Datasets:

lzw1008

/

COLING25-FMD

like 2

FMD_test_0

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

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.

FMD_test_1

Are individuals involved in sex trafficking marking vehicles as possible targets?

08/25/2020

In August 2020, a photograph showing the figures "1f1b" written on the back window of a vehicle began circulating on social media, accompanied by a warning about an alleged tactic used by sex traffickers to flag potential targets. Those sharing this meme claimed that this term stood for either "1 female 1 boy" or "1 female 1 baby," asserting that cars were being tagged with these codes by sex traffickers. The meme gained viral traction when it was posted on actor James Woods' Twitter account. The text read: "A very close friend of mine was out today doing shopping with her child at the Bricktown Walmart. When she left the store, a lady stopped her and made her aware of what was written on her back window (1f1b). I'm just going to assume that it stands for 1 female 1 baby. She was then informed that this is how sex traffickers are tagging cars. Please, please, mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts, and uncles, be AWARE! Feel free to share! Won't be tagging my friend for personal reasons." The claims made in this viral social media post are unfounded. Police in Bricktown, New Jersey, have stated that they are unaware of any such activity. Before we examine the police statement regarding this matter, let's consider the game of telephone that helped this rumor spread. The text of this post indicates that this incident happened to a "friend of mine." As we read further, we see that this "friend" was warned about this new criminal tactic by a random stranger—not a police officer, a news reporter, or even a Walmart employee, just an anonymous "lady." The original post received a few thousand shares, but this post garnered far wider circulation. As we moved further away from the rumor's origins, the details became increasingly muddled. One poster, for instance, claimed that this incident took place in Bricktown, Oklahoma City, despite the fact that there is no Walmart in that location. When we attempt to trace this rumor back to its origins, we find that the claim is based on something someone saw on Facebook, written by a person asserting that their friend had heard from a stranger that the code "1f1b" was being used by sex traffickers to flag future targets. In other words, this rumor lacks credible origins. The local Patch website reported that Brick Township Sgt. Jim Kelly said the department had not been notified. "We have no reports of anything like this," Kelly stated. He also mentioned that the department has not been alerted by state or federal authorities about any information indicating that criminals are marking vehicles "as a method for anything." It's simply another Facebook rumor without any facts, Kelly said. A new variant of this rumor emerged on social media in July 2021. "AND THIS, THIS IS WHY I CARRY! Not only do I carry, but I'm educated in how to defend myself if ever put in a circumstance like this! Please be aware of your surroundings AT ALL TIMES!" On July 27, 2021, at around 3:30 PM, between Prairie Grove and Hogeye, a truck had a black Tahoe stop in front of it. A man got out and began asking the female driver of the truck for directions. She rolled down her window but had her seatbelt on and doors locked. As the man approached, he punched her in her left eye and cut her arm. Thankfully, she was carrying and grabbed her gun. He fled the scene. She called the police, who advised her that the mark "1FW" on her back window is a human trafficking mark. She had been marked somewhere, and this man followed her; when she was on a road alone, he attempted to take her. Thankfully, she is home with her family tonight. We are told they often mark mailboxes and trash cans too. This particular marking stands for one female white. This is not the first time that such baseless warnings have gone viral on social media. In July 2019, for example, we reported on the false claim that sex traffickers were flagging targets by placing zip ties on houses, mailboxes, or vehicles. In December of that year, a false rumor circulated that sex traffickers were lying down in front of vehicles to trick them into stopping. That same month saw the spread of another false rumor claiming that roses were being placed on cars to mark potential targets. Human trafficking is a real problem in the world, but the schemes described above are not based on any real-world threats. In fact, The Polaris Project, a non-profit that runs the U.S. National Human Trafficking Hotline, states that the forced kidnapping aspect of the aforementioned rumors is one of the most prevalent myths regarding trafficking: The Polaris Project Myth: It's always or usually a violent crime. Fact: The most pervasive myth about human trafficking is that it often involves kidnapping or physically forcing someone into a situation. In reality, most traffickers use psychological means such as tricking, defrauding, manipulating, or threatening victims into providing commercial sex or exploitative labor.

FMD_test_2

Missing Child: Ember Graham

09/01/2015

FACT CHECK: Is an infant named Ember Graham missing from her Happy Valley, California, home? Claim: An infant named Ember Graham is missing from her Happy Valley, California, home. Example: [Collected via Facebook, August 2015] My Ember is STILL missing. She went missing July 2, 2015 from Happy Valley, CA. She was six months old, wearing a size 2 Kirkland diaper. She has brown hair, and distinct brown downturned eyes. She is approximately 15 pounds and 2' 1". She is now 8 months old. She is a epileptic and needs to take special medication for her seizures, BUT that does not mean she still is not alive, she could survive without it. I'm begging anyone with any sort of information to please come forward! It could even be anonymously. I just want my baby back! I NEED her back. You could drop her off at any hospital, church, or fire station. Anywhere public. Or you could call anonymously by dialing *67 before you enter in the number. There is a $10,000 reward for anyone with information leading to the wearabouts of my little girl. Please call the Nor Cal top line at (530) 378-4491. Anonoymously or not! Please help me bring my baby home. Even if you have no information, please share her picture out there and tell everyone you know. We're relying on the public and the community for help now, we have spent every single day searching the surrounding areas and have found nothing, we have run out of real estate. Please help find my baby. #northerncalifornia #california #emberskye #missing #baby #missingbaby #8monthsold #littlegirl #epilepsy #theresacaputo #nancygrace #dateline #missingpersons #dr.phil #pleasecomehome Origins: On 25 August 2015, Facebook user JamieLee Tomlin-Graham published the above-quoted appeal to her personal Facebook page, seeking leads in the case of her missing infant daughter, Ember Graham. published A number of "missing child" pleas are outdated, inaccurate, or otherwise misstated on social media, but this one is relevant and current: Ember Graham indeed disappeared from her home in California in July 2015 and remains missing. Six-month-old Graham was last seen on 2 July 2015, and early in the investigation Shasta County Sheriff's Office Sgt. Pat Kropholler said father Matthew Graham was a person of interest in her disappearance: missing child Graham "In the case of Ember Graham the sole person of interest in her disappearance still remains with her father, Matthew Graham," Kropholler said in the press release. "The Sheriffs Office Major Crimes Unit has investigated tips received from the public and all other possible angles of a stranger abduction." "There is no evidence that a third party was involved, including anyone within the family," he said. "The motive of why he abandoned her or what lead to him disposing of her body died with him when he confronted officers with deadly force in Dunsmuir, California after he had carjacked a vehicle at gunpoint," Kropholler stated. A pacifier found on the side of a road in Ono, California, on 10 July 2015 was tested and determined to be baby Ember's. On 13 July Matthew Graham was killed in a shootout with police, an event that further complicated the investigation into Ember Graham's whereabouts: pacifier event Graham was spotted by Shasta County and Siskiyou County deputies and California Highway Patrol officers in Dunsmuir. He was shot and killed, according to the Siskiyou County Sheriff's Department. After the babys disappearance, authorities said Graham showed no remorse and didn't ask how they planned to find his daughter; they said he refused to submit to a voice stress test and asked for a lawyer. Investigators said they also found it tough to believe that a stranger could break into Grahams 25-foot camper trailer undetected and snatch Ember away, as he claimed. The home is surrounded by two fences and protected by guard dogs; the room where Ember slept apparently has no working door and can only be pried open with a screwdriver, which would make a lot of noise, detectives said. Pages on Facebook and Twitter have been created by Ember Graham's family to assist in the search for the child, and anyone with information has been asked to call the Shasta County Sheriffs Major Crimes Unit at (530) 245-6135. Facebook Twitter Last updated: 1 September 2015 Originally published: 1 September 2015

FMD_test_3

Did U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings Write a Bill to Keep All of Barack Obama's Records Sealed?

05/07/2019

On 26 November 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama signed into law H.R. 1233, the Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014. This bill, sponsored by Democratic U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, was described in a press release as one that "modernizes records management by focusing more directly on electronic records and complements efforts by the National Archives and the Office of Management and Budget to implement the President's 2011 Memorandum on Managing Government Records." A meme that circulated in 2019, during a period of controversy over Congress's attempts to obtain access to some of President Donald Trump's records (such as his tax returns), claimed that Cummings's bill had been intended to "keep all of [Barack] Obama's records sealed." First of all, this meme plays on the false premise that years after the end of Obama's presidency, a number of his key personal records remain "sealed," meaning that records that would ordinarily be accessible to the public have been restricted via court orders. In fact, most of Obama's primary personal records have either long been available to the public (e.g., Illinois state Senate records, Selective Service registration), are restricted from public access due to existing federal laws that apply to all Americans (e.g., college records), or simply aren't known to exist (baptismal record, college thesis). Moreover, H.R. 1233 applies only to federal records (i.e., records "made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business"), and none of the record types listed above—with the exception of Obama's Selective Service registration, which has been public for many years—are federal in nature. In fact, H.R. 1233 included several provisions to facilitate and strengthen the ability of the U.S. government to collect, preserve, and release federal records in a timely fashion, not to promote keeping them "sealed." These provisions include strengthening the Federal Records Act by expanding the definition of federal records to clearly include electronic records, confirming that federal electronic records will be transferred to the National Archives in electronic form, granting the Archivist of the United States final determination as to what constitutes a federal record, authorizing the early transfer of permanent electronic federal and presidential records to the National Archives while legal custody remains with the agency or the President, clarifying the responsibilities of federal government officials when using non-government email systems, empowering the National Archives to safeguard original and classified records from unauthorized removal, and codifying procedures by which former and incumbent Presidents review presidential records for constitutional privileges. Formerly, this process was controlled by an Executive Order subject to change by different administrations. The one tiny grain of truth in this claim is that Cummings's bill included a provision allowing a former or current President 60 days to review and contest potential public disclosure of any "presidential record not previously made available." However, that provision applies to all Presidents (former and current); such claims must be made based on grounds of constitutionally based privilege; and privilege claims are subject to being overridden by the incumbent president or by court order. As the National Coalition for History noted, H.R. 1233 followed from Obama's efforts early in his administration to strengthen public access to presidential records. For over a decade, the National Coalition for History has been a lead advocate for the enactment of Presidential Records Act (PRA) reform legislation. The organization was a plaintiff with other historical and archival groups in a federal lawsuit that sought to have an Executive Order (EO) issued by President George W. Bush, which severely limited public access to presidential records, declared invalid. On January 21, 2009, in one of his first official acts, President Barack Obama revoked the Bush administration's Executive Order 13233. The language in the Obama Executive Order 13489 is similar to an EO issued by President Reagan in 1989, which was also in effect during the presidencies of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The Reagan executive order was revoked when President Bush issued EO 13233 in November 2001. Unfortunately, without the passage of legislation, there was nothing to prevent a future chief executive from reinstituting onerous restrictions on access or extending the privilege beyond that of the incumbent and former president, as President Bush did. To put this issue to rest, legislation (H.R. 1233) was introduced in the House in 2013, creating a framework that would enable former presidents to request continued restricted access on a very narrow basis, essentially codifying the Reagan and Obama administration rules. H.R. 1233 imposes a time limit in which a former president must assert any claim of privilege upon a determination of the Archivist to make available to the public a record of that former president. The bill also establishes processes for managing the disclosure of records upon the assertion of privilege by a former president and grants the incumbent president the power to decide whether or not to uphold any privilege claim of a former president, absent a court order to the contrary. In short, Cummings introduced legislation intended to improve public access to all presidential records.

FMD_test_4

Are 20 Percent of Homicide Victims with Restraining Orders Killed Soon After Obtaining Them?

10/15/2018

With October marking Domestic Violence Awareness Month in the U.S., readers contacted us regarding a graphic circulating online that shared an alarming statistic about homicide rates for partners who obtained restraining orders. The graphic, which was unattributed but bore the hashtag #DVAM2018, stated: 1 in 5 homicide victims with restraining orders are murdered within two days of obtaining the order, and 1 in 3 within the first month. The figures were taken from a 2008 study on intimate partner homicides (IPH). Although the data presented in the meme was accurate, it lacked some context provided by the original source and could therefore be potentially misleading when taken in isolation. According to that study, about 11% of 231 women killed by male intimates had been issued a restraining order. About one-fifth of the female IPH victims who had a restraining order were killed within two days of the order being issued, and about one-third were killed within a month. Nearly half of those with a restraining order had been protected by multiple orders. Victims killed in a shared residence (versus elsewhere) had lower odds of having a restraining order, whereas victims from rural (versus urban) counties, married (versus dating) victims, and Latino (versus non-Latino) victim-offender dyads had higher odds of having a restraining order. The type of weapon used was not associated with whether the victim had been under the protection of a restraining order. While the numbers used in the meme were quoted accurately, we are rating this item as a Mixture because it does not mention that the overwhelming majority of IPH victims reported by the survey who were killed by intimates (89%) did not have restraining orders in place. Omitting this piece of information could create a false impression regarding the effectiveness of restraining or protective orders, and more recent data supports their use as a deterrent against intimate partner violence. A 2011 study published by the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire found that the quality of life improved for the 213 women they surveyed who had received civil protective orders. Half the women reported that the orders were not violated, and the majority of respondents reported declines in "days of distress and sleep loss" after obtaining those orders. The report concluded by noting that not only are civil protective orders effective, but they are relatively low cost, especially when compared with the social and personal costs of partner violence. The effectiveness is particularly relevant for low-income rural women, who face more personal and social barriers to stopping the violence, including higher unemployment and tighter connections to the violent partner. Rural women also have fewer community resources or alternatives available to help them. Therefore, increasing access to civil protective orders should be an important goal in helping victims and their children and in lowering the societal costs of partner violence. We contacted Katherine Vittes, the lead researcher for the 2008 study cited in the meme, seeking comment but did not receive a response prior to publication.

FMD_test_5

John Kerry's Address Given on the Front Porch

10/20/2004

For John Kerry's Labor Day 'front porch' stop in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, neighborhood streets were closed, and residents were told to take down their Bush/Cheney signs. Neighborhood streets were closed: True. Residents were ordered to remove their Bush/Cheney signage: False. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Good Tuesday morning! John Kerry brought his "front porch meeting" to our Canonsburg, PA neighborhood on Labor Day morning. Since you will never hear the truth from the TV or print media, I thought that you should know from someone who was 'almost' there. The residents who live on the street where the event took place were not allowed to attend. Kerry brought in approximately 90 invitation-only VIPs. In addition, there was a hard-luck case who was about to lose her job at USAIR, and another was an elderly woman who was having health care problems. Neither one was from this neighborhood. The street was closed to all traffic the night before, and all residents on the street were REQUIRED to remove their Bush/Cheney signs. The sympathetic police officers on duty told us that Kerry used eminent domain to claim the street for his purposes. Residents who have homes within the perimeter (approximately one full block) were kept behind a line away from the partisan crowd. The rest of us were not allowed within the one-block cordon. A neighbor from across the street came to the line where we were being kept and asked us to come onto his property. The police told us that we could stand on this man's FORMERLY private property! This was set up so that Kerry's views could be heard - but not the neighbors. About 30 people (mostly neighbors) shouted down the street, "Let the neighbors in." We could barely hear Kerry speaking with his microphone because press buses were used to block us off from view! This morning's papers are reporting how hecklers tried to interrupt Kerry as he spoke to the neighborhood gathering, but he turned our chants to his favor by calling us rude. Even though most of the media was there to record our stories of not being included in the neighborhood forum, not one of them printed or aired the truth. This is what America will look like if Kerry becomes president. Get registered and get all of your friends registered to vote if they have not already. Kerry thinks that he is better than the rest of us, and he has the media on his side to make him out to be what he is not! Finally, last night as I drove down the street where the rally was, I was shocked to see Bush/Cheney signs in almost every yard on the street! Please send this e-mail on to as many people as you can. LET FREEDOM RING! Origins: On Monday, the 6th of September 2004, John Kerry took his campaign to Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, a working-class neighborhood near Pittsburgh. That day's schedule began with a front-porch question and answer session with supporters on West College Street at the home of Dale and Jody Rhome. It is that session of politicking which is the subject of the e-mail quoted above. Although not every claim made in the report can be substantiated or dismissed, some can. Statements made in two articles that appeared in the Observer-Reporter, the newspaper from the nearby town of Washington, Pennsylvania, after the 'front porch' meeting support the e-mail's claim of the street's being closed all night to traffic: "The 200 block of West College was shut down for the visit" and "On Sunday morning, the Rhomes and Kerry campaign workers went door-to-door on the street, alerting neighbors of Kerry's upcoming visit. [Said Jody Rhome] 'We also told them they had to get their cars off the street because the street was being shut down.'" However, its next assertion, that "all residents on the street were REQUIRED to remove their Bush/Cheney signs," appears to contradict a line from an Observer-Reporter article two days after the event: "In an effort to block out the few dozen Bush supporters on one end of the street, Kerry officials provided volunteers with various Kerry signs in key positions to block Bush signage." Had neighbors been made to take down their Bush/Cheney signs, nothing would have remained that required screening from sight. Yet the Observer-Reporter's statement might have referred to placards brandished by demonstrators rather than signs erected on people's lawns. However, a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette account of the day makes it clear that fixed signs were not removed, saying: "Beth Soucie, who stood in a yard filled with Bush signs, said she will stick with the Republican incumbent." The description of the Soucie yard stands at odds with the claim of removed signs, as does the photo on this page of Mrs. Soucie and two other women standing in the Bush/Cheney-festooned Soucie yard. According to a blogger called Ilja who posts on the RightNation.us forums, his conversation with Stan Soucie, the husband of the Beth Soucie interviewed and photographed by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, further argued against the 'sign removal' aspect of the account. In his 18 September 2004 post to the "Kerry Campaign Stop Angers Pennsylvania Neighborhood" thread, he reported: RightNation.us Angers He said that I could cite him [Stan Soucie] and that they were not told they had to take their Bush/Cheney signs down because there was a yard down the street from where they were standing with a whole lot of Bush signs in the yard. He did state that whenever the TV cameras would move to where a Bush sign was, the Democratic organization would hold their signs in front of the Bush signs to block out the view. However, since they were standing on a porch, the Democrat signs were not tall enough to block them. The e-mailed narrative states, "The sympathetic police officers on duty told us that Kerry used imminent domain to claim the street for his purposes." If members of the police force said that, they were in error because Senator Kerry could not have invoked "eminent domain." One block of West College was cordoned off by the Secret Service, who are charged with protecting the nominee. The Senator would not have had much, if any, say in this. John Kerry was heckled during his remarks that morning and did engage in dialogue back and forth with his detractors, which means the e-mail's "This was set up so that Kerry's views could be heard - but not the neighbors" should be viewed with skepticism. Also, that the Senator was heckled shows that the assembled crowd couldn't have been composed of only hand-picked VIPs; otherwise, there wouldn't have been that sort of sparring. This is the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's account of some of those exchanges: With a friendly crowd in Canonsburg lobbing softball questions yesterday, Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry could have ignored a pocket of hecklers that tried to disrupt his campaign. Instead, Kerry pulled the detractors into his Labor Day speech, part of the "front-porch discussions" he's been holding across the country. He told them their shouts and taunts couldn't cover up facts—namely, that America has had a net loss of 1.6 million jobs under President Bush. Gasoline prices are up 31 percent since Bush took office, and college tuition has grown more expensive by the year, he said. At the same time, he said, wages are down by $1,500 for "the average family." One heckler then shouted, "Yeah, Kerry, you're really average." Kerry pounced on the comment, replying: "No, I'm privileged, and my tax burden went down. I don't think that's right." Kerry said Bush, also a man of money and privilege, has worked hard to lessen tax payments for the wealthiest Americans. Otherwise, Kerry said, Bush has presided over an economy that is in disarray. Income for all Americans fell 9.2 percent in 2001 and 2002, according to the Internal Revenue Service. In addition, Bush has rung up record budget deficits, and he will be the first president since Herbert Hoover in the Great Depression to have lost more jobs than he created, Kerry said. "Franklin Roosevelt, Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon all created jobs during their presidencies, even though they had wars to contend with," Kerry said. The jobs developed under Bush's administration are nothing to shout about, Kerry went on. He seized on a just-released Bureau of Labor Statistics report that said new jobs in growing industries pay $8,848 a year less than jobs that were lost, either because of shrinking industries or the exportation of work to foreign soil. "If you think that's moving in the right direction, go vote for the other guy," Kerry said to the hecklers. According to the e-mail, "This morning's papers are reporting how hecklers tried to interrupt Kerry as he spoke to the neighborhood gathering, but he turned our chants to his favor by calling us rude." The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette had a different take on what was said and why: Patricia Romano of Canonsburg told Kerry that she has had 11 throat surgeries and must pay so much for prescription drugs that she had to get a part-time job at age 70. Hecklers drowned out Romano at one point. That prompted Kerry to say, "While the Bush people were rudely shouting, we had a 70-year-old woman trying to speak" about runaway costs of prescription drugs. The identity of the person who wrote this by now much-traveled account remains a mystery. Roughly three of every four copies that found their way to us were prefaced: "Received this from a very good friend in PA. She wants everyone to know what she saw." Yet in none of those forwards was the 'very good friend in PA' identified by name or her e-mail address provided; other than her gender and state of residence, nothing is known about the purported authoress of this chronicle. Paradoxically, about one-quarter of the narrations bear the name "Ken Armstrong," and about one-twentieth "Charles A. Walter." Both are decidedly male names, further muddying the question of authorship. Barbara "front porch remarks, back fence gossip" Mikkelson Last updated: 20 October 2004 Sources: Hazlett, Terry. "Prepping a Porch for Kerry." [Washington] Observer-Reporter. 8 September 2004 (p. A1). Simonich, Milan. "Kerry Jousts with Hecklers." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 7 September 2004 (p. A3). Walters, Patrick. "Heinz Kerry Visits Pittsburgh, Philadelphia for Labor Day Parades." The Associated Press. 7 September 2004. Warco, Kathie. "Rendell, Hoeffel Stump in S. Strabane." [Washington] Observer-Reporter. 7 September 2004 (p. A1).

FMD_test_6

Detailed Social Housing Initiative

07/28/2011

Claim: Video clip shows a Tacoma housing development "built for illegal immigrants" who are receiving "refugee pay." Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2011] I want to move to Tacoma... to the good life! Here is a development in Tacoma, WA (Salishan) that was built for illegal immigrants! 1,325 homes created! Refugee pay offers them $2,642 per month in SSI benefits, plus food stamps, plus Section 8 housing. You will see new expensive cars in this video. Wouldn't you like to get a free ride like the illegals? Origins: As noted by Kathleen Merryman of the Tacoma News Tribune, the video clip linked above about the Salishan housing development on Tacoma's East Side has garnered a good deal of attention for that community: William B. Mount is going viral on Salishan. The Tacoman once used public access television to air his worldview and now posts videos on YouTube. About five months ago, he and a woman named Jane drove through Salishan on Tacoma's East Side with a video camera and a big box of misinformation. They delivered a 10-minute commentary on the mixed-use and mixed-income redevelopment of the worn-out public housing site and posted it on the video-sharing site. The stew of untruths simmered there. It's at a boil now. Tacoma Housing Authority (THA) and Tacoma City Council members are receiving e-mails from people upset over what he calls the misuse of Social Security funds. As Ms. Merryman described in considerable detail in an excellent analysis of the video, virtually all of the claims made within it regarding Social Security, foreigners, and illegal immigrants are false: analysis Claim: "What you are looking at is a $225 million complex, $225 million complex, of housing out of the Social Security budget for 1,300 units." False: No Social Security funds were used to redevelop Salishan. Claim: "All welfare housing. All Social Security housing for foreigners will get $2,642 a month. All of that comes out of the Social Security budget." False: Of Salishan's renters, 97 percent are citizens of the United States, according to THA Executive Director Michael Mirra. "We know of no government program that pays $2,642 per month to foreigners," Mirra said. Claim: "The average income in here is about $13,000 per year, not including welfare, not including Social Security refugee pay, not including Women, Infants, and Children." False: The $13,000 figure is based on out-of-date 2000 Census data. As for the other sources, Mirra said: "We do not know of anyone who gets something called 'Social Security refugee pay.'" Claim: "This school was built by Tacoma specifically to house foreigners and welfare recipients." False. Lister Elementary School does not "house" any foreigners or welfare recipients. Claim: "They mollycoddle these foreigners who come across the border illegally." False. THA does not rent to people who are in this country illegally, and 97 percent of Salishan residents are U.S. citizens. Claim: "And they don't pay taxes. This housing is free if you are on Social Security refugee pay." False. Anyone who buys non-food goods and services in Washington State pays sales tax, and every Salishan household with earned income is subject to federal income taxes. Every Salishan rental household with an income pays rent. For complete information, we recommend reading the News Tribune's thorough debunking of the video. Last updated: 28 July 2011

FMD_test_7

Does Website for Wisconsin Republicans Say 'Prepare for War'?

01/12/2021

On Jan. 12, 2021, news reports surfaced alleging that a web page for Wisconsin's St. Croix County Republican Party told supporters to "prepare for war," despite urging from the state party to remove the message and the deadly insurrection by supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump at the U.S. Capitol the previous week. The reports were true. As of this report, the homepage for the local Republican group in northwestern Wisconsin read, "Si vis pacem, para bellum," the Latin adage meaning "if you want peace, prepare for war." Underneath that heading, the page stated in English: If you want peace, prepare for war. The phrase, originally coined in the 4th or 5th century, embodies the concept conveyed in earlier works such as Plato's "Nomoi" and carries with it a modern interpretation of "Peace Through Strength," a cornerstone of conservative beliefs. Welcome to the digital battlefield. The message also perpetuated the conspiracy theory that "Democrats in concert with the Marxist left and a complicit mass media" were running a coordinated scheme to undermine conservative Americans and attempt to overturn Trump's 2016 presidential win, without providing proof to support the claims. The page also alleged that Trump's political opponents colluded in an illegal scheme to block him from serving another presidential term, though numerous court battles and reviews by election security experts proved that did not happen. Rather, President-elect Joe Biden defeated Trump under election laws outlined in the Constitution and federal and state statutes, receiving at least 270 electoral votes. After those false claims, the St. Croix Republican Party's homepage stated that Trump radically changed the party and that "patriots need to continue the fight" and "stand and be counted as a conservative warrior" to uphold the Constitution and remove "leftist tyrants" from elected positions in Wisconsin. According to online archives of the URL, stcroixrepublican.org, the website at one point called for "eliminating" those political opponents instead of removing them. The St. Croix County party's chairman, John Kraft, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the homepage included the phrase "prepare for war" before the deadly insurrection in defiance of Biden's presidential win on Jan. 6. He did not specify when the page was first posted and did not respond to the local newspaper's question about whether he considered taking down the message after the attack by right-wing extremists. Kraft told the newspaper he "can't help what twisted inferences local Democrats choose to attribute to it." On Jan. 9, Kraft stated on his Facebook page that "it's never been clearer that we are absolutely at war with the left," according to The Associated Press. A representative of the group did not respond to Snopes' request for an interview for this report, though updates will be posted if someone returns the message. According to Wisconsin Republican Chairman Andrew Hitt, the state party does not control the local parties and had asked St. Croix County Republicans to remove the call to "prepare for war" before the violent insurrection, though he did not specify a date for the request. He told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "Especially in light of recent events, it's an ill-chosen phrase to express their sentiments. We suggested at an earlier date they remove this, but they declined to take our advice."

FMD_test_8

This Is Not a Real Photo of the Pope in a Puffy Coat

03/26/2023

On March 25, 2023, a photo that appeared to show 86-year-old Pope Francis out and about in a fashionable white puffer jacket went viral on social media. As many who saw it suspected, it was actually a deepfake image created via artificial intelligence (AI). It originally appeared on Reddit in the r/midjourney subreddit. Midjourney is an app that generates images from natural-language prompts, much like DALL-E, another well-known AI image-generating app. Many Midjourney experimenters share their creations in the subreddit. The image was part of a gallery comprising four different views of the pope in a puffy coat. March 2023 was something of a breakout month for AI-generated deepfakes. Mid-month, former U.S. President Donald Trump's announcement that he expected to be arrested soon in connection with the Stormy Daniels hush-money case prompted a flood of deepfake images on social media, positing imaginative scenarios surrounding such an arrest.

FMD_test_9

Did an 11-Year-Old Girl Shoot and Kill 'Illegal Aliens' Burglarizing Her Home?

05/02/2007

A story about two armed "illegal aliens" killed during an attempted home invasion by an 11-year-old shotgun-wielding girl was posted to LibertyPost.org on 25 April 2007: Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez 23 and Enrico Garza 26, probably believed they would easily overpower a home alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two story home. It seems the two crooks never learned two things, they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine. Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun. Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buck shot from the 11 year olds knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals. When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive. It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. The victim, 50 year old David Burien, was not so lucky as he died from stab wounds to the chest. Although the account was widely cited as a validation of "anti-illegal immigration" and/or pro-gun ownership positions, confirmation of the tale as a real-life incident was lacking. The only documentation for this item was numerous web sites all citing the same information, with no details of time or place (other than a reference to Montana). Searches of news databases (including Montana-based newspapers) failed to turn up any corresponding news stories containing any of the four names provided, and the name of one of the putative criminals ("Ralphel Resendez") just happened to echo an alias (Raphael Resendez-Ramirez) used by Angel Maturino Resendiz (also an undocumented immigrant), the infamous "Railroad Killer." Railroad Killer Although many versions of this item cited the home invasion incident as having taken place in Butte, Montana, that area's sheriff said no such thing had occurred in that city: When asked about the authenticity of the events described in this story, Butte-Silver Bow Sheriff John Walsh told The Montana Standard that his office never investigated such an incident. "This never happened," Walsh said. The story claims the girl shot and killed the two intruders while she was home alone. The story doesn't provide a street address or attribute the information to any official sources. Walsh brushed off the story as an urban myth. "It's amazing how these things get around," he said. The only news story (of recent vintage) we could turn up about a minor using a shotgun to kill two armed intruders attempting a home invasion robbery took place in December 2006 and involved a 17-year-old boy in Texas (rather than an 11-year-old girl in Montana): news story An overnight home invasion robbery attempt in northeast Harris County ended in a hail of gunfire that left two suspects dead. Investigators said a 17-year-old was home with his cousin when four armed men kicked in the door and started shooting. The teen pulled out a shotgun of his own and fired back at the suspects, killing two of them. Going back almost twenty years to 1988, we did find a news story about an 11-year-old shooting and killing two home intruders, but again the details didn't match the example cited above: Switzer, S.C. An 11-year-old boy who had been left alone after school shot and killed two men as they tried to steal a videocassette recorder from his family's home, police said. William Todd Knight, the son of Billy and Ann Knight, "acted very wisely," said Spartanburg County Coroner Jim Burnett. "His life was in danger, he looked for an escape and could not find one ... he was a very brave young man." Spartanburg County Sheriff's Department Capt. John Blackwood said the boy was watching cartoons in his parents' bedroom Monday afternoon when he heard noises at the front door of the family's brick, ranch-style home. Todd told officers he was scared, so he went to his room for the .22-caliber rifle his father had given him for Christmas and loaded four rounds. He then went to the front door and saw a man he described as "rough" pounding on the door. The man finally left in a white Datsun. Todd said he resumed watching cartoons and about 10 minutes later heard banging, this time at a dining room window. He saw two men climbing through the dining room window. The boy said he went into the bathroom to climb out the window, but saw the white Datsun was parked in the back yard. Todd told police he went back to the hallway, peeked around the corner into the den and was spotted by one of the intruders as they were taking the VCR. Todd then fired three rounds at the men, who dropped the VCR and fled. When police arrived, one of the dead men was found face down next to a woodpile in the back yard, approximately 50 to 75 feet from the house, while the second man was in the driver's seat of the white two-door Datsun. In October 2012, a 12-year-old Oklahoma girl shot (but did not kill) an unarmed burglar who broke into the house while she was home alone: Kendra St. Clair, 12, was at home alone in Oklahoma, when loud banging began on the door to her family's home. Soon, the glass shattered and an intruder had entered. "I was scared and I didn't know what to do next," Kendra [said]. Petrified, she called her mom Debra. "I said Kendra get the gun and go get in my closet now. And call 911." The young 6th grader followed her mom's orders to the tee. Kendra had taken shelter in a closet, clutching her mother's .40 caliber glock gun while she listened to the intruder make his way around her home. Her fear intensified to sheer terror, when she saw the knob of the closet door beginning to turn. At that point, that for the first time in her life, Kendra fired a gun. Police said the bullet traveled straight through the closet door and struck 32-year-old Stacey Jones in the shoulder, scaring him out of the house. They arrested him a few blocks away and charged Jones with first degree burglary. In January 2015, an 11-year-old Michigan girl armed with a shotgun was reported to have scared away (but not fired upon) a home intruder: An 11-year-old girl was able to scare off a suspect later taken into custody during a home invasion in Lapeer County's North Branch Township. The girl was home alone when a vehicle pulled into the driveway. One person knocked on all the doors and forced their way inside the home when there was no response. The girl locked herself inside a bathroom and hid in a closet with a shotgun. The suspect eventually opened the bathroom door and closet where the child was hiding with the weapon. The girl aimed the shotgun at the suspect, who then fled from the home. Police said the girl was not harmed during the encounter. "The 12-gauge shotgun is her weapon," said Lapeer County Sheriff Detective Sgt. Jason Parks. "She and her father are into hunting and avid sportsmen. She was familiar with that weapon." Parks praised the girl's responsibility, poise and composure. "She is fully capable of staying there by herself as we can clearly see based on this situation," he said. "She was able to defend herself from an intruder and be able to resolve an event even most adults would be taken aback by." In August 2015, an 11-year-old St. Louis boy left home with his 4-year-old sister reportedly staved off several home invasion attempts before finally shooting and killing a 16-year-old intruder, although accounts differ as to what actually took place: accounts Authorities said an 11-year-old child and his 4-year-old sister were at their home when two men attempted to break in. The suspects attempted to get into the home twice, but failed. They made their way inside through the front door on the third attempt around 2:30 p.m. After the suspects entered the home, police said, the 11-year-old picked up a gun and fatally shot Lamonte Streeter. According to police, Streeter's body was found inside the home and evidence collected at the scene indicate that he was shot while inside. Some neighbors are providing a different version of events. One woman, who said she saw the shooting, [said] the 11-year-old and Streeter were arguing on the home's front porch when the shots were fired. "The little boy's (person shot) jumped up and went towards there and laid down and he lands in the doorway. He was always sitting on the porch, he never went inside the house," said a neighbor. The second alleged intruder, identified by police as a 22-year-old man, was arrested shortly after the incident on suspicion of burglary, police said. Acosta, Roberto. "11-Year-Old Uses Shotgun to Scare Off Suspect Home Invasion." The Flint Journal. 1 February 2015. Emeigh, John Grant. "Fake Story Still Circulating on Internet." The Montana Standard. 13 December 2007. Greenblatt, Mark. "Oklahoma Girl, 12, Shoots Intruder During Home Burglary." ABC News. 20 October 2012. Associated Press. "Boy, 11, Shoots, Kills 2 Intruders." The [Elyria, OH] Chronicle Telegram. 15 March 1988 (p. 6). KHOU-TV [Houston]. "Teen Shoots, Kills 2 Would-Be Robbers." 28 December 2006.

FMD_test_10

Spokane Man Saves Ducklings Jumping from Building Ledge

07/30/2008

Mallard ducks frequently make their nests at ground level, but for whatever reason a female Mallard in downtown Spokane, Washington, chose a cement awning ten feet up an office building for her nesting site. As detailed in viral email at the time, the duck laid her clutch of eggs just outside the window of Joel Armstrong, a senior loan officer at Sterling Savings Bank, and he arrived at work one day in May 2008 to find the ducklings hatched and the mother standing on the edge of the awning. As Armstrong watched, mama duck then flew down to the sidewalk below, and her ducklings started lining up on the ledge to jump down onto the hard concrete below to join her: Something really amazing happened in Downtown Spokane this week and I had to share the story with you. Some of you may know that my brother, Joel, is a loan officer at Sterling Bank. He works downtown in a second story office building, overlooking busy Riverside Avenue. Several weeks ago he watched a mother duck choose the cement awning outside his window as the uncanny place to build a nest above the sidewalk. The mallard laid nine eggs in a nest in the corner of the planter that is perched over 10 feet in the air. She dutifully kept the eggs warm for weeks and Monday afternoon all of her nine ducklings hatched. Joel worried all night how the mamma duck was going to get those babies safely off their perch in a busy, downtown, urban environment to take to water, which typically happens in the first 48 hours of a duck hatching. Tuesday morning, Joel came to work and watched the mother duck encourage her babies to the edge of the perch with the intent to show them how to jump off! The mother flew down below and started quacking to her babies above. In his disbelief Joel watched as the first fuzzy newborn toddled to the edge and astonishingly leapt into thin air, crashing onto the cement below. My brother couldn't watch how this might play out. He dashed out of his office and ran down the stairs the sidewalk where the first obedient duckling was stuporing near its mother from the near fatal fall. Joel looked up. The second duckling was getting ready to jump! He quickly dodged under the awning while the mother duck quacked at him and the babies above. As the second one took the plunge, Joel jumped forward and caught it with his bare hands before it hit the cement. Safe and sound, he set it by the mamma and the other stunned sibling, still recovering from its painful leap. One by one the babies continued to jump to join their anxious family below. Each time Joel hid under the awning just to reach out in the nick of time as the duckling made its free fall. The downtown sidewalk came to a standstill. Time after time, Joel was able to catch the remaining 7 and set them by their approving mother. At this point Joel realized the duck family had only made part of its dangerous journey. They had 2 full blocks to walk across traffic, crosswalks, curbs, and pedestrians to get to the closest open water, the Spokane River. The onlooking office secretaries then joined in, and hurriedly brought an empty copy paper box to collect the babies. They carefully corralled them, with the mother's approval, and loaded them up into the white cardboard container. Joel held the box low enough for the mom to see her brood. He then slowly navigated through the downtown streets toward the Spokane River, as the mother waddled behind and kept her babies in sight. As they reached the river, the mother took over and passed him, jumping into the river and quacking loudly. At the water's edge, the Sterling Bank office staff then tipped the box and helped shepherd the babies toward the water and to their mother after their adventurous ride. All nine darling ducklings safely made it into the water and paddled up snugly to mamma duck. Joel said the mom swam in circles, looking back toward the beaming bank workers, and proudly quacking as if to say, 'See, we did it! Thanks for all the help! Thankfully, one of the secretaries had a digital camera and was able to capture most of it (except the actual mid-air catching) in a series of attached photographs. Please join me in celebrating my brother The Downtown Duck Hero! [Ed. note: Yes, we're aware that the captions to the pictures displayed above reference nine ducklings, even though ten are plainly visible in some photographs.] Joel Armstrong himself described what happened for Spokane television station KREM: "The first duckling goes to the edge and... smack. Just hits the sidewalk," he said. Horrified, Armstrong darted out of his office and to the sidewalk below. The duckling laid motionless for about 10 seconds before regaining its senses. The next thing Armstrong knew, all the ducklings had instinctively lined up on the ledge ready to follow the first one's lead. Now lined up a like a centerfielder, Armstrong proceeded to shag ducks like falling baseballs from the sky with his bare hands. "In one instance two jumped at the same time," he said. Armstrong caught both. "I truly think the entire time the mother duck could sense I was trying to help," he said. "She just stood there and allowed me to catch them." Armstrong and some of his Sterling Savings co-workers then tried to escort the mother and her offspring to the Spokane River, but the ducklings were too slow to dodge traffic and make it all the way to the water under their own power. So their human helpers obtained a cardboard box, placed the ducklings into it, and walked them to the river, where the little fowl quickly took to the more hospitable aquatic environment. "It was amazing watching them jump," Armstrong said. "Could you imagine the second day of your life having to jump from a building to get home?" Armstrong's story quickly spread on the Internet in the form of the narrative reproduced above, put together by his sister, Candace Mumm. narrative In May 2009, the "duckling rescue" scenario was repeated when a second brood of ducklings hatched on the ledge at Sterling Savings Bank and was once again caught by Joel Armstrong as they jumped from their nest. hatched Variations: A March 2009 variant shifted the setting of this piece from Spokane to San Antonio; the duckling savior to "Michael R" (said to be an accounting clerk instead of a loan officer); and the bank to "Frost Bank." Also, instead of just "onlooking secretaries" helping corral the ducklings, the variant reported that "several San Antonio Police Officers" helped get the ducklings into the box to be carried to the river. Blocker, Kevin. "Man Catches Ducklings Jumping from Ledge." KREM-TV [Spokane, WA]. 26 May 2008. KREM-TV [Spokane, WA]. "Duck Makes Nest on Spokane Office Ledge ... Again." 1 May 2009. KREM-TV [Spokane, WA]. "Duck Family's Amazing Journey Caught on Tape." 19 May 2009.

FMD_test_11

Is This Surprising Payment from an Unknown Individual Genuine?

04/02/2020

In March 2020, the prospect of the U.S. government's sending out $1,200 stimulus checks to individual taxpayers as part of a $2 trillion emergency economic package to address the COVID-19 pandemic created a prime opportunity for grifters who engage in scams that involve luring victims by mailing checks to them. In particular, a several-year-old check-scam warning was widely recirculated via social media. Such warnings served a useful purpose in alerting many viewers to be wary of receiving checks in the mail from unexpected sources. However, they also poorly served audiences by misstating how the underlying scams connected with those checks work. It is not the case, as claimed in the warning reproduced above and in the following news clip, that the scammers who mail out these checks "do this in hopes of getting your account information when you deposit the check," and then using that information to clean out your bank account. A little common sense would be relevant here: If simply depositing a check provided the sender of that check with the means to obtain your personal banking information and drain your bank account, it would be unsafe for any bank customer to ever deposit any check. Clearly, that is not the case, as millions of people maintain checking accounts without regularly falling victim to scammers. All such check scams have two essential components: 1) Scammers mail out counterfeit checks (often made out in the names of real organizations) to lure their victims into believing they are receiving money. 2) Scammers instruct their victims to send back some of the funds they supposedly received from depositing the fake checks (usually via wire transfer, Western Union, PayPal, or gift cards). The scammers count on the fact that funds from deposited checks are often made available to bank customers before the banks can confirm that the checks are authentic and have cleared. The victims of these scams, mistakenly believing they have received "free money" once they have deposited their fake checks, are then usually receptive to sending some of that money back to the scammers for some legitimate-sounding purpose. But by the time the victims' banks discover the deposited checks were bad, the scammers already have the money their victims forwarded to them, and the victims are stuck paying all of those funds back to their banks. The person running the scam convinces a victim to cash a check and then send, via wire transfer, a portion of the money to another location. The portion kept by the victim can be called payment for a job, part of a commission, or a prize. However, the check turns out to be a very convincing fake. Banks in the United States are required to make funds available within a few days, but it can take weeks for a fraudulent check to be discovered. This means the wire transfers will happen long before the bank or the victim discovers that the initial check was fake. This scheme is effective because many consumers aren't fully aware of how the check-clearance process works. Unfortunately, the term "clear" sometimes gets used prematurely. An item has cleared only after your bank receives funds from the check writer's bank. Bank employees might tell you that a check has cleared, and your bank's computer systems might show that you have those funds available for withdrawal, but that doesn't necessarily mean you can spend the money risk-free. In many cases, when a bank employee tells you an item cleared, they are saying you can spend that money with your debit card, withdraw cash from an ATM, or set up a payment online. Most of the time, this informal terminology is fine because funds typically arrive as expected. Most of the confusion around checks comes from bank policies and federal laws that allow you to spend money before a check really clears. Banks are required to make a portion of your deposit available quickly—usually the first $200 or, on certain official checks, $5,000—and they might need to release the remaining funds after several business days. But that policy might prematurely provide access to the money. It does not mean the funds successfully arrived from the check writer's bank. If a check bounces, the bank reverses the deposit to your account—even if you already spent some or all of the money from that deposit. If you don't have enough money in your account to cover the reversal, you end up with a negative account balance, and you could start bouncing other payments and racking up fees. Ultimately, you are responsible for deposits you make to your account, and you're the one at risk. The lures that scammers use to dupe their victims into sending them the illusory proceeds from the depositing of counterfeit checks are many and varied: Mystery Shopping Scam: Scammers engage victims to act as "mystery shoppers" by making purchases from various vendors in order to rate their service. The scammers then send out counterfeit checks to their victims, instructing them to keep a portion of the funds to cover the costs of purchasing and returning the goods and to compensate them for their time, then wire back the rest of the money. Reshipping Scam: Scammers engage job-seekers to act as work-at-home re-shippers, receiving (possibly stolen) goods and sending them on to other locations. Then the counterfeit checks those re-shippers are sent to compensate them for their efforts and to reimburse them for the shipping charges they incurred bounce, and they're left holding the bag. Payment-Processing Scam: Scammers hire job-seekers to work as payment processors. The victims are instructed to open business accounts in their own name, deposit counterfeit checks sent to them into those accounts, then disburse the deposited funds as directed by the scammers. When the business account overdraws because the deposited checks are fake and bounce, the victim is on the hook for making restitution to the bank. Windfall Scam: Scammers send out counterfeit checks that they declare are the proceeds from an inheritance, lottery win, or some other type of prize giveaway. Recipients are instructed to deposit the checks and return a share of the money to cover processing fees, shipping and handling charges, legal fees, taxes, or other charges. Online Sales Overpayment Scam: Scammers agree to purchase items that have been advertised for sale or auction online, then send out counterfeit checks for greater than the sale price and ask the victims to refund the overpayments. Rental Scams: Scammers respond to ads seeking roommates or tenants, send a check to cover the rent plus a little extra, then ask that the overpayment be forwarded to another party to cover moving expenses. As the U.S. Federal Trade Commission succinctly describes such scams: Fake checks drive many types of scams like those involving phony prize wins, fake jobs, mystery shoppers, online classified ad sales, and others. In a fake check scam, a person you don't know asks you to deposit a check—sometimes for several thousand dollars and usually for more than what you are owed—and wire some of the money back to that person. The scammers always have a good story to explain the overpayment—they're stuck out of the country, they need you to cover taxes or fees, you need to buy supplies, or something else. But by the time your bank discovers you've deposited a bad check, the scammer already has the money you sent, and you're stuck paying the rest of the check back to the bank. The best way to avoid falling victim to such scams is not to cash or deposit checks for people you do not know, not to wire money to people you do not know, and not to spend funds from large checks you have deposited until you have verified with your bank that those checks have fully cleared.

FMD_test_12

Did Abraham Lincoln Express Opposition to Racial Equality?

08/16/2017

In the aftermath of violence at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017 (and in the context of a wider debate over the removal of Confederate statues), a particular quote spread on Facebook and Twitter, appearing to indicate Abraham Lincoln's opposition to racial equality. On 14 August, the remarks formed part of a Dallas Morning News column by former Texas State Senator Jerry Patterson, who wrote: wrote During his famous debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln explained to the crowd: "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ... I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." Lincoln was no different than most white males, North and South, at the time. He was a white supremacist. The quote as presented by Patterson, and in several Facebook and Twitter posts, is authentic. Lincoln did make those remarks on 18 September 1858. They came at the beginning of his opening speech at the fourth of seven famous debates with Stephen Douglas, during Lincoln's unsuccessful campaign for the U.S. Senate in Illinois. Lincoln had been under attack from Democrats who accused him of supporting racial equality, and his comments were a defense against those allegations. Facebook Twitter There is no official transcript of those debates, and the accounts published at the time in two Illinois newspapers the Republican Chicago Press and Tribune and the Democratic Chicago Times often diverged along partisan lines, according to Rodney Davis and Douglas Wilson's annotated "Lincoln-Douglas Debates" (page vii.) page vii Nonetheless, here are the most relevant remarks, as reported in the pro-Lincoln Chicago Press and Tribune on 21 September 1858. You can read that day's report in full here. here Chicago Tribune Archives Despite the frequent spinning of the speeches by both newspapers, there appears to be consensus on Lincoln's Charleston remarks regarding racial equality. The Chicago Times report, reprinted in Harold Holzer's 1993 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, does not significantly vary from that published by the Press and Tribune: reprinted I will say then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, of having them to marry with white people. I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality, and inasmuch, as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man. Of course, this excerpt from one speech does not represent the totality of Lincoln's views on race and racial equality, but the remarks were far from a complete outlier, and Lincoln's views were more complex and uncomfortable than the prevalent modern impression of him as the racially-enlightened Great Emancipator. We spoke to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, author of several books on Lincoln, including The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. Eric Foner "There's no question that: one, before the Civil War, Lincoln hated slavery. He always did," Foner told us: Two, he shared many of the prejudices of his society. That was a deeply racist society both north and south before the Civil War. He did insist that black people were entitled to what they call the natural rights of man life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.... And also that black people were entitled to what they used to call the fruits of their own labor. During the Civil War, Foner says, Lincoln's views evolved radically as he was exposed to black people such as Frederick Douglass, who were far more talented than he had assumed, and as the efforts of freed slaves in the Union army earned them, in Lincoln's view, the right to citizenship. Just before his death, Lincoln gave a speech in which he mentioned the possibility of giving black Union soldiers and wealthy black elites the right to vote, in direct contradiction to his 1858 remarks. And yet, Foner told us, for a long time Lincoln's plan for black people in the United States largely consisted of arranging for them to the leave the country and set up colonies elsewhere. Foner also warned against overemphasizing the importance of ethnicity to Lincoln by isolating specific racist remarks he made: The fact is, Lincoln said almost nothing about race. He was not that interested in race...Race was not a major intellectual construct for Lincoln...And the 1858 speech was purely defensive. That doesn't excuse it, but he was being attacked in those debates as believing in negro equality. "Whereas abolition was a central aspect of Lincolns moral compass", the Harvard historian Henry Louis Gates wrote in 2009, "racial equality was not": 2009 ...Lincoln despised slavery as an institution, an economic institution that discriminated against white men who couldnt afford to own slaves and, thus, could not profit from the advantage in the marketplace that slaves provided. At the same time, however, he was deeply ambivalent about the status of black people vis--vis white people, having fundamental doubts about their innate intelligence and their capacity to fight nobly with guns against white men in the initial years of the Civil War. Gates concluded: [Lincoln] certainly embraced anti-black attitudes and phobias in his early years and throughout his debates with Douglas in the 1858 Senate race... By the end of the Civil War, Lincoln was on an upward arc, perhaps heading toward becoming the man he has since been mythologized as being: the Great Emancipator, the man who freed and loved the slaves. But his journey was certainly not complete on the day that he died. Abraham Lincoln wrestled with race until the end. Patterson, Jerry. "If We Mean to Remove Memorials of White Supremacists, that Includes Lincoln." Dallas Morning News. 14 August 2017. Davis, Rodney O.; Wilson, Douglas J. [eds]. "The Lincoln-Douglas Debates." University of Illinois Press. 2008. Chicago Daily Press and Tribune. "Mr. Lincoln's Speech." Chicago Tribune Archive. 21 September 1858. Holzer, Harold. [Editor]. "The Lincoln-Douglas Debates." Fordham University Press. 2004. Gates Jr., Henry Louis. "Was Lincoln a Racist?" The Root. 12 February 2009.

FMD_test_13

Is This Meme About Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccinations Accurate?

07/07/2020

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 During the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic of 2020, social media was rife with misinformation about the disease and potential treatments for it, as exemplified by the following meme: All of the substantive statements contained in this meme are false or purely speculative, as detailed below: "The COVID-19 vaccine will be mandatory in order to go back to school." As of this writing (mid-2020), no effective COVID-19 vaccine exists, nor is it known when (or if) one will become available. Should such a vaccine be produced, whether children will be required to take it before returning to school is a decision that will be made at local levels and based on a variety of factors. No one can assert at this time with any reliability that all schoolchildren everywhere will have to be vaccinated to attend school again. "They will contain RFID chips." The notion that citizens will be subjected to compulsory, involuntary implantation with RFID chips (so the government can better track them) is an old conspiracy theory trope with no basis in fact. The specific claim that the COVID-19 pandemic is being used as a pretext to push a vaccine with a microchip capable of tracking Americans (along with the rest of the world's population) is one that we have already debunked at length. RFID chips debunked at length "The Bible says you will break out into boils." The Bible does not say that humans will "break out into boils" as a result of COVID-19 vaccinations or RFID chips. The Bible is silent on both these subjects, as vaccination and RFID technologies were not developed until many centuries after the texts that comprise the Bible were written and compiled. "Many kids will die from the COVID-19 vaccine. Just to remind you the 4 kids that took the vaccine, died immediately." As no effective COVIO-19 yet exists, no one can say that "many kids" will die from it, nor, obviously, that any children have already died from it. The latter rumor is also one we previously debunked at length here on Snopes.com debunked at length

FMD_test_14

Was Hillary Clinton Offered a Plea Deal in August 2017?

08/10/2017

On 8 August 2017, NewsMax author Ed Klein published an article ("Hillary's Plea Bargain") heavily insinuating that Hillary Clinton had been quietly offered a plea bargain due to the Justice Department's belief that the former candidate was prosecutable on "a number of counts." That claim rested on a solitary anonymous source, purportedly a "Clinton lawyer." That designator was not further qualified or explained, and it seems contradictory that a lawyer purportedly working on Clinton's behalf would leak such a potentially damaging tidbit about his client to the author of several anti-Clinton books. Klein claimed that "discussion" of a plea took place in July 2017 between the unnamed lawyer and "a high-ranking Justice Department" official: The Justice Department has reopened the investigation of Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified material on her private email system while she was secretary of state, and is considering offering her a plea bargain if she will agree to plead guilty to charges of breaking the law, according to a Clinton attorney ... During the exploratory talks with the prosecutor, the Clinton attorney was told that despite former FBI Director James Comey's decision last July not to prosecute Hillary, the Justice Department has reexamined the email case and believes there are ample grounds for prosecuting Hillary on a number of counts. Under the Justice Department's plea offer, Hillary would be required to sign a document admitting that she committed a prosecutable crime. In return, the DOJ would agree not to bring charges against Hillary in connection with the email probe. Also as part of the agreement, the Justice Department would not proceed with an investigation of Hillary's pay to play deals with foreign governments and businessmen who contributed to the Clinton Foundation or who paid Bill Clinton exorbitant speaking fees. The article concluded with a stipulation that the source had "cautioned that normally a plea is offered by a prosecutor only upon arraignment," whereas Clinton had not been charged with any crime. No other news reports we located carried a version of the claim that was not sourced from Klein's article, and his Twitter header suggests that he is perhaps emotionally invested in the prospect of Clinton's theoretical indictment: header Despite doubling down on his remarks about the Clinton investigation, there seemed to be a discrepancy in communication, because after the article was published, he told [America Talks Lives Miranda] Khan that the Department of Justice was considering reopening it, not that they had reopened it. They are seriously thinking of reopening this investigation and therefore if she doesnt take the plea agreement, which I agree with you, she almost certainly wont, I think they will then proceed with this investigation and this is going to drag on for a long time and in a way balance the investigation thats going on with President Donald Trump and his campaign advisers regarding so-called collusion with the Russians. The outlet was far from the first to take issue with Klein's sourcing and attribution. In 2012, Politico reported: reported On the other hand, his Clinton book was strewn with serious factual errors, truncated and distorted quotes, and the overall themes don't gibe with any other serious accounts of Clinton's life. The disdain for Klein's previous efforts haven't necessarily broken along political lines. Of the same tome, conservative New York Post columnist John Podhoretz said in 2005: said Curious and revealing. Because if any book in recent memory reads as though it has been written out of greed a greedy hunger to separate millions of conservative book buyers from their hard-earned 25 bucks it is Ed Klein's "The Truth About Hillary." This is one of the most sordid volumes I've ever waded through. Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn't have to suffer through another word. It's June 2005. Hillary Clinton has been a major public figure in the United States for nearly 15 years. Somehow I imagine that if, indeed, she had "embraced" lesbianism "as a revolutionary concept" during her college years years that have been written about exhaustively we would have heard about it before now ... We also probably would have heard by now that Bill Clinton learned Hillary was pregnant with Chelsea by reading about it in an Arkansas newspaper. This detail is offered up by a single source an "investment banker from New York" in the course of a story about how Bill "raped" Hillary while on vacation in Bermuda in 1979. Coupled with the claim was a second assertion that Clinton never bothered to inform her husband she was pregnant. In 2005, Klein (in his own words) "dial[ed] back" during an interview about the passage on C-SPAN2, essentially retracting the claim in its entirety: interview HOST: OK. Is it true that Bill Clinton found out that his wife was expecting by reading the newspaper? KLEIN: Yes. HOST: Tell us a little bit more about that. KLEIN: Well, let me actually dial back. HOST: All right. KLEIN: I suspect that Bill Clinton knew that his wife was pregnant since she was pregnant for three months by the time the announcement came out. But it is true that the announcement was not made in the names of Governor and Mrs. Clinton or Governor and Ms. Rodham as she was then known, but was made in her name alone, and that she made the announcement and Bill Clinton said to my source, whom he was speaking to on the phone, "Guess what, you'll never you'll never believe this, but I'm sitting here reading that Hillary has announced she's pregnant." That's how he found out that she HOST: The announcement had been made. KLEIN: The announcement had been made. In 2014, The Guardian reviewed a subsequent Clinton book, Blood Feud: reviewed On a sunny afternoon in May last year, we are told, Hillary Clinton gathered six girlfriends from Wellesley's class of 1969 for a boozy lunch at Le Jardin du Roi, a bistro near her home in Chappaqua, New York. Recently liberated from the State Department, Clinton is said to have let loose on her erstwhile boss, accusing President Obama of having no hand on the fucking tiller. Klein discloses breathlessly that the wines had been carefully chosen by Roi, the owner of the restaurant, and that Roi waited on Hillary personally and prepared a special vegan dish for her after the former first lady told him that she was trying to lose weight. There is, however, a problem with this centrepiece of Blood Feuds prologue. Le Jardin du Roi was not named after the backyard of a man called Roi. It means The Garden of the King, or The Kings Garden in French. Its just the name of the restaurant, a puzzled staff member told the Guardian when reached by telephone. The name of the man who owns the restaurant is Joe. This is not the first glaring factual error to have made its way into Kleins reporting. It is not even the first time a mistake has been made in the very first anecdote of one of his books ... Two publishing industry sources familiar with the situation confirmed a report by BuzzFeed [in 2014] that Blood Feud had been dropped by its original publisher, William Morrow, because the content did not pass a vetting by in-house lawyers. When youre at an imprint of HarperCollins, which is part of NewsCorp, they take that stuff very seriously, and they check all of your sources and notes and they want to know where you got stuff, said one. Klein's suggestion that Hillary Clinton was to be indicted and had already been offered a plea deal quickly travelled through hyperpartisan corners of the Internet, but a number of criticisms of Klein's relationships with facts and sources have dogged his work from at least 2005, with numerous prominent conservative journalists among his most vocal critics. Klein, Ed. "Hillary's Plea Bargain." NewsMax. 8 August 2017. Podhoretz, John. "Smear For Profit." New York Post. 22 June 2005. Swaine, Jon. "Edward Klein: The Difference Between The Truth And A Lie." The Guardian. 14 July 2014. Taylor, Sarah. "Report: Hillary Clinton Email Investigation Reopened Clinton Purportedly Offered Plea Deal." The Blaze. 9 August 2017. Thrush, Glenn. "Ed Klein's Obama Book Debuts At #1 On Times List -- Knocks Caro To #2." Politico. 24 May 2012.

FMD_test_15

Does This Photograph Show Beetles Embedded in a Dog's Mouth?

11/21/2015

In mid-November 2015, a photograph purportedly showing what resemble common ladybugs and Japanese beetles embedded on the roof of a dog's mouth began circulating via Facebook: Most of the users who shared the above-displayed image on Facebook included a variation of the following message: SOMEBODY ASKED ME TO PASS THIS ALONG .... Japanese Beetles and Lady Bugs can attach to the roof of your dog's mouth, and make him/HER become ill. Symptoms include excessive drooling. Check your dog's mouth and remove any insects. While we haven't been able to identify who the "Somebody" is in the above-quoted Facebook post, a message posted by the Hands & Paws group did provide some information about the image's origin: provide This posted photograph is recent posted by a vet tech and when I saw the photo started doing research - because I too thought there was no way the photo could be real. There is no photoshop there is no hidden agenda. It's just me. The Founder of a tiny little dog rescue in Florida finding the photo and the facts behind the photo amazing, astonishing and wanted to share the information with my fellow dog lovers. We reached out to Hands & Paws for more information about the image without results, but multiple incidents are on record of beetles embedding in dogs' mouths, such as this one from November 2016: this one Frances Jiriks brought her pooch Bailey into Hoisington Veterinary Hospital after he refused to eat, she told KAKE. He was also foaming at the mouth and a bit lethargic, the dog owner said. When they arrived at the animal clinic, Dr. Lindsay Mitchell discovered between 30 and 40 lady beetles clinging to the roof of Baileys mouth. The beetles look nearly identical to ladybugs though they secrete a mucus which allows them to stick, as they did inside Baileys mouth. The bugs were successfully removed from the dogs mouth, but Mitchell warned their presence could pose a variety of health risks to mans best friend. [Video here] Video here In 2008, Lindsey Derek published an article in the journal Toxicon about the subject: article A six-year old mixed-breed dog presented with severe trauma to the oral mucosa suggestive of chemical burn. Sixteen Harmonia axyridis (Coccinellidae) were removed from the oral cavity, which revealed trauma consistent with chemical burn. The beetles had become embedded in mucosa covering the hard palate and required manual removal. A diagnosis of beetle-induced chemical burn was warranted and consistent with the nature of the chemical constituents of H. axyridis hemolymph. That article also included a photograph of the beetles in the dog's mouth, which closely resembled the image circulated in November 2015: KAKE-TV [Wichita]. "Lady Beetles Causing Problems for Pet Owners." 19 October 2016. Schladebeck, Jessica. "Photo of Kansas Dog with Mouth Full of Asian Lady Beetles Illustrates Health Issue for Pups." [New York] Daily News. 4 November 2016. Stocks, Ian C. and Derek E.Lindsey "Acute Corrosion of the Oral Mucosa in a Dog Due to Ingestion of Multicolored Asian Lady Beetles." Toxicon. 10 May 2008.

FMD_test_16

Says taxes paid by the poorest residents of Texas are above the national average.

03/14/2011

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman sees Texas as a model for how things might be going wrong across the nation. In his latest blast, posted online on Feb. 27, he critiques the state's reputedly low taxes. "Texas taxes are low, at least if you're in the upper part of the income distribution," Krugman writes. He adds, parenthetically, that taxes on the bottom 40 percent of the population are actually above the national average. It is undisputed that the two major Texas state and local taxes—sales and property—impose a greater burden on low-income Texans. According to the Texas State Comptroller's latest study of tax incidence, issued last month, Texas households earning $29,223 or less are expected to spend 6 percent of their income on general sales taxes and 5.3 percent of their income on school property taxes in 2013. The report states that households earning more than $29,223 are likely to spend, on average, no more than 3.4 percent of their income on each of the two taxes. The left-leaning Austin-based Center on Public Policy Priorities wrote in 2009 that Texas relies on the sales tax for more than half of all state tax revenue—a pattern typical of regressive tax systems. Since low- and moderate-income Texans tend to spend all of their income each year to support their families, the sales tax takes a much greater percentage of their income than it does from higher-income families, who can afford to save some of their income or spend it on services that are not subject to the sales tax. Yet do the state's poorest residents also pay higher taxes than the national average? By e-mail, Krugman told us he based his statement on an analysis released on Nov. 18, 2009, by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a research arm of Washington-based Citizens for Tax Justice, which advocates for fair taxation of middle- and low-income families. The study indicates that the 20 percent of Texas families earning less than $18,000 a year spend 12.2 percent of their income on state and local taxes, while the next-wealthiest 20 percent of families, earning $18,000 to $31,000, spend 10.2 percent of their income on these taxes, which largely consist of sales and property taxes. Nationally, the poorest 20 percent and the next-poorest 20 percent of families spend an average of 10.9 percent and 10 percent of their income, respectively, on state and local taxes, according to the study. Conversely, the study states that the 60 percent of Texas families earning $31,000 or more contribute a smaller portion of their income to state and local taxes than the national average. Texas households in the top 20 percent of income, earning $89,000 or more, paid 5.8 percent of their income or less, while such households nationally paid 8.8 percent or less. Texas is among 10 states with particularly regressive tax systems, the study notes. One result is that low-income families pay almost six times as much of their earnings in taxes as do the wealthy, while middle-income families in these states pay up to three-and-a-half times as high a share of their income as the wealthiest families. We reached Matt Gardner, the institute's director. He stated that the study drew on data from the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Census Bureau's American Community Survey. He mentioned that it was methodologically improved from earlier attempts by the institute to gauge who bears the brunt of state and local taxes. Next, we shared the methodological details that Gardner provided with Billy Hamilton, a former deputy state comptroller of Texas. Hamilton, who was involved in the state's past studies of tax incidence, remarked, "It sounds like what they did is very logical." Gardner affirmed that Krugman's comparison accurately reflects the study. We noticed that the difference between what the second-poorest 20 percent of Texas households pay and the national average appears small; the Texans paid only 0.2 percent more. Based on a $30,000 annual income, that's $60 more. Though measurable, it's not a huge difference, Gardner noted. Footnote: Krugman's statement might not have applied to both subsets of lower-income Texans in the past. The institute's previous studies, based on different methodologies and 1995 and 2002 tax payments, similarly showed the poorest 20 percent of Texans paying more than their counterparts nationally. However, the next-to-poorest 20 percent of Texans paid a smaller portion of their incomes in state and local taxes than residents in the same income group nationally, Gardner explained. We rate Krugman's statement as True.

FMD_test_17

Does AARP Support the Democratic Party?

08/19/2020

In mid-August 2020, Snopes readers inquired about a meme circulating on Facebook that claimed money given to AARP (formerly American Association of Retired Persons), an advocacy organization that lobbies on behalf of retired Americans, goes "directly" to the Democratic party. It's unclear what exactly is meant by the phrase, "what you pay AARP." The organization has an estimated 38 million members, all of whom typically pay annual dues at $16 per year. As a 501(c)4 tax-exempt organization, it also accepts charitable donations. estimated dues at tax-exempt accepts Either way, any money paid to AARP through membership dues or donations does not go "directly" to the Democratic party. The AARP lobbies the government on behalf of causes that affect people aged 50 and older. Those activities may include taking a stand on health care and Social Security. stand Social Security In terms of candidates and political parties, however, AARP's official position is that it is non-partisan. The organization states it "does not support, endorse or contribute to political candidates or parties." states Instead, per AARP, the organization's role in terms of election politics is "connecting voters to information about where the candidates stand on issues most important to them including the future of Social Security and other critical issues related to financial security, health and well-being." We checked the AARP's federal campaign finance data using the website Open Secrets, a project operated by the government accountability organization The Center for Responsive Politics. We found no contributions to any political candidates or parties, Democratic or otherwise, from AARP, the organization. However, contributions from individuals who work for AARP is another matter. Open Secrets "AARP does not have any record of direct contributions to political parties or candidates based on my review of federal campaign finance and tax filings covering recent years, but AARPs officers [executives] and employees can still make political donations in a personal capacity, and contributions from donors listing AARP as their employer in Federal Election Commission records have primarily gone to Democratic candidates in recent years," said Anna Massoglia, a researcher for The Center for Responsive Politics. AARP policy prohibits employees or officers from engaging in any personal political activity using AARP resources or during work hours. policy According to campaign finance data tracked by Open Secrets, individual donors associated with AARP made a total of $96,381 in political contributions as of this writing in the 2020 federal election cycle, the majority (87.45%) of those donations going to Democratic candidates. total majority Massoglia said that as a 501(c)4 organization, the AARP is allowed under U.S. tax code to engage in some political campaign activity. But their activities have been issue-oriented and bipartisan. For example, a 2018 AARP ad praised U.S. President Donald Trump on drug pricing policy. The organization has also supported upholding the Affordable Care Act, the landmark health care law signed by Trump's Democratic predecessor, President Barack Obama. praised supported AARP spokesperson Jason Young told us by phone that the organization, as a 501(c)4 non-profit, is prohibited by law from making political contributions. "Not only does AARP not make donations of this sort, we never have and we don't have a PAC," Young added. Young said that although some AARP employees have made political contributions in a personal capacity, the sum of donations is relatively small. "It's fair to say we are largely absent form this type of political engagement, and that's because AARP as an organization is focused on policy, not politics," Young stated. Although it's true that individuals who work for AARP have donated primarily to Democratic candidates, individual donations are not the same as contributions by an organization. Because AARP as an organization has not contributed to the Democratic party or its candidates, we rate this claim, Hahn, Steve. "Voter and Candidate Reminder: AARP Is Strictly Non-Partisan." AARP. 26 August 2016. AARP.org. "How Much Does AARP Membership Cost?" Accessed 18 August 2020. AARP.org. "IRS Definition." 3 March 2011. AARP. org. "AARP Policy on Personal Political Activity." Accessed 19 August 2020. Bunis, Dena."AARP Urges Federal Appeals Court to Preserve the ACA." 1 April 2019. Updated to include comments from AARP spokesperson Jason Young.

FMD_test_18

Did Ghislaine Maxwell Attend Chelsea Clinton's Wedding?

04/27/2022

A photograph frequently shared on social media appears to show convicted sex trafficker and former Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell watching as former U.S. President Bill Clinton walks his daughter, Chelsea, down the aisle at her wedding. Then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, her mother, was also in attendance but is out of frame in the picture. It is true that this is a real photograph, available on the Getty Images licensing website. It has not been doctored, and the woman circled below in film director Adam McKay's 2019 tweet is indeed Maxwell. The photograph of Maxwell at Clinton's wedding received a wave of new shares in April 2022 following news that Tesla CEO Elon Musk was buying Twitter. The picture was reshared in response to other social media users (who presumably dislike Musk) sharing a real photograph of him standing near Maxwell at a public event. The photograph of Musk and Maxwell was captured at the Vanity Fair Oscar Party in 2014. Musk later tweeted that he didn't know her and that she had "photobombed" him. According to BBC.com, Chelsea married investment banker Marc Mezvinsky at the Astor Courts estate in New York on July 31, 2010. A no-fly zone was in place above the Hudson Valley, and nearby roads were closed as guests arrived in limousines. Television star Oprah Winfrey, film director Steven Spielberg, Hollywood actor Tom Hanks, and singer Barbra Streisand are reportedly among the 500 guests. Earlier, actors Ted Danson and his wife Mary Steenburgen told reporters in the town of Rhinebeck, where many of those invited were staying, that they were both excited about attending the ceremony. Weeks prior to the wedding, on June 18, 2010, New York Magazine's Intelligencer reported that Chelsea purportedly had a firm policy on who was to be invited. According to the article, "bride-side sources" said that Chelsea "instituted a strict no-strangers policy" and that "she must personally know every invitee." Years later, in 2019, Politico published that "a person familiar with the relationship" said that, prior to the 2010 wedding, Chelsea had become close with Maxwell, something that a spokesperson for Clinton later disputed. Maxwell's family knew Trump before Epstein arrived on the scene, and she continued to socialize with Chelsea Clinton after Epstein was jailed on sex offenses. Maxwell first grew close with the Clintons after Bill Clinton left office, vacationing on a yacht with Chelsea Clinton in 2009, attending her wedding in 2010, and participating in the Clinton Global Initiative as recently as 2013, years after her name first emerged in accounts of Epstein's alleged sexual abuse. A person familiar with the relationship said that Ghislaine was the contact between Epstein and Clinton. She ended up being close to the family because she and Chelsea became close. Lawyers for Maxwell did not respond to requests for comment, and a spokesperson for Clinton disputed the idea that the two women were ever close. The reference to Epstein being "jailed on sex offenses" referred to his previous time behind bars in 2008 and 2009, prior to the 2010 wedding. A secret plea deal reached in 2007 required Epstein to serve 18 months in jail, followed by 12 months of house arrest. He ended up leaving jail after around 13 months. At the time, reports indicated there were "roughly" 40 girls who had been identified as victims. On Aug. 10, 2019, after Epstein was arrested again on sex trafficking charges, he was later found dead in his jail cell. An autopsy ruled that it was a suicide by hanging. A wave of new conspiracy theories began following his death. We previously published a fact check about a picture of Epstein with former President Clinton. It was also an authentic photograph, published in a digital copy of the March 2003 edition of Vanity Fair. In sum, yes, Maxwell was in attendance at Chelsea Clinton's wedding and was photographed in the background behind the Clinton family.

FMD_test_19

Do 643,000 Bankruptcies Occur in the U.S. Every Year Due to Medical Bills?

04/21/2016

In April 2016, a meme was published by the Facebook page "The Other 98%" (among others) claiming that 643,000 Americans declare bankruptcy due to medical bills every year, while in several other first-world countries, bankruptcies related to medical bills are non-existent (due to the implementation of national social health insurance/medical care systems in those countries). At the fine print at the bottom of the meme was a citation: "Source: NerdWallet Health Analysis." No link to the specific analysis referenced was provided, but presumably, the item in question was a 19 July 2013 publication by NerdWallet pertaining to medical bankruptcies. However, in that analysis, NerdWallet repeatedly stated that their findings were "estimates" or "extrapolations," and some of their data were quite old even back in 2013. The primary portion of that article stated that in 2013, over 20% of American adults were struggling to pay their medical bills, and three in five bankruptcies would be due to medical bills. While we are quick to blame debt on poor savings and bad spending habits, the study emphasizes the burden of health costs causing widespread indebtedness. Medical bills can completely overwhelm a family when illness strikes, says Christina LaMontagne, VP of Health at NerdWallet. Furthermore, 25 million people hesitate to take their medications in order to control their medical costs. Unfortunately, this can lead to even worse financial outcomes as preventative treatments are not rendered, and patients end up using expensive ambulance and ER care as their health worsens. Finally, many question whether President Obama's universal health insurance mandate will protect Americans from problems with medical bills. Insurance is no silver bullet, says LaMontagne. Even with insurance coverage, we expect 10 million Americans will face bills they are unable to pay. Although the "643,000" figure didn't expressly appear in that article, if we take the number of bankruptcy filings in the U.S. in 2013 (1,032,236) and apply NerdWallet's statement that "three in five (60%) bankruptcies will be due to medical bills," we arrive at a number of medical bill-related bankruptcies (619,342) reasonably close to the 643,000 figure (although technically, a bankruptcy filing can represent more than one person). Likewise, a 2013 CNBC item based on the 2013 NerdWallet Health Analysis included a chart showing the estimated total number of medical-related bankruptcies in the U.S. in 2013 to be 646,812, which is also quite close to the cited 643,000 figure. Since the number of bankruptcy filings in the U.S. is a matter of public record, the accuracy of this figure hinges on the reliability of the estimate that 60% of those filings are medical-related. In NerdWallet's "Methodology & Sources" section, the site stated that their medical bankruptcy estimates were based on a 2009 Harvard study, which in turn used bankruptcy data from 2007 and involved interviewing a random national sample of bankruptcy filers. BACKGROUND: Our 2001 study in five states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of all bankruptcies. Since then, health costs and the numbers of un- and underinsured have increased, and bankruptcy laws have tightened. METHODS: We surveyed a random national sample of 2,314 bankruptcy filers in 2007, abstracted their court records, and interviewed 1,032 of them. We designated bankruptcies as medical based on debtors' stated reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts. RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical. NerdWallet reported that they employed a more conservative estimate than the Harvard study figure regarding the proportion of bankruptcies that are medical-related: We relied on a widely cited Harvard study published in 2009. NerdWallet Health chose to include only bankruptcies explicitly tied to medical bills, excluding indirect reasons like lost work opportunities. Thus, we conservatively estimated medical bankruptcy rates to be 57.1% (versus the authors' 62.1%) of U.S. bankruptcies. We also used official bankruptcy statistics, released this month through March 2013, from U.S. Courts. Still, quantifying the occurrence of medical bankruptcies can be problematic, as noted in a January 2016 New York Times article on the subject. Research on

FMD_test_20

Is the USPS going to close soon due to the impact of COVID-19?

04/29/2020

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. In April 2020, during an unprecedented interruption to the U.S. economy due to social-distancing restrictions to curb the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease, the United States Postal Service (USPS) remained in operation. Canvassing city streets and rural roads with packages of prescriptions, food, and bills, the mail carriers provided a lifeline for many Americans who feared leaving their homes during the pandemic. Under the U.S. Constitution, the federally run Postal Service must serve all Americans equally, regardless of where they live. However, with a novel virus spreading from person to person, that commitment to service came at a cost: 1,800 USPS employees had either tested positive for or were suspected to have contracted COVID-19 as of April 25, according to the National Association of Letter Carriers. More than 40 such workers had died. The virus's toll on employees' health was not the only pandemic-fueled problem for leaders of the Postal Service; a decline in mail deliveries—a leading source of revenue for the agency—due to business shutdowns raised worries that the national mail carrier would not economically recover from a coronavirus recession. From high-profile Democrats in Washington, D.C., to lesser-known musicians who said they rely on USPS to help them run independent labels, supporters across the country took to Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit to call attention to what they feared were limited days left for USPS. Many of the social media posts included calls to action. Supporters rushed to buy stamps, hoping any type of profit boost would stave off a collapse, or urged people to contact U.S. lawmakers and tell them to help the Postal Service with federal funds. As of April 28, almost 390,000 people had signed an online petition on Change.org to express their support for USPS, while more than 440,000 people had endorsed an open letter using an automated texting service (texting "USPS" to 50409) that promised to contact congressional representatives on behalf of petitioners. In the age of COVID-19, having a healthy and strong postal service is more important than ever. More and more Americans are relying on the USPS to deliver medicines, food, and essentials now that social distancing is a matter of life and death. Seeing those pleas online, numerous people contacted Snopes to investigate the validity of the claim that the national mail carrier was, indeed, on the brink of closure due to the pandemic. To get to the root of each assertion, we began by analyzing the history of funding for USPS—which is an independent executive agency and has not received taxpayer funding in decades—and changes in how Americans rely on it. As online communication advanced between 2010 and 2020, USPS's volume of first-class and marketing mail decreased—a problem for the agency's bottom line because stamps and other postal products to send that type of mail yield lucrative profit margins. Meanwhile, private competitors such as Amazon and FedEx grew in popularity and reach, raising USPS's package volume because the agency contracts with them (often for what's called the "last mile" of deliveries in rural or remote areas). Such shipments for the USPS increased from 3.1 billion in 2010 to 6.2 billion in 2018, federal data show. But market trends aside, the agency has run in the red for years, with a total of $143 billion in unfunded liabilities and debt as of fall 2018 (an amount that is double its annual revenue), according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The debt, in large part, is a result of a congressional mandate on how the agency must fund retiree pensions and health benefits for employees. In 2006, under the George W. Bush presidential administration and a Republican-led Congress, the federal government enacted the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, which forced USPS to calculate what it expected to spend on the benefits over the next 50 years and then prepay that amount between 2007 and 2016. The math rounded out to an expense of about $5.6 billion annually. However, in 2012, the agency began defaulting on the payments. That history aside, the pandemic is only exacerbating the agency's already-troubled financial situation. Addressing a group of congressional lawmakers on April 9, Postmaster General Megan Brennan said mail volume had dropped 30 percent in the early days of the crisis, and she expected that decline to reach 50 percent by the end of June. For this fiscal year, which runs from October 2019 to September 2020, she said the Postal Service was preparing for a $13 billion revenue shortfall due "directly to COVID-19" in 2020 and an additional $54.3 billion in losses over 10 years. Considering those projections, she said the agency could "run out of cash this fiscal year" (or by the end of September) without federal intervention. "The sudden drop in mail volumes, our most profitable revenue stream, is steep and may never fully recover," she later told The New York Times. Further details on the potential downturn were unknown; it was not explained where, or to what extent, regions may first notice interrupted USPS service due to the profit loss, nor if the agency would maintain its existing payroll of some 640,000 employees or close altogether. Using the COVID-19 outbreak in their rationale, some lawmakers—primarily U.S. House Democrats—attempted to rally support for and extend more federal money to help USPS in spring 2020. Among the leaders of the public outcry was Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va., who is a member of the House government operations committee that oversees the Postal Service. He told The Washington Post: "I'm so frustrated at how difficult it has been for a long time to galvanize attention and action around an essential service. And maybe the pandemic forces us all to refocus on this service and how essential it is and how we need to fix it while we can before it gets into critical condition." The requests came to a head in March 2020 during negotiations over a $2.2 trillion COVID-19 economic relief package, called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Initially, lawmakers agreed to set aside $13 billion in federal dollars for USPS that the agency would not have to repay. However, purportedly at the urging of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and aides to U.S. President Donald Trump, congressional leaders removed that provision from the CARES Act while leaving its funding boosts to help small businesses, passenger airlines and air cargo carriers, and most U.S. taxpayers via one-time stimulus checks, among other provisions that aimed to jump-start the economy. According to a senior Trump administration official and a congressional official, Trump would have vetoed the entire bill if it had contained any such funding to help the postal agency, The Washington Post reported. "We told them very clearly that the president was not going to sign the bill if [money for the Postal Service] was in it," the Trump administration official said. In last-round debates over what to include in the CARES Act, however, a bipartisan pair of senators (Gary Peters, D-Mich., and Ron Johnson, R-Wis.) proposed what some federal leaders considered a compromise between Trump and USPS advocates: a $10 billion loan to help the agency cover operating expenses through the spring of 2020. Trump signed the CARES Act into law on March 27, including the provision that read: But as of mid-April, the Postal Service did not have access to the funds. Despite Trump's approval of the legislation, the USPS-specific provision required additional signatures from both him and Mnuchin before the agency could request the loan money. While signing off on other aspects of the federal stimulus bill on April 24, Trump said he would not sign the loan unless the service fulfilled his long-standing request to raise prices on shipping and postal materials to cover its debt—a call to action based on a false assertion that the service loses money by delivering for Amazon. (Government analysts have said that type of price change could lead to private delivery competitors swooping in on USPS's business and, perhaps, offering cheaper prices for easy city routes and fewer options for rural Americans, and it would only raise a marginal amount of new revenue compared to USPS's total debt.) At the signing, Trump said: "The

FMD_test_21

Knopp says he upheld a campaign promise not to join the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS).

02/23/2013

Freshman Oregon Sen. Tim Knopp, R-Bend, is clear that lawmakers need to fix the Public Employees Retirement System this year and that they themselves should not be part of the system. He pledged during his campaign to decline membership in PERS. Earlier this month, Knopp's office issued a press release stating that along with being sworn into office, he upheld a campaign promise not to join the state retirement program known as the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). "It is very important to me to honor the promises that I've made," Knopp is quoted as saying in the release. "If we don't fix PERS now, there will be fewer firefighters protecting our communities, fewer police officers on the streets, and fewer teachers in the classroom." PERS is contentious. Lawmakers reformed the system in 2003, curbing benefits for new employees going forward. Some lawmakers say it's still too generous. Public employee unions firmly assert that the benefits were bargained for and are fair. Gov. John Kitzhaber, a Democrat, wants to find savings in the system, as do Republicans; House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, is lukewarm to the idea. Public employees generally favor Democrats with campaign help and money, so it's not surprising to hear that Knopp, a Republican, promised to opt out. But PolitiFact Oregon also recalled that before he joined the Senate this year, Knopp was a three-term member of the Oregon House. In fact, he was House majority leader when lawmakers tackled reform in 2003. We were pretty sure he had been a member of PERS. Knopp's office confirmed what we thought to be true. He joined the system in 1999, when he was first elected to the House, and remained an active member until 2005, when he left office. As a member for six years, he was vested in the system. The money continued accruing until 2010. What happened in 2010? Knopp needed money for a family medical emergency, so he cashed out his account. The total gross amount was $8,167.07, which we acknowledge is not an astonishingly high figure. Retirement benefits are calculated based on pay and length of service, and legislators don't earn much, about $20,000 a year. Still, we think his previous membership is a relevant detail curiously missing from an otherwise glowing press release. If PolitiFact Oregon were in office and had made public employee retirement a major part of our platform and had promised to opt out, we think we'd make it explicit that we had once been part of PERS, in the interest of full and complete disclosure. In any case, Knopp had three options when he was sworn into office this year: join the Oregon Public Service Retirement Plan, which is the pension system he's criticizing; join the Oregon Savings Growth Plan, which is like any other deferred compensation plan; or decline to join a retirement plan. Knopp chose the deferred compensation plan. The state—his employer, the taxpayers—contributes 6 percent to his plan. The state does not pick up the additional 6 percent of salary on behalf of employees, as it would under PERS. We had two questions for the senator from Central Oregon: One, why not publicize the fact that he was a member—for more than a decade—of the system he is now criticizing? And two, why take a retirement option at all? Let's take the retirement question first. Knopp told PolitiFact Oregon that he's not opposed to compensation for legislators. He just doesn't want them to vote on a system in which they have a stake. To that end, he has co-sponsored a bill to prohibit future legislators from joining PERS or the deferred compensation plan, because they shouldn't be forced to be in the system, as he was. "Actual or perceived, there needs to be somebody who completely represents citizens and taxpayers, without a conflict," he said. As to the first question, Knopp said he disclosed his previous membership on the campaign trail. When his Democratic challenger said Knopp was a PERS member at an October 2012 candidates forum, he replied, "I closed my account years ago, honestly, to pay some medical bills when my daughter had two brain surgeries." We understand that the retirement system in 1999 was not the legislative issue that it was in 2003 or that it is in 2013. But why didn't he close his account before 2003, when it was clear he'd have to vote on PERS reforms? He said it wasn't clear at the time whether he could. Why not close the account in 2005, after leaving office? He said he co-sponsored a bill in 2003 that offered a financial incentive for people with inactive accounts to close their accounts. He thought it unseemly to benefit from that legislation—although we checked, and he wouldn't have qualified. Then why wait until 2010 to close his account? Knopp didn't have a clear answer. He acknowledges that had he not needed the money in 2010, he would have continued to be a member. Knopp has been a consistent and outspoken critic of the Public Employees Retirement System. He served as the House chairman of the committee to reform PERS in 2003. He promised voters that he would not accept PERS this year, and he followed through on that promise. What Knopp failed to mention is that he was a member of PERS who closed his account in 2010 because his family needed the money. Knopp could have closed his account in 2003—and avoided the conflict then—or he could have closed his account when he left office in 2005. None of that takes away from the accuracy of the statement—he honored his pledge to stay out of PERS—but it is additional information that we deem missing from his press releases. We rate the statement Mostly True.

FMD_test_22

We reduced the government workforce by 13,000, 11 percent, during my eight years.

06/09/2015

Before announcing that he was going to announce his presidential candidacy, former Gov. Jeb Bush told a crowd at an Orlando event that he was dedicated to conservative principles like reducing the size of government. We reduced the government workforce by 13,000, 11 percent, during my eight years, he said on June 2, 2015, at Gov. Rick Scotts Economic Growth Summit at Walt Disney World. He also touted high job-creation numbers during his term. Bush is expected to officially announce his candidacy on June 15. Meanwhile, we wondered whether his claim about shrinking the state government workforce passed muster. Working through the cuts Bush served two terms between 1999 and the start of 2007, and proposed cutting25 percent of state employeesearly in his term. He didnt cut that many, but he did oversee a reduction in state workers. His Right to Rise PAC sent us state payroll numbers from Bushs tenure that backed the claim. A Bush spokesman said the data came from the Legislatures General Appropriations Act (i.e., the approved state budget) each year, minus workers for the State University System andtemporary employeesfor which the governors office isnt responsible. These are legitimate numbers, but can be hard to parse. To find them in the annual budget, which usually clocks in at more than 400 pages, youd have to add them up from the positions listed for each state agency. You can sift through each budget if youd like, but we decided to look at it a slightly different way to make it a little simpler for you to gauge, using the states Department of Management ServicesAnnual Workforce Report. Thats a general snapshot of state personnel, how much they make and what jobs they do. Part of that count is theState Personnel System, which includes about two-thirds of state employees in more than 30 different agencies and departments. It also excludes university and temporary jobs, and a few others. The numbers arent exactly the same as what Bushs PAC provided, but the State Personnel System shows who is employed by state agencies at any given time. Year General Appropriations Act State Personnel System employees 1998-99 127,363 124,838 1999-2000 126,723 124,160 2000-01 125,007 123,505 2001-02 120,091 120,581 2002-03 117,869 117,561 2003-04 116,797 115,504 2004-05 116,317 113,030 2005-06 116,463 108,706 2006-07 113,633 108,866 Total change -13,730 -15,972 Percent change -10.8 percent -12.8 percent Either way you slice it, Bush can claim the state workforce he had a say over did shrink during his tenure, generally in the terms he noted. The Annual Workforce Report has the added bonus of keeping track of how many employees an agency gains or loses each year. That shows that departments like Children and Families, Health, and Corrections all lost plenty of positions under Bush, who focused on privatizing state services. That privatization of government work has been controversial. For example, contractors working for the Department of Children and Familieshave been criticized for cost overrunsand running an ineffective, or even dangerous, privatized foster care program. Similar problems have been debated for contracts withpayroll servicesandprivately run prisons, among others. Florida International University public administration professors Howard Frank and David Guo said that instead of focusing on how many state jobs were eliminated, its better to consider whether the moves really saved the state money. The Department of Management Services doesnt dissect the differences betweenjobs that were cut and the contractsthat replaced them. That makes it difficult to untangle exactly how much the state may have saved by privatizing, automating or consolidating government positions. The state now has the lowest number of government workers per capita in the United States. But Bushs workforce cuts between 1999 and 2007 came as the states population ballooned by about 3.5 million and the budget jumped from$48.6 billion to $73.9 billion. Our ruling Bush said, We reduced the government workforce by 13,000, 11 percent, during my eight years. He was referring to a specific count of workers in state agencies cut between 1999 and 2007, and in context we can consider his numbers pretty accurate. Experts told us its important to keep in mind that privatizing state jobs or cutting positions doesnt mean its necessarily cheaper or better for taxpayers. The statement, however, is accurate, and we rate it True.

FMD_test_23

Says he was known as Veto Corleone for cutting spending as Florida governor.

05/26/2015

Former Gov. Jeb Bush has resurrected an infamous moniker from his days in Tallahassee on the campaign trail in an attempt to show he is the godfather of fiscal conservatism. During a meeting with business leaders in Portsmouth, N.H., on May 20, 2015, Bush pointed out that he was well-known for using the line-item veto at his disposal as governor. "They called me Veto Corleone, which was something I was quite proud of," Bush said, citing a reference to Marlon Brando's character in The Godfather. He added that he vetoed 2,500 separate line items totaling $2 billion over his eight years. Bush has brought out that anecdote several times during the run-up to a presidential campaign, implying he would again focus on cutting wasteful spending. We wondered if he was accurate in claiming that nickname. We made our own inquiries and found that yes, pork projects really did sleep with the fishes. Bush came into office in 1999 vowing to use his line-item veto on state spending he didn't like, and he followed through with a vengeance. He also wanted the state to focus on building reserves. That first year, he shocked lawmakers by slashing $313 million out of the $48.6 billion budget approved by the Legislature. It was more than double the previous veto record of $150 million set by Republican Gov. Bob Martinez in 1988. The Senate was so angry about the cuts that they sued Bush over his partial veto of funding for an extended school year. The Florida Supreme Court eventually ruled that Bush defied the state Constitution by cutting $16 million out of a $40 million appropriation to keep schools open longer. They said he either had to cut all of the program or none of it. Media reports said John Thrasher, then speaker of the House, dubbed Bush Veto Corleone after the fictional mafia don (spelled Vito Corleone) for his liberal use of the power. Thrasher, who is now president of Florida State University, confirmed to PolitiFact Florida that he coined the nickname, which seemed to be something of a friendly dig. Thrasher's collegial relationship with Bush was apparent in 2000 when Thrasher brought the budget to Bush's office while wearing a white lab coat and a stethoscope to make sure the governor had a heart. Bush answered by approving a couple of Thrasher's pet projects, then chopping another $313.7 million out of appropriations. Here's a look at how much Bush vetoed from each year's budget: Year Total state budget Amount Bush vetoed 1999 $48.6 billion $313 million* 2000 $51 billion $313.7 million 2001 $48.3 billion $288.8 million 2002 $50.4 billion $107 million 2003 $53.5 billion $33 million 2004 $57.3 billion $349 million 2005 $64.7 billion $180 million 2006 $73.9 billion $448.7 million * The state Supreme Court ruled a $16 million veto in 1999 unconstitutional. The first year of Bush's second term, in 2003, Bush cut a low of $33 million, but $7.2 million of that was funding for high-speed rail. Bush later led an effort to repeal a constitutional amendment requiring the creation of high-speed rail transit in the state. Bush also saved the most for last, hacking $448.7 million out of the 2006 budget, including a university tuition increase, spending on parks and police vehicles, as well as job training and education programs. That year, state spending was up to $73.9 billion, a 52 percent increase from his first year in office. "It's never easy," Bush said in 2006. "You always hurt people's feelings. I don't enjoy that. And I'm always surprised that people are surprised. I've been consistent. There should be no surprises. And the people who really follow the budget knew that." We should note that if Bush wins the presidency, he likely won't get to whack as much. A president doesn't have a line-item veto and has to either accept or reject an entire piece of legislation. Our ruling: Bush said they called me Veto Corleone as governor for his frequent use of the line-item veto. He did have a fondness for ruthlessly slashing projects he deemed wasteful or not in line with his agenda. Thrasher confirmed he nicknamed the governor after the fictional mobster. This is one favor we grant Bush. We rate the statement True.

FMD_test_24

Will banks be required to disclose all transactions exceeding $600 to the IRS as part of the Biden proposal?

09/16/2021

Announced in April 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden's American Families Plan is an ambitious proposal that aims to expand Americans' access to childcare and education and increase the number of women in the workforce. The plan intends to fund all of this through higher taxes on income earners and increased reporting requirements for banks that could potentially yield more tax revenue. These reporting requirements have drawn the ire of several banks that took issue with this less widely known section of the plan. A Facebook post by FNB Community Bank claimed: "The Biden administration has proposed requiring all community banks and other financial institutions to report to the IRS on all deposits and withdrawals through business and personal accounts worth more than $600, regardless of tax liability. This indiscriminate, comprehensive bank account reporting to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) could soon be enacted in Congress and will create an unacceptable invasion of privacy for our customers." Another screenshot shared by our readers expressed similar concerns: The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) even began a campaign, calling on communities to send a letter to Biden to prevent this so-called intrusive proposal: "Tell Congress: Don't Let IRS Invade My Privacy. The Biden administration is proposing requiring financial institutions to report to the IRS all transactions of all business and personal accounts worth more than $600. This is an unprecedented invasion of privacy. In order to oppose this intrusive proposal, please send this letter to your representative and senators immediately." We looked up the proposal itself, and it does require more robust reporting of transactions across business and personal accounts. The proposal, which aims to go into effect after December 31, 2022, states: "This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime. Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner." This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts, with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600. We begin by explaining some of the more technical terms in this proposal. A "de minimis threshold" is broadly defined as the amount of a transaction that has such a small value that accounting for it would be unreasonable. We spoke to Visiting Assistant Professor of Tax Law at New York University, Nyamagaga Gondwe, who explained, "It is the amount below which the IRS would argue isn't worth investigating. It's the difference between your company giving you a $5 card to Subway versus traveling on a private jet on your company's dime. The latter is worth reporting." In this case, "gross flow" refers to the aggregate inflows and outflows of cash from bank accounts. In sum, the current proposal stipulates that an aggregate amount of less than $600 worth of cash flowing into and out of accounts is not worth reporting. The "fair market value" refers to the amount people are willing to pay for an asset in the open market. In this case, Gondwe argued, the use of the term could possibly refer to the changing market value of transactions exceeding $600 that may occur in foreign currency transactions. The ICBA claims that the proposal will make banks report "all transactions" above the limit, but this is misleading. While it is true that the IRS will have more information on cash flows above $600, that doesn't mean they will have all the information pertaining to all transactions. The Center for American Progress (CAP) points out that banks will only be providing aggregate numbers to the IRS after each year—gross inflow and gross outflow—and not individualized transaction information. This reporting requirement would also extend to peer-to-peer payment services like Venmo but wouldn't require people to report any additional information to the government. According to The Wall Street Journal, financial institutions must already report interest, dividends, and investment incomes to the IRS, and the IRS can obtain other information through audits. According to Marie Sapirie of Tax Notes, a publication focused on tax news, a parenthetical to the proposal indicates that there is some flexibility in raising the minimum account balance/inflow/outflow above $600. The Tax Notes report also states that the Treasury Department estimated this form of reporting would raise $463 billion over the 10-year budget window, making it the third-largest revenue raiser proposed in the budget. The aim is to target businesses outside of large corporations that carry out gross underreporting of their income, amounting to $166 billion per year. According to the proposal: "Requiring comprehensive information reporting on the inflows and outflows of financial accounts will increase the visibility of gross receipts and deductible expenses to the IRS. Increased visibility of business income will enhance the effectiveness of IRS enforcement measures and encourage voluntary compliance." Banks claim this would be an invasion of consumer privacy, with the ICBA saying it would allow the government to monitor account information. However, CAP analysts Seth Hanlon and Galen Hendricks argue, "Only the prior year's total inflow and total outflow would be reported on annual forms. No one would say that the IRS monitors you on your job because it receives a W-2 from your employer with your total wages every January." Another challenge not mentioned in the ICBA's consumer alert is the higher costs this reporting proposal may impose on banks. In May 2021, a coalition of banking associations wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, arguing that they already provide a lot of data to the IRS and that this would impose additional costs on their systems. The costs and other burdens imposed to collect and report account flow information would surpass the potential benefits from such a reporting scheme. New reporting would appear to require material development costs and process additions for financial institutions, as well as significant reconciliation and compliance burdens on impacted taxpayers. For example, reporting total gross receipts and disbursements would require a new reporting paradigm for depository institutions, necessitating system changes to collect the information. On the flipside, Sapirie wrote for Tax Notes, the benefits of such a reporting proposal may be difficult to realize: "Increasing the amount of information flowing into the IRS would not in itself lead to increased enforcement, and it might come with added challenges." Former IRS Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti acknowledged that the IRS today cannot use all the information it already receives, and significant areas of noncompliance are barely addressed, so more reporting alone will not solve the problem. It would almost certainly have a deterrent effect for taxpayers contemplating evasion, but the extent of that effect is unclear, and it might be insufficient to justify the costs to financial institutions and the federal government of implementing such a large new reporting regime. But CAP's analysis argues that this will help prevent tax evasion while also providing more funding to enhance data security for consumers: "Additional funding would go to enhancing data security. Even at present, the IRS's data security is already much better than that of the financial industry, with only very rare and limited breaches compared to the exponentially larger data breaches from financial institutions. Second, the reporting of information flows only from financial institutions to the IRS and not in the other direction, as some earlier proposals had called for." The Biden administration's bank reporting proposal is a critical element of the Build Back Better agenda. It gives the IRS some visibility into opaque forms of income that disproportionately accrue to high-income individuals. Despite fearmongering from bank lobbies, the proposal protects taxpayers' privacy while simply requiring banks to provide basic, aggregated information about flows. That enables the IRS to select audits in a more efficient and equitable way so that the vast majority of taxpayers will be less likely to be audited. By deterring and helping catch tax cheats, the proposal raises substantial revenue for the Build Back Better agenda, which provides critical investments to increase economic opportunities for American families and communities. On October 12, 2021, Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the proposal in response to a question from a reporter, who said, "[Banks] are concerned about the tracking of transactions that are greater than $600; Americans are starting to get worried about this. Do you think [this] is going to stay in the Reconciliation Bill?" "With all due respect, the plural of anecdote is not data," Pelosi said. "Yes, there are concerns that some people have. But if people are breaking the law and not paying their taxes, one way to track them is through the banking measure. I think $600—that's a negotiation that will go on as to what the amount is. But yes." Whatever the impact of this proposal is, it does require additional reporting of certain bank transactions, just not in the way the banks are portraying it.

FMD_test_25

Did Biden Say if Israel Didn't Exist, the US 'Would Have To Invent an Israel'?

02/08/2024

The protracted, often bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict exploded into a hot war on Oct. 7, 2023, when the militant Palestinian group Hamas launched a deadly attack on Israel and Israel retaliated by bombarding the Gaza Strip. More than 20,000 people, the vast majority of them Palestinians, were reportedly killed during the first two months of the war alone. The violence is driven by mutual hostilities and territorial ambitions dating back more than a century. The internet has become an unofficial front in that war and is rife with misinformation, which Snopes is dedicated to countering with facts and context. You can help. Read the latest fact checks. Submit questionable claims. Become a Snopes Member to support our work. We welcome your participation and feedback. Israeli-Palestinian conflict Hamas deadly attack on Israel retaliated were reportedly killed mutual hostilities Read Submit Become a Snopes Member feedback In late 2023 and into 2024, as the Israel-Hamas conflict continued, a number of social media posts highlighted U.S. President Joe Bidens longtime support of Israel. Many such posts sought to criticize him for that support as the number of Palestinians killed in Gaza by Israeli bombardment approached more than 27,000. posts criticize killed The posts included an old video clip of then-U.S. Sen. Biden from 1986 in which he allegedly said, [Supporting Israel] is the best $3 billion investment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect her interests in the region. (Screenshot via X) Biden indeed said the above words, in the context of opposing an arms sale to Saudi Arabia. He argued that sending weapons to that country would compromise Israel's security. Biden was arguing during a Senate debate for overriding a presidential veto pertaining to arms sales in Saudi Arabia. In May 1986, then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan had vetoed a congressional resolution that sought to block his request to sell advanced missiles to Saudi Arabia. May 1986 Biden supported the prohibition of arms sales to Saudi Arabia and called on the Senate to override Reagans veto because it would put Saudi Arabia in the position of having to support their Arab brethren against Israel. The quote in question emerged at the end of Bidens statement, transcribed below. supported Around three hours' worth of the Senate debate, including Bidens full statement, is available for viewing on C-SPAN. We transcribed sections of Bidens speech below (emphasis, ours): C-SPAN Quite frankly, the Saudis are an 80-member family oligarchy that finds themselves adrift in the midst of an Islamic revolution, the consequences of which they do not comprehend any more than we [...] the government of Saudi Arabia, is the anachronism of the 20th century in the Middle East, and the fact of the matter is [...] the Saudis have no choice but to fund the PLO. The Saudis have no choice but to be supportive of their Arab brethren. The Saudis have no choice but to do that for in fact, about 55,000 Palestinians control the infrastructure of Saudi Arabia. They literally have their hands on the spigots [...] that control the oil. And so I would suggest to my colleagues we should not be viewing this so much in terms of whether or not the Saudis are good guys or bad guys. We should view it in terms of what is realistic. Madam President, it is this senator's opinion that it is totally unrealistic to expect the Saudiswith or without our help in terms of arms salesto do anything other than maintain a policy which they have had, which is one that is not particularly helpful to our interest. And furthermore, I would suggest to my colleagues in the Senate that we're doing a disservice to Saudi Arabia. [...] For I believe the Saudis do not want to have a war with Israel. But I believe once we send their arsenal soaring in terms of sophisticated weapons, they will be put in the untenable position the next time there is a conflict in the region, of having to get directly involved, of having to move with their Arab brethren. For if they don't, they will be moved. Biden went on to argue that the U.S. should support Saudi Arabia through other means, including helping its internal security, and concluded by saying Israel could not afford to have an unstable Saudi Arabia either (emphasis, ours): argue We do not have a Middle East foreign policy at this moment and to suggest that we are going to substitute an arms sales package for a policy in the name of trying to suggest that this is a litmus test once again. I've been here 14 years. I'm tired of being subjected to a litmus test by the Saudis. Litmus test by anyone else. We should operate and move in what is the naked self interest of the United States of America. And if we wish to help the Saudis, what we should be doing for Saudi Arabia is helping them with their infrastructure as it relates to their domestic security requirements. [...] We should be dealing with their ability to protect their own internal security from within. [...] if we look at the Middle East, I think it's about time we stopped those of us who supportas most of us doIsrael in this body, for apologizing for our support for Israel. There's no apology to be made. None. It is the best $3 billion investment we make. Were there not an Israel, the United States of America would have to invent an Israel to protect her interests in the region. In June 1986, the Senate voted to uphold Reagans veto with a narrow margin of a single vote. However, opponents of the arms sale also claimed a victory because the overall package of sales was reduced significantly. uphold claimed This was not the only time Biden used such language to describe his support for Israel. In 2020, Israeli newspaper Haaretz revealed a 1986 document detailing Biden's meeting with Israel's ambassador in Washington, D.C. In the meeting, Biden was thanked for supporting aid to Israel, to which Biden reportedly said, Thats our best investment, where we get the biggest bang for our buck." Haaretz Levinson, Chaim. Rare 1986 Document Reveals Bidens Views on Israel and Saudi Arabia. Haaretz, 28 Dec. 2020. Haaretz, https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2020-12-28/ty-article/rare-1986-document-reveals-bidens-views-on-israel-and-saudi-arabia/0000017f-f2ca-d8a1-a5ff-f2ca769b0000.Accessed 8 Feb. 2024. Osgood, Brian and Linah Alsaafin, Tamila Varshalomidze. UN: 300k in North Gaza at Risk of Famine as Israel Continues to Block Aid. Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/2/8/israels-war-on-gaza-live-us-says-space-for-truce-deal-israel-vows-war.Accessed 8 Feb. 2024. Roberts, Steven V. PRESIDENT VETOES EFFORT TO BLOCK ARMS FOR SAUDIS. The New York Times, 22 May 1986. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/1986/05/22/world/president-vetoes-effort-to-block-arms-for-saudis.html.Accessed 8 Feb. 2024. "Senate Session." June 5, 1986 | C-SPAN.Org. https://www.c-span.org/video/?45851-1/senate-session. Accessed 8 Feb. 2024.

FMD_test_26

Stephanie Cegielski Was Not Donald Trump's 'Top Strategist'

03/29/2016

On 28 March 2016, Stephanie Cegielski, a one-time strategist for the "Make America Great Again" super PAC, published an open letter to Trump supporters on the website xoJane. Even Trump's most trusted advisors didn't expect him to fare this well. Almost a year ago, recruited for my public relations and public policy expertise, I sat in Trump Tower being told that the goal was to get The Donald to poll in double digits and come in second in delegate count. That was it. The Trump camp would have been satisfied to see him polling at 12% and taking second place to a candidate who might hold 50%. His candidacy was a protest candidacy. The letter immediately went viral, and while some pondered Cegielski's main talking point (that Donald Trump doesn't want to be president and didn't expect to be the GOP frontrunner), others questioned whether Cegielski was really Trump's top campaign strategist. Complicating matters, the headline appeared to contradict the body of the article. xoJane identified Cegielski as Trump's "top strategist" in their title, but Cegielski identified herself as the "Communications Director of the 'Make America Great Again' Super PAC" in her open letter to Trump supporters. In 2015, I fell in love with the idea of the protest candidate who was not bought by corporations. A man who sat in a Manhattan high-rise he had built, making waves as a straight talker with a business background, full of successes and failures, who wanted America to return to greatness. I was sold. Last summer, I signed on as the Communications Director of the Make America Great Again Super PAC. It was still early in the Trump campaign, and we hit the ground running. His biggest competitor had more than $100 million in a Super PAC. The Jeb Bush deep pockets looked to be the biggest obstacle we faced. We seemed to be up against a steep challenge, especially since a big part of the appeal of a Trump candidacy was not being influenced by PAC money. Cegielski was identified as a "spokeswoman" for the super PAC in an August 2015 article published in Politico, and Cegielski called herself a "consultant" on her LinkedIn profile. While Cegielski's official title may be unclear, it's certain that labeling her "Trump's top campaign strategist" is incorrect. Cegielski worked for a super PAC (which, despite the name, is not legally recognized as a political action committee and by law cannot contribute directly to or coordinate with a political campaign, although they can use raised funds to campaign independently) and not for Donald Trump's presidential campaign. Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations, and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Unlike traditional PACs, super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates, and their spending must not be coordinated with that of the candidates they benefit. Hope Hicks, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, told Yahoo News that Cegielski was never employed by Donald Trump's presidential campaign. Evidently, she worked for a super PAC which Mr. Trump disavowed and requested the closure of via the FEC. The "Make America Great Again" super PAC went dark as of October 2015 amid ongoing scrutiny of where the money was coming from and going to, and whether the committee had direct ties to the Trump campaign.

FMD_test_27

Truckers' Strike

09/06/2005

Claim: Truckers are poised to strike over rising fuel prices. OF AND INFORMATION Examples: [Collected via e-mail, August 2005] Good Morning Friends,I have spoken with a few independent truckers in the past 24 hours, and they ALL have indicated to me that there will be a nationwide trucker strike by the Teamsters Union & Major Independents commencing between 8 & 12 September 2005. They will be protesting the high price of fuel nationwide, and intend to bring the Nation to her knees, as they did in the early seventies. I have no reason to doubt these individuals, as their grapevine is usually accurate, and this poses a serious problem for the Nation at large. Almost everything moves by truck across this country, and it won't take very long for our merchants shelves and gasoline storage tanks to empty resulting in serious shortages in food and fuel. So, be prepared.... fill your pantries and autos prior to the eighth of September!!!! Unlike the contrived oil and gasoline shortages of the early seventies, the US is not in the position of turning open the spigot and allowing the oil and refined products to flow. Because of the hurricane, the lack of new refineries, and the lack of an ingenious national energy policy, these shortages are real and will be exploited by the Teamsters Union. Every domestic refinery is producing gasoline and home heating oil at maximum capabilities, and combined with the shut down of the refineries in the Gulf due to the hurricane, along with the inability to pump crude oil from the Gulf region, there will be serious shortages for approximately two months. This is a serious National emergency!!!! There have already been long gasoline lines in the South this Labor Day weekend, as many with whom I have spoken from that region have stated to me that in some areas of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida, gasoline is already being rationed. These individuals are being allowed only 10 gallons each.... just enough to get by during this shortage. Every Governor of the above mentioned states have asked their citizens to stay at home over the holiday, thus trying to avoid a disaster in the making. Wal-Mart has announced that their entire fleet of trucks will stop moving good and services effective Tuesday, September 6th... they know that something is in the making, and don't want to jeopardize either their trucks or personnel during the National Strike. Every independent trucker with whom I have spoken, has stated to me that they will not roll during this time frame, as the Teamsters mean business!!!! Terry......Teamster Union Member [Collected via e-mail, August 2005] Are you aware American's are considered greedy? - Saudi Arabia 2005 target price for selling oil was $21 a barrel. Currently, they're selling oil at almost $70 a barrel, while their cost of producing that barrel is just $1.50 . (Fortune, Financial Times, New York Mercantile, Exchange) Consider this E-mail a WARNING...Truckers unions losing patience with the Federal Government and the U.S. Oil Companies... truckers are advised to watch for signs of terrorist activity (AP).Under pressure, major freight carriers strike early agreements with Teamsters Union . 88,000 unionized truckers are getting the brunt of fuel costs, the major Truckers Unions and drivers has had about enough of getting ripped off. With truckers unions and drivers claiming unreal fuel expenses the unrest and shift is beginning to give birth to a National Truckers Strike. There have been some severe strikes in years past and the talk is complete shut down. Even the owner operators will park their rigs and go out and even work at menial jobs just to survive. The cost of operationhas been eating away their truck payments. One comment was said at a local, "I wonder if the banks have big enough parking lots to hold the repossessions" . The anger has begun to intensify with drivers and the Truckers Union which is directed towards Federal and Oil Companies. August 17th 2005 a small nucleus of Tanker and Trailer drivers begun to organize in Alabama. It is said three Unions have started to react with the drivers and are threatening to strike for lower fuel prices or else. It has elevated to a fever to contact and encourage their counterparts in other States throughout the nation to strike, Nationwide. If this threat begins to take form, there are preparations that MUST be started NOW. The trucking industry is the prime provider for pretty much everything we have and enjoy in our home. One major item happens to be our FOOD, then our Fuel, medical supplies, clothing, housewares, building materials, emergency supplies when disaster happens, it goes on and on and on. Get the point, this fuel expense is beginning to take its toll. It is vitally serious and important for you to increase your immediate food supply, purchase can food items, canned meat, (most of these canned items have a shelf life of 5 Years.) NOW is time to STOCK UP and not when the trucks stop rolling. THIS IS A WARNING IN ADVANCE. Inform your friends and families include the elderly. You are asked to send this to anyone and everyone. This threat is real, do nothing now and you will find out. [Collected via e-mail, March 2008] I drive a delivery truck, and stopped at a truck stop off of I - 95. There was a group of truckers standing around talking, and I happened to hear them talking about the upcoming strike planned for the first of April. It is in response to the unaffordable diesel prices, and our government's lack of help to the independent businessman. I was told by them that I should try and stay off of I-95 and to stock up on food stuffs because its gonna get really expensive, really quick. Has any one else heard of this? I have noticed that the local grocers I deliver to have doubled their on hand supply of foodstock, and have noticed that prices have started to really go up quite a bit, really quickly. This might be one heck of a great april fools joke, but what if it isn't? Origins: Various e-mails about a looming independent truckers and Teamsters union strike began arriving in inboxes everywhere in the last week of August 2005. However, at that time there was no mention of an impending nationwide labor action on the Teamsters web Teamsters site, nor was there an announcement from Wal-Mart that its fleet of trucks would suspend operations on Tuesday, September 6th (as claimed in e-mailed warnings). And, in the event, no such truckers' strike ever did materialize. In March 2008, rumors once again began to circulate that truckers would stage a strike on 1 April 2008 (not as a mandatory union-sponsored work stoppage, but as a grassroots demonstration supported by independent truck owner-operators) to protest the rising price of diesel fuel. Until a few years ago diesel fuel had generally been cheaper than gasoline, but emissions standards requiring the use of ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) have driven up diesel prices to the point that it is now often more expensive than gasoline. (As of mid-March 2008, the average price of diesel fuel in the U.S. was $4.037 per gallon, while gasoline prices averaged $3.275 per gallon during that period.) ULSD Every 5-cent increase in the price of diesel results in an estimated $1,000 increase in truckers' annual expenses, and in March 2008 independent truckers began talking about staging a one-day nationwide trucker shutdown on 1 April 2008 to protest the prospect of their "going broke out on the highway wearing our trucks out": A trucker's strike may be looming on the horizon. Many independent over the road truck drivers are fed up with rising fuel and insurance costs and are looking into organizing and trying to join together to take rigs off the road and that would mean shortages at supermarkets, convenience stores and if it was carried out to the extreme, eventually at every retail outlet in America. Everything that gets delivered to a retail store in your city or town is eventually delivered by a truck, and if it were highly organized a strike could paralyze the economy. Whether such a shutdown will take place, how widespread participation will be, and how effective such an action will be in ameliorating truckers' rising fuel expenses is something that will only be known in the aftermath. There is precedent for independent truck owners and operators banding together to strike over rising fuel costs (although the word "strike" is being used here not in its familiar sense of an action waged against employers to force better wages, benefits, or working conditions for employees, but a work stoppage intended to paralyze industry and thereby force a change in government policy). In February 1974, four months after OPEC had declared an oil embargo against the U.S. and other western nations over their support of Israel during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, a group known as the Owners/Operators Independent Drivers Association of America staged a national strike to protest the spiraling costs of fuel, fuel shortages, and reduced speed limits. (In response to the OPEC oil embargo, President Nixon had signed a bill imposing a 55 MPH speed limit on interstate highways.) The ten-day strike resulted in numerous acts of violence, prompting Pennsylvania governor Milton Shapp to activate National Guard units to assist in providing security for commercial vehicles and roadways. The conditions that prompted the strike largely evaporated when OPEC ended its embargo the following month. Last updated: 26 March 2008 Byrd, Gene. "Trucker's Strike Looming: Fuel Cost Protest in April, Real or Hoax?" The National Ledger 24 March 2008. CNNMoney.com. "Gas Prices Rise." 28 March 2008. The Quad City Times. "Whispers Grow of Nationwide Truckers Strike." 26 March 2008.

FMD_test_28

Did President Trump Shut Down the White House Phone-In Comment Line?

01/24/2017

On 23 January 2017, the web site Addicting Info published an article reporting that the news Trump administration had dismantled the White House call-in line in order to "ban the public" from calling to offer comment or protest: article Trump Bans The Public From Calling The White House To Comment Or Protest In another attempt to stifle freedom of expression, President Trump and his administration have dismantled the White House switchboard comment operating system. Instead, callers will be told to take their complaints and comments to Facebook and other White House social media platforms. While it's true that the White House call-in comment line was inactive as of January 2017 (we called the number and were informed by an automated voice message that the comment line was closed), it's inaccurate to say that the Trump administration "banned" the public from calling the White House or "dismantled" the White House switchboard. call-in When Donald Trump was sworn in as the new President of the United States on 20 January 2017, both a peaceful transition of power and a digital transition of assets took place. For instance, the majority of content on WhiteHouse.gov was removed and archived at ObamaWhiteHouse.archive.gov in order to give the Trump administration the opportunity to populate the government web site with their own content. Similar changes were made with the @POTUS Twitter account. content @POTUS In this case, the White House comment line was shut down nearly a week before President Trump took office. On 14 January 2017, the Washington Times reported that the Obama administration had closed down the phone-in comment line: reported President Obama is done listening at least by phone. The White House comments line, 202-456-1111, is no longer working and apparently hasnt been operational for weeks. The line is normally staffed by volunteers. Callers to the line hear a recorded message: The comment line is currently closed, but your comment is important to the president. The recorded message advised callers to send comments for the White House via Facebook Messenger. Although President Obama's White House Facebook account had Messenger installed, as of the moment President Trump's does not: Messenger While one could argue that President Trump's administration was slow to pick up the digital reins in the days immediately following his inauguration, it's incorrect to say that he "dismantled" the White House call-in line. It's more accurate to say that the White House call-in comment line was closed at the end of President Obama's term, and the Trump administration did not reinstate it in the first few days of his presidency. Denson, Ryan. "Trump Bans the Public from Calling the White House to Comment or Protest." Addicting Info. 23 Janaury 2017. Boyer, Dave. "White House Shuts Down Call-In Line." The Washington Times. 14 January 2017.

FMD_test_29

Was $30 million donated by Planned Parenthood to Democrats in order to sway the outcome of the Midterm Elections?

04/23/2018

On 18 April 2018, the Facebook page The Newly Press shared a text-based meme asserting that taxpayer-subsidized Planned Parenthood was spending upwards of $30 million to influence the outcome of the upcoming midterm elections. A later similar meme claimed specifically that all $30 million was going to Democratic candidates. However, a 16 April 2018 Roll Call piece made clear a distinction absent from Internet memes, namely that the $30 million figure represented funds to be provided by a coalition of organizations, of which Planned Parenthood Votes was but one member. A coalition of liberal organizations that includes the political arm of Planned Parenthood rolled out a $30 million program to mobilize infrequent voters to cast ballots for progressive candidates in the midterm elections. Targeting people of color, young people, and women is a time-worn strategy, but it has not worked in previous midterm cycles mostly because efforts often engage too close to election day and do not build real relationships, the coalition said in its release. The other organizations funneling money and resources to the initiative, which the coalition is calling Win Justice, are the Center for Community Change Action, Color Of Change PAC, and the Service Employees International Union. The organizations are targeting 1.25 million voters in Florida, a million in Michigan, and 250,000 in Nevada through door-knocking and text messaging with volunteers. Roll Call also noted that the multiple-group initiative included Planned Parenthood Votes, which is "the political arm of Planned Parenthood" (i.e., a super PAC branch), an entity separate from the main Planned Parenthood Federation of America organization. Memes such as the one referenced above suggest it should be "highly illegal" for Planned Parenthood to receive taxpayer subsidies yet expend funds on political activities. According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations such as Planned Parenthood are indeed "prohibited" from funding such endeavors. Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. However, Planned Parenthood is affiliated with two offshoot political entities that are separate from the main organization and thus can be involved with funding midterm elections. Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF) is a 501(c)(4), which the IRS stipulates "may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status." The second organization, Planned Parenthood Votes, is a Super PAC. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) defines Super PACs such as Planned Parenthood Votes as "committees that may receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other political action committees for the purpose of financing independent expenditures and other independent political activity." In short, Planned Parenthood itself is not "dishing out $30 million on midterm elections" in violation of the law. Rather, a separate political arm of Planned Parenthood (which is donor-funded and may legally engage in such activities) is one part of a coalition of several groups that is expending an aggregate of $30 million on mobilizing infrequent voters for the 2018 midterm elections.

FMD_test_30

2011 W-2 tax documents and HR3590 legislation

05/25/2010

Claim: Starting in 2011, all employees will have to pay taxes on the value of health insurance provided by their employers. Example: [Collected via e-mail, May 2010] I contacted my Congressman about House bill HR 3590, the health care bill. I asked for a summary of changes. The Aid directed me to go to www.thomas.gov, enter HR 3590 in the search box and look for summaries. Starting in 2011 (next year folks) your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or Governmental body of some sort. If you're retired? So what; your gross WILL go up by the amount of insurance you get. You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse. This is how the government is going to buy insurance for 15% that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases. Not believing this I researched the summaries and here's what I'm reading: On page 25 of 29:TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS - (sec. 9001, as modified by sec. 10901) Sec.9002."requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employee's gross income." Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters. Go to Kiplinger's and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what I just told you about. Why am I sending you this? The same reason I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book. People have the right to know the truth because an election is coming in November and we need to vote in Conservatives that will repel this horrid law! Origins: This is another case of a legislative issue which has a kernel of truth to it, but which has been misinterpreted, affects only a small percentage of the population, and has misleadingly been blown out of proportion through someone's mistaken assumption that it applies to everyone. Section 9002 of PPACA, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), requires that all employers, beginning in 2011, report the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored health benefits they provide to employees on those employees' W-2 forms. However, the monetary values so reported will neither be counted as gross income nor will they be taxed; they will be included for informational purposes only. (Section 106A of the Internal Revenue Code states that, in general, employer-provided health coverage is not taxable to the employee.) Section 106A The portion (Title IX, Sec. 9001) of the PPACA referenced above is entitled "Excise Tax on High Cost Employer-Sponsored Coverage." This is the section of the recently passed health care reform legislation that addresses taxing so-called high-level "Cadillac" health care plans that some employees receive through their employers. Title IX, Sec. 9001 In general, beginning in 2018 (not 2011), the PPACA imposes a 40% excise tax on the value of employer-sponsored medical insurance that exceeds a given threshold (initially $27,500 annually). This excise tax would be paid by the insurance company, not the employee, and is initially expected to affect fewer than 10% of families covered by health insurance: Many employers pay most of the premium for health coverage. Workers pick up the rest but pay no taxes on the employer's often-substantial contribution. That's why many unions have bargained hard for generous health coverage over the years, even if that meant forgoing a bigger pay raise. The new agreement would take away the tax advantage for a small portion of the health benefit by imposing a 40 percent tax on the amount by which the premiums for employer-sponsored health coverage exceed specified thresholds. That would be $27,500 a year for a family, starting in 2018. The tax on a $29,500 plan would be $800, or 40 percent of $2,000. The insurance company would pay the tax but would almost certainly pass it along to the employer and its employees. That $27,500 threshold is well above the current average of $13,400 for a family plan. By 2016, more than 80 percent of all family plans are projected to still fall below the threshold. In the following years, the tax threshold would rise more slowly than the likely rate of inflation in medical costs, which could mean the plans of millions of workers a small minority of the work force would be subject to the tax in theory. Most likely, insurers will drop their premiums just below the threshold. They could do that by setting higher deductibles and co-payments, managing access to care more tightly, or reducing benefits. Last updated: 25 May 2010 The New York Times. "Cadillac Plans." 15 January 2010. The Washington Post. "Will President Obama Defend the 'Cadillac Tax' to Cut Health-Care Costs?" 12 January 2010.

FMD_test_31

Did US Unemployment Reach Record Low Due to Trump?

10/13/2020

During the U.S. vice presidential debate on Oct. 7, 2020, Republican candidate Mike Pence claimed he and U.S. President Donald Trump worked "from day one" in the White House to drive down American unemployment to "record" low levels evidence, he alleged, that voters should re-elect Trump on Nov. 3 to try and reshape the economy after unprecedented job losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Oct. 7, 2020 COVID-19 pandemic The statement echoed previous comments by the president. In October 2019, the White House issued a news release suggesting the Trump administration's "pro-growth agenda" was the reason for new jobs and a declining unemployment rate, reaching a level not seen in 50 years. news release Then, on Jan. 29, 2020, roughly one week after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed the first COVID-19 case in the U.S., Trump reiterated on Twitter: reiterated About six weeks later as the deadly virus spread nationwide, Trump doubled down on that "50 year" claim and said his administration is responsible for the "best unemployment numbers in the history of our Country." He tweeted: tweeted The claim took on another layer as the pandemic worsened: Trump alleged without evidence that his administration was responsible for helping Black Americans, specifically, get jobs. For instance, on June 2, he claimed he "has done more for the Black Community than any President since Abraham Lincoln," and that the country's unemployment figure among Black Americans was evidence of that work. claimed After that, Trump supporters went a step further by circulating the below-displayed meme online, alleging that Trump not only drove down unemployment rates for people who identify as Black or African American but also women and Hispanic workers. This was true: U.S. Unemployment Reached 50-year Low Under Trump But no evidence showed Trump was responsible for causing the dip. First, to determine the validity of the underlying claim that Trump shaped the economy so that U.S. unemployment dipped to the lowest rate ever we considered the data available. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) began calculating the country's unemployment rate the number of people seeking work divided by the sum of that amount and total people employed in March 1940, when demographers first launched a monthly survey of households nationwide called the "Current Population Survey." Before that, more subjective and less comprehensive data existed. So to ensure accuracy in this report, we only considered the country's unemployment figure post-1940, as compiled by BLS and the U.S. Census Bureau and to which government officials refer. Bureau of Labor Statistics According to our analysis of the labor statistics before Trump's inauguration on Jan. 20, 2017 (see below for our analysis of the jobless rate during his presidency), the country recorded the lowest unemployment rate in 1944, near the end of World War II. At that time, just 1.2% of Americans were unemployed and seeking jobs, per BLS data, which included workers over the age of 14. (Note: The survey in modern years only counted adults and teenagers over the age of 16, not 14.) The survey Next, we considered BLS unemployment data over the course of 50 years before Trump's inauguration to determine whether the country's jobless rate indeed fell to the "the lowest level in more than 50 years" under his leadership. We learned 1969's annual unemployment rate was about 3.6%, in part, because millions of men were drafted for the Vietnam War and left the American workforce, making the sum of all those seeking or maintaining employment significantly lower. In May 1969, for instance, the unemployment rate was 3.4%. After that, we obtained statistics to gauge the country's monthly unemployment rate from the beginning of Trump's term Jan. 20, 2017 to January 2020, when the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak began and businesses on a grand scale prepared to temporarily close or furloughed workers to prevent the spread of the deadly virus. (We did not consider U.S. unemployment during the outbreak since the claim was framed by the Trump campaign that he was more suited than Democratic rival Joe Biden to revive the pandemic-stricken economy.) Per the BLS' Current Population Survey, the country's unemployment rate in February 2017, which was compiled including survey responses in the weeks before and after Trump took office in January, was 4.6%. From that point, the proportion of Americans seeking work compared to the total number of people in the country's workforce slightly decreased under the Trump administration. By September 2019, the percentage reached 3.5% the lowest rate since December 1969. That meant Trump was correct in saying that unemployment dropped to the lowest point in about 50 years under his watch. However, his second tweet that that metric was the lowest in U.S. history (or since the comprehensive unemployment data existed) was false. The World War II-era 1.2% unemployment rate was lower. Trump was correct According to BBC economists' analysis of the recent employment figure, the change was a result of 490,000 Americans leaving the workforce. Jerome Powell, whom President Barack Obama appointed to the Federal Reserve System's board of governors and Trump promoted to the agency's chairman in 2018, told CBS News at the time that "an unusually large number of people in their prime working years" were not seeking employment or maintaining jobs for a variety of reasons, such as the U.S. opioid crisis, and that the U.S. workforce participation rate was lower than almost every other advanced country. BBC economists' analysis Federal Reserve System's board of governors CBS News We also obtained data showing the country's unemployment rate by race and gender to determine the accuracy of the above-displayed meme that alleged the percentage of unemployed female workers, as well as people who identify as Black, African Americans or Hispanic, was higher in 2009 than in 2019, among other things. According to the monthly data, these facts were true at face value: were true technically ended But that statistical snapshot is missing necessary context to consider the claim that Trump's fiscal and regulatory policies led to millions of workers finding jobs accurate: In February 2009, roughly one month after Obama was sworn into office, he signed a $787 billion stimulus package to save jobs and reverse the economic downturn. The increased public spending on everything from roads to science programs to unemployment benefits, as well as other market trends, created new jobs on a mass scale. And, in turn, labor statistics showed a steady increase in job growth and a gradual decrease in the country's jobless rate over the course of a decade until the pandemic hit. Looking at the graph above, we determined no significant disruptions or changes in the country's unemployment rate when Trump took office the steady decrease is essentially indistinguishable from the Obama years after the recession. "At best, you would say it's been a continuation of a steady trend," economist Austan Goolsbee told MSNBC. told MSNBC In other words, it was false to claim that Trump moved into the White House and jumpstarted a failing economy. Rather, conditions were improving for American workers years before voters elected the real estate billionaire as president. NBC News reported in August 2020: NBC News The president rightly takes credit for having low unemployment during his presidency. In December of 2019, the unemployment rate was a scant 3.5 percent, the lowest it had been in 50 years. However, as good as that number was, when Trump took office the rate was already at 4.7 percent. That figure is quite low by historical standards (lower than all of the 1980s as well as most of the 1990s and 2000s). In December of 2017, it was the lowest the number had been since the Great Recession. In fact, Obama saw a much steeper drop in unemployment in his second term, a 3.3 drop in the rate, than Trump did in his first three years, a decline of 1.2 points. Thats not to besmirch the remarkably low unemployment under Trump, but its hard to ignore that the unemployment track under Obama had been downward. Again, the numbers look like the continuation of a trend, not something new. Another analysis of labor statistics by NPR came to the same conclusion: that job growth remained consistent since the end of the recession in 2010 and 2018, while the unemployment rate steadily decreased. NPR reported: labor statistics by NPR So while the White House can certainly point to some yardsticks that indicate a meaningful turnaround on Trump's watch including small business sentiment, business investment and goods-producing job growth broader measures of the overall job market and wages show the economy continues to follow the steady, upward glide path that began under Obama. In sum, considering no evidence showed policies enacted by the Trump administration drove down the country's unemployment rate but rather the roughly 50-year low in fall 2019 was essentially a continuation from the Great Recession's recovery, per economists' analysis of BLS data we rate this claim "false." per economists BBC News. "US Jobless Rate At Lowest Since 1969." 3 May 2019. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "BLS Data Viewer." Accessed 13 October 2020. Wingfield, Brian. "The End of the Great Recession? Hardly." Forbes. 20 September 2010. Jones, Chuck. "Trump's Economic Scorecard: 3 Years In Office." Forbes. 10 February 2020. Horsley, Scott. "FACT CHECK: Who Gets Credit For The Booming U.S. Economy." NPR. 12 September 2018. Ruhle, Stephanie. "Which President Gets The Credit For The Booming Economy?" MSNBC. 10 September 2018.

FMD_test_32

Do rising levels of ice in the Arctic and Greenland suggest that global warming may be less certain?

10/04/2017

On 1 October 2017, pseudoscientific alternative health website NaturalNews.com, which is geared primarily toward supplement enthusiasts with a discerning taste for deep state conspiracy theories, posted an article ("Dont Look Now, But Arctic Sea Ice Mass Has Grown Almost 40% Since 2012") that attempts to cast doubt on the scientific veracity of global warming by first presenting the following grotesque caricature of a straw man argument: article straw man One of the most popular pieces of "evidence" that climate alarmists just love to bring up to prove the global warming narrative is the "all the ice is melting in the Arctic and the polar bears are dying" line. Weve all seen the documentaries where a polar bear is desperately clinging to a tiny piece of ice and you just know hes going to die soon. They article then presents two observations that make the generally factual point that there has been relatively more sea ice in the Arctic and glacial ice on Greenland in 2017 than there have been at specific times in the recent past: The latest figures from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, located at the University of Colorado, show that sea ice extent has increased by 40 percent since 2012. [...] [The Danish Polar Portal reports that]: If we rank the annual surface mass balance since 1981 from low to high, the lowest on record was 2011-2012 (38 Gt) and this year is the 5th highest out of the 37 year record. Danish Polar Portal To be clear, the primary data scientists use to document global warming are records of Earth's temperature over time, not doomed polar bear imagery. Zeke Hausfather, a research scientist for the independent, nongovernmental Berkeley Earth research group told us in an e-mail that, in this area, pretty much "all groups who provide estimates" of global temperature unequivocally point to nearly uninterrupted temperature rises since the 1970s, as shown in this comparison of various estimates produced by the climate and energy policy website Carbon Brief: Zeke Hausfather produced "People interested in global warming are best-served looking at actual global temperatures," Hausfather said. While this temperature trend is uncontroversial and clear, the climate system as a whole is a complex beast with numerous entangled parts. The basic approach to writing a blog post that "debunks" the concept of global warming is to highlight without explanation various parts of that system at a single point in time. NaturalNews.com is no exception to that basic strategy here. Arctic Sea Ice Natural News cites a climate change denial blog called ClimateDepot.com as evidence of the claim that sea ice has grown 40 percent since 2012. In reality, the claim made by this website was more specific and less useful. In a post dated 18 September 2017, Climate Depot stated: stated Arctic sea ice extent is up 40% from this date five years ago. "Sea ice extent" is one of many different metrics used to characterize the presence of sea ice, and is generally defined as "the area of ocean [based on pixels in satellite imagery] where at least 15 percent of the surface is frozen". On the day of 17 September 2017, sea ice extent was indeed higher than it was on 17 September 2012: defined This does not mean, however, that sea ice has grown almost 40 percent since 2012, nor does it mean that the overall trend in arctic sea ice is toward growth it hasn't and it isn't. The issue here is that sea ice extent is quite variable from year to year, and thus looking at two discrete points is a fairly useless exercise without the full context. "We don't expect it to monotonically decrease every year," Hausfather told us. This chart (using data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center) shows September sea ice extent compared against the same average used in the maps cited by Climate Depot, showing both this aforementioned variability but also an overall trend of reduced ice extent. Note that the year 2012 was no random year to select for comparison; it is actually the record lowest year in terms of Arctic sea ice extent making anything compared to it necessarily higher: from The overall trend of declining sea ice is even clearer when you look at a different measure: sea ice volume (presented by the Polar Science Center, below). Not only do such records show a clear negative trend, they also show just how anomalous 2012 was as a data point: Polar Science Center In reality, 2017 was the eighth lowest year on record for Arctic sea ice extent since satellite measurements began in 1978. But in no world but the pseudo-scientific fringe internet would the concept of global warming rely on every single year breaking the previous year's record for sea ice minimum. eighth Tom Karl, the former director of NOAAs National Centers for Environmental Information, told us that 2017's sea ice extent was still much lower than the 1980-2010 average (by two standard deviations), and that, despite claims to the contrary, "one can't look at a trend over 5 years and say much about the impact of global warming as other factors are also important on these short time scales." director Glacial Ice on Greenland The NaturalNews.com approach for glacial ice on Greenland was similarly lacking scale and context. The main source for these arguments was a completely legitimate end-of-year report put out by the Danish Polar Portal, a website run by the Danish Meteorological Institute. In that report, the organization makes this factual statement: report Heavy snow and rain in winter with a relatively short and intermittent summer melt season have left the Greenland ice sheet with more ice than has been usual over the last twenty years in fact we have to go back to the 1980s and 90s to see a year similar to this one in terms of snow fall and ice melt. This statement, and the figures presented by NaturalNews.com, are referring to a metric known as Surface Mass Balance (SMB), which Polar Portal describes: describes Each year glaciers gain ice from snow and freezing rain and lose ice by melt that runs off. Adding these together gives the surface mass budget (SMB) in Greenland, the ice sheet typically gains mass from around September to May and loses more mass than it gains in the ablation [melting] season of June, July and August. Importantly, however, this measurement only presents half the picture in terms of how much mass is being lost from year to year from Greenland's glaciers. That's because it does not include the rather significant portion of ice that breaks or calves off into the ocean to melt elsewhere. On average this accounts for about 500 Gt [gigatons] of further ice loss. This, as stated in the Polar Portal post, nearly matches the estimated gain in SMB reported by Natural News, effectively canceling it out. In a post on Carbon Brief, analysts with the Danish Meteorological Society put this years measurement in context: post While the Greenland ice sheet has seen a neutral, or small positive, change in ice for this year, it should be noted that Greenland has lost approximately 3,600bn tonnes of ice since 2002. Like the record of Arctic sea ice earlier, when put in the context of the entire trend of Greenland's ice mass over time (presented by Polar Portal below), 2017's measurement does nothing to change larger and completely unambiguous trends of overall melting: Polar Portal Further, in the case of Greenland's ice sheet, there is not much of a mystery surrounding the lackluster amount of melting this year; a massive storm the remnants of Hurricane Nicole parked itself atop the continent, dumping a large amount of snow on the ice-covered continent: Hurricane Nicole dumping Heavy rain and snow in October in especially eastern Greenland gave record totals of precipitation in the main east coast town of Tasiilaq as the remnants of former hurricane Nicole passed by and, much as with Harvey in Houston this year, got lodged over eastern Greenland for some days. However, after Nicoles extreme precipitation, the rest of the winter was actually pretty average in terms of the amount of snow that fell. Because neither the higher-than-2012 arctic sea ice from 17 September 2017 nor the neutral amount of ice loss in Greenland in 2017 do anything to disrupt the overall trends of decreasing ice, and because climatological science does not require (nor does it expect) ice or temperature records to be broken every single year, we rank the claim that these observations are reasons to doubt the tenets of climate change as false. Watson, Tracey. "Dont Look Now, but Arctic Sea Ice Mass Has Grown Almost 40% Since 2012." Natural News. 1 October 2017. Mottram, Ruth, et al. "Guest Post: How the Greenland Ice Sheet Fared in 2017." Carbon Brief. 1 September 2017. Polar Portal. "End of the SMB Season Summary 2017." 12 September 2017. Morano, Marc. "Massive Arctic Ice Gain (Up 40%) Since Low Point of 2012. Climate Depot. 19 September 2012. Hausfather, Zeke. "State of the Climate: Warm Temperatures and Low Sea Ice Mark First Half of 2017." Carbon Brief. 21 July 2017. National Snow and Ice Data Center. "Arctic Sea Ice at Minimum Extent." 19 September 2017. Polar Science Center. "PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis." Accessed 4 October 2017. NASA. "End-of-Summer Arctic Sea Ice Extent Is Eighth Lowest on Record." 19 September 2017. NASA. "NASA Sees Tropical Storm Nicole Going Extra-Tropical." 18 October 2016.

FMD_test_33

Does Video Show Athletes Fainting Due to COVID-19 Vaccine?

11/30/2021

In November 2021, rumors claiming that an unusual number of athletes had fainted or collapsed in the previous year were widely circulated online. These rumors were often accompanied by fear-mongering captions that warned people against receiving COVID-19 vaccines. One video, for example, featured messages such as "Not normal ... Boost at your own [peril]," "#ATHLETES IN ALL SPORTS ARE DROPPING DEAD AND THE MASTERS FORCE VACCINES ON US ALL," and "Vaccines dropping them daily. Sick world." This video does not show vaccine injuries or people fainting due to the COVID-19 vaccine. While it includes real incidents from 2021, none of these incidents has been connected to the COVID-19 vaccine. Other plausible explanations, such as dehydration or heat exhaustion, have been offered for these incidents, and a few of the clips in this video show athletes who were not vaccinated. There is no evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine has resulted in an increase in fainting incidents. The video features seven fainting incidents, and we have been able to source six of the seven clips. None of the fainting incidents we were able to investigate were caused by the COVID-19 vaccine. Here's what these clips show, starting with the first one: The first clip shows Denmark's Christian Eriksen collapsing during Euro 2020 in June 2021 after suffering a cardiac arrest. While this incident has been used by anti-vaxxers to stir up fear over the COVID-19 vaccine, Eriksen was not vaccinated. Inter Milan team director Giuseppe Marotta stated, "He didn't have COVID and wasn't vaccinated either." The second clip shows Chinelle Henry and Chedean Nation, two West Indies cricket players who fainted during a match in July 2021. While both players were taken off the field on stretchers, neither required hospitalization. An exact cause for this incident was not provided, and labeling it a vaccine injury is pure speculation. Furthermore, both players returned to the field a few days later to compete. They had collapsed on the field in separate incidents during the second T20I on Friday but were back with the team on Sunday, the day of the third game. In separate messages posted on Twitter, both said they didn't have any hospital stay or restrictions imposed on them. "I just want to thank you guys for all your concern and well wishes, and I am doing well. No hospital stay, no restrictions. Now I'm just focused on going out there and getting the series 3-nil," Henry said. The third clip shows Moussa Dembele, a striker for Atletico Madrid, who collapsed during training in March 2021. Diario AS reported that Dembele fainted after a "sudden drop in blood pressure," but there were no other complications. Dembele was not hospitalized, and after being examined by the team's doctors, he drove his own car home from the field. There's no evidence that this incident was related to a COVID-19 vaccine. It's worth noting, however, that Dembele tested positive for COVID-19 a month before this incident. The fourth clip shows Jack Draper, a young British tennis player, suffering from a bout of heat exhaustion at the Miami Open in March 2021. As was the case with Dembele, it's possible that COVID-19, not a COVID-19 vaccine, contributed to this medical episode. Draper stated that he was diagnosed with coronavirus in January and that the lingering effects of the disease, in addition to the heat, may have contributed to his collapse. Draper said, "I was out for two weeks with COVID in January ... I didn't move a muscle and that was after pre-season as well, so I put in a really good pre-season and then I didn't play, so it's been a rough start to the year [...] I got it; it's obviously an extremely aggressive virus and you can catch it from anywhere, but I got it and it did affect me quite badly for seven days. I had bad symptoms and then I recovered pretty quickly from there, but it definitely had an effect on me. I've put in loads of great training since then, so it's no excuse, but did it have an effect on me at the time? Probably. With a lot of these things, you don't know how much it really affects you." The fifth clip in this video is the one we know the least about. It doesn't appear to be a professional badminton event; rather, this clip seems to come from a security camera at a recreational facility. Project Comprova, a collaboration of more than a dozen news outlets around Brazil, found that this video was likely shot somewhere in Malaysia. Little is known about this incident at the time, so we can't say exactly what happened here. However, those claiming that this shows a "vaccine injury" are doing so without evidence. The sixth clip shows Charles Bulu, a Ghanaian referee, collapsing in March 2021 during the final minutes of an Africa Cup match between Cote d'Ivoire and Ethiopia. Goal.com reported that Bulu was initially appointed as the fourth official but had to step in as the main referee after a colleague tested positive for COVID-19. Bulu, who was treated at a hospital according to the Ghana Football Association, told the Daily Graphic, a Ghanaian newspaper, that the incident was related to a poor diet, a lack of sleep, dehydration, and excessive heat: "I didn't eat quite well both at breakfast and lunch, hoping that I would rather take in some banana just before the game, only to arrive at the Match Officials' dressing room to realize that no such provision had been made, despite our request for it. [...] I could not take in as much water as my body needed, and with the heat and intensity of the game, I began feeling dehydrated by the 68th minute, but unfortunately, there was no Fourth Referee to step in. I was hoping I could hold on till the next water break, which was around the 75th minute, but before then, I just blacked out." The final clip in this video compilation shows Bert Smith collapsing during a March Madness game in April 2021. Smith was taken off the floor on a stretcher but did not require immediate hospitalization. Hours later, as a precaution, Smith decided to visit a hospital, fearing that he may have a concussion. While Smith did not have a concussion, the doctors found that he had a blood clot. The Indy Star reported that Smith was put on blood thinners and was released a few days later. It's unclear what caused the blood clot, but Smith had tested positive for COVID-19 a few months earlier. An athlete fainting is not a particularly rare occurrence. According to The Athletic, a player faints on the football pitch every four days. While the video does not show athletes who fainted or collapsed from the COVID-19 vaccine, it does show various athletes fainting in 2021. There's not enough evidence to determine whether fainting incidents are becoming more common due to the pandemic, but here are a few things to consider. First, people infected by COVID-19 may experience "long Covid," or lingering symptoms from the disease after the initial infection subsides. These symptoms may include shortness of breath, fatigue, and heart palpitations. Second, one of the rare side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine is myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the British regulator for drugs and vaccines, told Reuters that this is a rare side effect and its symptoms are often mild. Dr. Sonya Babu-Narayan, associate medical director at the British Heart Foundation, told the Telegraph that athletes diagnosed with COVID-19 are at a greater risk of having a heart condition than those who receive the COVID-19 vaccine: "Whilst vaccine-induced myocarditis has been reported in children and young adults following the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, it's actually quite rare ... The risk of myocarditis or myocarditis-type injury to the heart, or other cardiovascular complications, is much greater if you get COVID-19. That's why it's important to avoid COVID-19, and the best way to do that is to stay up-to-date with your vaccine doses." At the moment, there's not enough evidence to suggest any connection between COVID-19 or COVID-19 vaccines and an increase in fainting incidents. When Reuters asked FIFA about this rumor, the soccer organization stated that it was not "aware of a rise in episodes of cardiac arrests" and that there had not been any cases "flagged in relation to individuals receiving a COVID vaccine."

FMD_test_34

$42.4 Billion Consumer Rebate Program

09/18/2016

For over a year, unscrupulous financial sites (primarily the Oxford Club) have been trying to peddle costly memberships and newsletter subscriptions to consumers by deceptively touting that Congress recently passed a $42.4 billion "consumer rebate program" entitling taxpaying Americans to a "cash rebate on every single purchase"—a program that you, too, could cash in on if you paid $49 for a subscription to find out how. Such come-ons typically referenced a "new" or "secret" law that had been "quietly" enacted at the end of 2015. Late on Friday, December 18, 2015, President Obama quietly signed a new 233-page Congressional act into law. There was little fanfare; after all, it was the weekend before Christmas, and most of the White House reporters had already gone home for the holidays. But buried deep inside the act, in Section 106, is a hidden bombshell—one that I believe deserves your immediate attention. In short, it contains a program that gives every taxpaying American the right to collect a cash rebate on nearly every single purchase made in 2016. This is not a joke. We're talking about an opportunity to collect a cash rebate on virtually anything you pay for during this year. All of this was highly misleading. The referenced "cash rebate" program was actually a decade-old tax deduction provision that applied to a small minority of taxpayers and could not fairly be described as a program to provide consumers with "cash rebates on nearly every purchase" (at least not without stretching the definition of the word "rebate" to the breaking point). In general, the U.S. income tax code has long allowed taxpayers who itemize their federal income tax returns to deduct any state and local income taxes they pay during the year. However, some state and local governments don't impose income taxes on residents and instead fund their operations in other ways (such as higher sales or property taxes), so those who live in such states were disadvantaged by not having a federal tax deduction to offset what they paid to keep their local government services running. To make things a little more equitable, for ten years running, Congress voted in an exception every year that allowed taxpayers to choose to deduct either state and local income taxes or state and local sales taxes on their federal returns. Finally, at the end of 2015, a bill was passed by Congress and signed by President Obama, making this temporary yearly provision a permanent part of the law. So, the minority of taxpayers who live in one of the nine no-income tax states (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee, Washington, and Wyoming) and itemize their federal tax returns may see some benefit from this not-new-but-recently-permanent law, as may a few others (such as taxpayers who have relatively low incomes but made large taxable purchases during the course of a given year). But it's a tax deduction rather than a "cash rebate" program, and it affects only a small percentage of taxpayers and not "every taxpaying American." As the Stock Gumshoe site summarized the issue: I expect lots of you were already fully aware of this, or blissfully unaware because it will never impact your lives or your tax obligations, but [the "permanentization" of this tax break] is real and it has certainly made a difference for folks in no-income-tax states and a few other folks in non-typical circumstances. And it's also been the law of the land for about ten years and has recently been made permanent, so you won't have to be on pins and needles each winter as you watch to see if Congress extends the break another year. And no, it is not a rebate to 119 million Americans, but for at least the 24 million or so households in no-income tax states (or the approximately 8 million of them who itemize deductions, anyway), it could certainly make (and in all cases where they've been paying attention since 2004, probably already has made) a difference on their tax returns.

FMD_test_35

Was Prince Integral in the Development of Air Jordan Sneakers?

04/24/2016

Shortly after the death of Prince Rogers Nelson (the musician known solely as Prince) in April 2016, an image macroexaggerating the musician's role in the commercial success of NBA superstar Michael Jordan began circulating online: album The claim about Prince's bringing Michael Jordan to Nike in 1983 is possible in a temporal sense (Jordan first signed with the company in 1984), but we found no evidence that events actually transpiredinthe manner described by this macro. Contemporaneous news articles from 1984 also failed to mention any connection between Prince, Jordan and Nike. mention An article published by ESPN in February 2013 gave a detailed history about how Michael Jordan landed with Nike, and while ESPN identified several people involved in getting Jordan to meet with Nike (Jordan wore Converse shoes rather than Nikes and was reluctant to switch), Prince was not among them: Nike was a fast-rising star. The company's revenue went from $28.7 million in 1973 to $867 million by the end of 1983. But things had started to turn on them toward the end of the year. In February 1984, the company reported its first quarterly loss ever. The Olympics in Los Angeles that summer provided a nice morale boost most notably, Carl Lewis won four gold medals in Nikes but there wasn't an immediate translation in sales. Converse and adidas weren't ready for Jordan, but all of a sudden, Nike needed him. If the company could only get him on the plane. The claim that Prince designed the Air Jordan 1 is also based on fantasy, as the first Air Jordan sneakers werecreated by Peter Moore: created Peter Moore has been involved with just about anything you find coolincluding video games, basketball kicks, and especially designing the sneaker that changed everything. Tinker Hatfield receives all the daps for his work with MJ, but it was Moore who created the first Jordan (and the ball and wings logo) that started a phenomenon. The statements made in the above-displayed macro appear to be an exaggeration of a comment issued by Jordan shortly after Prince's death: comment "Like so many people I am shocked at the news that Prince has died," Jordan said. "In a world of creative performers, Prince was a genius. His impact not just on music, but on culture, truly can't be measured. His songs inspired me throughout my career and remind me of so many moments from my life." Although Michael Jordan praised Prince as having inspired him throughout his career, the musician apparently had no direct impact on Jordan's commercial success with Nike.

FMD_test_36

Is Volkswagen's 300 MPG Car Banned in the U.S.?

04/14/2014

Claim: The federal government is preventing Volkswagen's XL1 model car from being sold in the U.S. because the vehicle is too fuel-efficient. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, September 2013] Volkswagen's New 300 MPG Car Not Allowed In America Because It Is Too Efficient Would like to know of the article is valid. Origins: For many years conspiracy rumors have circulated positing that a collusion between Big Oil and the U.S. government has prevented the American public from having the opportunity to purchase fully developed, market-ready automobiles capable of obtaining fuel efficiencies of 200-300 MPG. Such rumors have taken the form of everything from mysterious forces stealing cars equipped with miracle carburetors to keep that technology's existence a secret, to the federal government's enacting regulations intended for the sole purpose of keeping high-mileage vehicles out of the U.S. market in order to protect the interests (and profits) of American oil companies. miracle carburetors high-mileage April 2014 saw the emergence of yet another entry in this vein, courtesy of Jim Stone, Freelance Journalist (the same "journalist" who promulgated the ridiculous story about a passenger on missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 who supposedly hid his cell phone in his rectum and used it to post a picture to the Internet after the flight was hijacked), positing that Volkswagen has a terrific 300 MPG vehicle that only costs $60,000 all ready to go, but it can't be sold (or even seen) in America because politicians in the pay of oil companies are conspiring to keep it unknown and unsellable in the U.S.: Jim Stone, Freelance Journalist ridiculous You won't find the 300 MPG Volkswagen XL1 in an American showroom, in fact it has even been denied a tour of America because it is too efficient for the American public to be made widely aware of, and oil profits are too high in America with the status quo in place. No tour has been allowed for this car because the myth that 50 mpg is virtually impossible to obtain from even a stripped down econobox is too profitable to let go of, and when it comes to corporate oil profits, ignorance is bliss. The answer is obvious. Simply for the sake of raking in huge profits from $4 a gallon gas, getting guzzled at 10X the rate it should be, the corporations have via campaign contributions and other types of pay outs succeeded in getting the FED to legislate the best cars off the road for irrelevant trumped up reasons. Even after being hand made with "exotic" materials in an intentionally limited edition, the Xl1 still only costs $60,000. There is a lot more of a market for this car than 2,000 units at that price, have no doubt, this car is being held back on purpose. In this case the vehicle in question is the Volkswagen XL1, a two-person, "one-liter" concept car (i.e., a vehicle capable of averaging 100 km per liter of fuel, or about 235 MPG) originally shown to the public back in 2002 and modified (and renamed) several times since over the intervening years. The latest unveiled version of the XL1, already put into production, is a plug-in diesel-electric hybrid described thusly by Green Car Reports: XL1 Green Car Reports The Volkswagen XL1 is a plug-in diesel hybrid with a body seemingly beamed in from a future time. It's the physical representation of the benefits of reducing weight and improving aerodynamics. The small body may only take two people, but it's allowed for an incredibly streamlined body with a drag coefficient of only 0.189. Low weight only 1,752 lbs means only a small engine and electric motor is needed to deliver respectable performance. Much of the car is constructed from carbon fiber, aluminum and titanium. VW says the car will do 261 mpg, though the real figure will be lower than that should it ever be tested under EPA guidelines. Even so, it'll still use comfortably less fuel than any vehicle currently on sale. A diesel engine of only 0.8 liters and 2 cylinders capacity produces 47 horsepower, with a further 27 horses delivered by the electric motor. Power reaches the wheels via a 7-speed dual-clutch gearbox. Those figures sound miniscule by modern standards, but the XL1 should reach 62 mph in 12.7 seconds. Top speed is 98 mph. Operating alone, the small battery can deliver up to 31 miles of range, and can be charged via plug or regenerative effect. It's true that very few, if any, Volkswagen XL1s will likely be seen on U.S. roads in the immediate future, but that situation will be due to a confluence of factors that does not include a government/Big Oil conspiracy to keep them out of the U.S. First of all, it's not true that the XL1 has "been denied a tour of America because it is too efficient for the American public to be made widely aware of." Existing safety and traffic regulations do limit where the current XL1 models can be legally driven in public roads in the U.S., but Volkswagen has taken at least three of the vehicles on tour around the U.S., and the staff of Jalopnik drove one around Manhattan at the end of 2013. Jalopnik Second, the primary reason the XL1 won't be seen in the U.S. anytime soon is that Volkswagen is only producing 200 units for retail sale (not 2,000 as claimed above), all of them to be sold in Europe via some sort of selection (i.e., lottery) process. 200 units But why only 200 cars? And why only in Europe? As for the first part, the answer is that new vehicles like the XL1 are expensive to develop and produce (and therefore expensive for consumers to afford), and similar forms of automobiles have not yet met with tremendous success on the commercial market, so any automotive company that puts such a model into full-blown production risks sinking a whole lot of money into something that may not sell well at all (especially in the U.S. market, where consumers have very different expectations and preferences than European car buyers do). The XL1 is in many ways still a concept/prototype vehicle, and so Volkswagen is testing the waters by putting out a limited production run to see how many consumers are really interested in shelling out the equivalent of U.S. $150,000 (not $60,000 as claimed above) for a two-person car. And the testers at Car and Driver found that while the XL1's fuel efficiency might be superb, it might also be somewhat overblown as presented in promotional materials: Car and Driver The XL1 should run 31 miles solely on electric power, says [VW development engineer Ulrich] Mitze. But on the cold and rainy April day we drove it, the small, 60-cell, 5.5-kWh, 150-pound lithium-ion battery pack needed a recharge after only 22 miles. According to the on-board computer, we are fuel hogs. Having started with a full tank (2.6 gallons) and fully charged batteries, we ended our trip after 67 miles; fuel consumption plummeted at one point to a dismal 128 mpg. Achieving the XL1's theoretical 749-mile range would take a right foot as light as a moonbeam. As for why only Europe, the answer is that the U.S. does have many safety standards in place (enacted many years ago a variety of reasons, none of which was to keep high-mileage vehicles off the U.S. market) that all automobile manufacturers have to meet in order to legally sell their vehicles in America, regulations that sometimes require manufacturers to modify or retrofit models that were produced for sale under less strict regulations in Europe (or other parts of the world). If Volkswagen wants to test-market their XL1 in limited quantities, there's no reason for them to expend millions of dollars preparing and certifying those vehicles for U.S. safety standards when they can vend their small lot of cars just as well in the European market without all the added expense. As noted by USA Today: The XL1 [is] a spaceship-like, ultra-high-mpg, plug-in diesel-electric hybrid. VW used exotic, but obtainable, materials and technologies to craft a mileage-above-all car able to get 261 mpg in European tests, equating, very roughly, to perhaps 200 mpg in U.S. tests. Barely a real production model, it's made in a factory, but largely by hand. It couldn't meet U.S. safety rules and needed changes in German rules to be on the road there. And if one buys into the conspiracy theory that the government and Big Oil are colluding to keep high-mileage vehicles off the U.S. market in order to protect profits from gasoline sales, one has to wonder why those powerful and malevolent entities aren't doing anything to stop Americans from purchasing cars produced by Tesla, superbly-performing vehicles that use no gasoline at all yet still deliver premium performance, have great range for electric cars, have received the highest rating of any automobile ever evaluated by Consumer Reports, are top-rated for safety even under tougher U.S. standards, but are widely available for purchase in the U.S.: Tesla Most Americans may never actually see a Tesla Model S sedan in person, but you will want to know why this car is so important to the automotive industry and what all the media fuss is about. Tesla Motors was founded in 2003 by a group of intrepid Silicon Valley engineers who set out to prove that electric vehicles could be awesome. The name of the company pays homage to Nicola Tesla, a Serbian American inventor, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, physicist, and futurist best known for his contributions to the design of the modern alternating current (AC) electricity supply system. As the California automakers first production model, the Tesla Model S is 100 percent electric, a car so advanced it sets the new standard for premium performance. This is not a hybrid, nor is it equipped with any kind of "range expanding" gasoline engine. At the heart of the vehicle is the proven Tesla powertrain, delivering both unprecedented range and a thrilling drive experience. The Tesla Model S has won the 2013 Motor Trend Car of the Year award, received the highest rating of any automobile in history from Consumer Reports (99 out of 100) and achieved the best possible US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rating. Unlike the internal combustion engine with hundreds of moving pieces that spark, pump, belch, and groan, the Tesla motor has only one moving piece: the rotor. As a result, Model S acceleration is instantaneous, like flipping a switch. Hit the accelerator. In 5.4 seconds, Model S is traveling 60 miles per hour, without hesitation and without a drop of gasoline. As in so many cases, what is attributed to furtive conspiracy is more easily explained away as wishful thinking colliding with the hard, cold realities of economics. Last updated: 14 April 2014 Healey, James R. "Test Drive: VW XL1 Shows How to Get 200 MPG." USA Today. 7 December 2013. Ingram, Antony. "261 MPG Volkswagen XL1 Production Confirmed, Debuts Geneva." Green Car Reports. 21 February 2013. Ingram, Antony. "Orders for 261-MPG Volkswagen XL1 Exceed Production of 200." Green Car Reports. 28 October 2013. Zoellter, Juergen. "2014 Volkswagen XL1." Car and Driver. June 2013. Green Bay Press Gazette. "2014 Tesla Model S Sedan Takes the Electric Car to a New Level." 14 April 2014.

FMD_test_37

Concepts deserving of discarding

07/27/2015

FACT CHECK: Was Nick Hanauer's 2012 TED Talk about income inequality banned because it was "too politically controversial" to release? Claim: A 2012 TED Talk video featuring wealthy entrepreneur Nick Hanauer speaking on the subject of income inequality was banned because it was deemed "too politically controversial." Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2015] There are several articles that claim "TED Banned This Billionaire For Exposing Capitalism's Biggest Lie" or similar wording. This refers to the speech of Nick Hanauer, a Seattle venture capitalist. The sensational language of this claim makes me suspicious, as does the unlikelihood of the assertion. Is it true? What is the source of the rumor? Origins: On 1 March 2012, Seattle-based venture capitalist and entrepreneur Nick Hanauer participated in the global conference series of "TED Talks." The video of his six-minute talk, widely circulated since its release, captured him addressing a range of issues pertaining to income inequality and capitalism from the perspective of a very wealthy individual. Not long after Hanauer's March 2012 talk was filmed, rumors began circulating that TED had deliberately suppressed the clip due to its potentially offensive nature (to wealthy individuals). On 16 May 2012, National Journal published an article contending that TED's organizers had quashed the groundbreaking talk because its content was simply too controversial to release, an odd assertion considering the 2011 emergence of a well-known protest movement known as Occupy Wall Street. The article noted that TED organizers invited Hanauer, the first non-family investor in Amazon.com, to give a speech on March 1 at their TED University conference. Inequality was the topic, specifically Hanauer's contention that the middle class, and not wealthy innovators like himself, are America's true "job creators." "We've had it backward for the last 30 years," he said. "Rich businesspeople like me don't create jobs. Rather, they are a consequence of an ecosystemic feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich." You can't find that speech online. TED officials initially told Hanauer they were eager to distribute it. "I want to put this talk out into the world!" one of them wrote to him in an e-mail in late April. But early this month, they changed course, telling Hanauer that his remarks were too "political" and too controversial for posting. In the years since 2012, Hanauer's TED clip has paradoxically been viewed millions of times while remaining the focus of articles describing it as "banned," "too controversial," or the speech TED "doesn't want you to see." While it's difficult to determine the accuracy of statements about its online availability in March 2012, the clip clearly became widely available and was frequently viewed on sharing sites such as YouTube shortly thereafter, and it has remained popular ever since. However, in 2015, many social media users continued to assert that Hanauer's talk was banned. In late May 2012, a contributor to TED's forums specifically asked why Hanauer's talk had been "banned," prompting a lengthy discussion during which individuals affiliated with TED linked to a statement issued by TED curator Chris Anderson explaining why Hanauer's talk had not been promoted. The service by which Anderson published the explanation (Posterous) shuttered in April 2013, taking Anderson's remarks with it. However, a cached version revealed the date (17 May 2012), title ("TED and inequality: The real story"), and content of Anderson's rebuttal. Anderson opened by stating that "TED was subject to a story so misleading it would be funny... except it successfully launched an aggressive online campaign against us." He described an ensuing "firestorm of outrage" on sites including Reddit and Huffington Post, wherein TED was "accused of being cowards ... in the pay of our corporate partners ... [and] the despicable puppets of the Republican party." Anderson's account of the decision not to release Hanauer's talk differed dramatically from the circulating rumors: Here's what actually happened. At TED this year, an attendee pitched a 3-minute audience talk on inequality. The talk tapped into a really important and timely issue. However, it framed the issue in a way that was explicitly partisan. (The talk explicitly attacked what he called an article of faith for Republicans. He criticized Democrats too, but only for not also attacking this idea more often.) It included a number of arguments that were unconvincing, even to those of us who supported his overall stance, such as the apparent ruling out of entrepreneurial initiative as a root cause of job creation. The audience at TED who heard it live (and who are often accused of being overly enthusiastic about left-leaning ideas) gave it, on average, mediocre ratings—some enthusiastic, others critical. At TED, we post one talk a day on our home page. We're drawing from a pool of 250+ that we record at our own conferences each year and up to 10,000 recorded at various TEDx events around the world, not to mention our other conference partners. Our policy is to post only talks that are truly special. We try to steer clear of talks that are bound to descend into the same dismal partisan head-butting people can find every day elsewhere in the media. We discussed this internally and ultimately told the speaker we did not plan to post. He did not react well. He had hired a PR firm to promote the talk to MoveOn and others, and the PR firm warned us that unless we posted, he would go to the press and accuse us of censoring him. We again declined, and this time I wrote to him and tried gently to explain in detail why I thought his talk was flawed. He then forwarded portions of the private emails to a reporter, and National Journal duly picked up the story. As Anderson noted, income inequality was the subject of at least one TED Talk video in 2011. Much of the rumor regarding Nick Hanauer's purportedly banned TED Talk segment hinged upon the differing assertions made by TED and Hanauer at the time of the controversy in 2012. However, Anderson's claims (that TED curators are tasked with promoting only the most impactful clips) weren't implausible or suggestive of a cover-up. It would be difficult to determine whether Hanauer or anyone working on his behalf threatened a public relations offensive, but TED maintained that quality and not content was behind the decision not to feature the video (which clearly was not "banned" from public view but was simply not promoted by TED). Since the time of the initial debate over whether or why the TED talk was "banned," the clip has been distributed both by TED and other outlets and widely viewed by a large online audience. In August 2014, Hanauer returned for a TED Talk titled "Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming." While it's true that TED opted not to promote Hanauer's initial appearance (during which he discussed income inequality), his segment was not banned, and the organization cited his lack of substantive content alongside his primary reliance on partisan ideas as the reason it was not curated alongside other featured TED Talks. At no point during the immediate controversy did TED appear to deny the existence of the video, remove it from the Internet, interfere with its distribution, or otherwise thwart the ideas advocated by Hanauer from spreading. The group simply chose initially not to promote the clip (as they do for a large number of TED Talks) in favor of other content selected by their curators. Last updated: 27 July 2015 Originally published: 27 July 2015

FMD_test_38

Medicaid is close to 30 percent of the state budget and the biggest expenditure at the state.

03/12/2015

After rejecting Medicaid expansion in 2013, the Florida Legislature is taking a serious look at it this session. The program pays for health insurance for the very poor. On March 10, astate Senate panelapproved aproposalthat would allow Florida to accept $50 billion in federal dollars to expand coverage to about 800,000 low-income residents. The plan would establish a state-run private insurance exchange for residents who earn less than $16,000 a year or $33,000 for a family of four. Though the bill won unanimous support of the GOP-dominated Senate Health Policy Committee, it faces an uphill battle in the more conservative House. Also, it would require the federal government to grant Florida a waiver. The feds might object to parts of the Senate proposal that require beneficiaries to pay a monthly premium based on their salary, ranging from $3 to $25. During the Senate hearing, the Florida Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Mark Wilson said he had met with legislators to discuss the chambers ideas for a Medicaid proposal. We recommended a 32 percent cap on state expenditures, we are coming close to 30 percent right now, he said. It's the biggest expenditure at the state and wed like to protect taxpayers with a 32 percent cap. Does Medicaid come close to eating up nearly one-third of the state budget and is it the states biggest expenditure? Medicaid and the state budget Medicaid is a joint state and federal program aimed at providing health insurance to the very poor. The 2010 Affordable Care Act encourages states to expand eligibility and agreed to pay 100 percent of the expansion for the first three years, declining to 90 percent in 2020 and beyond.Twenty nine statesadopted the expansion -- six including Florida are considering it, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Republican Gov. Rick Scott initially opposed Medicaid expansion butswitched his positionin 2013 when he came out in support of it. But Scott didnt lobby the GOP-led Legislature, which ultimately rejected the expansion. In 2014, Democratic challenger Charlie Crist attacked Scott for not pushing for it and argued it would have led toincreased jobsin Florida. Edie Ousley, a spokeswoman for the chamber, sent PolitiFact Florida state budget documents, as well as information from groups such as Florida TaxWatch, to show how much of the budget is devoted to Medicaid. We also examined documents we received from the Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research. The original 2014-15 Medicaid appropriation was$23.6 billionfrom all state and federal funds. The total budget for all funds was about $77.08 billion, which means that Medicaid accounts for about 30.6 percent of the budget. On March 4, the state released its latest revision for how much is needed for Medicaid this year and concluded it was $23.52 billion -- about 55 percent is federal dollars and 45 percent is state money. For all funds, Medicaid is the largest program, Amy Baker, the states chief economist, told PolitiFact Florida. But education programs -- including K-12 and higher education -- have received on average slightly more than 52 percent of all state general revenue appropriations since 1997-98. The second-largest policy area is human services. Over this same period, the human services portion of the budget has grown from 25 percent to nearly 30 percent, primarily because of the states Medicaid program growth, Baker said. Nationwide, Medicaid accounts for about 20 percent of state general fund appropriations while K-12 accounts for about one-third, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Medicaid eats up such a large chunk of the budget due to rising health care costs and growing caseloads -- and it continues to grow at a faster rate than education spending, said Arturo Perez, fiscal affairs director for the NCSL. TheNational Association of State Budget Officersfound that if they combined state and federal spending, on average about 26 percent of states budgets were for Medicaid in 2014. When combining those federal and state dollars, there is no question it is the biggest chunk of the budget in total -- no question, said Kurt Wenner, of Florida TaxWatch. George Washington University health policy professor Leighton Ku said that as far as state-based fiscal burdens, a better measure is to focus on how much of the state general fund goes to Medicaid. That level is about 20 percent of state general fund expenditures, he said. The general fund corresponds better to what state taxpayers contribute and takes out stuff like federal revenue. Still a lot, but much lower than 31 percent. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that Medicaid is a large component of state budgets, so there is reason for legislators to be concerned about the costs. But the majority of Medicaid costs that are paid by the federal government are not a burden to state taxpayers, but essentially an influx of federal funds to the state that promotes economic growth in the state, Ku said. Thus, the actual burden to state taxpayers is far less than 30 percent of their state tax dollars, he said. In terms of state/local expenditures, education costs are always much higher. Our ruling Medicaid is close to 30 percent of the state budget and the biggest expenditure at the state, Wilson said. There are two ways to look at Medicaid spending. The 30 percent figure is correct if Wilson counts both the state and federal dollars that go toward Medicaid, and it is the biggest expendituree. However, if we only count state dollars, then education eats up a bigger piece of the budget. It's important to understand that the federal government contributes to Medicaid, so the statement is accurate but needs additional information. We rate this claim Mostly True.

FMD_test_39

Did You Know This?

01/10/2004

Claim: Messages chronicle U.S. accomplishments in rebuilding Iraq since the end of major combat. Multiple. Examples: [Collected on the Internet, 2003] Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1.... the first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is onactive duty.. over 60,000 Iraqis now provide security to their fellow citizens.. nearly all of Iraq's 400 courts are functioning.. the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent.. on Monday, October 6 power generation hit 4,518 megawatts - exceeding the prewar average.. all 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools.. by October 1, Coalition forces had rehab-ed over 1,500 schools - 500 more than scheduled.. teachers earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.. all 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open.. doctors salaries are at least eight times what they were under Saddam.. pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to 700 tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons.. the Coalition has helped administer over 22 million vaccination doses to Iraq's children.. a Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of Iraq's 27,000 kilometers of weed-choked canals which now irrigate tens of thousands of farms. This project has created jobs for more than 100,000Iraqi men and women.. we have restored over three-quarters of prewar telephone services and over two-thirds of the potable water production.. there are 4,900 full-service telephone connections. We expect 50,000 by year-end.. the wheels of commerce are turning. From bicycles to satellite dishes to cars and trucks, businesses are coming to life in all major cities and towns.. 95 percent of all prewar bank customers have service and first-time customers are opening accounts daily.. Iraqi banks are making loans to finance businesses.. the central bank is fully independent.. Iraq has one of the worlds most growth-oriented investment and banking laws.. Iraq has a single, unified currency for the first time in 15 years.. satellite TV dishes are legal.. foreign journalists aren't on 10-day visas paying mandatory and extortionate fees to the Ministry of Information for minders and other government spies.. there is no Ministry of Information.. there are more than 170 newspapers.. you can buy satellite dishes on what seems like every street corner.. foreign journalists (and everyone else) are free to come and go.. a nation that had not one single element - legislative, judicial or executive - of a representative government, now does... in Baghdad alone residents have selected 88 advisory councils. Baghdad's first democratic transfer of power in 35 years happened when the city council elected its new chairman.. today in Iraq chambers of commerce, business, school and professional organizations are electing their leaders all over the country.. 25 ministers, selected by the most representative governing body in Iraq's history, run the day-to-day business of government.. the Iraqi government regularly participates in international events. Since July the Iraqi government has been represented in over two dozen international meetings, including those of the UN General Assembly, the Arab League, the World Bank and IMF and, today, the Islamic Conference Summit. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs today announced that it is reopening over 30 Iraqi embassies around the world.. Shia religious festivals that were all but banned, aren't.. for the first time in 35 years, in Karbala thousands of Shiites celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam.. the Coalition has completed over 13,000 reconstruction projects, large and small, as part of a strategic plan for the reconstruction of Iraq.. Uday and Queasy are dead - and no longer feeding innocent Iraqis to the zoo lions, raping the young daughters of local leaders to force cooperation, torturing Iraq's soccer players for losing games, ormurdering critics.. children aren't imprisoned or murdered when their parents disagree with the government.. political opponents aren't imprisoned, tortured, executed, maimed, or are forced to watch their families die for disagreeing with Saddam.. millions of longsuffering Iraqis no longer live in perpetual terror.. Saudis will hold municipal elections.. Qatar is reforming education to give more choices to parents.. Jordan is accelerating market economic reforms.. the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded for the first time to an Iranian a Muslim woman who speaks out with courage for human rights, for democracy and for peace.. Saddam is gone.. Iraq is free.. President Bush has not faltered or failed.. Yet, little or none of this information has been published by the Press corps that prides itself on bring you all the news that's important. Iraq under US lead control has come further in six months than Germany did in seven years or Japan did in nine years following WWII. Military deaths from fanatic Nazi's, and Japanese numbered in the thousands and continued for over three years after WWII victory was declared. It took the US over four months to clear away the twin tower debris, let alone attempt to build something else in its place. Now, take into account that almost every Democrat leader in the House and Senate has fought President Bush on every aspect of his handling of this country's war and the post-war reconstruction; and that they continue to claim on a daily basis on national TV that this conflict has been a failure. Taking everything into consideration, even the unfortunate loss of our sons and daughters in this conflict, do you think anyone else in the world could have accomplished as much as the United States and the Bushadministration in so short a period of time? [Collected on the Internet, 2005] DID YOU KNOW THIS? Did you know that 47 countries have re-established their embassies in Iraq? Did you know that the Iraqi government employs 1.2 million Iraqi people? Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools are under rehabilitation, 263 schools are now under construction and 38 new schools have been built in Iraq? Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities, 46 Institutes<.NOBR> or colleges and 4 research centers? Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2004 for the re-established Fulbright program? Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational? They have five 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a navel infantry regiment. Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operation squadrons, 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 bell jet rangers? Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion? Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers? Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks? Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq? They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations, 22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities. Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations? Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October? Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%? Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consist of 75 radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations? Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004? Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a recent televised debate recently? OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW! WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW? OUR MEDIA WOULDN'T TELL US! Because a Bush-hating media and Democratic Party would rather see the world blow up than lose their power. Instead of shouting these accomplishments from every rooftop, they would rather show photos of what a few perverted malcontent soldiers have done in prisons in many cases never disclosing the circumstances surrounding the events. Instead of showing our love for our country, we get photos of flag burning incidents at Abu Ghraib and people throwing snowballs at presidential motorcades. The lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves only one purpose. It undermines the world's perception of the United States and our soldiers. I AM ASHAMED OF MY FELLOW AMERICANS WHO WOULD RATHER SEE TERRORISM SUCCEED THAN A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT. Origins: Variations of these items chronicling U.S. accomplishments in rebuilding Iraq have been circulating since mid-2003 and have been forwarded under so many different names (most of them U.S. military personnel serving in Iraq) that it's difficult to determine who the original author was. The earliest known antecedent appears to be a Coalition Provisional Authority briefing given by L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. Presidential Envoy to Iraq (the highest-ranking U.S. civilian official in Iraq) on 9 October 2003. Some of the accomplishments cited in this piece were echoed in an 8 December 2003 Forbes magazine article by Caspar W. Weinberger, who served as Secretary of Defense during the Reagan briefing article administration. There is a valid point underlying the theme of these messages, that the media tends to report (and the public tends to follow) stories having to do with disaster, tragedy and misfortune far more than stories about good deeds and good works. That has always been the nature of news reporting, however; it's not a new development fostered by the "Bush-hating media." (As one editorial writer put it in a commentary on this phenomenon, "Reporters don't report buildings that don't burn.") editorial These types of items are generally impossible to categorize with a single truth value because they typically contain a mixture of fact, opinion, subjective statements, inaccuracies, and literally true but often misleading claims. An Iraqi citizen whose response to the earlier piece quoted above was published on the Voices in the Wilderness web site chronicled some of the differences he saw between the claims the pieces offered and his viewpoint as an Iraqi. response Last updated: 21 February 2005 Sources: Weinberger, Caspar W. "You Read It Here First." Forbes. 8 December 2003.

FMD_test_40

We knew Strom Thurmond had proposed the amendment that blocked Puerto Ricos use of Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection.

04/27/2016

Did he or didnt he? Only the ghost of Strom Thurmond knows for sure. Mystery surrounds whether, back in 1984, the former senator from South Carolina knowingly deprived Puerto Rico of bankruptcy protections that every U.S. state enjoys. Its crunch time for Puerto Rico. The island territory needs to pay bondholders $422 million on May 1. It doesnt have the cash, it cant use bankruptcy to reschedule its payments, and Congress seems unlikely to craft a solution in time to avoid a massive default. During hisApril 24, 2016,HBO showLast Week Tonight, comedian and social critic John Oliver described the devils brew of legal oddities and fiscal recklessness by Puerto Rican officials that brought the island territory of the United States to the financial brink. If you are massively in debt and you cant declare bankruptcy, you are stuck, Oliver said. And this happened because of a tiny amendment to a law in 1984, and the crazy thing is, no one can say why it was written. The tiny amendment Oliver mentioned was stuck in the most boring location one could ever imagine in the definitions section ofHR 5174, a bill geared mainly to fixing the bankruptcy court system. Buried in a long list of changes was the meaning of state. 'State' includes the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, except for the purpose of defining who may be a debtor under chapter 9 of this title; That was it. With those two dozen words, the bankruptcy protections that applied to every state, and until 1984, to Puerto Rico, too, were wiped away. We tried to find out for ourselves why that amendment got attached, Oliver said. We knew Strom Thurmond had proposed it. So we asked an archivist at the library where his papers are kept to go through the relevant papers, and they came up with nothing. Oliver quipped about that lack of a paper trail, saying it might be the best scenario for Thurmond given his reputation for fervent racism. Oliver enlivened his diatribe over Puerto Rico's dilemma witha rapperformed by Lin-Manuel Miranda, the son of Puerto Rican parents and the creator and star of the Broadway hitHamilton.Miranda mentioned Thurmond, too: Somewhere down the line Strom Thurmond's ghost busted a cap at a chance at Chapter 9. Which brings us to the focus of this fact-check: Did Thurmond propose the cunning words that ultimately caught Puerto Rico in a debtors vice? Thurmonds role Ina 2015 ruling, the judges of the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals provided some very helpful background. In March 1984, the House passed its version of a bankruptcy bill. That version did not have the Puerto Rico exemption. Then on May 21, 1984, the judges wrote that Thurmond introduced the package of changes that included the text at the center of this controversy. On the day that he introduced the amendment, Senator Thurmond addressed the Senate to explain several of its numerous stipulations, yet said little about the newly added Puerto Rico exemption, the judges wrote. In fact, we went through theCongressional Recordfor that day (thank you, Internet Archive). Thurmond said less than little. He said nothing. The record shows that after Thurmonds amendment, the exemption became part of the final legislation. While this seems to point the finger at Thurmond, theres more to this story. Aside from introducing the overall amendment, Thurmond might not have had much to do with the text. It had been introduced four years before, and not in the Senate, but in the House. Congress earlier run at changing the law Experts question whether Thurmond actually understood the significance of the amendment. To see why, we have to go back to 1978. That year, Congress gave the bankruptcy law a complete overhaul. As often happens with major legislation, various gaps and ambiguities emerged and, in 1979, the Senate passed a bill to tidy up the loose ends. Among the dross, the Senate defined states to include Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia and any territory or possession of the United States. That legislation moved over to the House, and here the trail becomes murky. Bankruptcy law professor Stephen Lubben at Seton Hall University traced thetwists and turns in a 2014 article. In July 1980, the House Judiciary Committee returned with an amendment to the Senate bill that struck the entire Senate text and replaced it with theJudiciary Committees desired text, including a new definition of state, Lubben wrote. The House version, under Democratic control, had the Chapter 9 bankruptcy exclusion for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. That bill never passed, but in April 1981, Lubben found that the exclusion language resurfaced in the Senate. This exclusion was never discussed by Congress, at least publicly, and the language apparently simply materialized as a result of the House Judiciary Committees extensive revision of the 1979 Senate technical corrections bill, Lubben wrote. Lubben told us that the text in Thurmonds 1984 amendment was essentially the same language that was kicking around since 1980. Its not even clear that the parties even understood what was going on, Lubben said. The only thing we can say for certain is the change happened without a whole lot of thought behind it. Another factor makes it hard to find Thurmonds fingerprints on the text that beleaguers Puerto Rico today. The change was never offered as a stand-alone item. It was always bundled with a number of other small changes. Law professor John Pottow at the University of Michigan told us, Strom Thurmond might have introduced that, but its an overstatement to say he played a big role. A final mystery if youve followed the trail this far, you will notice that in 1984, the House version of the bill didnt have the Puerto Rico exclusion. The logical question is, why was it dropped when the House was the first to add it in 1980? We wish we knew. Our ruling Oliver said we know that Thurmond proposed the text that stripped Puerto Rico of the right to let municipalities and public utilities declare bankruptcy. There is no question that Thurmond introduced the amendment with that change. So technically, he did propose it.But theres no evidence that he came up with the idea, and experts question that he understood the significance of the change that would follow. The statement is accurate but requires some additional information. We rate this claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/260b6aad-f921-45fc-9937-1d82d35f7874 This fact-check previously contained erroneous references about the timing of Strom Thurmond's Senate career and Lin-Manuel Miranda's birthplace.

FMD_test_41

A college loan is the only loan in the United States that you cannot refinance when interest rates go down.

04/06/2016

Former President Bill Clinton raised a hot-button issue while campaigning for his wife in Los Angeles this week: America's mounting student loan debt. Student debt in the United States has reached $1.3 trillion, trailing only the amount Americans owe on their mortgages. It is often blamed for preventing young people from buying houses and cars, which fuels the country's economy. Undergraduates in the class of 2015 graduated with an average of $35,000 in student loan debt, the highest in history, according to Edvisors.com, a financial aid website. If elected president in November, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton would remove a unique barrier related to college loans, the former president claimed. A college loan is the only loan in the United States that you cannot refinance when interest rates go down, Bill Clinton said, speaking at a recent campaign rally at Los Angeles Trade-Technical College. We wondered: Is refinancing really off-limits for all college loans? With student loan debt being such a significant issue this election year, we decided to check the facts. Past efforts at change Both Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, have pledged to allow student loans to be refinanced. However, they weren't the first to call for this change. In June 2014, Senate Republicans rejected legislation by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that would have allowed student borrowers to refinance their federal loan debt. Homeowners are refinancing. Small businesses are refinancing. We just want young people who got an education to have their shot, Warren was quoted as saying in a Washington Post news article at the time. Republicans argued that they were not convinced the legislation would have resulted in lower borrowing costs and labeled it an election stunt. The bill would have allowed people with federal and private loans issued prior to 2010 to refinance at 3.86 percent, the article stated. It added that the Obama administration estimated that the bill could have helped 25 million borrowers save $2,000 each over the lifetime of their loans, totaling $50 billion. Our research As they campaigned across the country, Hillary Clinton and Sen. Sanders have each pledged to allow for the refinancing of college loan debt. What they, and apparently Bill Clinton, are discussing is refinancing federally backed student loans, which account for about 90 percent of all student borrowing. We turned to the nonprofit college planning group American Student Assistance for some advice. They and other groups say federal student loans can be refinanced into private loans. However, doing so can remove federal protections such as fixed interest rates and the ability to pause repayments. Additionally, private student loans can be refinanced into new lower-interest private loans. But there is no provision in federal law allowing the refinancing of a federal loan into another, lower-interest federal loan. There is no federal refinancing. Congress sets the interest rate for federal student loans, and most of these rates are fixed by law, regardless of how solid your credit or income becomes post-graduation, American Student Assistance advises potential borrowers. PolitiFact Texas examined a similar claim in 2014 and rated it Mostly True. They spoke with Heather Jarvis, a North Carolina attorney specializing in student loan law, who informed them that some graduates may be able to refinance student loans at lower rates through private lenders. However, she noted that this would only occur in cases where borrowers have substantial income. Jarvis added that refinancing federal loans with a private loan is risky, as the borrower gives up important protections that accompany federal loans (like flexible repayment and discharge provisions). Students repaying federally backed loans, Jarvis stated, are effectively barred from refinancing opportunities because federal law makes no provision for the government to make such offers. Asked about the former president's statement, Bill Clinton's press secretary said in an email that it is very safe to say that the vast majority of students with debt have federal debt. She pointed to statistics from the College Board showing that federal loans account for about 90 percent of student borrowing. She mentioned that a small percentage of borrowers can refinance a federal student loan by converting it into a private loan. Our ruling Former President Bill Clinton stated at a recent campaign rally in Los Angeles: A college loan is the only loan in the United States that you cannot refinance when interest rates go down. Borrowers of federally backed student loans, which account for about 90 percent of student loans, cannot refinance those into lower-interest federal loans. Congress sets the interest rate on these loans, and there is no provision in federal law that allows for them to be refinanced. Depending on factors such as income, some borrowers can refinance their federal loans into lower-interest private loans, though they risk losing their federal loan protections. Clinton most likely was referring only to federally backed loans when he made his statement, but a clarification about private loans would have been helpful. We rated his claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

FMD_test_42

Tardy Rumors

09/01/2015

FACT CHECK: Did Ann Coulter refer to President Obama as a "retard," prompting a response from a Special Olympics athlete? Claim: Ann Coulter referred to President Obama as a "retard," prompting a response from a Special Olympics athlete. Example: [Collected via e-mail, September 2015] Did Ann Coulter call Barack Obama a retard? Origins: On 30 August 2015, Facebook user Aria Brown shared a post reporting that professional political troll Ann Coulter had referred to President Obama as a "retard" in a tweet. That Facebook post, which also included a response from Special Olympics athlete John Franklin Stephens, quickly went viral and garnered more than half a million shares in 24 hours. Some people who viewed the Facebook post questioned its authenticity, as they couldn't find the "Obama retard" tweet in Coulter's Twitter feed. The reason for this was that the referenced comment was one she made after a 2012 presidential debate between President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney, not something Coulter said in 2015, as implied by the Facebook post. Shortly after the tweet made headlines in 2012, Ann Coulter appeared on Alan Colmes' Fox News radio show to double down on her trolling: "Look, no one would refer to a Down Syndrome child, someone with an actual mental handicap, by saying 'retard.' Where do you think the words 'imbecile,' 'idiot,' 'moron,' 'cretin' come from? These were all technical terms at one time. 'Retard' had been used colloquially to just mean 'loser' for 30 years ... But no, no, these aggressive victims have to come out and tell you what words to use." The response from Special Olympics athlete and global messenger John Franklin Stephens is also real, although not recent. On 23 October 2012, Stephens posted an open letter to Coulter on the Special Olympics Blog: "Dear Ann Coulter, Come on Ms. Coulter, you aren't dumb and you aren't shallow. So

FMD_test_43

Says in Oregon today, the average debt upon college graduation is more than $24,000.

08/10/2013

A university degree doesnt come cheap, and politicians are well aware that voters of all stripes wish college was more affordable. In a guest column last month in the Portland Tribune,Oregons junior U.S. senator wrote of his desire to make college more affordable to help grow the economy. In the piece, Democrat Jeff Merkley also cited the debt burden shouldered by the states university graduates. In Oregon today, the average debt upon college graduation is more than $24,000, with many students in debt $50,000 to $100,000, he wrote. At least $24,000 on average? Thats not chump change. For that money, students could splurge on a new car, plunk down a sizeable down payment on a first home or fly off on a very grand tour of Europe. In fact, $24,000 isalmost half of the median annual household income in Oregon, according to the latest U.S. Census figures. We decided to focus our fact check on that statistic. Jamal Raad, Merkleys spokesman, wrote in an e-mail to PolitiFact Oregon that the $24,000 figure comes from a June 2013fact sheet from the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning D.C. think tank. The average debt per borrower in Oregon is $24,370, according to the report. That figure includes both public and private universities, said David Bergeron, the centers vice president for post-secondary education policy. The figure originated from theFederal Reserve Bank of New Yorks Household Debt and Credit Report, which provides a quarterly snapshot of trends in borrowing, including student loans. The statistic comes from a sample of consumer credit data and accounts for federally backed and private loans students borrowed, said Matthew Ward, a spokesman for the bank. The average amount borrowed by Oregon students is a bit less than the $24,810 U.S. average, according to the report. It also noted that 17.1 percent of Oregon consumers -- defined as those with a credit record -- carry student debt. The report listed average debt per borrower, not average debt per college graduate. In other words, many students incur student debt even if they drop out and never graduate. Some students incur no debt. Graduates from Oregon colleges in 2011 incurred an average debt of $25,497, according to The Institute for College Affordability & Success, a nonprofit that tracks student debt. The figures are for public and private schools and are based on voluntary reports submitted to college guidance companyPetersons, which administers a financial aid database. The numbers are only as reliable as the universities are able to track and report. And college financial aid officers arent always aware of private loans that can add up. The institutes numbers indicate that debt amounts can vary widely for private colleges, some of which offer more generous financial aid packages than public universities. For example, Reed College graduates in 2011 left with an average debt of $20,840; Lewis & Clark College $22,956; Willamette University $25,932; and Linfield College $29,754. Well note here that student debt figures are generally calculated out of the pool of graduates who leave school with debt about 63 percent of Oregon students, the institute said. In other words, about 37 percent of students in Oregon graduate debt free. This matters because officials made similar statements about average debt per graduate inOhioandVirginia, resulting in Half True rulings from sister PolitiFact organizations. They neglected to account for students who graduate without debt. Merkley, unlike the other politicians, did not talk about the average student but the average debt. Well come back to this point later. Finally, we checked with theOregon University System. The average debt of graduates in the class of 2011 across all seven state schools was $23,839, according to theOUS 2012 Fact Book. The figures are for federal loans borrowed by students at each institution. About 59 percent of graduates left with debt. Merkley said that the average debt upon college graduation in Oregon is more than $24,000. The studies we found came up with three figures that largely back him up. The studies calculated student debt in different ways, making apples-to-apples comparisons impossible even though theyre all within range of one another. The studies also fail to account entirely for private loans students take out directly, which would likely increase the average student indebtedness amounts. Still, the reports back up Merkleys statement. The only point left to quibble over is clarifying that 37 percent of students graduate from university in Oregon without any debt. That is additional information that could help readers understand that the $24,000 figure is among those who leave college in debt. Unlike officials in other states, Merkley did not write about the average kid or student incurring a certain amount of debt. He wrote about average debt upon graduation. That makes his statement accurate, but it needs additional information and context. We rate the statement Mostly True.

FMD_test_44

Tapeworm Diet Pills

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

FMD_test_45

Does This Photograph Show a Black Couple Accepting a Gift from KKK Members?

11/25/2018

A photograph dating from 1948 depicting an apparent show of "charity" on the part of the Ku Klux Klan towards an elderly black couple in Alabama continues to circulate online, although details behind the actual encounter are sparse. The photograph shows 106-year-old Jack Riddle and his wife, Rosie, both former slaves, seated in front of a group of Klansmen (including one dressed as Santa Claus), flanking a radio the group had reportedly given to the couple as a gift: The image, which was published in newspapers in California and Pennsylvania (among other states), has resurfaced periodically on social media platforms, although it is typically accompanied by little in the way of information about how and why the Klansmen approached the Riddles with their "gift." John Giggie, an associate professor of history at the University of Alabama, told us that the photograph is "the type of image that Klan members would dream of" at the time: It captures the Klan fantasy of returning to a time when black Americans were enslaved and white Americans could lord over them with impunity. The given year of the image is important -- 1948 -- as it marks the emergence of the Dixiecrats, who left the Democratic Party in 1948 over its rising interest in civil rights. In that context, the photo functions as a warning to blacks and those who would support them in their freedom struggle. Giggie added that the photograph also "screams hyperbole": The idea of former slaves literally clasping the hands of a Klansmen dressed as Santa Claus, no less -- and sitting next to a radio seems to create a studied photo in which the Klan is merging examples of American modernity with those of its enslaved past. There is also the nagging sense that this is simply an absurd parody of Klan bravado. The idea of former slaves sitting with Klansmen seems to at least suggest a mockery of Klan pretensions of power and acceptance. Time magazine also published a brief item about the pictured meeting on 3 January 1949 under the heading "Manners and Morals:" published In Talladega, Ala., a white-hooded delegation of Ku Kluxers and a white-bearded Santa Claus presented a radio to Jack Riddle, a 107-year-old Negro and his wife, Josey, 86, so they could have their wish, to "hear the preachers." Grand Dragon Samuel Green explained that this demonstrated the "heart of a Klansman," called in photographers to take the most incongruous picture of the week. A separate photograph of the encounter was collected in the book From the Picture Press, published by the Museum of Modern Art in New York in 1973: collected The museum's caption for the photograph stated that Green and his cohorts "publicized the 'good will' visit ten days before it occurred." However, at least one related clipping posted online has, at the very least, been misattributed. Some blog posts concerning the Riddles' photograph cite a brief op-ed attributed to the Milwaukee Journal newspaper on 26 December 1948: Because the klan's professions and practices vary so much, we suggest that northerners maintain a healthy skepticism about any regeneration of the klan. It will take more than pretty words, and a few gifts to Negroes, to wipe out the record of terror, intimidation and violence that has been synonymous with the name klan. And as for that radio gift to Jack Riddle, the klan's good will toward the Negro will be more convincing when it is concerned with the welfare, the education and the civil rights of all Negroes. The problem of Jack Riddle not having a radio set is only a very small part of the over-all picture of the Negro in the south. In 1995, the Journal merged with the Milwaukee Sentinel to become the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. When we contacted that successor newspaper regarding the 1948 clipping, assistant managing editor for visual journalism Sherman Williams told us that "This article does not appear in the 12/26/48 edition of The Milwaukee Journal. The article does not match the typography or style of the newspaper then." The photograph was also copyrighted by Getty Images, who told us that it was originally shot by a photographer from the Keystone Press Agency. At least two phone numbers listed under that name are invalid, while emails sent to addresses listed under Keystone did not produce responses prior to publication. copyrighted According to an obituary published in Jet magazine in January 1953, Jack Riddle died at the age of 111. published Time. "Manners and Morals." 3 January 1949. West Virginia Memories. "Old Newspaper Articles (and Book Mentions) About American Slaves, Former Slaves, And Their Descendants (N-Z)." Accessed 27 November 2018. Szarkowski, John. From the Picture Press. Museum of Modern Art, 1973. ISBN 087070334X.

FMD_test_46

Did a Huge Shark Wash Up on a North Carolina Beach?

02/19/2018

Digital artist Alex Lex's Facebook page is full of surreal images showcasing exotic animals in various locations around North Carolina. Regular visitors to the site are likely aware that these images are digital creations, not genuine photographs, but the realistic qualities of the work can easily fool the uninitiated. images That was exactly the case on 18 February 2018, when an image was posted showing an enormous shark that purportedly washed up on a North Carolina beach: posted This post was shared tens of thousands of times and many viewers unfamiliar with Lex's body of work believed that this was a genuine photograph. However, that was not the case. This is a composite of at least two different photographs. The image of the shark was taken by photographer Jack Cohen in September 2015: photographer Cohen also commented on the hoax image: commented Hi everyone, this guy is ripping off my original shark photo and trying to take it as his own. It is now going viral and any help you can lend in commenting on his photo that I am the original photographer and that this is copyright infringement would be really appreciated! Thank you! In September 2017, Lex posted an image purportedly showing a terrifyingly huge wave crashing down on Jennette's Pier during Hurricane Jose; that image, too, was fake. fake

FMD_test_47

A search of bushes and a verification check.

06/21/2015

FACT CHECK: Is the area social media meme "5 Things You Should Know About Jeb Bush" factually accurate? Claim: A social media meme accurately details five aspects of Jeb Bush's record on women's issues. True Example: [Collected via e-mail, June 2015] Facebook post citing "evils" committed by Jeb Bush - only 15.5 months to go with this.... Origins: On June 15, 2015, the women's rights-focused group Ultraviolet published the above-displayed image, addressing the record of Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush, on their Facebook page. After many viewers questioned the veracity of the claims made about Bush and his record on women's issues, the post was edited to include supporting citations for its entries; however, earlier versions of the post continued to circulate without them. The numbered claims and their attendant backgrounds are as follows: 1. Appointed a guardian for the fetus of a rape victim. This statement stemmed from a 2003 case involving a 22-year-old, severely developmentally disabled Florida woman who had been living in state-supervised facilities for most of her life. She had become pregnant after being raped while living in a group home and had no family to make decisions on her behalf. Even though neither the woman herself nor anyone caring for her had sought to abort the fetus, Governor Bush stepped in and asked the court to intervene in this "uniquely troubling situation" and appoint a representative to protect the fetus's rights. Religious groups praised the governor's actions. "If a guardian is appointed, there would be a clear recognition that there is a human being occupying that womb," said Brian Fahling, senior trial lawyer for the American Family Association's Center for Law and Policy. "The governor has the constitutional duty to uphold the right to life." The Christian Coalition of Florida issued a statement in support of Mr. Bush. "The appropriate thing to do is allow the child an opportunity at life and prosecute the criminal who raped the helpless woman." Critics say the governor's actions are intended to keep the issue in the courts until the woman is in the third trimester of her pregnancy and can no longer obtain an abortion. "Our take on this is that this woman's needs, her desires, and her interests need to take precedence," said Bebe Anderson, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, an advocacy group. "If she is incompetent, someone else should represent her and her interests alone and make that decision for her." The critics also accuse Mr. Bush, a Republican, of trying to set a precedent in establishing legal protection for fetuses and of using the case to win political points with conservative groups. The governor said in his statement, "While others may interpret this case in light of their own positions, we see it as the singular tragedy it is, and remain focused on serving the best interests of this particular victim and her unborn child." 2. The statement originated with the Florida Adoption Act of 2001 (more commonly known as "Bill 141" or the "Scarlet Letter" law), which overhauled the state's adoption regulations with the stated goal of trying to "provide greater finality once the adoption is approved, and to avoid circumstances where future challenges to the adoption disrupt the life of the child." The bill was inspired, in part, by the three-year fight over Baby Emily, whose father, a convicted rapist, had contested her adoption. (The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Emily's adoptive parents in 1995.) The law required that any woman who was planning to put her infant up for adoption but did not know the identity of the child's father first had to run newspaper advertisements once a week for a month in the community where the child might have been conceived, disclosing their names, ages, height, hair and eye color, race, and weight, the child's name and birthplace, a description of the possible father, and details of the dates and places of sexual encounters that might have produced the child. Advocates of the bill maintained that it protected the rights of men who may not have known they had fathered children and that it would "minimize last-minute challenges from a biological father, as well as challenges a father might bring after an adoption has been made legal," while critics contended that it was "draconian and humiliating," and that Governor Bush's failure to veto the bill indicated he supported the "shaming" of women for their sexual activity. Although Jeb Bush had previously lamented the lack of social stigma for having children outside of marriage (writing in his 1995 book Profiles in Character that "one of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations is that there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel shame"), he did not fully approve of Bill 141 and said that the state should not be "stigmatizing women." Gov. Jeb Bush noted numerous problems with it. Officials in the governor's office say he supports an alternative way of protecting fathers' rights—one already in use in many other states. Called fathers' registries, this system permits men who believe they may have fathered a child to place their names on a confidential list, which must be checked during adoption proceedings. "We should be making adoption easier, not more difficult, and not stigmatizing women who are trying to do the right thing," Bush spokeswoman Elizabeth Hirst told reporters in Tallahassee. 3. Gov. Bush also stated in a letter to Secretary of State Katherine Harris that he felt the bill put too much responsibility on the birth mother to locate the father, and while he did not veto the "Scarlet Letter" bill, neither did he sign it; he passively allowed it to become law in the expectation that legislators would revise the section requiring the publication of women's sexual histories. "House Bill 141 does have its deficiencies," he wrote. "Foremost, in its effort to strike the appropriate balance between rights and responsibilities, there is a shortage of responsibility on behalf of the birth father that could be corrected by requiring some proactive conduct on his part." In fact, immediately after he let the Florida Adoption Act become law, Bush was advocating for fixes to it. The Florida House almost immediately passed a law that Bush considered a "better alternative." It cut back on women's reporting requirements and established a paternity registry, for example. These were state-maintained databases that allowed a man to register if he believed he may have fathered a child. Then, if that child were ever put up for adoption, the father would have been notified and could have a say in the proceedings. 4. Governor Bush repealed the "Scarlet Letter" law in May 2003, signing a replacement measure that instituted the paternity registry mentioned above. The repeal had become somewhat of a moot issue by then, however, as an appeals court had ruled the previous month that it was unconstitutional for the state to require women and underage girls to disclose their sexual histories, even in cases of consensual sex. 5. Hired a staffer who called women "sluts." The claim that Jeb Bush hired a staffer who called women "sluts" is true in a literal sense, although the staffer's employment by Bush was very short-lived, as he immediately left his position after the controversy about some of his several-year-old tweets hit the news. This brouhaha originated with Jeb Bush's temporary hiring in February 2015 of Hipster.com co-founder Ethan Czahor as his Chief Technology Officer, in charge of handling the preparations for Bush's presidential run. Almost immediately after the hiring was announced, Czahor's Twitter history was dissected and shared by various media outlets. Among their findings were a handful of tweets published by Czahor in 2009 and 2010 in which he made insensitive remarks about women and used the word "sluts" in reference to them. A Bush spokesman quickly characterized the comments as "inappropriate" and indicated that Czahor had been directed to promptly delete them. One day later, Czahor resigned from his newly-assigned position and apologized for his previous remarks. 6. Said low-income women should "get their life together and find a husband." As is often the case with political memes, sometimes the basic assertions check out but are misleading or inaccurate due to a lack of context. While it's true that Jeb Bush made a statement that resembled the one quoted above, it has been reproduced without any relevant contextual information. The controversial quote was one Bush uttered during the 1994 Florida gubernatorial campaign; and the thrust of his statement was that he favored setting a two-year limit on welfare benefits, requiring recipients after that period to find work or other assistance on their own: "If people are mentally and physically able to work, they should be able to do so within a two-year period. They should be able to get their life together, find a husband, find a job, find other alternatives in terms of private charity or a combination of all three." 7. Although a generous interpretation of this statement might be to say that Jeb Bush was simply enumerating the several possibilities that (female) welfare recipients could avail themselves of after the expiration of their benefits, he made it clear later that he felt unmarried women were a significant contribution to the welfare problem. Bush did not deny making the statement. In fact, he repeated that marriage is one way—along with finding a job and help from private charities—for women to get off welfare. Marriage, Bush said, "is one of many options, and if people are honest about the welfare system we have today, how you get on welfare is not having a husband in the house." 8. In support of this claim, Ultraviolet cited an April 2015 Salon article, which in turn referenced an interview Bush gave to Focus on the Family on April 13, 2015. During the course of that interview, Bush lauded Florida's role as an outlier in funding "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs) during his tenure as governor: "We were the only state, I believe, to have funded with state monies crisis pregnancy centers to provide counselors so that these not-for-profits that in many cases aren't as well funded as many others could act on their mission, which is to provide broader support, but the actual counseling was done, you know, paid for by the state. It was a godsend for these crisis pregnancy centers and a lot of babies' lives were saved and a lot of families got the joy of being able to bring a child up in their home." 9. While Jeb Bush was governor of Florida, the state funded crisis pregnancy centers through the sales of 'Choose Life' specialty license plates (under legislation signed into law by Bush in 1999) and through the creation of the Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program (which was introduced by Bush in 2005): "The Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program was introduced by Gov. Jeb Bush in 2005 to increase visibility for the state's non-abortion counseling options and stem its rising abortion rate. The $4 million launch established a toll-free hotline—1-866-673-HOPE—to point pregnant women in the direction of their nearest non-abortion, nonprofit option, and also provide grants to those organizations for counseling, prenatal support, and adoption. The money is only available to organizations that make no mention at all of abortion. It can go to religious organizations, and it supplements the $800,000 the centers receive yearly from the state's 'Choose Life' license plates and whatever federal funds come in." 10. Florida was not alone in that regard, however: several other states, including Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas, approved state funding of crisis pregnancy centers during the same timeframe. Moreover, between 2001 and 2006, over $60 million in federal funds were given to crisis pregnancy centers, in large part through abstinence-only programs initiated during the administration of Jeb's brother, President George W. Bush. Last updated: June 21, 2015 Originally published: June 21, 2015 Sources: Canedy, Dana. "Gov. Jeb Bush to Seek Guardian for Fetus of Rape Victim." The New York Times. May 15, 2003. Canedy, Dana. "Florida 'Scarlet Letter' Law Is Repealed by Gov. Bush." The New York Times. May 31, 2003. Dahlburg, John-Thor. "Florida Wants All the Details from Mothers in Adoption Notices." Los Angeles Times. August 21, 2002. Dahlburg, John-Thor. "Florida Ends 'Scarlet Letter' Adoption Law." Los Angeles Times. May 31, 2003. Manes, Billy. "Immaculate Deception." Orlando Weekly. February 26, 2009. Griffin, Michael. "Smith Rips Bush's 'Find a Husband' Tip for Women on Welfare." Orlando Sentinel. September 7, 1994. Hongo, Hudson. "New Jeb Bush Hire Deletes Comments About Sluts, Gays from Twitter." Gawker. February 9, 2015. Kaczynski, Andrew. "Jeb Bush Chief Technology Officer Resigns After Deleting Old Tweets About 'Sluts.'" BuzzFeed. February 10, 2015. Kurtzleben, Danielle. "Jeb Bush and Florida's 'Scarlet Letter Law,' Explained." NPR. June 10, 2015. McDonough, Katie. "Jeb's Abortion Nightmare." Salon. April 14, 2015. Miller, Zeke J. "Jeb Bush Hires Co-Founder of Hipster.com." Time. February 9, 2015. Simon, Stephanie. "States Fund Antiabortion Advice." Los Angeles Times. February 11, 2007.

FMD_test_48

Is This a 'Government Tracking Device' for Automobiles?

09/25/2019

Technologies for remotely tracking the movement of automobiles have existed for decades, but earlier versions were typically limited in range, efficiency, and/or lifespan. The advent of GPS technology, however, has led to the development of devices that enable the reliable tracking of a vehicles location, speed, and direction of travel from virtually anywhere on the globe. tracking Since such tracking devices are no longer solely the province of spy films and literature, it's not so far-fetched that some people might be concerned whether any such gadgets have been furtively introduced to their own vehicles, a concept represented by the following meme: Of course, those in the know recognize this meme to be a joke, and a rather ridiculous one at that. But to whatever extent the meme "works," it does so because it references an object that is common in the automotive world, yet many motorists remain unaware of what its actual function is. The object seen here is variously known as a "wheel weight," a "balance weight, or a "wheel balance weight": These weights have nothing to do with "tracking" they are used during the process of a "wheel balance" (or "wheel rebalance"), a procedure that ensures tires and wheels have equal weight distribution so as to eliminate vibration and excessive or uneven tire wear: wheel balance Tire balancing is a tune-up for your wheel-tire set. It makes sure that weight is evenly distributed around the entire circumference of the unit. The common symptoms of out-of-balance tires are uneven and faster tread wear, poor fuel economy, and vibration in the steering wheel, the floorboard or the seat that gets worse at faster speeds. When all areas of the wheel-tire unit are as equal in weight as possible, the tire will roll smoothly. This helps it wear evenly, for longest life. Balancing also contributes to ride comfort: Imbalanced tires will wobble or hop up and down, which causes vibration. If a front tire isnt properly balanced youll likely feel vibration in the steering wheel. If the problem is in the rear the tremor will be noticeable in the seat or floor. Imbalanced tires are easily corrected, but the work is precise. Its done by attaching small weights, just fractions of ounces, to the wheel. Just half an ounce in weight difference is enough to cause a vibration when youre driving. If you see any of these on your car, leave them alone they've been placed there for an important, non-governmental reason.

FMD_test_49

Are Michigan farmers being compelled to dispose of edible cherries in order to support imports?

09/15/2016

On 26 July 2016, Michigan cherry farmer Marc Santucci shared a post on Facebook asserting that he was forced to destroy 14 percent of his tart cherry crop in order to protect the market for cherries imported from overseas: shared These cherries are beautiful! But, we have to dump 14% of our tart cherry crop on the ground to rot. Why? So we can allow the import of 200 million pounds of cherries from overseas! It just doesn't seem right. What do you think? Please share this on your Facebook page???. Just to let everyone know we are not allowed to donate or in any way use diverted cherries. I have people who would buy them if I could sell them. Also these are tart cherries with a very short shelf life Santucci's post slowly circulated on the social network, attracting the attention of blogs and health-conscious social media users through September 2016. As presented, Santucci's tale sounded like an unbelievable level of bureaucratic interference with the farm industry and left readers wondering whether his report about having to destroy 40,000 pounds of edible cherries in order to "make room" for imported cherries (and was "not allowed to donate or in any way use diverted cherries") was accurate. Online articles pinned blame for the cherry-chucking on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), citing a 29 July 2016 Detroit Free Press article about the social media controversy that referenced the federal Agricultural Agreement Act of 1937. The Detroit Free Press article only briefly mentioned the USDA as a starting point for a very complex cherry charter, noting that cherries were originally not regulated under the Agricultural Agreement Act, but the cherry industry opted into its provisions in 1995. pinned blame article regulated The act in question was introduced in 1937 due to tumultuous agricultural conditions that exacerbated the Great Depression and aimed to facilitate "orderly marketing conditions for agricultural commodities in interstate commerce" for the express purpose of stabilizing farmers' income. Cherry industry experts stressed that the 1995 extension of the regulation to include the tart cherry market was voluntary and had been desired by many cherry farmers: introduced At issue is a marketing order imposed through the U.S. Department of Agriculture as part of the federal Agricultural Agreement Act of 1937. But that law only applies to the tart cherry industry because growers and processors opted into the order in 1995. "It was created at the industry's behest. It was voted in by growers and processors. It's not an imposition from outside," said Perry Hedin, executive director of the DeWitt-based Cherry Industry Administrative Board [CIAB], which oversees the marketing order not only in Michigan but in all states across the country that produce commercial crops of red tart cherries, including New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin. Tart cherries are one of the most volatile crops grown in the U.S., with yields that can vary dramatically year to year, Hedin said. "This whole concept of the marketing order has two goals: to inject a better stability into our markets and improve grower returns," he said. "The growers have been paid far better prices under the marketing order over the past 20 years than they were before the order was in place." A 29 July 2016 editorial published in the Michigan Farm News also addressed what it framed as multiple misrepresentations in Santucci's viral post, starting with the reason cherry crops were thusly regulated. A horticulture specialist noted that the cherry farmers themselves (not the USDA) had sought market regulation after experiencing damaging price fluctuations: addressed In a classic example of what happens on social media when people form opinions based on emotion instead of fact, a Northwestern Michigan tart cherry grower's Facebook posting has gone viral, but with faulty information to back up the posting's claims ... The problem, however, said Kevin Robson, horticulture specialist with Michigan Farm Bureau, is that the information posted shows either shallow understanding of the federal marketing order or a deliberate attempt to change the order because of political disagreement. "It's also enforced by the growers themselves," he said. "It is for the betterment of the industry as a whole, and a great number of cherry growers have benefited, even those who voted against it." Administered by the Cherry Industry Administrative Board (CIAB), the order this year required tart cherry processors to keep 29 percent (the farmer's posting said he was ordered to dump only 14 percent) of the crop they handle off traditional markets (pies, sweetened desserts, etc.) in an attempt to stabilize both prices and supply, which in cherries has been notoriously volatile. "For example," Reposing said, "in 1988, when the entity was called the Cherry Administrative Board, growers voted to eliminate the marketing order. Prices began to follow a rollercoaster that led, within 10 years, to tart cherry prices that fell into single figures. Some growers went out of business." In response to prices that were below costs of production, tart cherry growers in seven states petitioned the USDA to put a new order and administrative board in place, and prices began to stabilize. Still, some growers, such as the one who posted the photo of a small pile of cherries, took exception to the order. Generally, the Agricultural Agreement Act ensures relatively stable income for tart cherry farmers in the face of a volatile market, with one of the drawbacks of that stability being that in boom crop years (as 2016 was), farmers may end up with a good deal of product they are precluded from selling on the open market. However, although some outlets claim CIAB heavies visited farms to ensure every cherry lies unchomped, tart cherry farmers have options beyond leaving their surplus crop to "rot in the sun": visited farms Processors' options in times of surplus include holding the restricted cherries in surplus frozen, dried or concentrated for a later slow year. Farmers also can attempt to sell the surplus cherries in overseas markets or sell them domestically in a newly created market, either as a new product or by convincing a supermarket chain or other end user currently supplied by imported cherries to switch to U.S.-grown, he said. Hedin said Santucci could have worked with the [Cherry Industry Administrative] board to find a place to donate the surplus cherries, which typically aren't eaten raw like sweet cherries because of their very short shelf-life, but are instead used in products such as pie filling and jams. Likewise, the Michigan Farm News piece stated that: Another misstatement on the Facebook posting, [horticulture specialist Kevin] Robson said, is that growers are not allowed to donate or use the dumped cherries "in any way." "That's just not true," Robson said. "Farmers can use the cherries for research and development, and they could make thousands of cherry pies and donate them to charity if they want. Remember these are tart cherries. They need to be processed and quickly to make a viable product. They aren't sweets that you just eat by the handful." The Facebook posting wrongly puts the blame for cherry dumping on the marketing order, Robson said, when it is the processor who makes the decision to ask farmers to dump cherries. Santucci himself told Grand Rapids television station WXMI that the dumping of surplus cherries wasn't expressly mandatory, but their short shelf life makes it difficult to find alternative uses for them: told "I was just notified when we started shaking the trees that 14 percent would have to be kept off the market, so it didn't give me time to find any alternative action," he said, adding that tart cherries only have a two-day shelf life. It was true that Santucci's 2016 crop was (as with that of all other cherry growers) subject to a growers' agreement barring surplus cherries from the marketplace, and Santucci asserted he had insufficient time to properly divert his surplus cherries to other uses or markets. But the agreement under which the tart cherry market is regulated doesn't mandate surplus cherries be destroyed, nor does the protocol exist to protect foreign imports. Cherry growers in several states voluntarily opted in to a USDA marketing agreement (rather than being forcibly regulated) following a period of instability in the cherry industry, and agriculture experts widely agree the provision provides more protection than harm to cherry growers. Jackson, Paul W. "Social Media Post Botches Cherry Program Reality." Michigan Farm News. 29 July 2016. Matheny, Keith. "Traverse City Farmer: Dumping Perfectly Good Cherries Is Rotten." Detroit Free Press. 29 July 2016. Pagan, Gabriella. "Cherry Dumping Photo Goes Viral, Grower Calls for Change." WPBN. 27 July 2016. Shesky, Ty. "Farmer Explains Why Cherries Were Left to Waste." WXMI. 29 July 2016.

FMD_test_50

Did an Old Icelandic Translation of 'Dracula' Turn Out To Be 'Fan Fiction'?

05/19/2021

In 2021, the story behind a 120-year-old Icelandic version of the classic novel "Dracula" captured the imaginations of social media users, who enthusiastically shared the following summary, originally posted by the Twitter account @ihmerst: shared "Someone translated Dracula into Icelandic and it took over 100 years for anyone to point out he just made a fanfic-rewrite of what he wanted the story to be." "Dracula," written by Irish novelist Bram Stoker and first published in 1897, has come to be regarded as a classic work in the genres of horror and Gothic fiction and helped popularize vampire folklore in the English-speaking world. It has also inspired a vibrant field of academic research into the social and cultural themes upon which the novel touches, as well as the life of Stoker and the origins of "Dracula." academic research One particularly fascinating point of interest involves the existence of alternative versions of the novel, published in Icelandic and Swedish around the turn of the 20th century. The description posted by @ihmerst contained a measure of truth, but oversimplified what is a complicated and unfinished area of research. The photograph contained in @ihmerst's tweet showed a snapshot of the introduction to Hans Corneel de Roos' 2017 English translation of "Makt Myrkranna" ("Powers of Darkness"), the Icelandic book in question. It was written by journalist Valdimar smundsson, first serialized in his newspaper Fjallkonan in 1900, and later published as a book which, remarkably, included a preface attributed to Stoker himself. 2017 English translation serialized A more clearly legible version of de Roos' introduction can be viewed below: Up until the 2010s, "Makt Myrkranna" remained untranslated from Icelandic and was presumed to be simply a shortened translation of Stoker's original English text. However, de Roos discovered that the plot of the book differed drastically from that of "Dracula," including new characters, more explicit sexual themes and imagery, and a significant shift in style away from the epistolary (letter-writing) format of the original. In 2014, de Roos described "Makt Myrkranna" as the first translation of "Dracula" and speculated that, in light of elements contained in Stoker's preface, the Irish writer himself may have endorsed "Makt Myrkranna" or even collaborated with smundsson on it. described De Roos' findings made waves in the world of "Dracula" scholarship, and when he published the English translation of "Makt Myrkranna" in 2017, it attracted mainstream news coverage around the world. mainstream news coverage However, the publicity surrounding de Roos' findings prompted yet another plot twist, as it were. In 2017, the Swedish fantasy writer Rickard Berghorn recognized in the title of the Icelandic text, "Makt Myrkranna," a clear similarity with the title of a Swedish translation of Stoker's novel "Mrkrets makter," which also translates as "Powers of Darkness." Berghorn made two startling discoveries: first, that serialized versions of "Mrkrets makter" had been published in Swedish newspapers beginning in 1899 (that is, before the Icelandic text was published); and second, that the Swedish versions also constituted a radical departure from Stoker's 1897 novel, rather than a straightforward translation. two startling discoveries Since 2017, something of a consensus has emerged that, rather than constituting a modified and embellished version of "Dracula," based on the original English text, smundsson's Icelandic text was in fact a modified translation of earlier Swedish texts. As a result, @ihmerst's claim that "someone translated 'Dracula' into Icelandic" should now be regarded as outdated and inaccurate. consensus has emerged However, some key questions remain. Who wrote the preface to "Powers of Darkness," which was included in both the Swedish and Icelandic texts and attributed, perhaps fraudulently, to Stoker? Was Stoker even aware in advance of the Swedish text (and subsequent Icelandic text), much less involved in its creation? What was the identity of the unnamed Swedish newspaper editor responsible for "Mrkrets makter"? Was the Swedish text simply "fan fiction" an unauthorized alternative version of "Dracula" masquerading as a translation or could it have been based on a much earlier draft of Stoker's own novel? perhaps fraudulently much earlier draft Jarlath Killeen, head of the School of English at Trinity College Dublin (which Stoker himself attended), and an expert in Gothic and Victorian Irish and British literature, has edited and written several books and articles on Stoker and "Dracula." He told Snopes that scholars were continuing to research and debate those questions and others, but the precise origins of the Nordic texts remained "very unclear and very murky," for now. expert

FMD_test_51

Says Ronda Storms voted to fund the 'Taj Mahal' courthouse.

08/13/2012

Ronda Storms isNO Fiscal Conservative, claims a simple flier pushed by Storms opponent in the Republican primary for Hillsborough County property appraiser.The mailer from incumbent Rob Turner highlights property tax increases over Storms six-year tenure as a county commissioner as well as a notorious courthouse project that occurred during her time in the state Senate.As a Senator she voted to fund the Taj Mahal Courthouse. We Cant Afford Any More Storms.Ah, the Taj. The not-too-distant origins of Floridas finest courthouse serve as a cautionary tale about last-minute lawmaking and unscrutinized government spending.Is it fair to say Storms voted to fund the new courthouse of the 1st District Court of Appeal?Lets dive in.In her 2010investigative storyabout the facility,Tampa Bay Timessenior correspondent Lucy Morgan characterized the courthouse as a $48 million behemoth in which each judge will get a 60-inch LCD flat screen television in chambers (trimmed in mahogany), a private bathroom (featuring granite countertops) and a kitchen (complete with microwave and refrigerator).In a year of layoffs and cutbacks across the state, these touches of elegance were not appreciated.So how did the project eke past officials and watchdogs (press corps included)?Morgan compiled adetailed timelinestretching from a May 2004 meeting of the 1st DCA judges, in which they said they had outgrown their 23-year-old building, to December 2010, when the fresh, controversial structure was ready for move-in.A key moment in the story happened on the last day of the 2007 legislative session, a typically hectic time ripe for last-minute, undetected budget maneuvering. Tampa Sen. Victor Cristintroduced an amendmentto a 142-page transportation bill that contained a bond issue for $33.5 million for the courthouses construction. No senators asked about the bond issue, and it passed on a voice vote.The bill itself,HB 985, passed by a vote of 37-2. Storms, like most everyone,voted yes. It passed the House, then led by Marco Rubio, and was signed into law by Gov. Charlie Crist.Storms, interviewed by PolitiFact Florida, said she thought she was voting to refurbish a dilapidated courthouse.It certainly wasnt to build mahogany, she said. Anybody who was voting at that time was not voting for the Taj Mahal. What we were voting to do was taking care of the 1st DCA.Storms and Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, became two of theprojects most vocal criticsin the months following theTimesstory. At one point in a committee hearing, Storms quipped, We should insist on our pound of flesh and make them put the air at 80 in the summer and at 50 in the winter.As an aside, Storms said she probably voted against Crists amendment, which contained the bonding language, on an unrecorded voice vote out of a personal philosophy to protest unvetted, vendor-driven language affixed to bills in sessions closing days. (There is no record of voice votes, so we can't tell how Storms voted. )Fasano told us Turners attack is just not honest despite Storms' technical support of the transportation bill.You might as well blame every legislator that voted for it, he said, which would total 105 members.Thats the point, says Warren Weathers, who works for Turner. He recalled Sen. John Thrasher, R-St. Augustine, saying legislators share blame with the judges who pushed for the fine finishes.We didnt say she built it, Weathers said.Crist (of no relation to Floridas former governor) defended Storms in an interview.Ronda approving the budget for the court system and the construction budget for a new courthouse has nothing to do with the courts design, engineering and building, he said. It would be like saying her approval of the DMV budget holds her accountable for somebodys else driving record.Crists position is understandable. He says groups aligned with the tea party are using the Taj Mahal -- a moniker he hates -- against him in his re-election campaign for Hillsborough County Commission.Our rulingTurner says in a mailer that Storms voted to fund the Taj Mahal Courthouse. She indeed cast a vote for a transportation bill that included funding for the courthouse, that much is true. But there is some additional information we find missing from this attack.Namely, the courthouse money was inserted at the last minute into a larger bill without much explanation. The money, as far as most lawmakers knew, was to build a courthouse, not an opulent one. Once details of the Taj became known, Storms openly criticized the plan.We rate this claim Mostly True.

FMD_test_52

Forty years ago, a federal Pell Grant paid for nearly 80% of tuition, fees, room and board at a four-year college.

06/26/2019

As the first debate of the Democratic primary approaches, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., announced his policy proposal to cancel student debt. Outside the U.S. Capitol on Monday, Sandersoutlined his planto cancel $1.6 trillion in student loans by levying a tax on Wall Street financial transactions. During the announcement, the Vermont senator used an old stump speech favorite that university in the U.S. wasmostly tuition-freethroughout the 20th century but with an addendum. Sanders said that a federal financial assistance program for low income students, which unlike loans does not need to be paid back, covered almost the entire cost of college back in the late 1970s. Forty years ago, a federal Pell grant paid for nearly 80% of tuition, fees, room and board at a four-year college, Sanders said. Sanders went on to say that though the Pell grant no longer comes close to covering the costs of college, his student debt forgiveness proposal would give the financial assistance grant a significant boost. That made us wonder did Pell grants really cover nearly the entire cost of attending college four decades ago? We reached out to the Sanders campaign as well as several higher education finance experts to find out. A spokesperson for the Sanders campaign referred us to a2017 policy brieffrom the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive think tank that studies federal and state budget policies. In that analysis, the authors write that in 2017 Pell (covered) just 29 percent of the average costs of tuition, fees, room, and board at public four-year colleges which was its lowest level in more than 40 years and far below the 79 percent it covered in 1975. Spiros Protopsaltis, an author of the brief and an associate professor of education policy at George Mason University, said he believes Sanders statement to be accurate. Protopsaltis explained that in 1975 the average cost of tuition, fees and room and board at a four-year public institution was $1,779, according toCollege Board datacompiled by the authors. The maximum Pell grant that year was $1,400 or 79% of the total cost. Donald Heller, the provost and vice president of Academic Affairs at the University of San Francisco, who has researched higher education finance, agrees with what Sanders said Monday with one important caveat. Protopsaltis analysis, showing the grants covering 80% of college costs, only applies to public universities, not private institutions. Thats an important distinction, because it covered less of the cost of a private four-year college or university, Heller said. According to College Board data shared by Protopsaltis, the maximum Pell grant in 1975 would have only covered about 38% of the total cost of attendance at a private, four-year nonprofit school, where the average cost of tuition, fees, room and board averaged $3,682. Thats important to keep in mind. Because the high cost of college, where public higher education is concerned, is also tied to deep funding cuts state governments have made to their college systems. Its not just that Pell has been completely disinvested in. A big portion of that driver is that states have disinvested as well, which has driven tuition up, said Wesley Whistle, a senior adviser at New Americas education policy program Sanders said that 40 years ago a federal Pell grant paid for nearly 80% of tuition, fees, room and board at a four-year college. While this is accurate for public four-year colleges, it is not true of private four-year institutions. Based on the data the Vermont senator cited for his statement, a Pell grant would only cover 38% of the cost of a private university in the late 1970s well off the nearly 80% of costs Sanders says the grants covered at a four-year college. While Sanders statement is accurate, it leaves out the important context that this number refers only to four-year public college. We rate this statement Mostly True.

FMD_test_53

Is there a flyer from the Black Lives Matter movement that labels white people as the 'adversary'?

06/15/2020

In the spring of 2020, as protests against racial injustice and police brutality swept across the U.S. following the death of a Black man in police custody, online trolls began spreading racist propaganda in an attempt to smear the Black Lives Matter movement. Generally speaking, these posts made inflammatory and violent claims, falsely attributing them to BLM. For example, one such hoax claimed that BLM protesters were going to "assassinate white families." In June 2020, Snopes encountered yet another flyer falsely attributed to Black Lives Matter that labeled white men, women, and children as "the enemy." However, this is not a genuine flyer issued or endorsed by Black Lives Matter; it is a piece of racist propaganda created to smear BLM and heighten racial tensions. It isn't clear who created this fake poster. The earliest posting we could find was from June 11, 2020, from a Twitter account devoted to QAnon, a wide-ranging and far-right conspiracy theory based almost entirely on anonymous social media posts that claim a deep state plot exists against President Donald Trump. From there, it was shared to the Russian site Aftershock.news, an All Lives Matter account, and an account adorned with British flags, where it received thousands of retweets. While we've found several accounts sharing this flyer along with messages denigrating Black Lives Matter, we've yet to see any accounts connected to the Black Lives Matter movement sharing this flyer in earnest. In addition to the fact that this flyer originated with posters critical of BLM and not with BLM accounts spreading this message, the statements on this flyer are also contrary to the positions of the Black Lives Matter movement. Nowhere on the Black Lives Matter website are white people identified as "enemies," and the website is void of any calls to violence against white people. BLM has also not called for "re-education camps," for "Black power" to run the government, or for white people to stop dating outside their race. The official Black Lives Matter website has put out a list of "demands," but that list has practically nothing in common with the viral hoax shown above. The official list from Black Lives Matter calls for an end to systemic racism and for the national defunding of police: "We call for an end to the systemic racism that allows this culture of corruption to go unchecked and our lives to be taken. We call for a national defunding of police. We demand investment in our communities and the resources to ensure Black people not only survive but thrive. If you're with us, add your name to the petition right now and help us spread the word." The "demands" on the hoax flyer did not originate with BLM. The items on this list are examples of what someone unfamiliar with the Black Lives Matter movement may fear are central tenets of this group. When a similar fake flyer was found in England, a local BLM activist told Scotland's Evening Telegraph that she believed the display was created by people trying to discredit the movement. She said, "Things like that, after what happened with the George Floyd mural being defaced, I think that's something that a white supremacist would put up to discredit us. Nobody that I've seen advocating for the BLM movement would think that that is appropriate. My personal opinion is that this is people being framed. This is a way to make us seem in the wrong." The art student, who plans to organize a BLM march in Dundee soon, believes that white supremacists are using false posters to encourage violence. "People that hold those kinds of beliefs aren't part of this movement," she added. "This seems like a way to stop us in our tracks and make us seem violent so they can come back with violence. We aren't here for violence; we're just here for justice and equality in all aspects of life." This fake flyer, as well as similar items, has been pushed on internet forums such as 4chan in an explicit attempt to smear the Black Lives Matter movement. In one post, for example, a 4chan poster states that "people are falling for this [hoax flyer], let's kick it into overdrive." In another thread, users exchange various fake BLM posters and encourage each other to share them. In yet another thread, a user gives instructions on how to make and spread this racist propaganda. The only thing maintaining the completely bizarre state of affairs the USA and the world is in right now is the fact that some white people still think they can be on the "right side of history" by kneeling for the Noseberg-controlled BLM movement. "We can destroy their whole plan. Make propaganda posters and spread them around. If enough whites realize that blacks will never ever feel that anything is 'enough,' they'll abandon the movement. It'll crash and burn."

FMD_test_54

Was a Roanoke City Department of Social Services Worker Fired Over a Gun Permit?

03/12/2018

On 9 March 2018, a woman claiming to be a social worker at Roanoke, Virginia, social services department, tweeted that she had been fired from solely because she had a concealed carry permit. The woman, whose name is Storm Durham, also said that she would sue the city "for every penny": tweeted I was fired today. From Roanoke City Social Services, serving as a damn good social worker. I was fired for having a concealed carry permit. Not the gun, the permit. I was escorted by 3 city police officers bc I am a "safety risk to the building" Storm Durham (@chelstorrm) March 10, 2018 March 10, 2018 Oh suing for every penny Storm Durham (@chelstorrm) March 10, 2018 March 10, 2018 Hours later, a meme appeared on the Facebook page "Chuck Callesto": meme appeared Durham also shared her claim in a post on Facebook, as well as live videos in which she said she wanted to be a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association. The claim, predictably, went viral, with people from across the United States posting angry comments on unrelated City of Roanoke Facebook posts. claim Facebook live videos Someone claiming to have knowledge of the incident also commented, claiming that Durham's boyfriend had threatened a coworker. The comment was later deleted: Although we were unable to substantiate those claims, the City of Roanoke's Office of Communications sent us a statement refuting Durham's claim on 12 March 2018: A former employee of the City of Roanoke recently posted via social media assertions regarding the basis of her dismissal from City employment. Her posting has also been reported in other media. The City does not publicly comment on specific personnel matters. In light of these assertions, however, it is important to note that the City of Roanoke respects the Constitutional rights of its citizens and that the dismissal in question was not based upon anyones exercise of such rights. In addition, the office told us: The City has no policy or procedure limiting the right of its employees to hold concealed carry permits as authorized by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Durham herself told The Roanoke Times that her termination papers showed different reasons for her firing from the city, where she had worked for less than a year: reasons Four months ago, she said, her trainer taught her a procedure that she followed, but then was reprimanded for it by her supervisor. So she alerted her trainer, who sent her a nasty email calling her sloppy and unprofessional. Durham said she took the matter to her supervisor, who, along with the trainer, threw her under the bus. Later, Durham said, she was given a set of performance expectations that required her to close cases at a faster pace. She acknowledged it took her time to adjust to the caseload in Roanoke after coming from rural Craig County, but said she exceeded all expectations. However, Durham said, she was told that it was actually because of her gun permit: The next day, at about 4:30 p.m. Friday, she was summoned to the office of the assistant director of the department, was told she was being fired and given the document listing the reasons. At the top, she said, was a concern about workplace safety. Durham said she asked about it and was told by the assistant director that her possession of a concealed weapons permit made her a safety risk in the building and for co-workers. Three Roanoke police officers escorted her to her desk, Durham said, where her personal possessions were loaded onto a cart and pushed to her car by one of the officers while the two others escorted her out of the building. We obtained a copy of the official police report in response to our request, which reads in part: Mr. Goss advised that she has a conceal carry permit and believed that she usually has a weapon in her vehicle.... We arrived at 1547 hours. The call was reported on the 3rd floor (Social Services Department). Upon arrival to the 3rd floor we were escorted to one of the offices in the back where we met with Mr. Goss and another employee advising us they wanted us there because they didn't know how Ms. Durham was going to react to the situation. On 13 March 2018, a copy of Storm Durham's termination letter was shared by WSLS.com. In it, "performance concerns, attendance, dress code issues and unprofessional behavior" were cited as the reasons for her dismissal: shared 13 March 2018, 3:46 P.M.: Added excerpts from The Roanoake Times and the official police report. 14 March 2018, 2:43 P.M.: Added letter of termination provided to Durham by the City of Roanoke Department of Social Services.

FMD_test_55

My campaign finished the last quarter reporting the most cash on hand of any Republican in the field $13.8 million in the bank, $3.5 million more than the Jeb Bush campaign.

10/30/2015

Ted Cruz of Texas recently declared that his campaigns fundraising is astonishing and suggested thats a surprise to the Washington chattering class and maybe even former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, another Republican bidding for president. Sen. Cruz, appearing in Houston Oct. 26, 2015, to accept endorsements from statewide elected Republicans including Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, celebrated how much hes raised in Texas and in general. He made us wonder with mention of the Texas-born Bush, whos trying to become the third member of his family to win the White House. Cruz said: And we finished the last quarter reporting the most cash on hand of any Republican in the field $13.8 million in the bank, $3.5 million more than the Jeb Bush campaign. Cruz added that if hed predicted such an outcome relative to Bush six months before, reporters would have laughed aloud. Early in 2015,Bush drew headlinesfor raising money at a vigorous clip. No giggling here. But was Cruz right about his campaign having the biggest pile of cash on hand and exceeding Bushs balance by $3.5 million? Campaign vs. campaign, you bet your cacti. But throw in money raised by PACs and Super PACs devoted to individual candidates and it could be theres far more money stowed away to boost Bush. Then again, PAC fundraising updates wont be filed until 2016. Campaign vs. campaign To our inquiry, Cruz campaign spokeswoman Catherine Frazier emailed us a list indicating that Cruzs campaign ended the years third quarter, June through September 2015, with more cash on hand than any other Republican aspirant. Separately, we fetched a Federal Election Commissionsummary, dated Oct. 19, 2015, stating that through September 2015, Cruzs campaign had nearly $13.8 million cash on hand. And Cruzs balance, according to the document, exceeded the cash on hand of any of 15 other listed current or former Republican presidential candidates. At No. 2, retired surgeon Ben Carson had nearly $11.3 million cash on hand, according to the summary, followed by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio with nearly $11 million and Bush with nearly $10.3 million. To be precise, per Cruzs claim in Houston, Bushs cash on hand of $10,271,129 was a little more than $3.5 million less than Cruzs $13,778,904. Were not saying here that Cruz outraised everyone. According toanother FEC summary, also dated Oct. 19, 2015, Carson raised some $31 million through September 2015, outpacing Cruzs nearly $27 million and Bushs nearly $25 million. Businessman Donald Trump, who has led many Republican voter polls, reported a scant $254,773 cash on hand through the third quarter. But Trump, who's wealthy, also has declared plans to self-fund his candidacy. Maybe how much cash he has on hand isnt significant. Also,Politico notedOct. 15, 2015, Trump fielded about $3.7 million in donations in the third quarter. Notably too, Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders each ended the quarter having raised more money and also having more cash on hand than any Republican. Clinton, the former first lady, senator and secretary of state, had nearly $33 million on hand, according to the FEC, and Sanders, a Vermont senator, had $27.1 million. PACs and Super PACs Theres another wrinkle if you consider how much money PACs and Super PACs devoted to candidates may have in cash on hand. According to achartbuilt by the New York Times, last updated Oct. 16, 2015, Bush-backing PACs and Super PACs had $98.2 million cash on hand through June 2015. In contrast, Cruz PACs and Super PACs had $37.5 million cash on hand. We dont see a path to more recent balances; a footnote to the Times chart says most of these groups arent required to file an updated report until Jan. 31, 2016. Separately, the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign spending,posted a chartin October 2015 showing Bush PACs and Super PACs fielding far more money than any other hopeful, again with information limited to what such groups had reported through June 2015: SOURCE: Web post,Behind the Candidates: Campaign Committees and Outside Groups,Center for Responsive Politics, last updated Oct. 27, 2015 (accessed the same day) The chart is preceded by explanatory text: The modern presidential campaign isn't a single organization. Yes, there's always an official campaign committee. But for every White House candidate, there is usually at least one super PAC or other outside organization devoted to getting him or her elected. These groups can solicit unlimited donations and later use them to pummel rivals or, as seems to be the case this cycle, take on some of the duties traditionally handled by a campaign, such as organizing town hall meetings or doing voter outreach. The explanation continues: Outside groups aren't allowed to coordinate with official campaign committees, but they're often run by friends and former staffers even family members of the candidate they're helping. Overall, as of the middle of 2015, single-candidate super PACs in the presidential race had raised more money than the candidates themselves. But that wasn't true among Democrats, whose potential nominees raised more than the super PACs supporting them. Frazier of Cruzs camp agreed by email it could be that money accumulated to promote Bushs candidacy still runs ahead of funds raised for Cruzs cause. Regardless, she reminded, Cruz limited his Houston claim to funds raised by campaigns alone. Our ruling Cruz said his campaign finished the last quarter reporting the most cash on hand of any Republican in the field $13.8 million in the bank, three and a half million dollars more than the Jeb Bush campaign. This is all so, though Bush still might remain ahead (perhaps way ahead) in money accumulated on behalf of a Republican. We wont know how much total cash has been stashed to help each candidate until PACs report again in 2016. 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.

FMD_test_56

Credit Bureau Blocking

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. 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.

FMD_test_57

Did Ronaldo's Coca-Cola Snub Cost the Company Billions?

06/18/2021

On June 14, 2021, Portuguese soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo sat down for a news conference to discuss his team's upcoming match against Hungary in the 2020 UEFA European Football Championship. Before taking questions, Ronaldo moved the two Coca-Cola bottles that were left out for him out of frame to the side of the table, then held up a bottle of water and said, "Agua." As this video went viral, several outlets reported that Ronaldo's Coca-Cola snub had cost the company billions of dollars. The exact cost of the snub varied from outlet to outlet, but the general claim was that it cost Coca-Cola between $4 and $5 billion. Here's an excerpt from The Guardian's report: "Cristiano Ronaldo's removal of two Coca-Cola bottles during a press conference at the European Championship has coincided with a $4bn fall in the share price of the drinks company." The Portugal captain is a renowned health fanatic and made it clear what he thinks of the carbonated soft drink. The 36-year-old shifted the bottles of Coca-Cola away from him during a press conference in Budapest on Monday in the lead-up to his country's Group F game against Hungary. [...] Coca-Cola is one of the official sponsors of Euro 2020. The company's share price dropped from $56.10 to $55.22 almost immediately after Ronaldo's gesture, a 1.6% dip. The market value of Coca-Cola went from $242bn to $238bn—a drop of $4bn. While Coca-Cola's stock did fall after this news conference, there was no indication that this drop was entirely (or even in part) caused by Ronaldo's preference for water. In fact, Coca-Cola's stock was already falling by the time Ronaldo snubbed Coke products in favor of water. Coca-Cola's stock price closed on Friday, June 11, at $56.16. At 9:30 a.m., shortly after the market opened again on Monday, the company's stock had fallen to $55.35, before Ronaldo's news conference had even started. After the conference, held at 3:45 p.m. Central European Time (or 9:45 a.m. CST according to Sportico), Coca-Cola's stock briefly rose and then dropped again. It's certainly possible that Ronaldo's endorsements (or disapproval) of Coke products could temporarily influence the stock market, but a few other facts should be noted. For one, while a $4 billion stock drop may sound like an absolutely devastating turn of events, this really isn't a major story for Coca-Cola. The company has seen a number of similar drops and rises over the last year, and those changes had nothing to do with Ronaldo. As of this writing, Coca-Cola's stock is up about 15% from where it was at this time last year. Furthermore, Coca-Cola's stock is not based purely on sales of their most well-known product, Coke. While Ronaldo may prefer water to soda, Coca-Cola has a large portfolio that includes a variety of products, including the water brand Dasani.

FMD_test_58

The reality concerning ANWR

07/01/2008

Claim: E-mail reports the truth about the environmental impact of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) OF AND INFORMATION Example: [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] First, do you know what ANWR is? ANWR = Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Now, a comparison: And some perspective ... NOTE WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA IS ... (its in the "ANWR Coastal Plain") THIS IS WHAT THE TV People and others "GREENS" SHOW YOU WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT ANWR ... and they are right ... these ARE photographs of ANWR Isn't ANWR beautiful? Why should we drill here (and destroy) this beautiful place? Well, thats not exactly the truth. Do you remember the map? The map showed that the proposed drilling area is in the ANWR Coastal Plain. Do those photographs look like a coastal plain to you? What's going on here? The answer is simple. That is NOT where they are wanting to drill! This is what the proposed exploration area ACTUALLY looks like in the winter: And this is what it ACTUALLY looks like in the summer: HERE ARE A COUPLE SCREEN SHOTS FROM GOOGLE EARTH As you can see, the area where they are talking about drilling is a barren wasteland. Oh, and they say that they are concerned about the effect on the local wildlife. Here is a photo (shot during the summer) of the 'depleted wildlife' situation created by drilling around Prudhoe Bay. Don't you think that the Caribou really hate that drilling? Here's that same spot during the winter: Hey, this bear seems to really hate the pipeline near Prudhoe Bay, which accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production. Now, why do you think that the Democrats are LYING about ANWR? Remember when Al Gore said that the government should work to ARTIFICIALLY raise gas prices to $5 a gallon? Well, Al Gore and his fellow Democrats have almost reached their goal! Now that you know that the Democrats have been lying, what are you going to do about it? You can start by forwarding this to everyone you know, so that they will know the truth. P.S.: Drilling does not "destroy." It creates jobs, resources and strengthens our economy all while protecting our environment. Everyone benefits, even caribou. Origins: As the price of oil continues to rise with no predictable end in sight, debates over whether the U.S. can and should be producing more oil from domestic sources have been renewed. A primary focus of such debates has been the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), an area which encompasses 19 million acres in the northeast corner of Alaska. The ANWR issue is now a political hot potato batted back and forth between proponents of exploration and development in ANWR's Coastal Plain who assert that the area could become a valuable source of domestic oil production with minimal impact on the environment, and opponents who maintain that the potential advantages to be gained from drilling for oil in ANWR are far too small to offset the despoiling (and potential devastation) of a protected wildlife area.The issue has been complicated by the uncertainty of many factors involved in the opening of ANWR to U.S. oil production, such as the total amount of oil underlying the area, the size of the oil fields that might be found in ANWR, the quality of the oil that might be found in ANWR, the potential production capacity of ANWR drilling operations, how long it would take before ANWR operations began providing significant amounts of oil for the U.S. market, what effects the oil extracted from ANWR would have on world oil supply and prices, and the environmental impacts of oil exploration and development in ANWR. factors The e-mailed slide show reproduced above might serve a useful function in prompting the public to take a greater interest in all the issues surrounding the potential opening of ANWR to oil exploration, but the information it presents is scant and one-sided. Since the ANWR issue is far too extensive and complex to cover in detail here, we'll just provide a brief summary of both sides' arguments regarding points mentioned by the e-mailed slide show, with links to sites (on both sides of the issue) that provide greater detail: Although the ANWR is small in size compared to the entirety of Alaska, at 19 million acres it is larger than ten other states. (As the third graphic shows, ANWR is about the size of the state of South Carolina.) Proponents point out that the proposed development area within the ANWR Coastal Plain is a relatively small patch of 2,000 acres, an area which constitutes roughly1/10,000 of the total acreage of the ANWR. Opponents maintain that a similar drilling operation in Alaska at Prudhoe Bay was originally designated to encompass only 2,100 acres but has since expanded to a total drilling footprint of 12,000 acres spread over 640,000 acres of the North Slope. size expanded Proponents maintain that wildlife continues to flourish amid drilling and other oil production activities in other Arctic regions and would fare just as well near ANWR exploration facilities. Opponents assert that other North Slope oil development activities have caused an average of 504 spills per year since 1996, including "4,532 spills between 1996 and 2004 totaling more than 1.9 million gallons of toxic substances." flourish spills Proponents maintain that the proposed ANWR Coastal Plain development area is primarily a featureless, barren expanse that is frozen and windswept for most of the year, and therefore exploration and drilling activities would have minimal impact on wildlife in the immediate area (or in the greater ANWR). Opponents assert that environmental accidents can have devastating effects far outside the limited areas in which they originally occur. Last updated: 2 July 2008

FMD_test_59

Did the CDC Allege Anyone Entering a Hospital is ID'ed as a COVID-19 Case?

12/04/2020

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 As hospitals continued to be overwhelmed in 2020 by a surge in COVID-19 cases across the United States, false information surrounding the management of the disease and patients continued to circulate. overwhelmed One post in particular, shared on our Facebook group, Snopes Tips, claimed that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a statement alleging that "anyone who walks into the hospital is counted as a Covid case, no matter why they come to the hospital, as the government pays the hospital extra money. post There are two parts to this claim: Firstly, that hospitals are inflating their COVID-19 numbers, and secondly, that the government is allocating more funds based on coronavirus cases. Snopes covered the second part of the claim back in April. We learned that it was possible that Medicare was paying hospital fees for some COVID-19 cases, but Medicare stated that it does not make standard, one-size-fits-all payments to hospitals for patients admitted with COVID-19 diagnoses and placed on ventilators. covered The CDC highlighted in a statement how the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES), the Paycheck Protection Program, and Health Care Enhancement Act provided $175 billion in relief funds to hospitals and healthcare providers on the front lines of the coronavirus response: highlighted In the first round of the High Impact Allocation, $12 billion was distributed to nearly 400 hospitals who provided inpatient care for 100 or more COVID-19 patients through April 10, 2020. $2 billion of these payments was distributed to these hospitals based on their Medicare disproportionate share and uncompensated care payments. In the second round of funding, $10 billion will be distributed to hospitals having over 161 COVID-19 admissions between January 1 and June 10, 2020. For the first part of the claim, we looked through CDC statements and reports about people admitted to hospitals around the country and were unable to find a case where the CDC said that the hospital was inflating its COVID-19 case numbers in order to get more money. We reached out to the CDC, and the agency referred us to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but did not confirm whether it had ever made such a statement about hospitals counting everyone who enters as a COVID-19 case. U.S. President Donald Trump promoted another version of this conspiracy theory at a rally in October, where he said hospitals were inflating the numbers of COVID-19 deaths, and was roundly debunked by news outlets and rejected in a statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians. promoted debunked statement To imply that emergency physicians would inflate the number of deaths from this pandemic to gain financially is offensive, especially as many are actually under unprecedented financial strain as they continue to bear the brunt of COVID-19. These baseless claims not only do a disservice to our health care heroes but promulgate the dangerous wave of misinformation which continues to hinder our nations efforts to get the pandemic under control and allow our nation to return to normalcy. The dire situation in hospitals paints a very different picture, far-removed from claims that they are profiting financially from the pandemic. A New York Times report from Nov. 27, 2020, highlighted how surging coronavirus numbers were resulting in a crisis-level shortage of beds and staff around the country. In some cases, hospitals were facing shortages in protective equipment, forcing healthcare workers to buy their own. As of Dec. 3, 2020, hospitalizations from the virus topped 100,000 an all-time high since the pandemic began. New York Times Dec. 3, 2020 An April Washington Post report described how hospitals were also suffering from financial losses on account of their deferring or cancelling non-urgent surgeries to free up bed space for the pandemic, cutting off income, and forcing them to lay off workers. At the time, relief packages for hospitals were widely described as insufficient. Washington Post financial losses insufficient Hospital-reported data on COVID-19 patients have addressed a range of issues around the country. A July 2020 ProPublica report detailed how the Trump administration had told hospitals to stop reporting data to the CDC and instead report it to HHS. The move resulted in widespread confusion. While the number of infected patients was soaring nationally, for a period of time it was unclear how many were being treated in hospitals for COVID-19. A few states like Idaho and South Carolina experienced temporary information blackouts, and the COVID Tracking Project reported issues with its figures. July 2020 A Nov. 29, 2020, investigation by the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences (AAAS) magazine found the federal system for tracking COVID-19 patients was continuing to carry questionable data. HHS collected hospital patient data in two ways through HHS Protect, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR). Their two sources of data on the usage of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) beds for COVID patients conflicted sharply in at least six states. HHS data also diverged sharply from state-supplied data, and showed that over the last two months, COVID-19 in-patient tally in 14 states was consistently lower than HHS Protects. investigation consistently In at least 27 states, the tally was alternating between being lower and higher than HHS. And recently, in 16 states, the tallies grew closer. The over-arching conclusion for this analysis was that hospitals are going to be over-stressed in the upcoming months, with inaccurate information systems in place. We have reached out to the HHS to learn more, and will update this post with more information. Additionally, if the language of the claim is taken at face value, CDC guidance for hospitals references providing necessary in-person clinical services for conditions other than COVID-19 in the safest way possible, minimizing disease transmission to patients [...]. This leads to the conclusion that the CDC itself is not stating that hospitals are classifying everyone who walks in as a COVID-19 case. guidance While it is true that the government did provide relief funds in various forms for COVID-19 cases to hospitals in need of aid, little evidence exists that numbers were being inflated by hospitals for this reason. We thus rate this claim as false.

FMD_test_60

Scam involving a fake $150 anniversary coupon from Lowe's.

05/21/2015

In late 2019, social media users began seeing posts touting that "LOWES has announced that everyone who shares this link will be sent a $150 coupon for its anniversary TODAY ONLY": This coupon offer was fake, just another iteration of similar scams that have made the online rounds several times before. In May 2015, a fraudulent offer for $100 Lowe's coupons started circulating on Facebook. The message linked Facebook users to a fraudulent web site adorned with the Lowe's logo, and instructed them to follow a simple set of instructions: Scams like these require users to pass the fake coupon on to their Facebook friends, which widens the pool of potential victims. Next, they direct people to fill out a simple survey, which seems like a harmless task but is used to coax sensitive information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth and credit card numbers out of victims. Finally, users who complete the survey will never receive a free Lowe's gift card but instead will likely sign up for difficult-to-cancel "Reward Offers" or have their personal information used for nefarious purposes. The Better Business Bureau provides these three tips to identify scams on Facebook: Facebook Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender.Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Lowe's also posted a warning about this scam on their Facebook page: Facebook In April 2017, two years after we first debunked the initial coupon scam, a new version of it appeared, taking in unsuspecting Facebookers yet again: Those who clicked on this image on Facebook were taken to a page with a dubious URL& (in this case, https://www.lowes.com-holdit.us/?sfpzbJt) and asked to take a simple survey and then to "like" and "share" the page: Needless to say, anyone who attempted to redeem these coupons at Lowe's will be unsuccessful (and probably a little embarrassed), and if they have followed the online instructions, they have set themselves and their friends on social media up for, at best, a like-farming scam. A simple racket, certainly, but an effective one. scam

FMD_test_61

Benefits of parental leave available in Europe.

03/16/2017

On 14 March 2017, Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) office posted an image on his Facebook page criticizing the lack of federally-funded family leave in the U.S. by highlighting how similar policies are implemented in three other countries: Facebook Sanders, who ran for the Democratic Party's 2016 presidential nomination, expressed support for a federal family leave program in the U.S., as stated on his campaign website: stated In my view, every worker in America should be guaranteed at least twelve weeks of paid family and medical leave. Thats why I am a proud cosponsor of the FAMILY Act, introduced by Senator [Kirsten] Gillibrand, which does just that. Under this measure, every employee would receive twelve weeks of paid family and medical leave: to take care of a baby, to help a family member who has been diagnosed with cancer or another serious medical condition, or to care for themselves if they become seriously ill. This would be funded through an insurance program, like Social Security. Workers would pay into it with every paycheck, at the price of roughly one cup of coffee per week. There is no reason not to pass this bill now. His office's claim that the U.S. and Papua New Guinea are alone "out of 188 countries" in lacking federal family leave programs is based on a 2015 study by the International Labour Organization (ILO) reporting that statistic. Sanders' post was also accompanied by an image listing individual claims about parental leave policies in Canada, Germany, and Norway. study Canada allows parents to take 35 weeks' worth of leave while still receiving up to 55 percent of their regular salaries. The country's paid leave benefits are applied as part of its employment insurance (EI) program, which states: program For most people, the basic rate for calculating EI benefits is 55% of your average insurable weekly earnings, up to a maximum amount. As of January 1, 2017, the maximum yearly insurable earnings amount is $51,300. This means that you can receive a maximum amount of $543 per week. While parents can divide the 35 weeks of leave between themselves, mothers can take an additional 15 weeks as part of the program: EI maternity benefits can be paid for a maximum period of 15 weeks. You cannot receive EI maternity benefits beyond 17 weeks after the expected or actual week of childbirth, whichever of the two is later. EI parental benefits can be paid for a maximum period of 35 weeks. The payments must be made within 52 weeks of the week your child was born or the week your child was placed with you for adoption. Parents seeking to take the paid leave must also meet criteria regarding length of employment, and while parental benefits are open to "biological, adoptive, or legally recognized parents while they are caring for their newborn or newly adopted child," maternity benefits are only available to a child's biological mother: To be eligible for EI maternity benefits, you must have accumulated at least 600 hours of insurable employment in your qualifying period. If you are a self-employed fisher, you must have earned $3,760 from fishing during the 31-week qualifying period immediately before the start of your benefit period. To be eligible for EI parental benefits, each parent who applies for benefits must have accumulated at least 600 hours of insurable employment in his or her qualifying period. If you are a self-employed fisher, you must have earned $3,760 from fishing during the 31-week qualifying period immediately before the start of your benefit period. In Norway, as Sanders' office stated, parents may take 49 weeks of parental leave while receiving 100 percent of their pay. But the Norwegian government's web site also notes that parents have another option that provides lesser coverage for a longer period of time: notes When you apply for parental benefit, you must choose between 100 percent or 80 percent degree of coverage The total benefit period for parental benefit in the case of a birth, is 49 weeks at 100 percent coverage, and 59 weeks at 80 percent coverage. The parents must choose the same degree of coverage. Expectant mothers are also required to use three of their benefit weeks prior to their child's birth and can start using their benefits up to 12 weeks before the child's due date, though only nine of those weeks would be withdrawn from their accrued leave time. Adoptive parents also have two options: take 46 weeks off while receiving 100 percent of their pay, or take 56 weeks off at 80 percent of their pay. In Germany, there are two ways to take parental leave, one of which is mentioned in the post by Sanders' office: parents can each take between two and 12 months off while receiving "two-thirds of [their] previous income." Benefits range from at least 300 Euros a month to a maximum of 1,800 Euros a month. (Unemployed parents are also eligible for the benefits program.) receiving Parents who are already employed are each protected from losing their jobs while utilizing their family leave. However, parents taking the time off together can extend their benefits period to 14 months. Additionally, parents who participate in the "ElterngeldPlus" program can also add four months to their leaves if they each work up to 30 hours a week during their benefit period. Parents seeking to take part in Germany's parental leave program must submit applications to their employer (if applicable) at least seven weeks before they intend to start taking the time off. Additionally, as of 1 July 2015 parents are eligible for up to 24 months of parental leave if their children are between the ages of two and seven. Government of Canada. "Employment Insurance Maternity and Parental Benefits." Accessed 16 March 2017. Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration. "Parental Benefit." 19 July 2013. [Danish] Federal Office for Migration and Refugees. "Parental Allowance and Parental Leave." Accessed 16 March 2017. International Labour Organization. "Social Protection for Maternity: Key Policy Trends and Statistics." 2015. Sanders, Bernie. "Real Family Values." berniesanders.com.

FMD_test_62

What Donald Trump has achieved within a mere four months?

05/24/2017

In May 2017, a Reddit user posted a graphic that purported to list all of President Trump's accomplishments during his first four months in office. It was then widely shared on social media: "Reddit TRUMP ACCOMPLISHMENTS ..Retweet the hell out of this to annoy @ABC @CBS @cnn @cnbc @MSNBC @nbc @nytimes @washingtonpost #dishonestmedia." Creating homebrew visual aids touting the accomplishments (or failures) of top politicians is a popular online pastime, not least because it's a cheap and easy way to propagandize, and because there are no pesky standards of fairness and accuracy to meet. As we've noted with regard to previous specimens (for example, a late-2016 meme touting the alleged economic achievements of President Obama), the graphic format lends itself to the display of cherry-picked facts to make a simplistic case with no semblance of context or nuance. In this case, the claim is that, despite all the carping in the mainstream press about "chaos" and "ineptitude" in the Oval Office, President Trump has actually accomplished quite a lot during his first four months as chief executive, and thus you will not find mention of major campaign promises Trump has had difficulty keeping so far, such as instituting a Muslim immigration ban and building a wall on the Mexican border. Also, since it's very much a partisan case being made, there will be disagreement over what constitutes an "accomplishment." Some feats, such as reducing unemployment, are uncontroversial, while others, such as dismantling entire government agencies, aren't likely to be regarded as accomplishments by those who find the functions of those agencies critical. Here are the claims: 4.4 percent - lowest since May 2007. As reported in the Washington Post, government data released on May 5, 2017, indicated that the national unemployment rate hit a new low in April: The U.S. job market rebounded strongly last month, and the unemployment rate fell to the lowest level seen in a decade, government data released Friday morning showed, calming fears that had bubbled up in the past month about the state of the economy. Employers added 211,000 jobs in April as the unemployment rate ticked down to 4.4 percent, the lowest level since May 2007. It bears pointing out that the jobless rate had already been on a steady decline since 2010. Further, unemployment hit a previous nine-year low of 4.6 percent in December 2016 when President Obama was still in office. It climbed back up to 4.8 percent in January, dipped to 4.7 percent in February, and to 4.5 percent in March 2017. To what degree short-term improvements in the economy since January can be attributed to a new chief executive whose economic policies remain nascent is perennially up for debate, though according to The New York Times' senior economic correspondent Neil Irwin, a "Trump effect" that is buoying corporate hiring policies after the election cannot be ruled out. So does Mr. Trump deserve any credit for solid economic results? If you think the economy is driven by concrete, specific policies around taxes, spending, monetary policy, and regulation, the answer is no. If you think that what really matters is the mood in the executive suite, then just maybe. This is a mostly accurate, partial list of corporations that have announced investments in American facilities and/or jobs since the election of Donald Trump. With the exception of Bayer AG (which announced $8 billion in new investments, not $1 billion as claimed), the dollar amounts match those cited in press reports between January and April 2017 (sources: Softbank, Exxon Mobil Corp., Hyundai-Kia, Apple, Fiat Chrysler, General Motors, Bayer AG, Toyota, LG Electronics). It's not necessarily accurate to characterize all of these commitments as "accomplishments" of President Trump, however. As CBS Moneywatch's Irina Ivanova reported in January 2017, few of the jobs companies are promising to create in the U.S. can be attributed to a sudden renewed commitment to USA Inc. inspired by Trump's America First policies. Indeed, the businesses Trump has been quick to praise have been careful not to characterize their recent hiring announcements as new. And as usual with corporate investments of this scale, such plans are typically months or even years in the making, suggesting they long predate the presidential election. For example, Fiat Chrysler said their promise of a $1 billion investment in Michigan and Ohio plants, projected to create 2,000 jobs, was the "second phase" of an industrialization plan announced in 2016. GM's $1 billion investment was "several years in the making," according to sources cited by CBS. The largest of all the announced commitments, SoftBank's pledge of $50 billion, was also in the works long before Trump won the election: Another widely publicized corporate initiative that Trump trumpeted—a promise by SoftBank to create 50,000 high-tech jobs in the U.S.—was the result of a tech fund the company announced on October 14, three weeks before the election. Given the massive tech industry in the U.S., economists say much of the planned $50 billion investment would have found its way to the states regardless of who occupied the White House. You don't just decide overnight to invest $3 billion, said Nathan Jensen, a professor at the University of Texas who studies interactions between government and corporations. Bayer AG's commitment to an $8 billion investment and the creation of 3,000 U.S. jobs was announced by the Trump transition team after the president-elect met in January 2017 with the CEOs of Bayer AG and Monsanto, who are planning a merger. Transition spokesman Sean Spicer credited Trump's negotiating skills for the pledge, but some analysts were skeptical that the companies had actually promised anything that wasn't already on the table when plans for the merger were first revealed in September 2016. Bayer and Monsanto said in a joint statement after Spicer's remarks that the "combined company expects to spend approximately $16 billion in R&D in agriculture over the next six years with at least half of this investment made in the United States." That amounts to about $2.7 billion a year, which roughly equates to what the combined companies already spend in that area globally, [Wall Street analyst Jeremy] Redenius said. As for the U.S. breakdown, he estimates it's likely close to half already; Monsanto spends $1.5 billion a year, the majority of which is in the U.S., he said, and Bayer already invests in R&D here as well. "Not an increase, but not substantially cutting," he said of the global figure. The merger, which awaits U.S. regulatory approval, is not likely to be completed until 2018, CNBC reported. It is true that the U.S. Treasury reported a $182 billion budget surplus in April 2017, the largest April surplus since 2001 (and the second-largest in history), according to MarketWatch. It's unclear exactly how that surplus is attributable to President Trump, however. April is typically a surplus month because of tax receipts. In addition, citing a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) review as its source, the Associated Press reported that the April 2017 surplus was "inflated" because of a tax deadline change allowing corporations to pay federal taxes in April that in previous years were paid in March. It remains to be seen what effect Trump's policies will have on the budget deficit for 2017 as a whole (the fiscal year ends on September 30). The CBO projects a 4.6 percent drop in the deficit from what it was in 2016, but that is based on laws and policies already in effect when Trump took office. The stock market can be fickle. As of April 29, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was at 20,940.51, 6.12 percent higher than when Trump took office—positive movement, unquestionably. That number had risen to 20,981.94 by May 16, then plummeted 372 points the next day as the market was shaken by news that Trump had shared classified information with Russian diplomats in the White House and attempted to divert FBI Director James Comey from an investigation of Trump's alleged ties to Russia before he fired him. It's true that the Consumer Confidence Index, a metric assessing how ordinary consumers feel about the strength of the economy, hit 125.6 in March 2017, its highest point since 2000. It is also true that it fell five points to 120.3 the following month. Even so, it showed that consumers (as of April) had more confidence in the economy under Trump than under Obama, during whose administration the index never exceeded 113.7 (although it did manage to rise to that point after bottoming out in 2009 at 25). As of May 17, 2017, President Trump had signed 34 bills passed by Congress, a comparatively high number in such a short period of time (since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who signed 76 pieces of legislation in his first 100 days, only Harry Truman, at 55, signed more). That's not to say that all of the legislation signed by Trump between January and May 2017 was necessarily noteworthy, however. One bill changed the name of a Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Pago Pago, American Samoa; another renamed a VA health center in Pennsylvania; another approved the location of a memorial honoring Desert Storm and Desert Shield veterans; three appointed citizen regents to the board of the Smithsonian Institution. Nor should it be assumed that Trump's signing of a given bill meant he or his administration was actively involved in its passage. Thirteen such bills nullifying federal regulations enacted during the Obama administration (such as H.J. Res. 69, reversing a U.S. Fish and Wildlife rule pertaining to Alaska's National Wildlife Refuges and S.J. Res. 34, reversing FCC Internet privacy rules) were rushed through Congress and quickly signed because they made use of the Congressional Review Act of 1996, which imposes a 60-day limit on the time allowed to overrule previously passed laws. This is true. Gorsuch was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on April 7, 2017. This is true. Trump fulfilled a campaign promise by signing an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership international trade agreement on January 23, 2017, one day after announcing he would renegotiate it. Despite President Obama's fervent support for the deal, many groups, including labor unions, were critical of the TPP, and CNN reported that its chances of approval by Congress were already "bleak." The number of illegal border crossings from Mexico into the U.S. in February 2017 were indeed down 40 percent from the previous month, according to statistics provided by the Department of Homeland Security, and that downward trend, which had actually started the previous November, continued in March and April 2017. It's true that in March 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded a $100 million grant to the state of Michigan to upgrade the drinking water infrastructure in Flint, which experienced a lead pollution crisis potentially affecting as many as 100,000 people beginning in 2014. There has been some dispute, however, over whether this ought to be labeled a "Trump accomplishment" or an "Obama accomplishment." As we noted in a previous article, funding for the grant came from a bill signed by President Obama in 2016, though the monies weren't officially awarded until after he left office, hence some prefer to credit it to Trump. Although President Trump pledged to "strengthen" overseas relationships going into office and he had already met with several important foreign leaders by mid-May 2017, it is too soon to tell to what degree his promise will bear fruit. The president-elect got off to a rocky start with China in December by accepting a congratulatory call from the leader of Taiwan, which China views as a province, not an independent nation, and with which the U.S. does not have diplomatic relations. China lodged a formal complaint. In April, Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping, with whom he said he made "tremendous progress" but no breakthroughs. A trade deal negotiated by the Trump administration with China in May was rated "pretty good" by The Wall Street Journal. Japanese Prime Minister Abe, who has met twice with Trump, issued a joint statement with him reaffirming the "unshakable alliance" between the U.S. and Japan. That is despite Trump having called Japan a "currency manipulator" during the presidential campaign and pulling out of the TPP, which Abe supported. Whether the "very, very good chemistry" Trump says he has with Abe will improve the relationship between the two countries over the long haul remains to be seen. U.S.-Russia relations have been strained for many years, a situation not improved by Russia's attempts to meddle in the U.S. presidential election, nor by the fact that Trump associates are under investigation for possible collusion in that effort. A U.S. missile strike by Trump against Syria, with whose government Russia is closely allied, was strongly condemned by Russian leaders, who warned there could be "extremely serious" consequences. British Prime Minister Theresa May was the first foreign leader to visit the Trump White House, and their cordial meeting was portrayed by both countries as a renewal of the "special relationship" between the U.S. and the U.K. According to the BBC, Obama was seen by many Britons as more interested in the European Union as a whole than in the U.K. itself, while Trump, who was in favor of Brexit, is perceived as the opposite. President Trump has employed what the Washington Post calls "hard-line rhetoric" against North Korea, including threats of force, in hopes of squelching that country's increasing militarism, a strategy some experts dismiss as "macho posturing" that could escalate into a Cuban Missile Crisis-like confrontation. In April 2017, Trump ordered U.S. missile strikes against an air base in Syria in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack on civilians by the Syrian government, which has been known to brutalize its own people during the ongoing civil war there. Trump's gesture came up short, however, in that the Syrian Air Force was able to launch a new attack against rebel forces from that same base just hours later. In April 2017, President Trump negotiated the release of U.S. citizen Aya Hijazi, her Egyptian husband, and four other humanitarian workers from a prison in Cairo, Egypt, where they had been locked up since 2014, without evidence or trial, on charges of child abuse and trafficking. Although it is true that President Trump signed an executive order on March 13, 2017, directing the heads of executive branch departments to eliminate all "unnecessary" agencies and reorganize those that remain to improve their "efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability," the order gave said department heads six months from the date of signing to come up with suggestions for this process, so not much fat has been trimmed thus far despite the groundwork being laid. President Donald Trump made a campaign trail promise to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency—a department once looked to as an important national force tackling climate change—and during his first 100 days in office has held true to his word, taking swift strides towards dismantling the agency and rolling back regulations. Alongside EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general who once worked tangentially with the fossil fuel industry to oppose Obama-era regulations, the Trump administration has so far issued a flurry of EPA-focused executive orders, proposed employee buyouts, handed down a social media gag order, and is proposing significant cuts to the EPA budget. The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), a small business advocacy group, has hailed Trump's commitment to cutting "burdensome regulations," while environmental protection groups see it as a threat to public health and the future of the planet. The controversial Dakota Access Pipeline project, halted under President Obama, was revived by President Trump and will begin commercial operations on June 1, 2017. Trump also issued an executive order directing a review of lands designated as national monuments. Specifically, the review will consider all national monument designations of federal public lands since 1996 that are 100,000 acres or larger. Mr. Trump singled out former President Barack Obama's egregious use of federal power in using the Antiquities Act to unilaterally place swaths of American land and water under federal control, adding, "it's time we ended this abusive practice." As with many of the other items discussed above, whether or not one regards this as an "accomplishment" (as opposed, say, to a travesty) will depend almost entirely on one's political views going in.

FMD_test_63

It is essential to regularly review the 1956 Republican Platform.

10/23/2014

A few weeks before the 2012 U.S. presidential election, a meme began to circulate on social media suggesting that the 1956 Republican platform included policies that would more closely match those of progressives in later years. The tenets listed in the 1956 Republican platform graphic certainly deviate from many of the GOP's current party lines, but were the cited planks notably different six decades ago? It's difficult to make a direct comparison for a few reasons. One reason is that the Republican Party's national platform is not necessarily the same as the issues espoused by individual candidates at the federal, state, or local levels. In recent years, the advent of social media has enabled candidates and political organizations to push individually important agendas that may not align with the party's overall national platform. Another issue is defining what the party's platform is at any given time. The most recent available Republican Party platform dates to 2012, during the campaign of Mitt Romney. Not all issues addressed in the graphic above were directly mentioned or comparably referenced in the 2012 platform, and individual Republican Party members who have made statements about platform issues since then do not necessarily speak for the GOP at large. The image displayed above first points to assistance for "low-income communities," language that does not specifically appear in the 1956 Republican platform. Under the heading of "Labor," the original document supported (to a degree) several of the positions summarized in the graphic regarding minimum wage laws, unemployment assistance, and equal pay irrespective of gender. The Eisenhower Administration will continue to fight for dynamic and progressive programs which, among other things, will stimulate improved job safety for our workers through assistance to the states, employees, and employers; continue and further perfect its programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers; strengthen and improve the Federal-State Employment Service and enhance the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system; protect by law the assets of employee welfare and benefit plans so that workers who are the beneficiaries can be assured of their rightful benefits; assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex; clarify and strengthen the eight-hour laws for the benefit of workers who are subject to federal wage standards on federal and federally-assisted construction, and maintain and continue the vigorous administration of the Federal prevailing minimum wage law for public supply contracts; extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable; continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry, or sex; and provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment. The quoted portion did not specify expanded access to unemployment insurance benefits. However, the introduction addressed matters of expanding that benefit, as well as Social Security and even health care. The word "Protect" did not appear in that section, but it did state: We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security, broadened coverage in unemployment insurance, improved housing, and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people. We shall continue to seek extension and perfection of a sound social security system. On the matter of supporting and encouraging labor unions, the 1956 Republican platform stated that "workers have benefited by the progress which has been made in carrying out the programs and principles set forth in the 1952 Republican platform ... workers have gained and unions have grown in strength and responsibility, and have increased their membership by 2 million." It pledged to revise and improve the Taft-Hartley Act to protect more effectively the rights of labor unions, management, the individual worker, and the public. The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration. In 1954, 1955, and again in 1956, President Eisenhower recommended constructive amendments to this Act. The Democrats in Congress have consistently blocked these needed changes by parliamentary maneuvers. The Republican Party pledges itself to overhaul and improve the Taft-Hartley Act along the lines of these recommendations. By contrast, the 2012 Republican Party platform stated of workers, unemployment insurance, and worker protections that the best jobs program is economic growth. We do not offer yet another made-in-Washington package of subsidies and spending to create temporary or artificial jobs. We want much more than that. We want a roaring job market to match a roaring economy. Instead, what this Administration has given us is 42 consecutive months of unemployment above 8 percent, the longest period of high unemployment since the Great Depression. Republicans will pursue free market policies that are the surest way to boost employment and create job growth and economic prosperity for all. In all the sections that follow, as well as elsewhere in this platform, we explain what must be done to achieve that goal. The tax system must be simplified. Government spending and regulation must be reined in. American companies must be more competitive in the world market, and we must be aggressive in promoting U.S. products abroad and securing open markets for them. A federal-state-private partnership must invest in the nation's infrastructure: roads, bridges, airports, ports, and water systems, among others. Federal training programs have to be overhauled and made relevant for the workplace of the twenty-first century. Potential employers need certainty and predictability for their hiring decisions, and the team of a Republican President and Congress will create the confidence that will get Americans back to work. Unions were also addressed in the 2012 platform in a somewhat different manner: We will restore the rule of law to labor law by blocking "card check," enacting the Secret Ballot Protection Act, enforcing the Hobbs Act against labor violence, and passing the Raise Act to allow all workers to receive well-earned raises without the approval of their union representative. We demand an end to the Project Labor Agreements, and we call for repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act, which costs taxpayers billions of dollars annually in artificially high wages on government projects. We support the right of states to enact Right-to-Work laws and encourage them to do so to promote greater economic liberty. Ultimately, we support the enactment of a National Right-to-Work law to promote worker freedom and greater economic liberty. We will aggressively enforce the recent decision by the Supreme Court barring the use of union dues for political purposes without the consent of the worker. Republicans in 1956 appeared markedly softer on matters of immigration and asylum, as their platform explained: The Republican Party supports an immigration policy that is in keeping with the traditions of America in providing a haven for oppressed peoples, and which is based on equality of treatment, freedom from implications of discrimination between racial, nationality, and religious groups, and flexible enough to conform to changing needs and conditions. In that concept, this Republican Administration sponsored the Refugee Relief Act to provide asylum for thousands of refugees, expellees, and displaced persons, and undertook, in the face of Democrat opposition, to correct the inequities in existing law and to bring our immigration policies in line with the dynamic needs of the country and principles of equity and justice. We believe also that Congress should consider the extension of the Refugee Relief Act of 1953 in resolving this difficult refugee problem which resulted from world conflict. To all this, we give our wholehearted support. In 2012, the GOP platform was slightly more stringent: We recognize that for most of those seeking entry into this country, the lack of respect for the rule of law in their homelands has meant economic exploitation and political oppression by corrupt elites. In this country, the rule of law guarantees equal treatment to every individual, including more than one million immigrants to whom we grant permanent residence every year. That is why we oppose any form of amnesty for those who, by intentionally violating the law, disadvantage those who have obeyed it. Granting amnesty only rewards and encourages more law breaking. We support the mandatory use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (S.A.V.E.) program—an internet-based system that verifies the lawful presence of applicants—prior to the granting of any state or federal government entitlements or IRS refunds. We insist upon enforcement at the workplace through verification systems so that jobs can be available to all legal workers. The use of the E-verify program—an internet-based system that verifies the employment authorization and identity of employees—must be made mandatory nationwide. State enforcement efforts in the workplace must be welcomed, not attacked. When Americans need jobs, it is absolutely essential that we protect them from illegal labor in the workplace. In addition, it is why we demand tough penalties for those who practice identity theft, deal in fraudulent documents, and traffic in human beings. It is why we support Republican legislation to give the Department of Homeland Security long-term detention authority to keep dangerous but undeportable aliens off our streets, expedite the expulsion of criminal aliens, and make gang membership a deportable offense. Social Security warranted a few mentions in the 2012 platform, most notably in this portion: For much of the last century, an opposing view has dominated public policy where we have witnessed the expansion, centralization, and bureaucracy in an entitlement society. Government has lumbered on, stifling innovation, with no incentive for fundamental change, through antiquated programs begun generations ago and now ill-suited to present needs and future requirements. As a result, today's taxpayers—and future generations—face massive indebtedness, while Congressional Democrats and the current Administration block every attempt to turn things around. This man-made logjam—the so-called stalemate in Washington—particularly affects the government's three largest programs, which have become central to the lives of untold millions of Americans: Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Among the remaining points of the graphic, gender pay discrepancy was not directly referenced in the 2012 platform. While the two platforms from 1956 and 2012 may appear starkly different when compared side by side, one must also keep in mind that the Republican Party tenets referenced in this meme predate many of the issues American voters now feel are central to their lives 60 years on.

FMD_test_64

Did 2021 U.S. Defense Bill Nullify the Insurrection Act?

12/23/2020

Editor's note: Shortly after this article was published, U.S. President Donald Trump vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act. You can read more about Trump's veto here from the Associated Press. The original article continues below. Associated Press House Resolution 6395, or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (NDAA), was surprisingly controversial during the final weeks of 2020. U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to veto the military budget bill, which passed the House and Senate with more than a two-thirds majority vote, because it did not call for the removal of Section 230, an unrelated piece of legislation that provides internet publishers legal immunity from third-party content. threatened to veto Section 230 On Dec. 22, 2020, conservative commentator Chuck Callesto claimed that there was another reason Trump might want to veto the bill. Callesto wrote that the NDAA contained a provision that "Nullifies the President's use of the Insurrection Act." While Callesto presents his claim as if he is quoting directly from the bill, the phrase "nullifies the President's use of the Insurrection Act" does not appear anywhere in the NDAA (which numbers 1,480 pages, not 5,893 as Callesto claimed), the full text of which can be found here. here Insurrection Act House Amendment 833 It's a bit of a moot point, however, as this amendment did not make it into the final bill. As of this writing, the NDAA does not include any language pertaining to the Insurrection Act. The Hill reported on Dec. 6 that the amendment pertaining to the Insurrection Act was removed as Congress debated the NDAA: reported The NDAA also includes a modest rebuke of Trumps use of Pentagon funding on his southern border wall. The compromise includes House-passed language capping emergency military construction spending at $100 million annually for domestic projects. Trump took $3.6 billion from military construction funds to build the wall. The compromise jettisoned some rebukes of Trump, including House-passed language to restrict a presidents Insurrection Act powers and block funding for a nuclear test. But this year stands in stark contrast to last year, when most of House Democrats efforts to box in Trump on defense policy were stripped from the final product. In summary, the viral tweet claiming that the NDAA "nullified" the Insurrection Act is based on a House amendment proposed in July that would have restricted (not nullified) the president's use of the Insurrection Act. This amendment, which would have required the president to make certifications to Congress before invoking the Insurrection Act, did not make it into the final form of the legislation.

FMD_test_65

Was a Bold Drugstore Shoplifting Incident in SF Due to 'No Arrest' Policy?

03/06/2020

In early March 2020, a number of social media users posted a video of a genuine shoplifting incident in San Francisco, California, along with commentary that the incident was evidence of "radical left" leadership that led to lenient policies that were responsible for the crime: social media users video https://youtu.be/PZfcOuRAwzISpecifically, some viewers claimed the crime was the result of some unspecified "no arrest" policy in the city of San Francisco. Others stated the incident was the upshot of California Proposition 47, a 2014 ballot measure that, among other reforms, created a new penal code for shoplifting that didn't exist before, classifying it as a misdemeanor if the dollar amount stolen was less than $950. no arrest Others Proposition 47 Both claims are false.We contacted the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD), and a spokesman there said the shoplifting incident was real and occurred about 1 p.m. on Feb. 29, 2020. Employees at the Walgreens drugstore where it occurred told police that three females, possibly minors, took "several cosmetic items," then fled before police arrived. The investigation remains open and no arrests have been made. San Francisco Police Officer Robert Rueca said that SFPD doesn't have a "no arrest" policy. "If we have the probable cause to believe that someone has committed a crime, we will arrest the suspects and present that case to the District Attorney," Rueca said in an email to Snopes. It's also a mischaracterization of events to claim the crime was allowed to occur because of purported leniency resulting from Prop 47. A person who is accused of committing any misdemeanor can be arrested and face jail time under California state law. Shoplifting in the state is punishable by up to six months in county jail. Shoplifting is defined under California law as "entering a commercial establishment with intent to commit larceny while that establishment is open during regular business hours, where the value of the property that is taken or intended to be taken does not exceed nine hundred fifty dollars ($950)." punishable defined Prop 47, which California voters approved in 2014, reclassified some minor crimes as misdemeanors instead of felonies, with the intent of reducing what was at the time a severely overcrowded prison population. The aim was also to reduce the number of people serving long sentences and ending up with felony-conviction records for petty crimes. Prop 47 increased the felony threshold for certain types of theft from $450 to $950 meaning the simple theft of property valued below $950 is a misdemeanor. It also reduced simple drug possession (possession of drugs without the intent to sell) to a misdemeanor. The claim that Prop 47 is to blame for the incident depicted in the video is representative of misinformation that has been circulating about the law for years, said George Gascn, the former district attorney of San Francisco who is now running for the same position in Los Angeles County and who co-authored Prop 47. Although the threshold for misdemeanor-versus-felony theft prior to Prop 47 was $450, it's unclear whether the new law makes any potential difference in the San Francisco case. In the video, the thieves are seen stuffing drugstore-brand cosmetics into bags. It's unknown how much the items were worth SFPD would not give us an estimate. "Prop 47 doesnt cover robberies, theft by the use of force or fear. It doesn't cover burglaries," Gascn said. "If you break into a structure with the intent to commit theft or another felony, that continues to be a felony. If someone breaks into your car to steal even a pack of cigarettes, thats still a felony. Even the crimes that are covered by Prop 47, they were not decriminalized. We moved them from a felony to a misdemeanor. [Perpetrators] can still go to county jail" if they are convicted. The claim that increasing the value of shoplifted property to meet a felony threshold is contributing to a rash of crime in California is spurious, given that other states have higher thresholds (Texas' felony threshold, for instance, is $2,500). A 2018 Pew Research study found that states that increased thresholds to account for inflation did not see a resulting uptick in crime as a result. $2,500 study Gascn said that when crafting Prop 47, he and his co-authors purposely looked at felony thresholds in red states. States like Texas and Tennessee "had significantly higher thresholds between felonies and misdemeanors," Gascn told us. Part of the intent behind Prop 47 was to deal with inequality embedded in the system, Gascn said. For example, crack possession used to be a felony while possession of drugs like methamphetamines and cocaine were what were known as "wobblers," he said, which is jargon for crimes that prosecutors had some discretion to charge either as misdemeanors or felonies. Racial discrepancies existed in terms of who was most likely to have those drugs; African Americans, for instance, were more likely to be charged with felony drug possession than whites were, he said. Prop 47 was also intended to address severe overcrowding in California's prisons and meet a federal court order to alleviate it. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that overcrowding in the state's prison system was unconstitutional. Prop 47 succeeded in helping the state reach key benchmarks by reducing low-level, non-violent offenses like drug possession, petty theft, and writing bad checks to misdemeanors so long as the amounts in question did not exceed $950. The effect was a decrease in the prison population and also a reduction in recidivism. ruled reduction A 2018 study conducted by the University of California at Irvine found no evidence that Prop 47 resulted in an increase in crime. Meantime, violent crime and property crime in California remain at historic lows. study historic lows In summary, the claim that a "no arrest policy" exists in San Francisco appears to be made up. We also found no evidence that a change in California state law in regards to misdemeanor shoplifting directly contributed to this incident. We therefore rate this claim California Courts."Proposition 47: The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act." Los Angeles Times Editorial Board."Editorial: No, Prop 47 Didnt De-Criminalize Misdemeanors." Los Angeles Times.18 July 2018. Arango, Tim."In California, Criminal Justice Reform Offers a Lesson for the Nation." The New York Times.21 January 2018. Vock, Daniel V."After Years of Court Orders, California's Prison Population Finally Hits Target." Governing.9 October 2015. Totenberg, Nina."High Court Rules Calif. Must Cut Prison Population." NPR.23 May 2011. UCI News."Proposition 47 Not Responsible for Recent Upticks in Crime Across California, UCI study Says." 7 March 2018. Public Policy Institute of California."The Impact of Proposition 47 on Crime and Recidivism." June 2018. Public Policy Institute of California."Crime Trends in California."

FMD_test_66

Is This Journalism Before and After Taliban Takeover?

08/17/2021

On Aug. 16, 2021, about two weeks after the U.S. withdrew troops from Afghanistan, Taliban fighters took control of the presidential palace in Kabul and seized power. This led to thousands of Afghans attempting to flee the area, and left many, especially women, fearing for their safety. took control of the presidential palace EuroNews reported: reported Female journalists and activists who have worked towards amplifying the voices of women in Afghanistan now fear for their lives as the Taliban took over Kabul on Sunday in a rapid power grab. Many women journalists were in hiding after being told to return home as Kabul was taken by the armed group. Against this backdrop, a set of "before and after" images started circulating that supposedly showed CNN's Clarissa Ward in her regular clothing before the Taliban takeover, and with much of her face, body, and hair covered afterward: These images are real. However, they deserve a little additional context. Ward explained on Twitter that the "before" image shown here was taken in a private compound. The reporter also said that she always wore a head scarf while on the streets of Kabul. However, Ward stated that she began wearing an abaya (a full-length outer garment for women) and fully covered her hair after the Taliban took over the area: explained on Twitter This meme is inaccurate. The top photo is inside a private compound. The bottom is on the streets of Taliban held Kabul. I always wore a head scarf on the street in Kabul previously, though not w/ hair fully covered and abbaya. So there is a difference but not quite this stark. It should also be noted that Ward was not the only woman who was reporting from the ground following the Taliban's take over of Afghanistan, and that her clothing decisions were not replicated by every other journalist. Two Afghan reporters from the local news outlet TOLO News, for example, wore head scarves without the abaya (similar to what Ward would often wear prior to the Taliban take over). The founder of Tolo News' parent company tweeted a photograph of some women reporters in Kabul: While Ward noted on Twitter that the changes weren't as stark as presented in this meme, female journalists are truly worried for their lives in the area. The Guardian reported: reported Female Afghan journalists tell of a once free and bustling Kabul now filled with silence and fear as they destroy traces of their identity and work to avoid Taliban militants. Aaisha is one of dozens of female Afghan journalists who have communicated with the Guardian over the past weeks, documenting the fall of their nation to share the devastation with the world. Now they fear that reporting without fear or favour will be the very thing that costs them their future. They constantly receive death threats from the Taliban, and from others who agree that women should not be treated as equal. You can see a video report filed by Ward from Afghanistan here. here

FMD_test_67

Is there evidence of racial bias in tax-evasion prosecutions shown in this meme?

03/15/2019

One of the more unusual political memes we've come across presented four different cases of tax-related financial improprieties to suggest that tax-evasion prosecutions were somehow influenced by racial bias against non-blacks. However, the "Tax Racism" meme offered examples, not all of which were actual cases of tax evasion, so widely spaced in time and differing in circumstances as to be unhelpful in making any point at all about either tax fraud or race. Martha Stewart, the entrepreneur who rose to prominence as the author of books on cooking, entertaining, and decorating, was not charged with or imprisoned for non-payment of income taxes. Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators in a case related to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading activity. On June 4, 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed securities fraud charges against Martha Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic. The complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that Stewart committed illegal insider trading when she sold stock in a biopharmaceutical company, ImClone Systems, Inc., on December 27, 2001, after receiving an unlawful tip from Bacanovic, who was then a broker with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. The Commission further alleges that Stewart and Bacanovic subsequently created an alibi for Stewart's ImClone sales and concealed important facts during SEC and criminal investigations into her trades. In a separate action, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York obtained an indictment charging Stewart and Bacanovic criminally for their false statements concerning Stewart's ImClone trades. Stewart was sentenced to five months in prison and also settled a civil suit with the SEC by paying a $195,000 fine, a penalty that reflected four times the amount of stock value loss she avoided by taking advantage of inside information, plus interest. Stewart did engage in a dispute with the state of New York in 2002 over unpaid property taxes that she contended she didn't owe because she hardly spent any time in that state, and she was eventually ordered by a judge to pay $220,000 in back taxes plus penalties. But contrary to the false impression created by this meme, she was not prosecuted or jailed over that issue; the time she spent in prison was solely related to a later insider-trading case, not to tax evasion. By the mid-1920s, notorious Chicago mobster Alphonse Gabriel Capone was reportedly taking in nearly $60 million annually ($878 million in 2018 dollars) from a variety of illegal activities, primarily Prohibition-era bootlegging. Capone was dubbed "Public Enemy No. 1" after the 1929 Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, in which gunmen allegedly hired by him posed as police officers to murder seven members of a rival gang, leading to increased public pressure on the government to rein Capone in. Federal authorities had difficulty gathering sufficient hard evidence to convict Capone on any substantial criminal charges, so they took what was then a novel approach: Even if they couldn't prove Capone was making his millions illegally, they could prove he wasn't paying income tax on his ill-gotten gains. Despite his obviously lavish lifestyle, Capone never filed a federal income tax return and claimed he had no taxable income, reportedly boasting at one point that, "They can't collect legal taxes from illegal money." He was proved wrong. IRS and Treasury agents gathered evidence that Capone had made millions of dollars in untaxed income, and the mobster was eventually indicted on 22 counts of federal income tax evasion. After conviction, he was sentenced in 1931 to 11 years in prison, fined $50,000, and ordered to pay back taxes in the amount of $215,000. Capone was released from prison in 1939 with time off for good behavior and retired to Florida, where he died in 1947 at the relatively young age of 48. In a literal sense, Capone was indeed jailed for non-payment of income taxes, but the tax evasion charges were essentially a proxy for prosecuting the mobster over the multitude of vastly worse and violent crimes with which he was connected, as well as the immense profits he derived from those criminal activities. Capone was by no means an otherwise upright and law-abiding citizen who was thrown in prison simply because he didn't pay his income taxes. At this point in our narrative, we need to distinguish between different forms of tax evasion. At one end of the spectrum are those who haven't engaged in any fraudulent behavior but simply didn't or can't pay their taxes for any number of reasons—maybe they didn't plan or withhold prudently, they received poor financial advice, they had legitimate confusion or dispute over what constituted taxable income, or they simply overspent and ended up in debt. Although non-payment of taxes is a crime, the IRS will not usually seek prosecution in these types of cases and will instead work with offenders to facilitate payment of their back debts, rather than making repayment difficult or impossible by incarcerating them. At the other end of the spectrum are those who actively engage in fraud to evade the full payment of taxes: They fail to disclose their full income, hide financial transactions, claim deductions to which they are not entitled, disguise monies earned as something other than income, or otherwise file falsified tax returns. The IRS will, at their discretion, seek prosecution in egregious cases of these forms of tax evasion. Leona Helmsley, derisively known as the "Queen of Mean," was a billionaire who, along with her husband, real estate investor and broker Harry Helmsley, owned a vast portfolio of real estate and other assets, including a chain of hotels and the iconic Empire State Building. Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly asserted that "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes," fell into the latter class of tax evader, falsely manipulating her personal finances, business expenses, and dealings with third parties to avoid paying immense sums of taxes. Some of Helmsley's luster was tarnished in 1986 when court documents and law enforcement officials said she had failed to pay sales taxes in New York on hundreds of thousands of dollars of jewelry she purchased at Van Cleef & Arpels, the exclusive Manhattan store. Two senior store officers were indicted on charges that they operated a scheme by which customers with out-of-state addresses could have their purchases recorded as being mailed to them, thus avoiding city and state taxes. In 1987, a series of adverse articles in The New York Post about the Helmsleys, set off by one of their disgruntled employees, led to a broad investigation. The following year, Harry and Leona Helmsley were indicted by federal and state authorities on charges that they had evaded more than $4 million in income taxes by fraudulently claiming as business expenses luxuries they purchased for Dunnellen Hall in Greenwich, Conn., a 28-room Jacobean mansion on 26 acres with a sweeping view of Long Island Sound that they bought in 1983. In 235 counts in state and federal indictments brought by Robert Abrams, then the New York State attorney general, and Rudolph W. Giuliani, then the United States attorney and later mayor of New York, the Helmsleys were accused of draining their hotel and real estate empire to provide themselves with such extravagances at Dunnellen Hall as a $1 million marble dance floor above a swimming pool, a $45,000 silver clock, a $210,000 mahogany card table, a $130,000 stereo system, and $500,000 worth of jade art objects. Nothing was too small or personal to be billed to their businesses, from Mrs. Helmsley's bras to a white lace and pink satin dress and jacket and a white chiffon skirt—the dress and skirt were entered in the Park Lane Hotel records as uniforms for the staff. Mrs. Helmsley was also charged with defrauding Helmsley stockholders by receiving $83,333 a month in secret consulting fees. She was convicted of 33 felony counts related to her evasion of $1.2 million in federal income taxes. She was sentenced to 16 years in prison (reduced to four years on appeal), fined $7.1 million for tax fraud, and ordered to pay some $1.7 million in back federal and state taxes. She began serving her sentence in 1992 and was released from federal prison in Connecticut in 1994 after having served less than half her sentence. Where along the tax-evader spectrum between "legitimate dispute" and "willful tax fraud" civil rights activist Al Sharpton might fall is difficult to determine. Claims were made in the press in 2014 that Sharpton owed some $4.5 million in unpaid taxes, but the accuracy of that number and how much of the money owed might already have been repaid by Sharpton were unclear, and his tax-troubles narrative involved a muddied mixture of personal, business, and non-profit finances, as well as liabilities for federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, and personal income taxes. Much of the dispute over the "why" and "how much" of Sharpton's unpaid tax bill stemmed from the operations of the National Action Network, a not-for-profit civil rights organization founded by Sharpton in 1991. Sharpton contended in a 2014 New York Times account that he incurred an unexpected tax liability because he was taxed personally for income he had given to the non-profit organization, and that he was up to date on repayment plans. Officials contested that the amount he was in arrears for unpaid taxes had actually grown larger, though. Today, Mr. Sharpton still faces personal federal tax liens of more than $3 million and state tax liens of $777,657, according to records. Mr. Sharpton said the federal liens resulted from a demand by the IRS that he pay taxes on earnings from speaking engagements that he had turned over to the National Action Network. He said he was up to date on payment plans for both the federal and state liens, so, he claimed, the outstanding balance was much lower than records showed. But according to state officials, his balance on the state liens is actually $220,000 greater now than when they were first filed during the years 2008 through 2010. A spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said state law did not allow him to provide any further details. Sharpton then contested that news account, asserting that it referenced "old taxes" and insisting again that his tax liens had been paid down below the $4.5 million debt claimed in the New York Times report, which stated Sharpton's unpaid tax debt had nonetheless grown larger, not smaller. During a news conference at the headquarters of his National Action Network in Harlem, Mr. Sharpton sought to refute the assertion that there were $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens outstanding against him and the for-profit businesses he controls. He said that the liens had been paid down, although he declined to say by how much, and that he was current on all taxes he was obligated to pay under settlement agreements with tax authorities. "We're talking about old taxes," he said, adding, "We're not talking about anything new. So all of this, as if I'm not paying taxes while I'm doing whatever I'm doing, it reads all right, but it just is not true." The accuracy of Mr. Sharpton's assertion that the amount he owes the federal government is much lower than the $3.6 million shown in records could not be verified. A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service said federal law prohibited the agency from divulging any details about individual taxpayers. As for the state tax liens, Mr. Sharpton's assertion that he had paid them down conflicts with information provided by state officials. State authorities filed tax liens against Mr. Sharpton in 2008 and 2009, and again in 2010 against a for-profit business he controls, Revals Communications, all totaling $695,000. But a spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said the amount due had actually increased to $916,000. Regardless of the numbers, Sharpton wasn't put in prison because tax officials did not deem his case to be an exceptional one of scofflaw tax fraud or evasion that merited prosecution, instead working with him to facilitate his paying down the debt. The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoing spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions.

FMD_test_68

Hillary Clinton Cut Her Tax Bill by 'Donating' $1 Million to Herself via the Clinton Foundation?

10/01/2016

An Internet meme circulating during the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign purported to reveal financial trickery on the part of Democratic contender Hillary Clinton, who allegedly deducted $1 million from her 2015 income tax return after donating it "to herself" via contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Assuming that this information came from the candidate's 2015 tax filing (released to the public earlier this year), we went to verify the accuracy of the claims. Our findings were as follows: 1. The return was a joint filing for both Hillary and William J. Clinton. 2. Their shared charitable donations totaled $1,042,000: $42,000 to Desert Classic Charities and $1 million to the Clinton Family Foundation. 3. Declaring an amount, say $1 million, as a charitable donation only reduces your taxable income; it doesn't mean your "tax bill" is reduced by that amount. 4. The Clinton Family Foundation is a separate entity from the Clinton Foundation. Inside Philanthropy describes the Clinton Family Foundation as "a traditional private foundation that serves as the vehicle for the couple's personal charitable giving." It has neither staff nor offices. 5. According to Inside Philanthropy, the Clinton Family Foundation regularly disburses contributions to numerous different charities (one of which is, in fact, the Clinton Foundation). Digging into the Clinton Family Foundation's 2014 tax return reveals that they made around $3.8 million in grantmaking and held some $5.3 million in assets. Of total grantmaking in 2014, $1.8 million went to the Clinton Foundation, just under half of total giving. However, in 2013, the Clintons gave $1.8 million through their personal foundation, with only around a fifth of that money going to the Clinton Foundation, around the same share as in 2012. So where have all the other gifts gone? The short answer is to many different places. In 2014, the Clintons donated money to 70 nonprofits through their foundation. The picture looked similar the year before, with many grants falling in the range of $5,000 to $25,000. Recipients of the Clintons' generosity via the Clinton Family Foundation in 2014 ranged from the School of American Ballet to the Arkansas Children's Hospital Foundation to Wellesley College to the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity. The foundation's 2015 tax filing has not yet been made public, so we don't have an accounting of the organizations to which the $1 million contributed by the Clintons that year was disbursed. Regarding the apparent assumption that any monies donated to the Clinton Foundation simply end up in the Clintons' own pockets, we refer readers, once again, to Inside Philanthropy, which describes the actual work the foundation does, and to the charity rating service Charity Navigator, which gives the Clinton Foundation an overall score of 94.74 points out of 100 in terms of its financials, accountability, and transparency.

FMD_test_69

Today, if you were raised poor, youre just as likely to stay poor as you were 50 years ago.

01/19/2016

The newly installed House speaker, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., recently took toMediumto set the stage for a forum in Columbia, S.C., on Republican efforts to fight poverty. The forum, hosted by the Jack Kemp Foundation,drew six 2016 Republican presidential candidates former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, retired physician Ben Carson, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. In his Medium column, Ryan wrote that a new direction was needed on government anti-poverty efforts. Weve been fighting the War on Poverty for 50 years now, he wrote. And I dont think you can call it anything but a stalemate. The federal government has spent trillions of dollars. And yet today, if you were raised poor, youre just as likely to stay poor as you were 50 years ago. Im not saying we havent made progress. We have. But today we have a safety net that catches people falling into poverty. What we need is a safety net that lifts people out of poverty that helps them earn a good paycheck so they can support themselves. Here, well check Ryans statement that today, if you were raised poor, youre just as likely to stay poor as you were 50 years ago. When we asked Ryans staff for their evidence, they pointed us to an academic paper by Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, Emmanuel Saez and Nicholas Turner, Is the United States Still a Land of Opportunity? Recent Trends in Intergenerational Mobility from January 2014. Chetty and Hendren are at Harvard, Kline and Saez are at the University of California-Berkeley, and Turner was with the U.S. Treasury Department. The paper, based on extensive analysis of income and educational-attainment data, found that intergenerational mobility has remained extremely stable since the generation of Americans born in 1971. We find that children entering the labor market today have the same chances of moving up in the income distribution (relative to their parents) as children born in the 1970s, the authors wrote. When we asked one of the co-authors, Saez, whether Ryans summary left out anything important, he said no. Yes, this is broadly correct, Saez told PolitiFact. Saez said the paper shows the odds of staying in the bottom one-fifth of the income distribution when your parents were in the bottom one-fifth have stayed stable for the past four to five decades. The paper and Saez in the interview both noted one caveat that the consequences of the pattern Ryan is citing have worse effects today because inequality has grown over the same period. Because inequality has risen, the paper notes, the consequences of the birth lottery the parents to whom a child is born are larger today than in the past. However, this caveat doesnt undermine Ryans point. If anything, it accentuates it. (We're also not penalizing Ryan for rounding up the study's length to 50 years.) Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University economist and chief economist at the jobs site Indeed, said the paper Ryan chose is a credible one within the profession. These are the authors I would turn to when looking at intergenerational mobility. Our ruling Ryan wrote that today, if you were raised poor, youre just as likely to stay poor as you were 50 years ago. His support for this claim a respected academic paper published in 2014 found exactly what Ryan described. We rate the claim True.

FMD_test_70

White House Increases

08/11/2011

Claim: Chart shows top 20 raises given to White House staffers in 2010. Example: [Collected via e-mail, August 2011] Well here you go folks - outrageous salary increases at the WH. Go Google and set your search parm to white house top 20 raises and you'll get everything you want to know about this article. What the heck does a Director of African-American Media do to get an 86% increase? Hang out over at Black Entertainment TV or maybe sit around and read Ebony? Remember in November Remember: no Cost of Living Adjustment for seniors for two years. HMMM...17% to 86% RAISES IN SALARY FOR HIS WHITE HOUSE STAFF MEMBERS!!. NO WONDER WE CAN'T HAVE A COST OF LIVING INCREASE & HE WANTS TO NOW RAISE OUR TAXES ALSO. SOUNDS LIKE THE ADMINISTRATION IS REALLY LOOKING OUT FOR THE VOTERS, DOESN'T IT ???? Origins: This graphic detailing the "White House's Top 20 Raises" (which actually includes 21 entries) originated as an accompaniment to a 6 July 2011 Gawker article entitled "White House Staffers Got a Raise Last Year, And You Did Not." graphic article The chart is accurate as far as it goes, but by itself it does not include the context that 19 of the 21 staffers listed also received new job titles, so the pay increases were not straight raises but came in tandem with promotions and/or increased job responsibilities. The Gawker article also noted that, because the number of paid staffers decreased from 466 in 2010 to 451 in 2011, the White House's salary budget actually dropped from $38.8 million to $37.1 million, and the average salary for staffers also dropped from $82,721 to $81,765 (about 65% above the median household income). Last updated: 11 August 2011 Fader, Carole. "White House Staff Got Pay Raises, But There's More to the Story." Jacksonville.com. 7 August 2011.

FMD_test_71

Free Starbucks Gift Card Scam

10/18/2011

For years survey scams run on social media platforms have purported to offer free $50 or $100 Starbucks gift cards to those users who clicked particular links, then followed a set of instructions presented at the click-through destination page: Those who went in search of the promised freebies were asked to click what appeared to be Facebook "share" buttons and post comments to the scammer's site. But following such instructions led users into a series of surveys they were instructed to complete (which typically involved providing a good deal of personal information and agreeing to buy several pricey products and/or sign up for hefty subscriptions) before their gift cards could be sent to them. As always with such cons, there were no gift cards to be had. Users who clicked such links were usually taken to a "survey" rife with typographical errors, any combination of which would result in their purportedly winning a $50 gift card -- so long as the user liked, shared, and spread the link on Facebook:More information about this specific type of scam can be found here. Users who clicked such links were usually taken to a "survey" rife with typographical errors, any combination of which would result in their purportedly winning a $50 gift card -- so long as the user liked, shared, and spread the link on Facebook: More information about this specific type of scam can be found here. here

FMD_test_72

Did the Nevada Gaming Commission Deny Trump a Casino License?

02/29/2016

Donald Trump, the politician, was a relatively new personality in 2016, as many people had already known him for years as a real estate mogul and reality television star. His longstanding presence in American pop culture made him an especially rich source of urban legends, misinformation, and memes. In February 2016, an image-based rumor claimed that Trump's Las Vegas hotel lacked a casino because the Nevada Gaming Commission had deemed Trump not "trustworthy" enough to qualify for one. We located one possible source for the claim in a 23 February 1987 New York Times article. According to the piece, which was nearly 30 years old, Trump had difficulty in the 1980s with attempts to expand his empire westward. The article stated, "Last September, Mr. Trump bought a 4.9 percent stake in the Holiday Corporation, which operates casinos in Atlantic City and Nevada." He sold the stake at a $35 million profit in November and bought into Bally. Mr. Trump recently applied for a Nevada casino license, but Paul Bible, chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission at the time, said that Nevada regulators would look askance at any "greenmailer" who hurts casino companies operating in Nevada by acquiring large quantities of stock in order to sell the stake back to the company at a premium. Mr. Trump's sale of the Holiday shares was on the open market, after takeover rumors boosted the market price. In court papers filed for the Camden hearing, Mr. Trump's lawyers denied that their client had invested in Bally for the purpose of selling to the company at a premium. "Mr. Trump has never been, and is not presently, a greenmailer or corporate raider," his counterclaim stated. Seventeen years later, Trump's activity in Vegas again made headlines. A February 2004 Las Vegas Review-Journal article included information about the Nevada Gaming Commission's view of Trump at the time: "Trump and his companies, Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Inc. and the THCR Holding Corp., were required to be licensed by gaming regulators in Nevada after he purchased 358,000 shares of Riviera parent Riviera Holdings Corp." The purchase, made in or around early 2003, put Trump over a threshold requiring investigation and licensure by Nevada gaming regulators. Trump and the other officers of his companies were to appear at the Gaming Commission meeting in the capital on Feb. 19 for final approval. Gaming Control Board Chairman Dennis Neilander said the investigations of Trump and his executive team gave the board no need to ask any personal questions at the hearing. He called the applications "very clean" and said he was impressed with the backgrounds of some of Trump's personnel. Members of the control board asked Trump and his executives about problems with minors gaining entry to his New Jersey properties, but Chief Operating Officer Mark Brown said the company was making every effort to control the problem. Trump has talked for years about moving into the Las Vegas casino industry, but his expected licensing by the end of the month would make it much easier to put deals together. Later that month, the Associated Press reported that Trump was approved by Nevada state regulators to hold a stake in the Riviera hotel and casino. The Gaming Commission approved Trump and companies that he controls as part of a registration and suitability-finding process that would speed up any actual casino licensing in the future. Repeating his Feb. 4 comments to the commission's investigative arm, the Gaming Control Board, Trump said, "It's an honor to be here." He stated that he had lost many deals in previous years because of a state licensing process that can take more than a year. Trump paid about $2 million for shares in Riviera Holdings Corp., which put him barely over a 10 percent threshold subjecting investors to investigation and licensure by casino regulators. The move was designed to start the state licensing process, Trump said, adding that he had little contact with Riviera executives and didn't intend to expand on his involvement with the property. Asked about his building plans, Trump said he favored a project such as his Trump towers in Manhattan, Chicago, and elsewhere. There's "not a great chance" that it would include New Frontier owner Phil Ruffin of Las Vegas, he added. Trump's television career and presidential bid probably disrupted any potential ventures in Nevada between 2004 and 2016, but on 25 February 2016, an article in the Wall Street Journal speculated that Trump was revisiting possibilities in Vegas. Las Vegas casino owner Phil Ruffin said in an interview that he hoped to build a casino with Mr. Trump next to the luxury high-rise Trump Hotel, which the two co-own on the Strip. He mentioned that the plans were still very preliminary, but he expected to accelerate them that year, with the Trump Organization as a 50% owner. There were still no architectural renderings, land surveys, or other concrete proposals, he added. Eric Trump said in an interview that various possible expansion plans had been discussed, including the casino and a new convention space. Nothing had been solidified, he said, adding that the family was focused on other matters, including the elder Mr. Trump's presidential campaign and developing hotels elsewhere. The proposed casino would be on a four-acre parcel next to the Trump Hotel, which Mr. Ruffin and Donald Trump opened in 2008 on land that Mr. Ruffin owned. The site is currently a parking lot for the hotel; Mr. Ruffin said the casino would be connected to the existing hotel. Mr. Ruffin mentioned that he was contemplating a $100 million casino, with the Trumps as 50% partners. He also stated it was unclear if Mr. Trump or his family members would need to undergo the rigorous process of securing a license from the Nevada Gaming Control Board. Mr. Trump owned casinos in Atlantic City for decades but never had any gambling interests in Nevada. We were unable to locate any information to substantiate the claim that Trump was ever denied a gaming license or that his Las Vegas hotel was originally planned as a casino. It is true that Trump engaged in legal battles in the 1980s around buying casino stock. However, in 2004, Trump was approved for the initial stages of casino-based development, and there was no indication he was ever declined a Nevada Gaming Commission license based on whether he was "trustworthy." On 2 March 2016, the Nevada Gaming Commission replied to our inquiry, stating that "Donald Trump was licensed by the Nevada Gaming Commission in February 2004."

FMD_test_73

Ivana Trump was laid to rest at the Trump National Golf Club.

08/01/2022

Former U.S. President Donald Trump's first wife, Ivana Trump, was laid to rest at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster, New Jersey, according to media reports and photographs taken of the site. New York Post reporters visited the golf club and photographed Ivana Trump's grave. Their report included several shots from different angles, including one revealing a wooded area near the site. A source told the New York Post that Ivana was buried not too far from the clubhouse. According to the report, she was buried in a location that was not visible to golfers as they tee off for a round of golf. The small section of the club where she was buried is located behind the first tee. A number of memes consisting of edited versions of those photographs went viral in late July 2022, with one in particular receiving tens of thousands of likes and comments on Instagram. The image posted by the Instagram account homegrownterrorists showed a golf cart rolling past what appeared to be Ivana Trump's gravesite. It's clear that this photograph is fake when compared to the pictures published in the New York Post article. The gravesite has been inserted into a wider shot of a golf cart on a golf course fairway. Unlike the Post's photographs, the manipulated image does not show a wooded area immediately adjacent to the grave. A separate rumor speculates that Trump used the burial site for tax break purposes. Indeed, the New Jersey tax code exempts cemetery land from all taxes, rates, and assessments. Potentially, her grave could save the property from paying a significant sum in a state with high tax rates. According to the code, a cemetery company is exempt from paying real property taxes, income taxes, sales and use taxes, business taxes, and inheritance taxes; cemetery trust funds are also exempt from taxes. Trump has expressed his desire to be buried at the New Jersey golf course for years. His company even described it as his favorite property in a 2014 filing with the state. A 2017 Washington Post report revealed how he had been trying to convince local authorities to let him build cemeteries at the golf course since 2007. After numerous attempts, two of his plans were approved around 2017, but construction for them had not begun. The 2017 report stated that the Trump Organization still needed to apply for state approval to make the land a public cemetery. However, Ivana Trump is the first known family member to be buried at the Bedminster golf club. Brooke Harrington, a sociology professor at Dartmouth and tax researcher, pointed out that the tax code has no stipulation for a minimum number of human remains needed for the tax breaks to apply. Documents published by ProPublica show that the Trump Family Trust had sought to designate a property in nearby Hackettstown, New Jersey, as a non-profit cemetery company. However, this was not the first time Trump had been accused of trying to reduce his taxes on the property by varying its use. A 2016 Wall Street Journal report found that the golf club benefited from a farmland tax break because part of the land was designated for agricultural purposes, specifically for hay production and a small herd of goats. The Huffington Post reported in 2019 that he had saved around $88,000 that year. New Jersey laws state that a landowner must have no less than five acres of farmland actively devoted to agricultural or horticultural use for the two years immediately preceding the tax year being applied for and must meet specific minimum gross income requirements based on the productivity of the land. A representative for the Trump Organization told Fortune magazine that the links being drawn between Ivana Trump's gravesite and tax laws were truly evil. While it is unknown if the choice of this location for her grave had any connection to taxes, the Trump family has a history of seeking ways to reduce tax bills. Furthermore, given the photographs and an acknowledgment from a Trump representative regarding the location of her grave while denying the rumors connecting it to tax laws, we rate the overall claim as true.

FMD_test_74

Is Disney Hiring for Remote, Entry-Level Jobs in Data Entry, Customer Service?

12/13/2023

On Dec. 13, 2023, we researched online advertisements that were displayed on YouTube and other websites that claimed Disney was hiring remote workers to fill various data-entry job roles. The ads showed the Disney logo and two small castles. The text in the ads specified that there was "no experience necessary" and that the work-from-home (WFH) positions would pay up to $23 per hour. Another similar ad showed the Disney logo with a picture of the Pixar Pal-A-Round ferris wheel at the Disney California Adventure theme park. The ad promised remote customer-service jobs with Disney and said that selected candidates would start at a pay rate of $18 per hour. In red lettering, the ad also promised free theme park tickets. We found several additional iterations of these same sorts of ads. All of them mentioned Disney and lower-paying jobs that could be done from home. However, as we noted above with our fact-check rating, the ads were false. We found no evidence that Disney was hiring for remote positions for data entry or customer service, nor did we find other entry-level roles that would come with free theme park tickets. As of mid-December 2023, a search of Disney's careers website showed 920 total job listings. Only three of the 920 positions were specified as being remote and were listings for a designer, an animator and an engineer. website These sorts of misleading job ads have been displayed online throughout 2023. They have all led to several different websites. As of December 2023, the same advertiser displaying the Disney job ads was also paying to display ads that claimed Amazon was hiring delivery drivers with a "$3,000 sign-on bonus," according to the Google Ads Transparency Center website (archived). We were unable to find a way to contact the advertiser to ask about the ads. website archived Some ads from the same advertiser also said that Delta Air Lines was hiring for for remote job openings that would include "free flights for employees." Another one claimed that Netflix was hiring for remote customer-service jobs that would come with a free streaming subscription, free lunches and free insurance. None of these ads led to the jobs that had been described. A search for more information about the ads led us to several online complaints about their misleading nature, including posts on Reddit, X and Google's Gmail Help community. Some of the posts made claims that the ads involved phishing scams and malware. We were unable to confirm these claims. Reddit X Google's Gmail Help community While the purpose of the ads was not completely clear, we did notice that some of the purported job board websites that the ads eventually redirected to would ask users if they agreed to be contacted via phone calls, text messages and emails by over 170 of what were called "marketing partners." In other words, the goal of the clickbait ads about various nonexistent job roles may have been primarily about creating a way for one or more people (e.g., the advertiser on Google) to receive some sort of affiliate-marketing (or other kind of) commission based upon misleading online users from the get-go. This story will be updated if we receive more details. @KC6UFM. X, 11 Dec. 2023, https://twitter.com/KC6UFM/status/1734348051177976104. Transparency Center. Google Ads, https://adstransparency.google.com/. u/Chaomayhem. Its a Travesty That Google Clearly Doesnt Care about the Quality of Ads Run on YouTube. r/marketing via Reddit.com, 7 Sept. 2023, https://www.reddit.com/r/marketing/comments/16ck905/its_a_travesty_that_google_clearly_doesnt_care/. User 13516083175457701794. There Are Ads That Google Keeps Promoting and Showing to Me That Are PHISHING SCAMS. - Gmail Community. Gmail Help via Google Support, 30 Apr. 2023, https://support.google.com/mail/thread/213536488/there-are-ads-that-google-keeps-promoting-and-showing-to-me-that-are-phishing-scams. Working at Disney. Jobs and Careers at Disney, https://jobs.disneycareers.com/.

FMD_test_75

Is the United States' Global Trade Deficit Really $800 Billion?

03/09/2018

On 8 March 2018, President Donald Trump repeated an often-derided claim regarding the U.S. trade deficit during a press conference at the White House. The president stated that the country currently has a global trade deficit of $800 billion, a statement he has reportedly made more than 50 times since 2015. The remark at the press conference came one day after he reiterated the claim on his Twitter account. However, as news outlets have pointed out, that figure overlooks the fact that the U.S. has a trade surplus. A report released by the Commerce Department shows that the actual deficit is $566 billion. The report indicated that the 2017 increase in the goods and services deficit reflected an increase in the goods deficit of $57.5 billion, or 7.6 percent, to $810.0 billion, and a decrease in the services surplus of $3.7 billion, or 1.5 percent, to $244.0 billion. A report published by the White House in February 2018 stated that the U.S. economy has become more dependent on trade involving "private service-producing industries" such as engineering, travel, and finance, among others. Travel (including that for educational purposes) has constituted the largest share of U.S. services exports. Services trade between countries has continued to grow, given declining travel costs, improvements in telecommunications, and growth in online services that allow, for example, computer coding to take place in remote locations. This enables the United States to export high-skilled services to other countries that do not share our expertise and training advantages. Focusing solely on the trade of tangible goods, the report added, ignores the country's "comparative advantage" in service-related trade. Trump reiterated his misleading claim on the same day he officially imposed tariffs of 25 percent and 10 percent on steel and aluminum, respectively. Mexico and Canada, the country's partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement, are exempt from those tariffs, and other countries will be allowed to petition for separate exemptions. The president's plan to impose the tariffs led to the resignation of White House chief economic advisor Gary Cohn on 6 March 2018. The Trump administration stated that the tariffs will take effect on 23 March 2018.

FMD_test_76

Says he cut taxes by more than $600 million when he wasgovernor.

03/09/2012

Republican senate candidate George Allen says he has the will and experience to bring tax relief to Virginia families.When I was elected Governor, we had an audacious agenda that naysayers said couldnt be enacted with a Democrat majority in the state legislature, Allen said in a Feb. 23 guest column forInsideNova.com. However, we worked across party lines and enacted historic reforms. Working together, we cut taxes by more than $600 million...Well stipulate that Allen, who was governor from 1994 to 1998, did convince a Democrat-controlled legislature to pass major reforms to welfare, criminal sentencing and juvenile justice. But his claim of cutting taxes by $600 million, which Allen first made in his farewell address to the General Assembly at the end of his term, has gone largely unexamined.Until now.We asked Dan Allen, a spokesman for the Allen campaign, for proof. He sent us a list of more than a dozen bills and budget changes that occurred on George Allens watch as governor. We scoured economic impact statements for those pieces of legislation and searched newspaper archives to find monetary values for each item.Three of the biggest tax cuts were approved in 1994. *A Social Security income tax deduction for self-employed Virginians valued at $162.1 million over six years, according to a 1997 estimate of the Finance Department. The measure was introduced by previous Gov. L. Douglas Wilder, a Democrat, in his farewell budget. *A tax cut for senior citizens that the Finance Department valued at $215.7 million over six years. The action was tied to a settlement after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Virginia policy of taxing the pensions of federal retirees but not of state government retirees. The high court ruled the groups had to be treated equally. *A tax cut on the tangible assets of corporations worth $104.3 million over four years. The program was originally passed under Gov. Gerald L. Baliles in 1988 and slated to last for eight years. It was suspended for two years in 1992 under Wilder, who was battling a poor economy. Wilder, in his 1994 farewell budget, urged resuming the tax cut for the final four years and Allen, who came to office that January, agreed.Those three cuts add up to $482.1 million.In 1997, Allen signed a bill giving self-employed Virginians a break on unemployment insurance taxes that was worth $137 million over four years, according to the Finance Department document.The campaign also sent us a list of smaller tax cuts that passed when Allen was governor. We found their value by researching impact statements that were prepared at the time by the Department of Planning and Budget. Heres the list:*Major Business Facility Jobs Tax Credit, 1994, worth $2.1 million over two years. *Coal Employment Enhancement Credits, 1995, totaling $33.2 million over two years. *Enterprise Zones, 1995, worth $2.8 million over two years. *Film Production Tax Exemption, 1995, worth $571,000 in two years. *Military Tax Relief, 1996, worth $600,000 in two years. *Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit, 1996, totaling $1.25 million in two years. *Space Flight and Space Launch Activities, 1997, worth $1.35 million annually. *Worker Retraining Tax Credit, 1997, worth $2.1 million in one year. *Virginia Coal Employment and Production Incentive Tax Credit, 1997, worth $13 million over two year.The list from Allen also included the BPOL tax cut on the earnings of businesses. The local tax was estimated to generate $300 million annually. The legislation allowed varying tax reductions depending on the size cities and counties.We were unable to find a value for the BPOL cut and the Allen campaign didnt have one. Dan Allen did not include this reduction in his $600 million calculation. Localities had their own flexibility on this, so it would be hard to quantify, he said.They also didnt include tax cut proposals from George Allens farewell budget in 1998, which news reports valued at $350 million. The major one, approved by the General Assembly, was setting aside $260 million to phase in the first two years of a car tax cut promised by incoming Gov. Jim Gilmore, a Republican.We should note that Allen also proposed a massive $2.1 billion package of tax cuts in 1995 that was opposed by the business community and defeated by Democrats in the General Assembly. And despite Allens tax cutting efforts,state spending roseat an average level for Virginia governors during Allens term.Our ruling:George Allen said more than $600 million in taxes were cut during his governorship.We came up with $676.1 million in cuts, although we should point out that some of these reductions took place over six years. Allen, however, never qualified the time period for the tax cuts. And he arguably could have added other reductions to his list.We rate his statement True.

FMD_test_77

Pic Shows Humanlike Bones in Gray Whale's Front Fins?

09/07/2023

For several years an image allegedly depicting a "front fin bones of a Grey whale" circulated on social media platforms such as Reddit, 9GAG, Facebook, and X, formerly known as Twitter, reaching (at least) hundreds of thousand of views. Reddit 9GAG Facebook X ? Whales have arm, wrist & finger bones in their front fins. This is the front fin bones of a Grey whale.byu/Browndog888 inNatureIsFuckingLit ? Whales have arm, wrist & finger bones in their front fins. This is the front fin bones of a Grey whale. u/Browndog888 NatureIsFuckingLit The copied-and-pasted description of the viral image read "Whales have arm, wrist & finger bones in their front fins. This is the front fin bones of a Grey whale." We tracked down the source of the image. TinEye and Google reverse-image search results indicated that the image has been shared online at least since 2017.When we investigated further, we found out that the photo was authentic and it dated back to February 15, 2017. The image was shared on various Chinese-languagenewswebsites and in numerous social media posts. TinEye Google various Chinese-language websites posts Bone of whale's fin, spine section & teeth. Good proof that humans evolve from marine lives https://t.co/eQwqFioBL6 pic.twitter.com/5HoI2ISNd9 https://t.co/eQwqFioBL6 pic.twitter.com/5HoI2ISNd9 China Xinhua News (@XHNews) February 15, 2017 February 15, 2017 Xinhua News Agency, an official state news agency of the People's Republic of China, andChina Central Television(CCTV) were among the first to share the picture of this seemingly unlikely discovery. "Bone of whale's fin, spine section & teeth. Good proof that humans evolve from marine lives," the X caption of Xinhua News Agency's post read. However, the in-question photo did not show the fin of a gray whale, but rather that of a sperm whale. The CCTV post with the image in question read: Xinhua News Agency China Central Television Two sperm whales became stranded near the Yangkou Port in Rudong County, East China's Jiangsu Province on Feb. 14, 2016, and they were later made into specimens in Shanghai and Dalian. Now, one specimen has returned to the port for exhibition. A 2018 research paper with the title "The myodural bridges' existence in the sperm whale" referenced the 2016 incident, as the whale was shared by Chinese authorities for the purpose ofscientific research: research paper A 15.1-meter long sperm whale was acquired opportunistically examined in this study from stranding with the permission of Chinese Authorities for Animal Protection. It died naturally in the beache of Nantong (Jiangsu province, China). The cadaver was permitted for scientific research under the approval of the Ethics Committee of Dalian Medical University. Some social media users were surprised that whales' bones had a so humanlike appearance. American Museum of Natural History explained that "the sperm whale's flippers, or pectoral fins, help the animal maneuver through water." explained (American Museum of Natural History) Moreover, the museum underscored that the sperm whale's bone structure is similar to human bones: They also share bone structure with the human arm and hand.In fact, the bones of cetacean flippers are the same kinds of bones as in the human arm, with an upper arm bone, two forearm bones, and hand, wrist, and finger bones. In whales, fingers are elongated and may have additional bones. The joint between upper arm and forearm is immobile, creating an effective paddle. Whales Online, a magazine published by the Group for Research and Education on Marine Mammals (GREMM), published an articlereferring to the whales' front limbs (emphasis ours): article The front limbs of whales' land-roaming ancestors grew much shorter and transformed into pectoral fins. The bones are no longer articulated and do not allow for any movement. The only point of articulation is the shoulder. These fins serve both as a stabilizer and a rudder. Five digits for toothed whales and right whales, four for rorquals: some are very long, with many more phalanges than in land mammals. The bones of the hand are embedded in a fibrous, rigid and resistant tissue and do not appear at the surface of the skin. And here's what the whale's full skeleton looks like: looks like (baleinesendirect.org screenshot) Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/cctvcom/posts/sperm-whale-specimen-transported-back-to-porttwo-sperm-whales-became-stranded-ne/10155111753959759/. Accessed 7 Sept. 2023. "https://Twitter.Com/XHNews/Status/831759371986153472." X (Formerly Twitter), https://twitter.com/XHNews/status/831759371986153472. Accessed 7 Sept. 2023. Liu, Pei, et al. "The Myodural Bridges' Existence in the Sperm Whale." PLoS ONE, vol. 13, no. 7, July 2018, p. e0200260. PubMed Central, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200260. "Skeleton." Baleines En Direct, https://baleinesendirect.org/en/discover/life-of-whales/morphology/skeleton/. Accessed 7 Sept. 2023.

FMD_test_78

H-E-B $80 Coupon Scam

07/08/2019

In July 2019, Facebook users began seeing posts advertising an $80 coupon offer for the H-E-B supermarket chain. These posts were the latest iteration of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media. The fraudulent social media posts falsely proclaimed that the distribution of H-E-B coupons was in honor of the store's 50th anniversary ("H-E-B is giving a free $80 coupon per family to celebrate its 50th anniversary!"), although the chain was founded in 1905 and is thus approaching its 114th anniversary. Those postings also linked to sites (such as www.heb.com-jul.com) that were not actually affiliated with the chain. These fake coupon offers are a form of survey scam that typically instructs shoppers to follow "three simple steps" in order to get a free gift card. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with a coupon code; instead, they are asked to fill out a survey and provide personal information such as home address, telephone number, email address, and date of birth. Users are also required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in subscription programs to obtain their "free" gift cards. These fraudulent surveys are quite popular on Facebook. If you frequently use Facebook, there is a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau listed key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts: "Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos, and header of an established organization." Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. H-E-B offers their genuine digital coupons to shoppers at https://www.heb.com/static-page/coupons.

FMD_test_79

Donald Trump gave financial contributions to NAMBLA.

08/09/2016

In August 2016, at the height of the presidential campaign, a Reddit user programmed a robot to respond to any mention of the words "tax return" with a comment insinuating that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump refuses to release his tax returns because he has donated millions of dollars to an organization that promotes pederasty. The bot, called AutoModerator, responds to every comment in the subreddit EnoughTrumpSpam with the phrase: "Speaking of tax returns, did you hear Donald Trump is refusing to release them because he has donated to NAMBLA? That's what all the best sources, the most tremendous sources are saying, and if they're all saying that Donald Trump donated to NAMBLA, well, I can see why he would want to cover up his donations to NAMBLA. I'm not claiming that Donald Trump donates to NAMBLA, but that's what these excellent sources are alleging." The phrase is accompanied by a disclaimer that it was generated by a bot. However, that hasn't stopped the oblique accusation that Trump may be a member of the North American Man/Boy Love Association from circulating on the Internet: "Also, @seanhannity? Look into this disgusting Trump/NAMBLA nonsense. So gross how the left lies. Trump. NAMBLA. Say that every night." A Reddit user who calls himself J. Peterman, possibly a reference to a character on the television sitcom Seinfeld, said he created the bot to mock Trump for his habit of making claims that he attributes to nameless "people." He explained, "I created it by taking advantage of an existing bot, /u/automoderator, made available for all moderators to use to automate certain tasks, and you can make custom code for the subreddit's configuration of AutoModerator. I did that and made it reply to the trigger word 'tax returns' with the copy/paste you see." For example, in June 2016, Trump hinted that President Barack Obama may have had a connection to the shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, saying, "People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can't even mention the words 'radical Islamic terrorism.' There's something going on. It's inconceivable. There's something going on... He doesn't get it or he gets it better than anybody understands—it's one or the other, and either one is unacceptable." A Reddit moderator who goes by "Faiz" and claims to have helped launch the bot told us that he believes it turns Trump's own manner of generating suspicions against his opponents back on him: "We didn't expect it to take off like this, but the community effort on EnoughTrumpSpam really helped it go viral. The joke spread off Reddit and began confusing people so much that some news outlets even began picking the story up. I think its success is, in a way, emblematic of the way Trump spreads lies and gets people to believe them by constantly repeating them." A random user originally posted the block of text, and it became instantly popular on Reddit. "We all loved it because of how much it imitated Trump's style of making unsubstantiated accusations. You really can't tell the difference between some of the text in the meme and some things Trump wrote during Obama's birther conspiracy. As for why Trump, we picked it up mostly because, as suggested by the name (EnoughTrumpSpam), we are an anti-Trump community and we found this to be a perfect foil to highlight the way Trump spreads conspiracy theories." J. Peterman said he was taken aback by how much attention the bot generated. The prank seems to have caught fire, with someone creating a fake Fox News page titled "NAMBLA neither confirms nor denies Trump's donation allegations." "Now that it's taken off, I'm quite surprised. I'm surprised by how much press attention the bot's coding has garnered as well as the meme in general. I cannot take credit for creating the meme; that was around for a week or so before I did the bot, and it was everyone else who kept the meme going." Faiz, the moderator, said he hopes that the prank goes far enough that Trump's campaign is forced to respond to it. "The ultimate coup de grâce," he told the Daily Beast, "would be if it forces Trump to do something he has adamantly refused to do: release his tax returns." The only logical conclusion would really be Trump releasing his tax returns, but he would never do that because he's hiding donations to NAMBLA, Faiz told the Daily Beast. "That's what I've heard from some very smart people anyway." It's worth noting that even if the story were true, NAMBLA is not a nonprofit organization, and so donations to the group would not show up on Trump's tax returns.

FMD_test_80

Chicken Votes for Colonel Sanders

07/20/2008

Claim: Photographs show businesses that posted "A taxpayer voting for Barack Obama is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders" signs. Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] Origins: Skewering a political candidate with an apropos comment is a time-honored way of making a point. Of late, we're seeing this tradition expand into the online world of blogs and message boards but also into the offline world via signage on businesses. The sign pictured above was displayed outside the Mandeville, Louisiana, office of State Farm Insurance agent Bud Gregg. The sign actually bore different legends on each side, one side displaying the "chicken" message shown above and the other side referencing an apocryphal quote attributed to Senator Obama about his hoping to change "the greatest nation in the history of the world": change A State Farm representative said that Bud Gregg's office sign bore these messages until 3 July 2008 and that the company had requested the sign be removed as soon as they became aware of it because the sign was inconsistent with State Farm's policy of not endorsing candidates or taking sides in political campaigns. Both signs are reminiscent of the KFC offering lampooning Senator Hillary Clinton. KFC offering However, although this particular insurance vendor posted the "like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders" billboard, he most certainly wasn't the first to get off this zinger. That withering assessment has been leveled at numerous U.S. and Canadian politicians over the years: [Moseley, October 2004] If you are on Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, a baby-boomer, unemployed, a minority, parent with school-aged children, a college student, without medical insurance, balancing your personal budget, not a CEO, purchasing gasoline, wanting clean air and water, a 401-K owner or earn less than $200,000 per year, then voting for George Bush is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. [Carville, January 2003] The previous highest-ranking black official was Mr. JC Watts from Oklahoma. Do you know what his own father said? A black person voting for a Republican would be like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. [Charleston Daily Mail, October 1996] Any hardworking person who votes Republican is like the chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. [Rogers, March 1996] When workers voted for Mike Harris [Premier of Ontario, 1995-2002], it was like the chickens voting for Colonel Sanders. [United Press International, October 1984] A working man voting for Reagan is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. [Waters, November 1982] For all that, Brinkley got off the evening's snappiest line: "Auto workers voting for Republicans this year are like chickens voting for Colonel Sanders." [Feinstein, October 1982] [Michael] Barnes told the gathering of about 150 union leaders and members that "for a working man or woman in this country to vote Republican in 1982 would be a like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders." [Sheppard, October 1978] Mr. [Steven] Langdon [NDP candidate in Ottawa Centre riding] told an audience that for Ottawa Centre to vote Tory [Progressive Conservative] is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders. One of Bud Gregg's messages inspired a realtor in Texas to post the same sentiment on a sign outside his business: Bob Costilow, the owner of Bob Costilow Realtors in Nederland, Texas, said he was appalled by the capital gains tax portion of Senator Obama's tax plan. "I saw it (i.e., the "chicken" saying) in an e-mail on a sign put up by a State Farm agent in Mandeville, Louisiana," he said. "I loved it. I have gotten some calls about it, and some of them were even congratulatory in nature." Barbara "inspiration point" Mikkelson Update: An e-mail circulated in October 2008 falsely claimed that we contacted neither Bud Gregg nor State Farm about this subject. FactCheck.org has verified that the e-mail was false. Update: An e-mail circulated in October 2008 falsely claimed that we contacted neither Bud Gregg nor State Farm about this subject. FactCheck.org has verified that the e-mail was false. verified Last updated: 10 April 2009 Feinstein, John. "Mondale Is Democrats' Heavy Artillery in Md." The Washington Post. 20 October 1982 (p. A20). Ferraro, Thomas. "Washington News." United Press International. 11 October 1984. Hayes, Greg. "Realtor's Expression of Political Opinion Doesn't Set Well with Passerby." Beaumont Enterprise. 17 July 2008. Heathcock, Jennifer. "Political Message Strikes Chord with Some Southeast Texans." KFDM-TV [Beaumont, TX]. 23 July 2008. Kotz, Pete. "The Enemy Within." Cleveland Scene. 3 March 2004. Moseley, Don. "Letter: Vote for Colonel Sanders." Farmington Daily Times. 26 October 2004 (p. A9). Rogers, Linda. "Stop Tearing Each Other Down." The Toronto Star. 8 March 1996 (p. A20). Sheppard, Robert. "Anti-Liberal Feelings Haunt Mackasey." The Globe and Mail. 7 October 1978. Waters, Harry. "Winning the Viewers' Votes." Newsweek. 15 November 1982 (p. 55). Charleston Daily Mail. "Readers' Vent Line." 11 October 1996 (p. D5).

FMD_test_81

Colonel Sanders Left Money to the KKK?

06/22/2000

Claim: Colonel Sanders left instructions requiring KFC to donate money to the Ku Klux Klan or feed the homeless for free. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, 2000] I heard today that Colonel Sanders' will devotes 10% of KFC's yearly profits to the Ku Klux Klan. Since it's a legal document this is unbreakable! [Collected via e-mail, 2000] My brother swears that Colonel Sanders of KFC fame, bequested in his will over a million dollars to the KKK. [Collected via e-mail, 2005] I heard that the name [of Kentucky Fried Chicken] was changed because KFC didn't want to give out a free meal to a hungry person seeking some help. Supposedly, somewhere back in time, the Colonel had put a preposition in his business statement that Kentucky Fried chicken would supply any broke hungry person with a meal free of charge per day if they asked. Someone had read or heard this and demanded it, and sued them. Once word had gotten out, they would be subject to the masses doing the same thing, so they changed their name to KFC that's the way I heard it ... [Collected via e-mail, 2006] I heard a rumor that the Colonel from Kentucky Fried Chicken had a policy to serve any homeless person that entered his restaurants who was hungry and had no money. Once he passed away the new executives allegedly changed the name to "KFC" so they could do away with that policy. Origins: One of the curiosities of urban legendry is that nearly every founder of a fast food chain who is publicly identifiable by virtue of having appeared in his company's advertisements has become the subject of rumors associating him (and his company) with some of the most publicly vilified groups society has to offer, such as satan worshippers and the KKK. Such rumors have dogged, at one time or another, Ray Kroc of McDonald's, Carl Karcher of Carl's Jr., Dave Thomas of Wendy's, and Harland Sanders of Kentucky Fried Chicken. Why this class of legend has been so assiduously linked to the fast food industry is something we haven't yet fathomed: fast food founders don't seem to be, as a group, of any particular religious, geographic, or political affiliation. And the specific linking of Kentucky Fried Chicken's founder, Harland Sanders, with the Ku Klux Klan doesn't seem to have any basis in fact, other than a vague, naive assumption that a businessman who epitomized the popular image of a 19th century Southern gentleman a distinguished, elderly man with white hair, moustache, and goatee who wore white suits and black ties, posed with a cane, and affected the honorary title of "Colonel" must be a Klan sympathizer. What rumors such as the claim that "Colonel Sanders' will devotes 10% of KFC's yearly profits to the Ku Klux Klan" reflect is the misperception that Harland David Sanders owned KFC until the day he died. In fact, Sanders sold his interest in Kentucky Fried Chicken long before his death, agreeing in 1964 to a $2 million buyout of his U.S. operations by a group of investors (who took the company public a few years later) and turning his entire holdings in the company's Canadian franchises over to charity in 1965, so even if Sanders' will had contained a "KKK donation" bequest (which it didn't), it wouldn't have been legally enforceable. Sanders did continue to serve as KFC's spokesperson and appear in their advertising for many years after the 1964 sale, a participation that undoubtedly led many consumers to believe that he was active in the chain's ownership and management until he finally passed away in 1980. Ditto for the claim that Kentucky Fried Chicken was legally required to provide free meals to the homeless until it cleverly ducked the responsibility by changing its name to "KFC." Although Sanders did give away a good deal of money during his lifetime and may occasionally have taken pity on some down-and-out types and offered them food at no charge, he neither left any mandate obligating the Kentucky Fried Chicken company to engage in the practice nor had any standing to do so. And, in any case, the company couldn't have evaded that imperative simply by changing its name. (Imagine what a shambles the business world would be if people and businesses could discharge debts and other legal obligations merely by filing some change of name documents!) As we document in another KFC-related article, Kentucky Fried Chicken changed its corporate name to KFC in 1991 for several reasons, foremost among them that increasingly health-conscious consumers were becoming wary of foods advertised as "fried." article Upon his death in 1980, Harland Sanders left behind an estate that was smaller than expected and a will that contained no unusual provisions: The late Col. Harland Sanders, the founder of Kentucky Fried Chicken who donated millions to charity, left an estate of less than $1.5 million, according to his will. Most of the estate will go into a trust, with Citizens Fidelity Bank and Trust Co. as executor and trustee, according to documents filed in Shelby County District Court. Sanders, who died Dec. 16 [1980] at 90, made four individual bequests in addition to the money he put in trust, [Kentucky Fried Chicken spokesman John] Cox said. He left a watch to one grandson and a Masonic ring to another grandson. He left $2,000 to Louis Broadus of Richmond, Ky., a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise holder and friend, Cox said, and $5,000 to Harland Williams of Nashville, the son of a longtime friend. Cox said Sanders' estate may be far less than $1.5 million, since $1,187,557 is an estimate of "property of unknown value" such as notes and accounts receivable. Last updated: 26 December 2010 Darden, Robert. Secret Recipe: Why KFC Is Still Cookin' After 50 Years. Irving, TX: Tapestry Press, 2002. ISBN 1-930819-12-9 (p. 86). Secret Recipe: Why KFC Is Still Cookin' After 50 Years de Vos, Gail. Tales, Rumors and Gossip. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, 1996. ISBN 1-56308-190-3 (p. 140). Tales, Rumors and Gossip Turner, Patricia. I Heard It Through the Grapevine. Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California, 1993. ISBN 0-520-08185-4 (pp. 99-101, 167, 171). I Heard It Through the Grapevine Associated Press. "Sanders Will Under $1.5 Million." Daytona Beach Morning Journal. 31 December 2010 (p. A2).

FMD_test_82

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

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.

FMD_test_83

Will banks be required to disclose all transactions exceeding $600 to the IRS as part of the Biden administration's plan?

09/16/2021

Announced in April 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden's American Families Plan is an ambitious proposal that aims to expand Americans' access to childcare and education and increase the number of women in the workforce. The plan intends to fund all of this through higher taxes on income earners and increased reporting requirements for banks that could potentially yield more tax revenue. These reporting requirements have drawn the ire of several banks that took issue with this less widely known section of the plan. A Facebook post by FNB Community Bank claimed: "The Biden administration has proposed requiring all community banks and other financial institutions to report to the IRS on all deposits and withdrawals through business and personal accounts worth more than $600, regardless of tax liability. This indiscriminate, comprehensive bank account reporting to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) could soon be enacted in Congress and will create an unacceptable invasion of privacy for our customers." Another screenshot shared by our readers expressed similar concerns: "The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) even began a campaign, calling on communities to send a letter to Biden to prevent this so-called intrusive proposal: 'Tell Congress: Don't Let IRS Invade My Privacy.' The Biden administration is proposing requiring financial institutions to report to the IRS all transactions of all business and personal accounts worth more than $600. This is an unprecedented invasion of privacy. In order to oppose this intrusive proposal, please send this letter to your representative and senators immediately." We looked up the proposal itself, and it does require more robust reporting of transactions across business and personal accounts. The proposal, which aims to go into effect after December 31, 2022, states: "This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime. Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner." This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts, with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600. We begin by explaining some of the more technical terms in this proposal. A "de minimis threshold" is broadly defined as the amount of a transaction that has such a small value that accounting for it would be unreasonable. We spoke to Nyamagaga Gondwe, a Visiting Assistant Professor of Tax Law at New York University, who explained, "It is the amount below which the IRS would argue isn't worth investigating. It's the difference between your company giving you a $5 card to Subway versus traveling on a private jet on your company's dime. The latter is worth reporting." In this case, "gross flow" refers to the aggregate inflows and outflows of cash from bank accounts. In sum, the current proposal stipulates that an aggregate amount of less than $600 worth of cash flowing into and out of accounts is not worth reporting. The "fair market value" refers to the amount people are willing to pay for an asset in the open market. In this case, Gondwe argued, the use of the term could possibly refer to the changing market value of transactions exceeding $600 that may occur in foreign currency transactions. The ICBA claims that the proposal will make banks report "all transactions" above the limit, but this is misleading. While it is true that the IRS will have more information on cash flows above $600, that doesn't mean they will have all the information pertaining to all transactions. The Center for American Progress (CAP) points out that banks will only be providing aggregate numbers to the IRS after each year—gross inflow and gross outflow—and not individualized transaction information. This reporting requirement would also extend to peer-to-peer payment services like Venmo, but wouldn't require people to report any additional information to the government. According to The Wall Street Journal, financial institutions must already report interest, dividends, and investment incomes to the IRS, and the IRS can obtain other information through audits. According to Marie Sapirie of Tax Notes, a publication focused on tax news, a parenthetical to the proposal indicates that there is some flexibility in raising the minimum account balance/inflow/outflow above $600. The Tax Notes report also states that the Treasury Department estimated this form of reporting would raise $463 billion over the 10-year budget window, making it the third-largest revenue raiser proposed in the budget. The aim is to target businesses outside of large corporations that carry out gross underreporting of their income, amounting to $166 billion per year. According to the proposal: "Requiring comprehensive information reporting on the inflows and outflows of financial accounts will increase the visibility of gross receipts and deductible expenses to the IRS. Increased visibility of business income will enhance the effectiveness of IRS enforcement measures and encourage voluntary compliance." Banks claim this would be an invasion of consumer privacy, with the ICBA saying it would allow the government to monitor account information. However, CAP analysts Seth Hanlon and Galen Hendricks argue, "Only the prior year's total inflow and total outflow would be reported on annual forms. No one would say that the IRS monitors you on your job because it receives a W-2 from your employer with your total wages every January." Another challenge not mentioned in the ICBA's consumer alert is the higher costs this reporting proposal may impose on banks. In May 2021, a coalition of banking associations wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, arguing that they already provide a lot of data to the IRS, and that this would impose additional costs on their systems. The costs and other burdens imposed to collect and report account flow information would surpass the potential benefits from such a reporting scheme. New reporting would appear to require material development costs and process additions for financial institutions, as well as significant reconciliation and compliance burdens on impacted taxpayers. For example, reporting total gross receipts and disbursements would require a new reporting paradigm for depository institutions, necessitating system changes to collect the information. On the flipside, Sapirie wrote for Tax Notes, the benefits of such a reporting proposal may be difficult to realize: "Increasing the amount of information flowing into the IRS would not in itself lead to increased enforcement, and it might come with added challenges." Former IRS Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti acknowledged that the IRS today cannot use all the information it already receives, and significant areas of noncompliance are barely addressed, so more reporting alone will not solve the problem. It would almost certainly have a deterrent effect for taxpayers contemplating evasion, but the extent of that effect is unclear, and it might be insufficient to justify the costs to financial institutions and the federal government of implementing such a large new reporting regime. But CAP's analysis argues that this will help prevent tax evasion while also providing more funding to enhance data security for consumers. Additional funding would go to enhancing data security. Even at present, the IRS's data security is already much better than that of the financial industry, with only very rare and limited breaches compared to the exponentially larger data breaches from financial institutions. Second, the reporting of information flows only from financial institutions to the IRS and not in the other direction, as some earlier proposals had called for. The Biden administration's bank reporting proposal is a critical element of the Build Back Better agenda. It gives the IRS some visibility into opaque forms of income that disproportionately accrue to high-income individuals. Despite fearmongering from bank lobbies, the proposal protects taxpayers' privacy while simply requiring banks to provide basic, aggregated information about flows. That enables the IRS to select audits in a more efficient and equitable way so that the vast majority of taxpayers will be less likely to be audited. By deterring and helping catch tax cheats, the proposal raises substantial revenue for the Build Back Better agenda, which provides critical investments to increase economic opportunities for American families and communities. On October 12, 2021, Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the proposal in response to a question from a reporter, who said, "[Banks] are concerned about the tracking of transactions that are greater than $600. Americans are starting to get worried about this. Do you think [this] is going to stay in the Reconciliation Bill?" "With all due respect, the plural of anecdote is not data," Pelosi said. "Yes, there are concerns that some people have. But if people are breaking the law and not paying their taxes, one way to track them is through the banking measure. I think $600—that's a negotiation that will go on as to what the amount is. But yes." Whatever the impact of this proposal is, it does require additional reporting of certain bank transactions, just not in the way the banks are portraying it.

FMD_test_84

Vanishing Dependents

03/29/2006

Claim: Several million fewer dependents were claimed on federal income tax returns the year the IRS started requiring taxpayers to list the Social Security numbers of their children. Example: [Collected via e-mail, 2006] I had read at some point that millions of dependents dropped off the 1040 forms the year that the IRS required social security numbers. This seems incredibly high, but I know that it was a fact that there had been a lot of divorced parents both claiming the same children as dependents and people claiming their pets. Origins: The U.S. federal income tax code requires residents to be responsible for their own taxes that is, it's up to each taxpayer to reckon his income, determine his allowable deductions, and file a tax return with the Internal Revenue Service (or to hire someone to do it for him). Such a system allows (some say it even encourages) taxpayers to cheat, engaging in everything from fudging the line between business and personal expenses to hiding large amounts of unreported income. Although tax fraud may never be completely eliminated, the increasing use of automated record-keeping and tracking technology has made many of the more common cheating schemes quite difficult, if not impossible, to pull off successfully these days. Given how often we're asked to provide our Social Security numbers (they seem to used for just about everything these days), those of us who began paying federal income tax only in the last twenty years might be surprised to discover that not until 1987 did the IRS begin requiring taxpayers to include the Social Security numbers of all dependent children claimed on their returns. After all, listing phony dependents in order to claim illegitimate extra deductions has historically been one of the more common forms of tax fraud, so it makes sense the IRS would always have wanted to track such information as closely as possible. This is the notion behind the legend made familiar to many readers by the 2005 best-seller Freakonomics that the year the IRS did begin asking taxpayers to provide Social Security numbers for all dependent children, the number of claimed dependents suddenly dropped significantly: Some cheating leaves barely a shadow of evidence. In other cases, the evidence is massive. Consider what happened one spring evening at midnight in 1987: seven million American children suddenly disappeared. The worst kidnapping wave in history? Hardly. It was the night of April 15, and the Internal Revenue Service had just changed a rule. Instead of merely listing each dependent child, tax filers were now required to provide a Social Security number for each child. Suddenly, seven million children children who had existed only as phantom exemptions on the previous year's 1040 forms vanished, representing about one in ten of all dependent children in the United States. The "seven million" figure appears to be accurate, as noted in a December 2000 National Tax Journal article by Jeffrey B. Liebman that drew its data from a 1990 Internal Revenue Service conference report: article Another way in which taxpayers without children might claim a dependent child is to invent a fictional one. The strongest evidence for this possibility is that in 1987, the first year in which taxpayers were required to list social security numbers of dependents on their tax returns, 7 million fewer dependent children were claimed than in the previous year. The suggestion by the Freakonomics authors that most or all of that drop in the number of dependents claimed in 1987 was directly attributable to fraud was an obvious one but not necessarily the only one, as alternative explanations could have accounted for a substantial portion of the reduction in number of claimed dependents. For example, it was not until 1987 that the IRS first demonstrated a program to allow parents to automatically obtain Social Security numbers for their newborn children when those births were registered, and the program did not become nationwide until 1989. Since the average citizen doesn't generally keep abreast of all the changes made to the tax code from year to year until they directly affect him, perhaps many taxpayers sat down to fill out their returns in 1987 and didn't realize until it was too late that they had never applied for Social Security numbers for their children. 1987 However, the assumption that many taxpayers had previously claimed non-existent children until the newly-implemented Social Security number requirement made it much more difficult for them to safely do so is certainly an obvious one, and seems to be supported by additional information provided by Liebman: Further evidence that nonexistent children may have been claimed comes from the 1988 TCMP [Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program]. In 1988, taxpayers were required to list on their tax returns the social security numbers of all dependents who were at least five years old. On tax returns where the TCMP auditor disallowed an EITC [Earned Income Tax Credit] claim, 39 percent of the disallowed dependent child claims were dependents for whom the taxpayer checked the box stating the child was under five and did not provide a social security number possibly because the children did not exist. Likewise, although followup reports in subsequent years noted that some portion of the previously claimed dependents who went "missing" in the 1987 tax year were indeed real people who were not claimed as dependents in 1987 for reasons other than their being fictitious (e.g., they were children who had in earlier years been unlawfully claimed as dependents by each of two divorced parents), the pattern of disappearing dependents in 1987 was indicative of widespread fraud: Starting in 1987, the I.R.S. required that taxpayers report the Social Security number of all dependents over the age of 5. That year 7 million American children disappeared from the nation's tax returns, representing a 9 percent drop in the 77 million dependents claimed the previous year and $2.9 billion more in yearly tax revenue. The tax agency said about 20 percent of the vanished dependents were children who had been claimed as dependents by both parents after a divorce. Under the law, only one parent may claim the child as a deduction. Most of the others probably never existed, John Szilagyi, an I.R.S. researcher, said. And some families apparently became quite greedy in creating dependents, each worth a $1,080 deduction in 1986, and $1,900 in 1987. About 66,000 taxpayers who claimed four or more dependents in 1986 claimed none in 1987, after the Social Security identification rule went into effect. And more than 11,000 families claimed seven or more dependents in 1986, but none in 1987. Those returns are now under investigation, with more than 1,000 audits in which the 1986 dependents were disallowed, and back taxes and fines collected. Mr. Szilagyi said some cases of apparent fraud have also been referred to the authorities for criminal investigation. "In any individual family, you can imagine that one or two children might legitimately have stopped being dependents in 1987, but it's hard to imagine a legitimate situation in which a taxpayer had seven dependents one year and none the next," said Mr. Szilagyi, who drafted the proposal to require Social Security numbers from dependents and baby sitters. Mr. Szilagyi said his research indicates that there are probably four million to five million more dependents being claimed illegally, either because they are fictitious or do not legally qualify as dependents. Last updated: 15 April 2014 Freakonomics Lewin, Tamar. "I.R.S. Sees Evidence of Wide Tax Cheating on Child Care" The New York Times. 6 January 1991. Liebman, Jeffrey B. "Who Are the Ineligible EITC Recipients?" National Tax Journal. December 2000 (pp. 1165-1186).

FMD_test_85

Could a woman be considered the primary earner of the household for orchestrating a fraudulent foster care operation?

12/20/2010

The item reproduced below originated as an e-mail sent to radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh in July 2010 by Dr. Sebastian J. Ciancio, a urologist practicing in Danville, Illinois. In that e-mail, the doctor encouraged the radio host to "share this story with your listeners so that they know how the ruling class spends their tax dollars." In this example collected from the Snopes inbox in August 2010: I was speaking to an emergency room physician this morning. He told me that a woman in her 20's came to the ER with her 8th pregnancy. She stated "my momma told me that I am the breadwinner for the family." He asked her to explain. She said that she can make babies and babies get money for the family. The scam goes like this: The grandma calls the Department of Children and Family Services and states that the unemployed daughter is not capable of caring for these children. DCFS agrees and states that the child or children will need to go to foster care. The grandma then volunteers to be the foster parent, and thus receives a check for $1500 per child per month in Illinois. Total yearly income: $144,000 tax-free, not to mention free healthcare (Medicaid) plus a monthly "Link" card entitling her to free groceries, etc, and a voucher for 250 free cell phone minutes per month. This does not even include WIC and other welfare programs. Indeed, grandma was correct in that her fertile daughter is the "breadwinner" in the family. Variations: In December 2010 the following photograph was added to circulating versions of this item, even though the pictured family has no connection to the story and no mention of race appeared in the original text: In 2014, the setting was moved from Illinois to Florida. The gist of this "story" is the claim that an Illinois woman who was pregnant with her eighth child (while still in her 20's) admitted to an emergency room physician that she was deliberately having children and giving them up to foster care in order to earn money for her family, with her grandmother volunteering to raise the children and collecting $1,500 per month from the state for each child, for an annual tax-free income of $144,000 (plus additional benefits). Is the story true? It's a second-hand account, and Dr. Ciancio declined to identify the physician who supposedly told it to him, which makes verification of that aspect of the tale difficult. Nonetheless, whatever a pregnant patient may have told an unnamed emergency room physician, the scenario described simply isn't possible. According to payment rates published by the State of Illinois' Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), monthly payments for licensed relative home care range from $384 to $471 per child, depending upon the age of the child: payment rates The maximum monthly payment (for a child age 12 and over) is $471 per month, not $1,500 per month, so the largest amount of money a foster parent caring for eight children would receive in a month (assuming all of those children were at least 12 years old) would be $3,768, for an annual total of $45,216 a far cry from the $144,000 yearly income claimed above. (And even the $45,216 figure is a generous projection, given that it's an obvious impossibility for a woman who is pregnant with her eighth child to already have eight children all over the age of twelve.) Pickel, Mary Lou. "Tea Party at the Capitol." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 28 February 2009.

FMD_test_86

Is the meme offering a precise comparison of COVID relief funds between the United States and other nations?

12/11/2020

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. As the COVID-19 pandemic ravaged the global economy in 2020, resulting in growing unemployment, governments scrambled to support people and businesses to varying degrees, announcing a range of stimulus relief funds meant to help struggling businesses and furloughed employees. By December 2020, lawmakers in the U.S. were also running out of time to pass another major coronavirus relief package. A meme began circulating in late 2020 that compared the U.S. government's stimulus checks—given to a significant portion of the U.S. population—to coronavirus relief funds deployed around the world. The meme effectively argued that the U.S. was not giving enough money to support workers compared with other countries. We broke down the numbers below and learned that, while the figures are largely accurate, the meme was comparing apples to oranges. Below are the respective stimulus relief funds being provided to populations around the world, particularly across Europe, Australia, and the U.K. In March 2020, the Australian government outlined a plan to subsidize the wages of 6 million people in order to keep them in their jobs. The plan would pay employees at any company that saw a 30% reduction in revenue around $1,500 Australian dollars (the equivalent of $928 U.S. dollars according to Reuters) every two weeks. This calculation would amount to $1,856 U.S. dollars per month. But according to conversion rates calculated by Newsweek in April, the relief check amounted to around $1,993 per month. Based on current conversion rates calculated on Google Finance, this same amount would now be more than $2,200 every four weeks. Australia also had a number of other social security measures, including one-off Economic Support Payments of AU$750 in April and July 2020 to qualifying recipients. The Canadian government provides $500 Canadian dollars per week for up to 26 weeks for workers who stopped working or had their income reduced by at least 50% due to COVID-19. Based on current conversion rates on Google, this amounts to around $1,565 U.S. dollars per month. The meme presumably pulled its data from Newsweek's April 2020 story, which calculated the amount as being $1,433 U.S. dollars per month at that time. Overall, the Canadian government aims to spend up to $75 billion U.S. dollars in emergency aid and economic stimulus to assist members of their population who are struggling financially. Measures include boosting child benefit payments, wage subsidies for small businesses, and tax relief measures. The Danish government will cover up to 75% of employee salaries in private companies as long as those companies agree not to fire people. According to Flemming Larsen, a professor at the Center for Labor Market Research at Denmark's Aalborg University, this would amount to up to $3,288 per month (roughly based on the conversion rate at the time of the interview), which aligns with the number in the meme. For hourly workers who qualify, the government would cover 90% of their wages. The deal, which was struck between the government and trade unions, covers companies that have to lay off at least 30% of their staff or 50 staff or more. However, this particular form of coverage does not support the self-employed and other vulnerable groups. According to The Guardian, more than 12 million people in France are covered by a partial unemployment scheme that covers 70% of salaries when companies are forced to reduce or suspend work, which is up to 6,927 euros per month (which, according to Newsweek's calculations in April, was $7,575 U.S. dollars, but around $8,400 today). Employees previously on minimum wage receive 100% coverage of their salaries. The French government is also providing paid leave to parents who cannot work from home and who are responsible for children younger than 16. The German scheme covers 10 million workers, according to The Guardian, paying up to 67% of net wages lost due to shorter hours, to a maximum of 6,700 euros per month (again, $7,326.78 U.S. dollars in April according to Newsweek, but $8,125 today) for employees with children and 60% for those without children. The budget also includes a 50 billion euro program to help the self-employed and small businesses threatened with bankruptcy, giving them direct payments of up to 15,000 euros (more than $18,000). Ireland's temporary wage subsidy scheme allows affected companies to recoup up to 70% of their net income up to 21,400 euros until May. After May 4, 2020, the scheme became more generous, paying an 85% subsidy up to the same amount. After May 4, employees would be given a maximum of 350 euros per week if they earned less than or equal to 412 euros per week, and they would receive a maximum of 410 euros per week if they earned between 500 and 586 euros per week. 410 euros amounted to $448.36 U.S. dollars per week according to Newsweek in April, which matches up with the meme's calculation of $1,793.44. Today that amounts to around $1,987. The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme reimburses companies for 80% of their gross salaries up to 2,500 pounds per month (which amounts to around $3,300 U.S. dollars today, and according to Newsweek was $3,084 in April). As of August, some workers were able to return to their jobs part-time, and in November the government extended the scheme until March 31, 2021. The U.S. government did indeed give many qualifying people a one-time stimulus relief check of $1,200, which on the surface appears to be a small fraction of what these other countries seem to be giving workers who are unemployed or in danger of being furloughed. This check was given to individual taxpayers who made less than $75,000 in adjusted gross income in 2018. They would receive between $600 and $1,200, with the highest earners getting the maximum payment. However, this meme did not account for the overall stimulus package, including unemployment benefits and additional funds granted for dependents. The data from other countries showcased relief funds for helping the unemployed or preventing layoffs, so the numbers were comparing two totally different items. The CARES Act, a $2 trillion relief bill that was passed in March 2020, increased unemployment benefits and added $600 per week from the federal government on top of whatever base amount workers received from their state. The legislation also added 13 weeks of unemployment insurance. However, many of the provisions from this expired in July. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act also expanded paid family and medical leave options for some workers. A new relief bill is being debated by Congress, with Republicans and Democrats disagreeing over how much stimulus the U.S. economy needs. Given that the numbers cited in the meme compare very different stimulus packages around the world, with a range of complex provisions, to a one-time payment in the U.S. that does not reflect the full stimulus relief package, we rate this claim a Mixture.

FMD_test_87

The United States is the only major industrial economy to have its unemployment rate triple since the coronavirus pandemic began.

08/18/2020

In his Democratic convention address, former President Bill Clinton criticized President Donald Trump's economic record during the coronavirus pandemic, stating that the 45th president has mishandled the twin health and economic crises. "Donald Trump says we're leading the world," Clinton said. "Well, we are the only major industrial economy to have its unemployment rate triple." Using the most clear-cut multi-nation comparison—comparing January to June 2020—Clinton is correct. However, it is worth noting some differences in how countries address unemployment. We turned to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a think tank whose members are advanced industrialized countries. The group collects economic statistics for all its members, including unemployment rates. We chose 20 countries for which data was available, including most of the countries in Western Europe, as well as Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Israel. For consistency's sake, we compared January to June because only two of the countries reported data for July. As the following chart shows, the United States was among the few countries to experience a dramatic increase in the unemployment rate between January and June. The U.S. is represented by the peach-colored line with the steep climb; you can see each country highlighted if you hover over the list of countries at the bottom. The United States saw its unemployment rate increase from 3.6% to 11.1%. That works out to a little under 3.1 times higher in June than in January. No other country saw such a significant increase. The only other nation that experienced its unemployment rate more than double over that period was Canada, which saw its rate increase 2.2 times. Canada actually had a higher unemployment rate in June than the U.S. did, at 12.3%, but the scale of Canada’s increase was more modest than that of the United States because Canada had a higher rate to start, at 5.5%. Using U.S. data for February instead of January does not change the picture much. The U.S. unemployment rate in February was 3.5%, making the increase through June about 3.2 times. There are a couple of asterisks to Clinton's statement. If you compare January to July, a month for which data isn't available for most of the OECD nations, the increase in the United States was still substantial, but just short of three times higher. The unemployment rate rose from 3.6% in January to 10.2% in July, meaning an increase of 2.8 times. It is also worth noting that the U.S. unemployment rate has fallen for three straight months amid a zigzagging reopening and a volatile economy. Therefore, the unemployment rate is likely to fluctuate a bit before it settles down. Finally, the OECD itself notes some differences across countries. Some nations have employed more aggressive efforts than the United States to subsidize workers to remain on payrolls. Additionally, some countries, such as the United Kingdom, do not count temporarily laid-off workers as unemployed, while the United States does count such workers as unemployed. Clinton stated that the United States is the only major industrial economy to have its unemployment rate triple since the coronavirus pandemic began. This is accurate for the broadest comparison—a 20-nation selection of OECD nations between January 2020 and June 2020. The rate in the U.S. was 3.1 times higher in June than in January. Only Canada came close, with the unemployment rate 2.2 times higher over that period. However, extending the U.S. data to July showed that the increase fell slightly below three times, and there are some complications in making cross-country comparisons. We rate the statement Mostly True. UPDATE, Aug. 20: This article has been updated with additional context about the complications of making cross-country comparisons of unemployment rates. The rating remains the same.

FMD_test_88

Is This a Young Woman with President Bill Clinton on Jeffrey Epstein's Plane?

07/18/2019

Who is the woman in a viral photo with former President Bill Clinton? She's a photographer and co-founder of a New York-based modeling agency. But if you pose that question to adherents of a Qanon conspiracy theory, you'll probably get a different answer: She's an associate of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and recruits children to come to the billionaire's island. Qanon conspiracy theory So how did this ordinary citizen get mixed up in the world of Q? It started with a single miscaptioned photograph that supposedly showed her on Epstein's private plane with Clinton: While this appears to be a genuine, unaltered photograph, the conspiracy theorists spreading it get several things wrong about what it shows. Mainly, the photograph wasn't taken on a plane owned by Epstein, who was charged with new sex crimes related to child-sex-trafficking for prostitution in the summer of 2019. Before we go any further, we should note that the Q conspiracy theory is built on speculation and wild assumptions. The woman has not been implicated in any legal proceedings related to Epstein, and she has not been charged with any crimes herself (Snopes is not identifying her to protect her privacy). Q conspiracy theory Indeed, Miami Herald reporter Julie Brown, who was fundamental in uncovering Epstein's alleged sex-trafficking crimes, told us that she never come across the woman's name during her investigation into Epstein: "I have never run across her name anywhere and I checked with two people involved in the case for 12 years and they never heard of her. They suspect its BS internet conspiracy shit." Julie Brown fundamental We also dug through dozens of Q posts, conspiracy primers, Qanon explainers, and 4chan and 8chan threads attempting to connect her to Clinton and Epstein, but we've yet to see any concrete evidence. Instead, we found invented explanations for out-of-context pictures and illogical leaps of faith being accepted as fact. The above-displayed picture has been online since 2006. It was originally shared with a caption saying it showed Clinton with a 19-year-old college student aboard billionaire venture capitalist Ron Burkle's private plane. It wasn't until several years later (circa 2017) that the "Pizzagate" conspiracy community picked up this picture and started claiming that it showed a woman with Clinton aboard Epstein's plane (popularly dubbed the "Lolita Express"). The fact that this photograph was circulating for more than a decade before it became attached to claims relating to Epstein should immediately raise red flags. shared billionaire venture capitalist circa 2017 Pizzagate Furthermore, photographs reportedly showing the inside of Epstein's plane don't appear to match with this viral picture. Here's a comparison of the viral Clinton photograph and a picture of Epstein's plane obtained by Radar Online: inside of Epstein's plane Radar Online While we may be entering dot-connecting territory here, the design on the wall behind Clinton bears a resemblance to a photograph from Business Insider supposedly showing the interior of Canadian businessman Frank Giustra's plane. Giustra and Clinton, like Burkle and Clinton, were frequent travel partners: Canadian businessman frequent travel Angel Urena, Clinton's spokesperson, also denied that the viral image was taken aboard Epstein's plane: "This photograph was not taken on Epsteins airplane." In addition to misidentifying the location of this photograph, Qanon believers also frequently share this photograph with the claim that the woman was underage at the time the photograph was taken. Again, this is based on pure speculation: speculation When Gawker first shared this photograph in 2006, the organization claimed it showed a "19-year-old college student." This appears to be accurate. In 2009, The Cut identified the woman as a "22-year-old" in an article about her photography. This would make her approximately 19 in 2006 when the photograph was allegedly snapped. Clinton did fly on Epstein's plane a number of times. However, the above-displayed photograph does not document one of these trips. This photograph shows Clinton with a young woman aboard a plane more likely owned by either Burkle or Giustra. number of times While the question of who she is may send conspiracy theorists down a rabbit hole of assumptions and speculation, the real answer is quite simple: She is a photographer and co-founder of New York-based modeling agency who was needlessly thrown into this world of conspiracy because she once appeared in a photograph on a plane with Clinton. co-founder Rothschild, Mike. "QAnon is Attacking a Random Woman in a Disturbing and Dangerous Way." Daily Dot. 21 March 2019. Rothschild, Mike. "QAnon is Attacking a Random Woman in a Disturbing and Dangerous Way." Daily Dot. 21 March 2019. Ellia, Emma. "Crying 'Pedophile' is the Oldest Propaganda Trick in the Book." Wired. 1 August 2018. Neon Revolt. "D-Room. DINING ROOMS. HRC +++ + +++++ Unlocked? #QAnon #GreatAwakening." 7 April 2018. NWO Report. "Footage Of Abused Children Captured On Jeffrey Epsteins Pedo Island." 15 April 2018. Radar Online. "Tour for the First Time: Inside Bill Clinton Pal's 'Lolita Express' - The Pedophile Billionaire's Sex Jet He Flew On 11 Times." 11 July 2016. Alterman, Eric. "If Jeffrey Epstein Faces Justice, Itll Be Thanks to a Local Newspaper." The Nation. 17 July 2019. Brown, Julie. "How a Future Trump Cabinet Member Gave a Serial Sex abuser the Deal of a Lifetime." Miami Herald. 28 November 2018.

FMD_test_89

Did a Gay Baboon Terrorize an African Village?

05/24/2018

An image purportedly showing a newspaper clipping featuring a story about a gay baboon raping several men near an African village regularly gets shared on social media. This is not a genuine news story, but a verbatim copy of a satirical article that was first published in April 2017 on the South Africa Morning Post website. Men in a village in the North West are living in fear over a large male baboon that likes to grope and assault human males. The baboon is said to have attacked more than six men in the past week, and what baffles the villagers is the fact that the baboon only targets men and does not harm its victims but rather performs sexual acts on top of the terrified individuals before leaving. One victim, George Chiune, said he was coming from the local shebeen when the baboon attacked him and pinned him down. "I thought it wanted to kill me but realized it was after my bum," George said. Five men were admitted to the hospital yesterday after experiencing acute anal pain and fatigue. Doctors confirmed that the men have anal cancer. The baboon, which has been nicknamed Somizi, travels alone, and this, according to an animal behavior specialist, is a strange occurrence because baboons are known to travel in troops. One specialist, Lizzie McKenzie, said the baboon might be an outcast and chased away from its troop. "That is why it is traveling alone, but as to the reason it is attacking only males, it beats me. I have never seen that behavior in my 20 years in this field," she said. When journalists visited the village, all male schoolchildren were reported to be wearing dresses as a preventative measure until the baboon has been dealt with. A cached version of the page shows that this article was filed under the "satire" tag. Furthermore, the description on the website's Facebook page states that the South Africa Morning Post publishes "Satire, Entertainment, Rumours, and Bizarre stories from South Africa, and sometimes around the world." The person behind the Morning Post also mentioned the "gay baboon" article in an interview with Mail & Guardian Africa. The unidentified writer used the homophobic text as an example of the fake news stories he publishes in order to fund his purportedly genuine journalistic efforts. Advertising can't fund his journalism either. His real news site attracts just a fraction of the audience of his fake news sites and, therefore, a fraction of the income. "There aren't that many people interested in politics. I can earn a few hundred dollars a month from my news site; it performs so badly. But stuff about gay baboons, stuff about pastors saying they went to heaven, that goes viral," he says. It is still unclear whether this fake news story was ever picked up by a genuine newspaper. The text at the bottom of the story states that it was "printed by Hassan Mohiuddin at City Press, Talpur Road, Kara(...)," which appears to refer to a newspaper located on Talpur Road in Karachi, Pakistan. However, we could not locate a publisher or publication called "City Press" in Pakistan or an editor named Hassan Mohiuddin. Finally, we feel it is our responsibility to clear the pictured baboon's name. Although we are unsure who took the photograph, the earliest iteration we could find was posted to the website Iloho.com by "oliviam" in August 2009 and shows a baboon relaxing in Cape Point, South Africa, not terrorizing anyone. The photograph was entitled "Baboon Beauty Queen."

FMD_test_90

Did Mike Pence Support 'Gay Conversion' Therapy?

10/26/2016

In October 2016, an image appeared on social media accusing Indiana's governor (and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's running mate) Mike Pence of supporting "gay conversion" therapy, particularly the use of electric shocks as part of the practice: The allegation dates back to 2000, when Pence was running for Congress. His campaign web site at the time touted his call to add a stipulation to the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act, a 1990 law providing funding for HIV/AIDS treatment for patients living with the disease lacking either the income or the necessary insurance to pay for it on their own: campaign HIV/AIDS treatment Congress should support the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act only after completion of an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus. Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior. Although he didn't say so outright, the position has been widely interpreted as signaling Pence's support for "gay conversion" therapy, which seeks to "cure" patients of being attracted to members of the same sex. According to the American Psychological Association, electric shocks were one of the techniques used to address homosexuality through "aversion therapy" prior to the group's decision in 1973 to stop classifying it as a mental disorder. By the time Pence made his statement regarding the Ryan White CARE Act, that group and several others, including the American Psychiatric Association, had rejected the practice: American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or repair homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of cures are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, reparative therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, [the American Psychiatric Association] recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to changeindividuals sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm. The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient.Many patients who have undergone reparative therapy relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed. "Conversion therapy" has been banned by law in five states (California, Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont) as well as in Washington, D.C. We contacted Pence's office seeking comment on his stance regarding the issue but did not receive a response. Republicans were hit with a similar accusation in July 2016, when their national platform included the phrase "We support the right of parents to determine the proper medical treatment and therapy for their minor children." accusation platform When asked whether that statement represented support for "conversion therapy," Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus replied that "It's not in the platform." replied

FMD_test_91

Deceptive scheme involving complimentary goods to mark a business's milestone.

02/07/2016

Scammers and malware purveyors are always looking for ways to entice online users into following web links that will lead those victims into the traps set for them, and offers of free products are prime bait in that pursuit of prey. One common method such predators use is establishing fake Facebook accounts mimicking those of well-known vendors of consumer products (typically of the edible variety, such as Starbucks, Taco Bell, McDonald's, KFC, Wendy's, Burger King, Whole Foods, Safeway, Food Lion, and Little Caesars) and posting bogus offers for "lifetime passes" or other dispensations of free product as part of a supposed company anniversary or birthday celebration (e.g., "Starbucks is giving away free lifetimes in celebration of the brand's 44th anniversary"). The primary type of free product fraud is the "sweepstakes scam," which is intended to lure victims into completing numerous surveys, disclosing a good deal of personal information, and then agreeing to sign up for costly, difficult-to-cancel "Reward Offers" hidden in the fine print. The scammers spread links via e-mail and Facebook that purport to offer free product to those who follow those links. These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the companies they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook "share" buttons and post comments to the scammer's site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two "Reward Offers" (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards): Pursuant to the Terms & Conditions, you are required to complete 2 of the Reward Offers from the above. You will need to meet all of the terms and conditions to qualify for the shipment of the reward. For credit card offers, you must activate your card by making a purchase, transferring a balance, or making a cash advance. For loan offers you must close and fund the loan. For home security and satellite tv offers you must have the product installed. You may not cancel your participation in more than a total of 2 Reward Offers within 30 days of any Reward Offer Sign-Up Date as outlined in the Terms & Conditions (the Cancellation Limit). Not only that, but the fine print on the "free" product offers typically states that by accepting its terms, the user agrees to receive telemarketing phone calls and text messages from a variety of different companies: Similar phony free product lures are used to spread malware. In those versions of the scam, those who attempt to reach the URL provided for the purpose of claiming the free products are instead victimized by a Facebook "lifejacking" attack, a malicious script that takes over a user's Facebook profile without their knowledge and propagates itself to their friends' accounts as well. lifejacking In short, those who seek "free" merchandise generally end up paying a dear cost for it.

FMD_test_92

Has John Kerry's possession extended to owning multiple houses, cars, and yachts?

12/01/2020

In late November and early December 2020, social media users shared posts claiming that former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who has been selected by President-elect Joe Biden to serve as climate envoy in his administration, owns multiple cars, yachts, homes, and a private jet. The source of this claim appears to be a "copypasta" meme circulating on social media platforms, meaning that people are copying and pasting text and sharing it without any accompanying supporting evidence. The intent of the posts seemed to be criticism of Kerry's lifestyle, which leaves a larger carbon footprint than the average person's. Here is an example, with the Facebook user's name cropped out for privacy: The text of the post reads, "John Kerry as climate czar? Only Democrats could pick a guy with 6 houses, 12 cars, 2 yachts and a private jet to tell you that YOU should take the bus, don't eat meat, use electric cars and not fart to stop pollution." The block of text appears to be based on past news stories, many of them published in the lead-up to the 2004 presidential election, in which Kerry was the Democratic challenger to Republican incumbent President George W. Bush. Kerry's bid for the White House was unsuccessful, as Bush won a second term. However, his campaign resulted in media scrutiny of his finances, namely the wealth in his marriage that belongs mostly to his wife, Heinz ketchup heiress Teresa Heinz Kerry, with whom Kerry signed a prenuptial agreement. As we reported in 2004, the couple owned five homes at the time, with a combined value of roughly $29 million. She bought four of those before their marriage, and the couple jointly owned one. In 2017, the couple sold the home in Nantucket, which belonged to his wife's family, and purchased one in Martha's Vineyard. The couple did make use of a luxury yacht, which brought Kerry scrutiny and criticism during the 2004 election cycle over reports that he docked it in Rhode Island to avoid paying higher taxes in Massachusetts. They sold it in 2017. Kerry has also made use of a private jet, but that, too, belongs to his wife. The matter of the Kerrys' cars also came up in 2004, when news outlets reported that he owned multiple vehicles. At the time, he was criticized for calling on people to buy American-made products while his wife drove a German-made car. It is true that Kerry has made use of multiple homes, vehicles, a private jet, and a yacht over the years, though much of the property belongs to his wife. It does appear, however, that the meme exaggerated the number of homes and yachts they have owned.

FMD_test_93

Tax Hikes for Sturgis Bikes

07/14/2015

FACT CHECK: Did President Obama say on The Rachel Maddow Show that he was going to raise taxes on "gatherings of white conservatives" such as the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally? Claim: President Obama said on The Rachel Maddow Show that he was going to raise taxes on "gatherings of white conservatives" such as the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally. Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2015] Saw a meme on Facebook quoting Obama on the Rachel Maddow show on 7/10/15 about raising taxes on white conservative gatherings like the Sturgis Motorcycle rally in South Dakota. Did he really say this? Origins: In July 2015, a rumor began to spread online that President Obama was planning to raise taxes on "gatherings of white conservatives," such as the annual motorcycle rally held in Sturgis, South Dakota, with the ultimate intent of shutting them down. The rumor took the form a widely-circulated meme displaying a photograph of President Obama along with a statement he allegedly made on MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show on 10 July 2015, referencing the then-recent decision to remove the Confederate flag from display at the South Carolina statehouse grounds: motorcycle rally The quote used in this meme is apocryphal. President Obama did not appear on The Rachel Maddow Show on 10 July 2015, nor did any other source record or report him as having said anything like the words reproduced here. appear 10 July This meme started spreading widely after it was published to the Facebook page of an over-40s single biker's club. That iteration included the instructions to "SHARE if you are as outraged as I am," a come-on commonly used with misleading clickbait content and scams. Facebook scams Last updated: 13July 2015 Originally published: 13July 2015

FMD_test_94

The Tea Party of the United States is a new political movement.

03/12/2009

Claim: Protest against federal spending encourages Americans to mail tea bags to the White House. Example: [Collected via e-mail, March 2009] Mailing Tea Bags to Washington, DC What a wonderful idea, I just wish it had been mine. I have a feeling that USPS is going to have a hell of a lot of tea to contend with, after all it only costs 42 cents to send a message, hopefully heard round the world!!! So please mark your Calendars There's a storm abrewin'. What happens when good, responsible people keep quiet? Washington has forgotten they work for us. We don't work for them. Throwing good money after bad is NOT the answer. I am sick of the midnight, closed door sessions to come up with a plan. I am sick of Congress raking CEO's over the coals while they, themselves, have defaulted on their taxes. I am sick of the bailed out companies having lavish vacations and retreats on my dollar. I am sick of being told it is MY responsibility to rescue people that, knowingly, bought more house than they could afford. I am sick of being made to feel it is my patriotic duty to pay MORE taxes. I, like all of you, am a responsible citizen. I pay my taxes. I live on a budget and I don't ask someone else to carry the burden for poor decisions I may make. I have emailed my congressmen and senators asking them to NOT vote for the stimulus package as it was written without reading it first. No one listened. They voted for it, pork and all. O.K. folks, here it is. You may think you are just one voice and what you think won't make a difference. Well, yes it will and YES, WE CAN!! If you are disgusted and angry with the way Washington is handling our taxes. If you are fearful of the fallout from the reckless spending of BILLIONS to bailout and "stimulate" without accountability and responsibility then we need to become ONE, LOUD VOICE THAT CAN BE HEARD FROM EVERY CITY, TOWN, SUBURB AND HOME IN AMERICA. There is a growing protest to demand that Congress, the President and his cabinet LISTEN to us, the American Citizens. What is being done in Washington is NOT the way to handle the economic free fall. So, here's the plan. On April 1, 2009, all Americans are asked to send a TEABAG to Washington, D.C. You do not have to enclose a note or any other information unless you so desire. Just a TEABAG. Many cities are organizing protests. If you simply search, "New American Tea Party", several sites will come up. If you aren't the 'protester' type, simply make your one voice heard with a TEABAG. Your one voice will become a roar when joined with millions of others that feel the same way. Yes, something needs to be done but the lack of confidence as shown by the steady decline in the stock market speaks volumes. This was not my idea. I visited the sites of the 'New American Tea Party' and an online survey showed over 90% of thousands said they would send the teabag on April 1. Why, April 1?? We want them to reach Washington by April 15. Will you do it? I will. Send it to; 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington, D.C. 20500. Forward this to everyone in your address book. Visit the website for more information about the 'New American Tea Party'. I would encourage everyone to go ahead and get the envelope ready to mail, then just drop it in the mail April 1. Can't guarantee what the postage will be by then, it is going up as we speak, but have your envelope ready. What will this cost you? A little time and a 40 something cent stamp.. What could you receive in benefits? Maybe, just maybe, our elected officials will start to listen to the people. Take out the Pork. Tell us how the money is being spent. We want TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. Remember, the money will be spent over the next 4-5 years. It is not too late. Of course, if you agree with the way things are being done now, just delete!!!!! Origins: On the evening of 16 December 1773, a group of American colonists who called themselves "The Sons of Liberty" furtively boarded the ship Dartmouth, which was docked in Boston harbor with a load of East India Company tea. Working through the night, the colonists dumped over 45 tons of tea into the waters of the harbor as a protest against the Tea Act passed by the British government. The event, which came to be known as "The Boston Tea Party," was one of the seminal events of the American Revolution and remains one of the most iconic moments in all of U.S. history. In 2009, the iconic status of that event was referenced in the name of the New American Tea Party, described as a "coalition of citizens and organizations concerned about the recent trend of fiscal recklessness in government" who have begun coordinating events around the U.S. with the announced goal of protesting largesse in federal spending. The item quoted above seeks to take up the "Tea Party" spirit by encouraging Americans to mail tea bags to the White House on 1 April 2009 (in order to arrive by 15 April, the day on which income tax filings are due) as a form of symbolic protest against "the way Washington is handling our taxes." (The concept is vaguely reminiscent of a 1955 campaign that had citizens mailing small bags of wheat to President Eisenhower to encourage the U.S. to provide surplus food to flood victims in China.) New American Tea Party events wheat Of course, everyone is free to choose whether or not to participate in symbolic protests, so such actions don't have much in the way of verifiable "true" or "false" aspects the only issue is how effective the chosen form of protest is likely to be. With that in mind, we offer a few caveats for those inclined to participate: An entry in the New American Tea Party blog states that they don't endorse the effort: entry We have received hundreds of questions about an email circulating that urges folks to send tea to Washington on April 1st or April 15th. This effort is not endorsed by the New American Tea Party, so we can't answer any questions about it. Given the more stringent security procedures for mail handling enacted after 9/11, there are no guarantees envelopes containing mailed teabags will get through to the White House without being discarded or significantly delayed, something also noted in the New American Tea Party blog: It is a neat idea, but things like that will likely either be held up getting scanned or end up getting thrown away due to security precautions. (A subsequent New American Tea Party blog entry suggested that just mailing the labels from tea bags might be a way of avoiding this potential pitfall.) entry Envelopes that cannot be run through USPS sorting machines are subject to an additional 20 postage surcharge. A mailed item is considered nonmachinable if: nonmachinable It is a square letter (the minimum size for a square envelope is 5 x 5 inches) It is too rigid does not bend easily It has clasps, string, buttons, or similar closure devices It has an address parallel to the shorter dimension of the letter It contains items that cause the surface to be uneven The length divided by height is less than 1.3 or more than 2.5 The specific aims of the tea bag protest are not clearly articulated in the e-mail quoted above, so senders might wish to include explanatory notes with their envelopes stating the desired outcome, such as: "I enclose this teabag as a protest against the passage of any further economic stimulus packages that provide money to businesses without provisions for strict transparency and accountability in how that money is to be spent" or "I enclose this teabag as a protest against the passage of any further economic stimulus packages that include earmarks." Last updated: 12 March 2009 Idaho Statesman. "Local Group Stages 'Reckless Federal Spending' Protest." 27 February 2009. WJXT-TV [Jacksonville, FL]. "'Tea Party' Protests Wasteful Spending." MSNBC. 2 March 2009.

FMD_test_95

Was it the case that Gerda Puridle, a prostitute, created artificial eyelashes for the purpose of safeguarding her eyes?

02/03/2021

In January 2021, the website America's Best Pics shared a meme claiming that a prostitute named "Gerda Puridle" invented long eyelashes in the 1880s. The woman in this picture was not a prostitute, her name was not Gerda Puridle, and the claim about the origins of artificial eyelashes was fabricated. The woman featured in this meme is Alice Regnault, a French actress and novelist who rose to prominence in the 1870s. This photograph appears to have been taken by French photographer Gaspard-Flix Tournachon (better known as "Nadar") circa 1879. It was included in a guide published a few years later called "Les Actrices de Paris" (The Actresses of Paris) by Emile Bergerat. Here's how Regnault was described in "Les Actrices de Paris" (translated via Google and edited for clarity): "An intelligent and flexible actress who, through commitment and hard work, has managed to escape a reputation as a 'pretty woman' where the love of the masses kept her, as in a prison. So has the fine and elegant Mademoiselle Regnault proven herself, for some time now." While Regnault held titles such as actress, novelist, and journalist, she did not invent elongated eyelashes. According to beauty magazine Marie Claire, humans were tinkering with and beautifying their eyelashes in ancient Egypt, though it wasn't until the late 1800s that people figured out they could lengthen their eyelashes with human hair. An 1882 volume of "Medical Record" explained the process of creating artificial eyelashes: "The Parisians have found out how to make false eyelashes. I do not speak of the vulgar and well-known trick of darkening the rim round the eye with all kinds of dirty composition, or the more artistic plan of doing so to the inside of the lid. No, they actually draw a fine needle, threaded with dark hair, through the skin of the eyelid, forming long loops, and after the process is over - I am told it is a painless one - a splendid dark fringe veils the coquette's eyes." While the practice of artificially elongating eyelashes started in the late 1800s, the first patent for an artificial eyelash wasn't secured until 1911. Here's a look at inventor Anna Taylor's artificial eyelash patent. Despite the fact that artificial eyelashes have been around since the late 1800s, and that Taylor filed a patent in 1911, many people credit filmmaker D.W. Griffith for popularizing artificial eyelashes with his 1916 film "Intolerance." The New York Times reported that one day in 1916, while filming "Intolerance," D. W. Griffith studied an actress in a Babylonian costume and felt something wasn't right. Seena Owen's eyes, he said, should be twice as large and "supernatural." He ordered his wigmaker to use spirit gum to glue a pair of lashes made from human hair onto Owen's eyelids. "One morning she arrived at the studio with her eyes swollen nearly shut," the actress Lillian Gish, who was also in the movie, wrote in her memoir. "Fortunately, Mr. Griffith had already shot the important scenes." Within a decade, false lashes became standard equipment for actresses and for flappers who imitated the "baby doll" eyes that they saw on-screen. Gish claimed that Griffith invented false eyelashes, but like many Hollywood legends, this one proves to be not exactly true. In 1911, a Canadian woman named Anna Taylor received a U.S. patent for the artificial eyelash; hers was a crescent of fabric implanted with tiny hairs. Even before that, hairdressers and makeup artists tried a similar trick. A German named Charles Nestle (née Karl Nessler) manufactured false lashes in the early 20th century and used the profit from sales to finance his next invention, the permanent wave. By 1915, Nestle had opened a New York hair-perming salon on East 49th Street, with lashes as his sideline. Nestle promoted false eyelashes as a guard against the glare of electric lights and hired chorus girls to bat their eyes at customers. To some men of the era, it was as if a booby trap had been introduced in the war between the sexes. "When a fair young thing looks at you mistily through her long, curling lashes, do not fall for it until you investigate," warned one columnist in 1921. "The long, curling eyelashes may not be hers, except by right of purchase." In short, the claim that a prostitute named Gerda Puridle invented elongated eyelashes is completely fabricated.

FMD_test_96

Death Car

12/31/1998

Claim: No buyers can be found for a beautiful but cheap car because of the horrible smell that permeates it. LEGEND Origins: The story is told of a car sold for a fantastically low price, its only flaw being a persistent disagreeable odor. Someone had met the Grim Reaper in it, and the remains were not discovered for many months. The smell clinging to the car was that of decomposed flesh; no amount of washing or scrubbing would make it go away. Buyer after buyer was lured by the bargain, but each of them invariably returned the car. The possible source of this "death car" legend is explained in a 1959 book on folklore: In 1953, I was collecting Negro folklore in the tiny community of Mecosta in central Michigan, where a colony of colored people had settled on the sand barrens shortly after the Civil War. Called on to speak on folklore before the crowd that gathered on Old Settlers Day, I related the case of the depreciated Buick as an instance of contemporary folklore. That evening, some of the young fellows pulled me aside and politely explained that the incident had occurred in their town. A white man named Demings, who owned a 1929 Model A Ford, committed suicide in it in 1938 after his girl, Nellie Boyers, had a spat with him on a date. He chinked up all the cracks under the seat and on the floorboards with concrete and then sniffed a hose he had connected to his tailpipe while the motor ran. This was in August, and the car and the body were not found until hunting season in October. A guide kept returning to the spot where Demings had pulled the car off the road into the brush, and seeing the car would say, "That fellow's always hunting when I am." Finally, he investigated. This Model A was painted all over with birds and fish and was quite an eye-catcher. A used-car dealer in Remus sold the car to Clifford Cross, who tried every expedient to eradicate the smell. He reupholstered and fumigated the interior in vain and finally had to drive around in midwinter with the windows wide open. At length, he turned the car in for junk. I talked with Clifford Cross and his friends who had ridden in the Ford. Here was the first verified case of the Death Car. Did this modern big-city legend originate with an actual incident in a hamlet of two hundred people in a rural Negro community and, by the devious ways of folklore, spread to Michigan's metropolises and then to other states? Unlikely as it seems, the evidence from many variants, compared through the historical-geographical method of tracing folktales, calls for an affirmative answer. Though this would appear to be the beginning of the legend, folklorist Jan Harold Brunvand said of it, "Richard M. Dorson thought he had traced 'The Death Car' to a 1938 incident in the small town of Mecosta, Michigan, but later study turned up prototypical elements earlier in Europe." Though the make of the car continues to update as time marches on (Model A, Buick, Cadillac, Corvette, Jaguar), astute readers will note that the vehicle is almost always described as both new and of a model deemed to be highly desirable at the time of the story's telling. Unsellable or not, this is yet another of the "cheap car" legends in which a young lad's wet dream of a car is sold at a bargain basement price. (Another legend of this genre can be found on our $50 Porsche page.) $50 Porsche Various homilies can be guessed at as the moral of the tale. "You get what you pay for" and "Don't attempt to profit from another's misfortune" are but two. Gail de Vos provides us with an especially intriguing one: The offensive smell is perhaps not only the smell of death but that of filthy lucre. The prestigious sports car symbolizes wealth; the legend suggests that the only way working-class people can obtain such a product is if it is defective—in other words, if it stinks. Barbara "heaven scent" Mikkelson Sightings: An episode of television's Seinfeld ("The Smelly Car," original air date 15 April 1993) featured a car whose stink (from a valet's B.O., not a decaying corpse) made it undriveable and unsellable. More smelly cars (of the rotting flesh variety) can be found in the movies Christine (1983) and Mr. Wrong (New Zealand, 1985). Christine Mr. Wrong Last updated: 12 March 2011 The Baby Train Brunvand, Jan Harold. The Choking Doberman. New York: W. W. Norton, 1984. ISBN 0-393-30321-7 (pp. 212-213). The Choking Doberman Brunvand, Jan Harold. The Mexican Pet. New York: W. W. Norton, 1986. ISBN 0-393-30542-2 (pp. 12-13). The Mexican Pet Brunvand, Jan Harold. The Vanishing Hitchhiker. New York: W. W. Norton, 1981. ISBN 0-393-95169-3 (pp. 20-22). The Vanishing Hitchhiker Brunvand, Jan Harold. The Study of American Folklore. New York: W. W. Norton, 1998. ISBN 0-393-97223-2 (p. 208). The Study of American Folklore Czubala, Dionizjusz. "The Death Car; Polish and Russian Examples." FOAFTale News. March 1992 (pp. 2-5). de Vos, Gail. Tales, Rumors and Gossip. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, 1996. ISBN 1-56308-190-3 (pp. 109-112). Tales, Rumors and Gossip Dorson, Richard. American Folklore. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1961 (pp. 250-252). American Folklore Emrich, Duncan. Folklore on the American Land. Boston: Little, Brown, 1972. ISBN 0-31623-721-3 (p. 338). Folklore on the American Land Smith, Paul. The Book of Nasty Legends. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983. ISBN 0-00-636856-5 (p. 79). The Book of Nasty Legends The Big Book of Urban Legends

FMD_test_97

'Little People, Big World' Posts About a 'Loss' Are Misleading

01/05/2022

On Jan. 4, 2022, a strange Facebook ad appeared that claimed: "The Sudden Loss That Hit 'Little People, Big World.'" It led to a lengthy article that claimed to reveal news of a death, "shocking truth," or some sort of sad development about the Roloff family. claimed However, this was all very misleading. For readers unfamiliar with "Little People, Big World," it's a reality TV show that follows the lives of the Roloff family. reality TV show "Matt and Amy Roloff, both 4 feet tall, face a variety of challenges in raising their four children: twins Jeremy and Zach, who is 2-feet shorter than his brother, and younger siblings Molly and Jacob, who like Jeremy are average height," a synopsis on TheTVDB.com reads. "The family's 34-acre Oregon farm serves as part playground and part moneymaker. As the series ages, Matt and Amy deal with personal strife, embrace their kids getting older and leading lives of their own, become grandparents, and attempt to keep Roloff Farms operational." synopsis The show began airing on TLC in 2006 and is often referred to by the acronym, "LPBW." Matt and Amy divorced in 2015. airing on TLC divorced In the Facebook ad about the Roloff family's "sudden loss," the caption contained several grammatical errors. It said: "Since the allegation were confirmed to the public, the cast of 'Little People, Big World' has ask for some privacy. Here is all the information given to the public so far." In other words, the ad appeared to imply that there were recent developments about a death that involved someone on "LPBW" or in the Roloff family. This strange Facebook ad came from a page named P-15897-2. The ad was posted on a Facebook page with a strange name: P-15897-2. It was described as a "clothing store." However, the truth was that this was nothing more than a quickly-created page that was being used to profit off of tragic and outdated news. It was likely managed from outside of the U.S. One of the photos showed a young Zach Roloff in a hospital bed. The picture was a screenshot from a 2006 episode of "LPBW" named "Zach's Emergency" where he experienced a "mysterious illness." episode The ad led to a lengthy slideshow-style article on foodisinthehouse.com. Its headline read: "Little People, Big World: Learn the Shocking Truth About the Roloff Family." article However, the Facebook ad and this article were both misleading. The story was nothing more than an extremely long history of the Roloff family. It mentioned several tragic developments. Matt had a brother named Josh who died at the age of 34 in 1999. He had experienced multiple medical problems since his birth, according to a report. Additionally, the story mentioned the August 2021 death of Felix, who was Amy's dog. She posted about his passing on Instagram. This news, which was reported by People.com and others, was around four months old by the time the misleading article was published and the Facebook ad went live. There's no evidence that the family asked "for privacy" about either of these two past deaths, as the Facebook ad claimed. report posted reported by People.com The lengthy article also documented two unrelated, sad developments about Dr. Jennifer Arnold, the star of the former TLC series, "The Little Couple." According to Chron.com, the show provided a "deeper look into the married life of Dr. Jen Arnold and Bill Klein, who happen to be dwarfs." According to Chron.com In 2013, Today.com reported that Dr. Arnold was "diagnosed with stage 3 choriocarcinoma, a rare cancer that began with a September pregnancy loss." reported In sum, an unknown person was paying Facebook to display an ad about "Little People, Big World" that seemed to indicate there were new and tragic developments. It said that the Roloff family asked "for privacy" and hinted with the words "so far" that more information was coming about a recent "loss" or death. However, this was misleading and appeared to be little more than an attempt to profit from past tragedies from two TLC TV shows. For these reasons, we have rated this claim as "Outdated." attempt to profit Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us

FMD_test_98

Is it advisable to refrain from getting a flu vaccination?

10/08/2016

Every flu season sees an increase in viral web stories making largely unsubstantiated allegations about the health risks of the flu shot that include claims about their scary-sounding ingredients, connections to a variety of diseases (including Alzheimer's), and their supposed lack of efficacy in general: The pharmaceutical industry, medical experts and the mainstream media are candid in telling us that flu vaccines contain strains of the flu virus. What they are less likely to reveal though is the long list of other ingredients that come with the vaccine. It is now a known fact that flu vaccines contain mercury, a heavy metal known to be hazardous for human health. Mercury toxicity can cause depression, memory loss, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory problems, ADD, oral health problems, digestive imbalances and other serious health issues. The article quoted above, which is representative of the text and claims that appear nearly identically in hundreds of Facebook posts, makes a number of claims that need to be investigated on their own merits: identically Claim: The flu shot makes you sick to begin with. Flu shots work by introducing dead (inactivated) strains of influenza virus, which trigger your immune system to create antibodies to fight those strains. These antibodies make your body more prepared to fight if should it be exposed to an active strain in the future. Because the strains are inactive, any sickness you develop after the shot is not caused by influenza, according to the Harvard Medical School: according The vaccine is made from an inactivated virus that can't transmit infection. So people who get sick after receiving a flu vaccination were going to get sick anyway. It takes a week or two to get protection from the vaccine. But people assume that because they got sick after getting the vaccine, the shot caused their illness. It is, of course, possible that feelings of sickness come from some of the side effects of the injection, but the vaccine itself is not infecting you in any way. side effects Claim: Flu vaccines contain other dangerous ingredients such as mercury. false Flu shots administered from multi-use vials may contain a preservative called thimerosal, which breaks down into ethylmercury in the body. Mercury is an element and as such it can be found in many different chemical forms. But when people are concerned about mercury toxicity, they are concerned about methylmercury, which is indeed toxic at high levels and could cause some of the problems listed above. may contain methylmercury Ethylmercury, on the other hand, passes through your body quickly, and numerous studies have found it safe for use in vaccines (though there is some evidence that its use could be problematic for infants a population that CDC does not recommend for flu shots anyway). Saying ethylmercury is dangerous because is contains mercury is like saying that your table salt is at risk of spontaneous combustion because it contains sodium. passes for infants recommend spontaneous combustion Thimerosal, additionally, has been used for decades by the anti-vaccine movement to stoke vaccination fear by suggesting it causes by suggesting it causes autism. This link has been discredited over, and over, and over, and over, and over again and is further compromised by the fact that autism rates are still climbing despite the fact that childhood vaccines no longer contain this ingredient. over over over over over climbing contain Claim: The flu shot can give you Alzheimer's disease. false The leading immunogeneticist Dr. Hugh Fudenberg, whom the article cites as the authority on this claim, had his medical license revoked in 1995 for ethical misconduct and was an outspoken proponent of the widely discredited MMR-autism link. His claim of the link between Alzheimer's and vaccines, though hard to trace, may or may not come from a talk he gave at the 1997 NVIC International Vaccine Conference. The statement has not been backed up by any published peer-reviewed research since then. In fact, a 2001 study found that adults exposed to vaccines were at a lower risk of Alzheimers. revoked in 1995 may or may not study Claim: The very people pushing flu vaccinations are making billions of dollars each year. Pharmaceutical companies (sometimes) profit from vaccines, but the fact that a company makes a profit is an appeal to emotion and is not evidence to support the claim of a faulty product or of nefarious intent. It also may not be accurate. A recent Atlantic article covered this question extensively, stating: article Not only do pediatricians and doctors often lose money on vaccine administration, it wasn't too long ago that the vaccine industry was struggling with slim profit margins and shortages. The Economist wrote that "for decades vaccines were a neglected corner of the drugs business, with old technology, little investment and abysmal profit margins. Many firms sold their vaccine divisions to concentrate on more profitable drugs." The suggestion of massive profits from flu shots ignores the fact that profits margins are generally much higher for other drugs than for flu vaccines, as well. The same Atlantic article cites one estimate that puts the vaccine market at around $24 billion. This sounds like a large number, but it would, in fact, account for only two to three percent of the pharmaceutical market worldwide. article Claim: There is a lack of real evidence that young children even benefit fromflu shots. Many anti-vaccine articles parrot the claim that "51 studies involving 260,000 children showed no benefit compared to a placebo for children under the age of two". This stems from a 2008 meta-analysis that did indeed conclude that there is less efficacy for children under the age of two, something the CDC already recognizes on their website. However, of the 51 studies analyzed and the 260,000 observations those studies included, only one study (at the time) was performed on children below the age of two using inactive strains (the kind found in flu shots). A later study in 2011 that reviewed over 5,000 research articles concluded that flu shots consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years), categorically rejecting the claim that there is a lack of real evidence that young children benefit from the shot. 2008 meta-analysis recognizes study Claim: The flu shot makes you more susceptible to pneumonia and other contagious diseases. false People with compromised immune systems are at higher risk of complications from vaccines when those vaccines contain live strains (which, again, the flu shot does not), and some skin reactions are possible immediately following an injection. risk possible However, the notion that the flu shot weakens the immune system is false. According to a review paper in the journal Pediatrics: paper Vaccines may cause temporary suppression of delayed-type hypersensitivity skin reactions or alter certain lymphocyte function tests in vitro. However, the short-lived immunosuppression caused by certain vaccines does not result in an increased risk of infections with other pathogens soon after vaccination. Claim: The flu shot causes vascular disorders such as fever, jaw pain, muscle aches, pain and stiffness in the neck, upper arms, shoulder and hips and headache. MISLEADING While the term vascular disorder is fear-inducing, it merely describes anything having to do with veins and arteries. The flu shot does not, de facto, cause any of these problems, but all the complications listed above are listed by the CDC as possible side effects. It is worth noting, however, that the flu will almost certainly give you some or all of these symptomsand with a much greater intensity than the symptoms resulting from a flu shot. CDC almost certainly give you some or all Claim: Children under the age of 1 are at risk of a neurotoxic breach of the blood-brain barrier. The blood-brain barrier is the medical term for the chemical and physical adaptations humans and other animals have that prevent pathogens and other chemicals in the body from entering the central nervous system. For this claim about neurotoxic breach be true, an infant would have to have a relatively weaker blood-brain barrier than an adult. The idea that the barrier is weaker in young infants, however, is a long-held but unsubstantiated myth. Numerous studies have refuted the claim, showing that the blood-brain barrier is fully developed in the womb, long before a child is born. blood-brain barrier myth fully developed Claim: Flu shots carry an increased risk of narcolepsy. false There is a well-documented, though statistically minor, connection between a specific H1N1 flu vaccine (Pandemrix) and narcolepsy. But such reports concerned only that one vaccine, which was produced for a specific flu strain, and have limited relevance to the seasonal flu shot. Pandemrix is available in Europe but not the United States or Canada. well-documented connection not Claim: The flu shot weakens immunological responses. This claim, from a scientific standpoint, is a repeat of the earlier false claim (above) that suggests your body is more susceptible to infection or disease after a flu shot. Harmful immunological responses is a broad and unhelpful term that, while it may have aided in turning up literally thousands of responses in an academic search, is not really all that surprising as the term would includes the already documented risk of a skin and allergic reactions that come with pretty much any injection. already documented Claim: The flu shot can cause serious neurological disorders. false The neurological disorder specifically associated with flu vaccines is the Guillain-Barr Syndromea terrifying disease that causes nerve damage and sometimes paralysis. A widely cited study on a population of individuals who received the H1N1 vaccine in 1976 showed an increased risk of contracting this disease whose cause is unknown compared to those who did not receive the vaccine: Guillain-Barr Syndrome The Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a scientific review of this issue in 2003 and found that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS. The increased risk was approximately one additional case of GBS for every 100,000 people who got the swine flu vaccine. Scientists have several theories about the cause, but the exact reason for this link remains unknown. The link between GBS and flu vaccination in other years is unclear, and if there is any risk for GBS after seasonal flu vaccines it is very small, about one in a million. Studies suggest that it is more likely that a person will get GBS after getting the flu than after vaccination. It is important to keep in mind that severe illness and death are associated with flu, and getting vaccinated is the best way to prevent flu infection and its complications. This topic has been heavily researched for decades, and no specific consensus regarding the link or mechanism behind the flu virus and the disease has been established. What has been established, however, is how small the risk is relative to the risks of contracting complications from flu itself. A 2013 study in The Lancet stated that: study The relative and attributable risks of Guillain-Barr syndrome after seasonal influenza vaccination are lower than those after influenza illness. Patients considering immunisation should be fully informed of the risks of Guillain-Barr syndrome from both influenza vaccines and influenza illness. Current iterations of the seasonal flu shot do not have any live strains in them (though the nasal spray includes weakened strains), nor do they have any mercury (in the United States), detergent, antifreeze, or aluminum. They contain, at most, 50 times less formaldehyde than a pear. nasal spray nor aluminum pear We, of course, are not healthcare providers and cannot make any medical decisions for you. The purpose of this post is to correct misinformation on the Internet, and there are few topics that lend themselves to as much misinformation as vaccines. All healthcare decisions, however, should be made between you and your doctor. Harvard Medical School. "10 Flu Myths." November 2009. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Possible Side-Effects from Vaccines." Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Vaccine Excipient & Media Summary." Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Thimerosal in Vaccines." Accessed 8 October 2016. World Health Organization. "Statement on Thimerosal." July 2006. Dorea, J.G. "Low-Dose Mercury Exposure in Early Life: Relevance of Thimerosal to Fetuses, Newborns and Infants." Current Medical Chemistry. 2013. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Key Facts About Seasonal Flu Vaccine." Accessed 8 October 2016. Verreault, Rene et al. "Past Exposure to Vaccines and Subsequent Risk of Alzheimer's Disease." CMAJ. 27 November 2001. Gorski, David. "Oh, Come On, Superman!: Bill Maher Versus 'Western Medicine.'" Science Based Medicine. 7 September 2009. Casewatch. "Disciplinary Actions Against Herman Hugh Fudenberg, M.D." 20 April 2005. Pediatrics. "Joint Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS)." September 1999. Taylor. Luke E. et al. Vaccines Are Not Associated with Autism: An Evidence-Based Meta-Analysis of Case-Control and Cohort Studies." Vaccine. 17 June 2014. Ball, L.K. et al. An Assessment of Thimerosal Use in Childhood Vaccines." Pediatrics. May 2001. Madsen, Kreesten, M. et al. A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism." New England Journal of Medicine. 7 November 2002. Hviid, Anders et al. Association Between Thimerosal-Containing Vaccine and Autism." New England Journal of Medicine. October 2003. The National Academies. "Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism." 2004. Vaccine Knowledge Project. "Vaccine Ingredients." Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Vaccines Adjuvants." Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Flublok Seasonal Influenza (Flu) Vaccine." Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Guillain-Barre Syndrome." Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Narcolepsy Following Pandemrix Influenza Vaccination in Europe." Accessed 8 October 2016. Miller, Elizabeth et al. Risk of Narcolepsy in Children and Young People Receiving As03 Adjuvanted Pandemic A/h1n1 2009 Influenza Vaccine: Retrospective Analysis." BMJ. 26 February 2013. Moretti, Raffella et al. Blood-Brain Barrier Dysfunction in Disorders of the Developing Brain." Frontiers in Neuroscience. 17 February 2015. Volodin, N.N. et al. Status of the Blood-brain Barrier in Newborn Infants of Various Gestational Ages in the Normal State and in Pathology." Pediatriia. 1989. Saunders, Norman R. et al. The Rights and Wrongs of Blood-brain Barrier Permeability Studies: S Walk Through 100 Years of History." Frontiers in Neuroscience. 16 December 2014. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Flu Symptoms & Complications." Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Key Facts About Seasonal Flu Vaccine." Accessed 8 October 2016. Osterholm, Michael T. et al. Efficacy and Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." The Lancet. January 2012. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Vaccine Effectiveness How Well Does the Flu Vaccine Work?" Accessed 8 October 2016. Jefferson, T. et al. Vaccines for Preventing Influenza in Healthy Children." Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 16 April 2008. Lam, Bourree. Vaccines Are Profitable, So What?" The Atlantic. 10 February 2015.

FMD_test_99

Obama Accomplishments

07/12/2016

Viral recitations of politicians' achievements and failures have become standard election-year fare on social media, and, like the campaign talking points on which they appear to be based, are long on declarative statements and short on nuance. One of many such lists devoted to President Barack Obama touts his economic accomplishments in office. While the statements it contains are basically true, it behooves the reader to bear in mind that 1.) it's a short list, and 2.) most of the items benefit, accuracy-wise, from a little added context. "Biggest job growth in manufacturing since the '90s" It's accurate, as far as it goes, to say that Obama presided over the largest spurt of manufacturing job growth since the 1990s, but how remarkable is that, really? As illustrated in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics graph below, the six-year period from 2010 to 2016 saw the largest sustained increase in manufacturing jobs since 1998 (more than 800,000 added), but what it also shows is how deep a trough manufacturing labor had fallen into over the previous decade, and how depressed it remains to this day, despite a modicum of improvement. "Auto industry breaking sales records" Nothing to quibble with here. According to statistics compiled by Autodata, U.S. car sales have increased steadily every year since 2009, and in 2015 set an all-time record of 17.47 million vehicles sold. statistics "Clean energy production doubled" Partly true. Certain kinds of "clean energy" production have doubled during Obama's tenure in office, but others haven't -- hydroelectric power, for example, which is our largest single source of renewable energy. U.S. Energy Information Agency statistics show that the production of hydroelectricity has actually decreased somewhat since 2010, though we do, in fact, produce twice as much clean energy from other sources such as solar, wind and biomass today (300 million megawatthours) as we did in 2009 (150 million megawatthours). statistics "Unemployment cut in half" True. Between 2010 and 2016 the unemployment rate dropped from about 10 percent to about 5 percent, as illustrated in this Bureau of Labor graph: Which is indeed a 50 percent drop, although, once again, our starting point for comparison is the peak of the Great Recession, when the unemployment rate was at a 20-year high. Perhaps the more impressive statistic is that at 5 percent, the current unemployment rate is below the historical median since 1948 of of 5.5 percent. "Deficit cut by three-quarters" True, provided that the starting point for comparison is fiscal year 2009, when Obama's stimulus program pushed the deficit to $1.4 trillion. Given that the 2015 deficit was $439 billion, a drop of about three-quarters from what it was in 2009, the claim holds water. If, however, one compares 2015 to 2008, when the deficit was about $459 billion, the reduction is relatively inconsequential. "Stock market tripled" True, and then some. As of August 2015, the S&P 500 was up 220 percent over 2009, Nasdaq was up 313 percent and the Dow was up 185 percent from its 2009 low. up 220 percent "And he did it all with Republicans obstructing" What's in question here is not so much whether the Republicans did or did not obstruct whether you call it "obstructing" or "opposing Obama's liberal agenda," they've done so throughout his administration but to what extent Obama "did it all." It's standard political practice for the incumbent to claim credit for economic good news (and blame opponents for the bad), but how much credit does Obama actually deserve for this list of "accomplishments"? On balance, the answer is probably some, but not all. "After all," writes Ben Smith in Politico.com, "the $18 trillion U.S. economy is a massive beast that rises and falls on tectonic forces well beyond the reach of short-term Washington policy changes." writes Some of the early moves by the Obama administration clearly helped get us to where we are right now, especially the government being the spender of last resort after the crisis, said Beth Ann Bovino, chief U.S. economist at Standard & Poors. But the Federal Reserve also played a very big role. And this is also the natural shape of a slow recovery from a deep financial crisis and recession that is finally getting some traction. Burden, Melissa and Wayland, Michael. "Auto Industry Sets All-Time Sales Record in 2015." The Detroit News. 5 January 2016. Long, Heather. "Alarmed by Stocks? 5 Charts Break it Down." CNNMoney. 25 August 2015. Smith, Ben. "An Obama Boom?" Politico.com. 9 January 2015. "Energy in Brief." U.S. Energy Information Administration. 5 May 2016.