BARBARA'S TCHATZKAHS

by Michele Toomey, PhD At first glance one would imagine that abusive betrayal of love refers to having an affair. That is not my focus here, however. Affairs constitute a betrayal of love, but not necessarily an abusive one. I am placing the emphasis on abusive, and that cruel act must have deliberate meanness, indifference to the pain being inflicted, and more often than not, punishment as its intent. For betrayal of love to be abusive, it must have some or all of these traits. In this particular commentary, I would like to direct attention to the abuse that frequently occurs when a relationship ends. Usually only one person wants to end a relationship. The other is often heartbroken and devastated at the prospect of losing the one s/he loves. Obviously, a very vulnerable time for both, if both have integrity and are invested in each other. However, if the one terminating the relationship lacks integrity, the only vulnerable one is the one being left. Rejection is a stinging...

I don't think so. No. But it seems I and this author are in the minority, unfortunately. by Stephen Rose It’s hard to express just how disgusted I get when hearing this “loyalty to the President while he is still in office” crap! We’ve repeatedly been the recipients of this faulty logic as various former members of the Bush Administration have been unabashedly attacked for saying anything negative about their previous employers, the President and his staff – names such as Richard Clarke, Paul O’Neill, Joseph Wilson, and now Scott McClellan come to mind. How clearly can it be stated -- The loyalty of any government employee is ultimately to the United States of America, not to any politicians or leaders, or to the offices they hold! Any government office is only as important as the person who holds it. Though the oath taken by the President is to the nation, and the oath of the military is to the President, the implication of the latter is that the President will be loyal to the na...

by Anna Valerious I have made reference several times to what I call the Cult of Nice. When referring to the Cult of Nice I have commented on how this 'cult' labels it a 'sin' or 'wrong' to hurt someone's feelings. Both Christians and secular types who've swallowed pop psychology seem to often subscribe to this belief. This anti-logic provides a lovely escape hatch for malignant narcissists because you can be made into a 'sinner' for calling them on their garbage, or for simply stating truth. They wave the flag of their 'hurt' feelings and it is supposed that you will then cease and desist or risk being labeled a hateful, unkind person. You're accused of being mean... which is like a cuss word to the Cultists of Nice-land. The tables get turned so fast that the victim becomes abuser in a blink of an eye in this alternate universe of anti-logic. Those who subscribe to this kind of thinking are not being rational in any way. Which is wh...