The Price of Loyalty

Written by Virginia Bola, PsyD

Withrepparttar recent shakeups inrepparttar 125906 presidential cabinet, it has frequently been observed thatrepparttar 125907 quality most treasured inrepparttar 125908 present administration is that of loyalty.

Is that such an admirable quality?

We prizerepparttar 125909 loyalty of our friends who protect our good name when we are not present. We respectrepparttar 125910 loyalty of committed couples who stay true to each other no matterrepparttar 125911 outside temptations. We recognizerepparttar 125912 loyalty of employees who stand by their ethics and keep competitors and enemies at bay. We treasurerepparttar 125913 loyalty of a soldier to his commander, if necessary torepparttar 125914 death. We revererepparttar 125915 loyalty of believers in their god and their unswerving commitment to their tenets of faith. We equate disloyalty with treason, dishonor, betrayal. We use names like Quisling, Benedict Arnold, Burgess and Hiss as epithets to express our loathing and disgust.

But loyalty has a darker side. In crime families, loyalty means embracing death or imprisonment rather than exposing crime, violence, and murder. In prison,repparttar 125916 most despised inmate isrepparttar 125917 "snitch" who fails to stay silent about his knowledge of criminal acts, plots, and planned violence. Within adolescent groups and street gangs,repparttar 125918 rule of silence and total loyalty is an absolute requirement for continued membership.

The old courts of kings and emperors were rife with sycophants: whateverrepparttar 125919 leader wanted to hear, they offered. Disagreements and alternative plans forrepparttar 125920 direction of governance were considered intrigue - dangerous differences of opinion to be rooted out and permanently excised fromrepparttar 125921 body politic.

Where doesrepparttar 125922 White House fit in? For allrepparttar 125923 positive connotations that loyalty may engender, we must look torepparttar 125924 extent it is used and continually monitor it for abuse. No one would suggest that a President surround himself with staff who constantly criticize his ideas or regularly publicly disagree with his programs and proposals. However,repparttar 125925 negative aspect of over-loyalty - zealousness - must be confronted ifrepparttar 125926 goal is to weave plans forrepparttar 125927 common good through compromise inrepparttar 125928 face of diverse opinion.

The Burning Bush

Written by Gary Whittaker

terrorism. The U.S rightly attacked Afghanistan when they refused to give up Bin Laden. For this, I have to trust thatrepparttar Americans knew what they were doing, since they were involved with setting up Bin Laden and Afghanistan inrepparttar 125905 first place. That does not, however, give themrepparttar 125906 right to biterepparttar 125907 hand that feeds them. It is what happens hereafter that should give us all pause for concern. Many times, causes or wars are pure in their infancy, but grow into new animals. This did not take long, as America turned towards Saddam and started accusing him of aiding and harboring terrorists. The U.S had not even put a serious effort into destroyingrepparttar 125908 Al-Quaida before turning to face a new enemy. Once they created, twice. Saddam was put into pwer byrepparttar 125909 United States, and backed for decades byrepparttar 125910 US. They were always aware (and some believe partially responsible) ofrepparttar 125911 crimes they now have charged him with. In essence, King George outright fabricated a reason to go into Iraq and finishrepparttar 125912 job his father started. Why? Simple. America did not see God afterrepparttar 125913 Gulf War. Oil companies cried foul when they could not broker deals with Iraq and profit from their huge oil reserves. Sincerepparttar 125914 U.S would already be inrepparttar 125915 middle east, why not kill two brids with one stone? In searching for weapons of mass destruction,repparttar 125916 Americans used weapons of mass destruction to slaughter any Iraquis who got in their way. How couldrepparttar 125917 people let this happen? People are influenced byrepparttar 125918 media, who in turn are influenced by profit. The Americans provided first-hand coverage ofrepparttar 125919 war as long asrepparttar 125920 media respected certain conditions aboutrepparttar 125921 reports they aired. Among those conditions were that no negative press towardsrepparttar 125922 events can be presented by those reporters. Bothrepparttar 125923 American and British governments worked together to create a climate of fierce propaganda. To opposerepparttar 125924 war against Iraq was to spit onrepparttar 125925 faces of all those who died in 9/11. To turn againstrepparttar 125926 soldiers today, would be to repeat that same evil againstrepparttar 125927 veterans of vietnam. The media imposed a subtle form of censorship towards any anti-war stories in order to keep good standing inrepparttar 125928 eyes forrepparttar 125929 American and British governments. Most people rely on mainstream coverage to get all their information. The many mainstream are owed byrepparttar 125930 few ofrepparttar 125931 upper class. Businessmen that stand to lose since Bush would refuse any contracts to be given to any country (and companies) that did not participate inrepparttar 125932 war.

Cont'd on page 2 ==> © 2005
Terms of Use