Introduction
Throughout recorded human history, treachery and betrayal have been considered
amongst the very worst offences people could commit against their kith and kin. Dante, for
example, relegated traitors to the lowest and coldest regions of Hell, to be forever frozen up to
their necks in a lake of ice with blizzards storming all about them, as punishment for having
acted so coldly toward others. Even today, the crime of treason merits the most severe penalties,
including capital punishment. However, betrayals need not involve issues of national security to
be regarded as serious. From sexual infidelity to disclosing a friend’s secrets, betraying another
person or group of people implies unspeakable disloyalty, a breach of trust, and a violation of
what is good and proper. Moreover, all of us will suffer both minor and major betrayals
throughout our lives, and most of us will, if only unwittingly, betray others (Jones & Burdette,
1994).
The Macquarie Dictionary (1991) lists a number of different, though closely related,
meanings of the term “to betray,” including to deliver up to an enemy, to be disloyal or
unfaithful, to deceive or mislead, to reveal secrets, to seduce and desert, and to disappoint the
hopes or expectations of another. Implicit in a number of these definitions is the rejection or
discounting of one person by another; however, the nature of the relationship between
interpersonal betrayal and rejection has not been explicitly addressed in the social psychological
literature. In fact, most scholars treat the two as distinct phenomena. For example, Jones and
Burdette (1994) argued that rejection tends to occur early in the process of trying to establish a
relationship, whereas betrayal occurs in an established relationship where partners are involved
with, and to an extent, trust one another. According to their argument, rejection is painful, but the
pain is for the loss of a potential relationship. Betrayal, however, is devastating because it
disrupts an ongoing, meaningful relationship in which partners have invested material and
emotional resources. Similarly, Jones, Couch and Scott (1997) argued that rejection and betrayal
are the two basic risks people take in close relationships, but that betrayal is worse than rejection.
I will argue in this chapter, however, that this conceptualization of interpersonal rejection
is too narrow and misses the essential meaning of what it is to betray, and to be betrayed, within
an interpersonal relationship. Essentially, betrayal means that one party in a relationship acts in a
way that favors his or her own interests at the expense of the other party’s interests. In one sense,
this behavior implies that the betrayer regards his or her needs as more important than the needs
of the partner or the relationship. In a deeper sense, however, betrayal sends an ominous signal
about how little the betrayer cares about, or values his or her relationship with, the betrayed
partner. In particular, and as Gaylin (1984) noted, when those on whom we depend for love and
support betray our trust, the feeling is like a stab at the heart that leaves us feeling unsafe,
diminished, and alone. Psychologically, then, betrayal may be conceived as a profound form of
interpersonal rejection with potentially serious consequences for the healthy functioning of the
betrayed individual.
The bold and italic section of the above introduction to the academic paper on betrayal by Julie Fitness perfectly describes current relationship between the Republican base and the GOP Leadership. John Boehnor, Mitch McConnell and the other self anointed aristocrats of the Democrats wearing Republican cloths GOP Leadership have clearly and indisputably placed their own personal interests far above those of the Republican base and the nation as a whole.
Boehner signals House won’t fight ObamaCare with short-term CR — but maybe with debt ceilingThus, it’s not even clear the debt-ceiling threshold is actually a politically credible threat anymore for Republicans, and they capitulated on it, albeit for a shorter period of time, last time it came up – so why pick the Obamacare fight over it rather than government funding? One possibility is that this is an attempt to thoroughly snuff out the Cruz-Lee strategy, which was focused on using the CR (although one of the main proponents, Heritage Action, makes it clear in defining the strategy that they’ve thought of using the debt ceiling too). Another is that Boehner is trying to split up his fights:
A third, far more compelling argument could be made that Boenhor and his cabal of Marxist Democrats pretending to be Republicans neither have now, nor ever did have any intention of opposing Obamacare. It really should not come as any surprise to anyone that the vast majority of elected officials are professional liars. Just look at how Congress managed to get themselves exempted from Obamacare after they promised that they would not be exempt from it.
UPDATE 1-U.S. Congress wins relief on Obamacare health plan subsidies
* Congress, staff, to keep federal health premium payments
* Ruling aimed at avoiding “brain drain” on Capitol Hill (Adds comments from Republicans, Pelosi, edits)
By David Lawder
WASHINGTON, Aug 7 (Reuters) – Congress has won some partial relief for lawmakers and their staffs from the “Obamacare” health reforms that it passed and subjected itself to three years ago.
In a ruling issued on Wednesday, U.S. lawmakers and their staffs will continue to receive a federal contribution toward the health insurance that they must purchase through soon-to-open exchanges created by President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law.
The decision by the Office of Personnel Management, with Obama’s blessing, will prevent the largely unintended loss of healthcare benefits for 535 members of the Senate and House of Representatives and thousands of Capitol Hill staff.
When Congress passed the health reform law known as Obamacare in 2010, an amendment required that lawmakers and their staff members purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created. They would lose generous coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
The amendment’s author, Republican Senator Charles Grassley, argued that if Obamacare plans were good enough for the American public, they were good enough for Congress. Democrats, eager to pass the reforms, went along with it.
But it soon became apparent the provision contained no language that allowed federal contributions toward their health plans that cover about 75 percent of the premium costs.
This caused fears that staff would suddenly face sharply higher healthcare costs and leave federal service, causing a “brain drain” on Capitol Hill.
But Wednesday’s proposed rule from the OPM, the federal government’s human resources agency, means that Congress will escape the most onerous impact of law as it was written.
That’s right, read it and weep, not good enough for our privileged elite aristocrats in Congress, but good enough to force by threat of violence upon the average tax paying citizen. This is the kind of bullshit that sent Louis XIV and Marie-Antoinette to the guillotine. No, as I said, it really should not come as any surprise to anyone that that Boehnor and company are sociopathic lairs.
Oh-oh! Politicians share personality traits with serial killers: Study
Using his law enforcement experience and data drawn from the FBI’s behavioral analysis unit, Jim Kouri has collected a series of personality traits common to a couple of professions.
Kouri, who’s a vice president of the National Assn. of Chiefs of Police, has assembled traits such as superficial charm, an exaggerated sense of self-worth, glibness, lying, lack of remorse and manipulation of others.
These traits, Kouri points out in his analysis, are common to psychopathic serial killers.
But — and here’s the part that may spark some controversy and defensive discussion — these traits are also common to American politicians. (Maybe you already suspected.)
Yup. Violent homicide aside, our elected officials often show many of the exact same character traits as criminal nut-jobs, who run from police but not for office.
Kouri notes that these criminals are psychologically capable of committing their dirty deeds free of any concern for social, moral or legal consequences and with absolutely no remorse.
“This allows them to do what they want, whenever they want,” he wrote. “Ironically, these same traits exist in men and women who are drawn to high-profile and powerful positions in society including political officeholders.”
Good grief! And we not only voted for these people, we’re paying their salaries and entrusting them to spend our national treasure in wise ways.
We don’t know Kouri that well. He may be trying to manipulate all of us with his glib provocative pronouncements. On the other hand …
He adds:
“While many political leaders will deny the assessment regarding their similarities with serial killers and other career criminals, it is part of a psychopathic profile that may be used in assessing the behaviors of many officials and lawmakers at all levels of government.”
— Andrew Malcolm
If their is anything surprising here, it is only that the Republican base has allowed itself to play the role of Charley Brown in the classic Charley Brown and Lucy football routine so many times. To quote the incredibly evil Rush Limbaugh:
You know what our problem is? We have nobody representing us. The Republican Party is AWOL. The American people don’t have a political party representing them anywhere. The Republican Party right now is, for some reason, animated by its desire to become more like the Democrats. The Democrats say you’re not gonna win unless you get the Hispanics liking you, the Republicans say, “Okay, fine, we’ll soften on amnesty, we’ll soften on” — whatever it is. “We’ll tone down whatever it is you say they don’t like about us.” Obama has not sold his agenda, folks, is my point. Algore has not sold global warming. The left has not created a functioning majority for any of their issues.
Now, you might be saying, “Well, wait a minute. Rush, Obama keeps getting elected.” We’ve discussed that. For all different reasons. My point is, because there is no opposition party that is opposing what’s happening and representing a majority of the American people, people are losing faith in their country, not in Obama. If Obama policies are so popular, if I’m wrong about this, why is there no robust happiness out there among the American people? Even Obama supporters are part of the forever angry crowd. There isn’t anybody robustly happy out there. Everybody’s on edge. Everybody’s unhappy. They’re broke. They can’t get a job. The only thing is they’re not blaming Obama. They’re losing faith in the country.
Again, it seems to me an ideal opportunity for a genuine alternative opposition movement or party, to make a connection with millions of Americans who happen to, by virtue of majorities, disagree with the status quo, meaning the Obama and Democrat Party establishment. The American people have spoken and are speaking, and they’re looking for representation in Washington. They’re looking for push-back. The American people, who oppose the Obama agenda, can’t find anybody or any representation in Washington that speaks for ’em. It’s not for a lack of looking. And, meanwhile, while all this is going on, the Republican Party is sending out fundraising notes and requests and this kind of thing, but people say, “For what?”
I don’t mean this as a typical rant against the Republican Party. I’m just giving you the lay of the land here. I find it amazing that the president still has to sell Obamacare. Most Americans don’t want it. I don’t know why there isn’t a political movement or party willing to connect to that opposition and go to town with it. Same thing on global warming. Same thing on amnesty. Most amazing. Now, of course we know the reason, it’s Washington, it’s not Republicans and Democrats, it’s Washington versus the rest of the country, ruling class, country class. I’m just giving you another illustration and way of thinking about it. But it is very frustrating.
We are getting screwed folks, their is just no other way to say it, John Boehnor and his cartel of Marxist pretend republican leadership stooges are and have for some time been betraying us. They have been doing so exactly for the reasons Julie Fitness described above;
“Essentially, betrayal means that one party in a relationship acts in a
way that favors his or her own interests at the expense of the other party’s interests. In one sense,
this behavior implies that the betrayer regards his or her needs as more important than the needs
of the partner or the relationship. In a deeper sense, however, betrayal sends an ominous signal
about how little the betrayer cares about, or values his or her relationship with, the betrayed
partner”
Yes, it really is that simple…
The Wilderness of Mirrors 