me up.

 

First, before you go in front of a huge audience, really big, you should write your lies down on paper and read through them to see if they make any sense.  Any sense. You should have a few trusted associates look over the lies beforehand.  Sometimes they can point out the flaws in your lies.  Also, you may want your associates to know what lies you are planning to tell so they can be prepared to back those lies up, or at the very least, not contradict them.

After you write the lies down, you should rehearse them before saying them to large crowds of people. Or Tweeting them.

A good lie, by which I mean a successful lie, depends on you connecting with your audience in such a way that you build rapport with them.  You need your audience to feel that you and they have something in common.  And if you are going to tell a real doozey, you need to work up to it.  Start by saying something the audience understands, or is familiar with, maybe something that is, if not true, at least honest.

That cunning witch from Scotland who wants your children to worship the Devil is good at this.  She’ll start a book innocuously enough: “Mr. and Mrs. Dursley of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much.”  Totally believable statement, right?  We understand that people live in houses and houses have addresses.  She would not be a zillionaire had she begun with, “Once there was a boy who had a stick with a feather in it and he could wave it at stuff and say fake Latin and unlock locks and crush the dreams of a poor, misunderstood orphan named Voldemort who only wanted to control the world and be super evil.”  This statement is harder to adjust to because it isn’t something most of us have experienced and so it seems a little dishonest.

I often start my lies with a simple truth like, “I have a dog.”  Again, an easy statement to swallow.  Lots of people are dog owners, or at least understand that people have dogs.  There are no dog agnostics.  I might be planning to tell you I once flew a train with my tongue, but I start by telling you I have a dog.  One key to a good lie is gradual exaggeration.

For example, if you want to tell people that some widely believed scientific fact is hooey, you first must establish some kind of truth.  Instead of saying, “There is no moon.  It doesn’t exist.  And any scientist who tells you the moon exists is a very bad scientist. Very. Bad. That scientist is likely paid by some liberal, vegetable eating, environmental think-tank that hates God, the USA and Russia.  Also that scientist is likely a member of ISIS.”

See, that is a little too much to take in all at once.  A little.  Furthermore, it doesn’t establish a connection with a broad audience. [By Broad, I mean wide. Not just the ladies.]  Also, it might be offensive to vegetable eaters.  It is best not to start a lie by alienating a portion of your audience.  A good lie requires building trust with your audience, and it is hard to build trust when you start with pugnacity.

Start slow.

You might start by saying, “There is this thing people call the moon.”

Your audience will accept this.  They will nod in confirmation.  You are drawing them in.

Next, try, “You may notice that at certain points during this moon’s so-called lunar cycle, it is not visible.  It is usually not visible during the day, either.”

Who can dispute this?  This is an experience of the moon we all have in common.  But, more importantly, you are working toward a credible lie because you are sowing reasonable doubt.  The audience has to admit- sometimes they just can’t see the moon.

They begin to trust you.  You’re talking sense.  And their imaginations start to hum in-tune with yours.  They are starting to see the world your way.

Now that you have the audience thinking the way you need them to, you can launch into the more dramatic parts of your presentation: “So if you can’t see the moon part of the time then it obviously either isn’t real, or it is hiding because it is plotting a nasty attack.  Nasty.  And therefore we should build a wall to keep the moon out and make Mars pay for the wall, and then withdraw from the Solar System because, let’s face it, the rest of the planets just aren’t pulling their weight.”

See how much more believable your statements are now?  I mean, heck, I just wrote the above lie and I know it’s not true, but I wrote it so well I’m already starting to believe it.  Starting to believe your own lies can be dangerous.  If you start to believe your own lies, then you begin to live in a fantasy world from which there is no escape.  So, be careful about that.

Also, don’t go too far.  For example, I said “…the rest of the planets just aren’t pulling their weight.”  This statement goes against the laws of physics and so-called physicists like Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton, both of whom are doing amazing jobs and are getting recognized more and more, might get together and dispute your claims based on the pseudo-science of gravity, throwing your whole lie into question.  One little step outside the context box and the credibility of your whole carefully crafted lie comes into question.

Advertisements

Hairspray: A Weapons Grade Presidential Candidate

Copyright 2016 Bil Lepp

Let’s just say, hypothetically, a can of hairspray was running for President, giving a whole new meaning to Head of State.

Where does hairspray even come from? The answer to that question is a bit surprising. Hairspray is the child of insecticide. During WWII the military needed a way to effectively control mosquitoes to help prevent malaria.  Bug spray in aerosol cans was developed.  Somebody figured out after the war that hairspray could be delivered via aerosol cans and its popularity took off in the fifties and early sixties.

It was the bestselling beauty product through the fifties and sixties due to “updo” hairstyles. Sales declined in the late sixties because folks started wearing their hair down. Darn hippies. In the seventies hairspray declined further due to the environmentally devastating chemicals used in aerosols.  Again, darn hippies.  Then, interestingly, the product resurged in the eighties.

Hairspray isn’t designed as a propellant, but it is a volatile product.  If you misuse hairspray it can be a dangerous weapon.  Flames are a byproduct of misuse.  Even if hypothetical Candidate Hairspray were to make the claim that he is not responsible if people misuse it, hairspray remains dangerous.  All it takes is one hairspray devotee with a destructive bent and, blamo.  Hairspray would be a weapons-grade candidate.

Hairspray flare-ups can be caused by escaping gas coming into contact with open flames or heat sources.  A can of hairspray leaking even just a little gas can cause a conflagration.

“…a stored hairspray container can explode or catch fire under certain circumstances. A corroded hairspray can, for instance, may weaken at the seams until gases leak out of it, igniting when they make contact with a heat source,” explains ehow.com contributor William Norman.  Thus, if Candidate Hairspray had any corrosive properties whatsoever, and if he wasn’t tight around the seams, and if he were in a heated environment, he could produce a fiery calamity.

The ingredients in hairspray are so highly volatile and flammable that they are ‘classically’ used as fuel in potato guns, states the author of the Hairspray Wikipedia page.

The potato gun is one of the most underrated inventions in the history of humankind.  There is no better method to send a spud several hundred yards. As a child of the eighties I have seen the havoc hairspray can reap on both humans and the environment. Perhaps hairspray’s one noble use is potato propellant.  But how many potatoes really need propelled, and what would the political value of potato hurling be?

What would Candidate Hairspray stand for?  Hairspray is used to control unruly hair. Hairspray advertisements contain phrases such as “firm hold” or “strong hold.”  Hairspray is designed to manipulate hair into maintaining a specific shape or form that will not be moved by wind or heat or humidity.  Do we want a candidate that creates a firm hold on our political system? Or do we want a candidate who can change a little if political winds shift, a candidate that allows a little freedom?

Scientists and laypeople debate the effects hairspray has on the environment. EPA rules regulate the chemicals in hairspray to reduce its negative impact on the Ozone layer.  But many people think that hairspray contributes to smog. Smog obscures the view, making things brown and hazy. Smog has also been linked to asthma and other lung problems.  Asthma has been listed as the number one reason kids miss school.  I doubt that hypothetical Candidate Hairspray would admit to deliberately trying to obscure the view and make it hard to breathe. Certainly Candidate Hairspray wouldn’t intentionally thwart education. Nonetheless, these are some of the side effects of hairspray.

No, I don’t think Candidate Hairspray would be a good candidate. I find myself gravitating towards the presidential candidates who seem to spend the least amount of time on their hair. This might seem a superficial position from which to judge a candidate, but come on, how many of us really base our votes on a true understanding of the issues?

On non-haircut days I reckon I spend a maximum of eight seconds on my hair.  No blow drying, no product. After that I have plenty of time to address any problems that arise, both foreign and domestic.

The front runners of both parties are doing their part to keep the hairspray industry booming.  Whether they use hairspray made by American or foreign workers I don’t know.  In either case, neither of the front runners’ hairdos ever moves much.  In summation, when the president gets under the rotors of Marine One I want to see hair move.  I don’t want someone with Ken Doll hair running the country.  It ain’t natural.