"[I]n 1972, Keith Stroup, founder of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, discovered ['Reefer Madness'] in the Library of Congress archives."

"He screened it at a New York benefit, catching the eye of Robert Shaye, founder of the new production company New Line Cinema. Shaye knew it had potential as an accidental satire so he rereleased it, holding midnight showings marketed to college students across California campuses in particular. The rest is campy cult classic history, one that includes a 1998 stage musical, which has been revived in productions big and small around the country since, and a 2005 TV movie musical starring Kristen Bell, Alan Cumming and Neve Campbell. 'Reefer Madness' may be the first film to be embraced by a generation because it’s so bad — or so bad, it’s good."

That's from a new NYT article, "'Reefer Madness,' the P.S.A. That Backfired Spectacularly/The comically self-serious and outrageous 1936 morality tale, which warned the public about marijuana, became an unintentional parody and midnight-movie classic decades later."

First, I was sorry to see the article omitted the name of the author of the story:

 

Image taken from Wikipedia.

That's amused me for a long time.

But, second, I don't believe "Reefer Madness" was the first thing that "a generation" embraced because "it’s so bad — or so bad, it’s good." Personally, I remember going to see "The Green Slime" in 1969 for this reason. I remember hearing that it was what "all the heads" in New York were seeing. 

But I see the distinction: "The Green Slime" was trying to be so bad it's good. "Reefer Madness" was trying to warm young people away from marijuana.

Or was it?

AND: Even as we speak: "Trump administration moves to ease federal restrictions on marijuana/Marijuana had the same classification as heroin, LSD and others before being reclassified for lower potential for abuse" (Guardian).

ALSO: I took my "Or was it?" question to Grok, which assured me it was sincerely intended as propaganda. That made me think. I wrote this sentence to sum up my thoughts: "Propaganda is inherently funny but circumstances might cloud one's ability to appreciate the fun."

Why do people read this illustration to represent Trump depicted as Jesus rather than Trump with the miraculous power of the laying on of hands?

 

Trump shared this image, then took it down when he was attacked. The image was said to represent him as Jesus. He denied that he had seen it that way. He said the image showed him as "a doctor making people better and I do make people a lot better." Many observers hooted "Doctor!" What kind of doctor wears a robe and applies small orbs of light to the patient's forehead!?

But what is Jesus-y about handheld balls of light? What is Jesus-y about an American flag, the Statue of Liberty, the Lincoln Memorial, a bald eagle, fighter jets, soldiers ascending upward, and a medical worker with a stethoscope?

You can see what you want here, and maybe if you're genuinely concerned about blasphemy you'll want to err on the side of not jumbling up worldly images with things that might be sacred. But is there any serious Christian iconography there? I see nothing other than the white tunic and red mantle. What about the healing itself? But healing with the laying on of hands is not something limited to Jesus. Whether it is effective or not, it has been a widespread practice through human history, and it is a way to express the idea of profound healing.

There is healing through the laying on of hands in the Old Testament and, in the New Testament, it is not limited to Jesus. And in Western history, there was also the "royal touch" — "a form of laying on of hands, whereby French and English monarchs touched their subjects... with the intent to cure them of various diseases and conditions."

American Presidents are frequently portrayed as healers — spiritual healers — and the use of exalted imagery is common, not some freakish new thing special to Trump. It might be a bad idea — because it's trashy art, because politics and religion should be kept strictly separated, or because propaganda is deceptive and distracting — whatever. That image may be bullshit, but the outrage over it is also bullshit. When I think of all the times Barack Obama was portrayed as a Christ figure! Ridiculous. Grow up. 

And here are The Thompson Twins:

Oh, lay your hands on me/(Lay your hands) woo-hoo/(Ooh, lay your hands) oh, lay your hands on me/(Lay your hands) oh, oh-oh-oh....

Propaganda from Iran — "One Vengeance for All."

Holy shit, Iran just released this video!

What are we supposed to think about this?pic.twitter.com/Nzp7xKz2B2 https://t.co/ChdbEgrjFa

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) March 25, 2026

Does this ad mean that Iran — whoever purports to be acting for Iran — has no intention of negotiating for peace or could this be understood as a display of a strength that it has as it prepares to enter negotiations? The strength is its power to undermine America support for the war, and I think there are many Americans who will respond very positively to this ad.

Meanwhile, according to Trump, negotiations are in motion:

🇺🇸🇵🇰 Trump says talks are underway to ease Middle East tensions.

Egypt, Pakistan, and Turkey are leading the push as Gulf countries keep facing Iranian attacks.pic.twitter.com/9D77B38XTD https://t.co/z9oqzT8qyP

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) March 25, 2026

Part of your propaganda.

Hey White House, please remove the Tropic Thunder clip. We never gave you permission and have no interest in being a part of your propaganda machine. War is not a movie. https://t.co/dMQqRxxVCa

— Ben Stiller (@BenStiller) March 6, 2026

"In an ad for Amazon’s Ring camera that ran during the Super Bowl, a new A.I.-powered feature called 'Search Party' helps reunite a tearful little girl with her missing dog..."

"... by activating all the cameras in the neighborhood to find him. The feature works by using A.I. to scan video captured by all the participating Ring cameras in a neighborhood, pinging the device’s user should the reported dog pass in view. The device’s user can then notify the pet’s owner (they can also decline). Scores of posters online have decried Ring’s new feature as dystopian and terrifying. In a rare unifying moment, members of the political right and left expressed their discontent. Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, posted on X: 'This definitely isn’t about dogs — it’s about mass surveillance.' And the conservative commentator Stephen L. Miller wrote, 'The Ring cam lost dog ad is just propaganda for mass surveillance.'"

From "What Homeowners Need to Know About Smart Home Cameras/A new Super Bowl ad is raising questions about the power of doorbell cameras" (NYT).

Here's that ad:

The Harry Nilsson tag is not a mistake. His recording of "Without You" is the background music.

In the ad, "can't live/if living is without you" is used to express a little girl's feelings about her dog. Such dark thoughts to impose on a child. I mean, it can happen — see "12-Year-Old Girl, Unable To Cope With Loss Of Her Pup, Dies By Suicide" — but let's try harder to keep darkness off of children. The theme of inability to live without a particular loved one is an adult theme.

Meet Jeffrey Epstein.

wild find, how the media first introduced Jeffrey Epstein 25 years ago https://t.co/RZLXdHQvKr

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) February 10, 2026

AND: As long as I'm embedding things from Mike Benz this morning:

"The Department of Homeland Security and ICE must start talking about the murderers and other criminals that they are capturing and taking out of the system."

"They are saving many innocent lives! There are thousands of vicious animals in Minnesota alone, which is why the crime stats are, Nationwide, the BEST EVER RECORDED! Show the Numbers, Names, and Faces of the violent criminals, and show them NOW. The people will start supporting the Patriots of ICE, instead of the highly paid troublemakers, anarchists, and agitators! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN"

Writes Trump, just now, on his place called Truth.

He's disarmingly — alarmingly? — open about his rhetorical moves. This will work, do it my way, he says, not in a private phone call or memo to insiders, but to all of us. Perhaps he is saying something else to insiders, but what he is saying openly feels as though he is taking us into his confidence and trusting us to understand that political speech is manipulative and that he's got to do the manipulation in a simple and heavy-handed way and outshout the voices on the other side — those "highly paid troublemakers, anarchists, and agitators."

"In a wide-ranging conversation with four Times reporters, President Trump talked about the Minneapolis ICE shooting, immigration, Venezuela and even his plans for further White House renovations."

I see "Trump Sits Down With Times Reporters for Two-Hour Interview," the headline in the NYT.

There's no substance, just an announcement:

The Times’s coverage of the president’s remarks will include stories, newsletters and videos over the coming days, as well as an episode of The Daily on Friday. A transcript of the interview will be published.

Very bold of Trump to give all that access — and right in the middle of a week packed with quickly unfolding action and with only the full transcript to protect him. I like that the Times is breaking out the material in separate bits.

The first bit is: "We Pressed Trump on His Conclusion About the ICE Shooting. Here’s What He Said. The exchange was a glimpse into the president’s reflexive defense of his federal crackdown on immigration." It could have been a much more reflexive defense of the ICE agents. His first take was balanced: "I want to see nobody get shot. I want to see nobody screaming and trying to run over policemen either." And later, he says: "She behaved horribly. And then she ran him over. She didn’t try to run him over" — I would say that's a reflexive defense of the woman. How does he know she didn't try to run the agent over? 

Also, the NYT writes "When we pressed Mr. Trump on his conclusion that the victim, Renee Nicole Good, tried to run over the agent," but technically, the first quote is not a statement that she tried to run anyone over. It's a distanced, abstract statement: "I want to see nobody get shot. I want to see nobody screaming and trying to run over policemen either." I'm not seeing the follow-up question quoted, but I think it shouldn't have been "Why are you concluding that Good tried to run over the agent?" but "Are you saying you've determined that Good tried to run over the agent?" [Or better, to avoid ambiguity: "Are you saying you've determined that Good intended to run over the agent?"]

The second article based on the interview is "Trump Says U.S. Oversight of Venezuela Could Last for Years/In a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times on Wednesday, President Trump said 'only time will tell' when it comes to how long the United States aims to control the country" (NYT).

Help me think of a term to apply to articles like this, something that expresses why it bothers me so much.

It's not "fake news," because it's not even news:

Here's a link to the article, in The Washington Post, which I'm not even reading. I don't read articles that fall into this category. I'm just seeking a name for the category. The headline and the photograph do engage me. They're almost funny, but I feel some empathy for the people who the Washington Post seems to believe are out there hungering for whatever this is.

ADDED: One idea is "the news for women," which is a tag I began in 2011 but hadn't used since 2016. I just forgot about it, but it might express what I'm looking for here, though it has the obvious limitation. I think there are men in the (perceived) audience for this kind of emotional support.

"The famous party slogan in 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' was 'Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.'"

"Orwell’s proposal that totalitarianism demands the rejection of objective truth and the alteration of the past is perhaps the most original idea in 'Nineteen Eighty-Four.'... 'The empirical method of thought, on which all the scientific achievements of the past were founded, is opposed to the most fundamental principles of Ingsoc [English socialism]. And even technological progress only happens when its products can in some way be used for the diminution of human liberty. In all the useful arts, the world is either standing still or going backwards.' And the very medium of thought, in Orwell’s reckoning, language, would be crippled. Winston’s co-worker, employed in the project, explains: 'Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year? … In the end we will make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.' What actually happened?... This logarithmic graph shows that in 1948, the Encyclopaedia Britannica was about 29,000 pages. Its final printed edition, in 2010, had 33,000. Today most of us rely on Wikipedia (despite its occasional errors and editing wars), which as of last year had the equivalent of 3.2 million Britannica pages, a hundredfold increase...."

Writes Steven Pinker, in "1984 revisited: George Orwell would be relieved at how we’ve done/It’s common to suggest the great dystopian novel was full of warnings that have largely come true. But the evidence shows otherwise" (London Times).

"People like Trump and Putin are not politicians; they are artists who create alternate realities."

"They tell stories, invent alternative facts, enact daily dramas, construct show trials and reinvent religions — they build a world. In their world, the people who felt humiliated are now dominant and doing the humiliating. Russia felt humiliated by the West in the 1990s. Many working-class American voters have felt humiliated by coastal elites for decades. In this alternative world, the snobs suffer. People support an authoritarian not because they like this or that policy but because they embrace the authoritarian’s artistic vision. Performance artists like Trump and Putin can be dishonest, offensive and outrageous, but there is one rule: They must never be boring."

Writes David Brooks, in "Imagining What’s in Trump’s Brain" (NYT)(gift link).

I'm expending one of my gift links on this one because this snippet, taken out of context, gives rise to the question Are artists authoritarians?

Brooks is "imagining what's in Trump's brain" and we're stuck with the added task of imagining what's in Brooks's brain when he's imagining what's in Trump's brain. Trump is an artist because he's imagining — conjuring up an "alternative world" that is satisfying to the downtrodden. But don't all politicians depict the world in a somewhat abstract and fictional framework? They impose a narrative. They choose which facts to highlight, while their opponents select other facts from the big bag of "facts." The "coastal elites," the "snobs," have their creative narratives too... and this David Brooks column is one of them.

Quite apart from Trump and Brooks, I am fascinated by the question Are artists authoritarians? I am reminded of something I blogged 20 years ago: "To be a great artist is inherently right wing."

"The BBC 'doctored' a Donald Trump speech by making him appear to encourage the Capitol Hill riot..."

"... according to an internal whistleblowing memo seen by The Telegraph. A Panorama programme, broadcast a week before the US election, 'completely misled' viewers by showing the president telling supporters he was going to walk to the Capitol with them to 'fight like hell,' when in fact he said he would walk with them 'to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

A Telegraph TikTok, below the fold (or read the Telegraph article: "BBC ‘doctored’ Trump speech, internal report reveals"):

Highly organized to say not highly organized.

New talking point directive just issued #AntifaDoesntExist pic.twitter.com/1BbAe8ql0q

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) October 10, 2025

"This is an outrageous assault on our free speech and ability to educate each other. It’s just bonkers to me that the federal government is imposing these kinds of restraints..."

"... that we’re taking away valuable information from our citizens who visit this park, and that we are trying to dumb everyone down and pretend real weather events don’t happen by not letting you read a simple sign."

Said Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), quoted in "National parks remove signs about climate, slavery and Japanese detention/The removals come after President Donald Trump issued an executive order in March seeking to remove 'improper partisan ideology' from federal institutions."

You have beautiful places, the best land and rocks and trees and waters of America, and because people want to come see these wonders of nature, you see it as opportunity to interpose human messages — negative, downer messages, propaganda — on eyesore signs. Let visitors think their own thoughts, read their own books, and speak to each other about what they think. That's the better free speech and shared education, not the speech by the government that is installed in the form of inert signs. 

Pingree complains that the new policy is "trying to dumb everyone down and... not letting you read a simple sign." But if I'm here for the landscape and the government has put up a political education sign, it's not letting me not see the government's speech.

"Your movement seeks to remove rights from others. It is anti-truth and critical thinking, pro-violence, pro-dehumanisation of those who disagree with you..."

"... and you are so lacking in self-awareness you cannot see that you are precisely what you pretend to hate."

Said JK Rowling, at X.

"The White House published a list of Smithsonian exhibits, programming and artwork it considered objectionable..."

"... on Thursday, one week after announcing that eight of the institution’s museums must submit their current wall text and future exhibition plans for a comprehensive review. The list borrows heavily from a recent article in The Federalist that objected to portrayals at several museums. It argued that the National Museum of American History promoted homosexuality by hanging a pride flag; overemphasized Benjamin Franklin’s relationship to slavery in its programming; and supported open borders by depicting migrants watching fireworks 'through an opening in the U.S.-Mexico border wall.'...:

I'm reading "White House Lists Smithsonian Exhibits It Finds Objectionable/The Trump administration highlighted material dealing with topics like sexuality, slavery and immigration" (NYT).

Here's that official list put out by The White House.

Most striking item on the list: "The National Museum of African Art displayed an exhibit on 'works of speculative fiction that bring to life an immersive, feminist and sacred aquatopia inspired by the legend of Drexciya,' an 'underwater kingdom populated by the children of pregnant women who had been thrown overboard or jumped into the ocean during the Middle Passage.'"

Notably out of context item on the list: "An American History Museum exhibit features a depiction of the Statue of Liberty 'holding a tomato in her right hand instead of a torch, and a basket of tomatoes in her left hand instead of a tablet.'" There's an image of it, and it looks like really bad art — amateurish junk. But here's the Smithsonian's description of the object and why it is in the collection:

"How much empathy can the country muster for Biden? In both red states and blue ones? In the well-lit spaces on social media and in the darkest corners?"

"Among his supporters and those who voted for his rival? Biden doesn’t have the benefit of having been out of office for years. And while he has been on a redemption tour of sorts, only history can define his presidency. Nostalgia hasn’t had a chance to cast him in a warm glow. The scars of a political dogfight haven’t even begun to scab over. The old ones are still raw and weeping, even as the country accumulates new ones. Vice President JD Vance argued that it was possible to have two thoughts about Biden at once: to wish him good health while also, essentially, calling him a terrible president in the same breath."

Writes Robin Givhan, in "Biden was empath-in-chief. Can a divided country offer him empathy? In the face of Biden’s cancer diagnosis, does the country have the capacity for empathy despite the political rancor, distrust, alternative facts and lies?" (WaPo).

Shame on us for wanting to know the truth about what happened? Who was President these past few years? We're supposed to sink into a pool of respectful silence and not demand to know? We're not supposed to be skeptical about the timing of the cancer news, which seems so perfectly aimed to shut us up about Tapper's book and the Hur recordings?

And what is this "redemption tour of sorts"? I had not noticed. I had to ask A.I., which pointed me to his "paid speeches, interviews (e.g., his appearance on The View), and international trips (e.g., attending Pope Francis’ funeral in Rome)." He wasn't waiting for years to pass, wounds to heal, and nostalgia to set in. He and his enablers were doing positive propaganda. Why should we shut up? Answer: because he has an aggressive cancer. Of course, we feel the silencing power.

What ugly people we are to still want the truth! Who was President these past few years?!

"This is America showing itself because it was never in you in the first place. So why am I upset that you're upending something..."

"... that was never in you in the first place? I'm not saying that we shouldn't be upset. We definitely should be upset. But why are we-- we can't be upset at people that it was never in them in the first place to even care about somebody else."

Said a black woman, heard in episode 857 of "This American Life," "Museum of Now."

She is commenting on the removal of the 2-block-long, 50-foot-tall words, "Black Lives Matter," that had been set in concrete in a street near the White House.

Prompted by the question, "Is this more honest, actually, that they actually are ripping this up?," we hear her struggling in real time to understand why the de-installation of the motto wasn't upsetting her or wasn't upsetting her that much.

One might say the original installation was propaganda and pandering. Jackhammering it out of there said something accidental and authentic.

Trump seeks to excise "divisive" ideology from the Smithsonian Institution.

Read the text of his "Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Restores Truth and Sanity to American History."  Excerpts:

The Order directs the Vice President, who is a member of the Smithsonian Board of Regents, to work to eliminate improper, divisive, or anti-American ideology from the Smithsonian and its museums, education and research centers, and the National Zoo.

What was happening at the zoo?! 

More generally, how do you decide what is "improper, divisive, or anti-American"? I'm sure some will say that it's improper, divisive, and anti-American to sanitize race out of the presentation of our history and culture.

Does the order step down from that abstraction and get specific as it discusses enforcement of the Trumpian vision?

Joe Rogan observes that "There's actually some things that are organic for some weird reason."

I'm listening to his podcast with Adam Curry (who invented podcasting). Scroll to 2:49:39 for this part, which comes after some discussion of the role of the CIA in the field of arts (Abstract Expressionism) and entertainment (the music of Laurel Canyon):

ROGAN: The real kooky people probably think you're my handler or something. Because you created podcasting. Because there's that thought that... there's a whole financed and backed right-wing ecosystem that's created these podcasts.... This is just stupidity. This is the problem where when you look at some conspiracies, you think, oh, well that applies to all things.... There's actually some things that are organic for some weird reason.

Notice that the use of "organic" is the same as we saw — in the first post of the day — from the Canada hockey coach. The fighting was, he claimed, "as organic as it gets."