Lying About Lying

Source: Yahoo

Truth is a virtue. Always speak the truth.

So they tell us. Speak the truth at all times, no matter what the consequences. Our elementary and secondary schools are full of instructions to be truthful.

However, the children fresh out of the truthful schools find a different world waiting for them on the outside, and let me say, even inside those schools. Instead of a shock, it becomes a perpetual problem of cognitive dissonance to deal with.

What children and adults eventually find out is that people want to hear lies, not the truth. And the greater a person’s ability to lie confidently, the higher their probability of advancing in life and career, not to mention relationships.

You can easily observe that people who lie confidently can achieve great things in life. See all those political and religious leaders for an example. Oh sorry, I mean, they really are truthful people.

But considering that trend, why fool ourselves by teaching, rather preaching, about speaking truth all the time? Why not cut the nonsensical political correctness and teach our children a skill they can actually use later in life?

We should teach our children to lie confidently in school.

We should also teach them that while they can value truth as much as they want to, people want to hear lies. And if they violate this golden rule, it could result in grave consequences.

Don’t believe me? Try it.

They could even pay with their lives for violating this golden principle.

Let’s stop lying about lying maybe. Only joking.

Ignoring the United Nations… Again

Source: The Guardian

The United States and Britain are all set to attack Syria, after reports of chemical attacks allegedly carried out by President Assad’s regime against the Syrian people came in, “killing hundreds” as per the BBC.

Now given the available information, I don’t know who carried the chemical weapons attack. Syria denies it, blaming it on the rebels, but the Western governments are convinced. The United States has concluded that the Syrian government is behind the attacks.

However, without getting into a debate for evidence, if the intervening attack to prevent chemical weapons is necessary, then it must be carried out by the United Nations. It is the responsibility of the United Nations to keep peace.

Unfortunately, the United States is apparently by-passing the United Nations again, as it did for Iraq, as it is considering military strikes and have deployed units without even waiting for the reports of the UN chemical weapons inspectors. United States and Britain have even made it clear that they are not seeking permission from the UN or the NATO.

Debate has started in the United States whether President Obama should seek the approval of the Congress or not. But I am not concerned about that. I think a strike is the responsibility of the UN, not the US.

I believe that all the people who are concerned with war crimes in Syria and support correct moral choices and intervention would be much happier if such action is taken after comprehensive fact finding, and preferably under the auspices of the United Nations Security Council, which is unlikely.

On the other hand, Russia has threatened to veto the resolution for military strike against the Syrian government, as it has done in the past. Russia has even warned of “catastrophic consequences“. This makes the countries often exercising this power to wonder about the veto rule again.

And then people complain that the United Nations is useless, redundant and powerless. How can it possibly work, if its member states, especially the most powerful ones will not allow it to work?

I do hope that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons, otherwise this could possibly go down in history as another unnecessary war like Iraq, ending in atrocities as usual. And the funniest bit is that they insist that the attack is not about regime change.

I hope I am wrong.