316 stories
·
8 followers

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Parenting Regions

5 Shares


Hovertext:
Once we bring in quantum mechanics, all actions are potentially judgeable.

New comic!
Today's News:

GEEKS OF THE BAY AREA!

Submissions for BAHFest West 2016 are open until September 9. This year is an experimental "open theme" show. Getting quality submissions is always the hardest part of the show. So, if you think you've got a neat idea but are worried about sending it in, please do!

(PS: We are also taking early submissions for the forthcoming shows in Boston and London in 2017)

Read the whole story
CallMeWilliam
12 hours ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

blueandbluer: cwolfescribbles: redrodent: fuckyeahcomicsbaby: ...

1 Share
popular shared this story from A Simple Tumble?.





















blueandbluer:

cwolfescribbles:

redrodent:

fuckyeahcomicsbaby:

A Tale of Nine Lives by Akimiya Jun

I’m not crying, you’re crying!!

Couldn’t find the reblog button though all the tears in my eyes

A someone who lost a well-loved rescue cat to cancer this year, thank you.

Read the whole story
CallMeWilliam
2 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

An Engineer's Guide To Handling Temper Tantrums

1 Comment and 2 Shares

temper tantrum meltdown Flickr/daveynin

Lately I have noticed a lot of chatter going on about public tantrums. There seems to be two schools of thoughts: “Those parents need to learn how to control their kids” and “Leave the poor parents alone. They are probably doing the best that they can.”

But those two schools of thought leave out two very important things. The first is that some people have a physical condition that makes the sound of a screaming toddler literally painful. And the second is that many people do not understand tantrums.

If you find the sound of a toddler screaming or a baby crying intensely upsetting, you may be one of millions of people who has a processing problem and is very sensitive to sound.  Shrill sounds, in particular, are painful to be around.

The sound of a child screaming is supposed to be distressing. But for people who are very sound sensitive it is torture. I have known people who are tempted by the sound of a screaming child to beat their own heads against a wall just to distract themselves from the sound. What I find interesting about this kind of sound sensitivity is that it increases with age even though overall hearing declines.

If you are sound-sensitive and you find yourself becoming intensely emotional in response to a child’s relentless screaming this does not make you a bad person. Your painful response to sound is no more your fault than something like ADHD or dyslexia would be.

However, the rules for public spaces should not be designed around us. You should just expect screaming any place where children are allowed. It is like poop in diapers: Not fun, but it comes with the territory.

Rather than blaming parents or children, I recommend using adaptive technology. Multiple pairs of good quality earplugs are practically a medical necessity. I carry a couple different pairs in a pill case attached to my key ring. I use a lightweight pair if I just need to cut the sound, like when I am in church. I use a thicker set if I need to not hear a baby. But by far the best adaptive technology is a good pair of ear buds and a “sounds of nature” application on your phone. I can put on my Bose ear buds and a recording of waves on a pebbly beach, and actually enjoy reading a book during a cross-country flight filled with screaming toddlers.

♦◊♦

Now that we have covered why a few people are distressed by other people’s tantrums, we need to talk about why it pisses off the rest of you. You assume that only bad parents who cannot control their children or rude people who don’t give a crap about people around them would allow such an infernal noise to continue.

I understand where you are coming from. I would feel the same way if I hadn’t attended some parenting classes. I insisted on them when my wife and I got engaged.  I really wanted to be a good father, and I knew enough to know that I had no idea what I was doing when it came to raising kids.  These classes did not make me an expert. But they gave me a working understanding that helped me be a good dad.

By far, the most important and valuable thing that I learned in those classes was what tantrums are. Once I understood them, dealing with them became much easier. Again, I am not a child-development expert. I am an engineer. And thinking about tantrums this way got me through a lot of tough years of parenting:

1)   There are actually two kinds of tantrums: a shake-down and a melt-down.

2)   A minority of tantrums are shake-down. It is a negotiation strategy. Unfortunately, little kids don’t have a great sense of proportion, so they tend to start every negotiation by taking hostages. “I have your schedule, your sanity and your self-worth as a parent. If you want to be on time, get done what you planned and look at me without feeling guilty, you will give me that cookie NOW!”

3)   Kids don’t have a lot of power, so they enter every negotiation at a disadvantage. The one thing that they can bring to the table is “I will scream down the rafters.” A kid who is taught other ways of negotiating will be less inclined to using the nuclear option.

4)   The best response to a shake-down tantrum is to call the child’s bluff. This is relatively easy to do in private, but harder to do in public because of people who try to shame parents into silencing their children.

5)   When you say nasty things or glare at a parent while a child is having a shake-down tantrum, you are giving that kid more ammunition to use against the parent next time that they are in public. If you make a parent more uncomfortable letting a child scream, you are actually increasing the power a tantrum has thereby increasing the likelihood it will be employed. On behalf of those of us who do not enjoy shopping to the accompanying strains of “Screams of Rage in B Flat” I beg you, please do not harass the parents.

6)   The majority of tantrums, even many that look like a shake-down, are actually a melt-down. Do not presume to know what is going on with another person’s child.

7)   Tantrums are not a bug. They aren’t even an ordinary feature. They are a safety feature and you should never, ever disable a safety feature.

8)   Tantrums are designed to be annoying or downright distressing. They are like smoke detectors. They are supposed to make you emotionally agitated. Safety features don’t work if they don’t strongly encourage people to change behavior.

9)   Tantrums are designed to alert parents and other caregivers that a child has reached a melt-down state. Usually these melt-downs occur when the ability to process stimulus is exceeded by incoming stimulus. It is a deceptively simple formula because often we forget how much stimulus even normal environmental situations contain for young children.

10)  Young brains are prone to melt-downs because they are very busy trying to figure out how the world works. To learn about the world, they are wired to be very sensitive to stimulus, but they do not have a corresponding increased capacity to process and deal with the stimulus.

To put it another way, they are running their little engines at maximum RPM all the time, but they have a very persnickety water pump.

11)  Young children lack fundamental information and concepts  necessary for processing all of the incoming data. To put it another way, being a toddler is  like being dropped into a different foreign country every day. Everyone is speaking in a language that you don’t know, and they make you go places and do things that you don’t understand and that you cannot anticipate. You have no idea which colors, objects, and unfamiliar sounds are unimportant and which ones are required to keep you alive. Every day, you are doing very fast pattern-matching, trying to figure out what everything means.  And some days, there is just so much stimulus to pattern-match that the wheels just come off your wagon.

12)  Even shake-down tantrums are often rooted in this fundamental lack of understanding about how they world works. For example: a toddler may recognize a box in a store and remember that when their dad fills their bowl with stuff from that box, they really like it. So they may demand that the parent buy that particular box of cereal, and then launch into a full-scale tantrum when the parent says no. But they may not understand one or more of the following things:

  1. That stores restock their shelves regularly. They may think that all of the Sugar Smacks in all of the world sit on that shelf and that if you do not buy it, they will never again get to taste Sugar Smacks.
  2. They may not understand  that when you say “No” today, this does not indicate a sweeping policy change for all future cereal acquisition.
  3. Their concept of time is Now and a Long, Long, Long time from now. So saying “We will get that the next time” is like your partner saying, “Not tonight dear, but we will definitely have sex eight years, six months and twenty-two days from now.

Let me bottom line this for those of you who are not have an issue with sound-sensitivity but hate to hear children screaming:

The world does not revolve around you. Other people have needs too. And young children, for a variety of reasons, need to throw tantrums. And parents of young children need to allow those tantrums to happen and not whisk them away every time that they start to scream.

You are an adult. You likely have more time than a parent does, so if you cannot stand to be in a store where a kid is screaming, then leave, and come back another time.  And if all else fails, earplugs are cheap. Use them.

If you are just being judgmental: I think we all should listen to what you have to say about parenting and do exactly as you recommend – right after you turn the water into wine. Actually, make it a nice hard cider. I am really into those right now.

Pete Beisner is a father, husband and veteran who works in the field of information technology. He has a bachelor's degree, two master's degrees and hates writing.

More from The Good Men Project:

Read the original article on The Good Men Project. Copyright 2013. Follow The Good Men Project on Twitter.

Read the whole story
CallMeWilliam
3 days ago
reply
I consider this basically wrong at basically every point, which is what makes it interesting.
krivard
3 days ago
reply
CallMeWilliam
3 days ago
I find this particularly interesting because I disagree with it so strongly, and find the solution to border on the immoral.
Share this story
Delete

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - The Value of Good Parenting

5 Shares


Hovertext:
Parenting is the most effective way to achieve self-righteousness outside of a college discussion group.

New comic!
Today's News:
Read the whole story
CallMeWilliam
18 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete

Trump, and His Jokes, and You

4 Comments and 13 Shares

I write funny things professionally, and have done for years. I’ve made a fair amount of money and even won some awards for funny things I’ve written. So as a professional writer of funny things I have thoughts on Donald Trump’s oblique joke yesterday about how great it would be if a gun nut assassinated Hillary Clinton and/or some of the judges she might appoint. As with many examinations of humor, this will not be particularly funny. You have been warned.

1. Of course Trump’s comment it was a joke, and as someone who has told more than his share of inappropriate jokes to his later regret, I’m pretty sure I can model Trump’s brain process to getting there. He’s up on stage, he’s pissed off that he’s losing, he’s with a sympathetic crowd that wants him to say something punchy, and he has no goddamn filter at all, because why would he, his brand is “I say what I think” and his brand has gotten him this far. So out of the woodwork of his brain comes the clever observation that well, actually, some jackass with a gun could offer up a lead veto to Clinton and/or her judges, and out it went through his teeth. Trump didn’t give it any more thought than that: pop! into his head, push! out of his mouth. Maybe three tenths of a second from conception to utterance, if that. This is was not a statement he’d been consciously planning months to say.

Was it a joke? Sure. Was it funny? Like most jokes, it depends on whether you’re the audience for it. It didn’t work for me. Should Trump have said it? Immaterial, since it was said.

Should it be excused as “just a joke”?

Well, but, see. Here’s the thing about that: There’s no such thing as “just a joke,” and Trump of all people knows that.

2. The first problem with saying “it’s just a joke” is that people very often use that phrase to mean “I get to say/enjoy a horrible thing without penalty.” Well, as a professional writer of funny things, I feel perfectly within my rights to call bullshit on that. Jokes don’t come out of nowhere. They are the product of a presumably thinking brain just like any other speech, and like any other speech they are susceptible to the same scrutiny and criticism. Just like any other speech the context of the joke is useful, too.

So here’s the context of that joke: Donald Trump is a man who has pursued the presidency through racism and white nationalism and by insinuating criminal activity on the part of his opponents (or their families), who has encouraged foreign agents to subvert the US election process (another “joke”) and who is actively training his base of support — angry and scared white people, many of whom have a nearly-fanatical attachment to their firearms — to consider the election process rigged if it does not produce the result they want. Then, at a political rally, as the GOP candidate for president, while speaking about the 2nd Amendment and arguing how his opponent Hillary Clinton wants to get rid of it — to get rid of his angry white supporter’s firearms! — he drops a little joke about how, well, actually, they could oppose her, nod nod, wink wink.

Trump wasn’t making a private joke with friends in the comfort of his own ridiculously baroque home. He wasn’t writing writing satire (which is often not funny) or black humor in the pages of, say, the New Yorker. He wasn’t on the stage of a comedy club trying out five minutes of edgy new material in front of a half-drunk midnight crowd who are there to see someone else anyway. He wasn’t putting it in the comments of his liberal friend’s Facebook post about gun control. He wasn’t doing any of those things — although even if he were, he could still be held accountable for his words. Rather, he was, as the GOP candidate for president, at a rally of his supporters, in a race he is currently far behind in, joking about someone killing off Hillary Clinton, or whomever she appoints as a judge. He wasn’t there to make comedy. He was there, quite literally, as a political statement. That’s the context.

3. What, politicians can’t make jokes? Well, speaking professionally, it’s usually better when they don’t. They can’t all be Ann Richards. Every time Hillary Clinton attempts humor my desire to vote for her goes down a tenth of a percent. I don’t want or need my politicians to be funny. I need them to wonk out on unsexy topics like water rights and trade deals, and represent the interests of their constituencies. That’s the gig, not killing it for ten minutes at The Comedy Store.

That said, sure, if politicians can make jokes, why not? Yuk away. But again, jokes aren’t Get Out of Jail Free cards for saying horrible things. And when the jokes are, in fact, saying horrible things, like when the GOP candidate for president pops one off about maybe someone assassinating the Democratic candidate for president because of her alleged position on the 2nd Amendment, it’s all right to haul the joke out into the light and begin the utterly unfunny process of picking it apart to see what’s really going on there.

Why can’t you just let a joke be a joke? Because, to repeat, and as others have noted, it’s never just a joke. Jokes mean things, just like any other kind of speech. In fact, jokes often have greater impact, because jokes aim for the pleasure centers of our brain, not the analytical centers. The information of a joke hits in a place where you have fewer defenses against it, and fewer walls barring it from sinking into your overall worldview. This is why, among other things, you probably laugh at things you know you shouldn’t laugh at. It’s also why you’re probably quicker to excuse the content of a joke — it’s just a joke! — or to minimize the importance of what’s being said within one. How bad can it be if it made me laugh? And also, if the joke is saying something horrible, what does it say about me? You have a vested interest either way in explaining away your reaction.

Trump is not a great politician — indeed, if this election cycle has done anything, it has reminded us that the oft-derided skills of being a great politician are in fact useful and needed — but he is a marvelous bully, and like any gifted bully, he’s aware of how to use humor for its manipulative qualities. This is why he mocks his opponents and gives them silly names, why he says outrageous things, planned or unprompted and then immediately wraps them in the rhetoric of humor, and why all his defenders are instructed and prompted to explain away the jokes. He’s not the problem, you’rethe problem if you can’t take a joke. No one wants to be accused of not being able to take a joke.

4. This is where once again I put on my hat as a writer of funny things to tell you the following:

  • It’s okay not to be able to take a joke.
  • It’s okay to think a joke is not funny.
  • It’s okay to focus more on the content of a joke than the delivery.
  • It’s okay to hold a joke to the same standard as any other speech, and to pay attention to the context in which it is delivered.
  • It’s okay to be scared of a joke and the joke-teller. Sometimes that’s the right thing to be.

Finally and perhaps most importantly:

  • Always question the motives of the person who is telling you “it’s just a joke.”

Why? Because, well, why are they saying that? Sometimes it’s because the person is a comedian, trying to convince you they’re funny (pro tip: if you have to convince someone you’re funny, you’re probably not funny to them). Sometimes the person who told the joke realizes they just stepped in it, and is trying to backtrack without making themselves look too much like an asshole. Sometimes the person is gaslighting you, trying to make you doubt yourself, for their own purposes. And sometimes that person is trying to normalize hateful rhetoric — or keep hateful rhetoric normalized — and is trying to make you defensive about seeing it clearly as what it is: hateful.

A person saying “it’s just a joke” isn’t always an asshole. But assholes are almost always happy to say “it’s just a joke” to make it look like the problem here is you. So when someone says “it’s just a joke” to you, that’s your cue for skepticism. Jokes mean things. Anyone who tells you otherwise either doesn’t understand the uses of humor, or is hoping that you don’t.

5. You are not automatically a bad person if you laugh at horrible things or find funny a joke whose content, on reflection, is not funny at all. You are a human being, and a skilled communicator — and Trump, for one, is a very skilled communicator — is going to play the changes on you. You might laugh because of the delivery. You might laugh because as a human you like the pleasure of laughing. You might laugh because of the context of the joke, or because it’s subversive, or because the butt of the joke is someone you dislike. You might laugh because the person telling you the joke is someone you admire. You might laugh because it’s expected. You might laugh because not laughing might be noticed. You might laugh because honestly you don’t know what else to do. You might laugh because it’s not safe to do anything else.

Laughing at a horrible joke is not the problem. Excusing that hateful and horrible joke as “just a joke” is the problem. The pleasure of humor don’t mitigate the damage it can do when the hate it offers slips into someone’s worldview, or simply reconfirms the hate they already hold. You’re not automatically a bad person if you laugh along with hate. You’re a bad person if you walk along with it. Humor makes it easy to take that walk. It’s up to you to resist moving your feet. The more you resist, the more you’ll recognize that hate actually isn’t all that funny.

6. Trump made a joke about someone assassinating his political opponent, or the judges she might appoint. Trump’s minions and enablers have been scurrying around trying to spin it, or mitigate it, or accuse people of misunderstanding it and anyway it was just a throwaway line, it was just a joke. But context matters and who is making the joke matters. Trump is a bigot and he’s ignorant and he is a buffoon and he has no filter but he is not stupid. He knows when he puts things out into the air that they are heard and that they are taken seriously. Even the jokes. Especially the jokes.

Trump wished out loud that someone would assassinate Hillary Clinton because inside, the screaming tantrum-throwing infant that Trump is wants her out of the way, and so does the slightly more grown-up version of him whose business model includes cheating contractors and workers out of their contractually-obliged fees and wages, and so does the 70-year-old version who has spent decades getting his way, who wiped the floor with the laughable opposition he had in the GOP primaries and sees no reason why he should do anything different than before, and is possibly confused as to why it’s not working any more, so just try harder. Does Trump actively want Clintondead? No. But out of the way covers a whole lot of ground. Trump is a bully and he knows how to phrase a wish. So when that wish came howling out of his id up there on stage yesterday, he wrapped it into a joke and sent it on its way.

Trump made the joke because he knows, better than almost anyone, that there is no such thing as “just a joke.” He knows it, and the fact he knows it, and made the joke anyway, should scare the shit out of you.

As should this: When Donald Trump is president, he won’t have to make jokes anymore.


Read the whole story
CallMeWilliam
18 days ago
reply
Trump made the joke because he knows, better than almost anyone, that there is no such thing as “just a joke.” He knows it, and the fact he knows it, and made the joke anyway, should scare the shit out of you.
krivard
17 days ago
reply
skorgu
19 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
3 public comments
JimB
17 days ago
reply
Sadly the rise of the cult of the personality is accelerating. Regrettably they are personalities because they are personalities. "Stop the world - I want to get off".
dukeofwulf
18 days ago
reply
"The pleasure of humor don’t mitigate the damage it can do when the hate it offers slips into someone’s worldview, or simply reconfirms the hate they already hold. You’re not automatically a bad person if you laugh along with hate. You’re a bad person if you walk along with it. Humor makes it easy to take that walk. It’s up to you to resist moving your feet."
kazriko
19 days ago
reply
What people forget is that Trump is an anti-Second Amendment gun control warrior. This entire thing was probably a dig at the NRA. Which is certainly why no sane GOPer or former GOPer should ever support him.
Colorado Plateau
dukeofwulf
18 days ago
Trump disagrees: "If we had guns, or if they had guns on the other side of the room, with the bullets going in the opposite direction, you would not have had 130 people killed." "I’m a very, very big supporter of the Second Amendment." “I don't like anything having to do with changing our 2nd Amendment.”
kazriko
18 days ago
I discount everything he says in the last 2 years, since he decided he wanted the republican party. All of that is just claptrap to ingratiate himself with the party he's co-opting. Everything he said before that was in support of gun control.
kazriko
18 days ago
(From 1999, "Trump has said he would like to see a society without guns, even though he realizes such a scenario is unlikely.")
dukeofwulf
18 days ago
Trump's big birther push was in 2011. Besides, people's opinions are known to change over time. -- To take the stance you're taking, you'd have to buy into the idea that Trump is actually a Clinton sleeper agent. I certainly think it's possible, but to truly believe it's true is wishful thinking.
kazriko
18 days ago
Actually, that would be just the opposite of wishful thinking... In this case, it's more like "We're screwed regardless of which one gets in, regardless of which set of stated opinions they actually believe." I don't trust either one, and even if I did trust them on one of the two sets of opinions they have put forth I don't like any of their stated positions.
dukeofwulf
17 days ago
The wishful thinking is that we aren't just a coin-toss away from someone who portrays himself a repugnant, unqualified totalitarian in the White House. We still live in a world where such a man could get to this point, which is scary. I truly believe this should be the turning point to create a multi-party system in this country like they have in other countries. Vote real change, vote Gary Johnson.
srsly
17 days ago
@kazriko As a lifelong dem let me assure you that we know that Trump is a terrible anomaly, that he's really not a republican and doesn't hold republican values. I've followed politics long enough to find Republicans I admire and Republicans that I detest, but Trump doesn't really fit that mold.
kazriko
17 days ago
I'm glad at least some democrats still think that way, though I know a whole lot of people who think the majority of the party is like Trump. (Though, I'm now an Ex-republican. I was mainly in the party trying to steer it away from people like Trump, and I've gotten disillusioned by the whole mess. I'm with @dukeofwulf now and will be voting for Johnson this year. Hardly unusual though, I voted for Badnarik and Johnson in previous years.)

What Is Treason?

1 Comment and 2 Shares
wethepeople

In Japan it is known as gaikan zai, the “crime of foreign mischief,” and can be committed by foreigners as well as Japanese.

In Italy it is treason to do about four dozen things, including 33 kinds of “crimes against the international personhood of the state,” whatever that means. (This is the country where seismologists were convicted of not predicting an earthquake, so I wouldn’t be optimistic.)

In Thailand it is treason-ish (lèse majesté) to criticize the king. (According to Wikipedia, the king once invited criticism in a speech; that was followed by a “widespread barrage of criticism,” promptly “followed by a sharp rise in lèse majesté prosecutions.”)

In the UK, it remaineth Treason to “compass or imagine” the death of the King, or to “violate the King’s Companion, or the King’s eldest Daughter unmarried, or the Wife of the King’s eldest Son and Heir,” as provided by the Treason Act 1351, A STATUTE made at WESTMINSTER; In the Parliament holden in the Feast of Saint Hilary; In the Twenty-fifth Year of the Reign of K. EDWARD the Third, and still technically in effect today. This law actually limited (temporarily) the existing definition of treason, which—as is always the case—had a strong tendency to expand, not coincidentally because a traitor’s property was forfeited to the king.

The most common historical definition of treason is, of course, “trying to overthrow the government and not succeeding.”

The English word “treason” derives from the French traison, and that from the Latin tradere (“to hand over” or betray); “traitor” is from the Latin traditor, “one who hands over.” The words have a special history in Christianity because of the significance of Judas handing over Jesus for execution. In Dante’s Inferno, the worst punishment of all, at the very bottom of Hell, is reserved for traitors. Judas himself is condemned to be eternally munched upon by Lucifer (himself a traitor, of course). In English law, high treason also carried the most terrible punishment available; according to one source, the punishment “was that the prisoner be drawn, hanged, and beheaded; his heart, entrails, and bowels torn out and burned to ashes, and the ashes scattered to the wind; his body cut into four quarters and each quarter hung on a nearby tower; and his head set upon London Bridge, as an example to others that they would never presume to be guilty of such treason.”

In Sweden it is treason to hit the king with a strawberry tart.

But I suppose most people at the moment are probably curious about what “treason” means in the United States, unless you think it’s a coincidence that Google searches for “treason” did this right after Donald Trump asked the Russians to hack the email of his political opponent:

treasontime

Press conference started at 7:49 GMT-7 (10:49 in Florida), hack request made 13 minutes later

TL;DR: Trump didn’t commit treason.

I mentioned treason once before, in 2014 after a Florida candidate (re)tweeted that he was “past impeachment” and that President Obama should just be arrested and hanged for treasonous crimes like extrajudicial killings. See Guy Mad About Lack of Due Process Says President Should Be Executed Without Trial” (Jan. 22, 2014). As I said then, under U.S. law this kind of thing is stupid and arguably illegal, but it’s not “treason.”

Treason is defined in the Constitution (and it’s the only crime that is):

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

U.S. Const., Art. III, § 3. While “adhering to” could be clearer, it is at least clear that the Constitution requires an act—either actually “levying War” or “giving” an existing enemy something (i.e. trading with the enemy during wartime), and there have to be two witnesses to the same “overt act.” So thinking or talking about something along these lines isn’t “treason.” (Talking is almost never a prosecutable “act.”) Aaron Burr was acquitted of treason, for God’s sake, and he was a total dick. There also needs to be an actual capital-E Enemy, and this is one reason it’s so dangerous to let the government pretend we are “at war” all the time. We’re not.

Fewer than 30 people have been tried for treason in the history of the U.S., many were acquitted, and those convicted have often been pardoned. It’s an extremely limited and rarely prosecuted crime, which is the way it should be.

People use the word “treason” loosely all the time, of course, to mean “something I don’t like that seems disloyal to what I am loyal to.” You can certainly say Trump did that. He does that a lot. But legally, treason is extremely limited, and for excellent reasons. Betrayal is something we obviously feel very strongly about, and so people tend to be willing to subject traitors to severe punishment (see above) and more inclined to maybe bend the rules when convicting them in the first place. Even more importantly, the meaning and prosecution of treason is especially prone to manipulation and misuse by whoever happens to be in power at the moment. This is exactly why the Founders put a limited definition right in the Constitution.

And they knew something about treason, since they had just committed it.

So please do criticize Trump for his inane comments, but think of something to call him (or Hillary) other than a “traitor.” There are lots of applicable words out there to choose from.

Also, no one has ever been convicted of violating the Logan Act, so people should drop that one too. But this post is already long enough.

Read the whole story
CallMeWilliam
31 days ago
reply
Espionage? Maybe!
missmintyfresh
27 days ago
Aaron Burr WAS totally a dick, though.
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories