“Stupid Is As Stupid Does” – A Modest Proposal to Everyone Hell Bent on Punishing California

While facts (real or alternative) rarely seem to matter either to Trump or the GOP… maybe their proposal to punish California for its flagrant disregard of sound forest management is ripe for implementation.

Or maybe just ripe? Why do so many GOP legislators in Washington want to punish Californians in exchange for any mercy or money?

{Let’s remember that according to AI, the Federal government owns 56-70% of California’s forest lands. Private ownership accounts for 40%, leaving the state responsible for just 3%.}

It is high time for a little responsible forest money management.

Starting immediately…

To hell with California’s smelts. Screw the waterfowl. Damn dams are inconvenient, and besides a good dam break and resulting flood is good to clear out slums in decrepit, declining, sanctuary-declared, leftist democrat-led cities and towns. California – the world’s 5th largest economy – needs to get a fiscal haircut and stern reprimand.

Nationally too, there has been too much waste… proverbial pork… bridges to nowhere…

From now on, there will be no federal aid for hurricane relief in the Gulf States. No hurricane is a surprise… many are charted with Sharpies, so we all know where in advance they will strike.

Lava flows in Hawaii? Ha! Eruptions can be largely predicted and lava moves slowly. If someone cannot get out of the way, it’s their fault.

Earthquakes too… a little rattle and roll is good for enhancing your rhythm.

As far as Tornado Alley is concerned, a good readjustment of topsoil is good for everyone. While the Dust Bowl is an ancient memory, moving a chunk of Kansas to Illinois seems reasonable, and less expensive than by truck or rail cars.

Nor’easters in New England? Not a worry. Just think of lobsters clawing their way as they relocate to higher ground in Penobscot Bay. They have 10 legs. Use them. No transportation subsidies for them.

Certainly, we have to stop reimbursing Springfield, Ohio residents for the loss of their pets; even if they were delicious.

Isn’t chicken the new white meat anyway… or was that more pork?

And let’s not forget about Alaska… high time to stop spending money on binoculars for a better glimpse of Russia from our windows.

Montana? Sorry… no money for you for errant Chinese spy balloons falling from the sky, even if that carnage might cause the buffalo to stampede. Bison meat… certainly exportable to global markets without government trade sanctions is good too.

And farm subsidies are a thing of the past.

And pork… government pork? Nope… it’s your bacon in the fire from now on.

FEMA? Cast off into the dustbin of history.

I think it is wonderful that Congress is finally stepping up to put some much-needed and long-overdue fiscal controls on flagrant emergency spending to help American citizens.
It’s high time to put a stop to this financial drip, a leakage that is undermining the inherent strengths of the states and allowing good Americans to rely on handouts in emergencies, even when all else has been lost.

The wildfires in LA are the proverbial (flammable) straw that broke the camel’s back.

And we should punish nature too when Mom doesn’t provide enough rain.
Let’s cloud-seed the skies… until the heavens burst, and who cares about flooding in Missouri, Iowa, or along the Mississippi?

The reappearance of, “Stupid is as Stupid Does” reportedly dates to 1862
Anthony Trollop used it in 1882.
Forrest Gump popularized it in 1994.
Thank goodness Congress has restored it to our lexicon by its actions in 2025.

Why don’t the American media and Op-ed writers see this as clearly as I do?

Jonathan Swift surely would approve of all this.

Media Mayhem – The LA fires bring out the best and worst in reporting

This week’s fires in and around Los Angeles resemble an apocalypse.

Families lost loved ones; thousands more lost property accumulated over a lifetime.

The media coverage has been extensive on land and in the air. Anchors have raced from the safety and comfort of New York studios to appear earnestly reporting on the fire line.

 Snarky tabloid stories poked at anchors who tailored their Nomex fire retardant suits to appear fitted (more dashing?). In a holocaust, I suppose some news heavyweights think it best to look good while reporting on other’s suffering… before returning to the comfort of 4-star hotels for the night.

As my friend and colleague Bob Sirkin posed in an email today, “I am tired of watching network anchors trying to squeeze out the very last drops of emotion from victims. How much more do you want to ask the same banal questions to people who are left with nothing?”

The So California fires are a tragedy of unfathomable scope. Of course.

But dare we compare this natural destruction to human-caused misery in Gaza, the Ukraine, and Russia where cities have been leveled, buildings pancaked on residents asleep in their beds, and debris fields stretch for miles and miles – entire communities obliterated back to the stone age?

The media coverage and public interest in these stories has largely waned. Field reporters file stories about a horrific bombing or a gun battle, characterized by the news term “bang-bang.” But the rest of the story – about people…the losses they have sustained is largely sanitized from US media.

It’s absolutely as tragic, but if I may suggest, few if any of these victims likely have Go-Fund-Me pages.

The old bromide that all news is local is true, and the fires in California have greater resonance to fellow Americans than something happening thousands of miles away in a foreign country to people who are not “us.”

I get it.

Soon the fires will be contained. Even this weekend there will be less coverage as audiences over Saturday and Sunday decline and the newspapers shrink their page count. Anchors will return to their studios, where it is less expensive to sustain coverage.

The audience will tell pollsters that they’ve had enough, or feel overwhelmed, or worse yet, that the devastation is all beginning to look the same. And we’ll largely move on.

Newsroom cynics used to keep tally of what scope of devastation warranted network television news interest… hundreds of thousands of victims in a sub-continent typhoon barely earned a mention. Several thousand war casualties in Africa or several hundred killed in a South American earthquake might earn a flicker of acknowledgment. Scores in a domestic tragedy certainly earned a slot in the news window… but then, so too did a 2 car accident in New York’s Times Square so long as it was reported in the New York Post or Times.

I guess it’s all a matter of perspective after all.

PASTEURIZING MEDIA

Countering “media fallout”

{{This was written by my friend, teacher, and colleague Marty Perlmutter and first appeared on his substack today.It is thought provoking, and I felt worth sharing

Marshall McLuhan had a central idea he termed “media fallout.” He knew the only way to avoid the mind-manipulation of media was awareness of how these modes of consciousness envelopment work on our brains. In the absence of awareness, you have media fallout. He explained this to advertising and broadcast executives of the time — half a century ago. He said that he felt a lot like Louis Pasteur in 1860. He was aware of pervasive and invisible forces that caused disease and spread infection. But all around were individuals, doctors along with patients, oblivious to imperceptible but all-too-real microbes that were killing them.

To become conscious of how balkanized, corrupted, disinforming and ever-more-pathetic media are shaping our minds and behaviors requires a quantum leap in awareness of invisible forces. Sinclair Broadcasting and Fox News are the easiest of the “cavorting beasties” (as the inventor of the microscope termed single-cell organisms) to detect, and begin to disinfect. Social media, fragmented attention, cell phone dopamine addiction — these will take more time to elucidate and defang.

Our plight seems more fraught than simply entertaining ourselves to death. As McLuhan taught, what we’re not aware of will have its way with our delicate cerebra. A lot of what we’re dealing with now barely makes it to the cortex. This is the age of the medulla oblongata, the brain stem where fear and rage abide. While we are distracted, addicted, disinformed and terrorized, what hope is there that we’ll grok how this enveloping miasma operates?

Another teaching gives me hope. A peerless penetrator of the loom of passions and persuasions, Friedrich Nietzsche, taught, “Understanding stops action.” When you comprehend how something triggers you, when you grasp the roots of your convictions, there’s no heat, no drive to act. There is only a tranquility that passeth manipulation.

So spread the word: Cavorting beasties are abroad in the land. We cannot see or sense this stuff til we surface the mechanisms by which they reach into us. By slowly becoming aware of how these forces massage our senses, impact our feeling and thinking, we can disabuse ourselves of thralldom and become, truly and at last, free.

Why we need long-form, investigative journalism

A mole infiltrated the highest ranks of American militias. Here’s what he found.

ProPublica

It’s so ‘easy’ to hate some one or some group, to have an almost visceral distaste and hate, but it is so much more difficult to understand them… to really, really understand beyond that intuitive or instinctive disagreement.

What makes them tick? How did they form their ideology? What fuels and fosters their suspicions. For those who we disagree with, we shake our heads in amazement that they can be “so wrong.”

This ProPublica required time and guts to research, check, double check and write. For the mole, it required a whole lot of chutzpah.

The resulting work is well worth our attention.

Can Anything About a Nazi War Criminal Be Newsworthy Today?

I suppose it depends on your definition of news.

In the contemporary era of “fake” news, alternative facts, and presumed media bias, what constitutes news to you?

How do you define newsworthy?
Is it primarily what affirms or echoes your defined set of beliefs?
What or whoever endorses your accepted truths?
What boosts your self-esteem and opinions?

For some, traditionally, what’s considered news includes large and catastrophic events; proclamations of elected officials; wars and civil strife; as well as the work, decisions, or actions by anyone (or thing) that consequentially affect our lives, families, and communities, whether for good or bad. We note those who influence our lives, both positively and negatively.

Admittedly for some with a more limited scope, the only news they consume is whatever is positive and non-threatening in a world which increasingly seems so negative and beyond their control or effect.

The cliché of news being a first draft of history is also a truism. Equally true is the role of obituaries for and appreciation of people who played a role, even accidentally or tangentially, in history

I believe the most impactful stores are always about people – first and foremost. We best relate to those of our species. (Perhaps our pets second). Who’s interesting, perhaps entertaining, provocative, intriguing, or offensive?

Our most frequent triggers: who (and what) do we fear or make us angry?

Let’s take a deeper look at something which, on first blush, you may not consider newsworthy.

I pose this question: Can anything about the 1962 execution of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann be newsworthy, or even interesting today?

Consider this:

An elderly man named Shalom Nagar died last month. His death received scant attention. It was reported in the Israeli press, on the BBC, in the New York Times… but little mention appeared elsewhere.
Most news gatekeepers determined that a story featuring a bit player in a global event 6-decades ago would generate or even deserve interest today. No buzz. Few clicks. The story was too old, or too difficult to tell briefly, and few remember or much care.

Who was he?

Shalom Nagar was the reluctant 23-year-old Israeli guard who hanged Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann. Shanghaied by the authorities and press-ganged onto the execution team, Nagar’s job was to release the trap door on the gallows.

Nagar’s story and Nazi Adolf Eichmann’s are intractably entwined in history. It is ironic that such a notorious war criminal who caused such suffering for the living and who, even after his death, still haunted and caused lifelong dismay – he scarred even his executioner.

A simple guy – a prison guard of no particular rank – a schlub selected against his will to do a job that no one else would accept… Nagar did that job as assigned. He was, to use the phrase, “just following orders” too.

He was the little story in the larger event, the small story in the big one. But can’t we all relate to something similar in our own life’s journey?

According to the NYTimes obit by Sam Roberts (Dec.5, 24), “Eichmann’s face was white as chalk, his eyes were bulging and his tongue was dangling out,” Mr. Nagar told Mishpacha magazine in 2005. “The rope rubbed the skin off his neck, and so his tongue and chest were covered with blood.”
He added: “I didn’t know that when a person is strangled all the air remains in his stomach, and when I lifted him, all the air that was inside came up and the most horrifying sound was released from his mouth — ‘baaaaa!’ I felt the Angel of Death had come to take me, too.”

Continuing from Roberts’ obit, “In discussing the execution with Mishpacha magazine, Mr. Nagar invoked Amalek, the biblical archenemy nation of ancient Israel, to justify his task.
In spite of the trauma, he said, he appreciated the value of his experience: God “commands us to wipe out Amalek, to ‘erase his memory from under the sky’ and ‘not to forget.’ I have fulfilled both.”

There is an irony here. I think that irony is what triggered media coverage; it is what caught my eye as a reporter/producer/editor/and teacher.

For executing someone convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the executioner too suffered mightily.

Nagar’s burden of taking a life became, apparently, a life-long cross for him to bear.

We presume Nagar found his peace, as is shared in Sam Roberts’ appreciation.
That does add context to a larger story as it reveals little-known-till-now-nuggets of history. And in that is an irony.

More than a half century after Eichmann’s execution, I submit a backstory is still interesting and informative – offering new details, or a previously unknown perspective or consequence. It meets my working definition of being news-worthy, being interesting and informative, shedding new light on people and events in our worlds.

My definition expands: Newsworthy is something that makes me pause and think as I take note of the evolving history.

So, what do you think? Was the New York Times, the BBC and the few others right to consider this newsworthy for their audiences?

Would you have made the same decision, or not, and why?

Vigilantism Against the Media… Maybe the media should correct the narrative?

The recent attack on a news reporter in Colorado by a man screaming epithets at him for not appearing to be a white, Anglo-Saxon American really should not surprise anyone.

What’s perhaps more surprising is how these racial or ethnic attacks have been perpetuated (and tolerated?) in this burgeoning era of “I hate anyone who doesn’t agree with or look like me.” When did Trump’s America become a battlecry for racial hate?

What prompts anyone to think they are doing a civilized act by randomly chasing another human being and beating them for their looks or a presumption of their inherent evil? Who gets to decide this? What sort of person animal has that chutzpah?

We can wring our hands over recent political diatribes glorifying vigilantism. We can decry bravado which promotes the superiority of some and the inferiority of others whom we dislike (or fear), but when did vigilantism become acceptable?

The media is the fall guy for a host of problems, real and manufactured. The media is allowing itself to be pilloried. The adults (owners, publishers, editors, statesmen) in the media must speak up as influencers, critically and urgently to set the record straight about the generally outstanding job being performed every day.

Audiences must not be allowed to randomly assume or equate cable talk-TV with responsible reporting; audiences must be corrected when they make assumptions or fall for a diet of propaganda; knowledge stems from bonafide news (sourced, double-checked, and most important of all: presented without emotion or adverbs). Noise is not to be confused with “news.”

At least that is what I believe and taught my students.

A media double standard or is ISIS a name too juicy to omit?

Once upon a time not so long ago, crime victims and their perpetrators were routinely headlined and included in the narrative of news stories.

Then, in a more sensitive and enlightened decision, many in the media decided not to name victims of sexual assault, or molestation, among other crimes to protect what might remain of their privacy. The same rule of not naming juveniles remains a standard.

So why is the perpetrator of the horrific crime in New Orleans being bantered about with his association with ISIS?

Isn’t that connection and publicity precisely what he was seeking? Isn’t that why he chose to attack a public place instead of harming his own family?

If the decision is not to name individuals to deprive them of their notoriety, an argument could be made to repeatedly or redundantly decline to trumpet ISIS in conjunction with the horrific events in New Orleans.

His association (no name needed as we all know the subject of this story can be found in a web search) is a legitimate fact worthy of being included for the record. Once, maybe twice. But I get a feeling of almost glee in the intonation of some anchors who nod soberly as they do more for propaganda than any soldiers of ISIS might ever hope for.

Just a thought… Moderation can be a good thing, and editorial judgment can be too.

Does Accuracy and Completeness Matter? I think today’s NYTimes missed its mark.

A basic tenet of journalism is attributing statements, .pronouncements, proclamations, and declarations or expansions of war to those who made the decisions.

A basic rule for headline writers is to strive for clarity and completeness.

But in today’s (12.26.24) NYT is an apparent breakdown in both a headline and sub-headline that reads: “Israel Loosened Its Rules to Bomb Hamas Fighters, Killing Many More Civilians
Surprised by Oct. 7 and fearful of another attack, Israel weakened safeguards meant to protect noncombatants, allowing officers to endanger up to 20 people in each airstrike. One of the deadliest bombardments of the 21st century followed.”

The problem here is the headline. The country made this decision? All the elected officials? All its citizens of every stripe and party? Everyone? Was there a vote? A referendum? The whole kit and caboodle? Israel loosened its rules?

It is partially inaccurate and in that, it feels unclear and imprecise.

The story’s lede properly attributes the decision to “Israel’s military leadership” but that’s still vague. Someone in the chain of command
is responsible for making this change. Shouldn’t s/he/they be named and take responsibility for their actions?

Just as a rule of journalism, decisions like this are made by people on behalf of a country’s policies. Don’t the readers of the Times deserve to know the “who” is in charge here? And, if there is concern for the safety of the decision-makers, then state that in the body of the story.

Just a thought: we should demand a completeness in all reporting, including headlines, lest any one misunderstand what is already a complicated and complex war.

Tariffs, Talk, Trump – Trying to Determine Truths in Trade

Two recent stories on the effect of impending Chinese tariffs paint very different pictures. Two complimenting stories offer better depth.

Today’s anecdotal-led NYT story “Trump’s Tariffs Helped Northern Vietnam Boom Like Never Before. What Now?” strikes a note of cautious optimism for the Vietnamese economy based on an anticipated surge in production to avoid tariffs.

Monday’s more analytical China Global South Project’s “Sorry, Vietnam is NOT Going to Be the “Next China” presents a more sober view. Bylined by Eric Olander is the proposition that the US policy-making community’s expectation that Vietnam will emerge as the next China is delusional. Even with the best US intentions, ‘friend-shoring’ won’t cut the Chinese Goliath out of the tariff-trade equation.

Olander’s argument is that Vietnam’s unemployment rate is just 2.27% limiting the number of available workers. He writes VN doesn’t have either the supply chain or logistics network required to replace China and what’s more, so many of the raw materials used by Vietnamese manufacturing come from its northern neighbor.

Damien Cave’s Times story is more encompassing than Olander’s succinct analysis, but both are well-worth reading to gain a far deeper understanding among the hype, hope, and reality and to appreciate the complex global implications.

And the beat goes on… and on

Just when I (foolishly, naively?) thought there couldn’t be yet another attempt to market the presidency, imagine my surprise to discover: Trump Fragrances.

https://gettrumpfragrances.com/

From Bibles to fragrances, airlines, steaks, vodkas, even University degrees, the Donald’s shopping list goes on to add new ventures…tho the eua de parfume is getting a bit thick.

With apologies to Sonny and Cher, these lyrics canter through my mind:
And the beat goes on, the beat goes on
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain
La-de-da-de-de, la-de-da-de-da

And the beat goes on (yes, the beat goes on)
And the beat goes on (and the beat goes on, on, on, on, on)
The beat goes on
And the beat goes on

The beat of all this commerce in the guise of government is hurting my head.

I feel as if we have returned to the Medieval Ages where one can buy indulgences from the church and crown. Is there a difference today?

Soliciting (demanding) money from donors for Inauguration Ball tickets is not unusual, it just seems the sums (thank you Elon, Jeff and many others) have become extraordinary.

It’s OK to market a political campaign, but I am left to wonder, after you win… after you pay the bills, when does it stop?

When does the Office of the Presidency become beyond price?

When does a man who is ostensibly serving his country decide that obsessively seeking greater profit is enough?