One thing that I can't get over about this administration is its cartoon villainy. There are all sorts of substantive and important issues in which people can have viable disagreements. Even when I disagree with people on those issues, I can usually at least understand their motivation. But this administration has so many policies like this which both seem completely unimportant to be worthy of focus and yet are also seemingly only motivated to make things worse. I truly can't imagine why anyone would put their energy into enacting a policy like this that is so transparently wrong. And I also don't know why people don't see policies like this as a canary in the coal mine for the administration's other positions.
Imagine how criminal neglectful and how intentionally harmful the alternative has to be to not be chosen. Something that just smeared surplus over all the problems and called that a solution, basically unfit for good times but completely useless in a multi crisis.
Or maybe people didn't do a deep dive of the consequences of putting a crook and his cabal of idiots in charge of the country, and just... Voted with their gut against the incumbent, because they didn't like the economic consequences of 2020-2021 COVID inflation coming home to roost?
(Weird how they all forgot who was in charge in 2020, who fired up the printing presses and who handed out money like it was on fire...)
I sincerely hope they are enjoying the economic consequences of this year's Iranian adventures. They deserve to savor every penny of their >$150 tank fill-up.
People chose a tribalist warchieftain because realities at the downlow where already unsustainable after50 years of attrition warfare and the solution by the predecessors was to declare the problems non existant. Even worse they openly displayed the incompetence by declaring all problems as social ones.
Right, he never declares problems non-existent or acknowledges that he is an utter idiot who creates self-inflicted crises left and right.
The economy is, after all, doing great and inflation has been solved, and all the bad parts are Obama/Biden's fault, blame them if the price of gas and milk and healthcare went up this year, and the debt he is saddling us with is no big deal.
I've been binging Sarah Longwell's (of The Bulwark) Focus Group episodes. She shares quotes from participants. Typical average low information, low engagement voters.
Flooding the zone is definitely part of it, but the general goal seems to be to systematically destroy every strength the US has (had, in many cases.)
Not only did the Iran War rapidly accelerate Chinese EV and solar panel sales - we're literally running out of bombs and missiles because so many were wasted on the first round of attacks in the middle east, then the "let's blow up fishing boats with million dollar missiles" campaign, then the Iran war. It will be years if not decades before those stockpiles are replenished.
Meanwhile the navy is being run ragged, with ships almost literally falling apart because they're being kept at sea for so long. Sailors are having tours longer than any other time in history which is almost certainly causing abysmal morale and likely will cause plunging re-enlistment.
Gosh, who ever would have thought that putting a man who never successfully ran small charities, in charge of one of the world's largest and most complex organizations, would go wrong? But hey, at least whoever is left will be clean-shaven.
This is just a side effect of US companies outsourcing manufacturing to China for quick profit and as result US becoming dependent on China (and US becoming service/finance economy with ever increasing debt). This process has been going on for decades.
Iran War is not first example of sucessfull defense of a small country (with foreign military aid) against US. See the Korea, Vietnam war.
Korea war was basically a rwo empire war. First the industrial remnants of the japan mic vs the south, then the us vs china.
The idea was that contracts between states are worthless, but physical dependencies are actually at least temporary binding contracts. Its like with NATO, you dont trust the paper, you place units of all signers in the path of danger of the agressor and thus reduce the risk of partners chickening out.
There is nobody with competence left running the federal government. They all saw what happened five years ago and kept themselves sidelined when appointments were being handed out. That leaves callow apparatchiks who are busy declaring the emperor is fully clothed as the only ones willing to play act at governance.
It's a classic trait of authoritarianism to not just censor what could be considered 'bad' news, but to actively limit the ability for potential sources of 'bad news' to be known / gathered in the first place.
> “The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been — Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future,” Trump wrote.
> One White House official said the only feedback the White House communications shop, which prepares the folder, has ever gotten in all these months is: “It needs to be more fucking positive.”
> White House staffers then cull the information, send out clips to other officials, and push favorable headlines to a list of journalists. But they also pick out the most positive bits to give to the president. On days when there aren’t enough positive chyrons, communications staffers will ask the RNC staffers for flattering photos of the president.
I suspect Trump has no idea what's going on in this country, because none if his bootlickers will tell him any bad news at all. He keeps saying everything is great, because that is all he wants to hear.
its also a trait of authoritarianism to not value what others think.
They will lie, over state and misdirect and not care that lots of people find those statement as incredulously ridiculous. Because its all dog whistles all the time. they're speaking to some people who hear it exactly as it was intended.
According to the article Interior is just centralizing the release of the information. That sounds reasonable to me rather than letting any NPS employee discuss it with the press, and is consistent with many other agencies and employers policies (family privacy etc). As far as I can tell the only "cartoon villainy" is based on speculation in the article that the administration has some other motive. The only evidence I can see the article providing is that two deaths last week are not yet listed on the NPS website.
Is the information being released centrally though? It appears not. I feel that you've fallen for their "justification" to censor employees so that it becomes easier to dispose of the administration's enemies in National Parks.
What you missed is that the point of both the article and this thread is to conduct a two minutes of hate session where people who all hold the same extremist ideology scream and rant at the people their party has told them to hate. All while convincing each other as they spew said hate (and ridiculously warped version of reality) that they're the moral, peaceful, good guys.
They see themselves as revolutionaries, genuinely. Plow over everything in the way of the goal & fuck the human cost. I shudder at the thought of having a beer with these people.
The cartoon villainy is not the administration but the people who want to portray it that way. Anyone who reads the article will find a lengthy statement from the NPS that spells out something very different from the headline. They're not told to stay silent, but to wait the right amount of time and coordinate to avoid miscommunication and error.
I don't think it's comprehensible at the individual level, but at population scales even the worst leaders tend to maintain a sizeable level of support. Trump and Chavez have alot in common[1], and nearly half of Venezuelans still supported Chavez at the end, when Venezuela had already been wrecked. Even Maduro had double-digit support in the last election (nominally 30% but probably less in reality). Cult of personality is a powerful thing, and can linger even after the personality is gone. I wouldn't expect MAGA to disappear overnight.
Some of it is designed to distract and fill the news cycle so actions or matters likely to be very unpopular if they get lots of publicity are drowned out. Any time the administration does something preposterous, look around to see what's actually going on.
That said, I though it was generally obvious the actions and policies are intended to do as much damage to US strengths as quickly as possible?
Relationships with our allies and the developing world?
Research/development/science/education?
The US Dollar standard?
US foreign policy/influence?
US military power?
All of it has been (and is still being) systematically disassembled. Who would benefit from all that? Answer: Russia, China, and to a lesser extent, India.
Did you notice how much the current president loves dictators (or put more politely "strongmen" leaders") but in particular, the Russian head of state? And at times has fawned all over the head of state of China? He sure does spend a lot of time talking to Putin with next to no other US officials in the room, and any records of the meetings destroyed (illegally, I might add.) I'm not joking when I say it's possible Putin is literally telling Trump how to run the country and he's nodding and saying "wow what a great idea, thank you!"
The republican party is generally awfully cozy with Russian officials because they've apparently decided Russia is the ideal society they want to convert the US into:
They see how powerful Putin is, how powerful the FSB is, how freely Russian society racially discriminates, how powerful the oligarchs and ultrawealthy are, how patriarchal it is, how christian it appears to them - and they love all of it.
> Interior shall not confirm the severity of injuries,” the memo reportedly said, according to The Washington Post. “Interior may state only that an individual was transported and the method of transport"
> According to The Washington Post, the internal policy states “Interior shall not confirm a death,” and that this policy applies to “all Interior bureaus and offices” plus “all Interior communications involving fatalities, suspected fatalities, serious injuries or emotionally sensitive incidents.”
So now I cannot learn about known bear attacks when I plan a backpacking trip?
If you are going into an area with bears, you should be prepared for bears. Appropriate behavior isn't conditional on someone dying recently. The risks in an area are widely published and posted by the National Park Service. This is basic safety.
It is common to see people in National Parks flagrantly ignore the many warnings. Honestly, I am surprised it is only 350 deaths per year.
If there is heightened animal activity in an area it helps to know, especially if they are aggressive. We adjust where we go to avoid especially dangerous situations.
The National Park Service continuously posts updated guidance based on animal activity and will temporarily close areas of the park if there is an aggressive animal. This isn't being changed by the policy in the article.
Allowing arbitrary NPS employees talk to the public about people that may have died isn't required for any of this. To be honest, I am surprised that this new policy didn't already exist. It is very common practice to manage incident comms this way.
The number of deaths tell you relatively little about the risks because almost all of them are preventable. If you don't ignore the myriad highly visible warnings, the risks are below the noise floor. You take a bigger risk of death driving to the National Park.
For example, dozens of people die every year due to heat stroke and dehydration in places like Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and White Sands. The National Park Service posts many large signs warning you to bring sufficient water that thousands of people ignore. Most people that ignore the warning don't die but you could eliminate the risk entirely by simply staying hydrated.
You keep using numbers to underpin your comments. The parent's point is that it's important to have access to numbers like this. From where I'm sitting it seems like you very much agree despite your comments sounding like disagreement or deflection.
The National Park Service post signs in specific areas that keep a running tally of how many people have died in that spot. I don’t have any objection to those signs, they are kind of interesting in a train wreck sort of way. Despite that, the numbers on those signs go up every year.
Knowing about a death in the last 24 hours doesn’t matter because it doesn’t materially impact the prevalence of the behavior that is the root cause of the deaths. At the same time, the government has an interest in not letting random employees with hot takes talk to the media with incomplete or erroneous information; this also is a liability. That is standard operating procedure almost everywhere, I just find it weird that we care here, particularly when it has zero relevance to safety.
No lives are being lost or saved by this policy. As an observation, I think few people would accept the kinds of policies that would be required to actually reduce deaths in National Parks.
This is incomplete and only shows incidents that were validated by the NPS and opted to be released to the public by the park service. The only way to get the true number of cases is through a FOIA request.
I’m somewhat experienced in wilderness backpacking, and I always look into bear protocol anywhere I visit (including talking to the rangers there in person). But it’s disingenuous to suggest that you’d learn nothing from death statistics. Are you suggesting that there’s no need to know that, because if the numbers were too high in an area they’d close it down?
Ironically National Park deaths in the USA have been getting a lot of publicity over the last few years, thanks to David Paulides' "The Missing 411". For various reasons, I strongly disagree with Paulides – it is very easy to get lost in wilderness, and very easy for a body to be missed in thick brush – but it's clearly enough of an issue for Paulides to trade off.
Deliberately hiding info like this is only going to add fuel to the fire. I wonder if the National Parks were concerned they would scare paying visitors off if they knew how many accidents and bear attacks there were.
One thing that I can't get over about this administration is its cartoon villainy. There are all sorts of substantive and important issues in which people can have viable disagreements. Even when I disagree with people on those issues, I can usually at least understand their motivation. But this administration has so many policies like this which both seem completely unimportant to be worthy of focus and yet are also seemingly only motivated to make things worse. I truly can't imagine why anyone would put their energy into enacting a policy like this that is so transparently wrong. And I also don't know why people don't see policies like this as a canary in the coal mine for the administration's other positions.
Flooding the zone. They're getting you to waste your time and energy on this, so you don't see what they are really doing.
This is not a situation where good actors have different ideas on how to best administer the country.
These are criminals. They are committing crimes. You are the victim, not their peer.
What are they really doing that no one is seeing?
They are criminals, and they are committing crimes, but everyone knows that. They don't seem to even be trying to hide any of their crimes.
> They are criminals, and they are committing crimes, but everyone knows that.
77.2 million people in America don't seem to know, or don't seem to care.
Imagine how criminal neglectful and how intentionally harmful the alternative has to be to not be chosen. Something that just smeared surplus over all the problems and called that a solution, basically unfit for good times but completely useless in a multi crisis.
Or maybe people didn't do a deep dive of the consequences of putting a crook and his cabal of idiots in charge of the country, and just... Voted with their gut against the incumbent, because they didn't like the economic consequences of 2020-2021 COVID inflation coming home to roost?
(Weird how they all forgot who was in charge in 2020, who fired up the printing presses and who handed out money like it was on fire...)
I sincerely hope they are enjoying the economic consequences of this year's Iranian adventures. They deserve to savor every penny of their >$150 tank fill-up.
People chose a tribalist warchieftain because realities at the downlow where already unsustainable after50 years of attrition warfare and the solution by the predecessors was to declare the problems non existant. Even worse they openly displayed the incompetence by declaring all problems as social ones.
Right, he never declares problems non-existent or acknowledges that he is an utter idiot who creates self-inflicted crises left and right.
The economy is, after all, doing great and inflation has been solved, and all the bad parts are Obama/Biden's fault, blame them if the price of gas and milk and healthcare went up this year, and the debt he is saddling us with is no big deal.
I've been binging Sarah Longwell's (of The Bulwark) Focus Group episodes. She shares quotes from participants. Typical average low information, low engagement voters.
So depressing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA_iob2pnFk&list=PLJNKzTkCZE...
I've long grudgingly accepted premise of Democracy for Realists. Yet my expectations remained stubbornly, inappropriately too optimistic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_theory_of_democracy
https://archive.org/details/democracyforreal0000ache
--
The silver lining may be that "hopelessly confused voters" is better than hyperpartisanship. Longwell uses the term "heterodoxy".
They see and like it. It is what it is.
Flooding the zone is definitely part of it, but the general goal seems to be to systematically destroy every strength the US has (had, in many cases.)
Not only did the Iran War rapidly accelerate Chinese EV and solar panel sales - we're literally running out of bombs and missiles because so many were wasted on the first round of attacks in the middle east, then the "let's blow up fishing boats with million dollar missiles" campaign, then the Iran war. It will be years if not decades before those stockpiles are replenished.
Meanwhile the navy is being run ragged, with ships almost literally falling apart because they're being kept at sea for so long. Sailors are having tours longer than any other time in history which is almost certainly causing abysmal morale and likely will cause plunging re-enlistment.
Gosh, who ever would have thought that putting a man who never successfully ran small charities, in charge of one of the world's largest and most complex organizations, would go wrong? But hey, at least whoever is left will be clean-shaven.
This is just a side effect of US companies outsourcing manufacturing to China for quick profit and as result US becoming dependent on China (and US becoming service/finance economy with ever increasing debt). This process has been going on for decades.
Iran War is not first example of sucessfull defense of a small country (with foreign military aid) against US. See the Korea, Vietnam war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_in_the_Korean_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_participation_in...
Korea war was basically a rwo empire war. First the industrial remnants of the japan mic vs the south, then the us vs china.
The idea was that contracts between states are worthless, but physical dependencies are actually at least temporary binding contracts. Its like with NATO, you dont trust the paper, you place units of all signers in the path of danger of the agressor and thus reduce the risk of partners chickening out.
There is nobody with competence left running the federal government. They all saw what happened five years ago and kept themselves sidelined when appointments were being handed out. That leaves callow apparatchiks who are busy declaring the emperor is fully clothed as the only ones willing to play act at governance.
It's a classic trait of authoritarianism to not just censor what could be considered 'bad' news, but to actively limit the ability for potential sources of 'bad news' to be known / gathered in the first place.
Refer: DOGE.
Good news only!! Why are these history museums just focusing on "how bad slavery was." https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/19/politics/trump-slavery-museum...
> “The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been — Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future,” Trump wrote.
He also asks for two dossiers each day filled of good news only. If there isn't enough good news they fill it with flattering photos: https://www.vice.com/en/article/trump-folder-positive-news-w...
> One White House official said the only feedback the White House communications shop, which prepares the folder, has ever gotten in all these months is: “It needs to be more fucking positive.”
> White House staffers then cull the information, send out clips to other officials, and push favorable headlines to a list of journalists. But they also pick out the most positive bits to give to the president. On days when there aren’t enough positive chyrons, communications staffers will ask the RNC staffers for flattering photos of the president.
I suspect Trump has no idea what's going on in this country, because none if his bootlickers will tell him any bad news at all. He keeps saying everything is great, because that is all he wants to hear.
its also a trait of authoritarianism to not value what others think.
They will lie, over state and misdirect and not care that lots of people find those statement as incredulously ridiculous. Because its all dog whistles all the time. they're speaking to some people who hear it exactly as it was intended.
According to the article Interior is just centralizing the release of the information. That sounds reasonable to me rather than letting any NPS employee discuss it with the press, and is consistent with many other agencies and employers policies (family privacy etc). As far as I can tell the only "cartoon villainy" is based on speculation in the article that the administration has some other motive. The only evidence I can see the article providing is that two deaths last week are not yet listed on the NPS website.
Is the information being released centrally though? It appears not. I feel that you've fallen for their "justification" to censor employees so that it becomes easier to dispose of the administration's enemies in National Parks.
What you missed is that the point of both the article and this thread is to conduct a two minutes of hate session where people who all hold the same extremist ideology scream and rant at the people their party has told them to hate. All while convincing each other as they spew said hate (and ridiculously warped version of reality) that they're the moral, peaceful, good guys.
All information gathering is bad if you’re willing to lie about anything and prefer to create a propagandized version of reality.
The insecurity of this administration is screaming
They see themselves as revolutionaries, genuinely. Plow over everything in the way of the goal & fuck the human cost. I shudder at the thought of having a beer with these people.
The cartoon villainy is not the administration but the people who want to portray it that way. Anyone who reads the article will find a lengthy statement from the NPS that spells out something very different from the headline. They're not told to stay silent, but to wait the right amount of time and coordinate to avoid miscommunication and error.
I don't think it's comprehensible at the individual level, but at population scales even the worst leaders tend to maintain a sizeable level of support. Trump and Chavez have alot in common[1], and nearly half of Venezuelans still supported Chavez at the end, when Venezuela had already been wrecked. Even Maduro had double-digit support in the last election (nominally 30% but probably less in reality). Cult of personality is a powerful thing, and can linger even after the personality is gone. I wouldn't expect MAGA to disappear overnight.
[1] Does this sound familiar? https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2003/12/03/the-cornered-na...
Some of it is designed to distract and fill the news cycle so actions or matters likely to be very unpopular if they get lots of publicity are drowned out. Any time the administration does something preposterous, look around to see what's actually going on.
That said, I though it was generally obvious the actions and policies are intended to do as much damage to US strengths as quickly as possible?
Relationships with our allies and the developing world?
Research/development/science/education?
The US Dollar standard?
US foreign policy/influence?
US military power?
All of it has been (and is still being) systematically disassembled. Who would benefit from all that? Answer: Russia, China, and to a lesser extent, India.
Did you notice how much the current president loves dictators (or put more politely "strongmen" leaders") but in particular, the Russian head of state? And at times has fawned all over the head of state of China? He sure does spend a lot of time talking to Putin with next to no other US officials in the room, and any records of the meetings destroyed (illegally, I might add.) I'm not joking when I say it's possible Putin is literally telling Trump how to run the country and he's nodding and saying "wow what a great idea, thank you!"
The republican party is generally awfully cozy with Russian officials because they've apparently decided Russia is the ideal society they want to convert the US into:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/15/republicans-...
They see how powerful Putin is, how powerful the FSB is, how freely Russian society racially discriminates, how powerful the oligarchs and ultrawealthy are, how patriarchal it is, how christian it appears to them - and they love all of it.
It's the Cult of Action, one of the main pillars[1] of any Fascist movement.
"Action for action's sake should be undertaken. Without any critical reasoning or reflection."
It's exactly how an unsocialized, undisciplined child or animal behaves, and it is not acceptable in civilized society.
---
[1] Its twin sibling is 'Disagreement is Treason'.
> Interior shall not confirm the severity of injuries,” the memo reportedly said, according to The Washington Post. “Interior may state only that an individual was transported and the method of transport"
The visitor took a hearse home...
> According to The Washington Post, the internal policy states “Interior shall not confirm a death,” and that this policy applies to “all Interior bureaus and offices” plus “all Interior communications involving fatalities, suspected fatalities, serious injuries or emotionally sensitive incidents.”
So now I cannot learn about known bear attacks when I plan a backpacking trip?
If you are going into an area with bears, you should be prepared for bears. Appropriate behavior isn't conditional on someone dying recently. The risks in an area are widely published and posted by the National Park Service. This is basic safety.
It is common to see people in National Parks flagrantly ignore the many warnings. Honestly, I am surprised it is only 350 deaths per year.
If there is heightened animal activity in an area it helps to know, especially if they are aggressive. We adjust where we go to avoid especially dangerous situations.
The National Park Service continuously posts updated guidance based on animal activity and will temporarily close areas of the park if there is an aggressive animal. This isn't being changed by the policy in the article.
Allowing arbitrary NPS employees talk to the public about people that may have died isn't required for any of this. To be honest, I am surprised that this new policy didn't already exist. It is very common practice to manage incident comms this way.
But aggressive animal presence is indicated by incident frequency not fatality frequency. It would seem that you still have access to the former.
> Honestly, I am surprised it is only 350 deaths per year.
Isn't this exactly why we need to know how many deaths there are -- so we can judge the level of risk we face?
The number of deaths tell you relatively little about the risks because almost all of them are preventable. If you don't ignore the myriad highly visible warnings, the risks are below the noise floor. You take a bigger risk of death driving to the National Park.
For example, dozens of people die every year due to heat stroke and dehydration in places like Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and White Sands. The National Park Service posts many large signs warning you to bring sufficient water that thousands of people ignore. Most people that ignore the warning don't die but you could eliminate the risk entirely by simply staying hydrated.
You keep using numbers to underpin your comments. The parent's point is that it's important to have access to numbers like this. From where I'm sitting it seems like you very much agree despite your comments sounding like disagreement or deflection.
The National Park Service post signs in specific areas that keep a running tally of how many people have died in that spot. I don’t have any objection to those signs, they are kind of interesting in a train wreck sort of way. Despite that, the numbers on those signs go up every year.
Knowing about a death in the last 24 hours doesn’t matter because it doesn’t materially impact the prevalence of the behavior that is the root cause of the deaths. At the same time, the government has an interest in not letting random employees with hot takes talk to the media with incomplete or erroneous information; this also is a liability. That is standard operating procedure almost everywhere, I just find it weird that we care here, particularly when it has zero relevance to safety.
No lives are being lost or saved by this policy. As an observation, I think few people would accept the kinds of policies that would be required to actually reduce deaths in National Parks.
Sometimes the wild animal that attacked a person is still in the area, but I agree with you in general the signs are not helping prevent deaths
You mean like > 10 == take bear spray, > 20 == cancel the trip? Because how do you even come up with that formula? Is it a per-capita number or total?
Also: How many people killed by falling coconuts would cause you to cancel a Hawaiian vacation?
How many people die climbing half dome? Do the deaths tend to happen I only inclement weather?
Do you realize how divorced from reality you people sound?
Why are you directing this at me? I couldn't care less about people dying climbing half-dome. It seems like one of the better ways to go.
Of course you can: https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/mortality-data.htm
This is incomplete and only shows incidents that were validated by the NPS and opted to be released to the public by the park service. The only way to get the true number of cases is through a FOIA request.
If you're hiking into brown bear country just take a 10mm and some bear spray, regardless of whether there have been any recent attacks or not
What would you learn?
You should always be prepared to encounter unrestrained nature when backpacking in a national park.
It's a bit like saying weather forecasts are useless in Seattle as you should always be prepared for the rain.
I’m somewhat experienced in wilderness backpacking, and I always look into bear protocol anywhere I visit (including talking to the rangers there in person). But it’s disingenuous to suggest that you’d learn nothing from death statistics. Are you suggesting that there’s no need to know that, because if the numbers were too high in an area they’d close it down?
Non-paywall link [1]
[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/national-park-staff-n...
Cleaned up url: https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/environment/...
Ironically National Park deaths in the USA have been getting a lot of publicity over the last few years, thanks to David Paulides' "The Missing 411". For various reasons, I strongly disagree with Paulides – it is very easy to get lost in wilderness, and very easy for a body to be missed in thick brush – but it's clearly enough of an issue for Paulides to trade off.
Deliberately hiding info like this is only going to add fuel to the fire. I wonder if the National Parks were concerned they would scare paying visitors off if they knew how many accidents and bear attacks there were.