- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Katelyn Sack
- Oct 24, 2009, 06:48 PMPolitics can be such a dirty word, but what we're talking about doing (taking care of American citizens and national security interests alike) is just that -- taking care. Just like you would take care of a lost traveler on your night beat, or a neighbor in need.
As for previously unsuccessful efforts: if it didn't work, maybe it wasn't the correct course of action. Taking legitimate complaints to people without the power to fix them doesn't usually do any good. That doesn't make the complaints any less legitimate, or the authorities who heard them any less just.
There's this great book by Senator Bob Graham on figuring out how to problem-solve by finding the correct authorities and asking them for concrete, reasonable things within their power based on well-supported facts. It's *America, the Owner's Manual*: http://www.graham.centers.ufl.edu/news-owners-manual.html.
The lesson of that book in this context is that we haven't tried the square peg in a square hole just yet. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is the correct authority to assess the NAS report and other evidence regarding the national security threat posed by the polygraph across intelligence and law enforcement agencies. So send them a postcard already.
As for previously unsuccessful efforts: if it didn't work, maybe it wasn't the correct course of action. Taking legitimate complaints to people without the power to fix them doesn't usually do any good. That doesn't make the complaints any less legitimate, or the authorities who heard them any less just.
There's this great book by Senator Bob Graham on figuring out how to problem-solve by finding the correct authorities and asking them for concrete, reasonable things within their power based on well-supported facts. It's *America, the Owner's Manual*: http://www.graham.centers.ufl.edu/news-owners-manual.html.
The lesson of that book in this context is that we haven't tried the square peg in a square hole just yet. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is the correct authority to assess the NAS report and other evidence regarding the national security threat posed by the polygraph across intelligence and law enforcement agencies. So send them a postcard already.
Posted by Knightshaiid
- Oct 24, 2009, 12:18 PMI just read that whole thing.
I really just want to become a Law Enforcement Officer, I'm much less interested in politics.
However, when 'politics' comes close to ruining one's own career, then not getting involved is inexcusable.
So I hover on this line, wanting to get involved but wanting to stay quiet and just cheat my way through my upcoming polygraph.
Ultimately, I'll probably end up doing both.
Or so I hope.
All this talk and drive and initiative and activism is truly wonderful, but I'm afraid Fair Chance is right: they need a vested interest to stop the polygraph, and right now they just don't have it.
Another possibility is what we're doing. Educating people. Slowly but surely, everyone who takes a polygraph might be armed to 'fake it,' and if/when the law enforcement agencies ever realize everyone's faking it, there's really no point in administering them, now is there?
I'm torn, passionate about both things: the activism and just becoming a cop and fixing it from the inside.
One thing is for certain: I am among those who know lie detection for what it is, and will never be a victim again.
I really just want to become a Law Enforcement Officer, I'm much less interested in politics.
However, when 'politics' comes close to ruining one's own career, then not getting involved is inexcusable.
So I hover on this line, wanting to get involved but wanting to stay quiet and just cheat my way through my upcoming polygraph.
Ultimately, I'll probably end up doing both.
Or so I hope.
All this talk and drive and initiative and activism is truly wonderful, but I'm afraid Fair Chance is right: they need a vested interest to stop the polygraph, and right now they just don't have it.
Another possibility is what we're doing. Educating people. Slowly but surely, everyone who takes a polygraph might be armed to 'fake it,' and if/when the law enforcement agencies ever realize everyone's faking it, there's really no point in administering them, now is there?
I'm torn, passionate about both things: the activism and just becoming a cop and fixing it from the inside.
One thing is for certain: I am among those who know lie detection for what it is, and will never be a victim again.
Posted by BBernie
- Oct 23, 2009, 10:41 PMWow, that is a little disconcerting. I understand the FBI (actually the entire national security apparatus) has an arsenal of high-powered attorney's that could dispute anything regarding their justifying the use of the polygraph and their current hiring procedures. I never realized...
Posted by Fair Chance
- Oct 23, 2009, 10:24 PMDear BBernie and Katelyn Sack,
BBernie, you are starting to get a handle on the hiring situation. The FBI gets an overload of qualified applicants. They can sift out anyone with any previous baggage (no matter how light) and still have a surplus of qualified candidates. You are very correct that they could clarify this further during the application process. The clarification would greatly benefit the potential applicant but the FBI image would be damaged. The FBI like many other agencies, wants to maintain the appearance that every applicant is being given equal consideration. If they publish anything else then they are inviting closer scrutiny and litigation. More importantly, like TC stated, their image may be damaged, the worst catastrophe of all.
KS, I admire your energy and drive. That said, unless you can control votes or money for a Senator, your voice will be drowned out by those who do.
Polygraph usage in pre-screening will only be examined when the agencies involved cannot get enough bodies to fill the vacate positions. Then, and only then, will polygraph usage be re-evaluated strictly because it affects the agencies' ability to get bodies which in Washington, D.C. is directly related to an agency's power and funding.
High vacancy rates in an agency will eventually lead to loss of funding for those vacant positions.
BBernie, you are starting to get a handle on the hiring situation. The FBI gets an overload of qualified applicants. They can sift out anyone with any previous baggage (no matter how light) and still have a surplus of qualified candidates. You are very correct that they could clarify this further during the application process. The clarification would greatly benefit the potential applicant but the FBI image would be damaged. The FBI like many other agencies, wants to maintain the appearance that every applicant is being given equal consideration. If they publish anything else then they are inviting closer scrutiny and litigation. More importantly, like TC stated, their image may be damaged, the worst catastrophe of all.
KS, I admire your energy and drive. That said, unless you can control votes or money for a Senator, your voice will be drowned out by those who do.
Polygraph usage in pre-screening will only be examined when the agencies involved cannot get enough bodies to fill the vacate positions. Then, and only then, will polygraph usage be re-evaluated strictly because it affects the agencies' ability to get bodies which in Washington, D.C. is directly related to an agency's power and funding.
High vacancy rates in an agency will eventually lead to loss of funding for those vacant positions.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Oct 23, 2009, 07:16 PMKS,
The Senate isn't going to do squat.
I've been through all that. I've written both my rep and senator (Sen Inouye (D) and Abercommie (D)). Both are party following dems with no fear of losing office. I got no where with either one. And both have the largest group of federal employees (mostly military) subject to polygraph screening outside of D.C. (Kunia RSOC). Incidently, this facility (I retired out of there in 1994) was reportedly infiltrated by the PRC Ministry of State Security a few years back. So it's not like the issue doesn't effect their jurisdiction Trust me, unless it's got votes wrapped around it, or will in some way benefit them politically, they don't care.
Like I said, it's going to take some high publicity incident disseminated by the press (once it "wakes up") that leaves egg on the face of all the limp dick politicians and bureaucrats involved, and sends them scrambling, before anything significant will be done.
In the meantime, we can inform the public and especially those who will subjected to the process. Hopefully, BEFORE they take the polygraph. As it stands now, MOST find out the hard way. After being screwed.
TC
The Senate isn't going to do squat.
I've been through all that. I've written both my rep and senator (Sen Inouye (D) and Abercommie (D)). Both are party following dems with no fear of losing office. I got no where with either one. And both have the largest group of federal employees (mostly military) subject to polygraph screening outside of D.C. (Kunia RSOC). Incidently, this facility (I retired out of there in 1994) was reportedly infiltrated by the PRC Ministry of State Security a few years back. So it's not like the issue doesn't effect their jurisdiction Trust me, unless it's got votes wrapped around it, or will in some way benefit them politically, they don't care.
Like I said, it's going to take some high publicity incident disseminated by the press (once it "wakes up") that leaves egg on the face of all the limp dick politicians and bureaucrats involved, and sends them scrambling, before anything significant will be done.
In the meantime, we can inform the public and especially those who will subjected to the process. Hopefully, BEFORE they take the polygraph. As it stands now, MOST find out the hard way. After being screwed.
TC
Posted by Katelyn Sack
- Oct 23, 2009, 06:11 PMThe DOE did not ignore the NAS report. Rather than polygraphing EVERYONE as planned, they pared their proposed polygraph program to apply to a much smaller number of employees.
True: it made no logical sense for DOE to accept the NAS's arguments that the polygraph is not scientifically credible and its use as a screening tool poses a national security threat in several distinct ways -- and as a result use the thing half as much rather than not at all! Either you buy the NAS's arguments and you drop the poly, or you rebut the arguments.
On the other hand, the NAS report most certainly had a direct and dramatic impact on public policy by causing the DOE to significantly revise the parameters of its proposed polygraph program.
If the NAS report is correct that the current use of the polygraph poses a national security threat, then it is a job for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to hold hearings on this matter.
Should you decide to write the Committee chair requesting such hearings, here is a form letter you might use for convenience:
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Feinstein:
I am writing you in my capacity as a [constituent and/or applicant/employee/former employee of agency X].
The 2002 NAS Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph report, "The Polygraph and Lie Detection," concluded the polygraph is a national security threat.
My personal experiences corroborate this assessment, and I would like the opportunity to testify to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding this matter. Case records available upon request.
[Optional paragraph summary of your experience.]
Mine is not an isolated case. In his book Gatekeeper, retired CIA polygrapher John F. Sullivan was the first to speak publically about Operation Bad Apples, which caught numerous CIA polygraphers falsifying records. My case indicates such problems of false positives and false negatives greatly frustrating both polygraphers and examinees are ongoing. Similarly, historian Ken Alder has written extensively about the use of polygraph exams to close out of governmental employment the following "undesirable" elements: gays, communists (such as those who believe in public housing), and civil rights proponents.
Please hold hearings to stop polygraph-related abuse by the USG, as this abuse poses a significant and ongoing national security threat.
Best regards,
[Your name here]
If you are a polygrapher reading this message board, you should similarly write Senator Feinstein to state your desire to testify in such hearings should they be held. This idea is afloat and you best get your name on the list now.
True: it made no logical sense for DOE to accept the NAS's arguments that the polygraph is not scientifically credible and its use as a screening tool poses a national security threat in several distinct ways -- and as a result use the thing half as much rather than not at all! Either you buy the NAS's arguments and you drop the poly, or you rebut the arguments.
On the other hand, the NAS report most certainly had a direct and dramatic impact on public policy by causing the DOE to significantly revise the parameters of its proposed polygraph program.
If the NAS report is correct that the current use of the polygraph poses a national security threat, then it is a job for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to hold hearings on this matter.
Should you decide to write the Committee chair requesting such hearings, here is a form letter you might use for convenience:
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Feinstein:
I am writing you in my capacity as a [constituent and/or applicant/employee/former employee of agency X].
The 2002 NAS Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph report, "The Polygraph and Lie Detection," concluded the polygraph is a national security threat.
My personal experiences corroborate this assessment, and I would like the opportunity to testify to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding this matter. Case records available upon request.
[Optional paragraph summary of your experience.]
Mine is not an isolated case. In his book Gatekeeper, retired CIA polygrapher John F. Sullivan was the first to speak publically about Operation Bad Apples, which caught numerous CIA polygraphers falsifying records. My case indicates such problems of false positives and false negatives greatly frustrating both polygraphers and examinees are ongoing. Similarly, historian Ken Alder has written extensively about the use of polygraph exams to close out of governmental employment the following "undesirable" elements: gays, communists (such as those who believe in public housing), and civil rights proponents.
Please hold hearings to stop polygraph-related abuse by the USG, as this abuse poses a significant and ongoing national security threat.
Best regards,
[Your name here]
If you are a polygrapher reading this message board, you should similarly write Senator Feinstein to state your desire to testify in such hearings should they be held. This idea is afloat and you best get your name on the list now.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Oct 23, 2009, 04:52 PMThe mindset is just too entrenched.
Think about it. Congress tasked the NAS to review existing research and ascertain the "accuracy" of the polygraph. In particular, it's use in gov hiring. They (NAS) concluded the polygraph's use as a prescreening tool does MORE HARM than good and should be stopped. What did the powers that be do? They ignored the report! It's a waste of time trying to get a bureaucracy to change.
I think the media needs to change first. The media has largely ignored the polygraph, and have bought the myth of polygraph accuracy. I mean both the popular media, and the mainstream media. The media needs to get a clue first. The politicians need to end up with "egg on their face". Traditionally, a role played by the media. After all, the media bought the myth, and perpetuated the myth. It will take the media to expose the myth.
Please, don't get me started on the current administration!
TC
Think about it. Congress tasked the NAS to review existing research and ascertain the "accuracy" of the polygraph. In particular, it's use in gov hiring. They (NAS) concluded the polygraph's use as a prescreening tool does MORE HARM than good and should be stopped. What did the powers that be do? They ignored the report! It's a waste of time trying to get a bureaucracy to change.
I think the media needs to change first. The media has largely ignored the polygraph, and have bought the myth of polygraph accuracy. I mean both the popular media, and the mainstream media. The media needs to get a clue first. The politicians need to end up with "egg on their face". Traditionally, a role played by the media. After all, the media bought the myth, and perpetuated the myth. It will take the media to expose the myth.
Please, don't get me started on the current administration!
TC
Posted by BBernie
- Oct 23, 2009, 02:33 AMYou've just stated the exact justification for overhauling the hiring processes of these federal agencies. However, I think it can be done. Well, at least it's worth a try; this administration is more amenable to change than the Bush administration or the previous ones. It won't be easy. The hard part would be in the justification. To me it appears obvious that the U.S. can not afford to continue these programs. Just speaking from a purely financial standpoint alone, the government's waste of financial resources, is enough justification that may turn the tide. It amazes me that our leaders haven't realized (or caught on) to the damage to national security that is obvious if you look at the intelligence failures over the last four decades.
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Oct 23, 2009, 02:09 AMThe politicians and bureaucrats will not stop the use of polygraphy in fed hiring for two reasons:
1. There is NO political incentive to do so, and no political "price" to pay if they don't.
2. If they did, they'd be admitting they've knowingly let a faulty process go on for so long. And that they've jeopardized the national security for several decades by over relying on a faulty process.
TC
1. There is NO political incentive to do so, and no political "price" to pay if they don't.
2. If they did, they'd be admitting they've knowingly let a faulty process go on for so long. And that they've jeopardized the national security for several decades by over relying on a faulty process.
TC
Posted by BBernie
- Oct 22, 2009, 11:28 PMThanks for the info. BTW, I will submit a summary of my experiences regarding the hiring process to the New York Times (I queried them about it and the op editor told me he would be glad to at least take a look at it. I'm even going to go one better and contact the legislators, as you suggest.
Here are the real concerns I have: With the federal deficit the way it is, I am astounded (appalled is more like it) regarding the enormous amount of money, time and manpower the FBI is expending on their hiring process. People that are applying for a job with the FBI are actually becoming victims because of the way the process is being managed. All of it, unnecessary, because the hiring process can easily be changed to avoid a lot of the problems, which from my standpoint are simple to fix, and are primarily that of good communication. For example, start with the FBI's website. If you read through the information, it gives a good general synopsis of the process. But it is misleading because it does not give you the additional information that the applicants need to make an informed decision on whether or not they want to participate in the hiring process. It is possible to be fully qualified and suitable for employment with the FBI. But that isn't good enough. And the website doesn't really emphasize this part. What I mean is that people who apply that have a lot of baggage in their past or skeletons (like me) do not have a good chance at all of ever getting hired, even though the past issues have been resolved long ago. What I mean is, the FBI, in addition to security and qualification considerations, they have another consideration that they do not emphasize in their hiring guidelines. That is one of image. Public Relations play a big part in the hiring process. If someone is otherwise suitable and qualified, but say, might have resolved past personal issues, a strong possibility exists that you won't get hired. Because the FBI doesn't want to take the risk of hiring someone that might not look good if they were hired, or would possibly embarrass the bureau. What I mean is, say someone has had problems with alcohol in the past but resolved the problem through treatment and therapy (no DUI's or any other issues or arrests) , the FBI will most likely not want to take the risk of hiring you, if for nothing else but appearances. The rationale is that the person may have a problem adhering to rules and regulations in the future). Remember, the image the FBI wants to project is one that is "squeaky-clean" (almost like a zero-defect mentality). J. Edgar Hoover had a saying "Never embarrass the bureau."
I am going to go out a limb here and say that from what I have already experienced and from what I have read about other people's experiences, the FBI does have some serious managerial and communication issues. Nothing new either. The whole reason 9-11 happened had a lot to do with the FBI's failure to act. (Having said that, I believe that the FBI was not the only organization to screw it up – certainly the CIA and NSA, along with the National Security Council and White House dropped the ball too). But that's another story.
The issue of the polygraph used as a hiring tool is only one part of this whole dysfunctional, inefficient and at times, corrupt process. As I have previously stated, multiply my experience (which is not as bad as others have had) and the government waste in financial and manpower resources is astronomical. Then look at what it has done to countless honorable, honest Americans looking to serve their country, who are unknowing participants in a dehumanizing, discrediting and slandering hiring/vetting process. Instead of letting this experience bring me down, I have decided to voice my concerns, which I believe are legitimate, to people who have the opportunity and means to change it.
Here are the real concerns I have: With the federal deficit the way it is, I am astounded (appalled is more like it) regarding the enormous amount of money, time and manpower the FBI is expending on their hiring process. People that are applying for a job with the FBI are actually becoming victims because of the way the process is being managed. All of it, unnecessary, because the hiring process can easily be changed to avoid a lot of the problems, which from my standpoint are simple to fix, and are primarily that of good communication. For example, start with the FBI's website. If you read through the information, it gives a good general synopsis of the process. But it is misleading because it does not give you the additional information that the applicants need to make an informed decision on whether or not they want to participate in the hiring process. It is possible to be fully qualified and suitable for employment with the FBI. But that isn't good enough. And the website doesn't really emphasize this part. What I mean is that people who apply that have a lot of baggage in their past or skeletons (like me) do not have a good chance at all of ever getting hired, even though the past issues have been resolved long ago. What I mean is, the FBI, in addition to security and qualification considerations, they have another consideration that they do not emphasize in their hiring guidelines. That is one of image. Public Relations play a big part in the hiring process. If someone is otherwise suitable and qualified, but say, might have resolved past personal issues, a strong possibility exists that you won't get hired. Because the FBI doesn't want to take the risk of hiring someone that might not look good if they were hired, or would possibly embarrass the bureau. What I mean is, say someone has had problems with alcohol in the past but resolved the problem through treatment and therapy (no DUI's or any other issues or arrests) , the FBI will most likely not want to take the risk of hiring you, if for nothing else but appearances. The rationale is that the person may have a problem adhering to rules and regulations in the future). Remember, the image the FBI wants to project is one that is "squeaky-clean" (almost like a zero-defect mentality). J. Edgar Hoover had a saying "Never embarrass the bureau."
I am going to go out a limb here and say that from what I have already experienced and from what I have read about other people's experiences, the FBI does have some serious managerial and communication issues. Nothing new either. The whole reason 9-11 happened had a lot to do with the FBI's failure to act. (Having said that, I believe that the FBI was not the only organization to screw it up – certainly the CIA and NSA, along with the National Security Council and White House dropped the ball too). But that's another story.
The issue of the polygraph used as a hiring tool is only one part of this whole dysfunctional, inefficient and at times, corrupt process. As I have previously stated, multiply my experience (which is not as bad as others have had) and the government waste in financial and manpower resources is astronomical. Then look at what it has done to countless honorable, honest Americans looking to serve their country, who are unknowing participants in a dehumanizing, discrediting and slandering hiring/vetting process. Instead of letting this experience bring me down, I have decided to voice my concerns, which I believe are legitimate, to people who have the opportunity and means to change it.
Posted by Katelyn Sack
- Oct 22, 2009, 09:11 PMHi BBernie,
Good luck with your FOIA!
You might also write to your Senator(s) and to Dianne Feinstein, Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, summarizing your experience and requesting that Senate hearings be held on the current use of the polygraph.
I'll private message you about this as well, but re. your great idea for someone to assemble case studies -- just to reiterate from my previous posts --
I'm an independent film-maker working on a polygraph documentary. I'm so excited about and grateful for all the wonderful interviews I've filmed since last posting about this project here, but I'm still interested in speaking with more polygraph victims, polygraphers, researchers, and policy-makers. Please email me with your expertise and story if you're interested in contributing to this project.
Best,
Katelyn
katelyn.sack@gmail.com
www.katelynsack.com
Good luck with your FOIA!
You might also write to your Senator(s) and to Dianne Feinstein, Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, summarizing your experience and requesting that Senate hearings be held on the current use of the polygraph.
I'll private message you about this as well, but re. your great idea for someone to assemble case studies -- just to reiterate from my previous posts --
I'm an independent film-maker working on a polygraph documentary. I'm so excited about and grateful for all the wonderful interviews I've filmed since last posting about this project here, but I'm still interested in speaking with more polygraph victims, polygraphers, researchers, and policy-makers. Please email me with your expertise and story if you're interested in contributing to this project.
Best,
Katelyn
katelyn.sack@gmail.com
www.katelynsack.com
Posted by BBernie
- Oct 22, 2009, 02:46 AMBased on what I have read on this site and others, regarding federal employment, has anyone thought of assembling a "case study" of all the people who have been (what's the word I want to use?) .....screwed by this tool used in the hiring process. The case study could be used to maybe present to Congress as a justification to abolish this procedure. Obviously, if there are states that outlaw it, there is a fundamental problem with it that automatically puts job seekers in a clear, unfair disadvantage. (I didn't even know some agencies did not allow polygraphing because of the controversial, unscientific and unfair position it places individuals in) -- I just thought they didn't utilize the polygraph because of a preference not to, or a budget decision, or something else along those lines. Anyway, my point is that there is plenty of data out there, and this website has a tremendous amount of pertinent and logical reasoning for abolishing it. The numbers of people alone who have had their lives disrupted, and many seriously, would be more than enough reason to do this. I would think maybe it should have been done sooner, but I don't know if something like that may have already been tried, and rejected. And I guess I have a personal reason for wanting it...I took a polygraph with the FBI in Tampa --- to this day I don't know what the results of the test were -- how these results were interpreted at FBI headquarters. I did request a FOIA for my entire file but I am not optimistic about finding any answers. I wouldn't even know how to interpret the readings of my test.
Posted by Knightshaiid
- Oct 21, 2009, 10:17 AMThe trick is to find law enforcement agencies that don't polygraph as part of their selection process.
If you're not married, MOVE somewhere where there's an agency that doesn't do it. In Minnesota lie detecting is illegal as part of employment screening for all employers, public and private.
Departments that don't polygraph:
Washington, DC Metropolitan Police
New York Police Department
If you're not married, MOVE somewhere where there's an agency that doesn't do it. In Minnesota lie detecting is illegal as part of employment screening for all employers, public and private.
Departments that don't polygraph:
Washington, DC Metropolitan Police
New York Police Department
Posted by RuinedOverCVSA
- Oct 20, 2009, 02:11 PMQuote from: Knightshaiid on Oct 10, 2009, 10:00 PMI got 'lie-detected' with a computer voice stress analyzer by a police department. Naturally, I tried to do the right thing and tell them the truth. Naturally, they didn't believe me and I didn't get the job.
Too late, I went home and did my homework: CVSA's are about as accurate as flipping a coin. Moreover, the guy who invented them calls himself 'Doctor,' and to earn his PhD he did six hours worth of Bible Study at a school in a strip mall that's no longer there.
I felt like everyone else here says they feel: hurt, dejected, betrayed, angry, and just plain pissed off.
I've got a polygraph coming up with a different law enforcement agency, and this time I'm going in armed to the teeth: reading The Lie Behind The Lie Detector to ensure that this time when I tell the truth it's believed.
No more digging in my head to see what else I can 'confess.' No more trust, no more doing the right thing.
I'm former military with an Honorable Discharge after 5 years' service, have never been so much as arrested, and am absolutely faithful to my wife. I'm not letting some jackass keep me away from a career.
I am exactly in the same boat as you except I'm not married and I did 4 years and not 5.. I tried to be honest on my CVSA and even on my Poly and they called me a liar twice over totally different things.
Posted by Knightshaiid
- Oct 11, 2009, 04:14 PMAs usual, you've made me feel a whole lot better about 'beating' it.
Though I know I'm preaching to the choir, it's just a shame and a tragedy good people can't just tell the truth and be believed.
Though I know I'm preaching to the choir, it's just a shame and a tragedy good people can't just tell the truth and be believed.