Breaking Fake News Update (v8)

Fake News Broke on August 13, 2025!  

This fake news stemmed from an Executive Order titled 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,' which targeted not only the Smithsonian Institution's museums and education centers, but also the National Zoo, which was a curious addition, I thought. VP JD Vance was tasked with leading the charge on this, um, critically important initiative.

This month, the reviews were to begin in earnest, to make sure exhibits were aligned with the FOTUS vision of our history. Eight of the Smithsonian's museums were targeted for the first phase of review, including the American Indian Museum. It was a short hop to find a way to present this particular bad period of our history in a more Trumpian light.

We'll continue to present fake news as it breaks. 

Meanwhile Back in Albany (v39)

Nathaniel Brooks/NY Times

For the second day of his State of the State roadshow, NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo opened with a quote from James Baldwin: "Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced." From there, he went to General Ulysses S. Grant, and to the GI Bill and the Marshall Plan. And it's that kind of effort we need, he said.

Now it's time to start looking ahead with the same toughness, the same smarts, the same unity, the same discipline, and the same love that brought us through last year. 2021 will be a year of continued challenges, transformation, and change. We will need to adjust to the new social and economic realities of the post-COVID world.

Expanding on his Day 1 message, he spoke of having to reopening New York "smartly and safely." It's not an either/or thing, it's a "a new model of balance" using science and technology to do things intelligently. Here are the key initiatives he mentioned.

• Testing is a big part of that, whether it's at large scale events, in commercial office/retail properties, or at individual businesses like restaurants.
• The New York Arts Revival, a public/private partnership that'll mount pop-up events across the state, outdoors mostly, with pilots for indoor performances to see what can be done safely. There's also a new Creative Rebuild Initiative to put artists back to work and support community arts organizations. 
• Tapping into the empty hotel and office space in the state, in ways that "benefit the community and make them commercially viable." Affordable housing, supportive housing, that kind of thing, can benefit communities and the state's going to offer flexibility to property owners for that type of re-use. 
• A Commission on the Future of the New York Economy, to draw up a roadmap for getting New Yorkers back to work in good paying jobs in long-lasting industries, and to examine what he called "the low tide American issues" - inequalities and structural racism - exposed by the pandemic. 
• A "jobs-of-the-future" program to include a Pathways Pledge from our largest employers to develop training and education programs for low-income workers. There's also an expansion of SUNY's online training programs to offer free training for high demand jobs.

In closing, Cuomo reached for his father, the late Gov. Mario Cuomo, and offered some hope for the future. Speaking of the light that shone through the darkness of 2020, he said

And this light illuminates a new path of possibility for our state. A path that says yes, we can care about each other, and we can help each other, and we can recognize our interconnection and relationship - that we are one community and one family. That our differences are second to our commonality. That we are strong, and we are competent, and we are capable. That we can build, we can achieve, we can take on great challenges and we can triumph. That we believe in ourselves and we believe in each other and we believe in this place called New York. This place of possibility, this place of welcome, this place of mutuality, this place of aspiration, this place of acceptance, and this place of cooperation. 

Are we that place, do you think?

We Not Playing: The Poetry of Kanye West

The Grammys

If they want real artists to keep

coming back
they need to stop playing

with us.
We ain't gonna play
with them
no more.

Because what happens
is when you keep on
diminishing
art

and not respecting
the craft

and
smacking people
in
the face...

you're
disrespectful

to inspiration. And
we
as
musicians
have to inspire
people

who go to work every day...

Like no,
we not playing
with them no more.

A Great Business Model?

I've been thinking about whether we should upgrade our current basic cable (yes, I said basic cable - that's all we have) to something more substantial, such as Dish, DirecTV, or something less basic from our local cable monopoly. I've asked friends for help on Facebook, and am getting some pretty good feedback, mostly from people who are happy with what they have, even if where there are now is not where they started out. 

The more I think I'm going to do some research on it, the more I think I really don't want to. Because I hate the whole concept of how the whole getting-TV-into-my-house business works. Regardless of delivery method, it seems I'm gong to be stuck with a boatload of channels that I will NEVER watch, and don't want to pay for. 

For example, it seems like the retail therapy I do now from my laptop is simply not good enough. Apparently, I need five or ten home shopping networks, 24-hour infomercial channels, 'all jewelry all the time' broadcasts, and a corresponding number of auction networks so that I can do even more than my fair share to help our struggling economy.

And I guess we don't need our Bose sound system anymore - or my bookshelf stereo, or my HD radio either. Might as well just throw those out the window, because no matter how hard I try, it seems I'm going to be stuck with scads of radio channels on my television. Why? Because, clearly, I must want to have my TV on so I can listen to tinny twangers from the 40's, or virgin Viennese violin virtuosos, or terror-inducing tenors, or a bunch of rapacious rappers. Well, hold on a second -- I don't want to have my TV on so I can listen to the radio. I can already do that any of the above-mentioned radio-type devices. 

And, strangely enough, I've never felt the urge to start watching a show on my PC in the basement rec room, pause it and then start it up again when I'm in the second floor bathroom, only to pause it and start it again downstairs in the kitchen where I watch for a moment trying to determine whether I want a glass of chocolate milk, a cold beer, or something else. Then, I stop it one more time, grab my wine and ice cream and head for the home theater room where I can finally sit down, relax, and watch the weather forecast. 

Have you?

What I would really like is to call up some television service deliverer and say to them "I want my local channels, and I want these other 15 channels. And I don't want anything else. How much will that cost?" And if I were to ask that question, after they stopped laughing at me, I'd be told it's not possible.  You need to get these other channels, you need to have at least one hockey channel for every team, and at least four soccer channels, and six watching-waves-crash-against-the-shore channels, and 27 religious and inspirational channels, and movie channels, my poor girl, you simply must have 50 movie channels, you poor pitiful behind the times girl - and the choir of sobbing, hand-wringing customer service reps in the background can only be appeased if I spend my $39.99 or $49.99 or $79.99 or $89.99 or $199.99 per month for the two-year introductory period and get my dishes and boxes and cards and hoppers and DVRs and HGTV....oh wait that's a channel I want, not a delivery method, sorry. 

Oh - and bundle up, sister, because it's cold outside. Heaven forbid you have more than one supplier of TV, phone, and Internet service. Because that's plain un-American. Just ask them. 

Yep -- for some reason, these companies have come up with a business model that says we have to take what they want us to take, and we have to take all of it, even if we have no intention of using most of it - and we have bought into it hook, line, and sinker. 

Can you imagine, just for a moment, if any other company or business did the same thing? 

• Picture walking into a shoe store and being told that, in order to get the pair of boots you really want, you also need to get three handbags, eight pairs of those nylon shoe-trying-on things, ten pairs of flip-flops and a dozen pairs of stilettos, in sizes that don't fit and colors that are beyond horrid -- a bunch of junk plus twenty-two pairs of shoes you will never wear -- just to get the one pair you want. You gonna buy those boots? 
• Or going into a grocery store to get milk and bread, because we've got a Nor'easter or an Alberta clipper or lake effect snow heading our way, and being told that you also have to pay for and take home both adult and baby diapers, some weird-looking sushi, gluten-free cookies, blue dye for your hair, anchovies, week-old bagels, unsalted nuts, and off-brand tuna fish packed in oil, because that's what the store wants to sell you. How badly do you want that bread and milk? 
• Or taking your car to the speedy oil change place, and have to get new tires, a pollution control valve, seat covers, a windshield, a side-view mirror, and cargo-area carpeting, because after all, if you want that speedy oil change, well, you know the drill. 

It's crazy that we fall for this, isn't it?

Thinking and Listening and Talking About Race

I've been spending some time and thought on President Obama's remarks Friday regarding the verdict in the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case.  As you know, Zimmerman was found not guilty of second degree murder (and a lesser manslaughter charge) in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin last February; the decision has sparked rallies and protests and much hand wringing by folks left, right and center.

Obama's comments were heartfelt, non-TelePrompTer-ed, and came as a complete surprise to everyone in the press room on Friday. (You can watch the video and access the transcript here). My sense is he was speaking not as the President but as a black man, as a father, and I think most importantly as someone who remains hopeful about how America deals with race. He was, as openly and humanly as possible, trying to explain to all of us why African Americans think the way they do about this verdict.

Being of primarily European descent (English, Scots, French, Welsh, Dutch) with a (very) little Native American thrown in on my Mom's side, I'm a mutt - a white mutt with no particular ties to any of my ancestral lines. Truth be told, I probably identify more as a Syracusan, a New Yorker, and a Boston Red Sox fan than I do any of my mixed ancestry. Although, there IS a castle in Scotland that has my name written all over it...

Me being a white female has given me a totally different experience that than of the President, his family, and others who identify as African-American. I can intellectually understand what it might be like to experience what he and other blacks encounter, but I can't imagine it viscerally, as they must:

There are very few African-American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me.

And there are very few African-American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me, at least before I was a senator. There are very few African-Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off. That happens often.

He noted that those experiences (and our history) 'inform' the African-American community and their opinions on this case and others where racism might be - or actually is - involved.

And you know, I don’t want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African-American community interprets what happened one night in Florida. And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear. The African-American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws, everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws. And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

There are informing experiences on both sides, and the President touched on this in his remarks as well, with references to statistics on young blacks and crime, although his comments on that are tempered by the 'informing':

Now, this isn’t to say that the African-American community is naive about the fact that African-American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system, that they are disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence. It’s not to make excuses for that fact, although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context.

(That was in part what informed George Zimmerman's opinion of Trayvon Martin, if we are to  believe his story.)

It’s not to make excuses for that fact, although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context.

We understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

(Much of the violence doesn't have historical connotations - Obama himself makes this point a little further on in his remarks.)

I think the African-American community is also not naive in understanding that statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was probably statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else.

(I said this before and I'll say it again: this is a real tragedy.)

And the fact that a lot of African-American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African-American boys are more violent -- using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.  

So -- so folks understand the challenges that exist for African- American boys, but they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it or -- and that context is being denied. 

I have to admit I struggle with constantly using history as the driver of one's viewpoint. I think that it's a tactic that does 'excuse' behavior that shouldn't be excused by something that happened 50, 100, 150 years ago. In my opinion, most of the crime happening today has nothing to do with how our forefathers several generations back treated each other, or the civil rights movement or the brutality of the Sixties or anything else. Ask anyone who's arrested of a crime these days and I bet none of those issues will come up in conversation.

And while I don't deny there is sometimes a place for historical context, we risk perpetuating what's happening today if we continue to focus so much on the past. I think it's over-used in many cases, particularly by those who choose (or have been chosen) to speak for the African-American community as a whole, who see racism behind every act and action, lurking around every corner.

And if you see racism everywhere, and paint every difficult decision or unpleasant outcome as being race-related, aren't you using the same broad brush you accuse the racists of using? And aren't you then denying what informs the other side's experience?

Obama mentioned a few things he's batting around with his staff, action items or discussion points if you will, while realizing at the same time the inherent risks of having politicians or the federal government try and solve what it ultimately a societal issue. 

There was this, which I am sure will make some people's skin crawl:

We need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African-American boys... There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement. And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?

Why? Because "all we need" is another social program, "all we need" is to throw more money at this problem, "all we need" is to keep trying to make people behave the way they should already be behaving, and "all we need" is to expand the Nanny State, and on and on and on. For conservatives, this must have gone over like fingernails on a chalkboard.

And there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front. And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African-American men feel that they’re a full part of this society and that -- and that they’ve got pathways and avenues to succeed -- you know, I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic situation. And we’re going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that. 

Two things on this point. First, I've already done what he's talking about. I did it in the context of violence not race, but it's the same concept. I hope it made a difference, although I'll never know. 

Second, I've got to be honest, even as a moderate, it's hard not to think we have enough social programs.  Is the issue that we just don't have enough people taking accountability and responsibility for parenting their children, for making sure their kids get an education, for teaching them self-respect and to respect others, to take the high road instead of the easy path of crime and violence?

And it's also hard not to think we already have enough young black men out there now who think the 'pathways and avenues to succeed' only run through athletic and celebrity venues, and who think the lifestyle they see in music videos and reality shows is the right aspiration to have - particularly the degrading way women are portrayed in that lifestyle.

Who is responsible for that failure? White America? The African-American community? Athletes and celebrities who glorify that behavior? Poverty? Our difficult and violent history?

Is it really on all of us, because of what happened decades before? I'm not sure.

In the end, I hope that President Obama's comments do get people thinking.

...at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can; am I judging people, as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin but the content of their character? That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy...

And so, you know, we have to be vigilant and we have to work on these issues, and those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our nature as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions.

But we should also have confidence that kids these days I think have more sense than we did back then, and certainly more than our parents did or our grandparents did, and that along this long, difficult journey, you know, we’re becoming a more perfect union -- not a perfect union, but a more perfect union.

And, he did. Zimmerman 'Walks'.

The girls walking up Salina Street in Syracuse were right. Not surprisingly, George Zimmerman was found not guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter in the killing of Trayvon Martin, after the six women deliberated for just over sixteen hours.

This case was never a slam-dunk in my mind; I'm not convinced that a guilty verdict on any charge would have been fair, and that's sad given that a teenager is dead and another young man has had his life turned on its head.

Zimmerman killed Martin; of that there is no doubt. The two obviously fought; of that there is no doubt.  I wasn't there in February 2012 (nor was anyone else), but it seems reasonable to think a person in that situation may feel the need to act in self defense, and absent actual witnesses to the  situation, it's hard to dispute that. And, from what I've read, there was plenty of reasonable doubt, and when you're on a jury and that's the case, your only option is not guilty -- even if you think the person IS guilty of the crimes with which they're charged.

But from a distance (and that's where we ALL should be speaking from, because we were not there), I have lots of questions.

Why was the second-degree murder charge lodged? Only in some bizzaro-world would anyone think that  Zimmerman acted with "a depraved mind without regard for human life" in this case.  He may have acted stupidly by putting himself into a circumstance where the fight was the outcome, but 'depravity' is a pretty strong legal term:

The condition of mind described as depravity of mind is characterized by an inherent deficiency of moral sense and integrity. It consists of evil, corrupt and perverted intent which is devoid of regard for human dignity and which is indifferent to human life. It is a state of mind outrageously horrible or inhuman. 

Charles Manson is depraved. The Boston Strangler was depraved. Ted Bundy. The nut in Cleveland. The criminal history of this country is filled with depraved people, but Zimmerman doesn't deserve the charge.

Why did Zimmerman follow Martin in the first place, after making the 911 call? Why did he engage Martin, get into the fight in the first place?  I recall early reports from a year ago that there were a lot of burglaries in the community where Zimmerman lived, but as Neighborhood Watch 'captain', would the better decision have been to notify other members of the community (or at least other members of the Watch group) that there was a stranger in the 'hood and to keep an eye out, rather than to follow the person?

Had Trayvon been white and all else been equal, would we have heard anything about this case? I believe the answer to that is no. This case made news because a black teen was killed by a 'white' man, even though Zimmerman is part Hispanic. Oh, there may have been a small mention in the national media, but that would have been it. There would have been no reporters asking the President what he thought about the case. There would have been no firing of the police chief who initially opted not to press charges. There would have been no protests (from either side).

There would have been no outrage, just as there would have been zero outrage if both Martin and Zimmerman were black, because no one -- certainly not the media, and not Al Sharpton -- cares about black on black crime.  The next time there's a murder in the black community in ANY city -- mine, or yours or any other, I'd love to see a reporter call the White House and ask for the President's opinion. In fact, I'd like that to happen every time anyone is murdered - black, white, gay, straight, citizen or undocumented immigrant -- because if every life matters, we have to act like it and be equally outraged as people were with this case.

However -- had Zimmerman been a black man, and Trayvon a slightly stoned white teen armed only with Skittles and a cell phone wandering through a neighborhood, there would certainly have been an outrage, and it would have been on the news, and the trial would have been televised, trust me. The most likely difference in that situation is the verdict, I'm guessing, and I'm embarrassed to say that.

Had the weapon of choice been a bathtub or a knife or a hammer or a donut or a playground or a swimming pool or a soccer game or any of those other weapons we hear about, would we have paid any attention to this case? Of course not. Other than the racial component, the reason we know George Zimmerman's name is because he shot Trayvon Martin, and because Florida has a 'Stand Your Ground' law which says it's OK to act with deadly force in self-defense.

What we can't lose sight of, though, is that in many jurisdictions outside Florida, a person can claim they acted in self-defense, and 'get away with' killing someone -- the police don't have to arrest, prosecutors don't have to bring charges, and juries don't need to convict if they think it was self-defense. 

Is this whole thing sad? Sure, it's sad. One person is dead, and the lives of many others will never be the same. Was justice served?  I think for George Zimmerman, it was, but certainly not for Trayvon Martin.

We've got lots of opportunity to learn from this case, I think. Of course, that would require a willingness to learn.

What do you think?