How do you know when someone is LYING?

[TOM4CWB]

Dear Charlie...

It matters not if it is a spouse, salesperson... partner... employee... or the Chairman of the CWB... it is handy to know the tell tale signs of fibbing!

Interesting... when CWB Commissioner Ken Beswick started fibbing... as sure as the sun comming up in the east... he would start coughing and rubbing his throat!

This explains why!

"Signs Your Spouse Is Lying
It doesn't take one to know one, but it does help if you understand the signs that your spouse might be lying.
By The Nest Editors
Everybody lies. The lies may be small and harmless ("That haircut looks great!"; "I find your abs way better than Brad Pitt's"), or they may be big and serious ("No, honey, I didn't take out a second mortgage"). Even the "harmless" ones can destroy a relationship if they're sufficiently frequent. So how do you know if you're being hoodwinked?
To start, it's important to know why people lie. While there are certainly individuals who fit the profile from the old car salesman joke (how do you know a car salesman is lying? His lips are moving) and lie simply because they can, it isn't the case with the majority of folks. "Most of the time, people lie when they don't feel safe telling the truth," observes relationship expert Dr. Jackie Black. That doesn't excuse the behavior, but it does suggest a relationship where one party is so afraid of disapproval, they decide it's easier to skip the truth. If you're having a problem and decline to discuss it with your partner because you're afraid of how they'll respond, they might feel the same way...and they've likely been misleading you as well.
What are other tip-offs? At first, he may avoid outright lying and become evasive. "Usually people are uncomfortable telling lies," says Dr. Black. "Men may stop being forthcoming; it might begin to feel like pulling teeth to have a conversation. When asked direct questions, he may avoid answering the questions directly or say, 'I don't know' a lot." Unsurprisingly, badgering him will rarely result in the truth, and he may lie simply to end the conversation. Once he gets away with one lie, more are soon to follow.
Making it stop
How do you stop the lying? Dr. Black says you need to build a relationship based on:
• acting with goodwill and good intentions
• treating your partner's feelings as if they were your own
• creating an environment of zero tolerance for adversarial energy between the two of you
Or just hook each other up to polygraph machines.
Deciphering the body talk
On many occasions, the mouth and the body aren't in sync — the words sound utterly convincing but everything else sends a very different message. Here are six of the most common physical indications of deception. While one or two are likely meaningless, if you see enough of them repeatedly, you should probably be concerned.
• Covering the mouth while talking. It's as if they're subconsciously repressing the untruths they're spouting. It may be as blatant as completely concealing the mouth or as subtle as a single finger placed in front of the lips.
• Touching the nose. Scientists have found that lying can cause the tissue in the nose to swell, meaning that a quick stroke could be a sign of deceit (or that it's allergy season).
• Rubbing an eye. When lying to someone, the instinct is to look away in shame. Since that's a dead giveaway, many people content themselves with a fast wipe of the peepers.
• Touching an ear. Just as you're supposed to see no evil, you should hear no evil as well. These nervous gestures can range from a small rub of the back of the ear to an outright yank of the ear lobe.
• Going for the neck. Research has found lying can cause a tingling in the tissues of the neck, leading to scratching or pulling the collar. It signals that the speaker is feeling uncertainty, so be concerned if you see it right after your sweetie announces, "Of course this Prada dress was on the sales rack at Marshalls."
• Shaking the head no while saying yes. If he says, "Yep, I'm getting home late because I have a big assignment to finish" while nodding his head, he's working late. If he sends the mixed message of saying yes while shaking his head no, look for him at the Spearmint Rhino (read: strip club)."
http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/articletkt.aspx?cp-documentid=8518892&GT1=32023

[cottonpicken]

Poker players will tell you its the eyes.

Ever wonder why they all where sun glasses now?

[parsley]

What do you call it when the Government of Canada defends marketing Boards at the WTO, and at the same time tells the West that they will fight for marketing freddom?


QUOTE

National Post
28th of July, 2008

Editorial


Let's do our part for Doha



Nearly every country in the world claims to want freer international trade, which is why the nearly 150 member countries of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have spent almost seven years negotiating a sweeping new treaty on international financial services, as well as exports in agriculture and manufactured goods. But what most countries truly want is free trade only where they have an advantage.

Otherwise, their goal in talks is protection for big, antiquated domestic industries with powerful political lobbies. This "free trade for me, but not for thee" attitude explains why the so-called Doha round of trade talks, commenced in 2001, has failed to produce any tangible trade changes and why it clings to life only by its fingernails.

Canada is as guilty as any country of balking at trade reforms that might cost the party in power votes. Under both the Liberals and Conservatives, Ottawa has pushed for freer flow of manufactured goods and a liberalization of international financial services, but has fought similar openings in agriculture, seeking instead preservation of unconscionable tariffs on agriculture imports and the survival of such leftover, Soviet-style institutions as the Canadian Wheat Board and egg and dairy marketing boards.

Trade representatives from about 30 countries gathered in Geneva last week, but at this point it seems to be mostly talk for the sake of talk.

Time is running out for major parties to make meaningful concessions. It is widely feared around the world that the Democrats will win this fall's U. S. presidential elections, and that thereafter the United States will become much more protectionist.

What is at stake is a complex deal.

The developing and underdeveloped worlds want industrialized nations to stop sheltering their farmers so much.

In Europe and Japan, half or more of farmers' incomes come from government subsidies. In the U. S., the figure is over one-third. Canadian farmers receive only about 15% of their income from direct grants, but they have billions more added through artificially high consumer prices.

Developing-world negotiators want the EU, Japan and the U. S. to cut direct farm subsidies by 40% to 70%, and for Canada to reduce tariffs to about 30% of the cost of an imported foodstuff.

This would mean huge cuts, since at present our tariffs on butter, yogurt, milk and cheese are set between 238% and 300%, while our tariffs on eggs and chicken are in the 240% range. As a result, for instance, milk costs nearly twice as much per ounce in Canadian grocery stores as it does in the United States.

Ottawa has also clung tenaciously to "supply management" regulations that place strict quotas governing how much wheat, dairy, poultry and (in some provinces) pork farmers may sell to national or provincial marketing boards.

To sell outside these boards is illegal. Since no foreign producers are ever given a quota, supply management boards constitute an insurmountable non-tariff barrier to low-priced imports and act, effectively, as a farm-subsidy tax on Canadian consumers through the high prices that result.

Doha negotiators, quite correctly, want Canada to do away with these marketing boards. But the lobby for socialized farming is strong in Canada.

Even though, for instance, there are more farmers in Ontario who derive the bulk of their income from exports than there are farmers who are dependent on the protection afforded by supply management boards, the supply management farmers are the ones who squawk the loudest.

The fact that Doha would help more farmers than it hurts is lost in the resultant noise.

For their part, developing countries want readier access to industrialized country's food and manufactured-goods markets, but are unwilling to open their own economies to competition for products from the developed world. And while they also want richer nations to allow the free temporary movement of skilled workers across countries and regions, they are reluctant to open their financial services sectors to international banks. In other words, they are playing the same self-interested games that we are.

It's time for the disingenuous posturing to stop. Freeing up agricultural trade would be good for Canadian consumers and smarter, more competitive farmers. It might also help make our manufacturing and services sectors healthier since Canada could demand better access to foreign markets for Canadian-made goods and Canadian banks and financial service companies.

At a time of faltering economies worldwide, national leaders need to back Doha negotiations. The success of the global economy is dependent on expanding trade, not preserving existing barriers and erecting new ones.

Canada needs to show leadership by giving up its high tariffs and protection for farmers.
UNQUOTE

[parsley]

StarPhoenix (Saskatoon)
First of August, 2008

Forum

QUOTE
Selfish stance at WTO talks hurts Canada



As strange as it may seem, the sun continues to rise, the crops continue to grow and the world continues to turn even after the ignominious breakdown of the World Trade Organization talks in Geneva this week.

But even as these everyday occurrences continue on their merry way, there is something irrevocably different about the world.

For one thing, it is clear that emerging economies such as India, China and Brazil now have a seat at the table -- as uncomfortable as that may be for those accustomed to holding the reins of power.

For another, Canada no longer has a significant role to play at the WTO.


The death of the Doha round of talks which, like the death of a coward, seems to occur a thousand times, bodes ill for a world economy that's teetering on the brink.

And Canada's absence from the centre spells trouble for this country's ability to protect its interests either when the talks finally sputter back to life (something that is bound to occur, given the importance of reaching a deal) or in its efforts to negotiate bilateral side deals with the likes of the European Union.

It wasn't so long ago that Canada was at the centre of global trade talks.

It was a member of the WTO's Quad -- that also included the EU, United States and Japan -- the powerful group of countries that helped hammer together the last trade liberalization pact.

This time, however, the Quad has been displaced by a new G7 made up of the U.S., EU, India, Brazil, Australia, China and Japan.

That's not to say Canada lacked interest in the outcome of the Doha round. As a major agricultural exporter, it has a big stake in having the talks succeed.

In fact, according to the International Herald Tribune, Canada had an official delegation that totalled some 40 bodies at last month's meeting, but when one counted all the delegates from provincial governments, farm and trade groups, and seemingly just about anyone with a passport, an estimated 150 Canadians had taken up residence in Geneva.


It was perhaps illustrative of the problems that faced WTO director general Pascal Lamy and others who hoped to make a deal.

While everyone talked about their desire to reach a compromise, too few were willing to make any significant concessions because they were worried about the reaction from too many interest groups.

Canada was intransigent when it came to giving up protection for its supply-management sector.

This was the position of the previous Liberal government and it is the position of the current government.

Although Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives gladly would throw the Canadian Wheat Board into the abyss, the political threat inherent in giving up the supply management system that protects poultry and dairy farmers, most of whom are based in Central Canada, is more important a consideration than being perceived as a world leader.

Similarly, the U.S. refused to accede to India's demand that developing countries be allowed a safety mechanism to protect their subsistence farmers should there be a precipitous drop in the commodity prices.

U.S. trade representative Susan Schwab argued that to do so would be a step backward that discredits the globalization that has brought prosperity to more people than ever before in history.

India, backed by China, argued that the rich countries had used just such safety mechanisms to protect their agriculture industries, giving them a huge advantage over the more than one billion farmers in developing nations who are now precariously clinging to their land.

As unfortunate as it is that the talks collapsed, the global trading system isn't about to come crashing down.

Since the Uruguay round of trade talks were successfully completed 14 years ago, the world's manufacturing and service industries have become so complex and interdependent that it's impossible to imagine a scenario where they could be dismantled without widespread pain or even violence.

It's worth remembering this round of talks began only a couple of months after the terror attacks on America made world leaders think about the need to provide greater security, wealth and connectivity to the world's poorest people.

Even though a new deal involves potentially increasing global GDP only by about 0.1 per cent, its symbolism is enormous, especially in light of current global economic uncertainty.

Canada, which is disproportionately dependent on global trade, should have a seat at the table when the dust settles from this debacle and sanity begins to return.

That may mean moving on supply management and offering to change the Wheat Board to an entity that finds greater acceptance among our trading partners. These changes are coming in any event, so as painful as it might be for politicians and lobbyists, the players involved need to adjust before it's too late.
UNQUOTE

[jensend]

politicians do what it takes to maintain or gain power. the right or smart thing to do is irrelevant. harper's minions are calculating down to the tenth of a per cent what will be gained or lost in canadian votes with an intelligent stance at the wto. looks like reason lost out. harper is every bit as cynical a politician as chretien; just doesn't have enough time in yet to be as crooked.

[wilagro]

To give up "supply management" now would be a stupid, stupid thing to do. If you want more chaos and bankruptcies for Canadian farmers, then that is what would be in store should we abandon this most workable and beneficial policy.

Throwing our dairy and chicken farmers to the wolves would not solve world trade one bit.