Datasets:

amanrangapur

/

Fin-Fact

like 7

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/medicare-hospitals-covid-patients/

Are Doctors and Hospitals Paid More for COVID-19 Patients?

Bethania Palma

04/17/2020

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In mid-April 2020, social media users shared a meme implying that hospitals had a financial incentive to inflate the number of COVID-19 patients they were admitting in the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic. The meme contained red text that said, "So, hospitals get an extra $13,000 if they diagnose a death as COVID-19 and an additional $39,000 if they use a ventilator!" and prompted readers to ask Snopes.com to verify whether the statement is true:The idea that hospitals are getting paid $13,000 for patients with COVID-19 diagnoses and $39,000 more if those patients are placed on ventilators appears to have originated with an interview given on the Fox News prime-time program "Ingraham Angle" by Dr. Scott Jensen, a physician who also serves as a Republican state senator in Minnesota. During the April 9, 2020 interview, Jensen suggested to host Laura Ingraham that he believed the number of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. was being artificially inflated. "The idea that were going to allow people to massage and sort of game the numbers is a real issue because were going to undermine the (public) trust," he said. interview suggested Ingraham then played footage from a press conference with comments from Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in which Fauci called claims that the number of coronavirus cases are being "padded" a conspiracy theory. In an exchange that followed, Jensen suggested that Medicare, the national health care plan for the elderly, was paying hospitals set amounts for each patient diagnosed and treated for COVID-19: INGRAHAM: Dr. Fauci was asked about the COVID death count today. Here's what he said, in part. [Cut to briefing] REPORTER: What do you say to those folks who are making the claim without really any evidence that these deaths are being padded, that the number of COVID-19 deaths are being padded? FAUCI: You will always have conspiracy theories when you have very challenging public health crises. They are nothing but distractions. [Cut back to Ingraham] INGRAHAM: Conspiracy theories, doctor? So you're engaging in conspiracy theories. What do you say to Dr. Fauci tonight? JENSEN: Well I would remind him that any time health care intersects with dollars it gets awkward. Right now Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital, you'll get paid $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000, three times as much. Nobody can tell me after 35 years in the world of medicine that sometimes those kinds of things impact on what we do. We attempted to reach Jensen by phone and email, but did not get a response in time for publication. We also reached out to the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to ask whether the statement that Medicare was paying hospitals $13,000 and $39,000, respectively, for patients admitted with COVID-19 diagnoses and patients with the disease who are placed on ventilators. A spokesperson for CMS told us that whether hospitals are paid by Medicare for care of a COVID-19 patient would depend on whether that patient was covered by Medicare insurance. CMS also told us there is no set or predetermined amount paid to hospitals for diagnosing and treating COVID-19 patients, and the amounts would depend on a variety of factors driven by the needs of each patient. Pay-outs would also depend on the variance of the costs of medical care in different regions. The closest match for the numbers cited by Jensen we could locate was in an April 7, 2020, article published by the health care nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. As a starting point to estimate how much hospitals might get paid by the federal government for treating uninsured COVID-19 patients, the article used average payments for hospital admissions for similar conditions in 2017: article For less severe hospitalizations, we use the average Medicare payment for respiratory infections and inflammations with major comorbidities or complications in 2017, which was $13,297. For more severe hospitalizations, we use the average Medicare payment for a respiratory system diagnosis with ventilator support for greater than 96 hours, which was $40,218. But while these industry estimates are similar to the numbers Jensen cited, they do not represent actual Medicare payments to hospitals for COVID-19 diagnoses or treatment, or even a national average of such payments. We therefore rate this claim "Mixture." While it seems plausible that Medicare disbursements to hospitals treating COVID-19 patients could be in the range given by Jensen in the Fox News interview (if those patients are covered by Medicare), we found no evidence to support Jensen's assertion that "Medicare has determined" that hospitals will be paid $13,000 for patients with COVID-19 diagnoses or $39,000 for COVID-19 patients place on ventilators. Gillum, Jack, et al."Theres Been a Spike in People Dying at Home in Several Cities. That Suggests Coronavirus Deaths Are Higher Than Reported." ProPublica.14 April 2020. WNBC TV."Massive Spike in NYC Cardiac Arrest Deaths Seen as Sign of COVID-19 Undercounting." 10 April 2020. Brown, Emma, et al."Which Deaths Count Toward the COVID-19 Death Toll? It Depends on the State." The Washington Post.16 April 2020. Levitt, Larry, et al."Estimated Cost of Treating the Uninsured Hospitalized with COVID-19." Kaiser Family Foundation.7 April 2020. Fox News."Dr. Jensen Calls Out 'Ridiculous' CDC Guidelines for Coronavirus-Related Deaths." 9 April 2020.

neutral

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2010/nov/21/bob-wirch/state-sen-bob-wirch-says-it-costs-wisconsin-taxpay/

Over the course of one four-year term, it costs taxpayers more than $1 million simply to operate the governors mansion.

Tom Kertscher

11/21/2010

The governors mansion -- a kingly abode for the governor and his family, right?Dont think like a peasant. It isso much more.Executive residences, as the National Governors Associationcalls them, are regarded as an important symbol of the states culture and heritage. As state treasures, executive residences provide an appropriate setting for official state entertaining and are often highly valued as a venue for community functions.Oh.The NGA goes on:Given the critical role executive residences play in official state and cultural activities, considerable care is required in managing, staffing and maintaining the executive residence.Gee, sounds like that could get kinda expensive. Just how much does it cost taxpayers to run the Wisconsin governors mansion -- ahem,executive residence?Too much, says state Sen.Bob Wirch, a Democrat from Pleasant Prairie in Kenosha County. Echoingacallhe made in 2002, when Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle was elected, Wirch wants Republican Governor-elect Scott Walker to sell or lease the 34-room manor.Over the course of one four-year term, Wirch claimed in anewsreleaseNov. 15, 2010, it costs taxpayers more than $1 million simply to operate.Wirch also noted Walkers owncall tocitizensfor ideas on how to make state government run more efficiently. After all, with astructural deficit, lost revenue because of a state Supreme Courtdecisionand other issues, the new governor faces a projected shortfall of$3billionfor the 2011-13 budget.It is hard to set a good example, Wirch said in his statement, if you are living in a mansion.Walker, who will beinauguratedJan. 3, 2011, plans to move with his family from Wauwatosa into the residence, said his spokesman, Cullen Werwie.He said Walker has no comment on Wirchs recommendation to sell or lease the mansion, which is perched on the shores of Lake Mendota.The homes replacement value is $1.63 million, according to the state Department of Administration. But Wirch believes that with its 3.7 acres of land, the estate is worth more than $2.5 million.Perhaps, like us, youve never been to the mansion (although you can see it inpictures).Well, according to the Department of Administration, the state Historical Society and the office of first lady Jessica Doyle, it: Nice. So, who takes care of it?Seven employees, according to Vicki Heymann, the mansions residence director. Full-timers include Heymann, a chef, a gardener and a facilities maintenance specialist. The part-timers are a housekeeper, a laundress and flower arranger, and the head of the waitstaff, who has worked at the mansion for more than 32 years.OK, now lets get to Wirchs claim that operating the mansion costs more than $1 million during a four-year term.Wirchs office said the state Legislative Fiscal Bureau put the operating costs at $265,000 per year. That would come to $1.06 million over four years.The senators per-year number is a touch high, but his four-year figure of more than $1 million is on target.The fiscal bureau told PolitiFact Wisconsin that the mansions operating expenses are budgeted at $262,500 in 2009-10 and the same amount for 2010-11, nearly all of which is salaries. Thats a total of $1.05 million over four years.In fact, actual expenditures are running higher, according to the state Department of Administration. They were $290,462 in 2008-09 and $273,340 in 2009-10. If that were carried out over four years, the total would be $1.13 million.Wisconsin is one of 44 states that provided a governors residence as of 2004, according to the most recentsurveydone by the National Governors Association.Heres how three of the other six treat their governors: OK, lets bring all this mansion talk home.In calling on Governor-elect Scott Walker to save taxpayer dollars, state Sen. Bob Wirch said selling or leasing the governors mansion would enable the state to cut more than $1 million over four years on the cost of operating the mansion. Based on the latest budget and expenditure figures, the operating costs do exceed $1 million over four years.We rate Wirchs statement True.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jun/26/barack-obama/obama-blasts-gop-senate-bill-tax-cut-rich-health-c/

The Senate bill hands enormous tax cuts to the rich and to the drug and insurance industries, paid for by cutting health care for everybody else.

John Kruzel

06/26/2017

Former President Barack Obama has maintained a low profile since leaving the White House, but recently he took to Facebook to blast a Senate health care bill that threatens to dismantle much of the Affordable Care Act, his signature legislative achievement. The Senate bill hands enormous tax cuts to the rich and to the drug and insurance industries, paid for by cutting health care for everybody else, Obama wrote in a Facebookpost. We decided to look into the former presidents claim about the budgetary effects of the Senate Republican plan that repeals or reworks much of the ACA, also known as Obamacare. Obama is right that the Senate bill contains a tax cut for wealthy Americans and medical-related businesses. The Congressional Budget Office has yet to put a number on the Senate bills tax cut. But the amount will likely be in the same ballpark as its scoring of the House bill, which cut taxes by about $1 trillion over 10 years, with high-income households and the health care industry gaining most of those benefits, according to the Tax Policy Center. The Senate bill repeals Affordable Care Act taxes that levy a 3.8 percent fee on investment income, as well as a tax on individuals making $200,000 or more ($250,000 for couples). The bill also eliminates ACA taxes that target health insurers, and makers of prescription drugs and medical devices. We should also note that middle- and lower-income consumers would likely see benefits from tax cuts in the form of lower prices and reduced fees on health savings accounts, as we pointed out inan earlier check of a House version of the bill. Obama is correct that tax cuts would be offset by cutting spending on health care. But its a stretch to sayeverybodyshealth care would suffer, when whats on the chopping block is federal funding for lower-income Americans. In the individual market, the Senate bill changes the formula for calculating how much help the federal government gives lower-income Americans to buy insurance. Compared with the Obamacare formula, the Senate GOP version would amount to a15 percent across-the-board cutin premium subsidies, andresult inlow-income people paying higher premiums for bigger deductibles, according to Larry Levitt, senior vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care think tank. Starting in 2020, the Senate bill also repeals Obamacares cost-sharing subsidies that help lower-income Americans defray the cost of deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses. But the biggest cut in federal spending comes out of Medicaid, by changing the share carried by the federal government, relative to states. The Senate bill converts federal Medicaid funding to a per capita cap starting in 2020, placing a ceiling on the amount of funding a state gets per enrollee. Alternatively, states could opt for a block grant, a fixed amount of federal funds. Under either approach, the federal government would provide less to states than under Obamacare. Separately, starting in 2021, the Senate bill begins a three-year phase out of enhanced funding given to the 31 states (plus Washington, D.C.) that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare. As we noted in aprevious check of the House bill, reducing this funding would likely cause states to end expansion. This graphic from the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a side-by-side illustration of Obamas claim that Republicans are rewarding wealthy Americans through a health care cut. The yellow bar shows $33 billion going to the top 400 highest-income households as a result of repealing the Obamacare tax cuts. The red bar shows how removing $33 billion in revenue translates to cutting off funding for Medicaid expansion population of four statesAlaska, Arkansas, West Virginia and Nevada. (Note: This graphic is based on the CBOs earlier score of the House version, which will likely differ from its score of the Senate). Obama said that the Senate bill hands enormous tax cuts to the rich and to the drug and insurance industries, paid for by cutting health care for everybody else. The Senate bill does give a tax cut to wealthy Americans and medical-related industry. Assuming a budget analysis of the Senate bill is similar to that of the House version, the tax cut will be to the tune of $1 trillion. Its a bit hyperbolic to say everybodys health care would be cut to finance the tax cut; its mostly lower-income people who lose out as a direct result of the bill. Hes right that the Senate bill would deliver a tax cut as it reduces the amount of federal funding lower-income Americans would get to help buy insurance. The bill would also repeal funding to defray deductibles and out-of-pocket costs for those eligible. It also lessens the share of Medicaid funding carried by the federal government, relative to states. We rate Obamas statement Mostly True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/man-head-stuck-wife/

Was a Couple Hospitalized After a Man Got His Head Stuck in His Wife's Vagina?

Dan Evon

09/18/2017

Entertainment web site World News Daily Report has put out more than its fair share of fake news articles over the years. Although its stories touch on a variety of topics, the web site frequently focuses on genitalia-based horror, publishing dubious stories about a babysitter inserting a baby into her vagina, a woman training squirrels to attack her boyfriend's testicles, and a man who was castrated after attempting to have sex with a pit bull terrier. fake news babysitter training castrated The site added another article to this category on 14 September 2017, when it published a story reporting that a couple had been hospitalized after a man got his head stuck in his wife's vagina: published A couple was transported to the hospital in a very awkward position last night after a man somehow got his head stuck in his wifes vagina during a strange sexual game. Tom and Janis Morrison, a young couple from the small town of Greensboro in Alabama, called 911 around 10:00 pm last night to ask for an ambulance. There is, as usual, no truth to this story; as explained, WNDR is a well-known fake news site with a long history of publishing hoaxes. A disclaimer on the web site reads: fake news World News Daily Report assumes all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content. All characters appearing in the articles in this website even those based on real people are entirely fictional and any resemblance between them and any person, living, dead or undead, is purely a miracle. The article about a man getting his head stuck in his wife's vagina was reproduced by several lesser known (but equally disreputable) web sites, such as Pagez.com, which do not carry readily available disclaimers. As a result, some readers mistook this article as a genuine news item. Pagez.com mistook

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-taco-bell-financial-backer-moore/

Is Taco Bell Roy Moore's Main Financial Backer?

Kim LaCapria

11/29/2017

In November 2017, calls for a boycott of Taco Bell spread on Facebook, claiming that the fast food chain was the financing the Senate run of embattled Alabama politician Roy Moore: Roy Moore One group post read: group post After finding out that Taco Bell's a major supporter for Roy Moore, I Googled their corporate office contact info and created a screenshot of it. Feel free to call, fax, tweet and email them that you're going to boycott their restaurants until they withdraw their support for this pedophile. A 27 November 2017 Daily Beast article reported that newly accessed records had revealed that one of Moore's donors is a businessman named Peter Nicholas. According to reports, an unknown number of Taco Bell franchises are among Nicholas' ventures: article Newly released documents show Illinois businessman Richard Uihlein is the moneyman behind a group seeking to send Moore to the Senate The chief financier of a leading pro-Roy Moore super PAC is a deep-pocketed Republican businessman who dropped eight figures on 2016 races alone and is looking to continue propping up the partys most conservative candidates. Illinois businessman Richard Uihlein provided $100,000 to the group, Proven Conservatives PAC, since September, according to a new filing with the Federal Election Commission, making him by far the groups top donor. That money, which hadnt been previously disclosed, has financed a host of ads boosting Moores candidacy in the face of widespread sexual assault and harassment allegations. The group has also run ads attacking Moores primary opponent, Sen. Luther Strange (R-AL), and his Democratic general election rival Doug Jones. Proven Conservative PAC officially formed in late August, as the Alabama Senate primary contest heated up. The only major financial support it had previously reported came from a company owned by the family of Alabama timber executive Guice Slawson. In addition to Uihlein, Proven Conservative received money in September from Peter Nicholas, a Florida-based businessman whose chain of Taco Bell franchises has also donated to the campaign of Omar Navarro, a quixotic Republican challenger to California Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters. Taco Bell is under the ownership of parent company Yum! Brands, which does donate to political candidates but which does not appear to have donated to Moore's campaign: Yum! Brands donated Nicholas is not the owner of either Taco Bell or Yum! Brands; according to reports, he only owns Taco Bell franchises in Florida. How many and which franchises is not immediately apparent, but the majority of Taco Bells are neither owned nor operated by Nicholas. Calls for a boycott or an appeal to the chain's corporate offices appear to be misguided. franchises Markay, Lachlan. "Roy Moore Super PAC Financier Finally Revealed." The Daily Beast. 27 November 2017.

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/19/abigail-spanberger/spanbergers-no-corporate-pac-pledge-needs-26-elabo/

When I ran for Congress, I promised to refuse money from corporate PACs. Ive kept that promise.

Warren Fiske

08/19/2020

Rep. Abigail Spanberger sits in a yard with her parents during aTV ad, talking about the lessons they imparted. Growing up, my parents taught me, Correct whats wrong, maintain whats right, the Virginia Democrat says. Then, Spanberger addresses something shes trying to correct: Corporate donations to political campaigns. When I ran for Congress, I promised to refuse money from corporate PACs, she says. Ive kept that promise. Spanberger is seeking a second term this fall in one of the nations most closely watched House races. Shes opposed by Republican state Del. Nick Freitas in Virginias 7th District which, prior to Spanbergers election in 2018, had a long history of voting Republican. The National Republican Campaign CommitteesaysSpanberger islyingin her ad and accepting backdoor corporate contributions. So we fact-checked Spanbergers claim that shes spurned corporate PAC contributions, and found it needs elaboration. According to herlatest filingswith the Federal Election Commission, Spanberger has raised $4.2 million in contributions since the start of 2019 through the end of June 2020. We found no money that came directly from corporations. But the NRCC has a small point. While Spanberger refuses direct corporate donations, she accepts contributions from PACs that do take corporate contributions. In other words, she receives a small amount of corporate PAC money that has been filtered. A corporate PAC is affiliated with a specific company that gathers donations from its employees and distributes it to politicians and political interest groups. Corporate funds cannot be contributed to the PAC. There are two main conduits that receive corporate PAC money and pass it on. One of the pipelines is formed by leadership PACs, which are set up bymostmembers of Congress to help candidates from their party. For example, Spanberger has received a maximum $10,000 from the Forward Together PAC, associated with Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va. Forward Together hasaccepted contributionsfrom a list of corporations, including Merck, Citigroup, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, General Electric and Altria. We counted 60 leadership PACs that have contributed to Spanbergers campaign. The second conduit is formed by ideological PACs, which are established by groups focusing on special causes, such as regulation, defense or health care. Spanberger hasreceived $651,000from PACs since the start of 2019. About $111,000 of that money filtered down from corporate PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics - a Washington nonprofit that tracks political money. The Center made its estimate by converting the percentage of money each Spanberger PAC donor received from corporations to a fraction of money it gave to her campaign. Perspective As weve said, Spanberger has raised $4.2 million since 2019 began. The $111,000 that trickled in from corporations is 2.6% of all contributions to her campaign. Sixty members of Congress - including three Republicans - have promised not to accept corporate money, according to End Citizens United, a Washington nonprofit seeking to tighten campaign finance laws. Rep. Elaine Luria, D-2nd, is the only other Virginia congress member to make the pledge. Campaign finance advocates told us theyre unaware of any incumbent who is declining both corporate and leadership PAC money. End Citizens United has endorsed Spanberger largely because of her no-corporate-money pledge and is not upset by her acceptance of leadership PAC money, according to Adam Bozzi, spokesman for the organization. Michael Beckel, research director for Issue One, another Washington non-profit seeking campaign finance reform, also told us Spanberger has been consistent. Bozzi and Beckel said direct contributions often give corporations access to politicians. They said office holders are far less likely to feel beholden to a corporation when its money has been filtered through a leadership PAC. If anything, the candidate may feel indebted to the politician whose leadership PAC contributed to his or her campaign, Beckel said. Spanberger has kept her promise to voters, Bozzi said. Sarah Bryner, research director for the Center for Responsive Politics, said its become vogue for Democrats to decline corporate PAC money, but voters should be aware. Candidates trying to remove themselves are putting themselves in an awkward position because to completely shut themselves off from corporate donations right now is impossible, she said. ...If you need money to run a political campaign, unless youre independently wealthy, youre getting money from people. And most people work for corporations. Bettina Weiss, Spanbergers campaign manager, said, Abigail does not take corporate PAC money. Full stop. She accused Republicans of waging a farcical attack on Spanbergers fundraising. Weiss noted that Spanberger cosponsored theFor the People Act of 2019, a comprehensive voting rights, campaign finance and ethics bill aimed at reducing corporate influence on Congress. The measure, with236 cosponsors, passed the House and has stalled in the Senate. A final note:PolitiFact state bureaus have recently fact-checkedtwosimilarclaims by politicians who said they have rejected corporate PAC money, but didnt factor in leadership PAC money. Both claims were rated Mostly True. Our Ruling Spanberger says shes kept her promise to refuse corporate PAC donations. Shes raised $4.2 million - none directly from corporations, although an estimated $111,000 of corporate money has come in indirectly through other PAC contributions. Thats less than 2.6% of her campaigns take, but it counts. Realizing that it may be impossible to block all traces of corporate money from a successful congressional campaign, we rate Spanbergers statement Mostly True.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/oct/17/christine-whitman/christie-whitman-says-she-left-state-more-1-billio/

The proudest accomplishment (of my tenure) was leaving the state with a $1.2 billion surplus, which was the largest wed ever had, and getting spending under control and a balanced budget.

Caryn Shinske

10/17/2011

Once upon a time, New Jersey had a surplus in the billions of dollars, according to a former governor.There were surpluses in the state budget and there were surpluses in pension funds.The proudest accomplishment (of my tenure) was leaving the state with a $1.2 billion surplus, which was the largest wed ever had, and getting spending under control and a balanced budget, former Gov. Christine Todd Whitman said in a Sept. 19 interview on NJTV.Since she is a governor who has been accused of shortchanging pension contributions to fund tax cuts, PolitiFact New Jersey decided to check her statement.David Rosen, the Legislative Budget and Finance officer for the states nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services, confirmed that Whitman left the state with a $1.2 billion surplus. And at least since 1986 the first year the states budgets are available online that surplus was the states largest, PolitiFact New Jersey found. There have been larger surpluses since she left office.As for balancing the budget? Thats not an accomplishment. State law requires it.But we questioned the part of Whitmans statement in which she said she controlled spending.Lets review some of the spending during her tenure. Whitman reduced payments to the states pension funds to balance a 30-percent income tax cut enacted after she became governor in 1994. Three years later, Whitman had the state borrow $2.75 billion to deposit in the pension funds to address that liability. The stock market at that time was doing well and the infusion helped create a surplus in the accounts -- for a while. Then the stock market took a downtown.But the pension issue wasnt the only significant debt during Whitmans tenure. She also approved an $8.6 billion school construction bill that was largely funded during the Jim McGreevey administration. Taken together, thats more than $11 billion in debt.Experts, however, told us that governmental standard accounting practices do not include debt in an annual budget.Debt is included in the states financial statements, said Richard F. Keevey, who was budget director for former Gov. Jim Florio. Keevey, who teaches public budgeting systems and federal finance at Rutgers Newark, also served as a deputy budget director and budget director for former Gov. Tom Kean.Whats included in the budget is debt service, or the amount paid toward the total debt.Rosen also noted that New Jersey and the country had a strong economy during the Whitman years, from 1994 to Jan. 31, 2001. Whitman left office in the middle of her second gubernatorial term to become administrator at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, DC.We were certainly in a surplus position as was the federal government, Rosen said. Nationally the economy was doing very well and governments generally were doing quite well. Most states had large surpluses, the federal government was in surplus and New Jersey was as well.James DiEleuterio, who was state treasurer from 1994 to 1997, said in an email that Whitman controlled spending by reviewing each of the 32,000 line items in the state budget, cutting unnecessary expenses, streamlining operations and cutting the states payroll by 5,000. He also cited the 30 percent tax cut and changes in tax policy that he said improved the states economic climate.Finally, I want to ensure it is clear that Governor Whitman's surplus was not funded by pension funds, DiEleuterio wrote. Her tax cuts, and subsequent surplus, were funded the only way they should be: with true spending cuts and a balanced budget.Our rulingWhitman says her proudest accomplishment as governor was leaving the state with a more than $1 billion surplus, controlling spending and balancing the budget. Her surplus number is accurate, and two financial experts tell us that basic government accounting principles do not include debt in budgets. Whitmans former treasurer also claims the governor made traditional spending cuts during her tenure. But how is skipping payments to pension funds controlling spending if those and other bills arent being paid in full, or are being deferred to later administrations? We rate Whitmans claim Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/mar/02/kip-kendrick/kendrick-mostly-right-about-reduced-corporate-tax-/

Corporate entities are paying a lot less taxes this year than they have in the past. Part of that is from a loophole in a bill that was passed in 2015.

Jen Para

03/02/2017

Many Missouri lawmakers are worried about the estimated $456 million budget gap for fiscal year 2018. By law, thegovernment cannot approve an unbalanced budget. Although the state has made some cuts, more work still needs to be done. That has lawmakers looking for answers as to why state revenues have dropped. Rep. Kip Kendrick, D-Columbia, was interviewed by KMIZ's Joey Parker on This Week, on Jan. 20. Kendrick stated why he believes the budget gap is so large. If you look at the budget right now, income tax collection is right where it was projected, the same with sales tax collection, he said. What is down significantly is corporate income tax collection. Corporate entities are paying a lot less taxes this year than they have in the past. Part of that is from a loophole in a bill that was passed in 2015, but it is also some special interest tax cuts that we keep giving out over and over, and it has made it all but impossible to fund our states priorities. We wanted to check out Kendricks claim that corporate entities are paying a lot less in taxes and if they are, why? Budgeted vs. actual revenues The first half of Kendricks statement is easy to verify. Overall, the state of Missouri collected less corporate income taxes and about the same amount of individual income tax and sales tax when comparing the collected year-to-date revenue from Fiscal Year 2016 to 2017. According to the latest monthly general revenue report released Feb. 2from the Office of Administration Division of Budget and Planning, individual income tax and sales tax both grew around 3 percent. However, corporate tax income collections are significantly down compared to last year. In FY 2016, the state collected about $272 million. In FY 2017, it collected only $193 million, which is a 29 percent decrease or about $78 million less. Source: Missouri Office of Administration/Division of Budget & Planning Note that these are collections year-to-date, comparing the collections as of Jan. 31 for FY 2016 to FY 2017. The fiscal year for 2017 runs until June 30, so we wont know the full accounting until then. Corporate tax income from the tax deadline on April 18 could make up the difference. However, evenGov. Greitens proposed FY 2018 budget, which still has to be approved by the Missouri legislature, projected a $97 million decrease in corporate tax income for FY 2017. So what we do know supports Kendricks point: Income tax collection is right where is was projected, the same with sales tax collection. What is down significantly is corporate income tax collection. Missouri business climate The second half of his claim is trickier to pin down: Corporate entities are paying a lot less taxes this year than they have in the past. Part of that is from a loophole in a bill that was passed in 2015, but it is also some special interest tax cuts that we keep giving out over and over, and it has made it all but impossible to fund our states priorities. First, is there another explanation as to why the corporate tax collections are low? There could be fewer businesses in the state, or these businesses could have generated less income. The Missouri Department of Economic Development tracks the number of businesses in the state. Because the 2016 data are only available through the third quarter, the department provided data in an email for the third quarters in 2014, 2015 and 2016 to compare. According to the department, the numbers are counts of establishments, or individual locations, which is the same measure on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website. This means that instead of counting Wal-mart once, the data reports individual Wal-mart establishment. In 2014 there were 185,634 establishments; in 2015, there were 192,108 establishments; and in 2016, there were 193,695 establishments. So the number of businesses increased, if only slightly. So are businesses in Missouri not doing well? Do they have less taxable income? Both Chuck Pierce, the government relations consultant for the Missouri Society of Certified Public Accountants, and Tracy King, the vice president of governmental affairs at the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, said that corporate income can vary from year to year due to the cyclical nature of the economy. Profits can be reduced by a recession. However, Tom Kruckemeyer, the chief economist for the liberal think tank Missouri Budget Project, said the state economy is doing reasonably well. Broadly speaking, the economic indicators for the state of Missouri are actually pretty good, Kruckemeyer said. One economic indicator is the unemployment rate. According to the numbers release Jan. 24 fromU.S. Department of Labor Statistics, Missouris seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is 4.4 percent, compared to the national rate of 4.7 percent. And over the past few years, theMissouri and national unemployment rates have dropped. The2016 Missouri Economic Reportproduced by the Missouri Department of Economic Development found that 50,000 jobs were added in Missouri between December 2014 and December 2015. This is the largest year-over-year growth in 10 years. The report also stated that Missouris personal income increased 2 percent in 2015 and has averaged an increase of 1.8 percent from 2010 through 2015. Overall, these numbers show that Missouris economy is doing fine, so corporate entities must be paying less taxes due to tax cuts as Kendrick claims. Taxing corporations In the KMIZ interview, Kendrick said there was a loophole in a bill passed in 2015 that caused corporations to pay less taxes. Kendrick, in an interview with PolitiFact, said thebill he was referring to was Senate Bill 19, which changed the way corporate income tax was allocated for multi-state corporations. The bill expandedHouse Bill 128, passed in 2013. Before SB 19 was passed, King, of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce, said Missouri taxed 50 percent of any goods produced in the state and sold in another state, so these businesses were double taxed. She said that businesses were moving out of the state and taking jobs because of this tax. Thanks to SB 19, Missouri no longer taxes the production of goods sold out of state. In the fiscal notes for SB 19, theestimated cost of the law was $15.2 million per year. However, Kendrick said the new estimate of the bills effect on the states revenue is a drop of $200 million, which other legislators confirmed. Rep. T.J. Berry, R-Kansas City, said he also heard the bill reduced tax collections by $200 million.And in a Jan. 24 House debate, Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City, said a corporate allocable tax bill passed two years ago cost the state $200 million. The Department of Revenue has not responded to PolitiFacts inquiries for how much SB 19 affected the revenue collections. A few tax authorities have said this bill has played a part in the decrease of corporate income tax revenues. Kruckemeyer said the combination of HB 128 and SB 19 were the primary causes of the low corporate income tax collections because they were explicit changes in tax law. However, Ray McCarty, president of Associated Industries of Missouri, said SB 19 did lower collections but cautioned that corporate income tax revenue is only a few million dollars out of multi-billion dollar revenue collection. He stressed that there may be other factors at play, including above average tax refunds and other legislation. Our Ruling Kendrick said, Corporate entities are paying less taxes this year. Part of that is from a loophole in a bill that was passed in 2015. There hasnt been a decrease in businesses, and the Missouri economy is doing well as indicated by various economic data. So corporations must be paying less taxes though experts can argue about which tax cuts and other factors are behind Missouris lower corporate income tax collections. However, we dont have the complete numbers of corporate tax collections because the fiscal year doesnt end until June 30. With that caveat, we rate this claim as Mostly True.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/nov/26/dennis-kucinich/dennis-kucinich-says-tax-code-effectively-subsidiz/

Says the tax code is effectively subsidizing the marketing efforts of fast food and junk food companies by as much as $19 billion over 10 years.

Tom Feran

11/26/2012

Dennis Kucinich became a lame-duck member of Congress after the 10th District he has represented since 1997 was redrawn out of existence and he lost a primary contest to another sitting Democrat, Marcy Kaptur, in the new Ohio 9th District.But Kucinich has not stopped working on the issues that have engaged him.He issued a news release and video on Nov. 2 supporting HR 4310, the bill he introduced to end the childhood obesity subsidy.Congress -- with your tax dollars -- subsidizes the marketing efforts of fast food and junk food companies by as much as $19 billion over 10 years, thereby subsidizing the childhood obesity epidemic, he said.Do fast food and junk food companies really enjoy an advertising subsidy? PolitiFact Ohio decided to dig in.Kucinich builds his case first by noting that childhood obesity -- which has more than tripled in the past 30 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -- has been linked to the influence of targeted marketing, though partial blame does lie with a more sedentary lifestyle and a worsening diet.He cites several prominent studies in support, with the most recent study coming from the Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences. It says: Aggressive marketing of high-calorie foods to children and adolescents has been identified as one of the major contributors to childhood obesity. (Others with the same conclusion included the American Heart Association, the American Journal of Public Health and the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University.) Kucinich's bill would prohibit any company from claiming a tax deduction for the expense of marketing that is directed at children to promote the consumption of food at fast food restaurants or of food of poor nutritional quality.Under current law, fast food marketers get the same break that other businesses do. The federal tax code allows companies to deduct reasonable and necessary expenses of marketing and advertising from their income taxes.How is that a subsidy?The way the federal funding system works, Kucinich said, is that if we give a tax break in one place, we need to replace that lost income from somewhere else, like with higher taxes from the rest of us. In other words, this tax break is a massive subsidy for the junk food and fast food industry.The question then is how much the deduction, or tax break, is worth.According to a report to Congress from the Federal Trade Commission, the most recent we could find, the fast food industry spent nearly $2 billion in 2006 on marketing and advertising specifically aimed at children. That would yield about $700 million in tax revenue at the top corporate tax rate of 35 percent.A report in the New England Journal of Medicine put the marketing budgets for kids' foods at $10 billion annually -- which would yield $3.5 billion in revenue.A study in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity said it It is unclear how much money is spent on food advertising specifically directed at children and adolescents, but put the total for advertising, youth-targeted promotions and public relations and packaging especially designed for children at $10.5 billion.The Economic Policy Institute estimated 10-year tax savings of $15 billion through legislation to end subsidies for junk and fast food advertising to children to promote health.Kucinich relied on Congress nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, which estimated on a very preliminary basis that his legislation could raise $15 billion to $19 billion in additional federal revenue over the 10-year budget period.That is as much as $19 billion, as Kucinich asserted, though the committee also noted that unsettled issues surrounding his bill would affect its impact and the revenue it would raise. Those issues primarily include defining fast food and determining what advertising is primarily directed at children.What's our take-home?PolitiFact examined Kucinich's legislation two years ago, when he made a statement about it that we found relied too firmly on a high-end estimate of its potential tax saving and implied a direct cash payout by taxpayers to the food industry. He chose his words more carefully this time.His assertion that the tax code provides a subsidy of as much as $19 billion needs additional information for clarification, but it is well supported.On the Truth-O-Meter, his claim rates Mostly True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fawn-bobcat-fire/

Were This Fawn and Bobcat Found Huddled Together After a California Wildfire?

Dan Evon

11/16/2018

As California dealt with the deadliest wildfire in the state's history in November 2018, a number of social media users encountered an image that supposedly showed a "fawn and bobcat cub found under a desk in office build after California forest fire rolled through": showed Although this photograph was often presented as if it were taken during the deadly Camp Fire in November 2018, it was actually several years old by that time. Furthermore, the claim that the fawn and bobcat were "found" under a desk during a fire isn't exactly accurate. This photograph was taken in May 2009 at a facility run by the non-profit Animal Rescue Team during the Jesusita wildfire near Santa Barbara, California. Julia Di Sieno, the co-founder and Director of Animal Rescue Team, said that the bobcat and the fawn were rescued at different times and locations. In other words, they were not "found" huddled together under a desk during the fire. Discovery.com reported that while animals of different species are typically kept in separate areas, rescue workers were swamped in the aftermath of the fire and didn't have many options for housing these animals: reported Di Sieno helped rescue the bobcat kitten in the photo a week before, near Arnold Schwarzeneggers Ranch, where it was dehydrated and near death. Di Sieno nurtured it back to health. They rescued the fawn during last week's wildfire. Although wild animals, especially of separate species, are never placed together due to regulations, in this emergency situation, they had no choice. During the mayhem of the fire, they were forced to put animals anywhere they could, since they had run out of crates large enough for the fawn. The kitten ran to the fawn, and it was instant bonding. Most wildlife knows instinctively to flee fires - to fly away, burrow, or run - but some dont make it out in time. Rescue workers walk near the fire line with nets, searching for any injured animals or young separated from their parents. Burn victims go to the local care hospital, says Di Sieno. We rescued bunnies, squirrels, two fawns. Weve rescued I dont know how many geese, chickens ducks, cats, birds, turkeys, and a baby owl and a baby raptor. Discovery.com. "Jesusita Wildfire Animal Rescue." 18 May 2009.

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/aug/07/john-kasich/kasich-i-took-state-ohio-8-billion-hole-2-billion-/

I took the state of Ohio from an $8 billion hole to a $2 billion surplus.

Louis Jacobson

08/06/2015

During the Republican presidential debate on his home turf of Cleveland, Ohio Gov. John Kasich touted his economic record in the state. Repeating a claim he has often made --including on his campaign website-- Kasich said, I took the state of Ohio from an $8 billion hole to a $2 billion surplus. We decided to take a closer look. An $8 billion hole? Theres an argument for $8 billion, but theres also an argument for something closer to $6 billion, according to adeep diveby the Cleveland Plain Dealer in 2011. The $8 billion figure is rounded up from a $7.7 billion gap between spending and expected revenues. It was an initial estimate from January 2011, based on the assumption made several months earlier that there would be no new revenue growth. However, revenues did grow as the economy rebounded that year, reducing the gap to between $5.9 billion to $6.1 billion -- a calculation that Kasichs budget director, Tim Keen, agreed with conceptually in a 2011 interview with the newspaper, though he took issue with some of the methodological details. Whatever the number, Kasich avoided a potential misstep when he spoke of this in the debate as a hole rather than a deficit, since Ohio, like most states, cannot run an actual budget deficit. The $8 billion gap is more accurately described as a projected shortfall rather than a deficit. A $2 billion surplus? This figure is clearer. The states Office of Budget and Managementreportedin July 2015 that the states rainy day fund had a little more than $2 billion in it, up from effectively zero when Kasich took office in 2011. Does Kasich deserve credit? Its not unreasonable to give Kasich some credit for the states improving economic fortunes -- he is a governor, after all, and he forged the states fiscal policy in concert with the Legislature. But its important to remember that he took office at the very beginning of the national economic recovery, and as the national economy has improved, so has Ohios. When Kasich was inaugurated in January 2011, the unemployment rate in Ohio was 9.2 percent -- exactly the same as the national rate. Today, the national unemployment rate is 5.3 percent and the rate in Ohio is 5.2 percent. So Kasichs timing has been fortunate. Our ruling Kasich said, I took the state of Ohio from an $8 billion hole to a $2 billion surplus. Its possible to argue over whether the initial amount should be $6 billion rather than $8 billion. But Kasich didnt pull that figure out of thin air, and it certainly was high by historical standards. He also used the term hole, which is more appropriate than deficit would have been. Meanwhile, the $2 billion figure seems solid. Still, its worth noting that Kasich spoke a little grandly when he said that I did it, since the states fiscal improvement got a big assist from the national economic recovery. The statement is accurate but needs additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gas-for-clunkers/

Clunker Math

David Mikkelson

09/13/2009

Claim: Analysis demonstrates the "Cash for Clunkers" program's gasoline savings to be an inefficient economic trade-off. false Example: [Collected via e-mail, September 2009] I guess I must be on the wrong page... A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline. A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year. So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year. They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons / year. That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels of oil is about of one day's US consumption. And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl. So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million. How good a deal was that ??? They'll probably do a great job with health care though!! Origins: In 2009, the federal government's Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), commonly known as "Cash for Clunkers," provided consumers with $3,500 or $4,500 discounts for trading in older model automobiles and purchasing new, more fuel-efficient vehicles. The analysis presented above maintains that the CARS program essentially spent $3 billion in federal (i.e., taxpayer) funds in order to save $350 million in (foreign) oil purchases, an inefficient economic trade-off. The premise that the sole purpose or benefit of the CARS program is to save money on U.S. expenditures is a rather specious one to begin with. And even within that framework,the analysis is flawed in key aspects. According to the latest CARS statistics, auto dealers conducted 690,114 transactions through the program, and cars traded in through the program averaged 15.8 MPG, while new vehicles purchased through the program averaged 24.9 MPG. Assuming, as stated above, that the average motorist drives 12,000 miles per year, we arrive at the following calculations: statistics A vehicle averaging 15.8 MPG driven 12,000 miles per year uses 759.5 gallons of gasoline per year. A vehicle averaging 24.9 MPG driven 12,000 miles per year uses 482 gallons of gasoline per year. The average CARS transaction will reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by 277.5 gallons of gasoline per car per year. The 690,114 vehicles sold through the CARS program will therefore save a total of 191.5 million gallons of gasoline per year. So far, so good our figures make the CARS program look even less economically efficient than the original analysis does. The fatal flaw comes in the next step, however. The example presented above claims that 224 million gallons of gasoline are the equivalent of 5 million barrels of oil (i.e., one barrel of oil produces about 45 gallons of gasoline), which is an erroneous assumption. One barrel of crude oil holds 42 gallons of crude oil, not 42 gallons of gasoline the crude has to be put through a refining process before it becomes gasoline. How much gasoline is produced from one barrel of crude varies according to the refining process used and the type of crude oil involved, but according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a branch of the U.S. Department of Energy, "U.S. refineries produce between 19 and 20 gallons of motor gasoline from one barrel (42 gallons) of crude oil." (Crude oil contains many different types of hydrocarbons, not all of which can easily be converted to gasoline, so other petroleum products such as kerosene and lubricating oil are also produced during the refining process.) EIA hydrocarbons If we take the mid-point of that range (i.e., 19.5 gallons of gasoline per barrel of oil) and multiply it by the $75 per barrel price quoted in the example, we find: 191.5 million gallons of gasoline / 19.5 gallons of gasoline per barrel of oil = 9.8 million barrels of oil 9.8 million * $75 per barrel = $735 million This savings of $735 million per year is over twice the $350 million figure posited in the original analysis. (The latter figure should actually be $375 million; the original contains a mathematical error in stating that 5 million multiplied by 75 equals 350.) Moreover, the gasoline-saving benefits produced by the CARS program won't simply dissipate after the passage of a single year, as suggested above. According to the CARS stats, the total dollar value of transactions conducted under the "Cash for Clunkers" program was about $2.9 billion. Therefore (if all other factors remained the same), the full cost of the CARS program would be offset by gasoline savings in about four years not a spectacular trade-off, perhaps, but not nearly as bad a one as claimed in the original analysis. (All of these figures assume the price of gasoline to be a constant, a dubious proposition since the cost of oil can fluctuate quite widely, especially in the short term.) The original analysis also focuses solely on savings in gasoline costs and doesn't take into account other intended or residual effects of the CARS program, such as the economic benefits of boosting auto sales, reducing pollution by replacing older cars with more fuel-efficient vehicles, increasing safety by replacing older cars with vehicles offering advanced safety features, and providing additional parts and raw materials for the market: [The clunkers'] components and frames ... have begun flooding the used parts and scrap-recycling markets with more than 100 million tons of steel, batteries, and tires, among other things. "This is like a second wave of stimulus to our economy," said Bill Goodale, general manager of Millis Industries, which has picked up about 200 clunkers from local dealers and expects to take possession of hundreds more in the next few weeks. "As it trickles down, it helps junkyards. It helps the guy looking for cheap parts to keep his car going. It adds a lot of steel to a market that hasn't produced much of it in the last year." Last updated: 13 September 2009

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/texas-horse-hunt/

Texas Horse Hunt

David Mikkelson

05/20/2013

Claim: A Texas business provides big game hunters with an opportunity to participate in "horse hunt adventures." Example: [Collected via e-mail, May 2013] There's a blog going around about "Texas Horse Hunts" where horses are hunted on paid hunts....could this possibly be true? Origins: In May 2013, social media were abuzz with chatter regarding (and at least one petition calling for the shutdown of) a three-month-old blog site for an outfit advertising Texas Horse Hunts, presented as an opportunity for big game horse hunters to bag themselves some equines: petition blog site If youve dreamed of big game horse hunting in Texas and are interested in a superior, top quality, exciting and successful horse hunting experience, join Texas Horse Hunt Expeditions, LLC and Master Guide Tom D. Welderman IV on your next horse hunt adventure. Youll enjoy some of the most dynamic and beautiful wilderness in the world! We guide areas within National Wildlife Refuges and receive the finest guiding expertise, personal service and attention to detail found anywhere. Im a guide because I love horse hunting, Texas, the outdoors and because I enjoy sharing these things with other humans who appreciate what horse hunts have to offer. Our goal, aside from helping you harvest a magnificent trophy horse, is to share with you this incredible state and all that it has to offer. When you leave one of our camps as a friend, we want you to take home fond lifetime memories of your horse hunt experience. The quality of your horse and your whole experience is my primary concern. We are not narcissistic; your hunt with us is not about us but about you and your horse. This is your horse hunt and we want to help fulfill all of your expectations. Multiple factors pointed to the whole thing being a satirical hoax, however, including: The lack of any previous news coverage or any effort to publicize the business beyond a single blog entry. The photographs on the Texas Horse Hunts blog site were all lifted from other web sites. The picture of the dead equine in the back of a truck was taken from a May 2009 blog entry for Rogues Gallery Kennel (a rescue kennel for sled dogs) about the picking up of a naturally deceased horse in Alaska; the photo of a pair of horses lying dead on the ground was taken from a 2010 news article about San Joaquin County Sheriffs Office investigating five dead horses believed to have died of thirst in a field off Interstate 580 in California; and the picture of a single (apparently undead) brown horse lying on the ground is a stock photo from 2004. Rogues Gallery Kennel lying dead news article stock photo Joseph Robertia, the rightful owner of the first photograph penned an article for The Redoubt Reporter describing the harm the theft of his photo had caused for him and his family, saying (in part): article Hi, my name is Joseph, and I hunt horses with sticks, crossbows and firearms. And if you believe this, Ive got some prime swampland in Florida to sell you. Sadly, though, several people do believe it, thanks in part to a photo stolen from my personal blog, https://www.rogueskennel.com, and used out of context on a site proclaiming to be for Texas Horse Hunts. Not hunting on horseback, but actually hunting and killing horses. It's left me having to assert and explain something so bizarre I never thought Id have to utter these words I have not, do not and would not ever hunt horses. The photo they found on my site and reposted was taken in Alaska, after my wife and I retrieved a horse that died of natural causes from Sterling residents who had no way to bury it and didnt want it to attract summer bears. The part that really smarts is that the most extensive damage to our reputations was not done by the initial website post. Rather, it was from the dozens of outraged animal rights activists on Facebook pages and other social media sites who began spreading the photo with lightning speed. (A week after we published this article, all the photos and descriptive information were removed from the Texas Horse Hunt page.) The promotional material in the Texas Horse Hunts blog states that "All horse meats will be processed at our facilities," but laws forced the shutdown of the last remaining horse slaughterhouses in the U.S. (including two in Texas) back in 2007, and no such facilities are currently legally operating in the U.S. horse slaughterhouses We could find no record of "Texas Horse Hunt Expeditions" being registered as an LLC (limited liability company) in Texas or any other state. The blog site contains obvious jokes such as "You will have the option of killing your horse traditionally (with a stick)," and a "Brief History of Horse Hunting" article describing Henry VIII as a horse hunting enthusiast who "instituted a policy of horse hunting exclusively by club" and referencing a "Back to the Future lead actor who's a vocal supporter of the sport." article One of the best ways of determining whether web-advertised businesses of suspect nature are legitimate is by attempting to purchase what they're supposedly offering for sale (because the whole point of businesses to make money by servicing customers). But the Texas Horse Hunt Expeditions page includes neither a physical address nor even a general indication of where in the world the supposed hunts take place (somewhere in Texas, presumably), key pieces of information which any prospective customer would want to know. And none of our e-mails or phone calls to Texas Horse Hunt Expeditions expressing interest in participating in one of their "adventures" was returned. Last updated: 29 May 2013

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/have-you-ever-been-in-an-accident-resulting-in-your-death/

Have You Ever Been in an Accident Resulting in Your Death?

Kim LaCapria

05/06/2016

In late April 2016, an image began circulating on Facebook, depicting a screenshot of a survey question asking whether you've ever been in an accident resulting in your death.Early versionsof the question consisted of just ascreenshot, and often came from outside the United States: screenshot However, as the meme gained traction in late April and early May 2016, the popular image accumulated a new detail. According tosome users, the question was an example of the purported ineptitude of the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare). By 6 May, thatassertion was overwhelminglycommonplace: commonplace Verbal descriptionsof the question circulatedearlier than that, going back to mid-2015.Again, manyof those social media users were from outside the United States, often in the UK: circulated 2015 outside often UK One survey taker captured a partial URL in her share of the perplexing question: captured While that user didn't specify what site askedthe question, a closer look at the image revealed a web addressfor a survey company and an open tab for similar activity: On 26 April 2016, a Twitter user claimed the question was an "actual health insurance question": An actual health insurance question pic.twitter.com/04r5f8Gti2 pic.twitter.com/04r5f8Gti2 Rabih Alameddine (@rabihalameddine) April 26, 2016 April 26, 2016 In response, other users said that the question was for quality control and originated with a specific online survey company: @rabihalameddine This is from Your-Surveys, search it, they have questions like these all the time. @rabihalameddine StormzSR (@StormzSR) April 26, 2016 April 26, 2016 The survey question appears to have beenauthentic, and was initiallyfound at a site called Your-Surveys.com. It isprobable that initial use of the viral image was satiricallyattributed to the ACAby critics of the program, but it wasn't long before people (mostly from outside the United States)began to genuinelybelieve that the question was part of online enrollment for health insuranceunder the Affordable CareAct.

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/may/20/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-united-states-falling-behind-/

Canadian middle class incomes are now higher than in the United States. They are working fewer hours for more pay, living longer on average, and facing less income inequality.

Louis Jacobson

05/20/2014

The next presidential election may still be two and a half years away, but the presumptive Democratic frontrunner, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is all over the news. On May 16, 2014, in a speech at the New America Foundation, a moderate-to-liberal think tank, Clinton compared the United States and Canada on several measures of well-being. Clinton found the United States wanting. Canadian middle class incomes are now higher than in the United States, Clinton said. They are working fewer hours for more pay, enjoying a stronger safety net, living longer on average, and facing less income inequality. Well set aside the claim about the safety net, since thats tricky to measure statistically. But the other claims are ripe for a closer look. So well take them in order. (Clintons camp did not respond to our inquiry.) Canadian middle-class incomes are now higher than in the United States This is the trickiest of the measurements Clinton mentioned, for a couple reasons. First, theres no universally recognized definition of middle class in the available data. Second, theres more than one way to measure the data. Some measurements take a nations economic output as a whole and divide it by the population, whereas others sample individual people or households to find out how much they make, then find the midpoint. Clinton has support fromNew York Timesarticlethat looked at data from the Luxembourg Income Study database, which is based on surveys going back 35 years. The study surveyed people in various countries, asked them what they earned, then used a median to determine the mid-range income level. TheNew York Timesconcluded that median income in Canada pulled into a tie with median United States income in 2010 and has most likely surpassed it since then, due to studies conducted by other groups since 2010 suggest that pay in Canada has risen faster than pay in the United States. On the other hand, if you look at gross domestic product per capita -- the total amount of economic activity divided by population -- the United States tops Canada, and not by a trivial amount. In 2012, GDP per capita in theUnited Stateswas $51,689, compared to $41,559 forCanada, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (These figures, as with all other money figures in this article, have been converted to U.S. dollars, so that they can be compared.) But this method has drawbacks. Because it represents an average across the entire economy, the final results tend to over-represent the income that flows to the wealthy. So its not ideal for measuring the middle class. Munroe Eagles, director of Canadian studies at the State University of New York-Buffalo, and Ross Burkhart, co-director of the Canadian Studies Program at Boise State University, told PolitiFact that using the Luxembourg Income Study is at least as good a measurement for Clintons claim as the other figures, if not better. They are working fewer hours for more pay than Americans OECD data for the average number of hours worked annually per employed person shows that Clinton is correct. In theUnited Statesin 2012, workers spent 1,790 hours per year on the job, compared to 1,710 hours per year inCanada. One could say that Americans are working harder and producing more goods and services, but Clintons point was that Canadians have greater opportunities for leisure, and on that point, the statistics support her point. As for getting more pay, OECD statistics for 2012 show that the average annual wages for workers in Canada were $58,376, compared to $55,048 in the United States. This measures the average wages earned by a full-time, full-year employee. These statistics support Clintons claim. Canadians are living longer OECD data for life expectancy at birth shows that in 2011,Canadianscould expect to live 81 years, while in 2009, the most recent year available,Americanscould expect to live 78.7 years. So Clintons right on this one, too. Theres less income inequality in Canada The primary statistic used for gauging income inequality is the Ginicoefficient. Gini coefficients range from 0, or perfect equality, to 1, or perfect inequality. According to the OECD, the Gini coefficient for Canada in 2010 was .320, compared to .380 in the United States. That means Canada is modestly more equal than the United States is, which is what Clinton had claimed. Overall, the five comparisons Clinton made are reasonable and arent cherry-picked or subject to statistical quirks, Burkhart said. It's fair, in my understanding of the Canadian and U.S. economies, for Ms. Clinton to make the kinds of comparisons that Ms. Clinton has made, Burkhart said. Our ruling Clinton said that Canadian middle class incomes are now higher than in the United States. They are working fewer hours for more pay, living longer on average, and facing less income inequality. Shes indisputably correct on four of these five measures, and the data is more mixed on the fifth. On balance, we rate her claim Mostly True.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/sep/07/barack-obama/barack-obama-said-hes-cut-taxes-middle-class-famil/

I've cut taxes for ... middle-class families, small businesses.

Angie Drobnic Holan

09/07/2012

In his speech at the Democratic National Committee in Charlotte, N.C., President Barack Obama mocked Republicans for turning to tax cuts as the solution to every problem.Have a surplus? Try a tax cut. Deficit too high? Try another. Feel a cold coming on? Take two tax cuts, roll back some regulations, and call us in the morning! Obama said.Now, Ive cut taxes for those who need it middle-class families and small businesses. But I dont believe that another round of tax breaks for millionaires will bring good jobs to our shores, or pay down our deficit, Obama said.Obama is often accused by Republicans of raising taxes, and he has raised some taxes during his presidency. Hes also said that he intends to raise income tax rates for couples who make more than $250,000 a year or single people who make more than $200,000 a year.Here, were going to look at his claim to cut taxes for middle-class families and small businesses. (Weve been tracking all of Obamas campaign promises about taxes on our Obameter. )Obama has signed off on two major tax cuts for middle-class families: the Making Work Pay tax credit that was part of the economic stimulus of 2009 and a temporary reduction in Social Security payroll taxes that went into effect in 2011.As part of the stimulus, formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, single workers collected a $400 tax credit, and working couples got $800. The credit didnt come in the form of a check; it worked out so that most workers had about $400 less in federal income taxes withheld from their paychecks spread out over the entire year.Most workers received a tax cut under that plan, with the exception of some high earners. The tax cuts phased out for couples who make more than $250,000 or a single person making over $200,000, according to an analysis from thenonpartisan Tax Policy Center.The result mirrored what Obama promised he would do on the campaign. Obama pledged tax cuts of $500 for each worker and $1,000 for working couples. We rated the promisea Compromiseon ourObameterbecause the resulting tax cut was a little lower than what Obama wanted.That tax cut expired at the end of 2011. But Obama won another round of tax cuts for most workers in a December 2010 tax deal with Republicans in Congress. Those tax cuts -- a temporary reduction in workers payroll taxes, worth about 2 percent of total earnings -- expire in 2013. Again, the tax cut didnt come as a check, but gives workers a little more in their paychecks than they would have otherwise.Obama also has passed an array of tax cuts for small businesses.Eight of them were included in the stimulus, the Affordable Care Act (also known as the health care law), and the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (also known as the HIRE Act). Among the cuts were the exclusion of up to 75 percent of capital gains on key small business investments; a tax credit for the cost of health insurance for small business employees and new tax credits for hiring Americans out of work for at least two months.Another eight cuts came via the Small Business Jobs Act, signed by Obama in September of 2010. These included: adding deductions for business cell phone use; creating a new deduction for health care costs for the self-employed; allowing greater deductions for business start-up expenses; eliminating taxes on all capital gains from key small business investments, and raising the small business expense limit to $500,000.Three months later, the president signed a tax bill that raised the expense limit to 100 percent of small business new investments until the end of 2011. It also extended the elimination of capital gains taxes for small business investments through the end of 2012. (For more details, see our previous fact-check that provided at least 16 tax cuts to small businesses; we rated itMostly True. )To be clear, this doesnt mean the middle-class and small businesses havent seen any tax increases under the Obama administration. We rated his campaign promise that no family making less than $250,000 will see any form of tax increase asPromise Broken. Obama has signed off on new taxes on cigarettes and indoor tanning. His health care law includes a tax penalty for people who dont buy health insurance; that starts in 2014. (It includes hardship exemptions for people who cant find affordable policies. )Also, under the health care law, small businesses that have more than 50 employees that dont offer their employees health insurance could face fines.Our rulingObama has raised some taxes during his presidency, but hes also pursued broad-based tax cuts for the middle class and small businesses. We particularly give weight here to the tax cuts that were part of the stimulus and the payroll tax holiday, which reduced taxes for broad swaths of the workforce. Some small businesses may have been hit by new taxes that were part of Obamas health law, but these would depend on the particular circumstances of each business. Also, there were new taxes on cigarettes and indoor tanning.Obama said he has cut taxes for those who need it middle-class families, small businesses. He has, but he also has raised some taxes. So while his statement is accurate, it lacks that additional context. We rate his claim Mostly True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/handcuffed-save-choking-officer/

Does Dashcam Video Show a Handcuffed Man Saving Choking Police Officer?

Dan Evon

02/16/2021

In February 2021, a video went viral on TikTok that supposedly showed a handcuffed man saving a choking police officer's life. The video, which supposedly came from the cop car's dashcam, racked up more than 26 million views within a few days of its initial posting by @kd_k97: There are strong reasons to doubt this is a genuine video of a handcuffed man saving a choking police officer's life. More likely, it's a staged video that was created as a sort of "morality play" asking the viewer to ponder what they would do in this situation. While there are no explicit disclaimers labeling this footage as a scripted moment as opposed to a genuine incident captured on a police car's dashcam, there are a number of indications that this video could be more accurately captioned as the former. For one, this "dashcam" video did not originate with a police department, a news article, or any other official source. Rather, this video first went viral on TikTok. This is also just one part of a three-part video series. Part one showed the initial confrontation, involving a Black man being stopped and handcuffed after reports of "suspicious activity." Part two shows the handcuffed man saving the cop's life after he starts to choke. Part three shows the Black man retrieving the cuffs after saving the cop's life, giving them back to the police officer and preparing to be arrested again, before the cop decides to reward his good deed and let him go. Part one showed Part two shows Part three shows While this may be an effective way to break down and share a scripted performance, this would be an odd way to release a genuine police dashcam video. We have not seen any news reports about this alleged incident, nor have we found any "official" versions of this video from a police department. On social media, users also noted that the officer's "costume" didn't seem authentic. For instance, he doesn't appear to be wearing a weapon and the "bullet proof vest" appears a bit flimsy. TikTok user kd_k97 has not commented on the authenticity of the video. However, they did respond to a comment that highlighted the intended message of the video: We reached out to KD97 for more information, and will update this article accordingly.

neutral

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/jun/23/dan-patrick/dan-patrick-notes-education-absorbs-52-percent-bud/

When colleges and universities are added, education spending is the biggest item in the state budget about 52 percent of all state dollars.

W. Gardner Selby

06/23/2017

After Dan Patrick popped a statistic to back his contention that Texas state government spends plenty on education, a reader asked us to check the Republican lieutenant governors accuracy. Patrick, in a June 2017commentary, extolled the state budget then about to besigned into law by Gov. Greg Abbott, specifying: Texas spends $60 billion on schools in our two-year budget, including both federal and state funds. Of that, $41 billion is state funding. That is on top of the estimated $28 billion to $30 billion annually paid by local property taxpayers. When colleges and universities are added, Patrick said, education spending is the biggest item in the state budget about 52 percent of all state dollars. Health care is second, accounting for most of the remaining dollars. It is disingenuous to suggest that we are, somehow, holding back funding that we could spend on schools. Our review of budget documents posted by the Legislative Budget Board led us to find Patricks figure solid though the percentage also proved historic in a low-end way not stated by Patrick. Patrick cites state budget summary Up front, Patrick spokesman Alejandro Garcia responded by email to our inquiry about the basis of Patricks 52 percent by pointing out a chart in the2018-19 state budget, which takes effect Sept. 1, 2017. The chart shows that the budget puts $55.9 billion in general revenue toward public and higher education out of $106.7 billion in all such revenue which breaks out to 52.4 percent of such spending. Next highest: Nearly $34 billion budgeted for health and human services accounts for 31 percent of state spending in the budget. SOURCE: Document,Summary of Conference Committee Report for Senate Bill 1, Appropriations for the 2018-19 Biennium,Legislative Budget Board, May 2017 (accessed June 14, 2017) Some context: The chart shows that the nearly $41 billion in public school aid appropriated by the 2017 Legislature trailed $635.6 million, or 1.5 percent, behind what lawmakers budgeted for public schools the previous two years. On the other hand, the new budget increases state spending on higher education by $195.2 million, 1.1 percent, from the 2016-17 budget, according to the chart. We asked the Legislative Budget Board about Patricks percentage. By email, staff spokesman R.J. DeSilva responded by pointing out the same chart offered by Patrick. Separately to our emailed inquiries, Austin school-finance expert Joe Wisnoski, who works for a firm that represents school districts, and Tom Canby of the Texas Association of School Business Officials didnt quibble with Patricks calculation. Wisnoski added, though, that the 52 percent conclusion may not be the whole story. He alsopointed outthat from all funding sources--including federal aid--lawmakers devoted $80 billion to education, which represented 37 percent of the full $217 billion state budget. Alternate calculation For our part, we noticed one other way of gauging the share of state revenue budgeted for education. Another chart in the budget shows that lawmakers budgeted nearly $58.8 billion for public schools and higher education in state general revenue plus the smaller pot of money consisting of state revenue dedicated to particular expenditures. The combined amount, we found, also breaks out to 52 percent of the full budgets $113.1 billion in state revenue and dedicated state revenue: SOURCE: Document,Summary of Conference Committee Report for Senate Bill 1, Appropriations for the 2018-19 Biennium,Legislative Budget Board, May 2017 (accessed June 14, 2017) Other state funds? When we asked about Patrick's claim, Dominic Giarratani of the Texas Association of School Boards agreed its fair to focus on state general revenue to evaluate budgeted spending on education. By email, though, he also provided a calculation suggesting that public plus higher education accounts for 48 percent of non-federal spending in the budget. Thats correct, it looked to us, though its worth noting the additional spending captured by this alternate analysis folds in chunks of money not easily controlled by lawmakers--including $1.8 billion of earnings on the endowment that benefits institutions in the University of Texas and Texas A&M University systems; nearly $4.6 billion in local tax revenue projected to be provided by property-rich school districts, including the Austin district, to support the states school finance system; and nearly $3.6 billion in payments driven by a 2006 state-mandated reduction in school property taxes. Historic low? Next, we wondered how the 52 percent cited by Patrick for 2018-19 compares to the share of state GR devoted to education in previous budgets. To get a fix on that, we checked spending on education from non-dedicated GR in the previous 10 budgets. Such funds comprise the bulk of each budget and are most directly controlled by legislative decisions. Our finding: In the budgets, which encompass 20 years, no Legislature devoted less than 53 percent of general revenue to education. On average, educations share of state spending through the budgets was 58 percent. State Revenue Budgeted for Education, Texas, 1998-99 through 2018-19 (By Percentage) BUDGET YEARS SHARE OF REVENUE* BUDGETED FOR PUBLIC AND HIGHER EDUCATION 1998-99 61 % 2000-01 63 2002-03 59 2004-05 59 2006-07 56 2008-09 59 2010-11 61 2012-13 57 2014-15 53 2016-17 53 2018-19 52 *State general revenue, excluding revenue constitutionally dedicated to particular purposes. SOURCE: PolitiFact Texas calculations drawing on state budgets adopted by Texas Legislature, 1997-2017as posted bythe Legislative Budget Board (accessed June 14-15, 2017) Our ruling Patrick, saying its disingenuous to suggest lawmakers held back on education aid, said 52 percent of state spending in the 2018-19 state budget was appropriated to public plus higher education. Thats an accurate percentage. Unclarified: Education also accounts for the smallest share of budgeted state spending in at least 20 years, which is as far back as we checked. We rate the statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/michael-jello-fox-2/

Michael Jello Fox

David Mikkelson

05/05/2015

Claim: Actor Michael J. Fox chose the middle name 'Jello' for himself when he was a child. Example: [Collected via e-mail, May 2015] I have read several times since the 90s that Michael J. Fox's middle name was left up to him to choose, and that when he was six years old, he chose "Jello." Origins: What is actor Michael J. Fox's middle name? Is it Justin? Jackson? How about Jazzhands? The answer to the question of exactly what that initial stands for has proved elusive to many of his fans, allowing for the rise of a strange rumor: Michael Fox's parents allowed him to choose his own middle name, so when he was six years old he opted honor his favorite dessert and become Michael Jello Fox. The exact origins of this rumor are unclear (it's probably an escapee from one of the plethora of fake "Did you know?" factoid lists that have long circulated online), but the unusual claim has been posted to multiple Internet forums over the years. Although the details of the story change depending upon the source, the basic premise of the rumor was provided during a 2008 "off-topic" discussion on the Rotten Tomatoes film site about middle names: change discussion But here's the absolute best nickname in the world: Jello! When Michael J. Fox was a kid, he was given the chance to pick his own middle name, so he picked the name of his favorite dessert at the time! Michael JELLO Fox. I kid you not! Curiously, expressions of this rumor have also made their way into some online sales listings for the Back to the Future DVD: listings Notes:Theatrical release: May 25, 1990. Estimated budget: $22 million. BACK TO THE FUTURE grossed more than $80 million at the domestic box office and more than $240 million worldwide. Michael J. Fox's middle name is Jello. His parents let him pick his own middle name at the age of two. (This note is also wrong in stating that Back to the Future had its theatrical release in 1990. The second sequel, Back to the Future III, Okay, so what is Michael J. Fox's real middle name? The correct answer is ... wait for it ... "Andrew." Huh? How is that possible? According to a brief biography from the Michael J. Fox Foundation, the actor was born Michael Andrew Fox in 1961 to parents William and Phyllis Fox in Edmonton, Alberta. The actor explained in his autobiography Lucky Man: A Memoir that it wasn't until he had to register for the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) that he decided to use a different middle initial for his professional name, due to industry requirements for unique stage identifiers: biography The Screen Actors Guild prohibits any two members from working under the same stage name, and they already had a "Michael Fox" on the books. My middle name is Andrew, but "Andrew Fox" or "Andy Fox" didn't cut it for me. "Michael A. Fox" was even worse, the word fox having recently come into use as a synonym for attractive. (Presumptuous?) It also sounded uncomfortably Canadian Michael Eh? Fox but maybe I was just being oversensitive. And then I remembered one of my favorite character actors, Michael J. Pollard, the guileless accomplice in Bonnie and Clyde. I stuck in the J, which sometimes I tell people stands for either Jenuine or Jenuis, and resubmitted my forms. So it was Michael J. Fox on the call sheet I picked up at wrap each night that summer. In terms of birth names, Michael J. Fox's middle name is therefore Andrew. In terms of stage names, his middle name is like that of President Harry S. Truman simply an initial that stands for nothing in particular. Truman Last updated: 5 May 2015

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kaepernick-disney/

Did Disney 'Hire' Colin Kaepernick To 'Teach Your Kids About American History'?

Bethania Palma

07/15/2020

In early July 2020, social media users shared a meme that continued to fuel long-standing culture war animosity directed at former NFL player and civil rights activist Colin Kaepernick, this time by noting that he had been "hired" by Disney to "teach your kids about American history." culture war The meme both sensationalizes and exaggerates Kaepernick's role with Disney. While it's true that Kaepernick has made an agreement with Disney and ESPN Films to create a documentary series focusing on race, that doesn't mean he has been "hired" by Disney to "teach children" about American history. On July 6, the former San Francisco 49ers quarterback and Disney announced a first-look deal for a documentary series to be produced by ESPN Films about Kaepernick's experience, according to a press release from ESPN. press release "Colins experience gives him a unique perspective on the intersection of sports, culture and race, which will undoubtedly create compelling stories that will educate, enlighten and entertain, and we look forward to working with him on this important collaboration," Disney executive chairman Bob Iger said in the statement. Per the press release, the "first project in development as part of this deal is an exclusive docuseries chronicling Kaepernicks journey. Using extensive new interviews and a vast never-before-seen archive that documents his last five years, Kaepernick will tell his story from his perspective." Overall, the partnership "will focus on telling scripted and unscripted stories that explore race, social injustice and the quest for equity, and will provide a new platform to showcase the work of Black and Brown directors and producers." Kaepernick has been a lightning rod in popular culture since 2016, when he began protesting systematic racism and police violence against Black Americans by kneeling during the national anthem before NFL games. His protest was mimicked by other players, but it also became a recurring talking point among media pundits, some of whom accused him of disrespecting national symbols. This narrative has been echoed by the White House. accused echoed The issue Kaepernick raised with his protest has hardly gone away. In the spring of 2020, racial justice protests swept the country after a video went viral of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on the neck of George Floyd, a Black man, for almost nine minutes. Floyd died in police custody. The public outcry coupled with massive protests prompted a national conversation about racism and compelled many businesses including entertainment companies to reckon with their own failures when it comes to racial equality. Lopez, Isabelle."The Walt Disney Company Announces Overall First-Look Del with Colin Kaepernick." ESPN Press Room.6 July 2020. Steinberg, Brian."Colin Kaepernick Signs First-Look Deal With Walt Disney." Variety.6 July 2020. Adler, Dan."Our Never-Ending Culture Wars: Colin Kaepernick and Nikes Betsy Ross Air Maxes Edition." Vanity Fair.2 July 2019. BBC."Trump: NFL Kneelers 'Maybe Shouldn't Be in Country.'" 24 May 2018. Johnson, Martenzie."Colin Kaepernick Tried to Tell White America." The Undefeated.30 May 2020.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nasa-data-global-warming/

Does NASA Data Show That Global Warming Isn't Causing a Sea Level Rise?

Alex Kasprak

08/01/2017

On 26 July 2017, supplement and paranoia peddling website NaturalNews.com made a sweeping conclusion about climate change based on a portion of a single chart they found. The post, by Mike "Health Ranger" Adams, uses a time series of satellite sea level data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to argue that climate change is no big deal and that the mainstream media is ignoring data that proves him right: post NASAs own data reveal that world-wide ocean levels have been falling for nearly two years, dropping from a variation of roughly 87.5mm to below 85mm. These data, of course, clearly contradict the false narrative of rapid, never-ending rising ocean levels that flood continents and drown cities a key element of the climate change boogeyman fiction thats used to scare gullible youth into making Al Gore rich. To "prove" this, Adams points to NASAs satellite altimetry data used by scientists to precisely measure global average sea level change since 1993 which he says busts the whole global warming thing wide open, despite its fairly unambiguous long-term upward trend: The NASA chart allegedly showing that sea level is not rising. Credit: NASA. The region of the chart around the last two years of the record that allegedly proves global warming is a lie is highlighted above. It shows a period of generally flat sea level rise. Astute chart readers, however, may note that there have been a number of times throughout the record in which sea level rise has been flat, or even briefly reversed, before continuing the more dominant rising trend. According to University of New South Wales climatologist and sea level expert John Church, this is the reason the "media" is "silent" on the issue; in fact, it is in no way newsworthy: The short term fall over the last year or so reported on the Natural News website is nothing out of the ordinary and in fact the fall seems less than several previous examples of sea level fall, such as [the drop documented in 2010-2011]. It does not seem to be a particularly noteworthy event. To understand why the event is not noteworthy, one needs to understand both the short- and long-term drivers of sea level change. From a long-term global perspective, there are two primary drivers of sea level rise: the first is the balance between water trapped in ice and water contained within the ocean itself. Simply put, when ice that is trapped on land melts, it increases the volume of water in the ocean, causing sea level to rise. primary drivers The second major driver is known as thermal expansion when water gets warmer it expands, increasing its volume. Research suggests that these two contributors alone explain 75 percent of the observed sea level rise since 1971. suggests These larger trends, however, can be dampened (or enhanced) by shorter term weather patterns. The most important factors to consider on this time-scale are the El Nio-La Nia cycle (which affects both water temperature, as well as evaporation and precipitation of moisture) and the hydrological issues associated with where rainwater falls on land. The best illustration of these factors combining to alter the overall trend of sea level rise is the 2010-2011 drop in sea level mentioned above. factors In this instance, the confluence of La Nia and a number of other atmospheric circulation patterns forced an anomalously large amount of rain to fall over the uniquely bowl-shaped continent of Australia, as described by Scientific American: described In most cases, though, water that falls on land eventually drains into the ocean. Even if a whole lot of rain fell in South America's Amazon, for example, it could slow sea-level rise for only about a couple of months, as it slowly made its way to the sea. So in order to make sea levels fall, the water had to be stored in a place where it didn't reach the ocean for a long while. That place, it turns out, was Australia. [...] Lake Eyre is the lowest point in Australia. It's usually a dry, salty flat. But when it rains heavily, the basin fills, and the lake teems with new life, as long-dormant seeds spring to life and birds flock to the lake. From 2010 to 2011, enough rain fell on Australia to fill the lower part of the lake almost completely, and the upper portion at least 75 percent. Australia got about a foot of rain more than normal over that period, said [National Center for Atmospheric Research scientist John] Fasullo. The continent stored that excess water for long enough to change global sea levels. That the world's smallest continent can affect global sea levels this way is pretty extraordinary, said Fasullo. It's also rare. [...] In addition to La Nia, other climate variations also played a role. Together, they forced the extraordinary rainfall and water storage in the Australian continent. Eventually, of course, this water evaporates and returns to the ocean, where it joins the expanding and increasing global ocean reservoir. We spoke to Fasullo the lead author on the study that documented the cause of the 2010-2011 drop in sea level about this current hiatus, and he told us it in no way conflicts with our understanding of the connection between global warming and sea level rise: Of course, this leveling does not conflict with our understanding of sea level rise and its main drivers. It is well known for example that sea level falls (in an anomalous sense) at the end of an El Nio due to drought subsiding over many tropical land areas such as the Amazon (water moves from the ocean to land surface) and heat being released from the ocean (as the tropical upper Pacific Ocean releases heat to the atmosphere, causing contraction). [The] recent leveling of sea level rise comes on the heels of an unprecedented rate of rise during the four years that preceded it (2011-14). In addition to global warming, this rise was also strongly influenced by the El Nio-La Nia cycle and so it too should not be oversold. Ultimately, the story published by Adams attempts to disguise a weather as a climatological trend, University of California, Santa Cruz Climatologist Gary Griggs told us: One or two or three years of weather means very little in the long-term record of sea-level rise just as it would have very little meaning for global temperature records. Due to a variety of atmospheric circulation patterns and variations, temperatures vary from year to year as does rainfall, etc., the recent 4 year drought in the west is a good example. Using two years of data to make sweeping claims about trends in the global climate system, especially when such fluctuations are known and understood by science, is misleading and inaccurate, and as such we rank this claim as false. Adams, Mike. "NASA Confirms: Sea Levels Have Been Falling Across the Planet for Two Years Media Silent." Natural News. 26 July 2017. NASA. "Understanding Sea Level" Accessed 1 August 2017. IPCC. "Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]" 2014 (Chapter 13). Boening, Carmen, et al. "The 2011 La Nia: So Strong, the Oceans Fell." Geophysical Research Letters. 4 October 2012. Ogburn, Stephanie Page. "A Scientist Explains the Mystery of Recent Sea-Level Drop." Scientific American. 20 August 2013.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/keep-the-change/

Failure to Salute

David Mikkelson

03/06/2001

Claim: Marines surreptitiously failed to observe the proper protocol in saluting President Clinton all throughout his eight years in office. . Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2001] Military courtesy change I picked up on something very funny this morning. CNN showed George W. leaving HM-1. The Marine at the front step saluted, GW returned it, and as he walked away, the marine executed a right face to stand facing GW's back . . . something that was missing in eight years of the Clinton presidency. The traditional Marine Corps mark of respect was rendered to the new president. That one goes back to the days in the rigging, when the Marine orderly to the ship's Captain always faced him, no matter hisdirection of movement, to be ready to receive an order. Who says that enlisted men can't hold back when they don't respect someone? . . . And for eight years, they did. Origins: According to this Internet-circulated piece, to a man, Marines decided they didn't respect President Clinton the minute he took office, and so for eight years all of them declined to observe proper protocol in his presence. Moreover, no officer ever objected to this behavior, and not one member of the Presidential entourage ever noticed or reported it. The best way to answer this one would be to ask a Marine. So we did: If the question is "Did the Marines who greeted the President willfully show disrespect by failing to execute a "facing" movement after the salute?" the answer is no. Proper protocol is for the Marine to snap a salute to the President. The President may or may not return the salute at his discretion. If the President returns the salute, the Marine immediately "cuts" or "posts" by bringing his arm sharply down to his side from the salute and remaining at a position of attention. If the President does not return the salute, the Marine will wait until the President passes him, then he will cut and remain at a position of attention. This is the protocol when greeting a senior officer, including the President. With the new Presidency comes a changing of the Presidential Detail. The new command of the Presidential Detail may have chosen to add a facing movement to the protocol. This is at the complete discretion of the command. A Marine does not have the luxury of choosing whether or not he follows proper protocol. He is given an order and he follows it to the letter. If the order does not include a facing movement, the facing movement will not occur. If the order includes a facing movent, the facing movement occurs. It is that simple. Whether or not this movement becomes a standard part of protocol remains to be seen. Marines do not act as individuals, we act as a team. Marines follow procedure and protocol. The Marines you saw followed their orders. That is a Marine. This piece was also refuted in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Snappy little story. It has only two problems: "It's absolutely false," says Staff Sgt. Keith Milks of the public affairs office at Marine Corps headquarters. If it was true, the Marines would see it as an insult to their own honor, not to Bill Clinton. Milks said crew members of the presidential helicopter "are chosen for their professionalism." In a phone interview, Milks said crew members of HM-1 - Marine One, the presidential helicopter - had followed the same protocol with Clinton that they used for all presidents, to wit: The Marine at the bottom of the steps salutes the debarking president. As soon as the salute is returned, the Marine does a right face to face the president's back. The Marine holds that position until the president "has moved a comfortable distance away," Milks said. Even if one dislikes the man who is currently President, protocol dictates that he be shown the proper respect in order not to dishonor the office of President of the United States. Marines know that as well as anyone. Additional information: Presidential Tradition (RonaldReagan.com) Last updated: 27 January 2007 Sources: Levins, Harry. "Don't Believe Your E-Mail: The Marines Didn't Show More Respect to Bush Than Clinton." St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 10 March 2001 (p. 2).

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/karaoke-dokey/

Hydrogen Beer

Barbara Mikkelson

09/10/1999

Claim: A few sips of hydrogen beer enables Japanese karaoke nuts to sing soprano parts and shoot blue flames out of their mouths at dramatic moments. Status: False. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 1994] January 1, 1994TOKYO (AP) Here in the chic pubs of the Aoyama district, the latest fad inspired by beer makers struggling through a sluggish economy is the flammable suds of the new Hydrogen Beer. The latest craze among the environmentally conscious crowd of twentysomethings, the "Suiso" beer made by the Asaka Beer Corporation has been extremely popular at karaoke sing-along bars and discotheques. Hydrogen, like helium, is a gas lighter than air. Because hydrogen molecules are lighter than air, sound waves are transmitted more rapidly; individuals whose lungs are filled with the nontoxic gas can speak with an uncharacteristically high voice. Exploiting this quirk of physics, chic urbanites can now sing soprano parts on karaoke sing-along machines after consuming a big gulp of Suiso beer. The drink comes in a transparent hexagonal bottle imported from the maker of the new American drink, Zima," according to Hideki Saito, marketing director of Asaka Beer Corp. While the bottles are imported from Tennessee, the labels are made with a 100% biodegradable polymer. The bottle caps are equipped with a safety valve to prevent excess build-up of pressure in high temperatures. The flammable nature of hydrogen has also become another selling point, even though Asaka has not acknowledged that this was a deliberate marketing ploy. It has inspired a new fashion of blowing flames from one's mouth using a cigarette as an ignition source. Many new karaoke videos feature singers shooting blue flames in slow motion, while flame contests took place in pubs everywhere in Tokyo on New Year's eve. So far, Asaka beer has insisted that the quantities of hydrogen used in the drinks is too low to create potential for bodily harm. In the factory, the carbon dioxide that is dissolved in the beer is partially extracted and replaced with hydrogen gas. Mr. Saito maintained that the remaining carbon dioxide mixed with hydrogen prevents the rate of combustion from increasing dramatically. Carbon dioxide is a nonflammable gas that is naturally contained in the exhaled breath of humans. However, the company has hesitated from marketing the product in the US due to legal complications. Each bottle of Suiso beer sells for approximately 1,200 yen, or 11 US dollars. The bottles are packed in special crates lined with concrete to prevent chain explosions in the event of a fire. Origins: Initially making the rounds in 1994, this bit of fiction is still in circulation on the Internet and continues to pop up in the media. Additional spurious details about an injured participant engaging in a lawsuit against the brew's manufacturer and a karaoke bar wereadded to the story in late 1998. Folks will believe most anything, provided someone sticks "AP" at the front of it. Though it was decked out to look like it, the above wasn't a real wire service story. (Even so, this tale has suckered a fine selection of highly-respected newspapers, including The New York Times in March 1996, the Boston Globe in November 1997, and The Washington Post in September 1999. It has also appeared in a widely-used introductory-level college chemistry textbook.) There is no Asaka Beer Corporation. Due to tight government regulations, there are only five beer companies in Japan: Kirin (40.6% market share), Asahi (37.6%), Sapporo (15.8%), Suntory (5%) and Orion (1%). Nor is there a Suiso beer. Both these names are made up, nothing more than wonderful bits of embroidery employed to give a fanciful tale an aura of believability. Proving yet again that no story is too good not to be improved upon, the following version appeared in inboxes everywhere in late 1998: TOKYO (AP) The recent craze for hydrogen beer is at the heart of a three way lawsuit between unemployed stockbroker Toshira Otoma, the Tike-Take karaoke bar and the Asaka Beer Corporation. Mr Otoma is suing the bar and the brewery for selling toxic substances and is claiming damages for grievous bodily harm leading to the loss of his job. The bar is countersuing for defamation and loss of customers. The Asaka Beer corporation brews "Suiso" brand beer, where the carbon dioxide normally used to add fizz has been replaced by the more environmentally friendly hydrogen gas. A side effect of this has made the beer extremely popular at karaoke sing-along bars and discotheques. Hydrogen, like helium, is a gas lighter than air. Because hydrogen molecules are lighter than air, sound waves are transmitted more rapidly; individuals whose lungs are filled with the nontoxic gas can speak with an uncharacteristically high voice. Exploiting this quirk of physics, chic urbanites can now sing soprano parts on karaoke sing-along machines after consuming a big gulp of Suiso beer. The flammable nature of hydrogen has also become another selling point, even though Asaka has not acknowledged that this was a deliberate marketing ploy. It has inspired a new fashion of blowing flames from one's mouth using a cigarette as an ignition source. Many new karaoke videos feature singers shooting blue flames in slow motion, while flame contests take place in pubs everywhere. "Mr Otoma has no-one to blame but himself. If he had not become drunk and disorderly, none of this would have happened. Our security guards undergo the most careful screening and training before they are allowed to deal with customers" said Mr Takashi Nomura, Manager of the Tike-Take bar. "Mr Otoma drank fifteen bottles of hydrogen beer in order to maximise the size of the flames he could belch during the contest. He catapulted balls of fire across the room that Gojira would be proud of, but this was not enough to win him first prize since the judgement is made on the quality of the flames and that of the singing, and after fifteen bottles of lager he was badly out of tune." "He took exception to the result and hurled blue fireballs at the judge, singeing the front of Mrs Mifune's hair, entirely removing her eyebrows and lashes, and ruining the clothes of two nearby customers. None of these people have returned to my bar. When our security staff approached he turned his attentions to them, making it almost impossible to approach him. Our head bouncer had no choice but to hurl himself at Mr Otoma's knees, knocking his legs from under him." "The laws of physics are not to be disobeyed, and the force that propelled Mr Otoma's legs backwards also pivoted around his centre of gravity and moved his upper body forward with equal velocity. It was his own fault he had his mouth open for the next belch, his own fault he held a lighted cigarette in front of it and it is own fault he swallowed that cigarette." "The Tike-Take bar takes no responsibility for the subsequent internal combustion, rupture of his stomach lining, nor the third degree burns to his oesophagus, larynx and sinuses as the exploding gases forced their way out of his body. His consequential muteness and loss of employment are his own fault." Mr Otoma was unavailable for comment. As well he might be, since he doesn't exist. There's still no Suiso beer, no Asaka Beer Corporation, and certainly no such lawsuit. The names used in the piece give an additional clue to its being a leg-pull: Takashi Nomura and Toshiro Mifune are both actors in classic Japanese films, and Otoma comes from Katsuhiro Otomo, a modern director. This newest version makes more of a story out of the tale, turning what purported to be a staid news article about a karaoke innovation into a bemusing report about yet another silly lawsuit. Merely the mental picture of a drunken Japanese hurling blue fireballs at the judges who'd passed him over is enough to keep one entertained for hours. Karaoke is weird enough without anyone having to blow blue flames as part of it. Barbara "Molson Dry wit" Mikkelson Last updated: 7 October 2006 Sources: Pollack, Andrew. "Fleeting Fame Sells in Asia . . ." The New York Times. 11 March 1996 (p. D1). Reucroft, Stephen and John Swain. "Dinosaur Birds." The Boston Globe. 3 November 1997 (p. C4). Schwarcz, Joe. "Hydrogen, the First Element; What a Blast!" The Washington Post. 8 September 1999 (p. H1). Zumdahl, Steven and Zumdahl, Susan. Chemistry. Boston; Houghton-Mifflin, 2000 ISBN 0-39598-581-1 (p. 524). PC Week. "Spark Me Up." 18 April 1994 (p. A5). Also told in: Fiery, Ann. The Complete and Totally True Book of Urban Legends. Philadelphia: Running Press Books, 2001. ISBN 0-7624-107404 (pp. 77-80). The Complete and Totally True Book of Urban Legends

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mass-shooter-shooting-mugshots/

Does a Meme Show the Faces of Suspected Mass Shooters in U.S. in 2019?

Dan MacGuill

08/06/2019

In the aftermath of two back-to-back mass shootings in the United States in early August 2019, much debate turned to the demographic dimensions of such massacres, with some commentary pointing the finger at white men, in particular. In response to such observations, others pointed out the role of non-white assailants in gun violence in the U.S. One graphic in particular caught the attention of internet users. The meme was first posted on Aug. 5 to the /pol/ ("Politically Incorrect") section of the website 4chan, which is notorious as a forum for far-right and white nationalist imagery, tropes and discussion threads. It was entitled "Mass Shooters 2019" and bore the sub-heading "Every person charged with or arrested for shooting 4+ people in a single incident." Underneath that was a collage of 98 portrait photographs, many of them prison mugshots. posted A large portion of the individuals shown in the collage appeared to be non-white, prompting its further promulgation on other online forums, including the website of former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke. The meme prompted much racist and white supremacist commentary. Duke commentary A note under the collage read: "146 Mas [sic] shootings so far this year are unsolved. Of these, 16 suspects have been identified as black or Latino and 0 white. The remaining cases have no suspect description issued. Also, of the 146 unsolved [mass] shootings so far, 21 are in Chicago, 8 are in Baltimore, 7 are in Washington DC, and 6 are in Philadelphia. All of this is according to my personal research which consisted of googling every single incident on the wikipedia page for mass shootings and reading local news articles about them. If I'm wrong about something give me the up-to-date information." This meme failed to take into account an essential piece of context in any discussion of mass shootings and those who perpetrate them: how you define a mass shooting. Different definitions, different lists No fixed, uniformly accepted definition exists of a mass shooting, as we have explained in the past: explained Historically, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defined what they call active shooter incidents as those that result in four or more people (not including the attacker) being shot dead in public through actions not related to terrorism, gang activity, or the commission of other crimes (such as robbery). Since 2013, the FBI has dropped that numerical threshold to incidents involving the deaths of three or more people. defined three Everytown for Gun Control, a pro-gun-control non-profit that collects data on shootings, also defines a mass shooting as one in which at least four people are killed (not including the shooter) but includes shootings taking place in private homes, a circumstance the FBI omits from their methodology. defines Mother Jones magazine, in their mass shootings database, defines such shootings as indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed by the attacker. database Stanford Universitys now-defunct Mass Shootings in America project defined a mass shooting as one in which three or more people were shot (but not necessarily killed), excluding the attacker. Stanfords definition excluded gang-, drug-, or organized crime-related shootings. defined The Mass Shooting Tracker, a crowd-sourced project, defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people are shot, including the attacker. defines Of the major sources of data about mass shootings, the Gun Violence Archive has a relatively inclusive definition: If four or more people are shot or killed in a single incident, not [including] the shooter, that incident is categorized as a mass shooting based purely on that numerical threshold. This includes shootings in private places, incidents involving gang activity and armed robbery, shootouts, and non-fatal shootings. definition The August 2019 meme stated that its inclusion criteria were incidents in which four or more people were shot in a single incident. It did not specify any other criteria, such as whether the total number shot could include the perpetrator, whether it included incidents that took place in private dwellings, whether it included terrorism or gang-related shootings, and so on. However, the meme also said it had derived its list of incidents from those included in the Wikipedia entry for "List of mass shootings in the United States in 2019." It's clear that that list did include some gang-related shootings, some which took place in a private dwelling, and several incidents in which multiple people were shot but nobody died. entry Our relatively brief overview of the alleged shooters included in the August 2019 meme indicates that it was broadly fairly accurate. It contained a few errors, but was faithful overall to its own criteria. The primary problem with the chart was that it was based on a relatively broad definition of "mass shooting" which, while valid in and of itself, should not be confused with the much more narrow definition implicitly at work in many conversations about "mass shootings" that is, incidents in which an attacker with no links to terrorism, criminal gangs, or organized crime goes out into a public area and fatally shoots multiple people. From a law enforcement and criminological point of view, defining a "mass shooting" in this relatively narrow way helps to establish clear parameters in terms of the nature and causes of such attacks, as well as the motivations of the attackers and any patterns in the identities of their victims. By contrast, gang-related shootings, for example, even if they cross a numerical threshold for victims, have relatively well-studied and straightforward causes and motivations, as well as a much more familiar victimology. Hence, agencies such as the FBI deliberately exclude them from their study of, and operations against, "active shooter incidents." However, to some observers, especially those primarily focused on the role of guns in violent deaths in the U.S., it is of secondary importance whether a mass shooting was related to a drug feud or a white supremacist act of terrorism. What matters most to these observers is the role of a firearm in causing the deaths of multiple people in one incident. Another example of this is the Mass Shooting Tracker's (relatively rare) insistence on including the death of a perpetrator among the total number of deaths in a mass shooting. The website's reasoning is simple but powerful: "We include the shooter's death because suicide matters ..." insistence Therefore, how you define a "mass shooting" can often depend on which underlying phenomenon or aspect of a mass shooting is of primary interest to you, and that definition can have a significant effect on the list of incidents on which your analysis focuses. How you define a mass shooting also indirectly has a bearing on the demographic make-up of victims and perpetrators. For example, we know that criminal gangs in the United States are disproportionately made up of Latino and African American members. Including gang-related shootings in your definition of mass shootings will, therefore, increase the proportion of such perpetrators and victims in your count. That should not be surprising or controversial. made up In fact, the full list of mass shootings (according to the broad definition used in the August 2019 meme), is likely to skew even more towards non-white perpetrators than the meme itself shows. This is because, as we explained in our examination of 2018 statistics for mass shootings, unsolved shootings often remain unsolved due to the dynamics inherent in gang conflict. 2018 statistics If an analysis of gun violence and mass shootings is being done in good faith, that demographic breakdown will be an inadvertent byproduct of the decision to include gang violence in one's definition. However, readers should also be on the lookout for those with a racist or white supremacist agenda deliberately tailoring the definition of a mass shooting so as to yield a list of perpetrators with a higher quotient of non-white individuals. So what are the demographics of perpetrators of mass shootings, if we examine only the more narrow definitions of that term the elusive phenomenon whereby an assailant without any ties to gangs, terrorism or organized crime, picks up a firearm and shoots multiple people in a public setting? The most extensive and robust database of gun violence in the U.S. is arguably the Gun Violence Archive. We have used entries from that database and applied the FBI's definition of "active shooter incident" in order to check the demographic make-up of the perpetrators of these much more narrowly defined attacks. The FBI defines an "active shooter incident" (akin to a mass shooting) as an incident in which a perpetrator shoots dead three or more people (not including the perpetrator) in a single incident in a public place, which is unrelated to terrorism, gangs, and doesn't take place in the course of some other criminal activity (like a robbery or fight). defines By this definition, the Gun Violence Archive showed there were six such alleged incidents between Jan. 1 and Aug. 5, 2019: Aug. 4 Betts Aug. 3 shot dead Crusius July 28 described claimed May 31 shot dead DeWayne Craddock Feb. 15 shot dead Jan. 23 shot dead Xaver All six suspects were men, three were white, two were African-American, and the precise racial and ethnic identity of the sixth suspect was not clear. Mac Guill, Dan. "Were None of 154 Mass Shootings in 2018 Committed by a Black Man, Illegal Alien, or Woman?" Snopes.com. 15 July 2018. National Gang Center. "National Youth Gang Survey Analysis -- Demographics." Accessed 6 August 2019. Seewer, John; Sewell, Dan; Minchillo, John. "Vigil Honors Victims as Authorities Eye Ohio Shooter's Life." The Associated Press. 5 August 2019. Galvan, Astrid; Lee, Morgan; Weber, Paul J. "El Paso Deaths Climb to 22 as Mayor Prepares for Trump's Visit." The Associated Press. 5 August 2019. Vives, Ruben et al. "What We Know About the Gilroy Garlic Festival Shooting Suspect." The Los Angeles Times. 29 July 2019. Finley, Ben. "12 People Killed in Virginia Beach Shooting; Suspect Dead." The Associated Press. 1 June 2019. Coutu, Peter and Alissa Skelton. "Virginia Beach Killer Matched the Cliche: Quite, Polite, Unassuming." The Virginian-Pilot. 5 June 2019. Holcombe, Madeline. "Aurora Gunman Opened Fire on His Coworkers as Soon as he Lost His Job." CNN. 18 February 2019. Hauser, Christine. "Death Penalty Sought for Man Charged With Killing 5 in a Florida Bank Shooting." The New York Times. 8 February 2019. Updated [8 August 2019]: Added clarification that Santino William Legan's manner of death was suicide.

neutral

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/mar/22/facebook-posts/claim-silicon-valley-bank-donated-73-million-black/

Silicon Valley Bank donated $73M to 'BLM Movement'

Madison Czopek

03/22/2023

After Silicon Valley Bank collapsed, some pundits and news organizations suggestedwithout evidencethat woke investments contributed to the collapse. Silicon Valley Bank donated $73M to BLM Movement, one March 15 Newsmaxheadlinecirculating on social media read. Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson andJesse Wattersalso made similar claims. Silicon Valley Bank brace yourself spent more than $73 million on donations to BLM and related organizations, CarlsonsaidMarch 14. The Newsmax article and similarpostswere flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about ourpartnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) The Newsmax article pointed to adatabasefrom the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank. The database tracks pledges and contributions to the BLM movement and related causes, according to the institute. In the databases explanatory notes, the institute said its definition of the BLM movement includes organizations such as Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation; Movement for Black Lives; grassroots groups; independent BLM chapters; the fiscal sponsors of BLM organizations; and BLM partners such as the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union. The Claremont Institute defined Black Lives Matter related causes as organizations and initiatives that advance one or more aspects of BLMs agenda. However, Black Lives Matter is not one entity with a set agenda. It is a decentralized international activistmovementwith no formal hierarchy. The Claremont Institute and Silicon Valley Bank did not respond to PolitiFacts requests for comment. An institute spokespersontold MarketWatchthat most of Silicon Valley Banks roughly $70.5 million in contributions fell in the related causes category. He also said the bank donated to the NAACP and ACLU. The banks charitable contributions included in Claremonts $70 million-plus total went primarily to groups and initiatives with no clear tie to the Black Lives Matter movement: A 2021 pledge to invest more than $50 million over five years into the banksAccess to Innovation program, which works to connect people who are often underrepresented in the innovation economy including women, Blacks and Latinos with hiring, mentorship, educational and networking opportunities. A $20 million donation that the banksaidwould be used to support COVID-19 relief; a needs-based scholarship program; economic development; and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. A 2-to-1 matchingcampaignthe bank created in 2020 for employees who donated their money or time to social justice organizations. A $250,000 allocation from the Silicon Valley Bank Foundation to support grants for social justice organizations where bank employees volunteer. A prominent Black Lives Matter organization, Black Lives Matter Global Foundation Network, told PolitiFact in a statement that the Black Lives Matter movement includes thousands of organizations, so there is no way for the group to say with certainty whether Silicon Valley Bank donated to any one of them. The group also said the banks possible contributions to Black causes are irrelevant to what caused the banks collapse. Flags fly in Black Lives Matter Plaza as President Joe Biden is sworn in during 59th Presidential Inauguration, Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2021, in Washington. (AP) A report in the newsletterPopular Informationfound an error in the databases calculations: Nearly $3 million in contributions that the database had initially counted occurred in 2019, not 2020. The Claremont Institute, which started tracking this data in 2020, updated the database to reflect that information, meaning the banks total contributions for 2020 were $70.65 million, rather than over $73 million, as the initial claims said. As of March 22, Newsmax had not corrected its headline to reflect that change. Facebook posts claimed Silicon Valley Bank donated $73M to 'BLM Movement.' The claim stemmed from a database kept by the Claremont Institute. It showed that since 2020, Silicon Valley Bank had donated or pledged to donate more than $70 million to causes related to the Black Lives Matter movement. The institute defined related causes as organizations and initiatives that advance one or more aspects of BLMs agenda. Black Lives Matter is not one entity with a set agenda; it is a decentralized international activist movement with no formal hierarchy. A close look at the Claremont list shows that Silicon Valley Banks charitable contributions went primarily to groups and initiatives with no clear association to the Black Lives Matter movement. We rate this claim False. RELATED:Was Silicon Valley Bank demise caused by Trump easing regulation, 'woke' efforts, or something else?

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/sep/27/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-donald-trump-rooted-housing-c/

Says Donald Trump was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis. He said back in 2006, Gee, I hope it does collapse because then I can go in and buy some and make some money.

Jon Greenberg

09/26/2016

In the opening skirmish of the first presidential debate, Hillary Clinton cast her rival as a man who put his own business interests ahead of the welfare of average Americans. Donald was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis, Clinton said. He said back in 2006, Gee, I hope it does collapse because then I can go in and buy some and make some money. What does the record show? We found many examples from 2006 to 2009 when Donald Trump spoke of the great opportunity that came with falling real estate prices. One of the earliest instances was in a Trump audiobook from 2006. The man interviewing Trump for the audiobook says, There's a lot of talk, which you've no doubt heard too, about a so-called real estate bubble. What's your take on that pessimism? Well first of all, I sort of hope that happens because then people like me would go in and buy. You know, if you're in a good cash position which I'm in a good cash position today then people like me would go in and buy like crazy, he says in a portion of the audiobookposted by CNN. If there is a bubble burst, as they call it, you know, you can make a lot of money. Now that was before the collapse that led to the Great Recession, and arguably, Trump was simply offering sound business guidance. Trump touted the same view acoupleof times in2007. But at that point, the country still was not looking at an economic catastrophe. The situation was quite different by early 2009. The investment house Lehman Brothers had filed for bankruptcy, the largest in U.S. history. The Dow had suffered its worst weekly loss ever. Washington had bailed out General Motors and Chrysler. Foreclosures were rising weekly. Trump was on CNNFeb. 17, 2009, talking about the economy with host Wolf Blitzer and said the moment was a great opportunity. Blitzer asked Trump why. If you get something really prime, really good, eventually it's going to be worth a lot more than you paid, Trump explained. I used to tell people two years ago, don't buy real estate and I used to preach it hard. And now I'm saying, I think that this is a good time. Whether you hit the exact market or not, I can't tell you. But I think this is a great time to buy. If you have cash, this is the great time to buy. To be clear, Trump was speaking as an investor. He was not necessarily rooting for the housing crisis. But it was under way as he spoke. We reached out to the Trump campaign and did not receive any information to add to this picture. Our ruling Clinton said Trump was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis. While Trump did not welcome the tragedy of foreclosures for millions of Americans, he did speak optimistically about the opportunities the overall situation created for an investor such as himself. Clintons statement leaves out that nuance, but in large measure, it matches Trumps words. We rate this claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/22c6df0a-1ffe-421d-b06a-b6c208a27038

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/center-stage/

Is the Kennedy Center Changing to the Obama Center?

David Mikkelson

08/13/2014

Claim: The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is changing its name to the Obama Center. Example: [Collected via e-mail, August 2014] Rumor: The Kennedy Center For The Arts' name is being changed to the Obama Center For The Arts. Origins: The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is a performance hall and education complex located on the banks of the Potomac River in Washington D.C. Although the Kennedy Center is the official home of the National Symphony Orchestra and the Washington National Opera, it is most widely known for hosting the annual Kennedy Center Honors, a program which recognizes living individuals for lifetime artistic achievement and which is broadcast live on network television each year. John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Kennedy Center Honors Although the legislation to establish a National Cultural Center was signed by President Eisenhower in 1958, it was President and Mrs. Kennedy who used their influence as well known patrons of the arts to raise the private funds necessary to establish and maintain the center. After President Kennedy's death in 1963, Congress "designated the National Cultural Center ... as a 'living memorial' to Kennedy." living memorial But there is another Kennedy Center, this one a community recreation center and senior citizens hall in Willingboro, New Jersey. In early August 2014 the Willingboro Township Council voted to rename that Kennedy Center in honor of President Barack Obama: A recreation and senior citizens center in Willingboro known as the "Kennedy Center" will soon be named after the sitting president and not a former one. The change became official Tuesday when the township council voted to change the name of the building to honor President Barack Obama. The name of the street the building is on Kennedy Way will not be changed. A shopping center across the street is also named for Kennedy. That name change was planned as part of a multi-million dollar renovation of the Willingboro community facility, which converted the former high school cafeteria into a banquet hall. But after alumnae/i of the former Kennedy High School protested, the Willingboro council reversed the decision at its September 2014 meeting: Dawn Donnelly, of Burlington Township, a 1977 graduate of Kennedy, came to the meeting with 1,200 signatures of those opposing the name change. Im an Obama supporter, Donnelly said. I voted for him two times, and I would vote for him again. Its not about that.... Kennedy meant a lot to this town in the 1960s. They are changing history. Last updated: 3 September 2014 Goldman, Jeff. "Building In N.J. Town Named After John F. Kennedy Will Now Be Named After Obama." The Star-Ledger. 7 August 2014. Levinsky, David and Rose Krebs. "Willingboro Council Reverses Kennedy Center Name Change." Burlington County Times. 2 September 2014.

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/may/19/beto-orourke/orourke-right-about-estimated-property-tax-revenue/

Under Greg Abbott, property taxes have gone up $20 billion.

Nusaiba Mizan

05/19/2022

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Beto O'Rourke is blaming Gov. Greg Abbott for high inflation in Texas, taking a page out of the GOP playbook in attacking President Joe Biden. O'Rourke released anInstagram videoon April 23 with the caption, Greg Abbott is the single greatest driver of inflation in the state of Texas. TV news clips were stitched together with clips of O'Rourke speaking. In one clip in the montage, O'Rourke says, Under Greg Abbott, property taxes have gone up $20 billion. O'Rourke went on to say, When you add this to the other inflation that he's causing ... with more clips pointing to electricity bills,traffic backups at the border in April due to additional commercial vehicle inspections Abbott ordered that he said would improve border security, and the rising costs of internet and phone for rural Texans. Overall, O'Rourke is saying Abbott is exacerbating consumer prices in Texas, which were already rising nationwide. We looked at one component of the ad: that jaw-dropping number of a $20 billion increase in property taxes. Is it true? Nationally, inflation hit a 40-year highaccording to March data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, prompting criticism of Biden, especially as inflationrelates to government spending. O'Rourke's campaign pointed to aTexas Taxpayers and Research Association reporttitled Relief from Rising Values: 2019 Property Tax Reforms Cutting Tax Rates at a Record Pace. The report looked at the effects of legislation by state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, R-Houston, and state Rep. Dan Huberty, R-Houston, that overhauled the school finance system and local government budgeting practices and tamped down property tax increases for Texans. The association found property taxes are continuing to rise, but at a slower rate. The campaign pointed specifically to a figure in the report depicting Texas local property taxes from 2011 to 2021. Property taxes levied were just over $50 billion in 2015, when Abbott took office, and just over $70 billion in 2021. The difference is about a $20 billion increase. Data on estimated revenue from local property taxes is available on the state comptroller's website. According to the2018-19 biennial reporton property taxes by the comptroller's office, property taxes totaled $52.2 billion in 2015. Comptroller data on school district, city, county and special district property taxes indicatethere was an estimated $73 billion in property taxes collected statewide in 2021. That's at least a $20 billion increase and in line with the analysis by the Texas Taxpayers and Research Association. In the six years before Abbott's election, property taxes increased to a lesser extent, but that property tax growth was constrained by the Great Recession. To note, while O'Rourke is appealing to voters who may also be homeowners, both commercial and residential property taxes are included here. Austin Community Collegeeconomics professor Stuart Greenfield, whose state government career included work with economic models and how Texas distributes money to school districts, said just over half of the 2019 school district taxable value of property was single-family and multifamily homes. The Texas Taxpayers and Research Association is a lobbying organization that primarily spends its money on research. Its policy advocacy has a fiscal conservative bent, the association's President Dale Craymer said, but the organization doesn't advocate for the policies of one party over the other. Craymer said O'Rourke spoke correctly of the group's report based on the data it analyzed from the comptroller's office. The implication of O'Rourke's ad, however, is that Abbott is responsible for rising property taxes. Craymer said the role of state government is indirect at best when it comes to property taxes because rates are set locally and not by the governor or Legislature. Basically, the process by which rates are set and adopted is laid out in state law, Craymer said. The Legislature and the governor obviously are responsible for drafting and putting those laws in effect. But the state really doesn't have a direct say in the amount of property taxes individual jurisdictions raise. The association's report found taxes would have been somewhat higher without twoproperty tax changes by the Legislature in 2019. One created a process where school district property taxes would decrease over time for senior citizens, whose school district taxes are capped. The second change, Craymer said, increased the school district property tax homestead exemption for homeowners from $25,000 to $40,000, saving homeowners about $180 per year. Also in 2019, the Legislature required cities, counties and most special districts to seek voter approval to set a property tax that raises revenues more than 3.5%. For junior colleges and hospital special districts, the threshold for voter approval is 8%. For school districts, it is 2.5%. State policy also affects property values, and increases in value are tied to increases in taxes. Richard Auxier,senior policy associate at the Tax Policy Center under the Brookings Institute and Urban Institute, said the value of Texas homes is increasing alongside the rest of the country. While you can frame that as property taxes went up, you can flip that to home values went up, Auxier said. It's always going to be a trade-off, because people want the value of their homes to increase, but people don't want their taxes to go up. Texas Republicans have campaigned on property tax relief, too. Abbottadded property tax reliefto the Legislature's third special session agenda in 2021 thatresulted ina now-approved amendment to the Texas Constitution. Abbottsimilarly publicized his support for property tax reliefas a priority in a May 2 tweet ahead of May 7 elections. Abbott'scampaign responded to O'Rourke's adby saying Abbott reduced property taxes by $18 billion since taking office and O'Rourke increased property taxes as an El Paso City Council member. Texas voters approvedProposition 2, which raises the homestead exemption for school district property taxes from $25,000 to $40,000. They also approvedProposition 1, which corrected a 2019 oversight in tax relief that did not apply to homeowners who are disabled or 65 or older because their school tax burden is capped. O'Rourke said in an April 23 Instagram video on rising inflation in Texas that, Under Greg Abbott, property taxes have gone up $20 billion. Data presented in biennial reports and on the comptroller's website show that estimated revenue collected through property taxes increased by more than $20 billion. O'Rourke's figure was accurate. But property taxes are set locally, not by the state. Although state policies might indirectly affect property taxes, the governor's role in setting property taxes is indirect. We rate this as Mostly True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bit-of-trouble/

Drill Bit Accident

David Mikkelson

09/05/2003

Claim: A construction worker survived an accident that poked an 18-inch-long drill bit through one eye and out the side of his skull. . Origins: Although we dread the gory industrial accidents that leave their victims dead or result in the loss of a limb (or more), other types of on-the-job injuries can strike us as far more horrific. One such accident took place on 15 August 2003, when Ron Hunt, a Truckee, California, construction worker, landed face-first on a large drill bit. Hunt was working in the Tahoe Donner Subdivision in Truckee, standing atop a six-foot ladder while drilling over his head, when he gave the drill an extra push to bore a hole. As he felt the ladder begin to wobble out from under him, he tried tossing his power drill aside (a standard practice in the construction industry, intended to prevent workers from injuring themselves attempting to regain grips on out-of-control power tools) before falling to the ground. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to throw the drill far enough away, and he landed upon it face-first. The 18-inch-long, 1.5-inch diameter chip auger drill bit pierced Hunt's right eye and exited through the side of his skull. As Hunt described the mishap: By the time I was falling, and I let the drill go down, I was already on top of it. The drill was facing up but it was off. When the drill hit, it just exploded my eye. It skewered me. I ran my hands up the drill bit, up to my eye, and put my other hand in the back of my head and felt it coming through the back of my head, and that's where pretty much the shock set in. The first thing I thought was 'Am I going to die?' I knew it was serious. I was scared. I didn't know if it was in my brain or not. The only other worker on the site that morning, Forrest Keating, heard Hunt call for help and rushed to assist him: The first thing I saw was this drill sticking out about 6 inches from the back of his head and 6 inches out the front. It was a trip, like something out of a horror movie. I was amazed he was still alive. Keating removed his shirt and attempted to stem the flow of blood gushing from Hunt's eye by wrapping the shirt around the drill. He then ran 300 yards to a nearby house to summon medical help, and when paramedics arrived they released the body of the drill from the bit and loaded Hunt onto a gurney. Hunt (conscious throughout his ordeal) was then flown by helicopter to Washoe Medical Center in Reno, Nevada, where doctors pondered their options for treating the bizarre injury. Miraculously, although the drill bit tunneled between Hunt's scalp and his skull as it came out of the side of his head, it pushed his brain aside rather than pushing into it, sparing him from death, brain damage, or paralysis. Dr. Paul Ludlow, an ear, nose and throat specialist who was the facial trauma physician on call that morning, initially intended to cut off the drill bit but eventually decided that the best approach was to, in effect, unscrew it from Hunt's head: We had to either cut down on it, which meant making a rather long incision through a lot of muscle, or just unscrew it - twist it all the way through and out. We would have cut it off, but after a few minutes of drilling, we noticed that it was loose. And so we just put down our blade and twisted the bit. Hunt had sufficiently recovered from his injuries by early September to appear on national television programs such as CNN News and ABC's "Good Morning America." Although he was truly fortunate not to have suffered more severe injuries (or damage to his motor or speech skills), he came away from the accident far from unscathed: besides suffering a fractured skull (which required a second operation to insert two titanium plates to reinforce the fractured bone), he lost an eye and now faces hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills and rehabilitation costs. According to news accounts, Hunt is not covered by state compensation for on-the-job injuries, and he was a self-employed worker with no medical insurance. Injuries of this type always call to mind the case of Phineas Gage, who in 1848 survived an accident which blew a 3-foot, 7-inch tamping iron under a cheek bone and completely out through the top of his head. Although Gage lived on for almost another dozen years, he suffered dramatic changes in personality and was subject to epileptic seizures in his final months. Phineas Gage Last updated: 14 July 2006 Sources: Hess, Scott. "Man Survives Horrific Construction Accident." Sierra Sun. 27 August 2003. Powers, Lenita. "Freak Accident Draws National Attention." Reno Gazette-Journal. 2 September 2003. Associated Press. "Man Survives 18-Inch Drill Bit Through Head; X-Ray Proves It." Reno Gazette-Journal. 2 September 2003. Associated Press. "Construction Worker Survives Drill Through Head." CNN.com. 3 September 2003.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/mar/08/chris-christie/chris-christie-claims-proposed-budget-smaller-leve/

Says the proposed fiscal year 2013 budget is still below the level of state spending when I took office.

Bill Wichert

03/08/2012

Gov. Chris Christie wants to increase state spending in the coming fiscal year, but he claims the proposed budget is smaller than the one in place when he took office in January 2010.The governor made that point in a Feb. 21 speech before state legislators and other officials, when he unveiled his proposed $32.1 billion budget for fiscal year 2013, which begins July 1. The adjusted budget for the current fiscal year stands at roughly $30.9 billion.The budget I propose would total $32.1 billion for the coming year, Christie said. While this represents minimal growth from last year, it is still below the level of state spending when I took office.PolitiFact New Jersey was interested in whether state spending was higher two years ago, and a state Treasury Department spokesman showed us the numbers that back up Christies claim.The proposed fiscal year 2013 budget is smaller than the fiscal year 2010 budget in place around the time Christie took office -- but just barely. The difference between the two budgets is about $5 million.Lets break down the numbers.Christie, a Republican, was sworn into office on Jan. 19, 2010 -- in the middle of fiscal year 2010, which began under former Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat. Two months later, the new governor introduced his budget for fiscal year 2011.To support the governors statement, Treasury spokesman Andrew Pratt pointed out how the fiscal year 2010 budget when Christie took office was $32.151 billion. That figure represented the adjusted budget as of March 16, 2010, according to a Treasury report at the time.The governors proposed budget for fiscal year 2013 is $32.146 billion, according to a recent budget summary. As such, his statement is true, Pratt told us.So, the proposed budget is roughly $5 million less than the level of state spending when Christie took office, marking a decrease of 0.016 percent. Thats not a lot of money, but it still means Christies statement is correct.But theres a major reason for why the fiscal year 2010 budget was larger than the proposed budget for fiscal year 2013: federal stimulus dollars.That adjusted budget of $32.151 billion for fiscal year 2010 included $2.289 billion worth of appropriations supported by stimulus funds. Those stimulus funds were used to help close a projected budget shortfall.Without those stimulus dollars, the proposed budget for fiscal year 2013 would be larger than the budget in place when Christie took office.Our rulingIn his Feb. 21 budget speech, Christie claimed in regard to his proposed fiscal year 2013 budget: While this represents minimal growth from last year, it is still below the level of state spending when I took office.According to state Treasury documents, Christie is accurate. The proposed budget is $32.146 billion -- about $5 million less than the $32.151 billion spending plan in place when Christie took office.We rate the statement True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/jul/07/barack-obama/barack-obama-claims-credit-least-16-tax-cuts-small/

We have provided at least 16 tax cuts to small businesses.

Robert Farley

07/07/2011

During a July 6, 2011, question-and-answer session on Twitter, President Barack Obama was asked -- in a tweet by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio -- After embarking on a record spending binge that left us deeper in debt, where are the jobs?Part of Obamas answer is that his administration has worked to aid small businesses in job creation.We have provided at least 16 tax cuts to small businesses who have needed a lot of help and have been struggling -- including, for example, saying zero capital gains taxes on startups -- because our attitude is we want to encourage new companies, young entrepreneurs, to get out there, start their business, without feeling like if theyre successful in the first couple of years that somehow they have to pay taxes, as opposed to putting that money back into their business.This response echoed acomment we checkeda few weeks earlier. In a face-off between the heads of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee on NBC'sMeet the Presson June 11, 2011, the discussion turned to what the government should be doing to accelerate job creation.I think we need to cut taxes on small businesses, said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.Well, that's good, retorted DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., because we've done that, 17 times.Heres what we found when we looked at the question of small business tax cuts.When asked for supporting documents, the DNC press office pointed us to a Feb. 25, 2011, posting on the official White House blog titledSeventeen Small Business Tax Cuts and Counting.The post enumerated 17 small business tax cuts and credits created or extended through legislation signed by Obama.Eight of them were included in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (more commonly known as the economic stimulus bill), the Affordable Care Act (also known as the health care law), and the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (aka the HIRE Act). Among the cuts were the exclusion of up to 75 percent of capital gains on key small business investments; a tax credit for the cost of health insurance for small business employees and new tax credits for hiring Americans out of work for at least two months.Another eight cuts came via the Small Business Jobs Act, signed by Obama in September of 2010. These included: adding deductions for business cell phone use; creating a new deduction for health care costs for the self-employed; allowing greater deductions for business start-up expenses; eliminating taxes on all capital gains from key small business investments, and raising the small business expense limit to $500,000.Three months later, the president signed a tax bill that raised the expense limit to 100 percent of small business new investments until the end of 2011. It also extended the elimination of capital gains taxes for small business investments through the end of 2012.Here's the full list:From the Recovery Act, HIRE Acts, and Affordable Care Act:1. A new small business health care tax credit2. A new tax credit for hiring unemployed workers3. Bonus depreciation tax incentives to support new investment4. 75 percent exclusion of small business capital gains5. Expansion of limits on small business expensing6. Five-year carryback of net operating losses7. Reduction of the built-in gains holding period for small businesses from 10 to 7 years to allow small business greater flexibility in their investments8. Temporary small business estimated tax payment relief to allow small businesses to keep needed cash on handFrom the Small Business Jobs Act:9. Zero capital gains taxes on key investments in small businesses10. Raising the small business expensing to $500,00011. An extension of 50 percent bonus depreciation12. A new deduction for health care expenses for the self-employed13. Tax relief and simplification for cell phone deductions14. An increase in the deduction for entrepreneurs start-up expenses15. A five-year carryback of general business credits16. Limitations on penalties for errors in tax reporting that disproportionately affect small businessFrom the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act:17. 100 percent expensingConservative tax specialists don't quibble much with the list, but they did take issue with the context earlier this year when we asked them about the same claim by Wasserman Schultz. I can't argue with any of these, but it ignores all the proposed and enacted tax hikes on small businesses, said Ryan Ellis, director of tax policy at Americans For Tax Reform, an anti-tax group headed by Grover Norquist.For example, Ellis said, it ignores President Obama's proposal to allow Bush-era individual income tax cuts to expire for those making more than $250,000. A clear majority of small business profits are earned in households making at least $250,000 per year. Ellis said. ...That's a tax hike on the small business sector. (PolitiFact Virginia addressed a similar claim inthis fact-check. )There are also a number of tax increases included in the health care law, Ellis said, some of which apply directly to small businesses. For one, he said, businesses with more than 50 employees could face a tax penalty if they don't provide enough health insurance to their employees. Another example, the 10 percent tanning tax, which he said is nearly exclusively applied to small businesses.So the overall story is much more of a problem for small firms than the Obama administration would suggest, Ellis said.Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, allowed that there have been targeted tax cuts for small businesses. But, he said, it's an error to just point to the number of tax cuts. You have to look at the overall impact and that certainly has been steep tax hikes.Dubay also noted that six of the 17 cuts were not just for small businesses but were made widely available to all businesses.Richard Morrison at the Tax Foundation, a pro-business group, said that nothing on (the White House list) stands out as egregiously unjustified from a fact-checking perspective. Some of them are temporary, and some arent targeted exclusively at small businesses, but that doesnt necessarily mean they shouldnt 'count' as far as the claim is concerned.We think there's room for critics to note that in addition to the 17 tax cuts enumerated by the White House, there are there are also some tax increases in the health care law that will fall on some of the same small business owners that got tax cuts. Some health care law tax increases won't go into effect for a couple years. And with some, like the excise taxes on tanning beds, one could argue it is a tax on the customer, not the small business.As for allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of 2012, that's still just an Obama proposal; it hasn't happened. The only policy actually signed by the president so far was a compromise agreement that extended the tax cuts. On balance, we rated Wasserman Schultz's comment Mostly True. Because Obamas comment is substantially similar, we also rate his comment Mostly True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sink-toilet-japan/

Are Sink-Toilet Combinations Common in Japan?

Madison Dapcevich

06/10/2021

A fixation on toilets took over the internet in mid-June 2021 when a social media user posted a photo to Reddit that claimed to depict a Japanese toilet with a hand sink attached to the top of it. According to the post, water from the sink is used to wash a persons hands before it is reused in the toilet bowl for future business. toilets Reddit Screengrab/Reddit Reddit An internet search for the toilet-topping sinks revealed that there are several options available for less than $100. Product descriptions claim that the sink can be installed on a toilet in less than five minutes simply take the already existing reservoir lid off of the toilet and replace it with the sink addition. A valve connects the faucet to the toilet and, according to customer reviews, water used to wash hands is then automatically drained into the toilet bowl and reused during flushing. customer reviews Similar products have been on the market in recent years and have been advertised as not only something to save water but a method that encourages men to wash hands. In 2013, NPRs "All Tech Considered" featured the toilet-sink and toilet-urinal addition, noting that the combination has been around in Japan since at least 1956. According to an excerpt from Leonard Korens book, 283 Useful Ideas From Japan, the Japanese inspired combo is both practical and budget-friendly: encourages men to wash hands All Tech Considered 283 Useful Ideas From Japan "This system costs less than conventional toilets and comes in eight- and-16-liter sizes and a rainbow of colors. Also available for bathrooms are artificial flushing-sound generations that people can use to cover up the sound of what they're doing without wasting water." The toilet review site, Toilet Found! noted that the toilet-sink systems became popular in Japan after World War II when the real estate came with a hefty price tag. The design was meant for small bathrooms and living quarters, where creativity and innovation were key to comfortability. In addition to space constraints, the system also conserves and reuses water and does not require a heater to warm the water, potentially lowering utility bill expenses as well. Toilet Found! The design is such that water from the supply line channels through the faucet for you to wash your hands. And then drained out through the sink drain and into the tank. The water will keep flowing to fill up the tank, until it gets shut off by the float, wrote the review site. This way water is not wasted. Compare to the usual when you have to wash your hands on a separate sink with clean water. And it adds up to more water used for each visit to the toilet.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/man-feeds-polar-bear-picture/

Is This a Photo of a Man Feeding a Polar Bear?

Dan Evon

08/16/2019

A photograph supposedly showing a man hand-feeding a polar bear in Russia sometime in the 1970s is frequently shared by historical-picture social media accounts: The seemingly dangerous situation depicted in the image, as well as the fact that these accounts don't always provide accurate captions, led many viewers to be a little skeptical that this was a genuine photograph. provide accurate captions But this picture is quite real. It was taken near the Siberian town Cape Schmidt off the coast of the Chukchi Sea sometime in the 1970s and shows a man named Nikolai Machulyak. Machulyak was a bit of a local celebrity at the time due to his frequent encounters with polar bears. When rumors of a man who had "tamed the beasts" reached author V. Filimonov, he set out to find him. In August 1977, Filimonov published an article about Machulyak entitled " " ("I Ask For Your Friendship) in the Russian travel magazine ("Around the World"): Around the World Machulyak explained that a young polar bear was abandoned after a hunter killed its parent in December 1974. Machulyak fed the young polar bear, which he named "Masha," for the remainder of the winter months until the bear left in the spring of 1975. A year later, he encountered a larger polar bear. While it seemed at first as if the bear was about to attack him, he soon realized that something quite different was happening. Here's how Machulyak explained the origins of this story to Around the World magazine (loosely translated via Google): In December 1974, a Chukchi hunter killed a polar bear that devastated its yaranga. After her there was a pestoon - a young bear, which I fed for five months: she had not yet learned to hunt. Called her Masha. In the spring of 1975, she left, and almost a year later I saw her again ... ... And suddenly this bear rushes to me. Often a person does not manage to unravel the intentions of the beast, but here I felt: this is not an attack. All bears are usually on the same face ... but then I realized - Masha! I stopped her with a wand. I always carry such a wand with me. Light, sixty centimeters. Masha was at a loss - this was visible in her face, at will, bypassing the wand, approaching me. She clearly recognized me ... And yet it was scary. After all, 11 months have passed since our last meeting. I immediately brought meat from the trap. She ate willingly. The Around the World article also included journal entries that Machulyak had written about his experiences with Masha. In them, he recounts his various encounters with her, such as the time he fed her seal meat from his hands. Masha wasn't the only polar bear that Machulyak encountered during this period. At one point, a larger bear named "Marya Mikhailovna" pushed Masha from her den. Machulyak was able to befriend this bear, too, as well as her cubs. The Russian Geographical Society collected and published several other photographs of Machulyak and this family of polar bears: Russian Geographical Society Although Machulyak had multiple encounters with these polar bears, he said that he always approached with caution: The beast is the beast. But every time I set myself up before a meeting. I mentally tell Masha, and not only to her, but to any bear: "I ask for your friendship. Here is my hand in advance palm up, there is no weapon, there is a can of condensed milk in it that you love. You are a beautiful, strong and amiable beast to me. I want to have a friend in you, and in friendship I will not be more faithful." . . " ." . August 1977. . " ." 1 April 2014.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/illegal-alien-denied-cops-service-we-dont-serve-pigs/

Illegal Alien Denied Cops Service, 'We Don't Serve Pigs'

Kim LaCapria

07/19/2016

On 18 July 2016 the web site Conservative Daily Post published an article reporting that an "illegal alien" had been fired after she declined to serve police officers at an Alabama McDonald's, declaring that we dont serve pigs. article The outrage-provoking article was set against the backdrop of a month of tensions between police officers and community members in July 2016. The shooting deaths of civilians Alton Sterling and Philando Castile led to national protests, and police officers were killed in ambush shootings in Dallas and Baton Rouge. Alton Sterling Philando Castile Dallas Baton Rouge In that period, several rumors of police officers "shunned" or mistreated at restaurants circulated online. A group of policemen in Pennsylvania said they paid the bill of a couple who refused to sit near them, a sheriff in Washington reported that a Chinese restaurant's owners had said law enforcement was not welcome there, and officers in Baton Rouge maintained that a server at Las Palmas restaurant had put mucus in their drinks. Pennsylvania reported Las Palmas After those claims became virally popular, Conservative Daily Post asserted: Its pretty sad to look around and see how police officers are being treated right now. They put their lives on the line every single day to defend our freedoms within the local community. We are more than thankful for our military, yet we fail to recognize the very people that keep us safe in our homes at night. Police officers dont get paid a lot either. They knowingly walk into possible gunfights almost every day. They do it because they heard the call to serve. They do it because they are true American patriots. Well, there was just another case of disrespect against cops. In Alabama, last week a cashier decided that she didnt want to serve the cops. Maria Englesia pictured above told the officers to get out of here because they didnt serve pigs. This was blatant. McDonalds stepped in as soon as they heard what happened. They immediately fired the woman and issued a formal apology to the police department of Alabama. Social media users accepted that report at face value: @McDonalds #Illegal Alien Denied Cops Service, We Dont Serve Pigs https://t.co/5n3esRSePy #BoycottMcDonalds @McDonalds #Illegal https://t.co/5n3esRSePy #BoycottMcDonalds Jan Johnson (@JanJohnsonFL) July 18, 2016 July 18, 2016 Illegal Alien McDonald's clerk tells police: "We don't serve your kind" Get the fuck out of my country, you bitch!! https://t.co/3HGU4ml3ow obamasucksballs (@obamasucksballs) July 19, 2016 https://t.co/3HGU4ml3ow July 19, 2016 Conservative Daily Post claimed McDonald's had fired the employee and apologized, but no mention of any such controversy (by the company or by commenters) was visible on the hamburger chain's Twitter account, nor on McDonald's Facebook page save for one cryptic comment: Twitter Aside from the single comment, no one appeared to be asking about any incidents involving a Maria Englesia in Alabama. Had the story been genuine, it would have generated news coverage from other outlets. Conservative Daily Post's article also waved another very large red flag: The image doesn't depict a "Maria Englesia" or anyone else recently fired from any McDonald's, anywhere, for any reason. It's a stock photograph dating to at least 2012: Conservative Daily News doesn't carry any sort of warning or disclaimer advising readers about hosting fabricated content, but this story was clearly untrue. No public apology was tendered by McDonald's over an employee's purported refusal to serve Alabama cops, no news outlets or blogs reported on the incident, and the image of the woman "pictured above" was a stock photograph swiped from Getty.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/handgun-safety-and-registration-act/

Handgun Safety and Registration Act

David Mikkelson

09/25/2000

Claim: A bill currently before Congress would require that all handgun owners list their guns on federal income tax returns. Example: [Collected via e-mail, May 2009] Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It may requirefingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun. This bill was introduced on Feb. 24. This bill will become public knowledge 30 days after it is voted into law. This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986. This means that the Finance Committee can pass this without the Senate voting on it at all. The full text of the proposed amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage, https://www.senate.gov/ You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099. Variations: An August 2009 version of the Handgun Safety and Registration Act e-mail combined it with the Blair Holt e-mail that truthfully claims a bill before Congress would prohibit ownership of handguns by those who have not obtained firearms licenses. ownership Origins: The item quoted above about a pending Congressional bill requiring gun owners to list their guns on federal income tax is both outdated and contains a good deal of misinformation. The referenced bill, SB 2099 (the Handgun Safety and Registration Act) is not currently before Congress it was introduced to the Senate back in February 2000 (not 2009), and it was referred to the Committee on Finance, where it languished without ever coming to a vote. It also had no provisions for requiring handgun owners to list their guns on federal income tax returns. The issue back in 2000 was Senate Bill 2099, introduced in February of that year by Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island. S. 2099 was titled the "Handgun Safety and Registration Act of 2000" and sought "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the registration of handguns, and for other purposes." Senate Bill 2099 Jack Reed The National Firearms Act of 1934 established (among other things) a tax on both the manufacture and the transfer of firearms, required that each person who transfers a firearm file an application National Firearms Act (complete with photograph and fingerprints) with the internal revenue authorities, and authorized the creation of "a central registry of all firearms in the United States which are not in the possession or under the control of the United States." However, the definition of "firearm" used by the 1934 act did not include standard rifles, shotguns, or handguns. It applied only to specialized weapons such as short-barrelled rifles and shotguns, machine guns, silencers, and other "destructive devices" (e.g., grenades, bombs, rockets, missiles, mines). S. 2099 would have expanded the definition of "firearm" to include handguns, thus subjecting them to these requirements as well. The upshot of the Handgun Safety and Registration Act, if passed, would have been the imposition of a $50 tax on the manufacture of all handguns, a requirement that all gun owners register their handguns within one year of the Act's passage (but not, as claimed, list them on their federal income tax returns), and the provision that registration information be made available to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. In practical terms, every handgun owner would have had to obtain a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms registration form and an FBI fingerprint form, then complete and submit both forms (along with a 2x2 of himself and a $5 payment) to the BATF. That the intent of this bill was to effect nationwide registration of handguns is unmistakable. As stated in apress release about Senator Reed's bill: press release The bill would require registration of all handguns, including those currently in private possession, and would make it a felony for any person to transfer a handgun to another individual without prior law enforcement approval. Background checks would be performed on all primary and secondary transfers of handguns, including retail sales, gun shows, Internet sales and all private sales. The claim that this bill could have been passed into law without Congress voting upon it was not true: The Handgun Safety and Registration Act, like any other Congressional bill, would have had to be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President (or passed again over his veto) in order to become law. Furthermore, the $50 tax specified in the bill would have applied only to gun manufacturers, not gun owners. As noted above, the Handgun Safety and Registration Act of 2000 languished in committee without ever being brought to a vote, and even Senator Reed himself said at the time he submitted the bill that he was not optimistic about its chances of success: I am under no illusion that this legislation will be approved by this Congress or next Congress ... But we must begin the process to create a law that Americans overwhelmingly believe is necessary. Additional information: Misleading E-mail (gunregistration.org) Last updated: 13 August 2009

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/sep/05/julian-castro/julian-castro-says-milken-institute-named-san-anto/

Says Milken Institute rated San Antonio as nations top-performing local economy.

Sue Owen

09/04/2012

Second-term San Antonio Mayor Julin Castro did not shy from celebrating his hometown during his keynote address to the Democratic National Convention. Addressing the delegates assembled in Charlotte, N.C., Castro said that San Antonio residents recognize the value of investing in pre-Kindergarten and student college loans. We're investing in young minds today to be competitive in the global economy tomorow, Castro said. And it's paying off. Last year the Milken Institute ranked San Antonio as the nation's top-performing local economy. Castro made the same claim in his keynote at the Texas Democratic Party convention. In that June 8, 2012, speech -- which weve previously dipped intotwice-- Julin Castro said his citys investments in infrastructure and education paid off late last year when San Antonio was ranked as the top-performing local economy by the Milken Institute.Indeed, we confirmed, San Antonio topped Milkens2011 listof the nations best-performing large metropolitan areas, rocketing up from 14th place the year before. Its rise is part of a recent trend in which Texas cities have dominated the list as the nation recovers from the2007-09recession.The economic think tanks annual list, which Milken spokesman Conrad Kiechel told us by phone has been issued in its current form for more than a decade, was described in a Dec. 30, 2011,Texas Tribunenews storyas a ranking that measures American metropolitan areas based on their ability to create and sustain jobs.Milkens2011 reporton the best-performing cities says the index gives priority to job and pay gains, then some weight to several technology measures in relation to national averages: the local growth in high-tech gross domestic product, the concentration of tech industries and how many of 25 specific tech industries are concentrated there. Some measures are weighed across five-year spans, to flatten out extreme swings, and the most recent year, to capture recent momentum. In recent years, theTribunesaid, companies have flocked to San Antonio, making it an economic center rivaling Houston and Dallas. In contrast to those cities, though, San Antonio has attracted high-wage jobs, capitalizing on its booming medical research industry.TheTribunestory said InCube and Medtronic were the latest bioscience companies to move to San Antonio, which was already home to global headquarters for Valero Energy, Clear Channel Communications, USAA insurers and the H-E-B grocery chain.TheSan Antonio Express-Newscredited the citys rise to reasons including military base realignment, drilling in the Eagle Ford Shale and the growth of health care in aDec. 16, 2011, news story.Texas cities held four of the top five spots on Milkens 2011 big-cities list, with Austin/Round Rock at fourth. Back in 2008, Austin was Texas only top-five city, but the state claimed most of those slots in 2009, 2010 and 2011. The other chart-toppers for 2011 were No. 2, El Paso; No. 3, Fort Collins/Loveland, Colo.; and No. 5, Killeen/Temple/Fort Hood.Texas rise in the ranks, theExpress-Newswrote, came partly because of downturns in other parts of the country. The story quoted research economist James Gaines of Texas A&M Universitys Real Estate Center: Our growth rate and advancement isn't all that wonderful. We've managed to stay flat or have very small positives. But because everybody has so many negatives, we look so much better.APhiladelphia Inquirercolumnist interviewed Milkens chief research officer, Ross DeVol, and wroteDec. 16, 2011that Technology and energy explain why nine Texas cities placed in the top 25 of the 2011 Milken ranking.Our rulingSan Antonio hasnt just been holding steady in the economic downturn; its been gaining ground, even compared to other Texas cities. Castros statement rates True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/as-the-worm-squirms/

Tapeworm Diet Pills

Barbara Mikkelson

07/25/2000

In August 2014, an episode of Discovery Fit & Health's medical scare docudrama Untold Stories of the E.R. dramatized a supposed real-life scenario in which a teenage girl arrived at Florida hospital's emergency room with a bulging stomach, and the cause of the patient's malady was eventually revealed when she went to the bathroom and excreted tapeworms. The girl's mother then allegedly admitted that she had fed her daughter tapeworm egg pills to help the girl drop some weight before an upcoming beauty pageant: dramatized At some point, the patient went to the bathroom and started screaming. "It was a toilet bowl full of tapeworms. Blegh!" [E.R. nurse, Maricar] Cabral-Osorio said. "It was so gross and she had pooped all these tapeworms. There were a couple that were very long and wiggling around trying to get out of the toilet bowl." Trying to keep up the proper bedside manner, Cabral-Osorio told the patient that since the tapeworms were out of the body, she'd be just fine. One question remained. "We were wondering how did she get those tapeworms, and then you saw the mom turn white," Cabral-Osorio said. "The mom was apologizing to the girl. It's like 'I'm so sorry. You know, I did it just to make you a little skinnier. You needed some help before we went on to the pageant." Cabral-Osorio said the mother denied giving her daughter tapeworms per se, but admitted giving the girl pills with tapeworm eggs. This dramatization echoed a century-old rumor about women buying and ingesting diet pills made of tapeworm eggs in order to maintain slender figures, with the parasites taking up residence in the women's intestines and consuming a significant portion of their caloric intake, thereby preventing food from being stored as undesirable, poundage-adding fat and fostering the burning up of previously stored fat. Whether such a method of weight loss was actually ever a common or widespread practice remains a subject of debate. Purported vintage advertisements for tapeworm-based diet pill products dating from the early 20th century are often cited as proof that it was, but whether such products actually matched their advertised descriptions would be difficult to verify at this remove. Just because an ad for a diet pill proclaimed the product contained tapeworm eggs doesn't mean it really did duping people into buying medicinal nostrums by way of making false and exaggerated claims was standard procedure in the days before government regulation of food and drug products. In the 1960s, memories of those ads resurfaced as appetite-suppressant candies came into vogue, prompting curious dieters to speculate on how they worked. By 1970, diet pills were all the rage, and amphetamines accounted for 8% of all prescriptions written that year. Simple reports about various wonder products evolved into appalling whispered-behind-hands tales about women so desperate to keep their figures that they routinely swallowed magic diet pills which were really tapeworms in capsules. Sometimes the tidbits ended there as "Did you know ...?" shared tales, but other times the buzz was expanded into tragic tales detailing the gruesome deaths that had befallen some beautiful but vain young things who were foolish enough to try such remedies. This rumor has been associated with a number of prominent women, such as German model Claudia Schiffer, but probably no one was singled out by it more often than opera singer Maria Callas (1923-1977). Callas was indeed afflicted with tapeworms, but not due to any "lose weight quick!" reducing scheme: she was overly fond of steak and liver tartare, raw meat dishes prone to contamination. In her case, the rumor about tapeworm diet pills collided with her real-life condition, resulting in her being misidentified as someone who used such a product. Compounding the error, respected newspapers passed along fatuous statements about her and this rumor as if they were revealed fact. (Example: "Maria Callas, whose desperation to lose weight led her to swallow a tapeworm, shed several stones over a matter of months and never regained her former power," trumpeted The Guardian in 1992.) Some poorly-researched biographies have even claimed this as truth, falling for the myth instead of the reality. It's interesting to note many accounts of the Callas rumor spitefully and self-righteously conclude with the news that her indulgence in this ill-advised tapeworm diet fad caused her to lose the ability to hit the high notes. Such flourishes remind us that vanity rumors are often employed to humble women who aren't much liked or are seen as having attained high positions they did not merit. In Callas' case, her well-publicized, long-standing liaison with Aristotle Onassis caused some to belittle her talent by ascribing her success to her having a powerful benefactor; others wanted to find additional justification for disliking a woman who openly consorted with a (then) married man. The tapeworm diet pill claims usually posited that partakers eventually swallowed deworming pills once they had achieved their desired figures to be rid of the tapeworms, but the rumor also melded with a folk tale to form a new entity: Other versions of how to draw out a tapeworm include placing milk, cookies, and a hammer near the afflicted person's anus for a few nights and letting the tapeworm gorge himself into complacency on the treats. Once this has been accomplished, the cookie is withheld. When the worm comes all the way out to demand, "Where's my cookie?," whoever is stuck with worm-watching duty that night bashes it with the hammer. An alternative vermifuge calls for 29 steaks and a hammer: The patient eats a steak for 29 days in row, then fasts on the 30th day. The worm becomes closely acquainted with the hammer when it emerges to demand its T-bone. Baker, Ronald. Hoosier Folk Legends. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1982. ISBN 0-25-332844-6. Bret, David. Maria Callas: The Tigress and the Lamb. London: Robson Books, 1997. ISBN 1-86-105257-X. Brunvand, Jan Harold. The Choking Doberman. New York: W. W. Norton, 1984. ISBN 0-393-30321-7 (pp. 111-112). Cohen, Daniel. The Beheaded Freshman and Other Nasty Rumors. New York: Avon Books, 1993. ISBN 0-380-77020-2 (pp. 107-108). de Vos, Gail. Tales, Rumors and Gossip. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, 1996. ISBN 1-56308-190-3 (p. 148). Morgan, Hal and Kerry Tucker. Rumor! New York: Penguin Books, 1984. ISBN 0-14-007036-2 (p. 65). Moye, David. "Woman Feeds Daughter Tapeworms on 'Untold Stories of the E.R.'" The Huffington Post. 20 August 2014. Smith, Paul. The Book of Nastier Legends. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986. ISBN 0-7102-0573-2 (p. 69). Thomas, Tessa. "Health: Pavarotti and Other Weighty Tissues." The Guardian. 11 September 1992 (p. 27). Tucker, Elizabeth. "The 7-Day Wonder Diet." Indiana Folklore. Vol. 11; 1978 (pp. 141-150). The Big Book of Urban Legends. New York: Paradox Press, 1994. ISBN 1-56389-165-4 (p. 178). This article was updated on Aug. 22, 2014

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/nov/15/caroline-casagrande/caroline-casagrande-says-every-american-owes-feder/

Every American now is $51,000 in debt. Thats money I owe, thats money my children owe before they even go to kindergarten, thats their check to the federal government right now.

Caryn Shinske

11/15/2012

Pity the poor children of the United States they, along with their parents, are already in hock to the federal government for thousands of dollars.Assemblywoman Caroline Casagrande (R-Monmouth) made that claim Oct. 26 during an interview with Michael Aron on NJTVs On The Record.Every American now is $51,000 in debt, Casagrande told Aron. Thats money I owe, thats money my children owe before they even go to kindergarten, thats their check to the federal government right now.Casagrandes number is solid, but she doesnt have to worry about whipping out her checkbook or debit card any time soon, some federal budget experts say.Lets start by reviewing the two commonly cited forms of national debt -- debt held by the public and total debt.Debt held by the public is money borrowed from investors outside of the federal government. The total debt represents debt held by the public as well as money the federal government owes itself, including for programs such as Social Security and Medicare.Now lets look at the numbers in Casagrandes claim.The U.S. Government Debt website on Nov. 6 the date we started looking into Casagrandes clam -- listed the national debt at $16,295,297,196,000. If thats divided by 314,719,484 -- the total U.S. population, according to the Census Bureau, each American owes the federal government $51,777.21.So, Casagrandes number is accurate. But should Americans actually expect to pay that bill? Not necessarily.Gary Burtless, a senior fellow of economic studies at the Brookings Institution who has worked as a government economist and served on federal advisory panels under presidents of both parties, explained that what the nation owes each year on the national debt is annual interest and principal payments.Do grandma and the grandkids have to pay off the national debt, as Assemblywoman Caroline Casagrande seems to suggest? No, they do not, Burtless wrote. Our grandkids great grandparents did not pay off the federal debt; neither did their parents or grandparents. There is no rule that the national debt has to be paid off in one generation, three generations, or even ten generations. Taxpayers do not face the possibility that they will receive a $51,000 bill in the mail anytime soon.An invoice might not be in the mail but Casagrandes statement is fair, according to spokespeople for the conservative Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute.Were not even going to pay off the debt, were going to pay down the interest, said Matt Jensen, a research associate in Economic Policy Studies at the AEI. Under no proposal that Ive seen is someone paying down the debt in real dollars. What were really talking about is paying the interest on the debt, forever. Youll pay the interest, your children will pay the interest.Our PolitiFact colleagues in Virginia and New Hampshire also looked into similar claims in their states and found that the amount of debt cited by their lawmakers was largely accurate.Virginia Rep. Randy Forbes in January said the national debt amounted to $48,700 for every American or $128,300 for every U.S. Household. Our colleagues rated the claim True.In August, PolitiFact New Hampshire rated Mostly True a claim by Rep. Frank Guinta that every child in the United States has a $50,000 share in the national debt. Guinta received a Mostly True because that would mean each of the nations nearly 74 million children would owe $216,102. Guintas figure was accurate, however, when the debt was spread across the entire population.Our rulingCasagrande said in a television interview, Every American now is $51,000 in debt. Thats money I owe, thats money my children owe before they even go to kindergarten, thats their check to the federal government right now.A simple mathematical calculation confirms that every American technically owes the government $51,777.21 toward the national debt. But will youngsters have to suddenly start handing over their allowances to pay down the federal deficit? Not likely. We rate the statement Mostly True. To comment on this story, go toNJ.com.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/greenland-shark-392-years-old/

Is This Greenland Shark Nearly 400 Years Old?

Madison Dapcevich

08/21/2020

In August 2020, a widely shared image claiming to depict a 392-year-old shark resurfaced on social media, garnering thousands of shares on both Facebook and Twitter. Facebook Twitter This was a variation of a familiar meme, which we identified as "false" in December 2018. We are rating the newer variation as "mixture" because the image that circulated in 2020 was, indeed, a photograph of a Greenland shark. However, we were unable to determine the exact age of the shark in question, though the age of a given Greenland shark can be estimated by its length (more on that later). December 2018 Both viral memes originated from a study published in the journal Science in August 2016. In the study, researcher Julius Nielsen, who was then a Ph.D. student at the University of Copenhagen, set out to define the life history of the Greenland shark, scientifically known as Somniosus microcephalus. These deep ocean fish have been described as an "iconic species of the Arctic seas" and remain one of the most enigmatic creatures on Earth (see National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration picture below), mainly due to their unique ability to survive at depths of at least 7,200 feet. Science Julius Nielsen at least 7,200 feet When the research was first announced in 2016, many mainstream media publications picked up the study and declared that the Greenland shark was the longest-lived vertebrate known on the planet. In the years following the publication of the study, various iterations of the photograph's subject and its age have recirculated in different forms. A reverse-image search found 56 results, dating back to as far as 2018. Following another round of social media virality, Nielsen took to Instagram in December 2017 to address misleading claims related to the age of the shark in question: media publications declared everse-image search Instagram Social media are going beserk over old Greenland sharks these days?? All of this is just the same story coming to life from August 2016 and please note that we have not found any sharks to be 600 or 500 yr old.... we have ESTIMATED (meaning that it has not been verified) that one shark was AT LEAST 272 yr old or in more detail that this shark was between 272-512 yr old with 95.5% certainty (the later also being an unverified estimate). Over the course of a three-year project to study the biology of the Greenland shark, the team used radiocarbon dating to determine the ages of 28 specimens that had been accidentally caught as by-catch over several years. The findings concluded that the slow-maturing species grows by about .4 inches each year, and can reach lengths stretching to over 16 feet. The largest shark analyzed in the study was measured at nearly 16.5-feet long, and was believed to have been around 392 years old in 2016 which would make her about 396 in August 2020. However, radiocarbon dating studies typically determine age ranges rather than point to a specific age. Based on the analysis of 28 female Greenland sharks each of which measured between 2.5 and 16.5 feet long the study authors estimated an average species lifespan of at least 272 years. If the estimates followed the annual growth of .4 inches to a tee, then one might calculate the largest shark to be 502 years old. Range estimates, on the other hand, showed that the largest shark was likely 392 years old, give or take 120 years. A University of Copenhagen news release published at the time of the study described Greenland sharks as "among the largest carnivorous sharks on the planet," whose role as an apex predator in the Arctic ecosystem is "completely overlooked." Greenland sharks can reach lengths of up to 24 feet and weigh more than 2,000 pounds. news release What remains unclear is whether the shark featured in the meme was that same large shark mentioned above, or another one photographed as part of the research. So, while the photograph does, in fact, depict an individual, long-lived Greenland shark, the exact age of the specimen is not made readily clear in the research. Have you seen other variations of this claim? Let us know. Let us know Nielsen, Juilius, et al. "Eye Lens Radiocarbon Reveals Centuries of Longevity in the Greenland Shark (Somniosus microcephalus)." Science. 12 Aug 2016. Morelle, Rebecca. "400-Year-Old Greenland Shark Longest-Living Vertebrate." BBC. 12 Aug 2016. Bates, Mary. "272-Year-Old Shark Is Longest-Lived Vertebrate on Earth." National Geographic. 11 Aug 2016. "Greenland Sharks Live For Hundreds of Years." University of Copenhagen. 11 Aug 2016. Putterman, Samantha. "Viral Photo Does Show Longest-Living Shark Species, But Exact Age Is Unclear." PolitiFact. 28 Jan 2016.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/barrett-jail-guard-ruling/

Did Amy Coney Barrett Reverse a Decision to Make a Jail Guard Pay Damages for Raping a Female Inmate?

David Mikkelson

10/19/2020

In June 2017, a federal jury awarded $6.7 million in damages to Shonda Martin, a woman who testified that she had been raped multiple times by guard Xavier Thicklen while she was being held in the Milwaukee County Jail in 2013: testified Martin arrived at the jail in February 2013 at the age of 19. She soon learned she was pregnant. She testified she could not control her activities or movements in jail; the guards did. Thicklen raped Martin in jail. He had sexual contact with her three times while she was pregnant, including vaginal intercourse, and two times after delivery. [Thicklen] told her he was in gray and she was in blue, and his co-workers would believe him and not her. She understood him to mean "he's in authority and ... he has power over me." She understood him to mean his co-workers would believe anything he said; he could falsely say she tried to grab or hit him, or tried to take his taser or gun, and she would be punished. She testified, "I believed everything he said.... I knew that his authority over me would trump anything that I said." Martin testified that during each sexual assault, Thicklen was in uniform, armed, and on duty working for County. All five assaults occurred in jail. Every time, he had to use his keys, power, and authority. He told her he would be fired if people found out. He took steps to hide the assaults. For example, he assaulted her off camera. Finally, on December 3, 2013, she reported the sexual assaults when she was concerned he possibly gave her a disease which spread to her child. An investigation began that day. She was transferred the next day. Thicklen was dismissed and prosecuted. This case (Martin v. Milwaukee County) came to widespread public attention over three years later, in October 2020, after President Donald Trump nominated U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. Barrett had been involved in an appeal of the case two years earlier, during which, a popular meme held, she had "reversed the lower court's decision to award" money to the victim: Martin v. Milwaukee County As is often the case, the meme presented a simplified version of facts that could be considered misleading. Barrett was part of a three-judge Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals panel that heard an appeal from Milwaukee County. That panel did not "overturn" the damages award to Martin; rather, it ruled that because Thicklen's actions in sexually assaulting Martin were outside the scope of his employment, Thicklen alone and not the county was liable for paying those damages: scope of his employment Here, we may take it as granted that the sexual assaults occurred during the authorized time and space limits of Thicklen's employment (although there may be some question about whether Thicklen was actually authorized to be in the particular locations of the sexual assaults at the times he perpetrated them). But even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Martin and the verdict, we hold no reasonable jury could find the sexual assaults were in the scope of his employment ... Uncontested evidence at trial demonstrated County thoroughly trained Thicklen not to have sexual contact with inmates. County expressly forbade him from having sexual contact with an inmate under any circumstances, regardless of apparent consent. County's training warned him that such sexual contact violates state law and the Sheriff's Office's mission. Martin argues [Thicklen] might have intended to exert power, dominion, and control over her by sexually assaulting her. But that inference, while reasonable, still does not bring the sexual assaults within the scope because under that theory he would still have pursued purely personal goals. Any power, dominion, and control asserted or achieved through these sexual assaults would "belong to" and "benefit" only him, not County, on these facts. Olson reminds us that an employee's being "at least partially actuated by a purpose to serve the employer" is a sine qua non of scope. Olson Martin presented no evidence at trial that the sexual abuse was similar in kind to work Thicklen was employed to perform. This case is distinguishable from cases involving excessive force by police officers. Some force, even deadly force, is sometimes permissible for police officers. But the rapes in this case were not part of a spectrum of conduct that shades into permissible zones. Inmate rape by a guard usually involves no gray areas. Even though all of the judgments against Thicklen (who was not a party to the appeal) were allowed to stand, in a practical sense the ruling meant the victim would likely collect little in damages, since Thicklen was not required to be indemnified by the county and likely does not possess assets worth anything close to $6.7 million a fact the panel recognized: indemnified As an aside, we note our conclusion is consistent with the Wisconsin Supreme Court's understanding of the public policy behind [the state's indemnification statute]. Wisconsin courts have determined that the purpose of the statutory indemnification is to enable public employees to perform their duties without fear of having to pay out of pocket for such performance. Indemnification here would not further this purpose. We have sympathy for Martin, who loses perhaps her best chance to collect the judgment. But [the law] does not make public employers absolute insurers against all wrongs. Critics of Barrett's have noted that in a similar case heard by the Indiana Supreme Court in 2018 (Cox v. Evansville Police Department), involving sexual assaults committed by police officers, that court arrived at the opposite conclusion: Cox v. Evansville Police Department Two on-duty police officers one in Fort Wayne and one in Evansville sexually assaulted women, who then brought civil actions against the officers city employers. We address two theories of employer liability: (1) the scope-of-employment rule, traditionally called respondeat superior, and (2) the rules common-carrier exception, which imposes a more stringent standard of care on certain enterprises. We hold that the cities may be liable under the scope-of-employment rule and that the exception does not apply. Resounding in our decision today is the maxim that great power comes with great responsibility. Cities are endowed with the coercive power of the state, and they confer that power on their police officers. Those officers, in turn, wield it to carry out employment duties duties that may include physically controlling and forcibly touching others without consent. For this reason, when an officer carrying out employment duties physically controls someone and then abuses employer-conferred power to sexually assault that person, the city does not, under respondeat superior, escape liability as a matter of law for the sexual assault. Investing officers with considerable and intimidating powers comes with an inherent risk of abuse. When that abuse is a tortious act arising naturally or predictably from the police officers employment activities, it falls within the scope of employment for which the city is liable. Thus, if an on-duty police officer commits a sexual assault by misusing official authority, the sexual assault is within the scope of employment if the employment context naturally or predictably gave rise to that abuse of official authority. Oddly, perhaps, in 2019 another three-judge Seventh Circuit panel (not including Barrett) similarly reversed a lower court's ruling to hold a Wisconsin county responsible for paying damages over the sexual assault of female inmates by a male jailer: reversed ruling Darryl Christensen, a former Polk County jailer, was convicted in 2016 of sexually assaulting five female inmates hundreds of times over a three-year period. Two of his victims, identified as J.K.J. and M.J.J., sued Christensen and Polk County over the assaults in federal court. The complaint claimed the county sheriffs department was indifferent to the risk of assault because it allowed one male officer with the ability to prevent the entrance of other jailers to supervise female inmates in areas without cameras. The county also deliberately chose not to accept state training materials regarding sexual assault in jails. A jury awarded the women $11.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages, of which the county was responsible for paying $4 million. Given that Christensen was sentenced to 30 years in prison for his conduct, this figure is the only part of the award the women will ever possibly receive. But in June [2019], a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit reversed the ruling against the county, holding that it could not be held accountable for the actions of a rogue guard who knew that he was violating jail policy, his training and the law. In that case, however, the full court voted to rehear the issue, and in a non-unanimous decision with Barrett joining the majority the court vacated the three-judge panel's opinion and upheld the original jury verdict that held both the county and Christensen liable for the latter's abuse of female inmates: vacated Darryl Christensens long-term abuse of J.K.J. and M.J.J. more than justified the jurys verdict against him. And the jury was furnished with sufficient evidence to hold Polk County liable not on the basis of Christensens horrific acts but rather the countys own deliberate choice to stand idly by while the female inmates under its care were exposed to an unmistakable risk that they would be sexually assaulted a choice that was the moving force behind the harm inflicted on J.K.J. and M.J.J., U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Scudder wrote for the full courts majority. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the jury was entitled to conclude that if Polk County had taken action in response to the glaring risk that its female inmates health and safety were in danger, J.K.J. and M.J.J.s assaults would have stopped sooner, or never happened at all, Scudder said. His opinion was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Diane Wood, Michael Kanne, Ilana Rovner, David Hamilton, Amy Barrett and Amy St. Eve. U.S. Circuit Judge Michael Brennan, who authored the original opinion, wrote a blistering 62-page dissent, and was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Diane Sykes and William Bauer. Under the majority opinion, a single subordinate employee may secretly override municipal policy and create a new policy under which that public employer is accountable. That is vicarious liability, a collapse into respondeat superior against which the Supreme Court has repeatedly warned for 60 years, Brennan said. Diedrich, John. "Woman Describes Rapes by Milwaukee County Jail Guard and Giving Birth While Shackled." Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 5 June 2017. Diedrich, John. "Jury Awards $6.7M to Inmate Raped by Guard in Milwaukee County Jail, Shackled During Childbirth." Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 7 June 2017. Bailey, Lorraine. "Full Seventh Circuit Finds Wisconsin County Liable in Prison Rape Case." Courthouse News Service. 15 May 2020. Bailey, Lorraine. "Full Seventh Circuit Hears Debate Over Municipal Liability in Prison Rape." Courthouse News Service. 5 December 2019.

neutral

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/16/patrick-gaspard/us-economic-growth-exceeds-rivals-and-has-contribu/

Inflation has been caused by the global economies shutting down all at once, reopening all at once. And the U.S. economy is recovering at a far faster pace than any other country in the OECD.

Louis Jacobson

02/16/2022

Americans are facing conflicting signals on the economy. The economy is growing rapidly, unemployment is low, and wages are rising. But inflation a broad pattern of rising consumer prices is at a four-decade high, and for many voters, that fact seems to be crowding out any other economic news. During a Feb. 13 roundtable discussion on ABCs This Week, panelists addressed Americans concerns about inflation. Patrick Gaspard who served in President Barack Obamas administration and is now president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank blamed the coronavirus pandemic for inflation. We all know that inflation has been caused by the global economies shutting down all at once, reopening all at once, Gaspard said. And the fact of the matter is that the U.S. economy is recovering at a far faster pace than any other country in the OECD. That is an absolute fact. (The OECD is the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, a group of38 advanced, industrialized nations.) A look at cross-national data shows that economic growth in the United States has indeed outpaced that of the other large, comparable economies, and experts agree that this rapid growth has been a factor in the United States currently high inflation rate. But rapid economic growth is not the only reason why the U.S. is experiencing high inflation. As evidence for his claim, Gaspards office pointed to areportdated Feb. 7 by the OECD. The report found that the United States was the only member of the Group of Seven industrial economies that had seen its inflation-adjusted gross domestic product rise above its pre-pandemic level. The other six nations in the G-7 Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom all had yet to reach the GDP levels they had in the fourth quarter of 2019. (Gross domestic product is the sum of all economic activity in a country and is often used as the primary metric for economic growth.) This supports Gaspards comment on This Week. Other calculations further back up his assertion about robust U.S. growth. If you strip the inflation adjustment from GDP growth, to enable a cleaner comparison of GDP to inflation, the United States GDP growthranked fifthamong the nations that belong to the Group of 20 (a wider group of large economies than the G-7). In this measurement, the U.S. trailed only Turkey, India, China and South Korea. Notably, the United States growth rate exceeded that of each of its fellow G-7 members, whose economies are most similar to that of the U.S. Meanwhile, in arecent paper, Brookings Institution senior fellow Gian Maria Milesi Ferretti found much the same pattern. He compared how countries current GDP levels compared with projections made before the pandemic. The United States finished at the top of the heap in his analysis as well. There is also something to Gaspards contention that rapid economic growth and inflation are connected. When we looked at the latest annual inflation rates for the G-7 nations, we found that the U.S. had the highest inflation. However, the correlation between rapid growth and high inflation isnt perfect. Germany and Canada had the second- and third-highest inflation rates, respectively, but their economic growth barely edged into positive territory when factoring in the pandemic. And the United Kingdom and France nearly matched the U.S.s GDP growth rates but have experienced more modest inflation. Overall, Gaspards focus on rapid GDP growth as a driver of inflation is reasonable, experts said but they added that the causes of inflation are more complicated. The current inflation is not monocausal or easily understood, said James Feyrer, a Dartmouth College economist. Ferretti said that some global factors affecting inflation are clearly at play, including higher energy prices and disruption of supply chains. Lower rates of labor force participation in the U.S., stemming heavily from pandemic factors such as a shortage of child care options, also played a role. In fact, one of the factors driving rapid growth in the U.S. generous fiscal support from the federal government is something that Biden did have control over. Stimulus payments and other financial support from the federal government put more money into Americans hands, driving up demand for goods amid international supply-chain challenges driven by the pandemic. Many countries adopted expansionary policies, but on the fiscal side, the U.S. really stands out, Ferretti said. With very large support to private incomes, U.S. consumption has been very strong, particularly for goods. This has clearly helped the speed of the recovery. But a combination of strong demand and labor shortages, he said, has resulted in higher inflationary pressures than in other advanced economies. In other words, where inflation is concerned, Biden isnt entirely a victim of global forces. His policies were a factor as well. Gaspard said that inflation has been caused by the global economies shutting down all at once, reopening all at once. And the U.S. economy is recovering at a far faster pace than any other country in the OECD. The U.S. has experienced faster economic growth than most of its most direct global competitors, and experts agree that this has contributed to inflationary pressures. While many of these inflationary pressures are traceable to global factors related to the pandemic, some have flowed from the fiscal choices made by the Biden administration. We rate the statement Mostly True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wall-street-journal-biden-op-ed/

Did WSJ Op-Ed by Biden in '92 Claim He Wanted to 'Destroy National Sovereignty'?

Nur Ibrahim

09/08/2021

As the Taliban took over Afghanistan, U.S. President Joe Biden pulled American troops out in August 2021, with the last military plane departing at the end of the month, marking the end of a two-decade-long presence in the country. pulled Biden has faced plenty of criticism for the rushed departure particularly from right-wing voices, and the internet pulled out an old article he wrote for The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), titled "How I Learned to Love the New World Order, to bolster arguments against him. According to numerous posts like this one, the essay was arguing for the destruction of national sovereignty and the establishment of a one world government. one Some claimed that because of the headline, Biden supported a New World Order, which advocates for one world government. This stems from the New World Order (NWO) conspiracy theory, which claims that a secret group of global elites is seeking to establish an all-powerful, authoritarian, one-world government. New World Order The essay was indeed published by The Wall Street Journal on April 23, 1992. We found a copy in the archives of the New York Public Library. The full version can be seen below: New York Public Librar Biden wrote the essay in response to a Wall Street Journal editorial that claimed he was in favor of neo-isolationism. To be clear, in Biden's essay, he was not talking about the NWO conspiracy theory. He argued that the Pentagons strategy of making America a Globocop would render it a hollow superpower. The highlights made in the blog post above about his essay do not support the argument that Biden wants to destroy national sovereignty. In the article Biden argues for Americans to pull back on military intervention and build up economic might: Bristling with weapons, we would continue our economic decline, while rising industrial and financial giants in Europe and Asia viewed our military pretensions with indifference or contempt. The essay also addresses Americas role as a Globocop, arguing that Power also emanates from [...] the economic leverage to wield diplomatic clout, and not from the barrel of a gun. Biden argues in favor of multilateral military action by breathing life into the U.N. Charter. He envisions "a permanent commitment of forces, for use by the Security Council. That means a presumption of collective action but with a U.S. veto. He concluded: We must get lean militarily, revitalize American economic strength, and exercise a diplomatic leadership that puts new muscle into institutions of collective security. The blog post makes another claim: that Biden wrote the WSJ article many years before writing the Patriot Act, a counterterrorism bill that increased surveillance capabilities by U.S. law enforcement after 9/11. This is partially true, because Biden did support the Patriot Act and claimed he was responsible for authoring earlier versions of counterterrorism legislation that featured prominently in it. Biden introduced and authored the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995, which he argued provided one source of inspiration for the 2001 Patriot Act. counterterrorism claimed In October 2001, he said in a Senate speech supporting the Patriot Act: It allows law enforcement to keep up with the modern technology these terrorists are using. The bill contains several provisions which are identical or nearly identical to those I previously proposed. Senate speech The Patriot Act was criticized by civil rights advocates and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who said it turned regular citizens into suspects, and resulted in a loss of privacy. While civil rights experts have criticized his support for the law, that criticism does not suggest that Biden is trying to build a one world government. American Civil Liberties Union While the WSJ did publish this essay by Biden, the article did not make the arguments that critical blog posts on social media are claiming. As such, we rate this claim as False. Sources: Afghanistan: Last US Military Flight Departs Ending Americas Longest War. BBC News, 31 Aug. 2021. www.bbc.com, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-58390085. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. "How I Learned to Love the New World Order." Wall Street Journal (1923-), Apr 23, 1992, pp. 1. ProQuest, https://ezproxy.nypl.org/login?url=https://www-proquest-com.i.ezproxy.nypl.org/historical-newspapers/how-i-learned-love-new-world-order/docview/135656899/se-2?accountid=35635. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Hsu, Hua. 50 Years of Conspiracy Theories - New World Order -- New York Magazine - Nymag. New York Magazine, https://nymag.com/news/features/conspiracy-theories/new-world-order/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Senate Approves USA PATRIOT Anti-Terrorism Legislation. https://sgp.fas.org/congress/2001/s102501.html. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Surveillance Under the Patriot Act. American Civil Liberties Union, https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/surveillance-under-patriot-act. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Ungurean, Geri. JOE BIDEN Proclaimed How He Learned to Love the NEW WORLD ORDER in a Wall Street Piece from 1992: Article Is Clearly Shown in This WP Piece. Absolute Truth from the Word of God, 30 Aug. 2021, https://grandmageri422.me/2021/08/30/joe-biden-how-i-learned-to-love-the-new-world-order/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/amy-roloff-death-hoax/

Amy Roloff Is Not Dead, Despite 'Sad News' Death Hoax on Facebook and YouTube

Jordan Liles

11/21/2022

On Nov. 19, 2022, the Facebook page Video Pivot posted a video with the caption, "With a heavy heart at the tearful farewell to 'Dwarf' Amy Roloff, goodbye Amy Roloff." However, Roloff was not dead, nor was there any indication she had just experienced a stroke, as the narrator in the video claimed. This was nothing more than a death hoax. Roloff is one of the stars of the TLC reality TV series, "Little People, Big World," which has often been referred to by fans with the acronym, "LPBW." The Facebook page that posted the death hoax was managed from Indonesia. Its purpose may have been "like-farming," something that the U.S. Better Business Bureau (BBB) has warned about in the past. If the page is able to build up a large following without being removed by the platform, it's possible that it will be sold on the black market in the future. It may also be stripped of its past posts and start promoting scammy products. warned As for the misleading video about Roloff, the thumbnail was doctored to show her ex-husband, Matt, holding a picture of her next to men carrying a casket. As of Nov. 21, the video had been viewed more than 53,000 times. Note: It's unclear what the photograph originally showed, as a reverse image search for the men carrying the casket didn't find any matches for the picture. Days earlier, a video was posted to YouTube that also falsely claimed Roloff had died. The video had the title, "10 minutes ago / We announce very sad news about 'dwarf' Amy Roloff, She has been confirmed as." We found no shortage of these YouTube videos, either. Other examples of misleading YouTube videos from past months that we found were titled as"Official News/ R.I.P/ Amy Roloff Passed Away Last Night At The Hospital After A Health Battle," "Sad News Amy Roloff Is Pass Away Expected Soon Family Prepare To Say Goodbye," and "Sad News Amy Roloff Is Pass Away Expected Soon Family Prepare To Say Goodbye." One good way to check whether a celebrity has truly died is to check the person's verified presence on social media. While Roloff hasn't posted on her Facebook or Instagram pages since Nov. 18, we note again that the misleading YouTube videos we found were all published prior to that date. We found no credible reporting that said anything about Roloff recently experiencing a stroke or dying. We previously published another story that debunked a death hoax for the Roloff couple's son, Zach.We also reported about misleading online ads that claimed the cast of "Little People, Big World" had experienced a "sudden loss." story reported "Amy Roloff." Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/amyroloffofficalpage/. "---." Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/amyjroloff/. BBB Tip: Like-Farming Is a Facebook Scam Still Going Strong. 10 June 2020, https://www.bbb.org/article/news-releases/17149-like-farming-a-facebook-scam-still-going-strong. Grinberg, Emanuella. "Stars of 'Little People, Big World' File for Divorce."CNN.Com, 6 June 2015, https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/06/entertainment/matt-amy-roloff-little-people-big-world-split-feat/index.html. Liles, Jordan. "'Little People, Big World' Posts About a 'Loss' Are Misleading." Snopes, 5 Jan. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/little-people-big-world-loss-death/. ---. "Zach Roloff Death Hoax: False Suicide Claims Came from Obscure Website." Snopes, 5 Jan. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/zach-roloff-death-hoax/.

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/sep/04/donald-trump-jr/donald-trump-jr-misrepresents-joe-bidens-tax-plan/

Joe Biden wants to raise taxes on 82% of all Americans.

Bill McCarthy

09/04/2020

Donald Trump Jr.claimedin a widespread tweet that former Vice President Joe Biden wants to raise taxes on 82% of all Americans. The eldest son of President Donald Trump wasrepeatingarefrainfrom the Republican National Convention, where Republican National Committee ChairRonna McDanielandEric Trumpmade similar claims. But the claim is misleading. Joe Biden wants to raise taxes on 82% of all Americans. Biden, the Democratic nominee for president, has pledged not to raise taxes on Americans making less than $400,000 per year,aswevereported. Independent tax analysts have found that his plan does not call for direct tax increases on anyone below that threshold. Tax analysts say the indirect effects of Bidens proposal to raise the corporate tax rate could mean slightly lower after-tax incomes for some lower earners. By one analysis, about 82% of Americans would feel these effects though for many, the hit would be small. But thatdoesnt mean82% of Americans will have higher tax rates or owe more to the Internal Revenue Service, as the phrase raise taxes suggests. To the extent that the Trump campaign is using this figure to imply that individual income and payroll taxes will rise for 82% of Americans, the claim is misleading, said John Ricco, a senior analyst at the Penn Wharton Budget Model, which is the basis for the 82% figure. Bidens tax plan aims to raise up to $4 trillion in revenues over a decade, according to theTax Policy Center. It would do so in part byrolling backsome of the tax cuts for corporations and people with taxable incomes over $400,000 that Trump signed into law in 2017. Among Bidens proposed changes, he would: Increase the top corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%. Raise the top federal marginal income tax rate for individuals to 39.6%. Place a 12.4% Social Security payroll tax on incomes above $400,000. Tax capital gains at the same rate as ordinary income for very high earners. Other independent groups have also examined Bidens tax plan, including theTax Foundation, thePenn Wharton Budget Model, theAmerican Enterprise Instituteand theCommittee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The groups havegenerally agreedthat Bidens plan largely targets corporations and the nations biggest earners. The Tax Policy Center, for example,estimatedthat more than 90% of the tax increases from Bidens plan would be borne by the top 20% of earners. No direct taxes are imposed on any household making less than $400,000 per year, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budgetwrotein its analysis. Garrett Watson, a senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation, said there aresome specific scenarioswhere Bidens proposals related to itemized deductions, retirement benefits and payroll taxes could result in potential direct tax hikes for some households under $400,000. For example, in a scenario where one spouse makes more than $400,000 but the other incurs a loss that brings the adjusted gross income for their two-income household below $400,000, they could be hit by the Biden payroll tax, Watson said. In interviews, economic advisers to the Biden campaign said any final tax law would have mechanisms written in to prevent anybody making less than $400,000 from being inadvertently affected. Its not hard to have a hold harmless provision to deal with any oddball cases that seem unlikely to even ever arise, said Gene Sperling, a campaign adviser who was director of the National Economic Council under Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. The groups that examined Bidens tax plan also estimated that over time, some of the burden of Bidens tax increases would fall to people making less than $400,000 in the form of lower wages or investment returns indirect effects of the proposed corporate tax rate increase. These effects would berelatively small, and tax analysts say they make up the bulk of the hits dealt to lower earners under Bidens tax plan. But they form the basis for Donald Trump Jr.s claim that 82% of Americans would see their taxes raised. A Trump campaign spokesperson argued that the impact of the corporate tax rate increase is effectively a tax increase on individuals. The Biden campaign, on the other hand, said the two are not equal. Nobody filling out their 1040 is going to see a tax increase, and nobody would consider that type of economic impact as a tax increase, even if it happened, said Sperling. (AP Photo) According to theTax Policy Center, the lowest 20% of earners would see their 2021 incomes drop by an average of $30 under Biden; the next would see an average loss of $110; the middle would see an average drop of $260; and the second-highest would see an average loss of $590. ThePenn Wharton Budget Modelprojects smaller average declines for 2021: $15 for the bottom 20%; $90 for the second quintile; $180 for the third quintile; and $360 for the fourth quintile. Trump Jr.s 82% figure comes from the Penn Wharton Budget Model, which estimated what share of each income group would experience a tax change as a result of Bidens proposals. A little math gets to 82% of people affected. But the concept of indirect effects is distinct from how most normal people think about taxes, said Ricco, the Penn Wharton analyst. Only families with adjusted gross incomes of more than $400,000 would be sending a larger check to the IRS, or having more federal taxes withheld from their paychecks, Ricco said. Those taxpayers were between the top 1% and 2% of filers in 2017, said Watson, the Tax Foundation analyst, citing the IRS. The Penn Wharton Budget Model also shows how Bidens tax plan would affect Americans if the indirect effects of the corporate tax are excluded. With the corporate tax plan removed from the analysis, the average tax change drops to zero for the bottom 90% of earners. We expect that between 1% and 2% of American families would see increases in individual income and payroll taxes, Ricco said. There are other aspects of Bidens plans that arent reflected in independent tax analyses. The Trump campaign, for example, said Bidens plan to reinstate the penalty for not complying with the Affordable Care Actsindividual mandateshould be thought of as a tax which is in line with theSupreme Courts reasoningwhen it upheld the mandate in 2012. The Biden campaign said its a fee, pointing to the Health and Human Services Departmentslanguage. Economic advisers to the Biden campaign, meanwhile, said the tax analysesdont account forBidens proposed tax credits and spending programs aimed at middle-class and lower earners. Those and other Biden proposals will substantially boost middle-class incomes for families across the country, said Biden campaign spokesperson Andrew Bates. Gordon Mermin, a senior research associate at the Tax Policy Center, said Biden has proposed many tax credits, including recent proposals for a refundable child- and dependent-care tax credit, a refundable tax credit for first-time homebuyers, and a low-income renters credit. If the Penn Wharton Budget Model factored in Bidens tax credits and it did not then the 82% figure representing the percent of Americans who would experience changes to their after-tax incomes would be substantially lower, Mermin said. Ricco said the Penn Wharton analysis focused only on revenue-raising provisions. Donald Trump Jr. said, Joe Biden wants to raise taxes on 82% of all Americans. Trump inaccurately described an analysis from the Penn Wharton Budget Model. The 82% is a calculation made using the models estimates that represents the percentage of people whose after-tax incomes would change under Bidens plan. But theres a difference between a tax increase and the share of corporate tax increases borne by individual taxpayers in the form or lower investment returns or incomes. Biden has pledged not to directly raise taxes on people earning less than $400,000 per year. Some Biden tax credits not included in Penn Wharton analysis could potentially offset some of the indirect hits posed to lower earners as a result of Bidens proposed corporate tax hike. We rate this statement False.

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/aug/03/greg-abbott/greg-abbott-says-more-texans-have-jobs-ever/

More Texans have jobs today than ever before in the history of our state.

W. Gardner Selby

08/03/2017

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott drew cheers from supporters in San Antonio as he vowed to keep the Texas economy rocking and laid a claim to history. The Republican governor, kicking off hisre-election campaign, said in July 2017: And since I took office, in just the last two and a half years, in Texas, weve added more than 450,000 new jobs. More Texans have jobs today than ever before in the history of our state. That jobs-gained number sounded a little low. According toBureau of Labor Statistics figureswe drew from a bureau economist, Cheryl Abbot, when Abbott took office in January 2015, the state was home to nearly 11.8 million non-farm jobs. As of June 2017, that count was up by about 507,500, exceeding 12.3 million. We decided to check whether more Texas residents have jobs than ever before. Abbotts campaign didnt answer requests for the basis of the claim. Meantime, economists concurred that according tobureau figures drawing on U.S. Census Bureau surveys, more than 12.8 million Texas residents had jobs from April 2017 through June 2017--with the April 2017 count of 12,872,506 employed people setting a record, though the tally subsequently slid marginally, reaching 12,848,980 in June 2017. A bureau-provided chart shows the dip in employment after that count had mostly steadily increased since January 2015: SOURCE:Chartshowing Texas Local Area Unemployment Statistics, BLS (received by email from Cheryl Abbot, regional economist, BLS, July 21, 2017) The economists we queried noted that because Texas continues to grow in population, it makes sense, barring economic disaster, that youd see more people having jobs year after year. Status quo in Texas,Mark J. Perry,an economist at the University of Michigan-Flint, told us by email, its always had steady job growth. Perry passed along a chart showing the nearly uniform annual upticks in employed Texas since 1939: SOURCE:Chart based ondata posted by Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis(provided by email from Mark J. Perry, Ph.D., scholar atThe American Enterprise Institute, professor of Finance and Business Economics, School of Management, University of Michigan-Flint, July 28, 2017) So, Abbott was mostly right about the record count of Texans with jobs at the time he spoke. Jobless rate, employment-population ratio Other indicators provide context, however. For instance, the month before Abbott kicked off his re-election effort, the states unemployment rate of 4.6 percent--as in the share of able workers unsuccessfully seeking employment--was not a record low. We counted 59 months since 1976 when the Texas jobless rate was lower, per an Abbot-providedchart. Also, a ratio that compares the number of people with jobs to the population as a whole was higher for Texas and other states in the 1990s, a facetexploredby PolitiFact in Washington in July 2016. That story also noted that nationally since the end of the Great Recession, the U.S. employment-to-population ratio had climbed, slowly but fairly steadily. When we asked, Abbot shared bureau figures rooted inCensus Bureau survey findingsto represent changes in the Texas employment-population ratio. Similarly, economistTara Sinclair, an associate professor at George Washington University, drew onbureau figuresshowing that the states employment-population ratio exceeded 65 percent from 1995 through 2000 but fell to 61.5 percent in 2014 and to to 60.9 percent and 60.7 percent, respectively, in 2015 and 2016. In the latter year, the bureau says, that ratio reflected 12,671,801 Texans with jobs out of 20,861,611 residents. By email, Sinclair wrote that similar to thenational pattern for the employment-population ratio,Texasis still low relative to its historical peak (although doing a bit better than the national ratio). SOURCE: Chart drawing on BLS annual data for Texas (received by email fromTara Sinclair, associate professor of Economics and International Affairs, Columbian College of Arts and Sciences, George Washington University, July 21, 2017) Our ruling Abbott said: More Texans have jobs today than ever before in the history of our state. By raw numbers, the more than 12.87 million employed Texans in April 2017 set a record though that count had dipped to 12.85 million by the time Abbott spoke. Also, the states June 2017 jobless rate, 4.6 percent, exceeded the rate in more than 50 months since 1976 while Texas in 2016 (like the nation) had an employment-population ratio trailing what it used to be. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/dec/08/rob-portman/rob-portman-says-about-2-percent-americans-get-pai/

About 2 percent of Americans get paid the minimum wage.

Louis Jacobson

12/08/2013

Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman questioned Democrats who want to raise the federal minimum wage and offered a flurry of statistics to help make his point. Speaking Sunday on ABC'sThis Week, Portman suggested that raising the $7.25 an hour minimum wage could force employers to cut jobs. If you want to deal with income inequality, the No. 1 way to do it is to get people to work. That's what all the statistics show. About 2 percent of Americans get paid the minimum wage. Of that group, by the way, less than .3 of 1 percent of Americans are both under poverty -- under the line of poverty and on minimum wage. So it's a lot of young people. About 50 percent of them are between 16 and 24 years old. For a lot of them, it's a part-time job. So what you don't want to do is raise the minimum wage to the point that you're actually losing jobs. That exchange includes a bunch of different statistics, but here well be checking this one: About 2 percent of Americans get paid the minimum wage. We wont get into the question of what this means for minimum-wage policy here; for now, well just look at the numbers. To do so, we turned to a study published by Bureau of Labor Statistics -- the federal governments official chronicler of employment and wage data -- titled, Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers: 2012. It was released on Feb. 26, 2013. The study found that a little under 3.6 million workers were paid either at or below the federal minimum wage. (The study did not look at whether workers were paid higher minimum wage rates set by their state, as many states have done.) To determine the percentage,we looked at the number of Americans employed. That number ranged between about 133 million and 134 million during 2012. If you divide the two numbers, it turns out that, by the official statistics, roughly 2.6 percent of all American workers were earning the minimum wage in 2012. Thats slightly higher than Portman indicated, but his estimate was definitely in the ballpark. That said, we do see a few caveats, none of which strike us as particularly troublesome for the accuracy of his comment. Portman said 2 percent of Americans, but to be entirely accurate, he really should have said 2 percent ofworkers. To figure out the percentage of Americans earning the minimum wage, we turned to the U.S. Census Bureau, whichestimatedthat the U.S. population in 2012 was 313,914,040. That would mean that minimum-wage workers accounted for just over 1 percent of Americans. That said, dividing by the number of Americans would not be a very useful number -- it includes a lot of people who arent old enough to work or who have retired. Portman referred to people who get paid the minimum wage. Actually, the numbers he cited refer to Americans who either get paid the minimum wage or get paidless thanthe minimum wage. How can you get paid less than the minimum wage? The minimum-wage law actuallyexempts whole classes of workersfrom the $7.25 standard -- vocational education students, full-time students employed by retail or service establishments, agriculture, or institutions of higher education, and those impaired by a physical or mental disability. This is not a trivial population -- for 2012 at least, the number earning less than the minimum wage (about 2 million) actually exceeded the number who earned the minimum wage exactly (about 1.6 million). In addition, its worth noting that workers in tipped professions, such as wait staff, get a legal minimum wage thatswell below $7.25. By factoring in tips earned, the employer only has to pay workers a minimum of $2.13 an hour. One other note: The BLS offers some words of caution about its data. It counted only minimum-wage workers who are actually paid by the hour. Salaried and other non-hourly workers are excluded from the BLS analysis. BLS says the number of salaried workers earning at or below the minimum wage is probably modest, but the data is sufficiently opaque that the agency warns that the actual number of workers with earnings at or below the prevailing federal minimum is undoubtedly understated. BLS also warns that this study is based on a sample, and samples are imperfect. Our ruling Portman said that about 2 percent of Americans get paid the minimum wage. He didnt word the statement with complete accuracy; he would have been better off saying that, according to official statistics, about 2 percent of American workers get paid at or below the federal minimum wage. Still, his number is close to accurate, and his general point -- that workers who are paid the federal minimum-wage represent a small percentage of the entire working population -- is backed up by official data. We rate his claim Mostly True.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/sep/05/kelly-ayotte/did-barack-obama-accrue-more-debt-half-time-george/

Under President Bush in eight years, we added $4.9 trillion to the debt. Under President Obama, we've added $5.3 trillion to the debt in the 3.5 years he's been in office.

Jake Berry

09/05/2012

A few days before she hit the stage in front of a national audience at the Republican National Convention, U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte addressed a far smaller crowd in Merrimack, N.H.Despite the difference in venue, the New Hampshire Republican offered a similar message.During the town hall meeting, Ayotte, a Nashua native and freshman senator, took aim at President Obama and the growing debt under his administration. While she didnt specifically blame the president for the debt, she used the speech to blast Obama for increased spending and stifling business.Under President Bush in eight years, we added $4.9 trillion to the debt, Ayotte told the crowd Thursday, August 23, 2012, at Merrimack High School. Under President Obama, we've added $5.3 trillion ... in the 3 1/2 years he's been in office.The numbers have been used before. Lastweek, PolitiFact gave aMostly Trueratingto a similar claim by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie that the debt has jumped $5 trillion during Obamas time in office.But, does that mean Ayottes numbers are on target? Lets take a look.The numbers arent hard to track.The U.S. Department of the Treasury tracks the national debt figures on its website,TreasuryDirect.gov.On the site, the treasury department divides the national debt into two main categories, debt held by the government and debt held by the public. But, in her statement, Ayotte is referring to the combined total, or total national debt, according to spokesman Jeff Grappone.According to the federal count, the total debt currently sits around $16 trillion. But, as of August, 23, when Ayotte made the statement, it was closer to $15.98 trillion. That figure is about $5.35 trillion higher than the $10.63 trillion debt Obama inherited when he came into office January 19, 2009.When Bush first came into office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion, and by the end of his eight years, it grew to $10.63 trillion -- an increase of exactly $4.9 trillion. So, Ayottes numbers look right on target.Still, as is so often the case, the numbers dont tell the whole story, according to analysts.At PolitiFact, we consider not just the factual accuracy of a statement, but also whether credit and blame is fairly attributed.Federal spending records show that both Democrats and Republican share the blame for the increased spending. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress during Obamas first two years, but Republicans have held the House of Representatives since January 2011.Further, as noted in the prior PolitiFact piece, much of the debt results from policies set under past presidents and lawmakers. So, the blame falls on both parties.Its true. They both contributed, said Ron Haskins, co-director of the Brookings Institutions Budgeting for National Priorities Project. I'm not too worked up about attributing 27 percent to this and 36 percent to that. But, the fact is that both presidents (Obama and George W. Bush) were irresponsible. Were seeing the impact of that now.Our ruling:Ayottes got her numbers right. According to the treasury departments count, the debt has grown $5.3 trillion since Obama took office in 2009, compared to $4.9 trillion in Bushs eight years.Still, analysts say these figures dont paint a full picture of the root causes of the debt.In her statement, Ayotte doesnt attribute direct credit or blame, but she did use the speech to blast Obama and his policies.We rate her claim Mostly True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/venezuelan-poodle-moth/

Is the 'Venezuelan Poodle Moth' Real?

David Mikkelson

07/07/2010

The confusion was understandable.Example: Is there such a bug as the Venezuelan Poodle Moth? Needle felted model of the ever popular Venezuelan poodle moth. The moth was first discovered and photographed in 2009 and is believed to be a new species. It's thought to belong to the lepidopteran genus Artace. The "Venezuelan poodle moth" is a possible new species of moth discovered in 2009 in the Gran Sabana region of Venezuela by Dr. Arthur Anker of Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. Images of the fuzzy moth discovered by Dr. Anker took the Internet by storm in August 2012, as reported by the Christian Post: Venezuelan poodle moth A Venezuelan poodle moth is mystifying researchers, baffling the internet, and confusing everyone at a first casual glance. The insect, seemingly a blend of a large moth and a bright, fluffy white poodle, was discovered in 2009 and may be a new species. The Venezuelan poodle moth was first captured on film by Dr. Arthur Anker of Bishkek, Krgyzstan, who posted all 75 photographs of his time at the Gran Sabana National Park on Flickr. His trip to the Venezuelan park didn't gain much fame at the time, however, until last week, when someone noticed and posted the picture online. Flickr Another researcher, Dr. Karl Shuker, took an interest in the fuzzy white creature with bulging black eyes and strange brown antennae. He used his background in zoology, cryptozoology, and science writing to showcase the animal on his blog among other amazing finds. "These photographs formed just one set of numerous spectacular images that Art has taken while visiting tropical rainforests and other exotic locations worldwide, and which he has placed in photosets on the Flickr website," he wrote on his blog ShukerNature. However, the critter pictured above appears to be a model (not an actual example) of a similar-looking but different species of moth, the Bombyx mori, also known as the (China) silkworm moth (pictured at top of this article). Bombyx mori The so-called Venezuelan poodle moth looks like this: Distant, Daniel "Venezuelan Poodle Moth Confuses Scientists." The Christian Post. 29 August 2012. Atlantic. "Venezuelan Poodle Moth Is the Internet's Favorite Pet This Week." 30 August 2012. Daily Mail. "Is It a Bird? Is It a Dog? No... It's a Moth That Looks Like a POODLE!" 21 August 2012.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-victims-of-war/

Hillary Clinton and the Victims of War

Dan Evon

12/30/2015

In December 2015, an image of Hillary Clinton was circulated via social media along with a quote ostensibly uttered by her about the primary victims of war: This quote originated with a 17 November 1998 speech that Hillary Clinton (as First Lady) delivered at a conference on domestic violence in El Salvador. One of the central themes of Clinton's speech was the effect that war had had on that country (the Salvadoran Civil War had ended a few years earlier), specifically in regards towomen and children. Clinton referred to women as the "primary victims of war" not just in the literal sense of being injured or killed themselves (as civilian non-combatants), but also as being left without the support and care of their male family members and seeing their own children suffer and die: speech The experience that you have gone through is in many ways comparable to what happens with domestic violence. Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today's warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children. Women are again the victims in crime and domestic violence as well. Throughout our hemisphere we have an epidemic of violence against women, even though there is no longer any organized warfare that puts women in the direct line of combat. But domestic violence is now recognized as being the most pervasive human rights violation in the world. Here in El Salvador, according to the statistics gathered by your government, 1 in 6 women have been sexually assaulted and the number of domestic abuse complaints at just one agency topped 10,000 last year. Between 25 and 50 percent of women throughout Latin America have reportedly been victims of domestic violence. The problem is all pervasive, but sometimes difficult to see. Every country on earth shares this dark secret. Too often, the women we see shopping at the markets, working at their jobs, caring for their children by day, go home at night and live in fear. Not fear of an invading army or a natural disaster or even a stranger in a dark alley, but fear of the very people family members who they are supposed to depend upon for help and comfort. This is the trust-destroying terror that attends every step of a victim of violence. For these women, their homes provide inadequate refuge, the law little protection, public opinion often less sympathy. That's why we have to say over and over again, as Elizabeth has done and as so many of you have echoed, that violence against women is not simply cultural or a custom. It is simply criminal, a crime. The devastating effects of domestic violence on women are just as dramatic as the effects of war on women. The physical injury, the mental illness, the terrible loss of confidence limits the capacities of women to fulfill their God-given potentials. While some might argue that Clinton was inaccurate in labeling women as the "primary victims of war" (since the majority of military members are male), a resolutionadoptedby theUnited Nation Security Council in 2000 arrived at a similar conclusion, stating that "civilians, particularly women and children, accountfor the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict." majority resolution The United Nation Security Council repeated this assertion in 2008 when it adopted Resolution 1325, which stated in its introduction that rape and sexual assault were considered tactics of war: stated [C]ivilians account for the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict; women and girls are particularly targeted by the use of sexual violence, including as a tactic of war to humiliate, dominate, instill fear in, disperse and/or forcibly relocate civilian members of a community or ethnic group; and sexual violence perpetrated in this manner may in some instances persist after the cessation of hostilities. [We] condemn in the strongest terms all sexual and other forms of violence committed against civilians in armed conflict, in particular women and children. [We] reiterate deep concern that, despite its repeated condemnation of violence against women and children in situations of armed conflict, including sexual violence in situations of armed conflict, and despite its calls addressed to all parties to armed conflict for the cessation of such acts with immediate effect, such acts continue to occur, and in some situations have become systematic and widespread, reaching appalling levels of brutality.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/can39t-read-me-nothing/

Did Kanye West Say He's a 'Proud Non-Reader of Books'?

David Mikkelson

02/20/2015

In 2015, a Snopes reader emailed us, asking: Did Kanye West actually say: 'Sometimes people write novels and they just be so wordy and soself-absorbed. I am not a fan of books. I would never want a booksautograph. I am a proud non-reader of books.' OnFeb. 13,2015, the website for the UK version ofMarie Clairemagazine published an article titled 21 Kanye West Quotes That Completely Baffled Us. The collection of Wests comments was curated in response to the rappers behavior on the evening of the57th AnnualGrammy Awards, particularly his rant about musician Beck as the latter received the Album of the Year award. Among Wests collected quotes, one in particular stood out. It concerned Kanyes feelings on the matter of books and reading in general, and many readers questioned whether the quote was genuine: Sometimes people write novels and they just be so wordy and so self-absorbed. I am not a fan of books. I would never want a books autograph. I am a proud non-reader of books. After interest in the comment attributed to West was revived, it appeared on a number of memes that circulated via Facebook. The remarks were indeed correctly attributed (though lacking context) and dated to a 2009Reuters article about the publication of a book penned by West: Reuters article Rapper Kanye West does not read books or respect them but nevertheless he has written one that he would like you to buy and read. Wests derision of books comes despite the fact that his late mother, Donda West, was a university English professor before she retired to manage his music career. She died in 2007 of complications following cosmetic surgery. 'Sometimes people write novels and they just be so wordy and so self-absorbed,' West said. 'I am not a fan of books. I would never want a books autograph. 'I am a proud non-reader of books. I like to get information from doing stuff like actually talking to people and living real life,' he said. Egan, Mark. Proud Non-Reader Kanye West Turns Author. Reuters. 5 May 2009. Ramsdale, Susannah. 21 Kanye West Quotes That Completely Baffled Us.Marie Claire. 13 February 2015.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/feb/03/chris-christie/chris-christie-claims-state-spending-lower-today-u/

Says on the state level, we spend less today than Jon Corzine spent in fiscal year 2008, five years later.

Bill Wichert

02/03/2013

The only way to make New Jersey a more affordable place to live is to have government spend less money, according to Gov. Chris Christie.The Republican governor offered that solution when a man called into a Jan. 22 radio program and expressed concerns about the cost of living in New Jersey. The caller wanted to know the plan for keeping people like him in the state.Christie told the man that property taxes have increased minimally in the last two years, because government spending has been capped. On the state level, spending is now lower than it was under Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine in fiscal year 2008, according to Christie.Now were making a difference. Because you know why? Were capping spending, Christie said on New Jersey 101.5s Ask the Governor program. Were saying youve got to spend less, and on the state level, we spend less today than Jon Corzine spent in fiscal year 2008, five years later.The governor, who is seeking re-election this year, repeated the state spending claim on Thursday during a campaign stop at Tops Diner in East Newark.Christie is right that state spending in the current fiscal year is lower than the spending level in fiscal year 2008, but the governors claim ignores the fact that spending has still increased with each new state budget since he took office.Lets break down the numbers:For fiscal year 2008, Corzine approved a spending plan of about $33.47 billion, according to state Department of the Treasury reports. Final state spending that year ended slightly higher, at $33.61 billion, according to department reports.In June 2012, Christie signed a budget for fiscal year 2013 that appropriates about $31.65 billion in state spending.So, the governors current budget marks a nearly $2 billion decrease in state spending as compared to fiscal year 2008.But just because state spending is lower than it was five years ago, doesnt mean it hasnt increased on Christies watch.In his first budget after taking office in January 2010, Christie approved a roughly $28.36 billion spending plan for fiscal year 2011. For the next budget year -- fiscal year 2012 -- the governor approved a roughly $29.69 billion budget.That means, in terms of the annual appropriations acts signed by Christie, state spending has increased by about $3.29 billion, or 11.6 percent, between fiscal years 2011 and 2013. In response to our findings about spending increases during Christie's tenure, Treasury spokesman Bill Quinn said the following in an e-mail: We think your original question has been conclusively answered in the Governors favor as unequivocally true. You are now posing an entirely different inquiry that is not based on what the Governor actually said on the air that led to your fact check.The increased spending since fiscal year 2011 is due in part to the governors policies boosting the states economy, leading to higher tax revenues, according to Quinn. He pointed out how two of the major areas of higher spending have been in education and pension contributions.Quinn added that the tough decisions needed to put the state budget on sound, responsible fiscal footing in fiscal years 10 and 11 allowed us to grow and make key investments in FY 12 and 13.Our rulingIn response to a caller during New Jersey 101.5s Ask the Governor program, Christie claimed that on the state level, we spend less today than Jon Corzine spent in fiscal year 2008, five years later.The governor is correct in that the fiscal year 2013 budget is nearly $2 billion less than the level of state spending under Corzine in fiscal year 2008. But Christies claim ignores the fact that state spending has still increased during his tenure.That means the governors statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. That meets our definition of Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hiv-infected-needle-attacks/

HIV-Infected Needle Attacks

Snopes Staff

03/01/1998

In June 2018, the Feedy TV web site published an article headlined "HIV Infected Needles Found in Public: Take Only 2 Minutes of Your Time to Save Your Life." The text of the article recounted supposedly recent incidents of unsuspecting persons being jabbed with HIV-infected needles left in movie theater seats in various cities: article Recently, a girl who went to the movies, sat down in one of the theater seats, and felt a stabbing pain. She quickly stood up and found the needle of a medical syringe sticking out of the seat. There was also a note that said, You have been infected with HIV. The Centers for Disease Control reports that similar events have taken place in several other cities recently. All of the needles tested HAVE been positive for HIV. The CDC also reports that needles have been found in the coin return areas of pay phones and soda machines. This article was nothing more than a modern recounting of an urban legend about "AIDS terrorists" randomly pricking victims with HIV-infected needles in theaters and other public places, a legend that first hit the Internet two decades ago: [Collected on the Internet, 1998] Warning - MUST READ Be careful the next time you go to a cinema. These people could be anywhere!! An experience of a friend of my brother's wife left me speechless. Please do send this out to everyone you know. This incident occurred in Bombay's Metro cinema (Among the best in town). They were a group of 6-7 College girls & they went to the theater to see a movie. During the show one of the girls felt a slight pinprick but did not pay much attention to it. After sometime that place began to itch. So she scratched herself and then saw a bit of blood on her hands. She assumed that she had caused it. At the end of the show, her friend noticed a sticker on her dress and read the caption. It read "Welcome to the world of AIDS". She tried to pass it off as a practical joke but when she went for a blood test a couple of weeks later (just to be sure), she found herself HIV Positive. When she complained to the cops, they mentioned that her story was one of the many such cases they had received. It seems the operator uses a syringe to transfer a bit of his/her infected blood to the person sitting ahead of him/her. A horrible experience for the victim as also the family & friends. The WORST bit is that the person who does it gains NOTHING where as the victim loses EVERYTHING. So, be careful . . . [Collected on the Internet, 1998] PLEASE CHECK YOUR CHAIRS WHEN GOING TO THE MOVIE THEATRES!!!! An incident occured when a friend's co-worker went to sit in a chair and something was poking her. She then got up and found that it was a needle with a little note at the end. It said, "Welcome to the real world, you're "HIV POSITIVE". Doctors tested the needle and it was HIV POSITIVE. We don't know which theatre this happened at, but it happened in Hawaii. "BE CAUTIOUS WHEN GOING TO THE MOVIES!" IF YOU MUST GO TO THE MOVIES, PLEASE, PLEASE CHECK!!!!! One of the safest way is NOT sticking your hands between the seats, but moving the seat part way up and down a few times and REALLY LOOK!!!!!!! Most of us just plop down into the seats. [Collected on the Internet, 2001] PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY! IT MIGHT SAFE YOUR LIFE! This is happening in Montreal. A couple of weeks ago, in a movie theater, a person sat on something sharp in one of the seats. When she stood up to see what it was, a needle was found poking through the seat with an attached note saying, "You have been infected with HIV." The Centers for Disease Control reports similar events have taken place in several other cities recently. All of the needles tested HAVE been positive for HIV. The CDC also reports that needles have been found in the coin return areas of pay phones and soda machines. Everyone is asked to use extreme caution when confronted with these types of situations. All public chairs should be thoroughly but safely inspected prior to any use. A thorough visual inspection is considered a bare minimum. Furthermore, they ask that everyone notify their family members and friends of the potential dangers, as well. Thank you. The previous information was sent from the Regina City Police Department to all of the local governments in the Saskatchewan area and was interdepartmentally dispersed. We were asked to pass this to as many people as possible. This is very important! Just think you could save somebody's life, just by passing this on. Please take a Couple of seconds of your time and pass this on. Thank you for your precious time and consideration! [Collected on the Internet, 2002] HIV Warning A few weeks ago in a movie theater in Melbourne a person sat on something that was poking out of one of the seats. When she got up to see what it was she found a needle sticking out of the seat with a note attached saying... "You have just been infected by HIV". The Disease Control Centre in Melbourne reports many similar incidents have occurred in many other Australian cities recently. All tested needles ARE HIV Positive. The Centre also reports that needles have been found in the cash dispensers in ATMs. We ask everyone to use extreme caution when faced with this kind of situation. All public chairs/seats should be inspected with vigilance and caution before use. 17 people have been tested positive in the Western suburbs alone in the last 2 months!!! A careful visual inspection should be enough. In addition they ask that each of you pass this message along to all members of your family and your friends of the potential danger. We all have to be careful at public places! This is very important. Just think about saving a life of someone even you don't know by forwarding this message. Please, take a few seconds of your time to pass it along. In all the time since this rumor's initial appearance time we've turned up no confirmed AIDS-laden needle attacks on moviegoers have been reported in Bombay, Hawaii, Dallas, Paris, or anywhere else in the world. We know of only two related incidents, neither of which proved to involve any deliberate intent to infect an innocent victim with HIV: A Louisiana man sat on a needle in a theater in Baton Rouge in December, 1996, and sued the facility over the incident, but there was no note welcoming him to the world of AIDS or any indication of his contracting any infection. An October 2005 report from Athens, Georgia, involved a woman who said she sat upon a needle that had been duct-taped to a movie theater seat, but since then she also has evidenced no symptoms of HIV infection. (In the latter case, although the syringe contained a substance that appeared to be dried blood, it was too small a sample for police to be able to determine what it was or whether it carried a disease.) One of the many versions of this warning claims to be one circulated by the Dallas Police Department. Not only didn't that institution originate the warning, but since its appearance officers there have been kept busy fielding inquiries about this hoax: "It's all false," said Sgt. Jim Chandler, a Dallas police spokesman. "This has not happened, and we would ask people to stop forwarding this message to their friends because it's creating situations where police departments and emergency personnel are having to respond to inquiries to a situation that has not happened." What we have here is an urban legend trading on our fears of catching AIDS. Cautionary tales about hapless bystanders contracting an infectious disease became all the rage in the 1990s. Another such scare has to do with addicts leaving HIV-contaminated needles in the coin returns of pay phones. See our "Slots of Fun" page for more about this related legend. Slots of Fun This particular pin prick story is a version of the better known "AIDS Mary" legend. (In "AIDS Mary," the "Welcome to the world of AIDS" communication is typically imparted either through a gift emblazoned with that message being left for the victim or found scrawled in lipstick on the bathroom mirror.) AIDS Mary AIDS Mary has been scaring the bejeebers out of us at least since the early 1980s. The pin prick legend, however, isn't all that new either, with the HIV version of it having its roots in an 1989 incident in New York City. The legend in its current incarnation (teenage girls in darkened theaters jabbed with needles) dates back to a much older non-HIV story, one rampant in the New Orleans area in the 1930s. Toothsome young girls were told to beware of Needle Men. Young ladies were strictly instructed to sit at the end of the aisle in moviehouses, not in the middle, lest they attract the attention of white slavers working in pairs who would sit down beside the girl, one on each side, inject her with morphine, and carry her out of the theatre and into a life of shame. The New Orleans Needle Men rumor circulated in another form besides the "white slavers after young girls" others feared these syringe-armed fiends were in fact medical students harvesting cadavers for dissection. Women jabbed by them would quickly succumb to the poison contained in those needles, with their lifeless bodies soon afterwards delivered to a local teaching hospital. Such deadly attacks were said to take place in theaters, but also on the street. Though "Needle Man" scares rippled through New Orleans at various times in the 1920s and 1930s, each time sending women into hysterics, there was never any credible reason to believe such men existed. Women weren't disappearing at a furious rate, nor were gals who'd fallen into lives of prostitution afterwards asserting they'd been overcome via injection and abducted. A slightly different yet inexplicably more frightening version of the pin prick legend began circulating in the early spring of 1998. According to it, young people partying in clubs or at raves run the risk of being jabbed with an HIV-loaded needle and then afterwards finding a "Welcome to reality you now have AIDS" message stuffed into a pocket or affixed to them by way of a sticker. This warning has so far circulated in Philadelphia, New York City, San Diego, Oakland, Seattle, Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Mexico, Australia, Ecuador, and Germany, each time passed along as something that had already happened to others locally: Do you any of you guys like to go clubbing? Well you might want to think twice after this message. Just in case you don't already know, there is a certain group of people with stickers that say "Welcome to our world." Once this sticker is stuck on you, you contract the AIDS virus because it is filled with tiny needles carrying the infected blood. This has been happening at many dance clubs (even DV8 and Beatbox) and raves. Being cautious is not enough because the person just chooses anyone, and I mean anyone, as his/her victim. So you could just be dancing the night away and not even realize the sticker had been stuck on you. It sounds too demented to be true, but it's the truth. In fact my sister's friend knows someone who just recently contracted the virus in this manner. The world isn't safe anymore. Please pass this on to everyone and anyone you know. Wherever this rumor goes, it has a significant impact on the local bar scene. In August 1998 one popular Toronto nightclub estimated its business to be down by 50%. In March 1998 a popular dance club in San Diego was similarly affected when the story swept through there. People hear this story and stay away in droves. Police in each of these cities have investigated the rumors and found nothing. The clubs named in the rumors similarly report they know nothing of any attacks. Okay, so this isn't happening in movie houses, at popular dance clubs or at raves. Where did this HIV-loaded needle story come from? Keep in mind that although there have at various times been random attacks with needles, none have resulted in infection being passed to victims. That part is myth. Now for the truth of it: For a few weeks in the fall of 1989, a group of Black teenagers (mostly girls) scared the pants off the denizens of New York City by running about jabbing pins into the necks of 41 random white females. Media coverage escalated the general public's fears as it was repeatedly stated the pins were tainted with AIDS. Within a week the kids responsible were found and arrested, and it was at that time police discovered there was no basis to the reports of the AIDS virus being part of these attacks. The hooligans responsible admitted it was just a fun game to them, run up to a white woman, stick her with a pin, see her reaction, then run off. Possibly inspired by the 1989 panic in New York City, for three weeks in 1990 a Black man terrorized white and hispanic women in that city by hitting them in the legs and buttocks with dart-like missiles fired from a homemade blowgun. More than 50 women were hit in this fashion before the man responsible was caught. When asked why the attacks, the assailant made a rambling statement to the effect that short skirts were immoral and "people from the islands shoot women who wear provocative clothing with darts to punish them ... they also throw them sometimes into volcanoes." (Good thing this nut didn't live in Las Vegas, else the volcano at the Mirage would have been standing room only.) Kids have since gotten the idea this is a cool game to play. In 1995 a 13-year-old boy brought a hypodermic syringe to Mount Pleasant Area Secondary School (Pennsylvania) and proceeded to jab 28 classmates with it. The boy was charged with aggravated assault, simple assault, reckless endangerment and possession of a weapon on school property and was turned over to juvenile authorities pending a hearing. In 1997 two teenage lads at Exeter-West Greenwich (Rhode Island) jabbed 32 other students with a medical lancet. Meant to be a "playful prank" (stabbing someone with anything isn't considered playful in my book), the state Health Department took the matter very seriously, ordering blood tests and vaccinations against Hepatitis B for all the victims. The boys responsible were suspended and criminal charges were brought against them. Earlier in 1997, 18 Lecanto Middle School (Florida) pupils were attacked by five schoolmates wielding lancets. The perpetrators were suspended for ten days and medical tests were run on their victims. Again, it was only a meanspirited prank no viruses were communicated in the attacks. Robberies have been carried out by syringe-wielding robbers who claim to be armed with the AIDS virus and willing to stick anyone who gets in their way with the infected needle. It has to be stressed that though various robbers and muggers have claimed to have been so armed, thus far this has never proved out to be anything more than an empty threat. All syringes so employed have tested out as perfectly clean. Even so, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that claiming to be armed with an AIDS-tainted needle would generate a lot of cooperation from the people you're trying to rob. Expect to see this "weapon" become even more common as time marches on. It's not all sweetness and light, however. On 20 May 1999, WBFF/WNUV of Baltimore, Maryland, reported on a midday attack upon an unnamed Towson, Maryland, woman. She had been checking her oil at a gas station when she was approached by a man who asked her for money. The victim described what happened next: I said I didn't have any money. I said I only had a dollar. He said that would do. He put one arm around me and kissed my cheek, he put another arm around me and stabbed me with a needle, and said welcome to reality you have HIV. The victim's description led police to a panhandler known to frequent the area. He was found with a syringe on him. (Click here to read WBFF's report about this incident.) here In January 2000, the attacker earned a three-year prison sentence for his crime. The victim is not HIV-positive. There has been at least one verified HIV-positive syringe attack of the non-random variety. It happened in Australia in 1990, with the victim being a prison guard at Sydney's Long Bay Jail. Gary Pearce opened a security gate for an inmate known to be HIV-positive and in doing so turned his back for a second. He felt a jab in his buttock. He turned to knock a blood-filled syringe away just as the inmate, Graham Farlow, shouted "AIDS" and ran off. Pearce rushed to a nearby office where the wound was sterilised. To no avail however. Despite the 1-in-200 chance that a stick injury from an HIV-infected needle would produce a positive result, he tested HIV positive two months after the attack. Pearce died on 30 August 1997 of an AIDS-related illness. Farlow had died in 1991. This attack plus a spate of supposedly HIV-loaded needle robberies (the robberies at needlepoint were real, but the HIV part was never proved), prompted the Australian government to introduce legislation covering such offenses. Since the victim didn't die within a year and a day of the pricking, the attacker couldn't be charged with murder under the old laws. That changed in 1990. Now robbers using syringes filled with HIV-infected blood as weapons face up to 25 years in jail in New South Wales state. British police would like to have something a lot closer to what the Australian legal system provides for. In 1994 they unsuccessfully called for a crackdown on HIV-loaded needle threats, claiming the harm done to victims necessitated both harsher penalties than currently legally available and voicing the need to be able to charge someone in possession of a syringe with carrying an offensive weapon. At present, the psychological damage caused by the threat to inject someone with an HIV-infected syringe is classed in Britain as actual bodily harm, and an attacker can be charged with grievous bodily harm if an injury is sustained. Is that really enough, or are the British police right that this doesn't go far enough? The AIDS pinprick legend's popularity stems from our fear of contracting AIDS. Even if we take pains to avoid engaging in high risk activities or strive to do so in as safe a fashion as possible, we're all too aware we're still vulnerable, and this legend speaks to that awareness. Though in the early days of this disease, the average citizen felt perfectly safe from its ravages, AIDS is now no longer perceived as something only other people will catch. It's now seen as a danger to all of us. This sense of being at risk, coupled with ongoing fears of the madmen who walk among us, has given birth to this bit of scarelore. Credibility is further supplied by news stories about kids jokingly stabbing classmates with needles and robbers threatening victims with "loaded" syringes. Mix a bit of truth into an existing bit of scarelore, and it becomes powerful medicine indeed. The typical college girl victim is a metaphor for us. By casting the one pinpricked as one of tender years, the undeserving nature of the victim is underscored. She's seen as both young and untouched by the world, therefore completely undeserving of this terrible fate. (As, by implication, are we.) Her gender also comes into play as "college girl" is a shortform in the world of urban legends for sexual and social innocence. Her fatal infection is made to appear doubly tragic in that it doesn't seem to us, the audience, she would otherwise have come in contact with this illness. Indeed, no more "innocent" a mythical victim could be created. She's a lot like us, in other words. The terrifying aspect of this bit of scarelore is we see ourselves in her place. <!--Additional information: In March 2008, police reported that someone had been embedding used hypodermic needles in park benches in New Waterford, Nova Scotia, but there was as yet no determination whether the needles posed any risk of spreading infectious diseases. In February 2009, three people in Vancouver, Washington, were pricked by syringes taped in public places, one to the handset of a pay phone, two to doorknobs. Additional information: --> Anderson, Kendall. "Dallas Police Say E-Mail Warning Is Hoax." The Dallas Morning News. 26 February 1999 (p. A37). Botkin, B.A. Sidewalks of America. Indianapolis/New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1954 (pp. 195-196). Bradshaw, Nick. "Hidden Syringe Needles Taped to Doorknobs and Phone Injure Three." KGW News Channel 8 [Portland, Oregon]. 20 February 2009. de Vos, Gail. Tales, Rumors and Gossip. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, 1996. ISBN 1-56308-190-3 (pp. 58-59). Ellis, Bill. "Needling Whitey." FOAFTale News. December 1989 (pp. 5-6). Ellis, Bill. "Mystery Assailants." FOAFTale News. October 1990 (p. 9). Emery, C. Eugene. "Superintendent Mulls Penalty for 'Jabbers.'" The Providence Journal-Bulletin. 24 December 1997 (p. C2). Hoffman, Ernie. "Boy Held in Attacks with Syringe at School." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 20 January 1995 (p. A1). Johnson, Joe. "Contents of Syringe Being Tested." Athens Banner-Herald. 4 October 2005. Lowe, Peggy. "Police Dismiss Needle-Scare Letter." The Denver Post. 25 February 1999 (p. B1). Milliken, Robert. "Sydney Warders Strike Over HIV Needle Attacks." The [London] Independent. 17 September 1990 (p. 14). Pack, William. "Man Sues After Sitting on Needle at BR Theatre." The [Baton Rouge] Advocate. 6 May 1997 (p. A11). Rayner, Ben. "Clubs Suffer As Needle Rumour Persists." The Toronto Star. 17 August 1998. Rowe, Peter. "Finding Truth in Needle Tale Is Hit or Myth." The San Diego Union-Tribune. 26 March 1998 (p. E1). Thalji, Jamal. "Pupils Are Injured by Needle on Bus." St. Petersburg Times. 1 February 1997 (p. 1). Associated Press. "Woman Pricked By Needle at Athens Theater." 5 October 2005. Associated Press. "Police: Woman Pricked with Needle Shows No Illness." AccessNorthGa.com. 9 March 2006. The Reuter Library Report. "HIV-Positive Prisoner Charged with Wounding After Needle Attack." 24 July 1990. The Reuter Library Report. "Infected Syringe Attacks Could Cost 25 Years in Australian Jail." 28 November 1990. The [India] Statesman "AIDS Rumours Don't Stand the Test of Skepticism." 30 July 1998. Sunday Telegraph. "'Your Money or My AIDS Blood.'" 6 November 1994 (p. 5). United Press International. "AIDS Bandit Charged with Robbery, Assault." 26 March 1992.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/worst-countries-for-women/

Is the U.S. One of the Worst Countries for Women?

David Mikkelson

07/31/2019

Many social media users have expressed disbelief and dismay at a graphic indicating that the United States had been deemed "one of the ten worst countries in the world to be a woman," rounding out a list headed by India, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Yemen, and Nigeria: The basis of the graphic was a 2018 survey compiled by the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the "charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, women's rights, trafficking, property rights, climate change and resilience." survey This item is therefore superficially "true" in the sense that it reflects the results of a genuine poll, but of course the significance of any particular survey or poll depends upon its methodology. In this case, Thomson Reuters polled 548 experts on women's issues by phone and in person between March 26 and May 4, 2018. The respondents were evenly spread across Europe, Africa, the Americas, South East Asia, South Asia, and the Pacific, and included "aid professionals, academics, healthcare staff, non-government organisation workers, policy-makers, development specialists and social commentators." According to Thomson Reuters, "the survey asked respondents which five of the 193 United Nations member states they thought were most dangerous for women and which country was worst in terms of healthcare, economic resources, cultural or traditional practices, sexual violence and harassment, non-sexual violence and human trafficking." Still, Americans (and others) were left puzzled by how the United States could rank so highly in such a survey, given that many of the phenomena that contributed to the other countries' being declared dangerous and unhealthy places for women female infanticide, forced marriages, sex slavery, domestic servitude, death by stoning, civil war, restricted access to health care have little to no prevalence in the U.S. The explanation offered by Thomson Reuters was that the influence of the #MeToo movement and the Time's Up campaign, which were running concurrently with the poll, influenced the results sufficiently to push the U.S. into the top 10: Time's Up Experts said the surprise addition of the United States in the top 10 most dangerous countries for women came down to the #MeToo and Time's Up campaigns against sexual harassment and violence that have dominated headlines for months. "People want to think income means you're protected from misogyny, and sadly that's not the case," said Cindy Southworth, executive vice president of the Washington-based National Network to End Domestic Violence. "We are going to look back and see this as a very powerful tipping point ... We're blowing the lid off and saying '#Metoo and Time's Up'." Reuters. "Factbox: Which Are the World's 10 Most Dangerous Countries for Women?" 25 June 2018. Goldsmith, Belinda and Meka Beresford. "India Most Dangerous Country for Women with Sexual Violence Rife." Thomson Reuters Foundation. 26 June 2018.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-law-licenses/

Did Barack and Michelle Obama Lose Their Law Licenses?

David Mikkelson

04/08/2010

Several similar items have been circulated during or since the 2008 U.S. presidential election, all suggesting (without evidence) that Barack and Michelle Obama, both of whom obtained licenses to practice law in Illinois, were forced to give up those licenses in order to avoid having them revoked through disciplinary actions or criminal prosecution. In fact, neither of the Obamas gave up their law licenses because they were facing disciplinary actions or criminal charges: Barack Obama Editor of the Harvard Law Review Has No Law License? I saw a note slide across the #TCOT feed on Twitter last night that mentioned Michelle Obama had no law license. This struck me as odd, since (a) she went to school to be a lawyer, and (b) she just recently held a position with the University of Chicago Hospitals as legal counsel and that's a pretty hard job to qualify for without a law license. But being a licensed professional myself, I knew that every state not only requires licensure, they make it possible to check online the status of any licensed professional. So I did, and here's the results from the ARDC Website: She "voluntarily surrendered" her license in 1993. Let me explain what that means. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you "voluntarily surrender" you license five seconds before the state suspends you. Here's an illustration: I'm a nurse. At various times in my 28 years of nursing I've done other things when I got burned out; most notably a few years as a limousine driver; even an Amway salesman at one point. I always, always renewed my nursing license simply because it's easier to send the state $49.00 a month than to pay the $200, take a test, wait six weeks, etc., etc. I've worked (recently) in a Nursing Home where there was an 88 year old lawyer and a 95 year old physician. Both of them still had current licensures as well. They would never DREAM of letting their licenses lapse. I happen to know there is currently in the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City Indiana an inmate who is a licensed physician, convicted of murder when he chased the two burglars who entered his home and terrorized his family into the street and killed them. (And I can't say I blame him for that, either.) This physician still has an active medical license and still sees patients, writes prescriptions, etc all from inside the prison. And he renews his medical license every two years, too. I tried looking up why she would "Voluntarily surrender" her license, but Illinois does not have it's 1993 records online. But when I searched for "Obama", I found this: "Voluntarily retired" what does that mean? Bill Clinton hung onto his law license until he was convicted of making a false statement in the Lewinsky case and had to "Voluntarily Surrender" his license too. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application. This is the former editor of the Harvard Law Review who doesnt seem to give a crap about his law license. Something else odd; while the Search feature brings up the names, any searches for the Disciplinary actions ends quickly. As in, Too Quickly. Less than a half-second quickly on a Search Engine that can take five seconds to Search for anything. As in, "there's a block on that information" kind of thing. So we have the first Lawyer President and First Lady who don't actually have licenses to practice law. There's more to this story, I'm sure. I'll let you know when I find it. Such claims are false ones, based on misreadings of information about license status and erroneous interpretations and assumptions about such information, as detailed below: I saw a note slide across the #TCOT feed on Twitter last night that mentioned Michelle Obama had no law license. This struck me as odd, since (a) she went to school to be a lawyer, and (b) she just recently held a position with the University of Chicago Hospitals as legal counsel and that's a pretty hard job to qualify for without a law license. This lead-in was wrong on two counts: Michelle Obama does in fact have a license to practice law in Illinois (it is currently on inactive status), and she did not hold a position as legal counsel with the University of Chicago Hospitals (rather, she worked at that institution as Executive Director for Community Affairs and then Vice President for Community and External Affairs). None of her job duties at the University of Chicago Hospitals required her to have an active law license. worked She "voluntarily surrendered" her license in 1993. Let me explain what that means. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you "voluntarily surrender" you license five seconds before the state suspends you. This passage was also wrong: Michelle Obama did not "voluntarily surrender" her law license; she requested that her license be placed on "inactive" status. The difference is crucial: a lawyer who has surrendered his law license has given it up and therefore no longer has a license, while a lawyer who has gone on inactive status still holds a valid law license but is not currently engaged in any professional activities that require it to be active. At various times in my 28 years of nursing I've done other things when I got burned out; most notably a few years as a limousine driver; even an Amway salesman at one point. I always, always renewed my nursing license simply because it's easier to send the state $49.00 a month than to pay the $200, take a test, wait six weeks, etc., etc. I've worked (recently) in a Nursing Home where there was an 88 year old lawyer and a 95 year old physician. Both of them still had current licensures as well. They would never DREAM of letting their licenses lapse. A lawyer's holding active license status can entail a number of obligations, both financial and otherwise: paying bar association fees, carrying malpractice insurance, taking continuing legal education classes, etc. Therefore, it is not uncommon for lawyers who are not in practice (i.e., do not appear in court or counsel clients) and do not expect to return to practice in the near future to request that their licenses be placed on inactive status in order to avoid these ongoing obligations. Reactivating an inactive law license is a fairly easy procedure, as noted in the Volokh group blog for law professors: Volokh The fact that someone who doesn't actually practice law, and is unlikely to practice law, voluntarily retires is hardly a sinister signal: It costs money to be a member of the bar, and if you're not going to practice, it may make sense to retire. Nor does this somehow undermine claims that he's a lawyer; a retired lawyer is still commonly called a lawyer as an indication of what he has studied, and his general professional field even if he is no longer a member of the bar. The bar record says that [Michelle Obama] is "Voluntarily inactive." This is even more common for lawyers who don't need a bar card, such as many lawyers who don't appear in court or counsel clients other than [their] employer. Being an active status lawyer costs more money than being inactive, and it requires one to do Continuing Legal Education classes, unless one is in certain jobs for which the CLE requirements are waived. The difference in bar fees, for instance, is why I myself was inactive in 2001. Moreover, it's pretty easy to switch back to active status should one need to do that. The following passage included the erroneous implication that Barack Obama also gave up his law license to avoid disciplinary action: "Voluntarily retired" what does that mean? Bill Clinton hung onto his law license until he was convicted of making a false statement in the Lewinsky case and had to "Voluntarily Surrender" his license too. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application. This passage was similarly incorrect: Barack Obama did not "surrender" his law license. Like his wife, Barack Obama had no need for an active law license for the work in which he was engaged, so in February 2007 (after announcing his candidacy for the presidency) he chose to have his law license placed on voluntarily inactive status, and after becoming president he opted to change his status to voluntarily retired. Neither of the Obamas was irrevocably stripped of a law license through the action of "surrendering" it. James Grogan, deputy administrator and chief counsel for the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, affirmed that the Obamas were "never the subject of any public disciplinary proceedings," and the Illinois State Bar Association continues to list Barack and Michelle Obama as Honorary Members of that organization. list Something else odd; while the Search feature brings up the names, any searches for the Disciplinary actions ends quickly. As in, Too Quickly. Less than a half-second quickly on a Search Engine that can take five seconds to Search for anything. As in, "there's a block on that information" kind of thing. The above passage was also not true. Information about the statuses of both Barack and Michelle Obama's licenses is readily retrievable, both show no record of any disciplinary actions or pending proceedings, and the elapsed time for searches we performed on their information was comparable to that for searches on information about other names in the Illinois ARDC database. (The "Malpractice Insurance" section of Michelle Obama's license information which included a notation about her being on "court ordered inactive status" was not, as commonly misinterpreted, an indication of any wrongdoing on her part. That terminology was used simply because prior to the end of 1999, the Illinois ARDC rules required "a proceeding in the Court for any voluntary transfer to inactive status, whether because of some incapacitating condition or solely as a matter of the lawyer's preference because the lawyer would not be practicing law.") rules So we have the first Lawyer President and First Lady who don't actually have licenses to practice law. This was hardly remarkable or suspicious: neither of the Obamas held a currently active law license because neither President of the United States nor First Lady was a position that required one. This statement was also inaccurate in referring to the Obamas as the "first Lawyer President and First Lady," as both Bill and Hillary Clinton held law degrees and engaged in legal work prior to the former's election to the presidency.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-showers-dishwashers/

Did Trump Decry Low-Flow Showers and Dishwashers During a Pandemic?

David Mikkelson

07/20/2020

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO On July 16, 2020, as the U.S. recorded its single highest number of COVID-19 cases since the coronavirus health crisis began, U.S. President Donald Trump spoke at an event held on the South Lawn of the White House, ostensibly on the subject of "Rolling Back Regulations to Help All Americans." During his talk, according to a meme, Trump allegedly tackled the subject of energy-efficiency standards which have supposedly resulted in home appliances that do not function properly due to requirements aimed at conserving the amount of water and power they consume: This was an accurate reproduction of a portion of Trump's talk, according to a White House transcript of the event: transcript Were bringing back consumer choice in home appliances so that you can buy washers and dryers, showerheads and faucets. So showerheads you take a shower, the water doesnt come out. You want to wash your hands, the water doesnt come out. So what do you do? You just stand there longer or you take a shower longer? Because my hair I dont know about you, but it has to be perfect. Perfect. Dishwashers you didnt have any water, so you the people that do the dishes you press it, and it goes again, and you do it again and again. So you might as well give them the water because youll end up using less water. So we made it so dishwashers now have a lot more water. And in many places in most places of the country, water is not a problem. They dont know what to do with it. Its called rain. They dont have a problem. This was far from the first time the president had riffed on poorly functioning appliances. In December 2019, as Trump spoke in the Roosevelt Room of the White House amidst an impeachment inquiry, he digressed into railing about toilets and other bathroom fixtures that allegedly frustrate their users due to the use of low-flow technology. CNN reported: digressed railing about toilets The President claimed Americans are flushing their toilets "10 times, 15 times, as opposed to once" and argued that they are having difficulty with washing their hands in what appeared to be a tangent about low-flow sinks and toilets. "We have a situation where we're looking very strongly at sinks and showers and other elements of bathrooms where you turn the faucet on -- and in areas where there's tremendous amounts of water, where the water rushes out to sea because you could never handle it, and you don't get any water," the President said during a roundtable with small business leaders about deregulatory actions. "You turn on the faucet and you don't get any water. They take a shower and water comes dripping out. Just dripping out, very quietly dripping out," the President continued, lowering his voice as he spoke about the drips. "People are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times, as opposed to once." It wasn't entirely clear what he was talking about, but it appeared to have to do with bathroom fixtures with low-flow appliances. He said the Environmental Protection Agency was looking into the issue on his suggestion. "They end up using more water. So (the) EPA is looking at that very strongly at my suggestion," Trump said, though he did not give details on what suggestions, if any, he made. NPR quoted the Pacific Institute, a non-profit research institute with a focus on global and regional freshwater issues, as asserting that Trump's statements did not comport with reality: quoted asserting Peter Gleick with the Pacific Institute in Oakland considers this all to be Trumpian nostalgia for a time when showers were strong, toilets used 4 gallons a flush and lightbulbs burned your hands when you touched them. Gleick said these newer household items are part of an "efficiency revolution," doing the same tasks with less and halting the upward trajectory of water and energy consumption in America. And, yes, a dishwasher cycle takes longer, and incandescent bulbs are cheaper to buy upfront. But in the long run, "They're much more expensive, because they use a huge amount of energy, which we pay for over time and they burn out 20 times faster," Gleick said. Based on the way Trump talks about efficient lightbulbs, it seems his complaint is with compact fluorescent bulbs, which were the only low-energy bulbs widely available 10 years ago. But today, store shelves are full of LED bulbs with warmer-looking light and even longer life spans. Gleick suspects Trump's toilet complaints are outdated as well, because low-flow toilet technology has come a long way in recent years. "Some people got bad toilets, but that was 15 and 20 years ago," Gleick said. "And now the new toilets not only use a tiny fraction of the water the old toilets used to use, but the truth is they flush better and if you have a bad toilet that doesn't flush, well, that's because you have a bad toilet." A video of the portion of the speech reproduced in the above meme can be viewed here: Picheta, Rob et al. "Trump Claims Americans Have to Flush the Toilet '10 Times, 15 Times, As Opposed to Once.'" CNN. 7 December 2019. Keith, Tamara. "Trump vs. Toilets (And Showers, Dishwashers and Lightbulbs)." NPR. 27 December 2019. WhiteHouse.gov. "Remarks by President Trump on Rolling Back Regulations to Help All Americans." 16 July 2020.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/oct/10/matthew-rothschild/progressive-magazine-editor-says-young-worker-unem/

U.S. unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 is 18.4 percent, which is a 60-year high.

Tom Kertscher

10/10/2011

Activists participating inOccupy Wall Street, a movement that protests greed, corporate influence and unemployment, began camping out in New Yorks financial district in September 2011 and have spawnedsimilardemonstrationsaround the country.Supporters include the left-leaning political advocacy groupMoveOn.organdRuss Feingold, the former Democratic U.S. senator from Wisconsin, whosaidaccountability for corporate greed is long overdue.As part of what is being billed as aninternational protest, local offshoots of the Occupy Wall Streetplanto demonstrate in Milwaukee, Madison and Appleton on Oct. 15, 2011.On Oct. 4, 2011, Wisconsin Public Radio hostJoyCardindiscussedthe demonstrations withMatthew Rothschild, editor and publisher of The Progressive. The 102-year-old Madison magazinecallsitselfone of the leading voices for peace and social justice in this country.When Cardin asked Rothschild why younger people are leading the demonstrations, he said: The unemployment rate for people between the ages of 16 and 24 in this country is 18.4 percent, which is a 60-year high.Is the rate for younger workers that high?Unemployment has been a major issue since the start of the recession in December 2007 -- and not just for people in their late teens and early 20s.The U.S. Department of Laborreported, for example, that in December 2009, unemployment reached a record 7.2 percent among people ages 55 and over and that people in that age group spent an average of 35 weeks out of work -- considerably more than the average of 23 weeks for unemployed people ages 16 to 24.In making his claim about younger workers, Rothschild told us he was quoting an April 2011reportfrom theEconomic Policy Institute.It said: In 2010, the unemployment rate for workers age 16-24 was 18.4 percent the worst on record in the 60 years that this data has been tracked.So, although Rothschild said the current rate of unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 is at a 60-year high, he was referring to the annual rate for 2010.The Economic Policy Institute is a liberal-leaning Washington, D.C. think tank thatsaysit seeks to broaden discussions about economic policy to include the needs of low- and middle-income workers.Its report -- which urges substantial additional stimulus spending by the federal government to create jobs for younger workers -- says the unemployment statistics came from theU.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The bureau is the federal governments statistics keeper on unemployment.We queried the Bureau of Labor Statistics database to create achartshowing the monthly and annual unemployment rates for people ages 16 to 24 from 1948 through August 2011.We found that the Economic Policy Institute report was correct: Unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 was 18.4 percent in 2010; and that rate is higher than any annual rate dating back to when statistics were first kept in 1948. Thats more than 60 years.The next-highest annual rates, each exceeding 17 percent, were posted in 1982, 1983 and 2009.In each of the first eight months of 2011, however, the rate has been below the 2010 mark of 18.4 percent.Unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 was 17.7 percent in August 2011, the most recent month for which statistics are available. And the year-to-date average is 17.6 percent.So, the rate is lower today than it was for 2010 as a whole, though only eight months of 2011 are accounted for. We dont know, of course, how the year will end up.Our conclusionRothschild said unemployment among people ages 16 to 24 is 18.4 percent, which is a 60-year high. The 18.4 percent is correct as the average rate for 2010, and that average annual rate is the highest in more than 60 years. More recent figures, however, show the unemployment rate among people ages 16 to 24 has dipped below 18 percent in 2011, at least through August.We rate Rothschilds statement Mostly True.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/mar/05/roy-cooper/cooper-calls-attention-aging-north-carolina-school/

Right now, four in 10 public schools in our state are at least 50 years old.

Bill McCarthy

03/05/2019

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper called for more money to renovate the states aging public schools during hisState of the State addresson Feb. 25. Right now, four in 10 public schools in our state are at least 50 years old, Cooper said. That means theyre still using the schools you and I went to. We wondered whether the states public schools are actually that old, so we decided to check out Coopers numbers ourselves. As it turns out, the data is not so easy to come by. We started with Jamal Little, the governors spokesman, who told us that the information about the ages of public schools came from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, which collected that data in 2016 while compiling itsmost recent surveyon school facility needs. Little gave us a table that said 949 of 2,306 public schools that reported construction dates were at least 50 years old (325 schools did not report their dates). He said the table came from the Department of Public Instruction but was not publicly available online. According to the table, about 41 percent of the schools that reported construction dates are more than 50 years old. But Drew Elliot, communications director for the Department of Public Instruction, said he could not confirm the table came from his department. He said he believes his office could get those numbers or something very close to it but could not validate them without a weeks time. We have no reason to think that his numbers are off, he said. Nothing in there looks anomalous to what we know about the age of school buildings in North Carolina. We wanted more definitive evidence, so we asked Elliot for the data the state did have. He sent us a copy of thedepartments list of construction datesso we could crunch the numbers for ourselves. That wasnt easy. The list assigns multiple construction dates to each school, and its not immediately clear what each date refers to. But Elliot said the dates correspond to construction of separate structures and that the earliest date listed for each school would offer the best approximation of the schools age. So, we did our best to sort through the raw numbers. It turns out that the number of old schools may actually be larger than Cooper claimed. Out of 2,631 total schools, we counted 2,299 that had construction dates listed beside them. And judging by the earliest dates listed for each, 1,118 of those 2,299 schools were built during or before 1969, making them at least 50 years old. That means that, by our calculations, nearly half the public schools are greater than 50 years old. But because the dates on the list were not labeled, even our calculations may be imperfect. Also, the totals could change with more information about the schools that did not report their ages for the 2016 survey. And theres potentially a big caveat because some schools have been renovated since their original construction, making them newer than their age suggests. Cooper said, Right now, four in 10 public schools in our state are at least 50 years old. The raw numbers from the department the best information available put Coopers statement in the right ballpark and showed it may even be an underestimate. But there are some uncertainties. So we rate this statement Mostly True. This story was produced by the North Carolina Fact-Checking Project, a partnership of McClatchy Carolinas, the Duke University Reporters Lab and PolitiFact. The NC Local News Lab Fund and the International Center for Journalists provide support for the project, which shares fact-checks with newsrooms statewide. To offer ideas for fact checks, email[email protected].

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/feb/11/kasim-reed/mayor-working-keep-more-tech-grads/

Right now, we only keep 50 percent of Georgia Tech's graduates.

Eric Stirgus

02/11/2014

Before Snowjam turned into a verbal snowball fight between Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and some news outlets, Reed planned to spend most of his time Jan. 31 with the Atlanta Press Club talking about his initiatives for 2014. Reed did address some goals for the year, such as keeping more young, smart people in the city. One statistic the mayor cited about the percentage of Georgia Tech students who stay after graduation piqued our curiosity. Right now, we only keep 50 percent of Georgia Techs graduates, Reed said. Is this correct? Carlos Campos, a spokesman for the mayor, said Reed based his comments on information from the 128-year-old college located in Midtown Atlanta. Campos specified that the mayor was referring to the percentage of Tech graduates who remain not just in Atlanta, but the entire state of Georgia. College graduates, statistics show, typically earn higher salaries, so elected officials want to keep them around. Reed told the audience hes planning an effort to raise upward of $150 million to fund high-tech startup firms in the city. The mayor said those companies are needed to keep more college grads in Atlanta and away from Silicon Valley. Reed said hes working with local business leaders on the retainment effort and set a long-term goal of keeping at least 75 percent of Tech graduates here. Reed is not the first person to raise concerns about a brain drain. Some Michigan educators and elected officials talked about the need to keep more college graduates in that state. A first-of-its-kind survey of all 2007 Michigan public university graduates, conducted by Michigan Future Inc., revealed that half of grads left the state within a year, The Detroit News reported. The percentage of Michigan State University graduates who left the state doubled between 2001 and 2009, from 24 percent to 49 percent, the newspaper reported, citing statistics from the school. Nationally, theres little research on the topic. A 2007-08 federal survey found 69 percent of college graduates were living in the state where they earned their degree one year after graduation. Georgia Tech spokeswoman Laura Diamond gave us some data from surveys done in 2012 and 2013 about its graduates. Over those two years, 52 percent of Tech undergraduates remained in the state. The total increases to 55 percent once you include those who attended graduate school. The 2012 survey polled 2,619 students who were scheduled to graduate with bachelors or masters degrees that year with questions about employment prospects and future plans. About 55 percent of the students completed the entire survey. Georgia Tech has about 21,500 undergraduate and graduate students. The report contains job placement rates and salary offers in 34 majors for bachelors students. Seventy percent of those graduates found jobs, and the median salary was just above $63,000 and a median bonus of $5,000. For graduate students, the job placement rate was nearly 72 percent, and the median salary was $78,000 with a median bonus of $10,000. Reed said in his remarks to the Atlanta Press Club that one-half of Georgia Tech graduates stay in Georgia. He based his statement on data from Georgia Tech. The schools surveys are pretty close to the mayors statement. Theres not much data out there on this subject. Georgia Techs surveys showed the percentage of graduates who stayed in the state were slightly higher than what the mayor said at the luncheon. Still, Reed appears to be on the right track with his comments, based on the limited information available. Our rating: Mostly True.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/aug/05/sheldon-whitehouse/sen-sheldon-whitehouse-ri-says-growth-superpacs-le/

An April study found that about 70 percent of ads in this election cycle have been negative [due to SuperPACs], up from only 9 percent through the same period in 2008.

C. Eugene Emery Jr.

08/05/2012

Negative campaign ads: most people say they hate them, but studies show that many people are swayed by them.Thus, major races can get pretty nasty, and there's a fear that the presidential contest this year will break all records for nastiness, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Courts 2010Citizens United decision. The court upheld the right of persons, organizations and corporations to spend as much as they would like on political advertising -- while hiding their involvement -- through the use of organizations known as super political action committees (Super-PACs).To shed some light on who is behind such attack ads, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI, has been promoting the DISCLOSE Act. The name is an acronym for Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections.When you don't have accountability, there's no limit to the things that people will say,Whitehouse said during a debateon the floor of the Senate. One of the restraints on the vitriol and the filth that so often is part of the American political debate is that candidates have to stand by their ads.And if you say something that is awful, if you engage in relentless negative attacks, voters may charge you a price for that, Whitehouse said. Well, that of course disappears when the name behind the ad is attached to no living person or corporation. It's just an entity, it's a sham, it's a phony, it's a shell.The DISCLOSE actwould requiresome tax-exempt groups that engage in political advertising to reveal individual donors who gave $10,000 or more.Critics saythe act discriminates because it wouldn't apply to unions. They also say disclosure might open donors up to intimidation and ridicule, inhibiting free speech.During an unsuccessful push to bring the proposal to a vote in the Senate -- a drive blocked twice by Republicans, on July 16 and 17 -- Whitehouse said the Citizens United decision was already sparking a giant increase in negative political advertising.An April study found that about 70 percent of ads in this election cycle have been negative, up from only 9 percent through the same period in 2008, he said.That's a big jump in negative advertising. We wondered if it were true.The contextWhen we contacted Whitehouse's office, spokesman Seth Larson sent us toa studyreleased May 2, 2012, by the Wesleyan Media Project at Wesleyan University. It defined a negative advertisement as an ad in which the candidate's opponent is mentioned.The study looked only at TV ads in the presidential races and only ads broadcast from January 1 through April 22 of 2008 and the same period in 2012.It turns out that Whitehouse quoted the study accurately. The researchers said that 70.0 percent of all ads in 2012 were negative during that period, compared with 9.1 percent in 2008.But Whitehouse also said that the Citizens United decision is responsible for that increase in negative ads, so lets look at that aspect.The political scientists we spoke with said the Supreme Court decision is having a huge effect on the tone and rhythm of the 2012 campaign.The Wesleyan study suggests that the effect was already clear in the first four months of this year.Consider the ads purchased by special-interest groups or SuperPACs.Of the 10,062 special-interest group ads aired during the first quarter of 2008, 75 percent were rated positive and 25 percent were rated negative.By 2012, the number of special-interest ads had exploded, jumping more than 12-fold to 123,062. In addition, the mix of ads had reversed, with only 14 percent positive and 86 percent negative.Meanwhile, the number of ads bought by candidates themselves plummeted, from 289,622 in the first quarter of 2008 to 74,267 this year, an indication that they were letting the special interest ads carry the ball for promoting their candidacies.AsMichael Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project, said in the report, That's a lot of money and airtime backed by undisclosed sources.Other factors affect rateBut Franz and the other experts we consulted cautioned that additional factors are also at work.The first four months of the 2008 race were very different from the same period in the 2012 contest.In early 2008, one reason the number was so low was because the [Barack] Obama and [Hillary] Clinton campaigns didn't really attack each other on TV that much, said Franz, now at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine. They did off the air, and they were obviously quite ruthless. But in the ads themselves, there wasn't a lot of sniping back and forth against each other. They promoted themselves primarily.That changed for Obama in the general election, Franz said. He was a very negative candidate and once the general election started, it became an overwhelmingly negative campaign, as it usually is in the general election.During the first four months of 2012, SuperPACs drove up the percentage of negative ads, he said, but also candidates have been overwhelmingly negative against each other in the [2012] Republican primary.So let's look at the types of ads placed by the candidates themselves.In 2008, only 9 percent of the ads placed by all the candidates in the first four months of the year were negative.By 2012 that number had grown to nearly 53 percent.The first four months of a presidential election year are not necessarily the best guide to the rhythm of the rest of a presidential campaign. I really don't think they're indicative of what's to come, said Mary Ellen Balchunis, a political scientist at LaSalle University in Philadelphia. It's how close the polls are, it's whether your opponent is going negative, it's whether you are responding.Early in the contest, the ads are generally more about who the candidate is and what the candidate would do. That's particularly true for a challenger, saidStephen Farnsworthof the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, Va., a key swing state. There are always some negative ads, but they are really sprinkled in the mix. In the fall, when people are really turning their attention to the election, that's when the number of negative ads escalates.In this election cycle, things are already so negative, it's hard to imagine that there's much room for them to get more negative between now and November, said Farnsworth, author of Spinner-in-Chief: How Presidents Sell Their Policies and Themselves.Our rulingSheldon Whitehouse said, An April study found that about 70 percent of ads in this election cycle have been negative, up from only 9 percent through the same period in 2008.He is correctly quoting the study, but the context of his comment makes it clear that he blames the SuperPACs, which were freed up by the Citizens United decision.Those special-interest groups are certainly playing a much larger role this year, in part because they have become the major source of TV ad purchases.But the data also reveal that the candidates are being far more negative earlier in the campaign than they were four years ago, and that also drove up the percentage of negative ads in the beginning of 2012.Because his statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate the claim asMostly True. (Get updates from PolitiFact Rhode Island on Twitter:@politifactri. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on ourPolitiFact Rhode Island Facebookpage.)

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/five-guys-closing-2024/

Is Five Guys Closing Down All Restaurant Locations in 2024, as Announced in 2023?

Jordan Liles

12/11/2023

In December 2023, online advertisements were displayed to YouTube users that showed one or more photos of Five Guys restaurant locations. For example, the caption for one ad read, "They're Closing Doors In 2024. Restaurant Chains Closing 2024." Also, in Google ads that featured the same photos of Five Guys restaurants, the caption was displayed as follows: "They're Closing Doors in 2024. It's Time To Say Goodbye, These Fast Food Restaurants Be Closing The Doors." Several other variations of these ads were also displayed online. The ads appeared to claim that Five Guys would be closing all of its locations, going bankrupt or going out of business for other reasons. However, this was false. All of the ads led to an article on Reference.com with the headline, "These 53 Restaurant Chains Are on the Brink of Disappearing Entirely." The article's page source code indicated that the story was perhaps written during or before the year 2020 and was last republished in 2021. In other words, the article that was being advertised in December 2023 was two or more years old. article The article listed 68 different businesses, most that appeared to be American brands. Under each business name were several paragraphs describing whether the companies would be closing some or all of its locations. In other words, the article was fairly long. Nowhere in the apparent 68-slide article was Five Guys mentioned even once. The ads with the photos of Five Guys restaurant locations were false and misleading clickbait that may have originally been created to lure readers to click or scroll through 68 slides for nothing. The reason why these kinds of ads and articles exist is usually something called advertising arbitrage. Advertising arbitrage is a strategy in which an advertiser hopes to make more money on ads displayed in a lengthy article than it would cost to display an initial clickbait ad meant to attract users to the article. In other words, instead of the ads being both attractive and potentially helpful to consumers, they instead mislead users from the start. Advertising arbitrage We reached out to Five Guys by email to ask if they had a statement to share regarding the false and misleading ads and will update this story if we receive a response. Note: If readers would like to report any strange or misleading ads on Snopes, we invite you to contact us. Please include the full link of the website where the questionable ad led to so that we can attempt to investigate and potentially block any such ads. contact us Liles, Jordan. Snopes Tips: How To Avoid Ad Arbitrage Clickbait. Snopes, 2 Jan. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/articles/387913/avoid-ad-arbitrage-clickbait/.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/napoleon-dynamite-sequel/

Will There Be a Sequel to 'Napoleon Dynamite'?

Dan Evon

03/23/2018

Have you heard the sweet rumor about a Napoleon Dynamite sequel? Well, don't get your hopes up. It's just another movie sequel hoax. The rumors about a sequel to the oddball cult classic have been periodically reappearing since the original film came out in 2004. This particular version of the rumor is based on a fan-made movie poster paired with an old gossip article: As convincing as it might appear, this poster was not created by a movie studio and was never shared in an official capacity to hype a new sequel. Instead, it was created by graphic designer Jack Gambro and can be found on his web site in the "conceptual" section: Jack Gambro conceptual This section contains conceptual projects unrelated to the organizations or individuals involved. The gallery is a collection of unofficial artwork. A 2006 article from CinemaBlend.com is also frequently shared by sequel-hungry fans: Despite the article's clickbait title and web address, it doesn't actually report that a sequel has been confirmed. Rather, it reported that "there have been talks" about making a sequel (emphasis ours): Napoleon Dynamite cost only $400,000 to make and grossed over $46 million worldwide. When a movie sports that kind of positive cost to profit ratio, youve got to assume there will be a sequel. Evidently the folks behind the movie agree. Efren Ramirez, who played Pedro in Napoleon appeared on the Dallas radio show Pugs & Kelly this afternoon and confirmed that there have been talks about making a Napoleon Dynamite 2. He says most of the rumors circulating about other Napoleon projects, like a television show or a series of comic books are nothing but rumors, but he confirms that they are at least talking about making another movie. There may have been talks about making a follow-up to the 2004 movie at some point, but in the years since its release there have been no official announcements about a Napoleon Dynamite sequel.

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/jul/12/barack-obama/obama-says-public-sector-job-losses-increasing-sti/

As we've seen that federal support for states diminish, you've seen the biggest job losses in the public sector -- teachers, police officers, firefighters losing their jobs.

Angie Drobnic Holan

07/12/2011

President Barack Obama is negotiating with Republicans in Congress to increase the debt ceiling. Part of the deal could involve major cuts to government spending.At a press conference on Monday, Obama was asked whether cutting government spending was a good idea right now, given the high unemployment rate.Our biggest priority as an administration is getting the economy back on track and putting people back to work. Now, without relitigating the past, I'm absolutely convinced, and the vast majority of economists are convinced, that the steps we took in the Recovery Act saved millions of people their jobs or created a whole bunch of jobs, Obama said.And part of the evidence of that is as you see what happens with the Recovery Act phasing out, he continued. When I came into office and budgets were hemorrhaging at the state level, part of the Recovery Act was giving states help so they wouldn't have to lay off teachers, police officers, firefighters. As we've seen that federal support for states diminish, you've seen the biggest job losses in the public sector -- teachers, police officers, firefighters losing their jobs.We were interested in fact-checking that last statement, that public-sector job losses have increased as the stimulus money has receded. Was there data to back up Obama's point? We decided to fact-check his statement, and what we found was more complicated than we expected.First, we'll address the timing of the stimulus spending in the states, and then we'll turn to public-sector job losses.To refresh your memory on stimulus spending: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act became law in 2009. It included $787 billion in tax cuts and spending designed to pump money into the economy and reverse the recession. The goal was to get the money out the door as soon as possible, and much of it was spent in 2009 and 2010. By the middle of 2011, the governmentreportedthat it had paid out 90 percent of the tax benefits; 78 percent of the contracts, grants and loans; and 83 percent of entitlement spending, such as money for Medicaid, unemployment benefits and food stamps.States received money for all sorts of projects and purposes, and the timetables were all different. For example: States got extra money to pay for Medicaid, the government-run health insurance program for the poor and disabled. This money ran out on June 30, 2011. States also got money for education, to keep school teachers on the job. The states were encouraged to spend that money as soon as possible, but they didn't have to. So every state had its own timetable for using these funds, according to Michael Leachman, an expert on state finances with the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.Next, we'll turn to public-sector job losses. Obama mentioned teachers, police officers, firefighters losing their jobs, and the logical inference is that these people were laid off due to budget constraints. Again, we were not able to find compiled data of jobs lost to state budget cuts. However, the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics keeps data on the size of the government workforce at the state and local levels. We ran the data using the department's database and found that both the state and local workforce numbers have been generally declining since the beginning of this year.We looked at both state and local workforce numbers because jobs like school teachers, police officers and firefighters would typically be included in the numbers of the local workforce. Teachers at the public universities, on the other hand, would be counted as part of the state workforce. Most states also have state police forces, such as the Florida Highway Patrol and the Texas Rangers.To review some of the specifics of those numbers: Nationwide, the state workforce started 2010 with 5.140 million workers. For the rest of the year, the numbers jumped around, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing. By January 2011, the state workforce was down to 5.136 million workers. Since then, the numbers have declined every month, though May and June were preliminary numbers.The local workforce, meanwhile, started 2010 with 14.482 million workers. It saw steady declines with the exemption of one month through the rest of 2010. By January 2011, the local workforce was down to 14.240 million workers. Since then, the numbers have also declined every month, with May and June preliminary. To sum up, we can say very generally that the stimulus was ending, and also the state and local workforces were in decline.We noted ina recent itemon government employment that since the recession officially ended in June 2009, private payrolls have increased by more than 1 million workers, but government payrolls have declined by 493,000 -- cutting the number of jobs created almost in half. We also noted that the decline came from loss of employment at the state and local level, since federal employment had increased slightly.Leachman, the state finance expert at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said there was little doubt that there's a connection between the end of the stimulus and public-sector layoffs.The recession has just been a historic one for state and local governments. Its very badly damaged their revenues, and they're still in a deep hole from the recession, he said, adding, It's clear that job losses are going to continue in the next year and beyond.Obama pointed to those job losses as evidence that the stimulus helped the economy. Now that the stimulus is going away, things are getting worse.The conservative fiscal experts we spoke with were not impressed with Obama's claim, though they did not dispute it. The problem is that the stimulus didn't revive the economy, said J.D. Foster of the conservative Heritage Foundation. The point of the stimulus was to get the private sector going well enough to carry the job-creating load. It failed, he said via e-mail.We're not going to assess here whether the stimulus worked, however. And as we've noted inpreviousreports, independent sources have concluded that the stimulus saved or created anywhere between 1.3 million and 2.6 million jobs. But the economic downturn has been particularly pernicious, so we think it's still too early to say whether the stimulus worked or not, and to what extent. We should note that here, Obama is in the odd position of pointing to increasing job losses as evidence that the stimulus worked.Here, we're checking Obama's statement, As we've seen that federal support for states diminish, you've seen the biggest job losses in the public sector -- teachers, police officers, firefighters losing their jobs. The data tends to support that, but it's more of a correlation than a causation. Other factors, including continuing weakness in the economy and shrinking state and local revenue are at work as well. We rate Obama's statement Mostly True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/portugal-barn-find/

Did a Homebuyer Discover a Barn Full of Classic Cars on His Property?

David Mikkelson

07/19/2007

One of the many "fortunate discovery" scenarios people sometimes fantasize about involves taking possession of a dwelling and turning up something of great value left behind by a previous resident perhaps a forgotten stash of currency, discarded coins that were once common but are now worth a pretty penny to collectors, jewelry hidden away and never retrieved, etc. Purchasing an old farmhouse and discovering the property included a barn stuffed full with a few hundred vintage automobiles is a reverie probably outside the range of even the most optimistic daydreamer's imaginings, but that's the backstory that was created to enliven a set of photographs circulated in early 2007 that showed an "eclectic collection of old cars in a decaying building." A dream come true. A NY man retired. He wanted to use his retirement money wisely, so it would last, and decided to buy a home and a few acres in Portugal. The modest farmhouse had been vacant for 15yrs.; the owner and wife both had died, and there were no heirs. The house was sold to pay taxes. There had been several lookers, but the large barn had steel doors, and they had been welded shut. Nobody wanted to go to the extra expense to see what was in the barn, and it wasn't complimentary to the property anyway..... so, nobody made an offer on the place. The NY guy bought it at just over half of the property's worth, moved in, and set about to tear in to the barn..... curiosity was killing him. So, he and his wife bought a generator, and a couple of grinders..... and cut thru the welds. What was in the barn...............? The referenced pictures (the full set is viewable here) were indeed taken in a barn somewhere in Portugal, but the "lucky find" aspect of the story doesn't quite ring true. As Tom Cotter of Sports Car Market magazine noted when he looked into this story: here Huge collections of cars don't just happen. Cars are accumulated sometimes lovingly, sometimes not by someone with a purpose. I was sure this collection was not assembled by accident; nobody would simply sell an old farm and fail to mention to the new owners the stash of old cars in the barn. What Cotter found out by tracking down the photographer was that the owner of the barn (and the 180 or so vintage cars contained within) was not a lucky buyer who had just purchased the property and was astonished to find a treasure trove in one of the farm buildings. The owner was an automobile dealer in the 1970s and 1980s who had built up an assemblage of cars over the years and stashed it in the barn (locking and soldering the doors shut when the structure was full) and who simply hired a photographer to document his collection: I was eventually able to contact the photographer who was contracted by the cars' owner to shoot the photographs that would ultimately appear on millions of car-guy computer monitors beginning on January 20 [2007]. Manuel Menezes Morais shot the photos, but he was sworn to secrecy about the cars' location and the owner's name. However, he was able to obtain permission from the elusive owner to give me the following information: The owner of the cars was a car dealer in the 1970s and 1980s, and decided to save the more interesting cars that came through his doors. When the barn was full, he padlocked and "soldered" the doors shut. (Perhaps welding was too permanent.) Web sites varied on the number of cars: 58, 100, and 180 were speculated. According to Morais, there are 180 cars in the barn. And, aw shucks, none of the cars is for sale. A partial inventory of the various models of automobiles stored in the barn can be viewed here. here Cotter, Tom. "Portuguese Barn Find: Fact or Fiction?" Sports Car Market. May 2007.

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/mar/29/gina-raimondo/gov-gina-raimondo-says-ris-medicaid-costs-enrollee/

Rhode Island has the second highest per enrollee (Medicaid) cost of any state in the country, which is 60 percent higher than the national average.

C. Eugene Emery Jr.

03/29/2015

In an effort to bring Rhode Island's budget under control, Gov. Gina Raimondo is hoping to rein in the cost of Medicaid. She has proposed cutting $88 million from the states $2.7-billion Medicaid spending in the next fiscal year and has created a task force to reinvent the program. During theMarch 13, 2015 tapingof WPRI-TV's Newsmakers program, Raimondo argued that the costs of the joint state and federal program that provides health insurance to the very poor are extraordinarily high in the state. You have to remember, she said, Rhode Island has the second highest per enrollee [Medicaid] cost of any state in the country, which is 60 percent higher than the national average. So we have to do a better job. It's just not sustainable. She madea similar statementon Rhode Island Public Radio. Paying, on average, 60 percent more for anything seems pretty scandalous. We decided to see if the typical cost of a Rhode Island Medicaid recipient was really that much higher than average, and whether per-patient costs were actually lower in 48 other states. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation is a reliable source of data on health issues. We got a state-by-state tally oftotal state and federal Medicaid spendingfor the 2013 fiscal year and divided it by the number ofpeople in each state on Medicaid in December 2013in hopes of getting a rough estimate. By that back-of-the-envelope method, Rhode Island ranked fifth, not second, with all the New England states except New Hampshire in the top 10. The cost was 39 percent above the national average. But that's using 12 months of expenses and one-month enrollment totals.Laura Snyder, a senior policy analyst with Kaiser, said that's an apples-to-oranges mix. When we asked Raimondo's office for the source of her numbers, her spokeswoman cited Kaiser as well, specifically a page that directly ranksMedicaid spending per enrollee by state, although it doesn't list actual total spending or enrollment. And it's from the 2011 fiscal year. Nonetheless, on that list, Rhode Island, at $9,247 per enrollee, does indeed rank second. Only Alaska, at $9,474, spent more. In addition, per enrollee spending in Rhode Island was 60 percent higher than the $5,790 U.S. average. So, by that ranking, Raimondo is correct on both counts. We asked why newer numbers aren't available. Snyder said annual enrollment statistics by state are slow to come out from the federal government, so the 2011 data are the most recent available. Because we wondered if state rankings fluctuate significantly from year to year -- and might be significantly different in 2012, 2013 and 2014 -- we asked Kaiser to see its rankings from some previous years. They gave us data going back to 2000. It turns out that our standing has bounced around a bit, but not a lot. For example, Rhode Island ranked fifth in 2010 and 2009, but ranked first in 2007. Our ruling Raimondo said, Rhode Island has the second highest per enrollee [Medicaid] cost of any state in the country, which is 60 percent higher than the national average. But in making her statement on one of the central elements in her proposed budget, Raimondo didnt note that the numbers were from the 2011 year. Granted, those are the most recent statistics available, according to Kaiser. But a lot can happen in four years. Because the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rule itMostly True. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/9-things-women-could-not-do/

Could Women Not Do These 9 Things in 1971?

Dan Evon

09/03/2019

In August 2019, as many people took to the Internet to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote on paper, a piece of text started to circulate on social media that supposedly listed "9 things that women couldn't do until 1971": The following list is of NINE things a woman couldn't do in 1971 yes the date is correct, 1971. In 1971 a woman could not: 1. Get a Credit Card in her own name it wasn't until 1974 that a law forced credit card companies to issue cards to women without their husband's signature. 2. Be guaranteed that they wouldn't be unceremoniously fired for the offense of getting pregnant that changed with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of *1978*! 3. Serve on a jury - It varied by state (Utah deemed women fit for jury duty way back in 1879), but the main reason women were kept out of jury pools was that they were considered the center of the home, which was their primary responsibility as caregivers. They were also thought to be too fragile to hear the grisly details of crimes and too sympathetic by nature to be able to remain objective about those accused of offenses. In 1961, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a Florida law that exempted women from serving on juries. It wasn't until 1973 that women could serve on juries in all 50 states. 4. Fight on the front lines admitted into military academies in 1976 it wasn't until 2013 that the military ban on women in combat was lifted. Prior to 1973 women were only allowed in the military as nurses or support staff. 5. Get an Ivy League education - Yale and Princeton didn't accept female students until 1969. Harvard didn't admit women until 1977 (when it merged with the all-female Radcliffe College). Brown (which merged with women's college Pembroke), Dartmouth and Columbia did not offer admission to women until 1971, 1972 and 1981, respectively. Other case-specific instances allowed some women to take certain classes at Ivy League institutions (such as Barnard women taking classes at Columbia), but, by and large, women in the '60s who harbored Ivy League dreams had to put them on hold. 6. Take legal action against workplace sexual harassment. Indeed the first time a court recognized office sexual harassment as grounds for any legal action was in 1977! 7. Decide not to have sex if their husband wanted to spousal rape wasn't criminalized in all 50 states until 1993. Read that again ... 1993. 8. Obtain health insurance at the same monetary rate as a man. Sex discrimination wasn't outlawed in health insurance until 2010 and today many, including sitting elected officials at the Federal level, feel women don't mind paying a little more. Again, that date was 2010. 9. The birth control pill: Issues like reproductive freedom and a woman's right to decide when and whether to have children were only just beginning to be openly discussed in the 1960s. In 1957, the FDA approved of the birth control pill but only for "severe menstrual distress." In 1960, the pill was approved for use as a contraceptive. Even so, the pill was illegal in some states and could be prescribed only to married women for purposes of family planning, and not all pharmacies stocked it. Some of those opposed said oral contraceptives were "immoral, promoted prostitution and were tantamount to abortion." It wasn't until several years later that birth control was approved for use by all women, regardless of marital status. In short, birth control meant a woman could complete her education, enter the work force and plan her own life. Oh, and one more thing, prior to 1880 which is just a few years before the photo of this very proud lady was taken, the age of consent for sex was set at 10 or 12 in more states, with the exception of our neighbor Delaware where it was 7 YEARS OLD! Feminism is NOT just for other women. KNOW your HERstory. A similar post on Facebook with tens of thousands of shares reported much the same in 2016 from user Lisa Bialac-Jehle. post on Facebook In general, the list above accurately reports nine things that women couldn't do in 1971. We'll take a closer look at each item below: Get a credit card in her own name As this post explains, banks were able to discriminate against women applying for credit cards until the passage of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act in October 1974. Women could get credit cards prior to this legislation, but as The Smithsonian notes, they were likely to be asked a barrage of personal questions and were often required to be accompanied by a man to co-sign for a credit card. Even then, women often received cards with lower limits or higher rates: Equal Credit Opportunity Act Smithsonian Forty years ago, any woman applying for a credit card could be asked a barrage of questions: Was she married? Did she plan to have children? Many banks required single, divorced or widowed women to bring a man along with them to cosign for a credit card, and some discounted the wages of women by as much as 50 percent when calculating their credit card limits. As women and minorities pushed for equal civil rights in various arenas, credit cards became the focus of a series of hearings in which women documented the discrimination they faced. And, finally, in 1974 forty years ago this year the Senate passed the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which made it illegal to discriminate against someone based on their gender, race, religion and national origin. Be guaranteed that they wouldn't be unceremoniously fired for getting pregnant Women faced a number of work-related consequences for getting pregnant prior to the passage of thePregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. On the 40th anniversary of this law, the ACLU posted a statement explaining how pregnancy often resulted in pink slips for working women: Pregnancy Discrimination Act statement Forty years ago, working women in the United States won the legal protection to become working mothers. On Oct. 31, 1978, Congress enacted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, making it illegal for employers to deny a woman a job or promotion, or higher pay, or any other opportunity because she is pregnant. The statute had an immediate, dramatic impact on women's ability to fully participate in the workforce. Although on-the-job sex discrimination had been outlawed more than a decade earlier, pregnancy wasn't legally recognized as a type of sex discrimination. As a result, a pregnancy often resulted in a pink slip. Some employers even imposed formal policies prohibiting pregnancy outright because their female employees were expected to project a certain image for example, flight attendants, who were expected by airlines to convey sexual availability to their businessman customers, and teachers, who were expected by school districts to project chasteness to their young pupils. Serve on a jury Women's road to the jury box was a long one. While the state of Utah deemed women qualified for jury duty back in 1898, it took the other 49 states several decades to reach the same conclusion. The ACLU noted that women were excluded from jury duties for a number of reasons: noted Aside from the "defect of sex," women were excluded from juries for a variety of reasons: their primary obligation was to their families and children; they should be shielded from hearing the details of criminal cases, particularly those involving sex offenses; they would be too sympathetic to persons accused of crimes; and keeping male and female jurors together during long trials could be injurious to women. While this viral posts states that it wasn't until "1973 that women could serve on juries in all 50 states," we found that this battle was still being fought for at least another two years. In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision that it was constitutionally unacceptable for states to bar women from juries. From a 1975 article in The New York Times: The New York Times The Supreme Court ruled today that shifting economic and social patterns of the last dozen years have made it constitutionally unacceptable for states to deny women equal opportunity to serve on juries. The 8to1 decision will have little practical effect on the makeup of juries. All states, including Louisiana where the case originated, now have laws that do not exempt women from jury service, although women are treated differently from men in some instances involving such service. But the majority broke important philosophical ground by acknowledging for the first time that the role of women is society was changing and that the courts must recognize their growing economic independence in assessing their legal rights. "If it was ever the case that women were unqualified to sit on juries or were so situated that none of them should be required to perform jury service," Associate Justice Byron R. White wrote for the majority, "that time has long since passed." Fight on the front lines Women in the United States have been aiding military operations as nurses, cooks, and in other non-combat positions since the Revolutionary War in 1775. However, it wasn't until 1976 that the United States Military Academy at West Point accepted women to the Corps of Cadets. Still, it would be several more years until women would find their way to the front lines. In 1994, the Pentagon restricted women from serving in "artillery, armor, infantry and other such combat roles." This ban wasn't lifted until 2013: several more years restricted 2013 The US military officially lifted a ban on female soldiers serving in combat roles on Thursday and said that anyone qualified should get a chance to fight on the front lines of war regardless of their sex. At a press conference in the Pentagon Defence Secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that women had already proved themselves in action on America's battlefields and the move was simply a way of catching up with reality. "Everyone is entitled to a chance," said Panetta, who is retiring form his post this year. At the moment women make up about 14% of the military's 1.4 million active members and more than 280,000 of them have done tours of duty in Iraq, Afghanistan or overseas bases where they helped support the US war effort in those countries. Indeed, some 152 women have been killed in the conflicts. Get an Ivy League education The Ivy League is comprised of eight universities in the northeastern part of the United States. While women were able to attend Cornell University as early as the 1870s, it wasn't until 1983 that the final Ivy League school, Columbia College, started to admit women: 1983 The last all-male school in the Ivy League became a coeducational one yesterday when Columbia College enrolled women for the first time in its 229-year history. It was a day of celebration at Columbia, with few alumni or students criticizing the change, and with college administrators saying the decision to admit women had resulted in the most talented freshman class ever. Take legal action against workplace sexual harassment. According to Time, the term "sexual harassment" was coined by a group of students at Cornell University in 1975. The term was popularized in a New York Times article published that same year, and in 1977, three court cases confirmed that a woman could take legal action against her employer for sexual harassment: Time New York Times The phrase "sexual harassment" was coined in 1975, by a group of women at Cornell University. A former employee of the university, Carmita Wood, filed a claim for unemployment benefits after she resigned from her job due to unwanted touching from her supervisor. Cornell had refused Wood's request for a transfer, and denied her the benefits on the grounds that she quit for "personal reasons." Wood together with activists at the university's Human Affairs Office, formed a group called Working Women United. At a Speak Out event hosted by the group, secretaries, mailroom clerks, filmmakers, factory workers and waitresses shared their stories, revealing that the problem extended beyond the university setting. The women spoke of masturbatory displays, threats and pressure to trade sexual favors for promotions ... ... By 1977, three court cases confirmed that a woman could sue her employer for harassment under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, using the EEOC as the vehicle for redress. The Supreme Court upheld these early cases in 1986 with Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, which was based on the complaints of Mechelle Vinson, a bank employee whose boss intimidated her into having sex with him in vaults and basements up to fifty times. Vinson was African American, as were many of the litigants in pioneering sexual harassment cases; some historians suggest that the success of racial discrimination cases during these same years encouraged women of color to vigorously pursue their rights at work. Decide not to have sex if her husband wanted to This item is referring to spousal rape. The first person to be convicted of spousal rape in the U.S. was a Massachusetts bartender who broke into the home of his estranged wife in 1979 and raped her: convicted English common law, the source of much traditional law in the U.S., had long held that it wasn't legally possible for a man to rape his wife. It was in 1736 that Sir Matthew Hale the same jurist who said that it was hard to prove a rape accusation from a woman whose personal life wasn't entirely "innocent," setting the standard that a woman's past sexual experiences could be used by the defense in a rape case explained that marriage constituted permanent consent that could not be retracted. That idea stood for centuries. Then, in 1979, a pair of cases highlighted changing legal attitudes about the concept. Until then, most state criminal codes had rape definitions that explicitly excluded spouses. (In fact, as TIME later pointed out, it wasn't just the case that saying "no" to one's husband didn't make the act that followed rape; in addition, saying "no" to one's husband was usually grounds for him to get a divorce.) As the year opened, a man in Salem, Ore., was found not guilty of raping his wife, though they both stated that they had fought before having sex. But, even as the verdict was returned, a National Organization for Women spokesperson told TIME that "the very fact that there has been such a case" meant that change was in the air and she was quickly proved right. The case believed to be the first-ever American conviction for spousal rape came that fall, when a Salem, Mass., bartender drunkenly burst into the home he used to share with his estranged wife and raped her. It's not hard to see how this case was the one that made the possibility of rape between a married couple clear to the public: they were in the middle of a divorce, and the crime involved house invasion and violence. As TIME noted, several other states had also adopted laws making it possible to pursue such a case, though they had not yet been put to the test. Even though the first conviction for spousal rape occurred during the 1970s, it wasn't until 1993 that spousal rape was officially illegal in all 50 states. While marital rape has been technically illegal in all 50 states since 1993, advocates argue that there are still legal loopholes in some states that allow for marital rape to be treated differently than rape. legal loopholes Obtain health insurance at the same monetary rate as men This item refers to the practice of "gender rating" by health insurance companies, which typically resulted in higher premiums for women seeking individual health insurance. In 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) sought to do away with the practice. Obamacare NPR reported: reported Any woman who has bought health insurance on her own probably didn't find herself humming the old show tune, "I Enjoy Being a Girl." That's because more than 90 percent of individual plans charge women higher premiums than men for the same coverage, a practice known as gender rating. Women spend $1 billion more annually on their health insurance premiums than they would if they were men because of gender rating, according to a recent report by the National Women's Law Center. Under the health care overhaul, the practice is banned starting in 2014. The birth control pill This post correctly states that the FDA first approved an oral contraceptive (a birth-control pill called Enovid) in 1957. However, at the time, the pill was only approved for use as a "treatment of severe menstrual disorders," and the FDA required that it be labeled with a warning that Enovid will prevent ovulation. A few years later in 1960, the FDA approved Enovid as a contraceptive. Still, the pill was only available to married couples. It wasn't until 1972 that birth-control pills were available to all women, regardless of marital status: 1972 Then came the landmark date, marking the biggest change to America's contraceptive potential in history. On May 9, 1960, the FDA approved Enovid, an oral contraceptive pill released by G.D. Searle and Company. By 1965, almost 6.5 million American women were on "The Pill," the oral contraceptive's enduring vague nickname, which is thought to have stemmed from women requesting it from their doctors as discreetly as possible. That same year, the Supreme Court struck down state laws that prohibited contraception use, though only for married couples. (Unmarried people were out of luck until 1972, when birth control was deemed legal for all.) Ortiz, Erik. "'It's Disgusting': Loopholes Remain in North Carolina's Sexual Assault Laws. Advocates Ask Why." NBC News. 11 May 2019. Eveleth, Rose. "Forty Years Ago, Women Had a Hard Time Getting Credit Cards." Smithsonian. 8 January 2014. Thomas, Gillian. "Employees Who Have Babies Are Still Getting the Axe." ACLU. 31 October 2018. McDonald, Laughlin. "A Jury of One's Peers." ACLU. 18 March 2011. Harris, Paul. "Women in Combat: US Military Officially Lifts Ban on Female Soldiers." The Guardian. 25 January 2013. Rothman, Lily. "When Spousal Rape First Became a Crime in the U.S." Time. 28 July 2015. Weaver, Warren. "High Court Backs Women's Jury Rights." The New York Times. 22 January 1975. Bumiller, Elisabeth and Thom Shanker. "Pentagon Is Set to Lift Combat Ban for Women." The New York Times. 23 January 2013. Belkin, Lisa. "First Coed Class Enters Columbia College." The New York Times. 30 August 1983. Cohen, Sascha. "A Brief History of Sexual Harassment in America Before Anita Hill." Time. 11 April 2016. Nemy, End. "Women Begin to Speak Out Against Sexual Harassment at Work." The New York Times. 19 August 1975. NPR. "Health Insurance Prices For Women Set To Drop." 17 July 2012. Gibson, Megan. "The Long, Strange History of Birth Control." Time. 2 February 2015.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/was-a-ufo-spotted-in-irvine-california/

Was a UFO Spotted in Irvine, California?

Dan Evon

05/21/2021

In May 2021, the UfoChannel TikTok page posted a video that supposedly showed a UFO that had been spotted in Irvine, California: TikTok page This video does not show a UFO, nor was it taken in California. This video was taken in the parking lot of a Minnesota Walmart and shows the light display of a nearby casino. Outside of the Mystic Lake Casino are several bright spotlights the project a circular display in the night sky. The casino uses this display as part of an advertising campaign which informs Minnesotans to "follow the lights" to the venue. Here's an illustration of this display: This display is also featured on the casino's YouTube page: These lights have fooled a few people into thinking that they were witnessing a UFO -- which may just be the intent. In 2018, a similar video went viral as a person expressed befuddlement over this strange sighting. A screenshot from that video (available via the local Minnesota news outlet SWNewsMedia) shows a nearly identical scene to that the video that went viral in May 2021: SWNewsMedia SW News Media wrote at the time: wrote at the time Death, taxes and someone thinking the beaming lights drawing masses to Mystic Lake Casino are, in-fact, proof of a pending alien invasion. These are the certainties of life in the Land of Big Fun. Last week, a visitor to the Shakopee Wal-Mart on a cloudy Thursday evening looked up and saw lights forming a perfect circle hovering above the store. While its easy to see why someone might think there is a UFO dropping in to buy a gallon of milk, underwear, a big screen TV and a new pair of glasses, most area residents know enough to recognize the lights as the illuminated tipi for Mystic Lake Resort and Casino on the nearby Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community reservation. The video that went viral on TikTok in May 2021 did not show a UFO in Irvine, California. This video actually showed a casino's light display in Minnesota.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kroll-settlement-administration-tmobile/

Is the Kroll Settlement Administration LLC Text Message a Scam or Legit?

Jordan Liles

10/24/2022

In late October 2022, we received inquiries from readers who asked if a text message from Kroll Settlement Administration LLC about a 2021 T-Mobile data breach was a scam or legit. We can confirm that a message directing recipients to the URL t-mobilesettlement.com was a legitimate notification. t-mobilesettlement.com The message appeared like this: This text was sent out beginning around Oct. 20 and read as follows: From Kroll Settlement Administration LLC. If your information was compromised in the 2021 T-MOBILE DATA BREACH, you are eligible for benefits from a Class Action Settlement, Case No. 4:21-md-03019 (BCW). A federal court has authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. Visit https://t-mobilesettlement.com to file a claim using your Unique Class Member ID: (ID here). A Twitter user asked the official and verified T-Mobile account @TMobileHelp about the text message: asked In response, T-Mobile answered, "Yes, this is the proposed, agreed upon settlement for the consumer class action filing related to the criminal attack of our systems we experienced in August 2021." answered Readers may be wondering what this "criminal attack" was all about. According to The New York Times, it was announced on July 22 that T-Mobile had reached a $500 million settlement for a data breach that hit the company in August 2021: The New York Times In a court filing late Friday, the mobile phone giant said it would pay $350 million to settle the customers claims and spend $150 million over the next few years bolstering its cybersecurity protection and technologies. The breach affected 76.6 million people in the United States, according to the company. It exposed highly sensitive data, including customers first and last names, Social Security numbers and drivers license information. It was not clear how much individual T-Mobile customers would receive from the settlement, though the proposed agreement, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, stipulates that individual payments cannot exceed $2,500. As the Times said, the amount of money individuals would receive in the settlement was unclear. This appeared to depend upon the number of people who would file to receive a check. Just as an example, if 50 percent of the 76.6 million people who were affected received a payment from the $350 million fund, that would mean each person would only receive around $9. The Times published that lawyers for the wireless carrier said the settlement "did not mean the company was acknowledging any wrongdoing," but rather that these sorts of data breaches had frequently occurred for a number of companies "in the tech, banking and retail industries in recent years." Note: T-Mobile also released a statement following the July court filing, explaining that the company had, in its words, "doubled down" on its cybersecurity following the data breach. T-Mobile statement Corkery, Michael. T-Mobile Reaches $500 Million Settlement in Huge 2021 Data Breach. The New York Times, 23 July 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/22/business/t-mobile-hacking-settlement.html. Statement on Proposed Settlement. T-Mobile Newsroom, 22 July 2022, https://www.t-mobile.com/news/business/statement-on-proposed-settlement/. @TMobileHelp. Twitter, https://twitter.com/tmobilehelp/.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jake-from-state-farm-obituary/

'Jake from State Farm' Death Hoax

Dan Evon

10/23/2015

On 25 October 2015 the web site Huzlers published an article reporting that "Jake," the character seen in State Farm Insurance's ubiquitous "State of Unrest" television commercial, had been murdered by his wife in a fit of rage over his infidelity: State of Unrest It is being reported that Jake From State Farm was reportedly found dead in his apartment bedroom Saturday night. According to authorities, Jake was killed by his wife after finding him in bed with another woman. Jake From State Farm was murdered by his own wife for allegedly cheating on her. Very Ironic, considering that the original Jake From State Farm commercial was about being unfaithful. According to State Farm, Jake would be a good neighbor to all of his clients, but when he needed help, nobody was there for him. Jakes wife was arrested a few hours following the murder. A true hero quoted State Farm. Nothing about this story is true, as it originated on Huzlers, a well known fake news site. Also, real news articles (especially those reporting on deaths) tendto include the real names of actors and not refer to them solely by the names of characters they played on television. Finally, "Jake from State Farm" has dispelled this himself rumor on Twitter: dispelled (This story might have made more logical [satirical] sense if the putative murder victim were actor Justin Campbell, who played the husband suspected of infidelity by his wife in the popular "State of Unrest" State Farm commercial, and not actual State Farm agent Jake Stone, who filled the role of the innocent insurance agent Jake.) Justin Campbell Huzlers bills itself as "the most notorious urban satirical entertainment website in the world with the most shocking headlines and articles shared by trillions around the world."

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2010/feb/10/jon-stewart/stewart-claims-stimulus-bill-one-third-tax-cuts/

One-third of the economic stimulus package was tax cuts.

Catharine Richert

02/10/2010

Fox News host Bill O'Reilly andDaily Showhost Jon Stewart traded wisecracks -- and a few insults -- in O'Reilly'sNo Spin Zoneon Feb. 3, 2010.O'Reilly told Stewart that it was frightening that theDaily Showhost had been called an important cultural arbiter. O'Reilly said that his audience is primarily stoner slackers who love Obama, but that a lot of people don't think you're smart.Stewart shot back that O'Reilly was now the voice of sanity at Fox, which he likened to being the thinnest kid at fat camp.At times, they got serious. One topic was Stewart's belief that Republicans seem intent on opposing everything President Barack Obama puts on the table -- even if he presents an opportunity to compromise.But the president won't give the GOP anything, O'Reilly said.Stewart pointed to Obama's stimulus plan as an example. The bill was opposed by Republicans even though it included tax cuts, which typically appeal to their small government sensibilities. [Obama] has given [Republicans] many different angles, Stewart said. For instance, even in the stimulus plan, a full third of that was tax cuts. ... Just like at the State of the Union when he said we cut taxes for 95 percent of middle-class Americans, and everybody clapped, and the Republicans just sat there like this. Tax cuts, that sounds vaguely familiar. Is Stewart right that tax cuts account for a third of the stimulus plan? The stimulus bill, formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is meant to create jobs and boost the economy. It cost $787 billion, including $499 billion to fund new roads, hire teachers and generally keep people employed, and about $288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses. Among other things, the mix of tax cuts includes a refundable credit of up to $400 per individual and $800 for married couples; a temporary increase of the earned income tax credit for disadvantaged families; and an extension of a program that allows businesses to recover the costs of capital expenditures faster than usual.Simple math shows that Stewart is in the ballpark with his claim: $288 billion is a little more than 36 percent of the bill's overall cost. So, tax cuts -- at least the way they've been defined by the Obama administration -- make up for slightly more than one-third of the bill.But calculating the cost of the true tax cuts in the stimulus is a bit more complicated. In July 2009, we checked Obama's claim that, at the time,the stimulus had delivered $43 billion in tax breaks. According to the Treasury Department, about $8 billion of that figure came from extending a fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax. Originally, the AMT was targeted at very wealthy people, but over the years it spread to include some middle-income taxpayers as well. Congress passes yearly fixes to prevent those middle income taxpayers from having to pay the AMT.All told, the AMT fix in the stimulus will cost about $70 billion over 10 years, according to a bill summary published by the Senate Finance Committee. But many tax experts say the AMT fix should not be considered a tax cut. They say that, by extending the AMT fix every year, the government is basically maintaining the status quo.Back in July, we spoke with a number of tax experts about the issue who all agreed that including the fix as part of the stimulus tax cuts is a stretch.Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow at the free-market Cato Institute, explained it this way:AMT is something those people never expect to pay, he said. It's kind of like saying that, if I didn't rob you on the way home from work today, I gave you money.The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture between the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, gave the AMT extension a D-minus in its Tax Stimulus Report Card because the provision would provide virtually no economic stimulus. Because the patch is perennially extended, it would have no effect on behavior in 2009. Almost 80 percent of the benefits would go to the richest 20 percent of households, who would be least likely to spend the additional funds and stimulate demand.So, our tax experts are skeptical that the $70 billion AMT fix should be included in the stimulus bill's tax relief. That would bring down the cost of the tax cuts to about $218 billion. That means about 28 percent of the bill could be described as tax cuts, a little less than the one-third cited by Stewart.So we find Stewart's claim to be Mostly True.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/apr/28/joe-biden/vice-president-joe-biden-says-there-were-more-new-/

We have created more jobs in this last year than the Bush administration (did) in eight years.

Mark Naymik

04/28/2011

Vice President Joe Biden loves campaigning in Ohio. He did so 15 times during the 2010 Midterm elections for various state and federal candidates. But Democrats still suffered a shellacking, he joked during an April 19 campaign fundraiser in Cleveland for U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, who faces re-election next year.Citing positive economic news, Biden insisted, however, that the political debate about his administrations policies now favors Democrats.A lot of things we took a shellacking for, the American public has had an opportunity to take a good look at now, he said.Biden noted the improving unemployment rate. And he added this comparison: We have created more jobs in this last year than the Bush administration (did) in eight years. We are in a position where we are moving to toward creating an average of 220,000 jobs a month. Not enough, but we are moving.PolitiFact Ohio likes comparisons and decided to examine this one because its emerging as a key Democratic talking point. When checking out job figures, PolitiFact turns to The Bureau of Labor Statistics, the official score keeper of U.S. employment numbers.The BLS numbers are based on monthly surveys of employers. It updates the monthly figure as employers complete their surveys and it incorporates into the monthly figure a more complete quarterly census of employment and wages.First, we can quickly dispense with the Bidens lead-in: That the unemployment rate is improving.In March, the national unemployment rate dropped for the fourth consecutive month. At 8.8 percent, the rate is down from a recession peak of 10.1 in Oct. 2009, according to the BLS.Also, we can dispense with the last part: We are moving to toward creating an average of 220,000 jobs a month. Not enough, but we are moving. Since its not really a statement of fact and includes a prediction, well leave that to be examined down the road.But how about the Obama vs. Bush job comparison?The number of jobs as of February 2001, the first full month of Bushs presidency, was 132.53 million. The number of jobs as of January 2009, the month he left office, was 133.56 million. Thats a net gain 1.03 million jobs.To checkout Bidens claim, we looked back 12 months, from March 2010 to March of 2011. (Though Biden made remarks this month, April figures have not yet been tallied. )The number of jobs in March 2010 was 129.43 million. The number of jobs in March 2011 is 130.73 million. The net gain during the last year is 1.3 million jobs.That means 270,000 more jobs were created in the last 12 months than the net total of jobs at the end of Bushs two terms.A familiar detour, or caveat, is in order. Typically, the most recent BLS monthly job figures are preliminary and will change as surveys are completed and figures are updated. That means the 270,000 edge for the Obama administration could increase -- or disappear.Politifact also frequently points that when framing job figures, slicing and timing make all the difference.Republicans, for instance, like to frame the jobs story this way: The U.S. has lost a total of 2.09 million jobs since Obamas first full-month in office in February 2009. Thats true. Of course, looking at this way shortchanges the impact of the deep recession Obama inherited and the recent economic growth.Likewise, Democrats shortchange Bush when they ignore that the U.S. created more than 5.6 million jobs through January 2008, when the recession began to take hold.The bottom line is that the recession, which officially began in Dec. 2007, hurt the job record of both presidents.So where does that leave Bidens statement?Hes correct about the declining unemployment rate. Hes also accurate about the gains made in the last year. The figure also falls within the context that the recovery has been slow and painful but the job picture is improving of late, albeit slowly.Understanding how he slices job numbers in his comparison is a point that provides clarification. On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate Bidens statement as Mostly True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/what-the-truck/

Large Weird Truck Convoy?

David Mikkelson

10/27/2014

Claim: A mysterious "large weird truck convoy" in Virginia remains unexplained. : : Video shows a large convoy of tractor trailers in Virginia. : No one knows why the convoy occurred. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] I saw the following post on Facebook today with the caption 'ALERT: Virginia Highway Completely Closed for Mysterious Convoy. I'm wondering if there's any truth to it. Origins: On 25 October 2014, a Facebook user posted video of a large truck convoy spotted in Virginia involving dozens of tractor trailer trucks. The clip depicted several semis traveling on Virginia's Interstate 64 under what appeared to be State Trooper escort. video The unusual sighting and temporary interstate shutdown caused widespread speculation on social media sites as to what could possibly have been afoot. The most widely circulated clip of the large truck "parade" captured several branded trailers as they passed, including Coca-Cola and Walmart vehicles, further confusing the convoy's witnesses as to why the trucks might require a police escort. One user's comments echoed concerns repeatedly expressed as the truck convoy video circulated on sites like Facebook: I can tell you one thing. These trucks are transporting more than you think ? It's all starting. Some will know what I'm talking about and other's will just keep believing what FOX news tells them and vote for the candidate who lies the best ! We are SOOO screwed ! Well, we who are paying attention, know something big is going to happen for sure and really soon ! So many things and all of them are so close together........ I see a dictatorship being announced, military hitting the streets, jets overhead, forced Ebola/flu immunizations (rather true or not) Martial Law, food/water shortages, etc....... We'll see ? Many people worried the event was a covert maneuver to transport supplies, hide medical equipment, or engage in otherwise suspicious activity fears that particularly loomed large due to the then-current concern over Ebola. covert maneuver However, the convoy's purpose wasn't hard to discover with a small amount of digging: The truck convoy is a unique one-day celebration where police escort a convoy of trucks through cities and towns in 38 states and Canada. The event helps raise funds and awareness for Special Olympics athletes. About 110 vehicles participated in the ride. In 2013, over $20,000 was raised with 49 trucks participating in Virginia's nearly 50-mile round-trip convoy along Interstate 95 from Caroline County to Henrico County, according to a press release sent by Virginia State police. The footage from Virginia was taken during a leg of the Special Olympics' World's Largest Truck Convoy, described thusly on the organization's website: website Inspired by the powerful impact Special Olympics had on his life through his participation in the Law Enforcement Torch Run, combined with his family's involvement with the trucking industry, Norm Schneiderhan, a Corporal with the Orange County Sheriff's Department, created the Truck Convoy, a one-daycelebration of the trucking industry to help raise awareness and funds for Special Olympics. Post by ABC 8 News - WRIC. Post ABC 8 News - WRIC Although some drivers in Virginia were confused and alarmed by the truck convoy on 25 October 2014, local news stations covered and explained the event on their pages. The purpose of the convoy was not immediately obvious to bystanders, but an explanation was not difficult to find after the fact. Last updated: 16 July 2015

neutral

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2010/oct/11/rob-portman/portman-uses-new-and-improved-number-job-losses-st/

Since the stimulus package was passed, Ohios lost over 100,000 more jobs.

Stephen Koff

10/11/2010

PolitiFact has rapped Rob Portman for certain claims made during his U.S. Senate campaign. Weve credited Portman, too, for truthful statements. Thats the nature of the Truth-O-Meter: We play it as it lays.Which brings us to Portmanslatest television ad.In the 30-second spot, Portman points to out-of-control federal spending, dangerous deficits and an economic stimulus plan that he says isnt working. Since the $800 billion stimulus passed, Ohios lost over 100,000 more jobs, Portman says in the commercial.The claim about the stimulus program not working has been batted about repeatedly. The White House said when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed in February 2009, that unemployment would peak at 8 percent. Yet it is now 9.6 percent nationally, and 10.7 percent in Ohio.A number of economists say that even more jobs would have been lost were it not for the government spending to stimulate the economy. TheCongressional Budget Offices last quarterly evaluationsaid the stimulus increased national employment by 1.4 million to 3.3 million jobs. There have been mistakes, missteps and gaffes documented in the spending programs, however, and Portman and other Republicans say the spending was poorly focused. This central question will be for historians and economists in the future to settle.Were merely taking note of Portmans claim because of this: He uses a lower number -- 100,000 jobs lost in Ohio since the stimulus passed -- than he used previously. When he put the figure at 150,000 in June,the Truth-O-Meter ruled it Half True-- because only 127,900 jobs had actually been lost, judging by the most widely accepted measure.That was based on Bureau of Labor Statistics figures through May, the most current at the time. The numbers come from surveys of employers and are adjusted as the data becomes more complete. Using updated data, BLS now shows the post-stimulus job losses in Ohio came to 130,000 for the period Portman claimed in his earlier statement..But now its October and Portman is using a lower figure when he speaks. As he said in his newest ad, and repeated during an Oct. 8 debate at the City Club of Cleveland, since the stimulus bill passed, Ohios lost over 100,000 more jobs.Yet heres the thing: Portmans rhetoric might actually be too cautious now. As measured by the latest BLS figures, which go through August and are preliminary, Ohio has 149,200 fewer jobs now than when the stimulus passed. Thats exquisitely close to 150,000.What happened?The state steadily lost jobs through 2009 but the numbers started improving early in the year, continuing through May. The summer saw a retraction, however, reducing Ohios employment count by a total of 19,200 jobs during June, July and August.So Portman was accurate and then some with his recent, more cautious statement. The Half True ruling nevertheless stands for his June claim, because PolitiFact doesnt believe in fortune-telling and Portmans numbers were in fact off when he made that statement.But we give credit where credit is due. So the Truth-O-Meter takes a turn to the right and rules on Portmans newest claim: True. Comment on this item.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/check-and-double-check/

Check Fraud by Manipulating Routing Numbers

David Mikkelson

12/03/2000

Claim: Forger steals money by manipulating ABA symbols on checks. LEGEND Origins: One of the ways paperhangers were supposedly able to pass bad checks easily once upon a time was by manipulating the American Bankers Association (ABA) numbers encoded on nearly all checks with magnetic ink. Although the American banking system relies heavily upon this information for the automated sorting and routing of checks, many bank personnel are unfamiliar with or pay little attention to these numbers. ABA The system has changed a little bit over the years, but nowadays checks typically bear a nine-digit ABA routing number printed in the bottom left-hand corner (indicated as #5 in the above diagram). In general, the first four digits are a Federal Reserve routing symbol, identifying which of the twelve Federal Reserve districts the check was printed in (and a city within that district). The next four digits are an ABA institution identifier which designates the bank on which the check is drawn, and the last number is a check digit. Federal Reserve Check forgers manipulated the banking system by altering the ABA routing numbers on the bad checks they passed so that the numbers identified different banks than the ones whose information was printed on the face of those checks. For example, a forger attempting to pass a bad check in Boston might present a check whose printed information indicated it was drawn on a Philadelphia bank, but whose routing number had been altered to indicate that it came from a bank in the 12th Federal Reserve district (which encompasses the western United States). The Boston bank would expect a check drawn on a Philadelphia bank to clear within two or three days and assume that if it hadn't been kicked back to them by the end of the third day, it was good. However, the altered routing number would cause the automated sorting machinery to send the check on to a San Francisco clearing house for processing. Once the check arrived in San Francisco, a computer there would kick it out because the routing number didn't match the other information encoded on the check, and the check would be mailed back to the Philadelphia bank for processing. This whole process could take several days, but because the Boston bank assumed the check was good after the third day, the forger could withdraw his funds and leave town long before they discovered his check was phony. Con man Frank Abagnale (of Catch Me If You Can fame) claims in his memoirs that he "was the first check swindler to use the routing numbers racket" in the late 1960s. One of Thomas Whiteside's 1977 New Yorker articles included an example of what supposedly happened when a forger altered checks drawn on the Chemical Bank in New York so that their routing numbers identified them as coming from a Los Angeles bank: Although the check bore the name and address of the Chemical Bank in New York, the Federal Reserve data-processing system scanned only the magnetic-ink code on it, identified it as a Bank of America check, and routed it to Los Angeles. The check remained in transit for perhaps two days. At the end of that time, it was run through the computer mechanism at the Bank of America. The computer, instantly searching its memory for a Bank of America account number matching that of the magnetic-ink strip on the check, rejected the check, which then went into a clerical pool for manual handling. Since the printed logotype on the check clearly identified it as a check that belonged in the Chemical Bank in New York, the clerk handling the machine-rejected check sent it back to the Chemical Bank by mail, assuming that a simple routing error had been made. The check was then in transit for another two days. Back at the Chemical Bank, the check was put into the computerized sorting system for final clearance. But instead of that, it went into motion again: the Chemical Bank computing system passed it on to the Federal Reserve System, which routed it out to the Los Angeles bank again, which routinely sent it back to New York, and so on. The fraud was uncovered only when checks issued by the depositor became so frayed from mechanical handling in the computer system that they could no longer be read automatically ... [b]y that time, according to an auditor who told me of the affair, the depositor had disappeared with more than $1 million in cash. Last updated: 1 July 2014 Whiteside, Thomas. Computer Capers. New York: Mentor, 1978. ISBN 0-451-62173-5 (pp. 31-33).

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/unidentified-submerged-object/

Was a UFO Found at the Bottom of the Baltic Sea?

David Mikkelson

01/08/2015

On 10 December 2014, the web site Earth We Are One published an article claiming a UFO shaped like the Millennium Falcon from Star Wars had been discovered at the bottom of the Baltic Sea: article The divers exploring a 'UFO-shaped' object at the bottom of the Baltic Sea say their equipment stops working when they approach within 200 meters of the object. Professional diver Stefan Hogerborn, part of the Ocean X team which is exploring the anomaly, said some of the teams' cameras and satellite phones would refuse to work when directly above the object, and would only work once they had sailed away. He is quoted as saying: "Anything electric out there, and the satellite phone as well, stopped working when we were above the object. And then when we got away about 200 meters, it turned on again, and when we got back over the object it didn't work." Hefty trajectory: The Swedish diving team noted a 985-foot flattened out 'runway' leading up to the object, implying that it skidded along the path before stopping but no true answers to this are clear. "I was kind of prepared just to find a stone or cliff or outcrop or pile of mud but it was nothing like that, so for me it has been a missing experience I must say." Member Dennis Asberg said: "I am one hundred percent convinced and confident that we have found something that is very, very, very unique." "Is it a meteorite or an asteroid? Or a volcano? Or a base from say, a U-boat from the Cold War which has manufactured and placed there? Or if it is a UFO? Well, honestly, it has to be something." The article published by Earth We Are One in December of 2014 was a repurposed version of a story published by the UK newspaper Daily Mail in June 2012. Although both articles dealt with a real discovery by the shipwreck hunting team Ocean X, experts have since weighed in and determined the object found on the bottom of the Baltic Sea was not an alien spaceship. published Rumors about the Baltic Sea UFO began circulating after Ocean X returned from an expedition in the summer of 2011 with an interesting sonar image. The group paid a follow-up visit to the site the following year to get a better look at the object, but due to mysterious (and convenient) electrical interference, Ocean X was not able to get a good look at the submerged anomaly. Expedition leader Peter Lindberg did, however, claim he had found a second object: "I confirm that we have found two anomalies. We did find the other anomaly approximately 200 meters (about 219 yards) from the circular find at the same sonar run." Lindberg explained why his team had not released the sonar image of the second object: "We decided not to expose that anomaly so much because there is a lot of disturbance on the sonar image when we passed it, so it's very blurry. We can see it's something but to an untrained eye it might just look like 'pea soup.'" Neither of these sonar images, however, provided a reliable look at the Baltic Sea anomaly. First, the Ocean X team used an inexpensive sonar technique called side-scan sonar which, although well-suited for finding shipwrecks, it is not designed to give a detailed look at the sea floor. Second, according to Hanumant Singh, a researcher with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, the sonar they used wasn't properly calibrated: side-scan sonar sonar If you look carefully, you can see a reflection of the circular formation on the right side of the image. Since side-scan sonar is taken with two instruments that bounce acoustic waves in opposite directions from the boat, a feature on one side shouldn't affect the image on the other side. "This means you've got 'cross-talk,' in which one channel is electrically contaminating the other," Singh says. In other words, the sonar instruments aren't wired properly. Strike one, he says. Strike two: The black horizontal lines going through the image show that sonar signals are dropping out (that is, the instruments aren't detecting them), further calling the measurements into question, Singh says. Finally, he says, the edges of the image, just beyond the circular formation, are gray, meaning the sonar couldn't tell what was there. That shows the sonar isn't calibrated well enough to trust, Singh says. "That's strike three." With only a single blurry image and little information, many people speculated the object at the bottom of the Baltic Sea could be a UFO, a portal into another world, or an underwater Stonehenge. These theories received more attention when artist Hauke Vagt created a 3D interpretation of the mysterious object: artist Scientists, however, have less fantastical theories about what lies at the bottom of the Baltic. Charles Paull, senior scientist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in Moss Landing, California, said the anomaly is probably just a rock outcropping or the result of gas venting from the seafloor. Other experts argue it is merely a glacial depost. Even Peter Lindberg, the man behind the discovery, expressed skepticism about the object's supposed otherworldly origins: "It's not obviously an alien spacecraft. It's not made of metal." experts skepticism Team Ocean X's discovery created a stir due to the fact that they could not identify the object at the bottom of the Baltic Sea, not because any evidence supported the idea it was a UFO. Popular Mechanics. Wolchover, Natalie. "Mysterious Baltic Sea Object Is a Glacial Deposit." Live Science. 30 August 2012. Piui, Tibi. "So Called Baltic Sea 'UFO' Mystery Solved, Other Questions Arise." ZME Science. 18 June 2012.

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2010/aug/02/republican-party-texas/republican-party-texas-says-president-barack-obama/

Says President Barack Obama initially said the national health-care mandate isn't a tax, but his administration now says it is a tax.

Ciara O'Rourke

08/02/2010

Channeling U.S. Rep Joe Wilson, the Republican from South Carolina who shouted You lie! during President Barack Obama's speech to Congress in September, the Republican Party of Texas has accused the president of lying when he said that a new federal mandate requiring individuals to have health insurance was not a tax. You lie! the party tweeted July 19. Obama said O-care mandate wasn't a tax. Now Obama admin says it is a tax. Did the Obama administration talk one way and then the other? Per the legislation that Obama signed into law in March, most people will be required to have health insurance starting in 2014. There are exceptions, but individuals who aren't exempt and refuse to join a plan will be required to pay an annual penalty of $695 per person, up to a maximum of $2,085 per family, or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is greater. The health care law calls the fine individuals must pay if they don't have insurance a penalty. In a Sept. 20, 2009, interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Obama denied that the mandate to buy health insurance was equivalent to a tax. For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase, Obama said. He noted that Americans are required to have auto insurance, but nobody considers that a tax increase. (Auto insurance is a state mandate, but all the states except New Hampshire require it of resident drivers.) When Stephanopoulos pressed Obama on whether the mandate was a tax, Obama said: I absolutely reject that notion. However, on July 16 The New York Times published a story that seemed to vindicate opponents of the health care overhaul who argued that the insurance requirement was a tax. The headline: Changing stance, administration now defends insurance mandate as a tax. Texas is one of 21 states challenging the law's constitutionality in court, but Virginia was the first to face the federal government in a July 1 hearing on its lawsuit. The New York Times pointed to a brief filed in that case by the U.S. Department of Justice defending the individual mandate as a valid exercise of the federal government's power to lay and collect taxes. Congress can impose taxes to provide for the general welfare under Article I of the Constitution. From the health-care law: The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased. The law then says that national health spending is projected to increase from $2.5 trillion 17.6 percent of the economy in 2009, to $4.7 trillion in 2019. In its legal brief, the department says the penalty is also a tax because it will raise revenue $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and because it's imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code. Individuals who refuse to obtain health insurance and are penalized will have to report the fine as an addition to income tax liability, the brief says. The health care law itself doesn't mention Congress' taxing authority, instead noting that the mandate is protected under the Constitution's Article I commerce clause, which lets Congress regulate commercial activity that has a substantial effect on the national economy. The tax argument is the strongest argument, the Times quoted Jack Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the law, saying. This bill is a tax. Because it's a tax, it's completely constitutional. Balkin is also quoted saying that Obama has not been honest with the American people about the nature of the bill. White House spokesman Matt Lehrich defended the law both ways last week, telling us: We believe that the Commerce Clause provides ample constitutional authority for the individual mandate. If anyone has any doubts about that and we dont think they should its also clear that that the mandate is constitutional under Congresss power to tax. Similarly, Steven Schwinn, an associate professor of constitutional law at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago, pointed out on his blog July 18 that the Obama administration has consistently defended the mandate in court primarily under the Commerce Clause, and secondarily under Congress' taxing power to promote the general welfare. Henry Aaron, a scholar who specializes in health care and tax policy at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution, said Obama was correct to say the mandate isn't a tax. A mandate is meaningless unless it is backed up by some 'or else,' as in 'obey the mandate or else,' Aaron said. The administration asserted the legal power to impose a mandate. The mandate is backed up by a tax that has to be paid if the mandate is violated. You obey the mandate or you pay the tax. Upshot: In his interview with Stephanopoulos, Obama insisted the mandate to purchase health coverage is not a tax. But in defending its legality, the Justice Department argues in part that the mandate is a valid exercise of Congress' taxing power. From where we sit, Obama was trying to make a political point; the Justice Department, a legal one. In its tweet, the Republican Party overreaches when it says the administration now calls the mandate a tax. The administration (still) isn't doing that. But it does cite Congress' power to levy taxes as authority for the mandate. And that enables the GOP to score its own political point, based on what looks like the administration's runs at having it both ways. We rate the GOP's recap of Obama's early position and his administration's recent defense of the law as Mostly True.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2010/oct/25/rick-perry/gov-rick-perry-says-more-texans-have-new-jobs-popu/

More Texans have new jobs today than the entire population of Fort Worth.

Meghan Ashford-Grooms

10/25/2010

Republican Gov. Rick Perry frequently talks up the Texas economy, focusing in recent TV ads on the state's job gains since he took office almost 10 years ago. Texas added more than 850,000 new jobs, Perry says in a New Jobs spot that debuted online Oct. 13. More Texans have new jobs today than the entire population of Fort Worth. For an article published Sept. 23, we put the 850,000 number to the Truth-O-Meter, rating itTrue. On Oct. 11, Katy Bacon, spokeswoman for Democratic gubernatorial nominee Bill White, wrote us an e-mail suggesting that the jobs picture might have changed since our first pass, making the claim inaccurate. We put our pencils to her point, though in this article we'll be rating whether Perry's comparison of job gains to Fort Worth's population holds water. In an Oct. 19 news release about the New Jobs ad, the Perry campaign points to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data on state employment to show the change in the number of nonfarm jobs in Texas between January 2001, shortly after Perry became governor, and June 2010. During that time, the state experienced a net gain of 853,400 jobs. Of course, Texas was also growing during that time; according to projections from the Texas State Data Center, the population increased by about 4 million people between 2001 and 2010. Texas, the second-largest state, is among the 20 states that had net job gains during the 9.5-year span from January 2001 to June 2010. Texas ranked No. 1, followed by Arizona (132,700 jobs) and Utah (113,200 jobs). Yet as White's camp nudged June's numbers are no longer the most recent. By July 2010, Texas' net job gain had dropped to 848,000. In August, it fell even further, to 818,500, although that month's job numbers were preliminary until Friday, after Perry's ad was released. The August information makes Perry's figure off by 31,500 jobs. Bottom line? Perry's statement that Texas added more than 850,000 jobs is correct when considering a particular time period (that he doesn't mention in the ad): between January 2001 and June 2010. By August, that statement was no longer accurate, but that information wasn't final until after Perry's ad came out. Next, how do the job gains compare with the population of Cowtown, the state's fifth-largest city? For its head count, the governor's team uses a population estimate from the City of Fort Worth's website: 736,200 people as of Jan. 1, 2010. The U.S. Census Bureau's most recent estimate for July 1, 2009 is 727,577. We asked Ed Friedman, a director at Moody's Analytics who covers the Texas economy, about the validity of Perry's comparison of statewide job gains over time with Fort Worth's population in 2010. He called the comparison a reasonable way for Perry to give you an idea of the size of the gain. Either way, the Fort Worth comparison stands up because no matter which final month is chosen, the number of Texas jobs has gone up more than the population of Fort Worth. We rate Perry's statement as True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/stacey-abrams-gardner-judge-sister/

Did Stacey Abrams' Sister Oversee a Court Case Involving Abrams?

Dan MacGuill

12/31/2020

In December 2020, right-leaning observers and prominent Republican politicians cried foul after a federal court judge blocked attempts to remove thousands of names from voter rolls in Georgia, ahead of January's two U.S. Senate run-off elections in the state. On Dec. 28, Politico reported that: Politico A federal judge in Georgia on Monday ordered two counties to reverse a decision removing more than 4,000 voters from the rolls ahead of the Jan. 5 runoff elections that will decide control of the U.S. Senate. The judge, Leslie Abrams Gardner the sister of former gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, a prominent ally of President-elect Joe Biden who has led voter registration efforts across the state concluded that the counties appeared to have improperly relied on unverified change-of-address data to invalidate registrations in the two counties. The bulk of the registrations that the counties sought to rescind, more than 4,000, were in Muscogee County, which Biden won handily in November. An additional 150 were from Ben Hill County, which Trump won by a wide margin. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas responded by tweeting: "This is absurd. This is an obvious case for recusal. For Stacey Abrams sister to refuse to recuse and issue this decision despite her indisputable bias undermines the integrity of the entire judicial system." Donald Trump Jr. wrote "Nothing shady here..." tweeting wrote Doug Collins, the outgoing Republican congressman who ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate in 2020, said Abrams Gardner should recuse herself from the case because "her own sister is a party!" said In reality, Abrams was not a party to the case on which her sister ruled in December 2020. Collins stated a significant falsehood in claiming otherwise. Former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams and Leslie Abrams Gardner are indeed sisters. Over the years, Abrams has repeatedly confirmed as much, including when she congratulated Abrams Gardner on her U.S. Senate confirmation and appointment as U.S. District Court judge for the Middle District of Georgia, in 2014 and 2015. 2014 2015 The case in question was Majority Forward and Gamaliel Warren Turner vs. Ben Hill County Board of Elections et al. Majority Forward is a non-profit voter registration organization, and Turner is a resident of Muscogee County, Georgia. According to Abrams Gardner's Dec. 28 ruling, the basic facts of the case were as follows. Earlier in December 2020, Tommy Roberts a City Council member in Fitzgerald in Ben Hill County challenged the eligibility of 328 registered voters in the county. Based on his own cross-referencing of the U.S. Postal Service's National Change of Address database, Roberts contended that those voters had moved out of the state and were therefore no longer eligible to vote in Ben Hill County. ruling The board of elections in Ben Hill County determined that Roberts' challenge to the eligibility of 152 of those voters was likely valid, and they designated those 152 voters "pending hearing" and contacted them to advise that they would only be allowed to cast provisional ballots in the January 2021 Senate run-off election, and would subsequently have to "cure" those ballots by providing proof of their residency. In Muscogee County, a man named Ralph Russell brought a similar challenge, claiming to have found 4,033 registered voters in Muscogee County who, according to the National Change of Address database, had moved out of state. The Muscogee County Board of Elections determined that Russell's challenge was probably valid, and contacted those 4,033 "targeted voters" to inform them they could only cast provisional ballots, and would have to provide proof of residency. Turner was one of those targeted voters. On Dec. 23, Majority Forward challenged the actions of Muscogee and Ben Hill counties, and filed for a temporary restraining order on Dec. 27. On Dec. 28, Abrams Gardner granted that order, meaning the counties were ordered, for the next eight days, not to remove the targeted voters from registration lists, or require them to cast only provisional ballots. Since that time period covered the Jan. 5, 2021, elections, the targeted voters were therefore allowed to vote as normal in the U.S. Senate run-off elections. Abrams Gardner's reasoning can be examined in the ruling itself. ruling The defendants in the case filed a motion to request that Abrams Gardner recuse herself. They argued, in part, that Fair Fight the voting rights group founded and chaired by Abrams was involved in similar litigation before the U.S. District Court in Georgia's Northern District, and the same lawyers represented Fair Fight and Majority Forward in the cases. They also argued that Abrams Gardner's ruling in the Majority Forward case could have a bearing on the judge's decision-making in the Fair Fight litigation, which directly involved Abrams, since she is the chairperson of that organization. The defendants wrote: motion wrote In addition, any relief rendered in the instant case as it relates to the NCOAR [National Change of Address Registry] would likely be cited as persuasive authority in the Fair Fight Litigation. Abrams interest could therefore be substantially affected by the outcome of this proceeding. For this reason, Judge Gardners impartiality might reasonably be questioned were this case to proceed before her. In a footnote to her Dec. 28 ruling, Abrams Gardner noted the request for her to recuse herself, but stated simply, "The Court has reviewed the motion and finds no basis for recusal." Abrams Gardner added that "an order detailing the court's reasoning" was forthcoming. As of Dec. 31, no such order was available on the case's online docket. Contrary to Collins' claim, Abrams was not a "party" to the Majority Forward litigation on which her sister ruled in December 2020. However, she is the chairperson of Fair Fight, a voting rights organization that acted as a plaintiff in a very similar case, albeit in a different U.S. District Court, in Georgia, at the same time. Whether that connection, in combination with her familial relationship with Abrams Gardner, should constitute grounds for recusal, is ultimately a matter of subjective interpretation. But Collins undoubtedly erred when he claimed that "Stacey Abramss sister is ruling on a case in which her own sister is a party!"

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nancy-pelosi-wall-violate-rights/

Did Nancy Pelosi Say Building a Wall Will Violate the Rights of 'Millions of Illegals'?

Dan Evon

01/23/2018

In January 2018, amid a brief government shutdown and a furor over the potential deportation of recipients of the Delayed Action for Childhood Arrivals act, or DACA, a months-old meme reappeared featuring a photograph of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and a quote about how building a wall on the southern United States border "will violate the right of millions of illegals": The graphic proved popular in some conservative circles, where it was shared along with messages that insult Pelosi as dumb, clueless, or out of touch. It was also frequently attached to comments asserting (inaccurately) that the rights of "illegals" couldn't be violated since illegal immigrants don't have any rights to violate: shared clueless already barrier knows This fake quote originally appeared in August 2017, after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened a government shutdown in order to secure funding for a border wall. Nancy Pelosi released a statement in response which labeled the wall "immoral" (emphasis ours): threatened statement "Last night, President Trump yet again threatened to cause chaos in the lives of millions of Americans if he doesnt get his way. Make no mistake: the President said he will purposefully hurt American communities to force American taxpayers to fund an immoral, ineffective and expensive border wall. President Trumps multi-billion dollar border wall boondoggle is strongly opposed by Democrats and many Republicans. Democrats will stand fast against the immoral, ineffective border wall and the rest of Republicans unacceptable poison pill riders." This fake quote began to circulate shortly after Pelosi released that statement: circulate The argument might be made that this particular meme paraphrases Pelosi's attitude toward the wall. However, it naturally became incorrectly presented as though it was a direct quote from House Minority Leader: incorrectly presented The idea that undocumented people can't have their rights violated because they have no rights to begin with is false. Undocumented people may not enjoy all of the Constitutional rights given to American citizens, but they do have some protections under the law. Furthermore, referring to undocumented people as "illegal" is not accurate, as the violation in and of itself is civil, not criminal: protections civil criminal In fact, a 2006 study showed that roughly 45% of undocumented immigrants originally entered the US legally, but then remained in the country without authorization after their visas had expired. a 2006 study The penalty for this type of violation of immigration law is deportation, and according to the ACLU, "civil removal proceedings far outnumber criminal prosecutions and remain the primary manner in which the federal authorities enforce the immigration laws." according to the ACLU If, however, an undocumented immigrant is deported and then returns to the US without permission, then that "illegal re-entry" constitutes a federal offense with different tiers of accompanying prison time. a federal offense Even so, undocumented individuals do have rights in the United States, despite concerted disinformation and propaganda efforts to obscure them. The Supreme Court ruled in 2001, for instance, that the due process clause (that is, the 14th Amendment) applies to "all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." instance due process clause Epstein, Jennifer. "Trump Threatens Government Shutdown Over Border Wall Funding." Bloomberg. 22 August 2017. Detrow, Scott. "Republicans And Democrats Seek Path To DACA Deal In Coming Weeks." NPR. 4 January 2018. Contreras, Raoul. "Yes, Illegal Aliens Have Constitutional Rights." The Hill. 29 September 2015.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-delta-airlines-give-planned-parenthood-members-discounted-rates/

Does Delta Airlines Give Planned Parenthood Members Discounted Rates?

Dan Evon

03/01/2018

Calls to boycott the National Rifle Association intensified in the days following a school shooting in Parkland, Florida that left seventeen people dead on 14 February 2018. In response, a number of companies responded by ending partnership programs that provided discounts to NRA members: ending Shortly after Delta announced that it would stop offering discounts to NRA members, some argued that Planned Parenthood should be the actual subject of nationwide boycotts, despite not being involved directly or indirectly with the Parkland, Florida shooting in any way. One meme summed up that argument by stating without attribution that Planned Parenthood kills hundreds of babies a day, while the NRA has never directly killed anyone: meme This number appears to be derived from figures provided by the organization in 2015, which said that Planned Parenthood offices had performed 323,999 abortions in total the year before. However, that interpretation is dependent on subjective interpretations of when life supposedly begins; abortions are not counted as a "cause of death" by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. performed Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Georgia State Senator Michael Williams took issue with Delta's decision (the company is headquartered in Atlanta) and during an appearance on CNN said that the airline should also rescind its discounts for other organizations: If they're going to pull the discount for NRA members, why not pull it for Planned Parenthood or some of the left organizations out there? When CNN host Brianna Keilar asked Williams what evidence he had that Delta Air Lines offered discounted rates to Planned Parenthood members, adding that the network had examined these allegations and found no information to verify the claim, Williams explained that he "looked it up on Google" and did not know of the exact source but that he would provide it at a later date: We searched for any credible sources to back the claim that Delta Air Lines offers a discount to members of Planned Parenthood (along with the official definition of what a member of Planned Parenthood might be: Did he mean donors to the nonprofit? Patients who do not donate? Some combination of the above? Is there a membership card?) but all we found were unverified claims in the comment sections of various articles and in random social media messages: comment sections social media Shortly after Williams appeared on CNN, Planned Parenthood denied his claims: Being a Planned Parenthood supporter doesn't come with corporate perks and discounts. People stand with Planned Parenthood because they support reproductive health and rights. https://t.co/RcHKSxI9As https://t.co/RcHKSxI9As Planned Parenthood Action (@PPact) February 28, 2018 February 28, 2018 On 28 February 2018, Williams released a statement on Twitter: released This statement offers no supporting evidence and, in fact, does nothing to address the original claim Williams made during his CNN appearance. Instead, it moves the goalposts completely by saying that while Delta does not contribute directly to Planned Parenthood, it indirectly supports the organization instead, by donating to groups such as the Susan G. Komen Foundation. However, we found some holes in this argument too. For example, American Airlines, not Delta Air Lines, is the official partner of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Delta does host an annual fundraiser for breast cancer research, but the airline donates the proceeds to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, not Susan G. Komen: Last month, Delta celebrated its 12th anniversary of the Breast Cancer One survivor flight, kicking off the airlines Breast Cancer Awareness month throughout October and continuing the tradition of building awareness and raising funds for the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. This years flight honored 140 breast cancer survivors who flew from New York to Los Angeles. Festivities began with an event at the gate in JFK before the pink plane made its way to LAX, where survivors and attendees enjoyed another gatehouse event and an overnight stay, including dinner, hotel accommodations and a meet-and-greet with one of BCRFs world-renowned researchers, Dr. Sofia Merajver from the University of Michigan. It is entirely possible that Delta has contributed to the Susan G. Komen Foundation, but this group is not a "Delta partner," nor is it the main benefactor of their cancer research fundraiser. Williams doubled down on his claim that Delta was partnered with the Susan G. Komen Foundation when he shared a photograph of a Delta plane painted with pink ribbons and linked to a set of images on the web site FlashPointAgency: shared FlashPointAgency FlashPointAgency does say that this plane was designed as part of Delta's work with the Susan G. Komen Foundation. However, these images appear to be mislabeled. Another image in this set of photographs shows two women standing in front of a wall of logos for the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. As we noted above, Delta does frequently host fundraisers to support BCRF: Regardless of Delta Air Lines' relationships with the Susan G. Komen Foundation, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, or anyone else, these groups have little to do with the senator's original claim, which is that Delta Air Lines provided discounts to Planned Parenthood members. Our examination of this rumor resulted in a chain of unfounded social media posts, but absolutely no supporting evidence. Aued, Blake. "Georgia Prospers When Businesses Don't Discriminate." Flagpole. 28 September 2016. Goldschmidt, Debra. "Planned Parenthood: Fast Facts and Revealing Numbers." CNN. 1 August 2017. Wattles, Jackie. "More Than a Dozen Businesses Ran Away From the NRA. How it Went Down." CNN. 26 February 2018. Wattles, Jackie. "More Than a Dozen Businesses Ran Away From the NRA. How it Went Down." CNN. 26 February 2018.

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/oct/19/facebook-posts/123000-turkey-viral-photo-pricey-target-turkey-sev/

A photo shows a $123,199 turkey for sale at Target this year.

Bill McCarthy

10/19/2021

Assupply chain issuesmount, some Facebook users are sharing an image that purports to show a turkey for sale at Target for an eye-popping price: $123,199, and $9,999.99 per pound. No Turkey for Thanksgiving this year, said one suchFacebook postuploaded Oct. 12. The post was flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about ourpartnership with Facebook.) Some Facebook users who reacted to the post blamed President Joe Biden for the crazy cost the viral image showed, leaving comments such as inflation is killing us and thanks Joe. An Oct. 12 Facebook post falsely claimed this old photo was this year. But while supply chain backlogscould affectthe cost and availability of Thanksgiving turkeys, the photo of a $123,000 bird at Target is several years old and its nowhere near reflective of the true cost of a frozen turkey at the retail and grocery giant, which is many times lower. PolitiFact found the same photo posted in November 2015 onRedditand the image sharing serviceImgur. The price tag in the photo also includes an expiration date of April 15, 2016. The price tag lists a Target store at the Nicollet Mall in Minneapolis as the location of the photo, and PolitiFact confirmed that the pricing was an error at a single store in 2015. The Reddit user who appears to have first uploaded the image in November of that year wrote on the forum that he brought the turkey to a cashier, but the ticket didnt have a barcode to scan. The $123,000 price is exponentially higher than the cost of a frozen turkey at Target or at other U.S. grocery stores, according torecent datafrom theU.S. Department of Agriculture. Targets websitecurrently showsthat similarly sized frozen turkeys are going for a max price of about $23 at the same location in Minneapolis, and $1.39 per pound. We rate this Facebook post False.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/government-poison-10000-americans/

Did the U.S. Government Purposely Poison 10,000 Americans During Prohibition?

Kim LaCapria

05/12/2017

As if Americans hadn't accumulated enough dark suspicions about their government over the past 50-odd years, along comes an Internet factoid holding that the United States government intentionally (and fatally) poisoned more than 10,000 of its own citizens between 1926 and 1933: The alarming claim is that the U.S. government added poison to alcohol to discourage people from drinking it during Prohibition, the period from 1920 to 1933 in which it was illegal to produce, transport, or sell alcoholic beverages anywhere in the United States. That didn't mean people stopped making, buying, and drinking booze they just did it illegally. As noted in virtually every U.S. history textbook ever written, one of the many negative unintended consequences of Prohibition was a booming black market in alcohol that law enforcement was never able to subdue. Prohibition To the question at hand: Did the federal government really add poison to alcohol to discourage people from drinking it? It did, in fact. The government did purposely add poisonous substances to alcohol, and this did result in thousands of deaths during Prohibition. The story of how that came to pass is longer and more nuanced than the Internet meme suggests, however. And it began well before the passage of the 18th Amendment, which made Prohibition the law of the land. According to Deborah Blum, author of The Poisoner's Handbook: Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York (Penguin Press, 2010), the practice was called "denaturing". It consisted of adding noxious chemicals to alcohol sold for industrial purposes to make it unfit for human consumption. The process, long used in Europe, was introduced in the United States in 1906 as a means of exempting producers of alcohol used in paints, solvents, and the like from having to pay the taxes levied on potable spirits. 2010 Mainly, this was done by adding some methyl alcohol ("wood alcohol") to grain alcohol, rendering it poisonous. Some formulas also contained substances that made the product taste too awful to drink. One of the ways crime syndicates tried to flout Prohibition, Blum explained in a 2010 Slate article, was stealing industrial alcohol and finding ways to make it potable. The government, in turn, resorted to making it more poisonous: article To sell the stolen industrial alcohol, the liquor syndicates employed chemists to "renature" the products, returning them to a drinkable state. The bootleggers paid their chemists a lot more than the government did, and they excelled at their job. Stolen and redistilled alcohol became the primary source of liquor in the country. So federal officials ordered manufacturers to make their products far more deadly. By mid-1927, the new denaturing formulas included some notable poisonskerosene and brucine (a plant alkaloid closely related to strychnine), gasoline, benzene, cadmium, iodine, zinc, mercury salts, nicotine, ether, formaldehyde, chloroform, camphor, carbolic acid, quinine, and acetone. The Treasury Department also demanded more methyl alcohol be addedup to 10 percent of total product. It was the last that proved most deadly. TIME magazine's 2008 Prohibition retrospective described the horrendous consequences of an unregulated and, in many instances, purposely adulterated black-market liquor supply: retrospective It wasn't just the violent Prohibition-era gang wars that were dangerous to Americans drinking homemade moonshine and bathtub gin. According to the Dec. 26, 1922 edition of the New York Times, five people were killed in the city on Christmas Day from drinking "poisoned rum." That was only the beginning. By 1926, according to Prohibition, by Edward Behr, 750 New Yorkers perished from such poisoning and hundreds of thousands more suffered irreversible injuries including blindness and paralysis. On New Year's Day 1927, 41 people died at New York's Bellevue Hospital from alcohol-related poisonings. Oftentimes, they were drinking industrial methanol, otherwise known as wood alcohol, which was a legal but extremely dangerous poison. One government report said that of 480,000 gallons of liquor confiscated in New York in 1927, nearly all contained poisons. Although it is inaccurate in the sense that none of this deadly business began in 1926, the factoid we set out to investigate wasn't entirely wrong in citing that year as a pivotal one. Blum points out that the spate of alcohol-related poisonings that culminated in so many fatalities on New Year's Day 1927 actually commenced a week earlier, on Christmas: It was Christmas Eve 1926, the streets aglitter with snow and lights, when the man afraid of Santa Claus stumbled into the emergency room at New York City's Bellevue Hospital. He was flushed, gasping with fear: Santa Claus, he kept telling the nurses, was just behind him, wielding a baseball bat. Before hospital staff realized how sick he wasthe alcohol-induced hallucination was just a symptomthe man died. So did another holiday partygoer. And another. As dusk fell on Christmas, the hospital staff tallied up more than 60 people made desperately ill by alcohol and eight dead from it. Within the next two days, yet another 23 people died in the city from celebrating the season. As for the claim that some 10,000 people died of alcohol poisoning during the course of Prohibition through its repeal in 1933, that, too, is a figure we can source to Blum (who did not, in the Slate article, specify where this estimate came from): Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people. In sum, federal attempts to reduce the palatability of industrial alcohol came well before Prohibition, and efforts to intensify the risks of consuming it were both well-known and controversial at the time. Such evidence as we've seen does not support the the implication that the government set out to purposely kill drinkers of alcohol, although Prohibition-era lawmakers and public health experts decried what they described as a callous disregard for those who died as result of drinking denatured alcohol. before known Andrews, Evan. "10 Things You Should Know About Prohibition." History. 16 January 2015. Blum, Deborah. "The Chemist's War." Slate. 19 February 2010. Damrau, Frederic, M.D. "The Truth About Poison Liquor." Popular Science Monthly. April 1927. Norris, Charles, M.D. "Our Essay In Extermination." The North American Review. December 1928. Rothman, Lily. "The History of Poisoned Alcohol Includes an Unlikely Culprit: The U.S. Government." TIME. 14 January 2015. TIME. "Top 10 Prohibition Tales: Mortal Moonshine." 2008. Chicago Tribune. "Alcohol Gets Double Poison Ration Jan. 1." 30 December 1926. Wikipedia. "Prohibition In The United States." Accessed 11 May 2017. Wikipedia. "Prohibition In The United States." Accessed 11 May 2017.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/house-rules/

American Flag House

David Mikkelson

05/20/2013

Claim: Photograph shows a house painted in protest by its owner after he was barred from displaying a U.S. flag in his yard. REAL PHOTOGRAPH; INACCURATE DESCRIPTION Example: [Collected via Facebook, May 2013] I have received an email that stated a man was told by his homeowner's association that he could not fly his flag. It showed what he'did about it', and the house was beautifully painted like an American flag: This guy was told by his Homeowners Association that he couldn't fly the American flag in his yard ... Origins: Recent years have seen a number of "viral" news stories about homeowners (often military personnel or veterans) who have run afoul of local ordinances or homeowners association (HOA) rules that prevented them from displaying U.S. flags on their property, such as the 2009 case of Van T. Barfoot and the 2013 case of Brandon Weir. Usually such problems arise not because of a general prohibition on the flying of U.S. flags, but because some facet of a particular flag's display violates an existing rule: the flag is too large, the flagpole from which it is flown is too high, or the flag is attached to a portion of a home (such as a balcony or stairway) which is required to be kept free from adornment. Van T. Barfoot Brandon Weir In May 2013 a photograph (displayed above) of a home with its exterior painted in the pattern of an American flag (white stars amidst a blue field adjacent to red and white horizontal striping) was circulated on the Internet, with accompanying text identifying the paint scheme as one the homeowner resorted to after being told by his HOA "that he couldn't fly the American flag in his yard." Although the picture is real and the unusual paint job it depicts was something undertaken as a form of protest, the true backstory had nothing to do with a homeowner's being barred from displaying a U.S. flag in his yard. The American flag house pictured above is located in Cambridge, Maryland, and its owner, Branden Spear, gave it that distinctive paint job after being angered that his restored Victorian property was declared by building inspectors to be non-compliant with historical code: Cambridge Homeowners who choose to paint their houses with non-traditional colors risk running afoul of their neighbors and local politicians, but owner and contractor Branden Spear never set out to paint his restored Victorian properties with colors that were out of the norm. But when local building inspectors told him that the windows he chose to restore the home weren't up to historical code, he got angry. "It would have cost one-third of the restoration budget just to install those windows," says Spear. Then he realized the building code said nothing about what colors the old Victorians should be painted. So as a show of his anger, and as a protest against what he says are unfair regulations, he painted one home all black, and the adjacent home with an American flag theme. They've become something of a tourist attraction since, and even though Spear is still at odds with local government officials, he has proven one point that paint and color can also be used as protest. In June 2014, Florida news outlets reported a case of a resident of Bradenton who had also painted his house in the style of a U.S. flag as a protest over the city's code compliance enforcement: A prestigious road in Bradenton is now home to a very patriotic house. Brent Greer, who lives on Riverview Boulevard, recently painted the outside of his house red, white and blue. Greer said he decided to turn his home into the American flag to send a message. Greer grew up in the 100-year-old home and now lives there with his wife and seven adopted children. He said they changed the color of their house after getting into a dispute with the city's code enforcement. A few months ago, code enforcement officers said they went to the home acting on an anonymous tip. "Late February, we received a complaint about a dead Christmas tree on the balcony," said Volker Reiss, Community Services and Code Compliance Manager for City of Bradenton. Reiss said his officers asked the family to remove it and they complied. Greer said to his surprise, they were told about more violations. The city sent Greer a two page letter, listing several violations at the home. Some of the issues were about missing window screens, painting, pressure washing, loose railings, and trash on the property. Greer said while everything was upsetting, one complaint made him furious. He said he was told his home's exterior painting was not up to city standards. The Greers do not live in a deed-restricted community. He said he feels like he's being treated as if he does. Last updated: 5 June 2014 Smith, Summer. "Manatee Man Paints American Flag on Home During Dispute with City." Bay News 9. 4 June 2014.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covid-19-trump-tulsa-rally-june/

Do Tulsa Trump Rally Attendees Have To Sign COVID-19 Waiver?

Jessica Lee

06/16/2020

As the number of confirmed cases of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease surpassed 2 million in early June 2020, the campaign to reelect U.S. President Donald Trump ended its monthslong pause on large, in-person events and announced it would host a rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in the coming weeks. COVID-19 coronavirus disease Despite public health officials' recommendations at the time to avoid group gatherings and crowds to limit the spread of COVID-19, the Trump campaign announced on June 10 that it would host a rally at the Bank of Oklahoma Center, which seats almost 19,200 people, on June 19. Trump told reporters at the White House: public health officials told reporters Were going to start our rallies back up now. Weve had a tremendous run at rallies. ...The first one, we believe, will be probably were just starting to call up will be in Oklahoma in Tulsa, Oklahoma. A beautiful, new venue brand-new. And were looking forward to it. Theyve done a great job with COVID, as you know, in the state of Oklahoma. Beyond the event's potential threat to attendees' health, critics including high-profile Democrats and historians saw the announcement as a call to white supremacists during a national reckoning over racism following the death of George Floyd for two reasons: Tulsa is home to one of the worst acts of racial violence in American history the 1921 Tulsa race massacre and the event's originally scheduled date of June 19, or Juneteenth, is a day in many communities that traditionally celebrates the end of U.S. slavery in 1865. So two days after the initial announcement from the Trump campaign, the president yielded to that backlash and said he would delay the event and instead hold it on June 20. He tweeted: Democrats George Floyd Tulsa race massacre Juneteenth He tweeted But as critics pointed out, the massive gathering still held the potential to expose large numbers of people to COVID-19. As if to confirm the danger, reports appeared saying the Trump campaign was asking attendees to agree in advance not to hold the campaign liable for coronavirus exposure: To investigate the claim that attendees were asked to agree to a liability waiver, we went through the steps of reserving a spot at the Tulsa rally in the days before the event. To receive a digital ticket for the event, attendees had to complete the following form: At the bottom of the registration page, the following text appeared: registration page By clicking register below, you are acknowledging that an inherent risk of exposure to COVID-19 exists in any public place where people are present. By attending the Rally, you and any guests voluntarily assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19 and agree not to hold Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.; BOK Center; ASM Global; or any of their affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents, contractors, or volunteers liable for any illness or injury. In other words, to reserve an entry ticket for the Tulsa rally, people had to agree that they would "assume all risks related to exposure to COVID-19" and agree not to sue Trump or any organizers of the event if they got sick. That agreement essentially clears the campaign of any responsibility should attendees catch the virus. At first, campaign leaders declined to elaborate on their plans to protect attendees' health once they were at the event. Then, on June 14, White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow told reporters that attendees should wear masks. And campaign manager Brad Parscale said the following day that event organizers will hand out hand sanitizer and face masks (though they're not necessarily required) and check attendees' temperatures for fevers. He tweeted: Larry Kudlow should wear masks. said tweeted Still unclear is if, or to what extent, the event will promote social distancing. It's possible people will stand or sit less than six feet apart from each other, despite recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to avoid that close of contact with people to prevent the virus' spread. Additionally, as of June 16, the CDC urged everyone to wear cloth face coverings when they leave their homes, stating on its website: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Considering the ongoing health risks due to COVID-19 and an upward trend in cases statewide, Tulsa Health Department Director Bruce Dart said he would rather the president hold the event at a later date. He told Tulsa World: an upward trend in cases statewide Tulsa World I think its an honor for Tulsa to have a sitting president want to come and visit our community, but not during a pandemic. ...Im concerned about our ability to protect anyone who attends a large, indoor event, and Im also concerned about our ability to ensure the president stays safe as well. As of June 15, Oklahoma had tallied 359 deaths and 3,417 non-fatal cases due to the virus. The Trump campaign had last held a big rally on March 2 in Charlotte, North Carolina, before much of the country shut down to curb the pandemic. In sum, given the substantiating evidence that, in order to receive a ticket for the Tulsa event, people must click a box agreeing they would not hold the Trump campaign or event organizers liable should they catch COVID-19 at the June 20, 2020, rally, we rate this claim "True". Fox, Joe, et. al. "At Least 112,000 People Have Died from Coronavirus in the U.S." The Washington Post. Accessed 12 June 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "How to Protect Yourself & Others." Accessed 12 June 2020. Sprunt, Barbara. "Upcoming Trump Rally In Tulsa Faces Backlash Over Race, Coronavirus." National Public Radio. 11 June 2020. Bierman, Noah. "Trump Says He Will Resume Campaign Rallies June 19 in Tulsa." Los Angeles Times. 10 June 2020. White House. Remarks by President Trump in Roundtable Discussion. 10 June 2020. Oklahoma State Department of Health. "Current Situation." Accessed 12 June 2020. Chiacu, Doina. "Trump Economic Adviser Urges Wearing of Masks at Tulsa Rally." Reuters. 14 June 2020.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/oct/18/steven-costantino/despite-his-protests-afar-costantino-played-key-ro/

I did not play any role in bringing the company to RI as did others in government. I was tasked with handling the legislation affecting the company by my superiors.

Mark Reynolds

10/18/2015

Steven M. Costantino, a former House Finance Committee chairman, was more than a hundred miles away, working in Vermonts state government, when newly disclosed public records and emails fueled a wave of recent headlines on the $75 million 38 Studios boondoggle. From the other side of the Green Mountains, he could feel the spotlight. The states financing of the upstart video-game company, to the tune of $75 million in loan guarantees, lured 38 Studios from Massachusetts to Providence in 2010, but left Rhode Island taxpayers vulnerable in the companys 2012 bankruptcy. Amid the torrent of new headlines about 38 Studios, Costantino, who is now commissioner of the Department of Vermont Health Access, issued the following statement on Sept. 27: My only involvement in the matter in RI was because of my former position in the RI legislature. I did not play any role in bringing the company to RI as did others in government. I was tasked with handling the legislation affecting the company by my superiors. Costantino acknowledges he was involved with the legislation, but denies any role, compared with what others in government did, to bring Curt Schillings 38 Studios to Rhode Island. How can he have been both involved and not involved? Unfortunately, the former lawmaker did not respond to our request for an interview, leaving us to sort out this contradiction on our own. The freshly released emails and deposition transcripts hark back to early 2010 when Rhode Islands courtship of 38 Studios began to get serious. The documents give the public a window into which state officials were driving the 38 Studios deal. Costantino comes across as a behind-the-scenes facilitator, helping to lay the groundwork for the public financing. The comments recorded in the depositions and other records show that Costantino: Developed the idea for guaranteeing 38 Studios loans. He was the first to advocate for 38 Studios receipt of a $75-million state guaranteed loan, according to Keith Stokes,chairman of the R.I Economic Development Corporation at the time. And J. Michael Saul, then the EDCs finance director, recalls that Costantino proposed the expansion of an existing loan guarantee program during a visit to 38 Studios headquarters in Maynard, Mass. And at the conclusion of the meeting, Saul testified, he turned to me and asked me the question: If we were to increase the $50-million (loan program) to $125 million would this -- Im paraphrasing here -- would this be helpful to get this done? In another email, an EDC lawyer, Robert I. Stolzmanadvised Carcieris chief of staff Andrew Hodgkin that he had sent him several documents including a draft authorizing the RIEDC to guarantee 38 Studios debt (at the suggestion of House Finance Chairman Costantino, the draft reflects a larger authorization for this as a Jobs Creation Guaranty Program). Costantino, in his deposition in 2014, did not to dispute anything in the Stolzman note. Was among just a few lawmakers in the loop. Only House Speaker Gordon Fox, Senate President M. Teresa Paiva-Weed, Sen. Daniel DaPonte, and Costantino knew about the 38 Studios transaction when the General Assembly approved the bill for the guarantees in 2010, according Marcel A. Valois,the EDCs former director. Another email from Stolzman, the EDCs lawyer, suggests that Sharon Reynolds, the House fiscal adviser, and Costantino were privy to certain background and summary information on the 38 Studios transaction before Governor Carcieri. Shielded the 38 Studios transaction from public scrutiny. During a videotaped discussion of the bill on the House floor on April 13, one lawmaker asked about the origins of the loan guarantee legislation and who was behind it. There's always conversations with lobbyists and small businesses, Costantino said. He didnt name 38 Studios. Later on in June of 2010, Costantino told Stolzman he hadnt told a Providence Journal reporter about his visit to 38 Studios. And Costantino said he wanted to know what EDC staffers were saying about the deal. Steered the legislation for 38 Studios guaranteed loan. In two separate April 2 emails with the numerals 38 noted in the subject line, Stokes mentions Costantinos role in scheduling the legislation, advising others that Steven Costantino wants to move on it next week and that Costantino has advised him that House Speaker Fox wants to post the item for hearing. Our ruling In his defense, Costantino issued a statement in which he said: I did not play any role in bringing the company to RI as did others in government. I was tasked with handling the legislation affecting the company by my superiors. In other words: Dont blame me, I was just doing my job. But the records and comments of people involved illustrate that Costantino played a key part in Rhode Island's courtship of 38 Studios. The legislation he helped pass, offering valuable loan guarantees, was his idea, according to one former EDC official. During the process, Costantino shielded his idea from the type of full political scrutiny that might have killed it. He did this by not naming 38 Studios on the House floor when he was asked who was pushing for the loan-guarantee program. When the deal was done, the CEO of Schilling's company thanked all members of the General Assembly and singled out five elected officials by name, including the former House Finance Committee chairman. Costantino played a pivotal role in creating the 38 Studios mess. In some ways, the record shows he bears as much responsibility as the other elected government officials who tasked him. We rate his statementFalse. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-diet-coke-button-oval/

Did Trump Have a 'Diet Coke' Button in the Oval Office?

Dan Evon

01/21/2021

On Jan. 21, 2021, as U.S. President Joe Biden settled into the Oval Office the day after his inauguration, a report started circulating that the newly-elected president had removed a "Diet Coke button" from the Oval Office. This, of course, begged the question: Did former President Donald Trump have a Diet Coke button in the Oval Office? report started circulating Trump truly had a button in the Oval Office that he used to order Diet Cokes. However, this call button wasn't the invention of the Trump administration. Photographs show that former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush also had service buttons in the Oval Office that they could use in a similar fashion. Presidents Barack Obama George W. Bush It should also be noted that Biden still has access to this usher call button and photographs show him in the Oval Office with this button on his desk. It's unclear how Biden will use this service button, but he will be able to use it, like his predecessor, to order Diet Cokes or anything else available at the White House. photographs Richard Branson, the CEO of Virgin Airlines, wrote in his autobiography that Obama once told him the button was used to order tea for his guests: autobiography As we stood up to leave I noticed the red buttons on his desk. Obama saw me looking at them. "They used to be there for emergencies, but now I use them for ordering tea for my guests." "They used to be there for emergencies, but now I use them for ordering tea for my guests." Trump's soda button first made the news in April 2017, when news outlets published articles concerning Trump's first 100 days in office. At the time, reports stated that this button summoned a regular "Coke" for the president. Here's an excerpt from reporter Julie Pace's article "Nearing 100 days, Trump says his presidency is different" that was published by The Associated Press: Associated Press "A man accustomed to wealth and its trappings, Trump has embraced life in the Executive Mansion, often regaling guests with trivia about the historic decor. With the push of a red button placed on the Resolute Desk that presidents have used for decades, a White House butler soon arrived with a Coke for the president." Demetri Sevastopulo relayed a similar anecdote for the Financial Times. Like Pace, Sevastopulo also noted that Trump could press the button to "order some Cokes": Financial Times Sitting across from Donald Trump in the Oval Office, my eyes are drawn to a little red button on a box that sits on his desk. This isnt the nuclear button, is it? I joke, pointing. No, no, everyone thinks it is, Trump says on cue, before leaning over and pressing it to order some Cokes. Everyone does get a little nervous when I press that button. While the initial reports noted that this button summoned Cokes, not Diet Cokes, Trump had a known affection for Coca-Cola's lighter offering. In December 2017, The New York Times reported that Trump, who once tweeted "I have never seen a thin person drinking Diet Coke," would consume as many as 12 Diet Cokes a day: New York Times tweeted "Watching cable, he shares thoughts with anyone in the room, even the household staff he summons via a button for lunch or for one of the dozen Diet Cokes he consumes each day." Former Trump administration communications aide Cliff Sims also mentioned this Diet Coke button in a passage from his White House memoir, "Team of Vipers: My 500 Extraordinary Days in the Trump White House." Sims was describing a meeting between Trump and Housing Secretary Ben Carson when he wrote: I could see Trump starting to lose interest as Carson continued articulating the detailed plans inside his notebook. First, the President shifted in his chair and readjusted a small pillow he'd placed behind his back. Then, as Carson talked about different phases of his program and whatnot, Trump glanced around the room. At some point he noted his Diet Coke was nearly gone and went back to his button routine, but his heart wasn't quite in it this time. "People always wonder about this button," he told a confused Carson. Finally, he pressed it again. Diet Coke arrived and Trump was done. Trump's Diet Coke button was also featured in the monologues of at least one late night talk show. In April 2017, Stephen Colbert talked about Trump was "turning the Oval Office into a treehouse" by putting a diet coke button on the Resolute Desk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpqTpzg3hYE&feature=emb_title Trump did indeed have a button in the Oval Office that he used to order Diet Cokes. This service button, however, was not novel to the Trump administration. Updated [25 January 2021]: Updated to note that President Trump was not the first president to have a call button on his desk and that President Biden still has access to this service button. Status changed to Mixture.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fdic-you-later/

Bank of America Dropping FDIC Coverage?

David Mikkelson

12/19/2009

Claim: At the end of 2009, Bank of America will be dropping FDIC coverage on all interest-bearing accounts. Example: [Collected via e-mail, December 2009] Bank of America, the largest bank in the U.S., posted notices attall branches that as of January 1, 2010 it will no long participate in the FDIC insurance guarantee program on interest bearing accounts. As of January 1, 2010, all deposits in interest bearing accounts will not be protected from bank losses. This development not only suggests that the FDIC is totally insolvent, It suggests that U.S. fiat money, placed in interest bearing accounts, will soon be defaulted in bank losses or replaced. How many other banks will quickly follow? Origins: After a wave of bank failures that came in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929 and the prolonged economic depression that followed, the U.S. federal government created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to restore public confidence in (and help stabilize) the U.S. banking system. The FDIC currently provides federal government guarantees of deposits up to $250,000 per account holder per bank (subject to certain conditions) at insured financial institutions. FDIC If, as claimed above, Bank of America (the United States' largest commercial bank) were dropping out of the FDIC program, that would certainly be alarming news that would shatter consumer confidence, not just in Bank of America, but in the FDIC and the entire U.S. commercial banking system. Fortunately, no such thing is happening. We made a trip to our local Bank of America branch, where a helpful assistant manager made us a photocopy of the sign referenced in the example quoted above and took the time to answer some questions about its provisions. Here is exactly how the sign reads: Beginning January 1, 2010, Bank of America will no longer participate in the FDIC's Transaction Account Guarantee Program. Thus, after December 31, 2009, funds held in noninterest-bearing transaction accounts will no longer be guaranteed in full under the Transaction Account Guarantee Program, but will be insured up to $250,000 under the FDIC's general deposit insurance rules. The first item of importance is to note is that the change in question applies not to "interest bearing accounts" (e.g., savings accounts, certificates of deposit, individual retirement accounts, etc.) as claimed above, but only to noninterest-bearing transaction accounts (i.e., checking accounts). The second, larger item of importance is to note that Bank of America is not dropping FDIC insurance protection on any of its accounts. It is merely winding down its participation in a temporary FDIC program that is already due to expire at the end of 2009. On 14 October 2008, the FDIC announced the implementation of its Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP), which included a program known as Transaction Account Guarantee (TAG). The TAG program guaranteed that the FDIC would TAG provide full deposit insurance coverage for noninterest-bearing deposit transaction accounts (primarily business checking accounts), regardless of their dollar amount. In other words, TAG was extra insurance protection in addition to, and separate from, the $250,000 coverage available under the FDIC's general deposit insurance rules under TAG, a depositor who held, say, $2 million in a checking account was covered for the full $2 million amount, not just the first $250,000. Bank of America will still be providing FDIC coverage for all accounts up to the standard $250,000 limit; it just won't be providing the extra TAG coverage that temporarily guaranteed noninterest-bearing accounts up to their full amounts beyond that $250,000 limit. Moreover, the reason Bank of America is dropping that extra coverage at the end of 2009 is because the TAG program was originally scheduled to expire on 31 December 2009. The FDIC later announced it would provide participating institutions the choice of either opting out of TAG at the end of 2009 or of temporarily extending TAG coverage for another six months in exchange for increased fees. Most of the largest banks in the U.S. (including Citibank, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo) have chosen to opt out of the program rather than pay the increased FDIC fees for extended temporary TAG coverage. expire Last updated: 20 December 2009 <!-- Ellen, Daryn. "Guide to Tipping." O, The Oprah Magazine. December 2002.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/prince-harry-spare-father-king-charles/

Does Prince Harry Say His Father Traumatized Him By Playing 'Got Your Nose'?

Bethania Palma

01/16/2023

On Jan. 14, 2023, media personality Megyn Kelly posted a meme to her Twitter account about Prince Harry and King Charles III that was originally created as a joke, but some onlookers appeared to take it seriously. posted Prince Harry and King Charles III (Screenshot, @megynkelly Twitter page) The tweet contained an image of Harry and a fake quote about his father, Charles, supposedly from his memoir, "Spare," which published in January 2023. "When I was a child my father grabbed my nose then pulled away with his thumb between his fingers saying 'I've got you're [sic] nose' I thought I had been badly disfigured, the torment I suffered haunts me to this day," the fake quote says. Author Sherry Morris appeared to take the tweet at face value, and the meme appeared in Snopes' inbox of tips from readers for fact-checking: appeared to take the tweet Snopes' inbox of tips "My dad did that. It was funny. I understood he didn't really have my nose. Good grief I hope his father didn't ask him to pull his finger," Morris tweeted. A couple of things point to the quote being fake and not having come from a published book, namely the misspelling of "your" and the bad punctuation. The image also contains a watermark that says "Belfast Mafia," which is a Facebook account that posts satirical and humorous memes. The account first shared the meme on Jan. 10. Facebook account shared the meme on Jan. 10 It wasn't the only meme of its kind by Belfast Mafia. Using the same image of Harry, the page made asimilarpiece of satirewith a fake quote about him supposedly being traumatized by his older brother William reaching behind him and tapping him on the shoulder. similar [See also on Snopes:Did the BBC Describe Prince Harry's Book as 'Weirdest Book' Written by a Royal?] Did the BBC Describe Prince Harry's Book as 'Weirdest Book' Written by a Royal? Palma, Bethania. "Did the BBC Describe Prince Harry's Book as 'Weirdest Book' Written by a Royal?" Snopes, 13 Jan. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-the-bbc-describe-prince-harrys-book-as-weirdest-book-written-by-a-royal/. "Prince Harry's Spare Becomes Fastest-Selling Non-Fiction Book Ever." Guinness World Records, 13 Jan. 2023, https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2023/1/prince-harrys-spare-becomes-fastest-selling-non-fiction-book-ever-732915.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/can-clean-coal-actually-reduce-carbon-emissions/

Can “Clean Coal” Actually Reduce Carbon Emissions?

Alex Kasprak

11/14/2016

Clean coal, a broad term for technology that can reduce the environmental impact of burning coal, has become a popular political buzzword in the past two U.S. presidential campaigns. To those who promote it, clean coal is a third way that will allow humans to continue to mine and burn that form of fossil fuel in a more responsible way, obviating the need for regulations on the coal industry or heavy investment in green energy. To detractors, it is an expensive marketing ploy selling an unrealized and unrealistic fantasy. marketing ploy Humans have used coal as fuel for at least 4000 years. A combustible rock formed from the chemical transformation of organic plant matter over hundreds of millions of years of burial, coal is a relatively cheap and easy source of energy. Its widespread use powered the industrial revolution, and coal-burning power plants currently provide 33% of all household energy in the States. 4000 years power plants But for as long as coal has been an energy source, it has been plagued by environmental issues. Burning coal produces hazardous acid rain and irritating particulate matter, and it releases climate-warming greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. plagued From a global warming standpoint, burning coal is significantly worse than burning other fossil fuels, as its chemistry allows for the production of more CO2 per reaction, as discussed in a December 2010 Atlantic article about clean coal technology: article Compared with most other fossil-fuel sources of energy, coal is inherently worse from a carbon-footprint perspective, since its hydrogen atoms come bound with more carbon atoms, meaning that coal starts with a higher carbon-to-hydrogen ratio than oil, natural gas, or other hydrocarbons. This situation is especially unfortunate for the United States, since the country has large domestic reserves of cheap coal, and because many local economies depend on coal mining jobs that could be lost if regulations were to make coal economically unfeasible. The intersection of these environmental and economic concerns has made coal mining and energy a polarizing political issue in the United States. domestic reserves Clean coal is not a special type of coal, nor is it a new technology that reduces the environmental impact of coal mining. Instead, it refers to technology used to clean up the emissions from burning coal after it has already been burned for energy, or technology used to treat coal just prior to being burned. In the context of global warming, the main technology that is cited is carbon capture, utilization and sequestration, defined on the U.S. Department of Energy web site thusly: defined Carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), also referred to as carbon capture, utilization and sequestration, is a process that captures carbon dioxide emissions from sources like coal-fired power plants and either reuses or stores it so it will not enter the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide storage in geologic formations includes oil and gas reservoirs, unmineable coal seams and deep saline reservoirs -- structures that have stored crude oil, natural gas, brine and carbon dioxide over millions of years. The term clean coal was first used by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in 1980s during an initiative they sponsored to demonstrate the commercial viability of technology that could scrub acid-rain creating toxins from the emissions of coal burning. At the time of the initiative, acid rain was the primary environmental concern, and greenhouse gases were an afterthought: afterthought The early program, however, was focused on the environmental challenges of the time primarily concerns over the impact of acid rain on forests and watersheds. In the 21st century, additional environmental concerns have emerged the potential health impacts of trace emissions of mercury, the effects of microscopic particles on people with respiratory problems, and the potential global climate-altering impact of greenhouse gases. The term was, in effect, rebranded in 2007 by an industry-funded group called the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, who were concerned about the prospect of increased coal regulations under an Obama presidency. They made the term clean coal a household name through a 30 million dollar public relations campaign touting the benefits of clean coal technology. campaign The problem, though, is that from the standpoint of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the technology (for all practical purposes) does not yet exist on a scale that could be considered at all meaningful. In terms of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration technology, the only projects underway in the United States are pilot studies. These are not viable on larger scale, as the DOE admits: technology admits Today, there are commercially available First Generation CO2 capture technologies that are being used in various small-scale industrial applications. At their current state of development these technologies are not ready for widespread deployment on fossil fuel based power plants [...]. Furthermore, there are a number of barriers to the successful implementation of carbon capture technology at coal-burning power plants, as discussed in a report by the British humanitarian think tank the Overseas Development Institute. First, the pace and scale of carbon capture technology is unlikely to overcome its limitations in a time period that would have any relevance to reducing atmospheric CO2: report Essentially, coal-powered CCS has yet to be technologically proven as planned even at a quarter-scale. With per-plant investments running to the billions, this stepping-stone from laboratory to full commercial rollout of just the first phase of coal-powered CCS plants is incredibly important and getting past it is going to take years. Although the industry might argue that it is close, it has clearly not yet refined an off-the-shelf product. The investment and time needed to build, test, and learn from projects to reduce costs means that CCS for coal power will not be ready to be commercially deployed at scale for at least a decade. Second, implementation of CCS makes the cost of coal too high to be competitive, and it reduces its output by consuming energy from the power plant trying to sell that energy: To capture CO2 at a power station requires adding a large separation unit, which also requires a significant amount of power to run. Adding the extra process currently doubles the capital costs of a plant, while running the separation process effectively decreases the overall efficiency of the plant by around a quarter. This efficiency penalty means that only the most efficient coal plant (advanced coal) can feasibly be used with CCS. Together these mean that adding CCS to a coal-fired plant will make the electricity it produces substantially more expensive than both conventional and advanced current coal plants. These problems were made plainly visible by a recent pilot study of a coal-burning power plant in Canadas Saskatchewan province that used a nearby hydroelectric dam to power the separation of CO2 from its exhaust. Though early reports painted a rosy picture, a March 2016 New York Times article suggested that the system was affected by a number of critical problems: article Known as SaskPowers Boundary Dam 3, the project has been plagued by multiple shutdowns, has fallen way short of its emissions targets, and faces an unresolved problem with its core technology. The costs, too, have soared, requiring tens of millions of dollars in new equipment and repairs. At the outset, its economics were dubious, said Cathy Sproule, a member of Saskatchewans legislature who released confidential internal documents about the project. Now theyre a disaster. This is not to say that research into minimizing the effect of the emissions from coal burning is necessarily futile. As discussed in a 2010 Atlantic article, there are two arguments to be made in favor of funding clean coal technology: article One is that coal can be used in less damaging, more sustainable ways than it is now. The other is that it must be used in those ways, because there is no plausible other way to meet what will be, absent an economic or social cataclysm, the worlds unavoidable energy demands. The latler argument is a staple of the pro-coal camp, who argue that, like it or not, we are going to have to use coal in the future to supply energy for our country. So why not try to make it cleaner in the process? staple The push against that argument is well summarized by a comment made by Mary Finley-Brook, a professor of geography, environmental studies and international studies at the University of Richmond in Virginia, to the science news website Live Science: Live Science "Clean coal does not currently exist," Finley-Brook wrote in an email. "It will be expensive to develop and is uncertain (unlikely) to work, depending on what technology is selected. This is moving in the wrong direction from a climate change mitigation perspective. We need energy transition away from fossil fuels, not nice-sounding names to confuse people who don't know better." Regardless of ones view on the philosophical debate about spending money to clean a technology we may begrudgingly have to use for years to come, the fact is that currently, so-called "clean coal" technology can for now do nothing to reduce carbon emissions on any appreciable or significant scale.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/10000-camels-culled-australia/

Were 10,000 Camels Scheduled to Be Killed in Australia Amid Water Shortages?

Dan MacGuill

01/08/2020

In January 2020, readers asked us about the accuracy of reports that authorities in Australia had announced their intention to cull (kill) around 10,000 camels due to the pressure the animals were placing on drinking water supplies. For example, on Jan. 7, the Weird World Facebook page posted a widely shared meme that contained the following text: meme "More than 10,000 camels to be killed because they drink too much water. Feral camels in South Australia are set to be killed in a bid to stop them drinking too much water as droughts and fires ravage the country. More than 10,000 camels will be shot by professional shooters in helicopters starting Wednesday." Also on Jan. 7, the London Evening Standard published a story with a headline similar to that contained in the meme: "Over 10,000 Australian Camels to Be Shot Because They Drink Too Much Water." The article reported that: story "Over 10,000 camels will be shot from helicopters to stop them drinking water in drought ravaged South Australia. Professional shooters will move in on Wednesday, after orders from Aboriginal leaders in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands (AYP). The culling, expected to take about five days, follows complaints from locals about animals looking for any available water source, including tanks and taps in properties." Similar stories, with similar headlines, were published by the Independent, the Daily Mail, and IndiaTimes.com. Those reports, and the Weird World meme, were broadly accurate, though the specific claim that "more than" 10,000 camels would be culled as part of the plan appears to have been contradicted by a local official who said the number would be between 5,000 and 10,000. They also failed to mention that a small number of wild horses would be targeted in the kill, as well. Independent Daily Mail IndiaTimes.com The APY local government authority, in the state of South Australia, announced the cull in a Jan. 6 news release that read, in part "There will be a feral animal kill across the APY lands. Feral animals, but specifically camels, are the primary target ... The cull (kill) will occur the week of 8th January, 2020, when the aerial operations will commence (expected to go over five days)." news release In a supplementary news release published the following day, APY officials explained the reasoning behind the cull: news release The region's first major cull of feral animals is in urgent response to threats posed to communities by an increase in the number of feral camels, and some feral horses, due to drought and extreme heat. Thousands of feral camels are emerging from an arid landscape and moving into communities looking for water, while doing significant damage to infrastructure and housing, and creating serious safety hazards. Traditional owners, who have been widely consulted about the cull, have reported extremely large groups of camels and other feral animals in and around communities and in specific hot spots across the APY Lands. The APY Executive Board of Management held an urgent meeting on December 11 about the impact of feral animals on communities and pastoral operations, and approved a resolution for an aerial cull of camels and other feral animals across the APY Lands. ... Richard King, APY's general manager, said traditional owners recognized the need to manage feral owners, despite a camel cull presenting a spiritual conflict for some indigenous groups, because of serious risks to community safety and damage to important economic, natural and cultural assets. "There is extreme pressure on remote Aboriginal communities in the APY Lands and their pastoral operations as the camels search for water," Mr. King said. "The dire situation is compounded by dry conditions, animal welfare issues, threats to communities, scarce water supplies, health and environmental impacts, the destruction of country, loss of food supplies and endangerment of travellers on the Stuart Highway and across the APY Lands. Given ongoing dry conditions and the large camel congregations threatening all of the main APY communities and infrastructure, immediate camel control is needed." Separately, APY's General Manager Richard King told CBS News that the number of camels being targeted in the cull was between 5,000 and 10,000 a range that somewhat contradicts the claim, repeated in several news articles, that "more than" or "over" 10,000 camels were to be killed. If the number ends up being 10,000, those reports will transpire to be rather accurate. However, according to King, the number could be as low as half of that figure, a detail noted by none of the articles or the meme mentioned above. CBS News Hennessey, Ted. "Over 10,000 Australian Camels to Be Shot From Helicopters Because They Drink Too Much Water." The Evening Standard. 7 January 2020. Osborne, Samuel. "Australia: More Than 10,000 Camels to Be Shot Because They Drink Too Much Water." The Independent. 7 January 2020. Wilkie, Kelsey. "Shooters Will Cull More Than 10,000 Australian Camels From the Air Tomorrow..." The Daily Mail. 6 January 2020. Chauhan, Shreya. "Solution to Bushfires? Australia to Kill 10,000 Camels Because 'They Drink Too Much Water.'" IndiaTimes.com. 7 January 2020. Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Local Authority. "Media Statement -- There Will Be a Feral Animal Kill Across the APY Lands." 6 January 2020. Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara Local Authority. "Media Statement -- Feral Camel Control Operation Launches on APY Lands." 7 January 2020. Lewis, Sophie. "Up to 10,000 Thirsty Camels Will Be Shot and Killed During Major Australian Drought." CBS News. 7 January 2020.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/popular-vote-totals-rigged/

Debunking Trump Tweets: Popular Vote Totals Indicative of 'Rigged Election'?

David Mikkelson

12/16/2020

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here One of the many claims U.S. President Donald Trump repeatedly made in his futile attempt to overturn his loss to Democratic rival Joe Biden in the 2020 general election was to assert that his own popular vote total was indicative of a "rigged election." How could he possibly have lost in 2020, Trump reasoned, when he received some 11 million votes more than he did in 2016, when he won? "Perhaps the biggest difference between 2016 and 2020 is @FoxNews, despite the fact that I went from 63,000,000 Votes to 75,000,000 Votes, a record 12,000,000 Vote increase. Obama went down 3,000,000 Votes, and won. Rigged Election!!!" The answer to this question is a simple one: Neither the voting-age population of the U.S., nor the percentage of that population that actually turns out to vote, is a constant. Those figures can -- and do -- vary widely from election to election. It is true that former U.S. President Barack Obama won reelection in 2012, despite garnering some 3.5 million fewer votes that year than he did when he was initially elected in 2008. Why? Largely because some 2.2 million fewer people turned out to vote in 2012 than in 2008. (Obama still received well over 50% of the popular vote in both years, nonetheless.) 2012 2008 And it is true that Trump was elected President in 2016 after receiving about 63 million votes, yet lost his reelection bid in 2020 despite receiving over 11 million more votes than he had in the previous election. How did this happen? For two very important (and obvious) reasons that Trump consistently overlooks or ignores: 2016 2020 1) Voter turnout skyrocketed between 2016 and 2020, rising from 55.7% of eligible voters in the former year to 66.7% in the latter -- a difference of some 22 million additional voters. So even though the increased turnout brought Trump an additional 11 million votes, it also brought another 11 million votes cast for someone other than him. 2) Popular vote doesn't determine the election winner; electoral votes do. Trump won the presidency in 2016 despite receiving some 3 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton nationwide, because he managed to pull of narrow victories in three key states: Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. In 2020, however, Trump's popular vote deficit was over twice as large as the previous election (he received some 7 million fewer votes than winner Joe Biden), and, more crucially, he lost all three of the key states he had managed to capture in 2016 as they flipped back to blue: The fact that far fewer voters cast their ballots for third-party candidates in 2020 than in 2016 also seems to have worked against Trump, as his Democratic opponent in 2020 (Biden) tallied over 15 million more votes than his Democratic opponent in 2016 (Clinton) had -- a figure constituting far more than half of the 22 million additional ballots cast in 2020 over 2016.

false

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/may/16/kamala-harris/kamala-harris-claim-about-latinos-getting-1-of-ven/

Latino small businesses are 1 in 4 new businesses, but only 1% of venture capital funding goes to Latino businesses.

Marta Campabadal Graus

05/16/2023

During an interview with Noticias Telemundo, Vice President Kamala Harris said that Latino entrepreneurs don't get as much financial support as other business owners do, and the Biden administration wants to change that. Venture capitalists need to invest more in Latino-owned businesses, Harris said. Latino small businesses are 1 in 4 new businesses, but only 1% of venture capital funding goes to Latino businesses, HarrissaidApril 21. Yes, we've got to change that. We wondered whether Harris claim was true. A Harris spokesperson told PolitiFact that the data comes from a 2021reportby the global management consulting firmBain & Co. Bain & Co. analyzed data from several sources for its report, including: CrunchBase, a company that provides business data on public and private companies; A 2021 brief from Democratic members of CongressJoint Economic Committeeabout Hispanic businesses and entrepreneurship; and Data from theStanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative, a collaboration between Stanford University and the Latino Business Action Network, a nonprofit organization advocating for Latino entrepreneurship. Those sources relied on data covering 2007 to 2021 and predictions for 2022. Bain & Co. did not define Latino-owned business, but the Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiativesaidthey are companies with 50% or more ownership that identifies as Latino or Hispanic. The Joint Economic Committees brief said that nearly 1 in 4 new businesses are Hispanic-owned. (TheU.S. Small Business Administrationhas also used this statistic, citing the committee brief as its source.) Staff for Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., who chaired the committee when the report published, told PolitiFact the figure comes from a 2018 report by theFederal Reserve Bank of New York. (The report includes data up to 2016.) The Federal Reserve Bank of New York also shared this statistic in a2019 tweet. An October 2022 report by theEwing Marion Kauffman Foundation, a nonprofit that provides grants to other nonprofits and businesses, said that in 2021 nearly a quarter of new entrepreneurs were Hispanic or Latino. The foundation used data from the Census BureausCurrent Population Surveyfor its analysis. TheCensus Bureaus 2021 Annual Business Surveyoffers a different and lower figure for the share of Hispanic-owned businesses. That survey showed that in 2020, there were approximately 375,000 Hispanic-owned businesses, and about 12.4% were new (operating for less than two years). But the two surveys are not directly comparable, because the survey samples, questions and size may not be the same, said Patricia Ramos, a Census Bureau spokesperson. The Current Population Survey data centers on the labor force people who are working or actively looking for work. The Annual Business Survey focuses on business and business owners by demographics; it also excludes data for businesses without employees. Small Business Shoeshine Stands Jairo Cardenas owner the Alpha Shoe Repair Corp., polishes a boot he is repairing, Friday, Feb. 3, 2023, in New York. (AP). Bain & Co.s report said that cumulatively, Latino-owned businesses received roughly 1% of capital from the top 25 venture capital and private equity firms between 2007 and 2017. Separately, the report noted that Latino-owned businesses received less than 1%, or approximately $680 million, of the $487 billion invested by the top 500 largest venture capital and private equity firms in 2020. LatinxVC, a group that helps Latino businesses get funding from venture capitalists, cited the 1% Bain & Co. figure on itsState of Latino/a VCs Second Annual Report, published in November 2022. Crunchbasereported that Latino-owned companies received $2.7 billion or 1.7% of $161.4 billion from venture capitalists in 2020. Private equity firmsgenerally invest in companies from any industry, and venture capital firms focus on innovative sectors, such as technology. Most Hispanic-owned firms are related to construction, administrative support, and transportation and warehousing, according toCensus Bureaudata. Based on existing research, the statement on venture capital funding for Latino-owned businesses seems to be in line with existing estimates, saidBarbara Gomez-Aguinaga, associate director at the Stanford Latino Entrepreneurship Initiative. Ilene Grabel, an economics professor at the University of Denver, said that historically, Latino entrepreneurs have not received significant financing from traditional banks and instead turn to venture capitalists for funding. Still, Latino-owned businesses need to enroll twice as many investors as white-owned businesses to get the same level of funding, according to the Bain & Co. report. Harris said, Latino small businesses are 1 in 4 new businesses, but only 1% of venture capital funding goes to Latino businesses. The 1-in-4 statistic is supported by a 2021 brief from the Democratic members of a congressional committee and research from a nonprofit that provides grants to other nonprofits and businesses. A Census Bureau survey found a smaller percentage of new Hispanic-owned businesses in 2020 12.4%. The claim about 1% of venture capital going to Latino-owned businesses matches estimates from a consulting firms 2021 report. Thats based on investments from 25 venture capitalists and private equity firms from 2007 to 2017. Investments in 2020 from these companies was under 1%, according to the report. Another source pegs that investment as high as 1.7%. We rate this claim Mostly True. CORRECTION, May 17, 2023: This fact-check was updated to clarify Rep. Don Beyers former leadership of the Joint Economic Committee.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mike-pences-gay-past/

Does This Photo Show a Shirtless Mike Pence?

Dan Evon

11/21/2016

In November 2016, a photograph purportedly showing a young Mike Pence with his chest exposed was circulated on social media along with the claim that it documented the vice president's "gay past": circulated The man pictured on the right above is not Vice President Mike Pence, nor does the person depicted particularly resemble him. The individual seen in the right-hand photo is Brad Patton, a porn actor, and the original image was shared on MySpace by acolleague, Martin Mazza: MySpace Several stories have also appeared concerning Mike Pence and his support of "conversion therapy" for gay people. These are somewhat inaccurate: while Pence did once support the use of federal funding to treat people "seeking to change their sexual behavior," he did not support electroshocktherapy, nor did hecredit conversiontherapy for having savedhis marriage. conversion therapy therapy therapy

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kaganroo-court/

Elena Kagan Tied to Obama's Birth Certificate

David Mikkelson

08/05/2010

Claim: President Obama nominated Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court as a reward for her help in getting nine challenges to his eligibility dismissed. Example: [Collected via e-mail, August 2010] Well, someone figured out why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for theSupreme Court. Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docketand search for Obama. She was the Solicitor General for all the suitsagainst him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural borncitizenship. He owes her big time. All of the requests were denied of course.They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it? The American people mean nothing any longer. It's all about paybacktime for those that compromised themselves to elect someone thatreally has no true right to even be there. We should be getting sosick of all of this nonsense. The USA has finally become the laughingstock of the world. GOD help and deliver us. Variations: An e-mailed screed claiming that thisarticle is wrong is itself wrong. screed Origins: Rumors that Elena Kagan was nominated for a position on the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama as a tit-for-tat payment of Kagan's assistance in using her position as U.S. Solicitor General to fend off lawsuits challenging Obama's eligibility for the presidency began circulating in August 2010, prompted by a 4 August 2010 online article published byWorldNetDaily (WND). That article claimed that Kagan "has actually been playing a role forsome time in the dispute over whether Obama is legally qualified to be in the White House" and that a "simple search of the high court's own website reveals Kagan's name coming up at least nine times on dockets involving Obama eligibility issues," then went on to suggest that all nine of the referenced docket items article were dismissed due to Kagan's influence, an action for which President Obama "owes her big time" and has rewarded her with a quid pro quo Supreme Courtnomination. One small problem for the advocates of this political conspiracy theory: None of the nine docket items cited by WND was about "whether Obama is legally qualified to be in the White House." The WND article simply cites the results of a non-specific search on all Supreme Court docket items containing the names "Obama" and "Kagan" and misleadingly claims them all as "involving Obama eligibility issues," without regard for the real underlying issues of those cases.* search * Each of the docket items included the name of the lower court from which it was appealed, as well as a case number. Using those pieces of information as reference points for looking up the subject of each of the cited docket items (as WND utterly failed to do) revealed that NONE of the nine entries cited by WND had anything at all to do with cases challenging Barack Obama's eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States; in fact, most of them actually stemmed from cases which were originally filed against the federal government long before the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama (but which since "rolled over" to the current administration). The nine entries cited by WND comprised cases filed by: Gary William Holt, a federal prisoner in Tennessee who was convicted of firearms-related offenses and whose case is a prisoner civil rights issue filed during the Bush administration. Gary William Holt Jerome Julius Brown, whose case not only long antedates the Obama administration, but is also largely incomprehensible and has nothing do to with eligibility issues. The case was originally dismissed by a lower court that could not discern either "which claims are made against which defendants on what basis" nor what "relief [the] plaintiff demands," and a description of the case provides some idea of why the lower court found it unworthy of consideration: Jerome Julius Brown description This matter is before the Court on the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Jerome Julius Brown ("Brown"), who refers to himself as "U.S. Bounty # 1014, U.S.A., Mr. Jerome Julius Brown Sr. et al." On June 7, 2010, Brown filed a one-page Complaint accompanied by 167 pages of attachments. The one-page Complaint is incomprehensible. It consists of several disjointed sentence fragments that do not make sense. It refers to a "petition for writ and attachments," an appeal from a magistrate judge, the United States Marshals Service, "assessment & taxation no real property data land condemnation business check card" and demands $70,000.00. The attachments include copies of his Maryland Driver's License, a business check card apparently issued to him by Chevy Chase Bank, and a Federal Express account card. Other attachments demonstrate that he has filed other lawsuits against Chevy Chase Bank, and that he has filed other lawsuits against other various persons and entities. Also included among the attachments are copies of various checks drawn on what appears to be a business account for "Zip One Mail Contractor Courier" and "Jerome Julius Brown," an "ID Theft Affidavit" that refers to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a credit report for Brown that includes handwritten notes regarding purported fraud and identity theft, and what appears to be a copy of a home equity loan application. Louis Lutz, a truck driver who was employed as a U.S. Army civilian contractor in Iraq between 2004 to 2006 (long before the advent of the Obama administration) and whose case has to do with the combatant status of civilian contractors and employees working in Iraq and Afghanistan, not presidential eligibility issues. Louis Lutz Two filings involving Abdul Hamid Abdul Salam Al-Ghizzawi, a Libyan citizen seeking release from his incarceration at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station. (Al-Ghizzawi was finally released in March 2010, after seven years of imprisonment.) Abdul Hamid Abdul Salam Al-Ghizzawi released Three filings involving Jamal Kiyemba, a Ugandan who was incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station for four years beginning in 2002. (Although Kiyemba was released from Guantanamo in 2006, due to "some procedural detail of the American legal system, Jamal Kiyembas name remains in the headlines of the highly public legal battle that began as Kiyemba v. Bush and which sits now on the desks of the nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States under its new name: Kiyemba v. Obama." The case is a separation-of-powers issue that has nothing to do with presidential eligibility.) Jamal Kiyemba The Real Truth About Obama, Inc., a case which, although the plaintiff's name might suggest a presidential eligibility issue, is actually a challenge to three Federal Election Commission regulations which the plaintiff organization alleges are "unconstitutionally overbroad" and thereby infringed their right "to disseminate information about presidential candidate Senator Obama's position on abortion." The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. After we published our article on this topic, WND hurriedly scrubbed the original article from their site without explanation, then misleadingly replaced it three days later with a thoroughly rewritten article on a different topic which was prefaced by an Editor's Note acknowledging their error: replaced Editor's Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly described a series of cases for which Elena Kagan represented the government as eligibility cases. Those cases, in fact, were a series of unrelated disputes pending before the Supreme Court and the references have been removed from this report. Many people unfamiliar with the function of the Solictor General's office have claimed that even if the referenced docket items are not cases involving eligibility issues, they somehow demonstrate a questionable or inappropriate connection between Barack Obama and Elena Kagan, as if the latter personally represented the former in court and was rewarded for her efforts with a Supreme Court nomination. This claim is also false One of the duties of the Solicitor General is, in layman's terms, to act as advocate for the United States before the Supreme Courtin any lawsuits filed against the federal government over abridgements of constitutional rights; thus the current Solicitor General's name will appear on virtually every Supreme Court docket item entered during his or her tenure. (Indeed, a simple search of docket items for the name "Elena Kagan" turns up over 500 matching entries.) Because such lawsuits often name the President of the United States as a respondent, it is also not uncommon for the current president's name to appear on such docket items (even if he was not yet in office at the time the underlying cases were originally filed in lower courts). In all such cases, however, the Solicitor General functions as a representative of the interests of the federal government, not as personal counsel for the President. (Several dozen Supreme Court docket items still identify Barack Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, as a respondent, and in every one of those cases the Solicitor General is likewise listed as an attorney for the respondent.) search George W. Bush *NOTE: Immediately after we published this piece, WND scrubbed all references to the original article from their web site without explanation. Three days later, WND misleadingly replaced the original with a thoroughly rewritten article on a completely different topic. Last updated: 3 August 2015

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/credit-call/

Credit Bureau Blocking

David Mikkelson

07/10/2001

Claim: The four major U.S. credit bureaus will be allowed to share your private information with anyone who requests it as of 1 July 2003 unless you specifically request them not to. Status: False. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2001] Just wanted to let everyone know who hasn't already heard, the four major credit bureaus in the US. will be allowed, starting July 1, to release your credit info, mailing addresses, phone numbers etc. to anyone who requests it. If you would like to 'opt out' of this release of info, you can call 1-888-567-8688. It only takes a couple of minutes to do, and you can take care of anyone else in the household while making only one call, you'll just need to know their social security number. Be sure to listen closely, the first opt out is only for two years, make sure you wait until they prompt you to press '3' on your keypad to opt out for good. Origins: There is truth in the issue which seems to be uppermost in the minds of most of those who receive this message that is, whether the phone number provided above is valid for the stated purpose or whether it's some sort of information-collecting scam. The phone number listed (1-888-5OPTOUT) is indeed legitimate; it is a shared number set up with the cooperation of the Associated Credit Bureaus to establish a single point of contact for consumers to call to request that all four major U.S. credit bureaus (Equifax, Experian, Trans Union, and Novus/Innovis) remove their information from the marketing lists and pre-approved credit offer lists sold to third parties. Yes, they automated system will ask you to enter your phone number, Social Security number, and other personal information, because it needs that information to locate your record. If you are uncomfortable supplying this information to an automated system, you will have to call each of the four major credit bureaus individually and speak to real people at each one of them, a cumbersone and time-consuming ' process. However, it is not true that consumers must call this number before 1 July 2004, nor is it true that recent legislation allows credit bureaus to share private information with "anyone who requests it." This misinformation has been circulating since 2001, and the same message keeps getting get dusted off and sent around every year with an updated deadline. (In fact, if you call the number listed above, the first option you're presented is to listen to a message explaining why the e-mail quoted above is false.) Contrary to the text of the dire warning quoted above, credit bureaus cannot sell your non-public personal information (e.g., Social Security number, employment history, bank account information) to "anyone who requests it." Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1997, businesses seeking to obtain personal information from credit bureaus must have a "permissible purpose" in order to access credit reports. (Permissible purposes include checking the backgrounds of persons to determine their creditworthiness before selling or renting property to them, extending them loans or credit, or considering them for employment.) This restriction remains in force, it did not change on 1 July 2001, and it still applies whether or not you call the number listed above. Credit bureaus can, however, create lists containing the names, addresses, and phone numbers of consumers with good credit and sell them to telemarketers and direct-mail marketers. (Names, addresses, and phone numbers are not considered "non-public personal information" because they may be obtained from a variety of publicly-accessible sources, such as phone directories.) Consumers may call the 1-888-5OPTOUT number to request that all four major credit bureaus not include their information on these marketing lists. There is no deadline for this process consumers may call the number at any time. What did change back in 2001 was that due to the implementation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act) the banking, insurance, and securities industries were allowed to operate under the same corporate affiliation. (This act set aside legislation passed during the Depression era, which had created legal barriers to prevent mergers between banks, insurance companies, brokerage firms, and other financial institutions.) Because of consumers' concerns that new financial conglomerates allowed under this legislation might pool their resources to compile huge databases of sensitive customer information and share them with third parties, Congress added a provision to the act requiring that all financial service companies send privacy notices providing a "reasonable opportunity" for their customers to opt out of this information-sharing by 1 July 2001. (These notices had to provide consumers with details about all the kinds of information the companies collected about them and how they used that information.) The 1 July 2001 deadline applied only to the sending of notification to customers by financial institutions, and it had nothing to do with credit bureaus. Some key points of this "opt-out" process are: Unlike credit bureaus, financial institutions can share your private information with third parties by default. In order to stop this sharing, you must specifically invoke your "opt-out" privileges to request that they not do it. Privacy notices had to be sent to customers by 1 July 2001, but there is no deadline by which customers must respond. Your right to "opt out" of the information-sharing process is ongoing and may be invoked at any time. Most importantly, you must contact every financial institution with which you do business to completely "opt out" of the information-sharing process. The phone number given in the message quoted above (1-888-5OPTOUT) applies only to credit bureaus. Calling this number will not affect the ability of any banks, insurance companies, credit card companies, brokerage firms, or any other financial institutions with which you do (or have done) business from sharing your information. The bottom line is that laws regarding the selling of personal information by financial institutions have become more stringent recently, not less. The changes may not have made the laws as stringent as we'd like them to be, but at least they're a step in the right direction, not the scare stories these messages make them out to be. Additional information: Consumer Credit File Privacy: The Real Deal (Federal Trade Commission) Protecting Financial Privacy (Privacy Rights Clearinghouse) E-mail Sends Wrong Message (Associated Credit Bureaus) Last updated: 3 December 2007 Sources: Buggs, Shannon. "Don't Be Fooled on Privacy Issue." The Houston Chronicle. 16 July 2001 (Business; p. 1). O'Harrow Jr., Robert. "Credit Firm Told to Stop Selling Data." The Washington Post. 17 April 2001 (p. E1). Yip, Pamela. "Now Is Time for Consumers to Opt out of Sharing Financial Data." Associated Press. 9 June 2001. Newsweek. "Money Notes." 2 July 2001.

neutral

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/did-ruth-bader-ginsburg-say-that-pedophilia-was-good-for-children/

Did Ruth Bader Ginsburg Say that Pedophilia Was Good for Children?

Dan Evon

02/26/2018

The language in a 1974 report that was co-authored by Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has been analyzed and criticized for more than four decades. The piece tackled sex bias in the United States penal code. As these critics have devolved from scholars, to senators, to pundits, to conspiracy-minded web sites, to the lowly meme maker, the accusations against Ginsburg have grown more crude and distorted. scholars senators pundits web sites In February 2018, for instance, we came across a meme featuring an image of the Supreme Court Justice and a quote ostensibly uttered by her about pedophilia being good for children: This is not a genuine quote from Ruth Bader Ginsburg. This claim is based upon a gross misinterpretation of another misinterpretation, which was itself based upon a simple misreading of a 1974 report entitled "The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law" that was co-authored by Ginsburg, who at the time was a professor of law at the Columbia Law School. The other co-author was Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, a former director of the American Civil Liberties Union's women's rights project. The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law In 1974 Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau published a report examining how federal law frequently employed gendered language. This report was used as the basis for the "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," a report published in 1977, which included a passage explaining the purpose of the study: Sex Bias in the U.S. Code The Constitution, which provides the framework for the American legal system, was drafted using the generic term "man." While the United States Supreme Court, the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, might have determined that "man" also means "woman" in terms of rights, duties, privileges, and obligations under the Constitution, the Court instead has chosen on numerous occasions to deny to women certain rights and privileges not denied to men. While explaining the "equality principle" and arguing that pronouns should be altered in the existing penal code so that both men and women were equally accountable for crimes against both boys and girls, Ginsburg quoted a proposed 1973 Senate bill as an example of legislation which used gender neutral language: The 1937 Senate bill, S. 1400, in 1631, provides a definition of rape that in substance conforms to the equality principle: A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and (1) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or (B) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; (2) has substantially impaired the other person's power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or (3) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old. It is the highlighted line that has been repeatedly misinterpreted and distorted over the ensuing decades. It appears that Ginsburg was first accused of wanting to lower the age of consent to 12 shortly before she was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 1993. This accusation reemerged in 2005 after John Roberts was nominated. Both Senator Lindsey Graham and Fox News host Sean Hannity, for instance, used this line to argue that Ginsburg was "very left-wing" and immoral: accused Lindsey Graham Sean Hannity HANNITY: I guess where I am on this, if you look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I mean, she -- the Ginsburg rule, she doesn't have to answer specific questions, clearly pro-choice going in, thinks there may even be a constitutional right to polygamy, has a controversial view we should lower the age of consent to 12, supports legalized prostitution, very left-wing. GRAHAM: Well, there are all kind of hearts. There are bleeding hearts and there are hard hearts. And if I wanted to judge Justice Ginsburg on her heart, I might take a hard-hearted view of her and say she's a bleeding heart. She represents the ACLU. She wants the age of consent to be 12. She believes there's a constitutional right to prostitution. What kind of heart is that? However, Ginsburg never actually said that the age of consent should be lowered to 12. Ginsburg's report was about changing gendered language, not the age of consent, in our existing laws. In the quoted passage, she was not arguing for or against lowering the age of consent; rather, she was quoting a proposed Senate bill as an example of how appropriate gender-neutral pronouns should be used. Ginsburg wrote that she used this bill because it "conform(ed) to the equality principle," not because she agreed with the presented age of consent. Furthermore, Ginsburg mentioned another section of the penal code a few paragraphs earlier which referenced a different age of consent: 16. In both cases, Ginsburg's focus was on the gender of the victim, rather than the age, as her report was specifically concerned with gendered-language in U.S. law: 18 U.S.C. 1154 and 2032 make it a crime for a person to have carnal knowledge of a female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of sixteen years. [...] The "statutory rape" offense defined in these sections follows the traditional pattern: the victim must be a female and the offender, a male. Protection of the girl's virtue as an asset to be traded by her family at marriage time can no longer survive as a justification for such provisions. The immaturity and vulnerability of young people of both sexes can be protected through appropriately drawn, sex-neutral proscriptions. The claim that Ginsburg said that "pedophilia was good for children" appears to be the result of a decades-long game of telephone that started with a misreading of a 1974 report. It started in 1993, after Ginsburg was nominated to the Supreme Court, when this report was quoted out of context as evidence that Ginsburg wanted to lower the age of consent to 12. As this errant argument was reiterated by pundits such as Sean Hannity it morphed from a single out of context quote to an alleged personal belief at the core of Ginsburg's political views. When the "Pizzagate" controversy exploded during the 2016 presidential election, this rumor underwent another devolution as conspiracy theorists claimed that Ginsburg once wrote that she wanted to legalize child rape. Pizzagate claimed In February 2018, this rumor took one more step away from reality when a meme featuring a quote ostensibly uttered by Ginsburg arguing that pedophilia was good for children went viral online. Bader Ginsburg, Ruth. "The Legal Status of Women Under Federal Law." Report of Columbia Law School Equal Rights Advocacy Project, 1974 (p. 71) Noah, Timothy. "Lindsey Graham's Smear." Slate. 16 September 2005. Kalven, Josh. "Hannity Falsely Claimed Ginsburg Advocated Legalizing Prostitution, Lowering the Consent Age to 12." Media Matters. 1 November 2005.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nps-twitter-account-shut-down/

National Park Service Twitter Account Shut Down After Anti-Trump Retweets

David Emery

01/21/2017

On 20 January 2017, the day Donald J. Trump took office as President of the United States, news outlets posted photospurporting to compare the size of the crowd attending Trump's inauguration to that attending Barack Obama's first inaugural ceremony in 2009. Although there was not yet an official count of how many people actually showed up atthe Trump event, so an accurate numerical comparison couldn't be made, the photos did appear to show a significantdisparity between the sizes of the crowds, with far fewer in attendance at Trump's inauguration than Obama's. photos For obvious reasons, the side-by-side images were relished byanti-Trump factions, whoshared and retweeted them all day long. There wasone instance in particular wherein a retweet of the photos caught the attention of incoming Trump officials, who deemed them inappropriate so inappropriate, in fact, that the Department of Interior promptlydeactivated every oneof its Twitter accounts in response. The offending retweet (since deleted) appeared on the National Park Service (@NatlParkService) Twitter feed: This was followed by another retweet (since deleted) of a text suggesting that the Trump administration had scrubbed information from the White House web site for ideological reasons: scrubbed All of which caused a smalluproar on Twitter, where some users jokedthat the National Park Service had "gone rogue," others wondered about the legality of the retweets, and still others defended their content as "factual, not anti-Trump." Later that day, the NPS Twitter account, along with all the other Department of Interior accounts, went silent. According to a report by CNN, the order came down from a "career staffer" at the department: gone rogue report In statements to The Washington Post, a National Park Service spokesperson explained why the action was taken and saidit would only be temporary: Thomas Crosson, a spokesmanfor the National Park Service, the Interior agency whose employee retweeted the offending tweets,said the action was inconsistent with the agencys approach to engaging the public through social media. The Department of Interiors communications team determined that it was important to stand down Twitter activity across the Department temporarily, except in the case of public safety, Crosson said in an email. Now that social media guidance has been clarified, the Department and its bureaus should resume Twitter engagement as normal this weekend. With one exception, Crosson said: No social media posts on the policy priorities of the new Interior secretary, because Trump nominee Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.) has not yet been confirmed. Indeed, by the next morning, U.S.Department of Interior Twitter accounts went online again, commencing with a note of contritiontweeted by @NatlParkService: note We regret the mistaken RTs from our account yesterday and look forward to continuing to share the beauty and history of our parks with you pic.twitter.com/mctNNvlrmv pic.twitter.com/mctNNvlrmv NationalParkService (@NatlParkService) January 21, 2017 January 21, 2017 There has been no announcement regarding who may have been responsible for the retweets, or whether disciplinary action would be taken. Klein, Betsy. "Comparing Donald Trump and Barack Obama's Inaugural Crowd Sizes." CNN. 21 January 2017. Merica, Dan."Trump Admin Tells National Park Service to Halt Tweets." CNN.20 January 2017. Rein, Lisa."Interior Department Reactivates Twitter Accounts Ffter Shutdown Following Inauguration." The Washington Post.21 January 2017.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/jul/07/facebook-posts/meme-says-hillary-clintons-top-donors-are-banks-an/

Says Hillary Clintons top 10 donors are mainly banks, corporations and media, while Bernie Sanders top 10 donors are labor unions.

Louis Jacobson

07/07/2015

As Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders gains ground on Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, the two candidates supporters have been sparring, including over campaign donations. Recently, a reader sent us a social media meme that paints Clintons list of donors as dominated by corporate interests, whereas Sanders top 10 donors come largely from labor unions -- a dichotomy that, to Democratic primary voters, puts Sanders in a more favorable light. Hillary: Top ten donor list. Representing banks, corporations and media, the meme reads, providing a top-10 list with dollar amounts. Bernie: Top ten donor list. Representing people. The meme is topped by each candidates presidential campaign logo. (See the meme below.) We cant tell who produced this meme, but we thought it was worth a closer look. Well start by noting that reasonable people can disagree about whether labor unions represent people, as the meme says, as opposed to just unionized workers, who are a relatively small subset of the entire population. Well also note that while this meme may appeal to union supporters and critics of Wall Street and big corporations, it also could be used as evidence that Sanders is just as reliant on one type of donor -- labor unions -- as Clinton is on big corporations. We found that the data cited in the meme refers to cumulative donations over the course of each candidates political career as calculated by the Center for Responsive Politics, not just fundraising from the current presidential cycle. (ClintonandSandershave announced their fundraising hauls for the second quarter of 2015, but have not yet released the full data that is due at the Federal Election Commission by July 15; a more complete analysis of the data will be compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics after that.) ForClinton, we found a high degree of similarity with the meme when we checked the database on July 6. Clintons top 10 cumulative donors between between 1999 and 2016 were, in descending order, Citigroup ($782,327), Goldman Sachs ($711,490), DLA Piper ($628,030), JPMorgan Chase ($620,919), EMILYs List ($605,174) Morgan Stanley ($543,065), Time Warner ($411,296), Skadden Arps ($406,640), Lehman Brothers ($362,853) and Cablevision Systems ($336,288). That list is quite close to what the meme says. It includes five financial-services companies, two law firms that do a lot of corporate work, two media conglomerates and one group, EMILYs list, that supports abortion-rights Democratic candidates. Its worth noting that Clinton was a senator from New York, meaning that some of the donors on her list were not simply Wall Street and corporate behemoths, but also constituents, based in New York. The database results forSandersare also quite close to whats in the meme. The data for Sanders goes back to 1989. His top 10 are, in descending order, Machinists/Aerospace Workers union ($105,000), Teamsters union ($93,700), National Education Association ($84,350), United Auto Workers ($79,650), United Food & Commercial Workers union ($72,500), Communications Workers of America ($68,000), Laborers Union ($64,000), Carpenters & Joiners Union ($62,000), National Association of Letter Carriers ($61,000), and the American Association for Justice ($60,500). In the meme, the letter carriers union makes the list, but the Center for Responsive Politics has the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees cracking the top 10 instead. Either way, nine of the 10 are unions, and the tenth is the national association representing plaintiffs attorneys. During his career, Sanders has received strong support from progressive Democrats, so this pattern of financial backing is not surprising. So the meme is pretty accurate for both candidates. However, we see a few things worth pointing out. As we noted, this data refers to their entire political careers back to the 1990s. Once the full presidential data is released, those figures may show different patterns. That is not made clear in the meme, said Anthony J. Corrado, a campaign-finance expert at Colby College. Most people would assume that this is money raised so far in the 2016 presidential campaign. Also, the donors listed are not the ones who gave the money, since that would be against the law. Rather, it was their PACs, employees and those employees families. In fact, due to how the forms are filled out, the data is less likely to capture individual donations from union members than from employers of companies. Most individual donations are listed by employer, and if, say, a union carpenter lists his affiliation as his company, the fact that hes a union member wouldnt be recorded. Finally, lists such as this ignore that both candidates are collecting many small donations, too. According to the Clinton campaign, she raised roughly $50 million in contributions under $200 during her '08 campaign. Data for the 2016 cycle is not available yet. All told, its possible to look at the top donors on the two lists and say both candidates are captive to a particular set of interest groups, said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabatos Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia Center for Politics. However, he added, labor is a Democratic constituency whose beliefs generally line up with Democratic policies, and were talking about a Democratic primary here. So all things being equal, Sanders donor list probably looks better, politically, than Clintons. Kondik added that, as the meme indicates, Clinton has a much larger reservoir of money than Sanders has. The value of having a large financial advantage over your competitors in a primary setting seems to be worth occasional questions about how the financial advantage was built, he said. Our ruling Social media memes say that Clintons top 10 donors are mainly banks, corporations and media, while Bernie Sanders top 10 donors are labor unions. This contention fits quite closely with campaign data from the Center for Responsive Politics. However, its worth noting that this data refers to cumulative donations as far back as the 1980s, rather than just donations to their current presidential bids. The statement is accurate but needs clarification, so we rate it Mostly True.

true

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/jul/01/hillary-clinton/clinton-right-say-trumps-plan-good-hedge-funders/

Says Donald Trumps proposed tax treatment of hedge fund managers makes the current loophole even worse.

Adam Thorp

07/01/2016

Hillary Clinton is attacking DonaldTrumps tax plan, saying it actually benefits the hedge fund managers Trump had promised to cut down to size. Now, before releasing his plan, Trump said, Hedge fund guys are getting away with murder. And he added, Theyll pay more, Clinton said. Then his plan came out. And it actually makes the current loophole even worse. It gives hedge-fund managers a special tax rate thats lower than what many middle-class families pay, Clinton continuedin the June 21, 2016, speech. And I did have to look twice because I didnt believe it. Under Donald Trumps plan, these Wall Street millionaires will pay a lower tax rate than many working people. Trumps plan does roll back one high-profile advantage for hedge fund partners. Is Clinton right to say they still come out ahead? Trump took an aggressive position on tax rates for hedge fund managers during his fight for the Republican nomination. In an interview with CBS in August, Trumpcalledthem paper pushers who did not build this country. In a Republicandebatein September, Trump said his tax plan would make them pay more. The hedge fund guys wont like me as much as they like me right now. I know them all, but theyll pay more, Trump said. After the Republican debate, Trump released the outline of histax plan. Trumps plan eliminates the so-called carried interest tax loophole, which allows general partners in private investment firms (including most hedge fund managers) to treat some of their income as income from investments, or capital gains, subject to a top tax rate of 23.8 percent, instead of the much higher tax rate for ordinary income (43.4 percent). Under Trumps plan, income from carried interest would no longer be treated as capital gains. Tax rates for ordinary income tops out at 25 percent under Trumps plan. This looks like a hike in line with Trumps promises. Except. Along with private equity and venture capital funds, many hedge funds are structured as partnerships. Under Trumps plan, income through a business partnership is taxed at a rate of no more than 15 percent, significantly less than the 23.8 percent they previously paid, according to ananalysisof Trumps tax plan from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Eliminating the carried interest loophole actually helps these hedge fund managers under Trumps plan. If carried interest was still treated as capital gains, it could be taxed at the top rate for capital gains in the plan (20 percent), higher than the fixed 15 percent tax for partnership income. Trumps plan presents the discounted rate for partnership income as a way to help the small businesses that are the true engine of our economy. It also helps large businesses and wealthy financiers who structure their businesses as partnerships, including the hedge funds managers he attacked in his campaign. Clinton also said that rates for hedge fund managers would be lower than for middle-class families under Trumps plan. Defining the middle class can be tricky, but in thePew Research Centers rangeof $42,000 to $125,000 for a household of three in 2014, a substantial number of middle-class households would make enough to qualify for a marginal tax rate of more than 15 percent if Trumps plan were enacted. Not all of these people would pay more than 15 percent overall, according to Bob Williams at the Tax Policy Center, and it would be difficult to say how many middle-income people would pay more than hedge fund managers once the many different variables involved played out. But some would, Williams wrote in an email. In May,Politicoreportedthat the Trump campaign had engaged two economists to craft a new tax plan. The Trump campaign has not confirmed whether they plan to re-write their tax plan, and did not respond toPoliticosrequest for comment. The tax plan announced in September remains on Trump's website, and is the basis of this article. The Trump campaign did not respond to our request for comment on this article. Our ruling Clinton said Trumps proposed tax rate for hedge fund managers makes the current loophole even worse. She has a point. By setting a lower tax rate for income from business partnerships, Trumps tax plan would benefit many hedge fund managers. Though the plan would cut tax rates for middle-class families as well, the cuts that would apply to most hedge fund managers are steeper and their resulting tax rate is lower. Trump promised that his tax plan would roll back advantages for hedge fund managers. Instead, in most cases, it would improve their position. We rate the statement True.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ann-landers-quote-about-aging/

Did Advice Columnist Ann Landers Say This About Aging?

Bond Huberman

10/29/2019

In October 2019 it came to our attention that an aging platitude about aging, already credited to multiple sources, found a new voice: The meme appeared on Get Old, a lifestyle blog published by a pharmaceutical company. The same quote has been attributed to Landers on several sites, including Psychology Today. Psychology Today However, the quote does not surface in searches at AnnLanders.com, an advice column launched in 2019 by Landers daughter, Margo Howard. The site is also advertised as an archive of Landers columns. Thats not the only reason to doubt the credit. A similar quote has been attributed to Bob Hope, Anonymous, a wise old man, and Winston Churchill. Snopes investigated that last one in December 2018: Bob Hope a wise old man December 2018 Not so long ago, this particular quote about aging existed on the Internet primarily as a wise saying attributed to Anonymous or Unknown. For example, motivational speaker Bill Benjamin included it as such on his list of Favorite Quotes & Thoughts as far back as 2008. This quote appears in myriad other lists of anonymous sayings as well and was memed into a Churchill quote only fairly recently. 2008 We rate the newer variation of this claim as "Misattributed" because, although Landers could have given some version of this advice during the 47 years she was publishing columns, there is no available evidence to prove that the exact quote originated with her. Unfortunately, Landers (Esther Pauline "Eppie" Lederer) died in 2002 at the age of 83, so we cannot ask her to confirm directly. died Here is advice on aging Landers did recommend for everyone over 60. Again, however, not her words. The list was written by one of her readers. Here is advice Have you seen other variations of this claim? Let us know. Let us know.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pat-robertson-melania-cure/

Did Pat Robertson Say 'Staring' at Melania Trump 'Can Heal Gays'?

Kim LaCapria

02/21/2017

On 17February2017, the Newslo web sitepublished an articlereporting that televangelist Pat Robertson had said "staring" at First Lady Melania Trump was an activity sufficient to "cure gays": Newslo article When Christian Conservative leader Pat Robertson discussed the RNC convention in his TV show The 700 Club last July, he managed once again to turn the topic to controversy surrounding Melania Trumps speech. Robertson had agreed with many people when he said, Trumps speechwriter should be fired for doing or borrowing a few lines from Mrs. Obama. But then the televangelist got creepy when he started discussing Mrs. Trumps appearance, when he said, We mentioned the language in that speech, although she was absolutely gorgeous and I think thats why they wanted to put her on. She had a beautiful dress and shes a lovely lady. Trump knows when hes got a winner. Lately, hes been at it again. On the most recent episode of his show, the televangelist argued that the sole reason the mainstream media is targeting President Donald Trump is, once again, his wife. Robertson opined that the beauty of First Lady Melania Trump is so incredible that just by staring at her for a period of time, one can rid themselves of the plague of homosexualism. You know how there used to be this urban myth that men can prolong their natural lives just by staring at naked female breasts for 10 minutes a day? Well, this is sort of something similar to that, with one crucial difference: its not an urban myth, Robertson said. Shes an actual gay whisperer, that one. female breasts Newslo(along with sister sitesReligionlo, Politicops, and Politicalo)typically combine a tiny grain of truth with a balance of lies, as was the case in the above-quoted material. Newslo's trio offake news sites include a buttonallowingreaders toshow facts or hide facts," but since by default all their content displays in hide facts mode, most visitors are not aware ofthe fictional embellishments they add: Newslo Religionlo Politicops Politicalo fake news In this case, Pat Robertson's remarks about Mrs. Trump's being a "lovely lady" were genuinely something he said on CBNon 16 July 2016, but the balance of the Newslo article was fabricated, and Robertson never referred to Mrs. Trump as an "actual gay whisperer." Robertson is a frequent target ofNewslo and its brethren, where segments from the700 Club are regularly embellished to create share-worthy fabrications. remarks target

false