ID
stringlengths 10
13
| claim
stringlengths 7
306
| posted
stringlengths 10
10
| sci_digest
sequencelengths 0
3
| justification
stringlengths 396
32.8k
| issues
sequencelengths 1
10
| image_data
listlengths 0
16
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FMD_test_1200 | Robbers Throwing Eggs at Cars | 06/17/2015 | [
"Rumor: Robbers are flinging eggs at cars to impair drivers' vision and force them to stop."
] | Claim: Robbers are flinging eggs at cars to impair drivers' vision and force them to stop. Examples: [Collected via Facebook, June 2015] Posted by Michelle Shel-lee Seibel on Monday, June 15, 2015 Michelle Shel-lee Seibel Monday, June 15, 2015 [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] Please take this seriously! If you are driving at night and are attacked with eggs, do not operate the wiper and spray and water. Because eggs mixed with water become milky and block your vision up to 92.5% Then you are forced to stop at the road side and become a victim of robbers. This is a new technique used by robbers in Johor Bahru. Please inform your friends and relatives!! If you are driving at night and eggs are thrown at your windshield. Do not operate the wiper and spray any water because eggs mixed with water become milky and block your vision up to 92.5% so you are forced to stop at the roadside and become a victim of robbers. This is a new technique used by robbers. Please inform your friends and relatives. This also happens on interstates near exits. Origins: Breathless e-mailed warnings about the (usually false) latest ways in which thieves are purported to be getting motorists to pull over so they can be preyed upon are nothing new: a few we've previously documented include claims that gangs of robbers were placing tire-puncturing spikes in shopping mall parking lots, or affixing plastic baskets spikes baskets to the undersides of targeted vehicles (thereby prompting drivers to stop to investigate the noise), pouring sugar into gas tanks, festooning cars' windshields with flyers, and even acting drunk or as if they'd been struck by other cars. sugar flyers drunk Our first sighting of this November 2009 warning about eggs being thrown at windshields was a 29 October 2009 YahooGroups mail list post. That earlier version, while it also asserted the claim of water mixed with raw egg's obscuring a windshield and bruited the (absurdly precise) 92.5% figure, differed from what has become the canonical form of the warning in that it stated motorists so attacked would become prey to "robbers/carnappers" and recommended those so assaulted instead drive to "a well lit place w/ many people or nearest police station" rather than stop. Later forms of the e-mail added further flourishes, such as "used by robbers" morphing into "used by robbers in Johor Bahru" (the capital city of Johor in southern Malaysia), the addition of the claim that these attacks "happens on interstates near exits," and most commonly the inclusion of this new paragraph which blames matters on the flagging economy: "Folks are becoming more and more cruel daily. But this is just the beginning of pangs of distress. With the decline in economy and job losses, we can expect anything. Just can't be too careful these days." Though we've queried our police contacts and scoured news reports looking for accounts of robberies and carjackings effected by disabling target vehicles by pelting them with raw eggs, we weren't able to find any such occurrences in the U.S. Rather, we did locate news stories about police cars so pelted, with the officers retaliating by giving chase to the miscreants who'd thrown eggs at them. In various news accounts we found, officers not only were able to see well enough through their poultrified windows to go after the bad guys, they succeeded in running them to ground and bringing them to justice. Most tellingly, such accounts made no mention of the gendarmes so assaulted experiencing difficulty in seeing well enough through their egged windshields to give chase. While a mixture of raw egg and water vigorously stirred together in a glass will produce a somewhat milky-looking liquid (which might be the source of this tale), there's nothing about the interaction of egg and water that renders the resulting combination into a substance guaranteed to completely block a driver's vision. Egg alone or egg-and-water solutions are thin liquids and so are relatively easy to see through, with the vehicle's wipers generally sweeping away the worst of the mess fairly easily. Moreover, it would take a number of extremely well-placed eggs (a hen's typical offerings aren't that big) to splat a windshield so thoroughly as to completely impair the driver's view and force him to stop immediately unless the visibility conditions were already poor, a motorist with a splattered windshield would generally still be able to see well enough to continue driving out of range of the egg-throwing hooligans to a safe stopping place. Certainly miscreants have long engaged in the practice of launching objects (rocks, eggs, firecrackers, paintballs) at moving cars in order to startle motorists into stopping and getting out of their automobiles (typically as a prank, but sometimes as a means of setting up the theft of a vehicle and/or the driver's possessions), but that information is neither new nor shocking. Variations: A March 2010 version combined the "eggs baby A November 2012 version included this photograph of a car's windshield that had some sort of white spatter upon it that looked to us to be white paint: Barbara "pitched battle" Mikkelson Last updated: 17 June 2015 Hoober, John. "Egg Tossed at Cruiser Leads to Chase, Crash." Lancaster New Era. 3 December 2008 (p. A1). | [
"economy"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=13gSery6JkSx9DtjtUm8jgrL3wE5YJs7O",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1201 | Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years. | 05/08/2019 | [] | Infrastructure is one of Gov. Mike Parsons top priorities in the 100th legislative session, and some representatives have followed suit. House Budget Chairman Rep. Cody Smith, R-Carthage, presented a budget plan to fund road and bridge improvements throughout the state. Smith said his plan would fund the infrastructure improvements without raising taxes or accruing new debt. Smith wanted to do this by appropriating funds from general revenue to state infrastructure instead of taking out more bonds. Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years, Smith wrote in a Capitol report sent by his office. Has the Missouri Department of Transportation really paid more than $700 million in debt payments in the last two years? Lets take a look at the numbers Documents from MoDOTshow that his numbers are on point. MoDOTs 2018 Financial Snapshot shows the department paid a little more than that, totaling $702 million in 2017 and 2018. My preference is to avoid debt when possible, Smith said. But, the debt paid doesnt tell the whole story. The department paid $412 million in debt in 2017. The departments average payment since 2004 is about $242 million a year. The number was higher in 2017 than past years because the agency paid off some of its debt early. In 2017, $117.8 million of bonds were paid off early, saving future interest costs of $29.4 million, said Sally Oxenhandler, MoDOT interim spokeswoman. This helped inflate Smiths point when he said MoDOTs debt reached more than $700 million in just two years. This graph of MoDOTs borrowed funds and annual payments helps visualize the amount of debt MoDOT paid in 2017, compared to debt payments in the past. (Look for the mountain peak.) Graph courtesy of MoDOTs Financial Snapshot, November 2018 Compared to other state transportation departments, Missouri does not have a lot of debt, said Todd Grosvener, MoDOT assistant financial services director. Still, Smith wants to limit the state department accruing any more debt. Keeping our road funds stable over the coming years is of the utmost importance, Smith said. When MoDOT takes on more debt, it has fewer dollars to improve our roads and bridges. What is the borrowed money used for? The borrowed funds were and are still being used for hundreds of road and bridge projects throughout Missouri, the agency said. The department borrowed the most money in 2010 when it took on an additional $100 million to replace the Mississippi River Bridge in St. Louis. In 2010, the department also borrowed $685 million for theSafe and Sound Bridge Improvement Program. This three-and-a-half-year project replaced or rehabilitated more than 800 bridges across the state. On behalf of the House of Representatives, Ill be keeping a close eye on the amount of debt the state takes on to improve and maintain our transportation infrastructure, Smith said. Smith said, Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years. His numbers match MoDOTs records. They need clarification, however, because MoDOT paid off a big chunk of debt early, in order to avoid more interest accumulation. Because the statement is accurate and needs clarification, we rate the statement Mostly True. | [
"State Budget",
"Transportation",
"Missouri"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1-SLQ1-7wo9rVb7Pp9sitj5TLvzp-LoqR",
"image_caption": "Graph courtesy of MoDOTs Financial Snapshot, November 2018"
}
] |
FMD_test_1202 | Mark Zuckerberg Promises $1,000 to Facebook Users If They Don't Share Hoaxes | 10/19/2016 | [
"Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's offering money to Facebook users who don't share social media hoaxes is itself a parody of social media hoaxes."
] | On 31 December 2015, the British spoof and satire website NewsThump posted an article parodying the numerous Facebook-related hoaxes that have been prevalent on social media, such as rumors that the social media giant will make all private posts public or that the company's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, is giving away money to users who share a particular message. The article claims that Zuckerberg has promised every Facebook user $1,000, but only if everyone stops sharing ridiculous hoaxes on his social network. This move comes after timelines have become inundated with absurd claims shared by people naive enough to think they could earn money for doing nothing but sharing a Facebook post. Zuckerberg is said to have implemented a new algorithm to track hoaxes and will make the payment to all Facebook users on the first of February if no new hoaxes are identified. Social media being what it is, an image from that spoof was circulated outside the context of the article, which led some Facebook users to inquire about whether what it said was true or not. NewsThump describes itself as "Topical news satire from the UK and around the world. Never letting the truth ruin a good story." The spoof includes another made-up quote from "Simone Williams," which alludes to another type of rampant Facebook post: scams involving fake offers of merchandise giveaways. "It's a good offer, but I've got one here where I can get a new Range Rover, and all I have to do is share this Facebook post from a dodgy-looking page. I'd really hate to miss out if this one is real." | [
"share"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=16vhw3BumB5A6Hd9s8orhGS9oZ5H_UVBc",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1203 | The Inland Empire is the second fastest growing region for jobs in California. | 07/27/2017 | [] | Californiasworkforce of 19 millionis spread across distinct metro regions, from tech-heavy Silicon Valley to the agricultural powerhouses of Fresno and Bakersfield, to the movie studios of Los Angeles. Less talked about are the nearly two million who work in the states Inland Empire. Its home to more than 4.5 million people in sprawling San Bernardino and Riverside counties east of Los Angeles. Lt. Gov.Gavin Newsom, a Democratic candidate for governor, recently claimed this region of high desert and valley communities is among the leaders in California job growth. The Inland Empire is the second fastest growing region in California, Newsom said in an interview on MSNBCsMorning Joeon July 12, 2017. Its about logistics, warehousing, transportation. Newsom makes his claim at about the 2:00 minute mark above. We took Newsoms statement to mean the Inland Empire has the states second fastest job growth rate because the lieutenant governor went on to talk about statewide job growth immediately after making this claim. Newsoms comments follow Gov. Jerry Browns recent claim on NBCsMeet the Pressthat Californias Central Valley and Inland Empire are experiencing tremendous job growth. We examined that claim and rated itMostly True. Still, we wondered whether Newsom was right. We set out on a fact check. Our research Asked for evidence to support the claim, Newsoms spokesman cited research from John Husing, chief economist with the InlandEmpire EconomicPartnership. The industry group advocates for jobs creation in the region. The spokesman specifically pointed to a section of HusingsApril 2017report that found the Inland Empires 3.47% growth rate in 2016 was second to San Francisco (4.16%). The report went on to say the region added the second most total jobs of any in the state, 47,500, behind Los Angeles 109,000 and ahead of San Franciscos 43,800. These figures back up Newsoms claim. His statement also holds when looking at job growth rates over the past five years. In April 2017, Jeffrey Michael, director of the Center for Business and Policy Research at the University of the Pacific in Stockton, compiled data showing job growth rates by metro area. The Inland Empire had the fastest job growth rate over the past year at that time, 3.2 percent, and the second fastest rate, 22.3 percent, over the past five years. The economists analyzed data from the California Employment Development Department. Types of jobs Newsoms claim about the rapid pace of job growth appears on the money. But what about the type of jobs he described: logistics, warehousing, transportation ? Husing told us this description was also on the right track. With the explosion of e-commerce, developers have seized on the Inland Empires vast and affordable stretches of land to build warehouses for products shipped through ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach. More than 60,600 distribution and transportation jobs have been added in the Inland Empire since its rebound from the Great Recession in 2010, Husing said. In addition, nearly 46,000 construction jobs; about 25,000 healthcare jobs and 15,000 manufacturing positions have been created. Logistics, transportation and construction are overwhelmingly the sectors that are driving the growth, the economist said. Husing described most of these positions as blue collar jobs. In April, Husing described in more depth the Inland Empires wage picture. He said it had a lower share of high-paying administrative jobs compared with the state as a whole. But, he said, the region was outperforming the state in its share of middle-class jobs that pay between $45,000 and $60,000. Our ruling Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom recently claimed the Inland Empire is the second fastest growing region in California. We took Newsoms claim to mean it has the second fastest job growth rate. Data compiled by two leading economists back up Newsoms assertion. It shows the Inland Empires nearly 3.5 percent jobs growth rate in 2016 was second only to San Franciscos 4.16 percent. Figures over the past five years show the Inland Empire grew jobs at 22.3 percent, again second only to the San Francisco market. The lieutenant governor was also correct to describe these Inland Empire jobs as based in the transportation and distribution sectors, based on data from the economists. We rate Newsoms claim True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. | [
"Economy",
"Jobs",
"The 2018 California Governor's Race",
"Transportation",
"California"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1i5Hc-XzafCYpoCK8jlLXQ6aitO9Tx4Jr",
"image_caption": "Morning Joe"
}
] |
FMD_test_1204 | Is this Really an Electric Car From 1905? | 07/10/2017 | [
"A photograph of the vehicle is real, but misdated."
] | With a rise of interest in "green energy" fueling the expansion of automobile companies such as Tesla, one might assume that the electric car is a relatively recent invention. A photograph purportedly showing an electric vehicle from 1905, however, suggests otherwise: Charging an electric car, 1905. Follow us on Instagram https://t.co/lZW5cbBPnP pic.twitter.com/ABWshJASpn https://t.co/lZW5cbBPnP pic.twitter.com/ABWshJASpn History Lovers Club (@historylvrsclub) July 10, 2017 July 10, 2017 This is a genuine photograph of an electric car charging in the early 1900s. However, according to the Library of Congress, this picture was taken several years later than claimed in 1919, not 1905 and shows a Detroit Electric charging up between stops on a promotional tour between Seattle and Mt. Ranier in August 1919: Library of Congress tour Mt. Ranier The plugged-in car featured in the photo which initially caught my eye was a Detroit Electric, a vehicle produced by the Anderson Electric Car Company from 1907 to 1939. The photo is part of a group of promotional images showing the auto on a trip from Seattle to Mount Rainier. Other photographs from the group show the car wending its way through the mountains of Washington. Here are two more images showing this early electric car on its first promotional tour: images The photographs also don't show the world's first electric car, just an early one; London inventor Thomas Parker claimed to have produced an electric powered vehicle as early as 1884. Here's a photograph of Parker in one of his earlier models: photograph Sitting aboard is Thomas Parker, who was responsible for innovations such as electrifying the London Underground, overhead tramways in Liverpool and Birmingham, and the smokeless fuel coalite. Stoner, Julie. "Caught Our Eyes: Its Electric!"
The Library of Congress. 12 April 2017. The Telegraph. "World's First Electric Car Built by Victorian Inventor in 1884."
24 April 2009. | [
"interest"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1LJy_n0N3Yitp8U32E5Z-NjIxXXmJhY-z",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1DvwBfEAVlggCyDtjJwg0jemAcTXA3o_L",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1205 | Was the NYC Veterans Day Parade in 1995 "saved" by Donald Trump? | 11/13/2019 | [
"Trump reportedly donated $200,000 and helped raise another $500,000 for the \"Nation's Parade.\""
] | A story from 1995 resurfaced around Veterans Day 2019, reporting that then-private citizen and real estate mogul Donald Trump had "saved" the Veterans Day parade that year in New York City when organizers ran out of money. On Nov. 6, 2019, for example, the Daily Caller News Foundation website published a story bearing the headline, "The 1995 NYC Veterans Day Parade Had $1.21 In The Bank. Then Donald Trump Stepped In." A meme circulating on Facebook similarly described Trump's intervention:This claim apparently originated with Trump himself, or at least it was touted on his campaign website in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. The website at the time stated: headline campaign website Mr. Trump has long been a devoted supporter of veteran causes. In 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of World War II, only 100 spectators watched New York Citys Veteran Day Parade. It was an insult to all veterans. Approached by Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the chief of New York Citys FBI office, Mr. Trump agreed to lead as Grand Marshall a second parade later that year. Mr. Trump made a $1 million matching donation to finance the Nations Day Parade. On Saturday, November 11th, over 1.4 million watched as Mr. Trump marched down Fifth Avenue with more than 25,000 veterans, some dressed in their vintage uniforms. A month later, Mr. Trump was honored in the Pentagon during a lunch with the Secretary of Defense and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. First off, Trump's website contained some confusing pieces of misinformation: The Veterans Day parade in New York City went by the name the "Nation's Parade." The poorly attended parade "with only 100 spectators" occurred in 1994, not 1995 (The New York Times reported police did not give a crowd estimate). Only one Veteran's Day parade took place in the city in 1995 the Nation's Parade on Nov. 11. That event was slated by the U.S. Defense Department as representing "the official close of the 50th anniversary of World War II." reported We contacted the United War Veterans of New York (UWNY), which organized the Nation's Parade in 1995, to ask about claims that Trump's intervention saved the event from cancellation, and we were referred by spokesman Pat Smith to a Nov. 10, 1995, New York Times article about the event. Smith told us that Trump did make a financial contribution toward the parade, but also said UWNY is a small, volunteer-staffed group that doesn't keep records that could answer questions in detail about an event that occurred more than two decades ago. article The 1995 Times article reported that Trump did make a financial contribution, but that he tried to make it in exchange for being named the parade's grand marshal even though he is not a veteran. The Times reported Trump gave $200,000, not $1 million: By mid-August, organizers had a bank account of exactly $1.21. A request to airlines to donate blankets for aging veterans was turned down because logos might not be visible on television. Then Donald Trump, a nonveteran, agreed to throw in $200,000 as well as raise money from his friends, in exchange for being named grand marshal. Since then, money has come in, though not enough to meet the original budget, which was reduced from $2.9 million to $2.4 million. Fireworks were just one of many cuts. In May 2016, CNN spoke to Vincent McGowan, the president emeritus of UWNY who organized the parade in 1995. McGowan said that Trump's contribution was "somewhere between $325,000 and $375,000," but McGowan also said Trump's donation did save the event. McGowan also said Trump was never the grand marshal because that honor was only given to military veterans. CNN In a follow-up story, the Times in 1995 reported that organizers had agreed to make Trump the parade's grand marshal, a move that had angered some veterans, while others expressed appreciation for his "crucial" financial assistance: reported Also in the reviewing stand was the developer Donald Trump, who provided the only note of controversy in an otherwise positive day. Many veterans were angry that organizers had agreed to name Mr. Trump, who is not a veteran, as grand marshal in exchange for his contribution of $200,000 and help in raising additional funds. Another story, dated Nov. 11, 1995, from the news service UPI, reported that Trump contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000 for the parade, which was viewed by parade Director Tom Fox as having been key: UPI Police estimated 500,000 people attended the largest military parade ever held in New York. Organizers, who placed the turnout at closer to a million, said the parade would not have been a success if it hadn't been for real estate developer Donald Trump, who contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000. "Donald Trump saved the parade," said parade director Tom Fox, himself a Vietnam veteran. "We had asked for donations from 200 corporations, and none of them came through," he said. "This donation is the single most important thing I've ever done," said a beaming Trump. "This is more important than all of my buildings and my casinos. This is my way of saying thank you to all the men and women in the armed services who have made it possible for me to become a success. Without them freedom and liberty would be gone." In sum, we are rating this claim "True" because two individuals involved with the planning of the 1995 parade stated on two separate occasions that Trump's efforts and donation did indeed enable the event to take place. Still unclear are the origins of other sources of funding. Martin, Douglas."Veterans Day Parade Tries for a Comeback."
The New York Times.10 November 1995. Fitzpatrick, David and Curt Devine."Trump Will Give $1 Million to Marine Charity, but There Are Other Discrepancies."
CNN.25 May 2016. McFadden, Robert D. "On Parade To the Beat of History."
The New York Times.12 November 1995. UPI."More Than 500,000 Watch Nation's Parade."
11 November 1995. | [
"budget"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1D2EsV0dfQ14QGlN-t_03YchmxB0ylRVe",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1206 | My company was building the Keystone Pipeline when (President Joe) Biden canceled it. | 07/21/2022 | [
"Michels Corporation, the construction company Tim Michels co-owns, was awarded a contract to build eight pump stations in the United States for the Keystone XL pipeline., It was awarded another contract to build around half of the Canadian portion of the pipeline., Construction of the pump stations was likely nearing completion and construction of the segment of the pipelines Canadian portion was likely one-third complete when President Biden canceled the construction permit for the pipeline in January 2021., In total, however, only about 8% of the pipeline had been built when President Biden canceled the permit."
] | On his first day in office, President Joe Biden put the final nail in the coffin of the Keystone XL pipeline when he revoked its construction permit via an executive order. Several months later, in June 2021, TC Energy Corporation announced the termination of the project, bringing an end to more than a decade of debate and legislative back-and-forth. The Keystone XL pipeline would have been an extension of the Keystone pipeline, an existing structure that brings tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada, to storage and distribution facilities in Cushing, Oklahoma, and eventually to refineries in Texas. The extension would have boosted this by carrying an additional 830,000 barrels per day from Alberta to Steele City, Nebraska. Environmental activists, Indigenous communities, and climate change experts hailed Biden's decision to cancel the pipeline, which could have damaged sacred sites, caused pollution and water contamination, imperiled wildlife, and dramatically contributed to carbon emissions. However, the decision was heavily criticized by many Republicans, including U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, former Vice President Mike Pence, and most recently, Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Tim Michels, who had a personal stake in the matter. On June 23, 2022, Michels tweeted: "My company was building the Keystone Pipeline when Biden canceled it. Both he and Tony Evers are making us all pay the price. I'll stand by Wisconsinites and ensure you keep more of your hard-earned dollars as your next governor." He made another claim in a video posted with the tweet: "Biden killed hundreds of jobs, sent gas prices way up, making everything more expensive." We rated that Mostly False. Michels is the co-owner of Michels Corporation, an energy and infrastructure contractor headquartered in Brownsville, Wisconsin, with locations across the United States and Canada. In an email to PolitiFact Wisconsin, TC Energy confirmed that Michels Corp. had been awarded a significant construction scope on the Keystone XL pipeline for both the pipeline and facilities. Michels Corp. provided more details in an email: Michels Pipeline, a division of Michels Corporation, received a contract related to the Keystone XL pipeline to construct pumping stations. Michels Canada Co. received another contract in Canada to help build the mainline pipeline of the Keystone XL pipeline. According to a post on Michels Corp.'s website from September 2020, Michels Corp. was awarded a contract from TC Energy to construct eight pump stations for the pipeline in Montana, South Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas. Pump stations are facilities along a pipeline that maintain the flow and pressure of oil as it is being transported. They were one type of ancillary facility required for the Keystone XL project, which would have traversed through Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Oklahoma and Texas, however, are part of the existing Keystone pipeline structure, so some of the pump stations Michels Corp. was constructing may not have been for the Keystone XL pipeline. The post stated that construction on the eight pump stations started in late June 2020 and was scheduled for completion in the first quarter of 2021. It also mentioned that the company would employ more than 350 workers at peak construction. According to a June 2020 post on Michels Canada's website, Michels Canada was awarded a contract from TC Energy to construct approximately 260 kilometers (about 162 miles) of the pipeline in Alberta. An ATC Energy fact sheet about the Canadian portion of the pipeline stated it would be approximately 530 kilometers (about 329 miles) from Hardisty, Alberta, to Monchy, Saskatchewan. Thus, Michels Canada would have constructed about half of the Canadian portion of the pipeline. The full pipeline was to run around 1,200 miles. Michels Corporation was clearly a significant part of building the pipeline, but as stated, readers might think it was the primary or even sole contractor. The post indicated that Michels Canada was projected to hire 1,000 workers each year of the two-year construction period, which was scheduled to begin in the summer of 2020 near Oyen, Alberta, and finish in the spring of 2022 near Hardisty, Alberta. At the time Biden canceled the permit for the pipeline on January 20, 2021, Michels Corp.'s construction of eight pump stations in the U.S. was likely nearing completion. Michels Canada's construction of its segment of the pipeline's Canadian portion was likely about one-third complete. According to Reuters, only about 8% of the planned Keystone XL pipeline had been built by the time President Biden canceled the permit. In a tweet, Michels claimed his company was building the Keystone Pipeline when Biden canceled it. The way it was stated could leave readers thinking his company was fully responsible for the pipeline. Additionally, some of the pump stations his campaign and company cited are apparently tied to the existing portion of the pipeline, indicating a lack of precision. However, Michels is correct that his company had a significant role in the pipeline project. We rate the claim Mostly True. | [
"Economy",
"Energy",
"Gas Prices",
"Jobs",
"Wisconsin"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1207 | Michelle Obama volunteering at a soup kitchen | 06/14/2009 | [
"Photograph shows Michelle Obama serving a government funded soup kitchen meal to a person with an expensive cell phone?"
] | Claim: Photograph shows Michelle Obama serving a government funded soup kitchen meal to a person with an expensive cell phone. REAL PHOTOGRAPH; INACCURATE DESCRIPTION Examples: [Collected via e-mail, June 2009] Recently Michelle Obama went to serve food to the homeless at a government funded soup kitchen. Cost of a bowl of soup at homeless shelter: $0.00 dollars Having Michelle Obama Serve you your soup: $0.00 dollars Snapping a picture of a homeless person who is receiving a government funded meal while taking a picture of the first lady using his $500 Black Berry cell phone and $100.00 per month cellular service: Priceless Origins: The above-displayed photograph is genuine, a snapshot taken on an occasion in March 2009 when Michelle Obama spent some time serving lunch to men and women at Miriam's Kitchen, a social service agency in Washington D.C., as part of the First Lady's effort to "spotlight local organizations, connect with the city and help those in need amid the economic crisis." However, all the assumptions and implications of the text accompanying this picture are incorrect or unsubstantiated. To wit: The photograph does not depict anyone "receiving a government funded meal": Miriam's Kitchen is a privately funded organization with the goal of "providing individualized services that address the causes andconsequences of homelessness in an atmosphere of dignity and respect"; it is not government run or taxpayer funded. Miriam's Kitchen A cell phone capable of capturing images (even a BlackBerry Pearl) is not necessarily a "$500 phone" with a "$100 per month cellular service." Many much more affordable options are available, including cellular providers who give free phones to low-income customers under the Lifeline assistance program. So a homeless person might very well carry a cell phone, as Scott Schenkelberg, the Executive Director of Miriam's Kitchen, observed when questioned about this photograph during an interview: BlackBerry Pearl affordable Lifeline interview Q: Since the First Lady's visit, both your guests and your food have been the subject of some criticism within the blogosphere. For example, some critics noted thatone of your guests had a cell phone and suggested that it was inappropriate to serve free food to someone who could afford a cell phone. A: I suspect some people don't understand how inexpensive cell phones are, or how critical they are to this population. These days, you can purchase a cell phone at 7-11 for $10, then pay for minutes as you go. Our clients have a very fragile safety net. Many of them don't have shelter and are extremely vulnerable. For them, cell phones could literally be a lifeline. If they're looking for a job, the cell phone would also be incredibly important can you even imagine trying to apply for a job without a phone number? Cell phones simply aren't luxuries anymore. If a guest can scrape together some money to purchase a cell phone, I think that's wonderful. The assumption that a truly homeless person wouldn't have (or couldn't afford) a cell phone is also a mistaken one. As Scott Schenkelberg noted, the ranks of the homeless served by organizations such as Miriam's Kitchen include not just the long-term, chronically homeless, but also the "newly homeless": those who had recently been getting by economically until a sudden job loss or other reversal left them with nowhere to go: Until recently, we served mostly the chronically homeless, people who had fallen out of the economy long ago. More recently, we've been seeing more new faces, people who just fell into homelessness or other hard times. These people are generally high-functioning individuals who were hurt by the poor economy. It's very troubling to see previously self-sufficient people coming to Miriam's Kitchen in such high numbers. Last updated: 16 June 2009 Sweet, Lynn. "Can Michelle Influence what We Eat, Too?" Chicago Sun-Times. 6 March 2009 (p. C10). Associated Press. "First Lady Puts Service on the Menu." The Australian. 7 March 2009. | [
"loss"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1rnEgth7JksTt63ZFeMUo27mzvdrmhPW4",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1208 | Austin, deemed the safest major city in Texas, boasts an unemployment rate of less than 3% and has been consecutively recognized as the top place to reside in the entire United States for two years in a row. | 04/26/2018 | [] | Austin Mayor Steve Adler, who is seeking a second term this November, reacted to a game-show moment with a swaggering claim. In an April 25, 2018, tweet, Adler responded to a clue from that night's episode of Jeopardy: "Per Rick Perry, it's the blueberry in the tomato soup." Perry, the Republican former governor, often offers the blueberry characterization of the Democrat-dominant capital. On the program, a contestant correctly answered "Austin" for $600. Next, Adler said in his tweet, accompanied by a photo of the Jeopardy clue: "What is the safest big city in Texas with an unemployment rate under 3% that has been named the best place to live in the entire United States two years running?" Is all of that true about Austin? Not entirely: In 2017, we found Half True an Adler reference to Austin as the state's safest big city. Not for the first time, we noted then that the FBI advises against using crime data it collects to declare one city safer than another. That said, such statistics at the time suggested that the five-county Austin region in 2015 had a lower violent-crime rate than other Texas regions and that El Paso had a lower violent-crime rate than Austin in the first half of 2016.
Seeking the mayor's factual backup, the morning after Adler posted his comment, which was retweeted more than 200 times, we reached mayoral spokesman Jason Stanford. Stanford advised by phone that Adler didn't have fresh information to offer in support of his 2018 safest big city in Texas statement. He suggested we check federal statistics to confirm Austin's jobless rate and told us that U.S. News had consecutively named Austin the nation's best place to live.
Checking Austin's unemployment, our search for Austin's jobless rate on the Texas Workforce Commission website showed that from January through March 2018, the latest month of available data, the city's jobless rate ran shy of 3 percent. We also fetched a longer view showing the city's jobless rate mostly staying below 3 percent from January 2017 on (all the rates not seasonally adjusted). Austin's unemployment rate was last above 3 percent, according to the TWC, when it was 3.1 percent in August 2017. The Austin rate's 15-month low, 2.5 percent, occurred in December 2017.
On April 10, 2018, U.S. News announced that for the second straight year, the online publication found Austin the best place to live in the United States among the country's 125 largest metropolitan areas; Colorado Springs, Colo., placed second. The rankings were based on affordability, job prospects, and quality of life, U.S. News said, and on surveying thousands of U.S. residents to find out what qualities they consider important in a hometown. The methodology, U.S. News said, also factored in data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the FBI, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics—plus U.S. News rankings of the country's high schools and hospitals. Austin, the self-proclaimed Live Music Capital of the World, earned a score of 7.7 out of 10 for the 2018 rankings, U.S. News said, with even its few downsides having upsides. The story states: "The median sale price for a single-family home in Austin is well above the national median." Then again, the story notes, Austinites' pocketbooks benefit from no personal or corporate income tax and a low state and local tax rate. Another semi-warning in the story: "Summers in Austin take some getting used to, with temperatures often scorching." Though, the story adds, the metro area experiences mild weather throughout the rest of the year, temperatures have been known to drop in the winter. The story also notes: "Austin is among the nation's worst metro areas for traffic congestion." But, the story suggests, that can be addressed with flexible work schedules, due diligence when choosing a neighborhood, and, for those wanting to get in some exercise while commuting, using public transportation, walking, and biking.
Our ruling: Adler referred to Austin as the safest big city in Texas with an unemployment rate under 3% that has been named the best place to live in the entire United States two years running. He was correct about Austin's jobless rate of late and Austin being named the city's best place to live two years in a row, though it's worth clarifying that the rankings considered only the country's 125 largest metro areas. Whether Austin is the safest big Texas city rests on interpreting crime data the FBI counsels against using to compare communities. That said, we previously found that the five-county Austin region in 2015 had a lower violent-crime rate than other Texas regions, while in the first half of 2016, El Paso had a lower violent-crime rate than Austin. On balance, we rate this Adler claim Mostly True. | [
"City Government",
"Economy",
"History",
"Crime",
"Texas"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1BudE3uZIxnKsQMAMY6H2CM9-M35Xb56X",
"image_caption": "SOURCE:"
}
] |
FMD_test_1209 | Scam for Target and Walmart Refrigerators and Ovens Hits Facebook | 08/16/2022 | [
"We strongly recommend sharing this article with any family members or friends who might be susceptible to falling for this potentially dangerous scam."
] | On Aug. 16, 2022, we received mail from our readers that asked if Facebook pages named Target Fans and Walmart Fans were legitimately giving away or donating hundreds of refrigerators and ovens. The truth was that these pages were nothing more than the first step of potentially dangerous survey scams. The scammers appeared to be based in Indonesia. The posts showed pictures of refrigerators and ovens (ranges) with the caption, "We are happy to announce that we will be donating 670 refrigerators and cookers which cannot be sold due to a few scratches and minor damage, all machines are in working order, so we will send them randomly to someone who writes 'DONE' before August 19th!" A search of Facebook for the words Target Fans and the lowercase and special characters ??????? ???? showed dozens of pages that were hosting the survey scams. Target Fans ??????? ???? Survey scams like the one for the Target refrigerators giveaway are a specific kind of ruse. They promise big prizes up front, but then lead to a seemingly endless number of surveys with other tantalizing prizing promises, such as a $750 transfer via the mobile finance app, Cash App. Usually, the scammers who created the Facebook posts are hoping that users sign up for accounts on various websites that might land them small amounts of commission. Target At the same time, survey scams can also be quite dangerous, reported AARP.org: reported AARP.org Amid questions about the supposed subject, sham surveys solicit personal or financial information, such as a credit card number to pay a shipping fee for your prize something a legit survey will not do. They might trick you into signing up for a free trial offer thats actually a costly subscription for a dietary supplement or other product. Clicking on the link might also launch malware that can scrape sensitive data from your device. Either way, the scammers get information they can use for identity theft or sell on to other bad actors. Some major retailers, including Amazon and Walmart, do offer gift cards as prizes for customers who complete online surveys about their shopping experience, but those companies say they will never ask participants to provide sensitive data. We strongly advise readers to never click any links in offers that seem too good to be true. Also, we recommend sharing our article with family members or friends who might be susceptible to falling for this kind of a Target or Walmart Facebook scam. In sum, no, Target and Walmart weren't giving away or donating refrigerators or ovens on Facebook on pages named Target Fans and Walmart Fans. Walmart Facebook Source: Beware of Survey Scams That Require Personal Information. AARP, https://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/info-2021/survey.html. | [
"finance"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1JPDnLuDNcRSefswzAnHEsHtRZTEeYTsy",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1210 | What Is Cinco de Mayo? | 05/05/2015 | [
"The Cinco de Mayo holiday is not a celebration of Mexico's achieving independence from Spain, nor is it a major holiday in Mexico."
] | Cinco de Mayo and St. Patrick's Day share many common elements from an American perspective: Although neither is a legal holiday in the United States, they are both nonetheless widely observed as celebrations of another nation's culture, both occasions are marked with parties featuring national music and cuisine (and involving a good deal of drinking), both events have become heavily commercialized, and most Americans have little idea what either holiday is actually about. St. Patrick's Day little idea either holiday Many Americans mistakenly believe that Cinco de Mayo ("May 5th") is the Mexican equivalent of the United States' Fourth of July holiday a date marking the official casting off of colonial rule via the announcement of a new independent country. However, the Mexican version of Independence Day is celebrated on September 16, for it was on that date in 1810 that the commencement of the war for Mexican independence from Spanish rule was pronounced in the small town of Dolores by Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla -- an event now referred to as the "Grito de Dolores" ("Cry of Dolores") or "El Grito de la Independencia". Grito What Cinco de Mayo really commemorates is the Mexican victory against French forces led by Emperor Napoleon III in the Battle of Puebla, which took place on 5 May 1862. The French had invaded Mexico at Veracruz in 1861 (while the United States was preoccupied with its own Civil War) with the intent of establishing a dominance in Mexico that would favor French interests. After beating President Benito Jurez and his government into retreat, the French army moved on from Veracruz toward Mexico City, where they encountered heavy resistance from Mexican forces just outside the city of Puebla. Despite possessing an overpowering superiority in weaponry and numbers (6,000 well-armed French troops battled 2,000 poorly-equipped Mexican troops), the French were forced to retreat after a full day of fighting. Although the French later overran Puebla, conquered Mexico City, and installed Emperor Maximilian I as ruler of Mexico, the Mexican victory at the Battle of Puebla was celebrated for its importance in symbolizing Mexican unity, pride, and determination in the face of overwhelming odds. (The event is roughly equivalent in national lore to the American celebration of the Battle of the Alamo: although the Texan defenders of the Alamo Mission near San Antonio de Bxar were decisively defeated by Mexican forces in 1836, the tenacity and courage of the 200 or so combatants who fought to their deaths against about 1,800 Mexican troops served as inspiration for the Texan defeat of the Mexican Army at the Battle of San Jacinto a few months later.) The other common misconception about Cinco de Mayo among Americans is that if the holiday is so well known here in the U.S., it must be a really big deal in Mexico itself. But Cinco de Mayo is not a national holiday in Mexico: It is celebrated in Mexico, but it's only an official holiday in the Mexican states of Puebla and Veracruz, and the biggest Cinco de Mayo celebrations typically occur not in Mexico but in U.S. cities with large Hispanic populations such as Los Angeles. And just as St. Patrick's Day has long been observed throughout America in areas without significant Irish populations, Cinco de Mayo is now also commonly celebrated in towns across the U.S. that are predominantly non-Hispanic. | [
"share"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1_iHtFzS-Fa8B_zpxzqE-P5OA7ZPOR4-n",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1211 | Did US Intelligence Eliminate a Requirement That Whistleblowers Provide Firsthand Knowledge? | 10/01/2019 | [
"A conspiracy theory about the \"deep state\" got shared widely by the president and his supporters."
] | In September 2019, whistleblower allegations that U.S. President Donald Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine in an effort to obtain damaging information on a political rival led to an impeachment inquiry and an ongoing scandal. It wouldn't be the 2010s if the fallout didn't include a conspiracy theory circulating in the right-wing media ecosystem. In this case, the conspiracy theory was given a major platform in the form of a tweet by Trump that his supporters widely shared: "WHO CHANGED THE LONG STANDING WHISTLEBLOWER RULES JUST BEFORE SUBMITTAL OF THE FAKE WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT? DRAIN THE SWAMP!" Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 30, 2019. The claim originated on The Federalist website, which published a story on Sept. 27 that was not only inaccurate but also played on the "deep state" conspiracy theory, an idea now popular among both fringe fanatics and White House officials alike. It posits that U.S. intelligence agencies are scheming against Trump. The Federalist story implied that the intelligence community changed existing rules so that the "anti-Trump complaint" could be filed on Aug. 12 using secondhand information. "Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings," The Federalist reported. The story included purported screenshots of previous and current versions of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form. The current form allows the whistleblower to check a box indicating that the person either learned of the information firsthand or from others, whereas the previous form contained different language. But as Julian Sanchez, a senior fellow at the libertarian think tank Cato Institute, pointed out, even the previous version shown does not state that there was a requirement for whistleblowers to provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. The law has never required them to do so. Sanchez noted that the form contains a "description of the Inspector General's (IG) standard for making a credibility determination, as required by statute, within 14 days of the submission of a complaint. According to that guidance, the IG would not make a finding of credibility, and thus transmit the complaint to the [Director of National Intelligence], unless the DNI was in possession of direct evidence supporting the claim." It does not state, Sanchez continued, "that whistleblowers may not submit reports based on secondhand knowledge, but rather that such reports will not be escalated to the DNI unless the IG can obtain more." The Intelligence Community Inspector General's Office (ICIG) was forced to issue a statement on Sept. 30 correcting the record. The statement read, in part: "The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form the Complainant submitted on August 12, 2019, is the same form the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018, which went into effect before Inspector General [Michael] Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 29, 2018, following his swearing in as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community on May 17, 2018. Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute. In fact, by law, the Complainant or any individual in the Intelligence Community who wants to report information with respect to an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistleblower's lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations. In other words, the entire premise of The Federalist story is wrong. No requirement exists that whistleblowers provide firsthand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings, and changing the rules would have required an act of Congress. Tom Devine, legal director for the watchdog non-profit Government Accountability Project, called The Federalist story a "shameless legal bluff." "No bureaucrat has the lawful authority to change the rules of the game for whistleblower rights," Devine told us. "Not even the president can change that unilaterally." So how did the claim come about? It's true that the wording on an explanatory form for whistleblowers was changed, but the rules were not. The ICIG's statement notes that the wording was revised because "certain language in those forms and, more specifically, the informational materials accompanying the forms, could be read incorrectly as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees." Devine added that government whistleblowers who report allegations of wrongdoing based on hearsay are still valuable resources in ferreting out government waste, corruption, and wrongdoing. "If we restricted all credible government investigations to those with whistleblowers who have firsthand information, we'd cancel out 90% of law enforcement activity," Devine said. "Whistleblower investigations are routinely based on hearsay." The ICIG's Sept. 30 statement additionally noted that the whistleblower's complaint did not contain only secondhand, "unsubstantiated assertions." The whistleblower "checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, 'I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved'; and the second box stated that, 'Other employees have told me about events or records involved.'" In summary, the ICIG statement said: "[The] whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018. The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. From the moment the ICIG received the whistleblower's filing, the ICIG has worked to effectuate Congress's intent, and the whistleblower's intent, within the rule of law. The ICIG will continue in those efforts on behalf of all whistleblowers in the Intelligence Community." | [
"profit"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1ARwUAApZG4AYlMO-i-J8HNB5vJyRg2VX",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1212 | Did Donald Trump Remove the Terms 'LGBT' and 'Climate Change' from the White House Web Site? | 01/20/2017 | [
"While the U.S. presidency transitioned from Barack Obama to Donald Trump, rumors swirled that the latter removed the terms \"LGBT\" and \"climate change\" from the White House web site."
] | As Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States on 20 January 2017, many people noticed some considerable changes to the official White House web site at WhiteHouse.gov web site, such as the seeming removal of the terms "LGBT" and "climate change": noticed It is true that searching for these terms immediately after the inauguration returned no related results: However, it's inaccurate to say that these terms were specifically scrubbed from the site by Donald Trump. On 17 January 2017, WhiteHouse.gov issued an announcement explaining the digital transition that would take place on Inauguration Day. For instance, all of the messages posted by Barack Obama under the @POTUS handle on Twitter were transferred to a new @POTUS44 account, giving Donald Trump the opportunity to take over the previous presidential Twitter account @POTUS. announcement Twitter In the same way, the content related to the Obama administration on WhiteHouse.gov was migrated to a new web site, ObamaWhiteHouse.Archives.gov: Where you canaccess archival Obama White House content After January 20, 2017,materials will continue to be accessible on the platforms where they were created, allowing the public continued access to the content posted over the past eight years. WhiteHouse.gov becomes ObamaWhiteHouse.gov The Obama White House website which includes press articles, blog posts, videos, and photos will be available at ObamaWhiteHouse.gov, a site maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) beginning on January 20, 2017. If you are looking for a post or page on the Obama administrations WhiteHouse.gov from 2009 through 2017, you can find it by changing the URL to ObamaWhiteHouse.gov. For example, after the transition, this blog post will be available at ObamaWhiteHouse.gov/obama-administration-digital-transition-moving-forward. ObamaWhiteHouse.gov/obama-administration-digital-transition-moving-forward Content regarding the terms "LGBT" and "climate change" are still readily available on ObamaWhiteHouse.gov. ObamaWhiteHouse.gov As of this writing, Whitehouse.gov is sparsely populated. Its blog currently hosts one post (about the inaugural address), while pages for Press Briefings, Statements, Nominations, and Presidential Actions are all blank: One of the new pages that has since gone up up on Whitehouse.gov (titled "An America First Energy Plan") suggests that the Trump administration will be targeting previous climate initiatives in order to help boost domestic oil and gas industries: new pages Energy is an essential part of American life and a staple of the world economy. The Trump Administration is committed to energy policies that lower costs for hardworking Americans and maximize the use of American resources, freeing us from dependence on foreign oil. For too long, weve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule. Schulman, Kori. "The Obama Administration Digital Transition: Moving Forward."
The White House. 17 January 2017. | [
"economy"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1UKA3PzoWZX2dmmvINeUIwtRMFPOCwunv",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1pGrvYaXREZLDisNJeFo19r410kBtUq6Q",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=12wthtg9nsDu1WKGkcV2c5C44Fqu3oG4R",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1-GN9Bt5RnMVh_tAggxseHAHCei_D9crc",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1213 | Does This Photograph Show 26 'Corrupt' Politicians Executed by China? | 09/05/2018 | [
"Not a picture of 'corrupt' politicians or an execution, although some of the latter followed afterwards."
] | In September 2018, a number of social media accounts started sharing a photograph purported to show 26 'corrupt' Chinese politicians moments before their execution: social media This photograph was not recent in 2018, it did not feature corrupt politicians, and it was not taken during the course of a public execution. This photograph was snapped in Wenzhou, China, in April 2004 and shows Chinese police officers escorting a group of "hardcore convicts" at a "sentencing rally." This picture is available via Getty Images where it is accompanied by the following caption: Getty Images WENZHOU, CHINA: Chinese police show of a group of hardcore convicts at a sentencing rally in the east Chinese city of Wenzhou, 07 April 2004, where 11 prisoners were later excuted for various crimes. Amnesty International has called for a moratorium on the death penalty in China, saying the country's dysfunctional criminal justice system meant many innocent people were being executed, after a senior Chinese legislator suggested China executes at least 10,000 people a year, about five times more than the rest of the world combined. AFP PHOTO (Photo credit should read STR/AFP/Getty Images) We attempted to find more information about the crimes committed by the pictured individuals but were unable to uncover news about this specific incident. We suspect that the majority of people seen in this photograph were convicted of drug trafficking offenses, as the China Daily reported in June 2004, two months after this photograph was taken, that dozens of drug dealers had recently been executed in the country, with some of them having been sentenced in Wenzhou: China Daily Dozens of drug dealers were sentenced to death in a series of drug-related criminal cases across China as the International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking draws near. In southwestern Yunnan province, Tan Minglin and three other people convicted of smuggling or selling five tons of drugs, including heroin and ephedrine, were executed after having all their belongings confiscated. Another Chen Xue'an and three other suspects accused of illegally purchasing 60 kg of drugs by raising over four million yuan (US$481,000) were sentenced to death in Wenzhou city of east China's Zhejiang province. A contemporaneous report from Amnesty International stated that China "easily operates the most stringent capital punishment regime" and that the the country had executed an estimated 3,400 people in 2004: Amnesty International The report says China easily operates the most stringent capital punishment regime, with an estimated 3,400 executions last year. In second place, Iran executed at least 159, Vietnam at least 64, and 59 prisoners were put to death in the US. The number of executions worldwide last year was the highest since 1996, when 4,272 were carried out. No official figures are available for China's execution rate, and Amnesty has changed the method it uses to calculate the number of executions there. According to Amnesty's report for 2003 China carried out at least 726 executions. The much higher figure of 3,400 executed last year is an estimate based on internet reports of trials, although it is still described as the "tip of the iceberg". China was still at the top of Amnesty International's annual report on capital punishment in 2018. report China Daily. "Dozens of Drug Dealers Executed in China."
25 June 2004. Penketh, Anne. "China Leads Death List as Number of Executions Around the World Soars."
The Independent. 5 April 2005. Drury, Colin. "China Executes More People Than Rest of World Combined, Amnesty Report Reveals."
The Independent. 12 April 2018. | [
"credit"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1jFlVpo4tyavrX6iXp85WbpROuyQiDBlJ",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1214 | Rhode Island's legislature is the strongest in the country. | 11/30/2014 | [] | Its a statement often heard in the Ocean State: Rhode Islands state legislature is the strongest in the nation. And it was recently repeated by Governor Lincoln Chafee as he doled out advice to his successor, Governor-elect Gina Raimondo. Chafee was one of several people who were asked by The Journal what advice they would give to Raimondo as she prepares to take office Jan. 6. Their comments were published Nov. 17 in The Journals Political Scene column. The only [advice] I would add is we all know ... that Rhode Island constitutionally has a very strong legislature, Chafee said. Thats a fact, the strongest in the country And its critical, to move your agenda forward, to have relationships ... build those relationships. Since this claim has been made so often, we decided to check whether Rhode Islands General Assembly really ranks as the strongest in the nation. We asked Chafees office what facts he had to support his statement. It took awhile for his office to get back to us. Meanwhile, we reached out to nearly a dozen political science professors nationwide, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and others to get their views. All who responded generally shared the view that Rhode Islands governor has relatively limited power compared with governors in many other states We were referred to Governors and the Executive Branch, a chapter in the book Politics In The American States: A Comparative Analysis. Its author, Margaret R. Ferguson, a political science professor at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, measured the institutional power of governors in each of the 50 states, based on various factors. Those included term limits; power to appoint without the involvement of the legislature; control over the budget; veto power; and whether the governor is the same political affiliation that controls the state legislature. Rhode Island placed dead last overall in Fergusons list for executive power, while Massachusetts placed at the top. The book also noted that Chafee was the only governor in the country in 2011 to face a legislature controlled by an opposing party. At the time, Chafee was registered as an independent; he changed his affiliation to Democrat in May 2013. We also looked to Rhode Islands Constitution. It limits governors to two terms and specifies that the governors appointments of state officers be subject to Senate advice and consent. Pardons, too, need Senate approval. A veto by the governor can be overridden by a vote of three-fifths of members present in the House and Senate. One of the key provisions limiting a Rhode Island governors power concerns the state budget. Governors are required to submit budgets, but the documents are then subject to legislative cuts and additions, before the General Assembly passes its own version. In 44 other states, governors have so-called line-item veto authority, the power to reject individual items, while keeping the rest of the budget intact. In Rhode Island, the governor can only approve or veto the final budget, which usually prompts the Assembly to override a veto. When Chafees office got back to us, it shared emails sent to the governors staff by Peverill Squire, a University of Missouri political science professor who is widely known for his study of state legislatures. The email exchanges were part of the preparations for last years 350th anniversary of the Rhode Island Colonial Charter of 1663. We can always quibble about rankings, but every accounting puts the power of Rhode Islands governor at or near the bottom in terms of institutional powers, Squire said in an email to Jonathan Stevens, Chafees director of special projects. Rhode Islands governor enjoys only moderate appointment powers. The governor also has a weak veto and relatively little ability to influence the budget. A line-item veto and greater control over appointments would greatly strengthen the governor. On a constitutional power metric, Rhode Island is among the most powerful state legislatures, Squires wrote. Squire confirmed the statements to PolitiFact Rhode Island via email and cited his book The Evolution of American Legislatures, Colonies, Territories and States, 1619-2009, as well as an earlier book, 101 Chambers. We also heard from Jay S. Goodman, a political science professor at Wheaton College, who noted that the Rhode Island legislature had given up a certain degree of power over the past 20 years, including the appointment of Supreme Court justices, the revolving door limitations on jobs, ethics rules, and the separation of powers amendment. Voters approved the separation of powers constitutional amendment in 2004 to curb legislative powers and remove lawmakers from state boards and commissions. Those changes certainly strengthened the governorship, Goodman said via email. But the overwhelming one-party rule coupled with iron discipline still makes the Speaker [of the House] the most powerful single person [in Rhode Island]. While the strength of the governorship might appear to be inversely proportional to the General Assemblys power, Maureen Moakley, a political science professor at the University of Rhode Island, observed that a governors force of personality also factors in. She used the late Governor Bruce Sundlun, a Democrat, as an example. He was a very forceful personality. The day he took office he faced a crisis. [The collapse of Rhode Islands credit unions.] That gave him a lot of leverage through his administration, especially his first administration, Moakley said. If a governor has the political savvy to be able to take the bully pulpit and turn [it] into a political force, it can go a long way to mitigating the limitations of the office, Moakley said. Their initial presentation of their agenda is critical, she said. Our ruling Governor Chafee said the Rhode Island state legislature is the strongest in the country Our research found that Rhode Islands governor has the least institutional power in the nation under the state Constitution. That would make the Rhode Island General Assembly the most powerful, supporting the governors point. We rule his claimTrue. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.) | [
"Rhode Island",
"Legal Issues",
"State Budget",
"States"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1215 | Is the CDC a 'Private Nonprofit Corporation'? | 05/05/2021 | [
"The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the CDC Foundation are two separate entities. "
] | Since November 2020, an identically worded piece of text alleging that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "is a private nonprofit corporation" has been shared across multiple social media platforms. The claim originated on the website Armstrong Economics, which sells a variety of self-published conspiracy books by the titular Martin Armstrong, and it became a widely shared piece of "copypasta," reproduced in part below: "Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation? [...] The CDC is quasi-government under the Department of Health and Human Services, which strangely has sources of funding that are predicated on the fact that it also has a private 501(c)(3) public charity, like the Clinton Foundation." The CDC Foundation receives charitable contributions and philanthropic grants from individuals, foundations, corporations, universities, NGOs, and other organizations to advance the work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This is NOT a government-funded organization. Natural News, which boasts a massive audience of conspiracy theorists, republished it in December 2020. At the time of this writing, versions of this copypasta still appear on various social media platforms. On May 3, 2021, a Facebook account named The Daily Callout published it along with a picture of purported CDC funding sources. Commenters on that post were evidently confused. The allegations leveled against the CDC are not coherent in these posts. The copypasta suggests the CDC is both a non-profit and a "quasi-government" agency. Further, those issues are tangled up in the separate issue of corporate donations to the CDC. The title of the post, however, provides Snopes with a clearly stated contention: "Did you know the CDC is a private nonprofit corporation?" You most likely did not know this because it is, in fact, not true. The CDC is a federal agency housed in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The confusion stems from the fact that, in 1992, Congress mandated the creation of a non-profit foundation—the CDC Foundation—that would "not be an agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government" and whose purpose would be "to support and carry out activities for the prevention and control of diseases, disorders, injuries, and disabilities, and for the promotion of public health." As part of that goal, the foundation has an endowment and accepts charitable gifts from a variety of entities, including corporations, which are forwarded to the CDC to support specific initiatives. "The government has unique capacities as well as limitations. The same is true for the private and philanthropic sectors," the CDC Foundation argues on its website. "We believe that people, groups, and organizations have greater positive impact and can accomplish more collectively than individually." Funds raised by the CDC Foundation are donated to various programs and initiatives within the CDC. The CDC Foundation is one of two ways corporations can legally provide funds to the CDC. Donations to the CDC Foundation are an indirect route, as, by law, "officers, employees, and members of the board of the Foundation shall not be officers or employees of the Federal Government." Direct gifts by corporations to the CDC are also allowed under a portion of the U.S. Code that authorizes the secretary of HHS "to accept on behalf of the United States gifts made ... for the benefit of the Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions." For both direct gifts to the CDC and gifts made via the CDC Foundation, conditional funding is allowed as long as those requirements are not, as outlined in CDC policy documents. The acceptance of corporate donations earmarked for specific causes—both to the CDC Foundation and to the CDC itself—has caused apparent conflicts of interest. In 2015, the medical journal BMJ published an editorial outlining several examples of potential conflicts, including these examples: In 2010, the CDC, in conjunction with the CDC Foundation, formed the Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition, which supports research and promotes expanded testing and treatment of hepatitis C in the United States and globally. Industry has donated over $26 million to the coalition through the CDC Foundation since 2010. Corporate members of the coalition include Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, OraSure Technologies, Quest Diagnostics, and Siemens—each of which produces products to test for or treat hepatitis C infection. In 2012, [a company named] Genentech earmarked $600,000 in donations to the CDC Foundation for the CDC's efforts to promote expanded testing and treatment of viral hepatitis. Genentech and its parent company, Roche, manufacture test kits and treatments for hepatitis C. The CDC argues that it has policies in place to prevent such conflicts. Its website states that "when we engage with the private sector, we maintain our scientific integrity by participating in a gift review process that is rigorous and transparent. The CDC's gift acceptance policy requires a comprehensive gift review prior to accepting a gift. This includes CDC Foundation (CDCF) gifts and gifts given directly to [the] CDC, whether they are monetary or non-monetary." These processes have been refined and standardized several times since 2014. While the issue of potential corporate influence over public health policy merits scrutiny, it is also important to consider the scale of private funding compared to the overall congressionally appropriated budget of the CDC. In the 2020 fiscal year, the CDC received $13 million in conditional gifts from the CDC Foundation and $10 million in conditional and unconditional direct contributions from the private sector. This is a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly $8 billion in funding the CDC receives from Congress. Even from a rhetorical standpoint, it would be a stretch to argue that the CDC is proportionally awash in corporate funding. Narrowly speaking, however, the assertion that the CDC is a non-profit, non-government organization is incorrect because that claim conflates the CDC (a federal agency) and the CDC Foundation (a 501(c)(3) charity). | [
"budget"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1gqCZg1u4ff9eq2NDNHxv0SZzyW1Sza5P",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1nsLNGQPzmxDxwS4LWcbDCgS5FAlBcj41",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1216 | Did Sasha Obama Crash Her Expensive New Car Into a Lake? | 12/29/2017 | [
"A fake news article wants you to hate former First Daughter Sasha Obama."
] | On 21 December 2017, the web site DefenseUSA.site published a fake news article claiming that Sasha Obama had crashed a Bugatti Veyron into a lake: published When Barack Obama bought his daughter Sasha a used Bugatti Veyron for Christmas, she apparently loved the new car so much that she immediately took it for a spin. Unfortunately, that car didnt last long. The former President* put his hard-earned speaking fees to work getting the car for his daughter, but it quickly became a $1.1 million piece of fish food when she picked up her friends and promptly crashed it into a lake. There is no truth to this story. We found no credible reports of Sasha Obama receiving a Bugatti Veyron for Christmas, let alone crashing it into a lake. The DefenseUSA.site does not appear to carry a readily available disclaimer labeling its content fiction. However, there were several ways to tell that this story was just another piece of fake news (besides the dodgy URL). For one, the web site claimed that Sasha Obama had crashed her car into "Lake Hope, about 32 miles outside of Washington, D.C." This lake does not exist. There is a Lake Hope in Ohio, but we couldn't find any body of water with that name in the D.C. area. The article linked to a credible news outlet (though it failed to point to a D.C. paper, choosing instead an Indiana publication, the Washington Times Herald) to give the impression that the information about Sasha Obama's alleged crash came from a genuine news report. However, the link led to the Washington Times Herald's front page, rather than a specific article, and the (giant, all-caps) quoted material is nowhere to be found on the paper's web site: Washington Times Herald page Lastly, the story's featured photograph actually shows a Bugati Veyron that a man drove into a lake in October 2009 as part of an insurance fraud scheme. insurance fraud Ballaban, Michael. "The Guy Who Crashed a Bugatti Into a Lake Has Been Sentenced to a Year in Federal Prison."
Jalopnik. 15 December 2015. | [
"insurance"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1Bl6Sdy6YHRaHTo2y8PJDifQSiEZ21Rvt",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1CwaS0B2o9sHzYi7hr_2wTq63swvHFhDf",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1217 | Says Rob Portman said the auto rescue was a lousy deal for Ohio. | 10/20/2016 | [] | Former Democratic Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland didnt waste any time attacking Republican Sen. Rob Portman for opposing the 2009 automotive bailout and calling it a lousy deal. He said the auto rescue was a lousy deal for Ohio, Strickland told an audience during his opening statement at the third Senate debate in Cleveland. This isnt the first time Strickland made this claim. Strickland made the charge in front of some Ohio delegates during a meeting held the week of the Democratic National Convention, according to theColumbus Dispatch. We wondered if Strickland was right. Did Portman call the automotive bailout a lousy deal? Stricklands campaign said the remark in question comes froma 2009 statement from Portman, who was a candidate for Senate that year but was not yet in office. The campaign accessed the news release using the Wayback Machine, an Internet Archive website. The General Motors bankruptcy plan Washington announced today is a lousy deal for Ohio, reads the statement. Taxpayers, including hard working Ohioans, are investing $50 billion in a GM plan that we now find includes shutting down plants in Mansfield, Parma, and Columbus, Ohio. The reason for this unprecedented taxpayer bailout and government intervention was to preserve jobs. Instead, for our $50 Billion taxpayer investment, thousands more workers will see their jobs disappear. Ohio deserves better than this. Thats the only direct reference to lousy Stricklands campaign sent PolitiFact Ohio, but they also sent an article from theColumbus Dispatchthat quotes Portmans former spokesperson in 2011 saying Portman still thinks the auto bailout was not a good deal for Ohio. Portmans campaign told PolitiFact Ohio that although Portman was not in office when the bailout launched, he would have supported the auto rescue. As evidence of this, Portmans campaign pointed to a 2010 U.S. Senate debate against Democrat Lee Fisher. Portman was asked if he would have supported the 2009 bailout, which Portman responded to with a yes, while also mentioning he would have liked to see more conditions in the bailout. $50 billion of our taxpayer money went to a private entity that the government essentially took over, and then they closed four plants here in Ohio. Portman said at the debate. So, if I had been in office at the time I would have supported it, but I would have been sure that Ohio didnt fall behind. Our ruling Strickland said Portman said the auto rescue was a lousy deal for Ohio. As a candidate for Senate, Portman did call the 2009 automotive bailouts of GM and Chrysler a lousy deal in a press release from 2009. Strickland cited this remark without including the fact Portman said he still would have supported the bailout. Stricklands claim is accurate, but needs a slight clarification. We rate Stricklands claim Mostly True. | [
"Ohio",
"Economy",
"Stimulus",
"Workers"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1218 | Property taxes are lower right now than they were in December 2010 on a median-valued home in Wisconsin. | 06/07/2017 | [] | For a while there, Gov.Scott Walkerwas coyabout whether he would run for a third four-year term in 2018. But now hisintentions are all but official, and he is repeatedly sounding themes that could show up as part of his campaign platform. On May 18, 2017, Walkerwas interviewedby Jeff Wagner, a conservative talk show host on WTMJ-AM in Milwaukee. Wagner opened by asking about one of the governors favorite topics: property tax reform. Walker responded by declaring that property taxes on a median-value home are lower right now than they were in December 2010, the month before he took office. Hes correct, though theres a caveat. Prior fact checks Theres no question property taxes, though they might increase for some individual property owners and decrease for others, have generally been on the decline since Walker took office and his fellow Republicans took control of the Legislature in 2011. In 2015,we rated Mostly Truea Walker claim that because of his actions, property taxes were lower than they were four years earlier. Walkers actions to limit the ability of local governments and school districts to raise levies played a major role. But the lower property taxes to that point were also due in part to declines in housing values. In January 2017, when Walker said that property taxes -- as a percentage of personal income -- were the lowest that they've been since the end of World War II,our rating was True. An analysis by the nonpartisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance showed that on the measure Walker cited, they were lowest since 1946. And on ourWalk-O-Meter, which tracks Walkers campaign promises, weverated In the Workshis pledge to cut property taxes so that the levy on a typical home in 2018 is lower than it was in 2010. Current claim Walkers new claim refers to a specific measure -- an estimate of the hypothetical property tax on a median-valued, or typical, Wisconsin home. The estimates are done by the nonpartisan state Legislative Fiscal Bureau. That tax was $2,963 for 2010-11, just before Walker took office; and its $2,832 for 2017-18. 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 $2,963 $2,953 $2,943 $2,926 $2,831 $2,849 $2,852 $2,832 $2,831 A caveat Todd Berry, president of the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, told us its important to note that levies -- the total property taxes collected -- have risen in each year but one during Walkers tenure, even though the the tax on a median-valued home is lower than before he took office. The reason is that compared to commercial and manufacturing properties, residential values have lagged. As a result, more of the property tax burden has shifted to commercial and manufacturing and away from residential, Berry said. Our rating Walker says property taxes are lower right now than they were in December 2010 on a median-valued home in Wisconsin. Estimates done regularly by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau show that the hypothetical property tax bill on a typical Wisconsin home is $2,832 for 2017-18 -- $131 lower than the year before Walker took office. But its worth noting that the total amount of property taxes collected have risen in each year but one during Walkers tenure. And that the drop in residential property taxes is due to commercial and manufacturing properties rising at a faster rate -- not due to collecting less taxes. For a statement that is accurate but needs additional information, our rating is Mostly True. | [
"Housing",
"State Budget",
"Taxes",
"Wisconsin"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1219 | Greece is not a big economy. It's about the size of metropolitan Miami. | 07/06/2015 | [] | Greek voters stuck a wrench into European finances with their rejection of an austerity-bailout package on July 5, 2015. With the referendum results all in, the possibility that Greece might ditch the Euro, the European Unions common currency, became more likely than ever. Before the vote though, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman warned that the greatest worry might have less to do with Greece than with other shaky economies in the Euro zone. On ABCsThis Week, Krugman downplayed the impact of the Greek economy per se. Greece is not a big economy, Krugman told host George Stephanopoulos, It's about the size of metropolitan Miami. So if you asked how much direct spillover there is from whatever happens in Greece, not that much. But if Greece bailed on the Euro, Krugman said, Spain and Portugal might follow, which would gut the idea of a unified pan-European economy to compete with the powerhouses of America and China. Our focus is decidedly more humble than the future of Europe. We wanted to check Krugmans comparison of Greece to the greater Miami area. Krugman has not rested on his Nobel Prize laurels. He is correct. The latest estimate of the Gross Domestic Product of the Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-West Palm Beach metropolitan area, according to WashingtonsBureau of Economic Analysis, was $281 billion in 2013. The same year, theCIA estimatedthe size of the Greek economy at $282.6 billion in 2013. Another estimate, from theOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development, put Greeces GDP at about $283 billion. Either number supports Krugmans point. The only caveats are technical. The CIA and OECD estimates are based on purchasing power parity, a set of formulas that adjust for how much it costs to buy exactly the same basket of goods in two countries using different currencies. The OECD says thatfiltering out price differencesgives a more accurate comparison of the economies of the two countries. If you measure the Greek economy strictly by the market exchange rate, the numbers shift. According to theWorld Bankthe countrys GDP was $242.2 billion in 2013. Compared to the total Euro zone economy, Greece represented about 2.2 percent of the zones $12 trillion-plus GDP in 2013. By the way, if the size of the Greek economy is about the same as that of the greater Miami metro region, thats the extent of the similarity. The average person in Miami was much better off financially with a per capita GDP of $48,225. In Greece, it was $25,666. Our ruling Krugman said that the economy of Greece is about a big as that of the Miami metropolitan area. Based on a common measure of Gross Domestic Product, that is accurate. The GDP of Greece was about $282 billion in 2013, and the Miami metro area had a GDP of $281 billion. We rate the claim True. | [
"Economy",
"Foreign Policy",
"PunditFact"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1220 | Give away a $100 gift card from Chipotle. | 07/31/2018 | [
"Chipotle is not offering free $100 gift cards for National Avocado Day to internet users who share a link with their friends."
] | In July 2018, the Chipotle Mexican Grill chain of fast casual restaurants ran a promotion in conjunction with National Avocado Day, offering free guacamole to customers with their orders on 31 July: free guacamole Unfortunately, scammers took advantage of this promotion to post counterfeit offers for free $100 Chipotle gift cards, touting that users need only share a link with five friends to claim their bounty: counterfeit offers This fake offer was just another variation of a long-running form of scam with a familiar pattern. First, scammers set up look-alike websites and social media pages that mimic those of legitimate companies in order to promote scams advertising free gift cards or coupons. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a "survey" that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who wish to claim their "free" gift cards eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions (negating the free aspect of the gift card). The Better Business Bureau offers three tips to identify similar scams: Dont believe what you see. Its 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 theres a link to their privacy policy. Watch out for a reward thats 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. | [
"credit"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1cGC60QKtLLibvC8-bbB0_H8tcjH8coUU",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1zpOUB-7QrFWxrWfi3uIqYbdyZK31Wvch",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1221 | Everything Donald Trump Has Accomplished in Just Four Months? | 05/24/2017 | [
"We looked into the accuracy of a viral list touting President Trump's accomplishments during his first four months in office."
] | 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 was 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. Regarding efforts to "reign in" the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a CNN report confirms that's been among Trump's top priorities from the start. 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. | [
"budget"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1SZMVsEK9YDyEe2cgSJ72L9pESk1QLxPn",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1222 | Did Putin Ban 5G in Russia Due to Health Concerns? | 08/07/2023 | [
"\"What has Russia uncovered that would make them take such drastic action?\" a prominent British conspiracy theorist asked his followers."
] | On Aug. 5, 2023, Jim Ferguson, a former candidate for a seat in British Parliament whose social media presence is steeped in false conspiratorial claims, posted to X, the social media outlet formerly known as Twitter, a message about the state of 5G cellular technology in Russia: false conspiratorial claims about Citing an article from a purported Bangladeshi news website named dainikbidyaloy.com, Ferguson suggested that Putin had "ban[ned] 5G across Russia'' and "destroy[ed] All [5G] Towers," suggesting this "massive step" likely meant Russia knows something negative about the technology that the West does not. 5G is a cellular technology that operates at a higher frequency band than 4G and can carry more data as a result. an article cellular technology Dainikbidyaloy.com is not, in fact, a credible source of information. It is a website that republishes content that originated on Real Raw News, a prolific source of disinformation. that republishes Real Raw News The story Ferguson shared to nearly a million people originated on Real Raw News on Aug. 5, 2023 a site with a satire disclaimer andasserted that Putin had ordered the end of 5G in Russia and that he even publicly executed a tech executive over it: originated on Real Raw News asserted Russian President Vladimir Putin has banned 5G towers in the Russian Federation amid concerns the technology is medically unsafe and has caused the deaths of school children near St. Petersburg. His mandate wasn't well-received by the Telecom executives. MTS Vice President of 5G Infrastructure Borya Vlasov said the absence of 5G would put Russia at a technological disadvantage, adding that Russia needed 5G to strengthen a once-thriving economy now faltering thanks to Putin's actions in Ukraine. [...] Putin ordered the security agent beside him to shoot Vlasov squarely between the eyes. Without hesitation, the agent drew his Makarov pistol and put a bullet in Vlasov's forehead in full view of 15 people. Real Raw News carries a disclaimer on its "About Us" page that says "Information on this website is for informational and educational and entertainment purposes" and that it "contains humor, parody, and satire. a disclaimer In reality, Russia is working to expand 5G access and reduce a technology gap created by the retreat of western telecom technology since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia in February 2022. In a speech made in June 2023, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin reiterated Putin's plans in the area of "technological sovereignty," which explicitly called for the creation of Russian-made 5G base stations: a speech The disruption of foreign telecom equipment supplies is posing certain challenges, especially in the mobile segment, where Western solutions were traditionally used. To speed up the transition to Russian base stations for LTE and 5G, the Government and market participants have adopted a roadmap for the development of modern networks. It includes several state support programmes, including 3.5 billion roubles in subsidies for the manufacture of the required high-tech devices to be allocated this year. On Aug. 6, 2023, Andrey Zarenin, the deputy minister of digital development, telecommunications, and mass media of the Russian Federation, also spoke of forward progress on 5G technology at a conference of telecom leaders, according to a news release from that ministry. forward progress About Us | Real Raw News. https://realrawnews.com/about-us/. Accessed 7 Aug. 2023. Baxter, Michael. "Putin Bans 5G across Russia, Destroys All Towers." Real Raw News, 5 Aug. 2023, https://dainikbidyaloy.com/2023/08/05/putin-bans-5g-across-russia-destroys-all-towers/. Digital Development, Telecommunications and Mass Media of the Russian Federation. Andrey Zarenin Represented Russia at the Ninth Annual Meeting of the BRICS Ministers of Communications. 23 June 2022, http://government.ru/en/news/48806/. Mikhail Mishustin Held a Strategic Session on the Telecommunications Industry Development until 2035. 7 Aug. 2023, http://government.ru/en/news/48806/. "Privacy Policy for The People's Voice." Real Raw News, https://dainikbidyaloy.com/privacy-policy-for-the-peoples-voice/. Accessed 7 Aug. 2023. Putin Bans 5G across Russia, Destroys All Towers | Real Raw News. https://realrawnews.com/2023/08/putin-bans-5g-across-russia-destroys-all-towers/. Accessed 7 Aug. 2023. "What Is 5G? - How Does 5G Network Technology Work." Cisco, https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/what-is-5g.html. Accessed 7 Aug. 2023. Correction [Aug. 16, 2023]: This story has been updated to reflect that RealRawNews denies any connection with dainikbidyaloy.com. | [
"economy"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1MCaRnDEHgXXzYV4m5h15XZx_CpWdAF83",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1223 | President Obama Wants Mandatory Voting? | 03/19/2015 | [
"Rumor: President Obama has proposed a constitutional amendment to make voting mandatory in the U.S."
] | Claim: President Obama has proposed a constitutional amendment to make voting mandatory in the U.S. Example: [Collected via Twitter, March 2015] Obama believes voting should be MANDATORY. Government TELLING you what to do #WakeUpAmerica. Now Obama wants a constitutional amendment to make voting mandatory. Think about it. Why? Don't mess with my Constitution, just obey it. Obama proposes a constitutional amendment making voting mandatory. I wish this were fake, but it's very real. When a right is forced upon people by law, it is no longer a right but an infringement upon their rights as free citizens #mandatoryvoting. Origins: On 18 March 2015, President Obama appeared before the City Club of Cleveland at the Cleveland Convention Center to discuss civic issues such as middle-class economics and manufacturing. In the course of a discussion about how money influences elections, President Obama mentioned that mandatory voting was one strategy that could be employed to try to offset the effects of political spending. "Other countries have mandatory voting," Mr. Obama said at a town hall-style event in Cleveland, Ohio, citing places like Australia. "It would be transformative if everybody voted; that would counteract money more than anything." The president continued, "The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily toward immigrant groups and minorities ... There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls." Although he suggested that adopting mandatory voting rules could be a feasible "short-term" solution to the problem of money in politics, President Obama stopped short of actually calling for a constitutional amendment to bring that requirement about, saying only that in the long term it would be "fun" to go through the extensive process of adopting a constitutional amendment. Nonetheless, "news" outlets such as the Washington Times published superficial reports of the President's remarks under misleading headlines such as "Obama calls for mandatory voting in U.S." As of November 2014, there are 11 countries that have and enforce mandatory voting rules, most notably Australia. Australia adopted compulsory voting in 1924 after turnout plunged from more than 70 percent in 1919 to less than 60 percent in 1922. By contrast, recent turnout by eligible voters in U.S. presidential election years has barely cracked 60 percent; in midterm elections, it has been hovering in the low 40s. Australians who fail to vote can be fined (or, in theory, jailed for repeated no-shows). Interestingly, the mandate to vote is overwhelmingly popular, with about three-fourths of those polled supporting the requirement. Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus opined in a column on the subject that it was unlikely the United States would follow Australia's example: "The United States is not about to go the way of Australia. The same partisan forces that agitate for voter ID laws or less opportunity for early voting hours would block any change on the assumption that it would work to their electoral disadvantage." Last updated: 19 March 2015. "Mandatory Voting? Obama Says It Would Be 'Transformative'." Associated Press. 18 March 2015. | [
"income"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://i.imgur.com/V3cYCbe.png",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://i.imgur.com/A351mIw.png",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1224 | All of Donald Trump's achievements in only four months? | 05/24/2017 | [
"We looked into the accuracy of a viral list touting President Trump's accomplishments during his first four months in office."
] | 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. Small Biz for Trump (@SmallBiz4Trump) May 15, 2017. 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 was 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. Regarding efforts to "reign in" the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a CNN report confirms that's been among Trump's top priorities from the start: 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. | [
"taxes"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1UiFfwcMC-9-4E_UsqLmjs2OTrTU21dfs",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1225 | Ronda Rousey Death Hoax | 01/02/2017 | [
"A fake news site appropriated the name of a popular newspaper to claim MMA fighter Ronda Rousey was found dead in her bathtub."
] | On 2 January 2017, the "USA Today News" web site reported that Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) fighter Ronda Rousey had been discovered dead in her home following a routine wellness check: reported On the morning of January 2, 2017, Ronda Rousey was found in a bathtub in her Venice residence, dead. Despite an immediate medical response, EMTs were unable to revive her. The cause of death is still unknown, however a preliminary autopsy has been confirmed to be underway. First responders told us that they discovered what appeared to be a needle used for drugs, as well as a bag of an ambiguous powdered substance. While no drug use has been substantiated, her mother had previously spoken to the media about Rouseys previous depression & drug abuse. Rouseys mother had this to say, All of those who have criticized Ronda for taking a loss so to heart, for not just shrugging it off dont understand that what made Ronda so successful is that she cares DEEPLY about winning to an extent that I dont believe the average person can wrap his/her head around. After her last fight, where she lost to Amanda Nunes in less than one minute, Rousey went silent no one has heard a thing from her on social media, or from interviews. Her whereabouts and status were completely unknown to the public until this tragic happening was uncovered by two police officers discovered her body on a wellness check. However, the report that Ronda Rousey was found dead on 2 January 2017 was merely fake news that appeared solely on the fly-by-night "USA Today News" web site and was reported neither by the legitimate USA Today news outlet nor any other credible source. "USA Today News" in no way resembles the actual USA Today web site: The "USA Today News" article included an image of a large law enforcement presence in a residential neighborhood, a picture that appeared to come from a blog devoted to the television show House and did not depict any real event involving Ronda Rousey. blog | [
"loss"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=19voyTrqANVQakIqrvR1jseqV9PJTRqSz",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1UKuEbD6O8VD7VQ4FxnY0D6Az0BXrwnGc",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1226 | Does This Picture Show a Case of Hyperdontia? | 02/04/2019 | [
"Hyperdontia is a genuine medical condition, but take a close look at these images."
] | A photograph supposedly showing the mouth of an adult suffering from hyperdontia (i.e., an excessive number of teeth) has been circulating online for several years. In February 2019, the Facebook page "Pictures From History" renewed interest in this image when they shared it on social media with the caption "Inside the mouth of an adult suffering from Hyperdontia": Facebook Pictures From History Hyperdontia is a genuine medical condition involving the growth of more teeth than is usual (also known as "supernumerary teeth"), as described by the Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago: medical condition described Extra teeth, also called supernumerary teeth or hyperdontia, is a condition in which the jaws contain more teeth usually permanent teeth than the usual number. These extra teeth are usually categorized in two ways, by their shape and by their position. They can be of normal shape but simply be extra (called supplemental). They can be barrel-shaped (tuberculate), peg-shaped or conical, multiple shapes (compound odontoma), or an undefined shape (complex odontoma). They can form in several places. They may be mesiodens (midline), paramolar (on either side of the molars), or distomolar (behind the molars). Most often occuring is the mesiodens, which is peg-shaped and grows between the top two center teeth. However, the viral photograph seen here does not offer a genuine look at the mouth of a person experiencing that condition. This image has been online since at least December 2010, when it was shared on the Blogspot blog Holyloly. The image reached a larger audience a few months later when it was included in a post from the SCP Foundation -- a fictional organization that purports to cover a wide range of highly classified materials -- in a blog post about SCP-478, an imaginary disease that causes a body to generate extra teeth: Holyloly SCP Foundation SPC-478 will enter a victims mouth while they sleep, and attach onto the soft palate in the upper nasal cavity, usually blocking one nostril. The bodys mucus production will increase, leading the victim, upon waking, to believe that they have developed a minor cold. From there, the victims palate will begin to generate teeth in addition to the gingiva's (gums) normal replacement of teeth. This growth process will begin at a rate several times faster than normal tooth growth, and quickly increases in speed and severity. It's clear that this image was created with the help of digital photo-editing software. It appears that someone took a genuine photograph of a mouth and then duplicated several of its teeth to make it appear as if the picture captured an extremely severe case of hyperdontia. Here we've circled a few of the teeth that were digitally repeated throughout this image: Interestingly, this isn't the only fake photograph purporting to show an extreme case of hyperdontia. Again, we found that these images were created with the same technique of duplicating existing teeth: While researching this article we came across one more example below of this sort of digitally doctored dentistry. This image on the left of the following graphic is often shared as if it showed a person suffering from hyperdontia, but again, this picture was created by digitally duplicated existing teeth. The image on the right of the graphic below, meanwhile, is unaltered and shows the mouth of a person who genuinely experienced a (less severe form of) this condition: person Parolia, Abhishek. "Management of Supernumerary Teeth."
Journal of Conservative Dentistry. July 2011. Lurie Children's Hospital. "Extra Teeth (Supernumerary Teeth, Hyperdontia)."
Retrieved 4 February 2019. | [
"interest"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1auSc7gOXDPWbq_yvxS81HLWqp2dOkooN",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=12y6bFVBzGLkYDz8REGpAnQ8JtaE_0a3B",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1Je6h-0ZAwGiUyANz8I2Xhbc2bX5z87aE",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=19hYV9zZuZNEZG6f5wNTTptX-YtRbCENZ",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1227 | Did the NYT Tell People to 'Breathe Like a Baby' to Relieve Election Day Stress? | 11/09/2022 | [
"The list was mocked by some on the internet."
] | On Nov. 8, 2022, the day of the much-anticipated midterm elections, The New York Times published a list of tips to help particularly stressed election watchers. A couple of those tips earned the Times a round of jeering from right-wing media and social media users. Yes, the tips came from the Times. Some seem straightforward enough, such as limiting scrolling on your phone for updates or taking a short walk. A couple of them went viral for the wrong reasons, including "breathe like a baby" and face-plunge into ice water. The list of tips is titled "5 ways to soothe election stress," with pointers that include, "Breathe like a baby. Focus on expanding your belly as you breathe, which can send more oxygen to the brain." Here's a screenshot of the list, as posted on the social media platform Twitter: (Screenshot, @nytimes Twitter page). The phrase "breathe like a baby" may sound infantilizing, but the breathing practice described in the list is a technique known as diaphragmatic breathing, sometimes called belly breathing, and it is known to ease anxiety and stress, whether from watching election returns or anything else. Licensed clinical psychologist Dianne Grande wrote in Psychology Today that the technique works because "it signals the brain and body to relax." This is because it stimulates the body's parasympathetic nervous system, known as the "rest and digest" aspect of the nervous system; think of it as the opposite of the "fight or flight" response, according to the University of California, Los Angeles' Health blog. We can't say we found much in the way of reputable medical sources to support the idea that going face-first into a bowl of ice will help with anxiety, election-related or otherwise, though Psychology Today states that research does support the idea that hot and cold baths can help with mood. | [
"returns"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1Cnrp8lQSgK-2OFPJqVWR1AbCzSb3a_bY",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1228 | Is Starbucks Offering $100 Coupons During the COVID-19 Pandemic? | 03/20/2020 | [
"Coupon scams are not uncommon with or without a global pandemic."
] | In late March 2020, amid the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic, scams abounded on the internet. One such scam reported that consumers could get a $100 coupon during the pandemic for use at Starbucks cafes by simply clicking on a link. Here is a screenshot of a Twitter post promoting the bogus offer: Although the links shared with the posts no longer appear to work, we are rating this offer a "Scam" because no evidence exists that the coupon was real. The web address for the "coupon," for example, was not from an official Starbucks website. We asked Starbucks to confirm the offer was a scam but didn't receive a response in time for publication. However, the "offer" being made echoes similar coupon scams that promise "free" or discounted goods from well-known brands if users click on a site collecting people's private information in the process but then don't deliver on the promise. As we have reported in the past on such scams: reported These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: general tips | [
"credit"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1cpxaYnJ4CGOdRFSPUdki8ll51AjQRpHw",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1229 | Says the inspector general for the IRS said there was no political motivation and no outside influence for targeting of tax-exempt applications from tea party groups | 05/24/2013 | [] | Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agree: The IRS screwed up, big time, when it watched for phrases like tea party to trigger extra scrutiny of groups seeking tax-exempt status. But theres a partisan disagreement over whether it was merely an ill-conceived time-saver for overworked Ohio staffers or a sinister White House plot to hamstring conservative groups before an election. (It's the IRS targeting-gate! said New York Republican Tom Reed.) Rep. Sander Levin, a long-serving Democrat whos the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, said after a May 17 hearing that evidence is on Democrats side. My view is that the criteria were very inappropriate, he told MSNBC host Chris Matthews. There was terrible mismanagement. I think there was very terrible oversight... But the IG, the inspector general, when asked, Was there any political motivation for the people who were in the exempt organization in Cincinnati, the lower-level people who were working on this, he said no. Was there any outside influence? And he said no. Theinspector general for tax administrationis charged withindependent oversightof the IRS. Did he say there was no political motivation or outside influence driving the agencys inappropriate behavior? Inappropriate criteria The latest round of congressional hearings and there will be more kicked off after the May 14 release of amildly titled auditfrom the inspectors office: Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review. It asked whether the IRS: Targeted groups applying for tax-exempt status. Delayed processing of targeted groups applications. Requested unnecessary information from targeted groups, such as donor lists. It found that Cincinnati employees did all of those things, beginning in early 2010. A determinations unit there reviews applications for tax-exempt status for various kinds of organizations such as charities and nonprofit schools and hospitals. It ran into trouble with applications for501(c)(4)status a designation that allows a tax-exempt group whose primary activity is social welfare to engage in political activity without disclosing its donors. In theory, a group whose primary activity was actually political activity such as supporting candidates for office wouldnt qualify. So IRS employees developed criteria to identify and group applications from organizations likely to engage in political activity for a deeper look. But regulations dont define how to measure a groups primary activity. So, according to the report, amid confusion, three inappropriate things happened. For months, employees used phrases such as tea party, patriots, 9/12 and political-sounding names such as we the people, or take back the country to group applications for special review. The criteria got more generic in 2011, then more specific again in mid 2012, including political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, social economic reform/movement. Most of those applications languished for more than a year as employees sorted out how to handle them. Then it sent lengthy, probing questionnaires to many applicants, requesting detailed responses, such as lists of all donations and donors, whether any leaders or donors had run for office or would in the future, and lists of all issues important to the organization and its position on those issues. The basic result was that while none of those groups had their applications denied, more than half of them waited more than 200 days and some as long as three years, across two election cycles. Some are still awaiting decisions. Auditors asked various IRS leaders and employees in Cincinnati and Washington whether anyone outside the IRS influenced the inappropriate criteria. They found the opposite: that one problem was insufficient high-level oversight. Specifically, only first-line management approved references to the tea party, the report said. However, interviews with employees in the Cincinnati office didnt turn up exactly who had been involved in creating the criteria, the report said. Inspector general Since the audit, lawmakers have repeatedly brought in the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, J. Russell George, to testify about the findings of his auditors. Levins staff pointed us to this exchange before Ways and Means, when the congressman asked George to clarify the audits results on outside influence and political motivation: Levin:On page 7, Mr. George, of the IG report it states and all of these individuals stated that the criteria were not influenced by any individual or organization outside the IRS. Is that correct? George:That is the information we received, correct. Levin:Did you find any evidence of political motivation in the selection of the tax exemption applications? George:We did not, sir. Its important to note that George is careful to say that information gathered during the audit didnt point to outside influence or political motivation not that he was certain it had been ruled out. He was similarly careful in his responses that day to Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., and later, Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis.: McDermott:The inspector general report says that no one acted out of malice or political motivation. Mr. George, I want to know, do you still stand by that? George:We have no evidence at this time to contradict that assertion, sir... Kind:According to your report, you found no bias or partisanship behind the development and the use of the criteria for selecting applications in the Cincinnati office. Is that right? George:That is correct, sir, but we did find gross mismanagement in the overall Kind:Right. And that's clear in your report, too. Did you find any evidence that anyone outside of the IRS was involved in the development and review of George:Not at this time, sir. Kind:Not the White House or Treasury? George:That's correct, sir. Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark., pointed out that day that Georges office had conducted an audit, but not yet an investigation. There's a reason you don't know who came up with this. You didn't investigate that, he said. Indeed, George clarified for lawmakers in the days after Levins MSNBC interview that auditorsdidnt ask directlyabout White House involvement, because no evidence pointed that direction. He also distinguished between an audit designed to uncover systemic problems and an investigation, which focuses on misconduct by specific people. It is not uncommon for audits to present specific issues that lead to additional reviews or investigations, he said. Our ruling Levin told Matthews on MSNBC that, the inspector general, when asked, Was there any political motivation for the people who were in the exempt organization in Cincinnati, the lower-level people who were working on this, he said no. Was there any outside influence? And he said no. That was the gist of Georges testimony the same day before the Ways and Means Committee, but with the important clarification that he was careful to explain that the assessment was based solely on evidence turned up so far by auditors. Levin offered no such caveat. We rate his claim Mostly True. | [
"National",
"Taxes"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1230 | There is no evidence of a port slowdown as a result of California laws that are considered liberal. | 11/02/2021 | [
"A confluence of issues have created congestion at the busiest port in the U.S."
] | In late October 2021, a misleading copypasta meme spread on Facebook that attributed port bottlenecks and shipping delays to "California's liberal trucking laws." The meme circulated on various platforms including Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. Here is a version of the meme that was posted to Facebook: The meme above reads, in part: So ships are piling up at Long Beach waiting to get unloaded. The port is jammed full of containers with no place to stack more. The liberal media is blaming it on the trucking industry while the nation's store shelves are becoming bare ... Well there's more to the story. Could Gavin Newsom and California's liberal trucking laws be the blame ? ? The NEWS says the California port situation is caused by a driver shortage. Not so fast: It is in part caused by a California Truck Ban which says all trucks must be 2011 or newer and a law called AB 5 which prohibits Owner Operators. The two state laws mentioned are AB5, a 2019 law intended to prevent employers from wrongly classifying workers as contractors, and something called "California Truck Ban." The meme also mentions a September 2020 executive order by California Gov. Gavin Newsom that seeks to phase out fuel-burning vehicle engines by 2035 in an effort to combat global warming. AB5 executive order The meme is referencing congestion at the ports in San Pedro Bay in Southern California and the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, which collectively handle an estimated 40 percent of the nation's imports. The back-up is resulting in something of a crisis in shipping delays right before the 2021 winter holidays. congestion 40 percent crisis The meme above attempts to lay the blame for the crisis at the feet of Newsom, along with California labor and environmental laws. But from a broad perspective, the disruption in the supply chain is a global phenomenon sparked by a confluence of major calamities in 2020 and 2021, including labor shortages, facility closures, and an increased e-commerce demand resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, extreme weather, and a massive container ship that had become lodged in the Suez Canal for nearly a week. global phenomenon Here we will look at whether the two laws and executive order mentioned in the meme are to blame for the slowdown at the Southern California ports. There is no law called the "California Truck Ban." But from the description above that "all trucks must be 2011 or newer" it appears the post is referencing the California Truck and Bus Regulation. That regulation doesn't currently block registration of vehicles from the year 2010 and older, however. Regulation The Truck and Bus Regulation requires trucks serving the ports to have engines from 2010 or newer as of Jan. 1, 2023. If they don't, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) would deny registrations to non-compliant vehicles. But the rule, which was adopted in 2008, has taken effect gradually over several years. It's not new, whereas the situation at the L.A. and Long Beach ports in the fall of 2021 is acute. requires In an email, Stanley Young, spokesperson for the California Air Resource Board, told Snopes, "As of 2021 only trucks with engines older than 2005 would have their registration denied." Young added that 96 percent of the trucks currently serving the major ports in California are already compliant with the regulation. "Despite what you may have heard or read, there is simply no evidence to support any claims that the current congestion at our ports has any connection to the states efforts to clean up Californias trucks," Young stated. "Since trucks at major California ports have been required to have 2007 or newer engines since 2014, and since these engines are legal until at least 2023, its impossible that any shortage of vehicles at ports is the result of CARB regulations." Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) is a California law that went into effect in January 2020, although it has faced an onslaught of legal challenges preventing it from being implemented. The law is intended to prevent companies like Uber and Instacart from misclassifying so-called gig workers as independent contractors, rather than employees. Truckers often operate under an "owner-operator" model, in which they own their own vehicles, which they then use to transport goods as contractors for trucking companies. Both the California Trucking Association (CTA) and freight transport company Cal Cartage Express filed legal challenges against AB 5. Cal Cartage lost its case but the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to decide whether to hear a petition by CTA. Until it does, AB 5 remains in limbo for the trucking industry. Matt Schrap, CEO of the the Harbor Trucking Association (which represents drayage truck companies serving the ports of L.A. and Long Beach) said it's not a shortage of truckers that's driving the delays, and pointing the finger at AB 5 doesn't take reality into account. Instead, Schrap said that the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns spurred an explosion of online buying that ramped up sharply during the pandemic lockdowns, and the ports of L.A. and Long Beach don't have the infrastructure to handle the sudden influx. explosion "Its like jamming ten lanes of freeway traffic into five lanes," Schrap said in a phone interview with Snopes. Currently, the bte noire for truckers and trucking companies at the ports of L.A. and Long Beach is an excess of empty shipping containers piling up at the ports, which often block truckers from picking up and dropping off cargo. "Were struggling with these empty containers," Schrap said. "That is really whats working us over." Schrap said he expects that the situation will start to improve, because with the sudden attention on the issue, officials are taking steps to help resolve it, like placing fees on cargo ship companies that leave behind empty containers, and potentially allowing empty container stacking on empty parcels of land at the ports. placing fees But these are just Bandaids on a larger problem, which is that the Southern California ports need investment in infrastructure to prevent crises like these, Schrap stressed. "Were in this problem because of the underinvestment in the infrastructure that supports the American consumers buying habits," Schrap said. "It's a temporary solution to a longstanding problem." Newsom issued an executive order in September 2020 seeking to phase out gas-burning vehicles by making all new vehicles sold as of 2035 and beyond zero-emission. But Newsom's order wouldn't make the current fuel-powered trucks illegal as of 2035. The executive order explicitly states that while California will require new vehicles sold as of 2035 and beyond to be zero-emission, older vehicles will not be illegal to own and operate, and can still be purchased and sold. executive order A news release from the governor's office announcing the order states, "The executive order will not prevent Californians from owning gasoline-powered cars or selling them on the used car market." FreightWaves. "CTAs Last Hope To Protect California Trucking From AB5: US Supreme Court," 10 August, 2021, https://www.yahoo.com/now/ctas-last-hope-protect-california-184730483.html. Goodman, Peter S., and Erin Schaff. Its Not Sustainable: What Americas Port Crisis Looks Like Up Close. The New York Times, 10 Oct. 2021. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/11/business/supply-chain-crisis-savannah-port.html. Koetsier, John. COVID-19 Accelerated E-Commerce Growth 4 To 6 Years. Forbes, 12 June 2020, https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnkoetsier/2020/06/12/covid-19-accelerated-e-commerce-growth-4-to-6-years/. No SCOTUS Review of California Laws Impact on Trucking Industry. Reuters, 5 Oct. 2021, https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/no-scotus-review-california-laws-impact-trucking-industry-2021-10-04/. Lynch, David J. Stubborn Supply Chain Woes Are Resisting Bidens Remedies. Washington Post, 26 October 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/10/26/supply-chain-ports-fees-biden/. Swanson, Ana. Angling for a Merry Fishmas Despite Global Shipping Delays. The New York Times, 31 Oct. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/31/business/economy/global-shipping-delays-shortages.html. Updated to note AB 5 remains in limbo for the trucking industry pending legal actions. | [
"investment"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1AHcm0kgtw99E8kFwtGpgeemTa3tY_f58",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1231 | What the 'Choosing Your COVID-19 Vaccine' Meme Gets Wrong | 05/21/2021 | [
"A viral image makes a range of claims about vaccine manufacturers to try to discourage people from getting shots. We fact-checked each of them."
] | 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 COVID-19 vaccines became widely available to Americans in spring 2021, anti-vaccine groups attempted to frame the shots' manufacturers as untrustworthy to try to stop people from getting inoculated. COVID-19 Below is a sample of such claims all from a single meme that we fact-checked using reputable sources such as court records, resources distributed by the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the vaccine manufacturers' websites. All in all, the meme stated facts about companies that have developed COVID-19 vaccines but failed to demonstrate how those histories are relevant to the safety or effectiveness of the manufacturers' solutions for ending the pandemic. Firstly, in an attempt to persuade people against the two-dose Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, the meme alleged the New York-based company faced almost $5 billion in penalties for supposedly breaking laws while manufacturing or distributing unidentified products. "Pfizer: $4.7 billion in fines for false claims, drug and medical equipment safety violations, off-label promotion, corrupt practices, kickbacks, and bribery," according to the meme. The claim was factually accurate. But its implication that, because of prior lawsuits, Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccines were potentially unsafe was unsubstantiated, a conclusion on which we elaborate below. As one of the world's largest pharmaceutical corporations, Pfizer's multiple subsidiaries (which produce a range of drugs, including Advil, the erectile disfunction drug Viagra, and the anti-cholesterol drug Lipitor) indeed faced penalties totaling about $4.7 billion over the years, according to Good Jobs First, a left-leaning watchdog group tracking corporate subsidies. left-leaning Those cases, which originated in jurisdictions nationwide, essentially included the above-listed offenses involving all sorts of products between 2000 and 2019, according to Good Jobs First's database. above-listed offenses For instance, in 2004, the Warner-Lambert company which Pfizer acquired four years earlier pleaded guilty to illegally marketing the epilepsy drug Neurontin "even when scientific studies had shown it was not effective," the Department of Justice (DOJ) said in a statement. illegally marketing statement Pfizer agreed to pay $430 million, said that it "cooperated fully with the government to resolve this matter," and stressed the alleged violations occurred before Pfizer acquired Warner-Lambert. agreed said Then, in 2009, the company paid the largest settlement for health care fraud to date, totaling $2.3 billion, according to the DOJ. DOJ. In that case, the company's subsidy Pharmacia & Upjohn Company pleaded guilty to promoting a painkiller Bextra "for several uses and dosages that the FDA specifically declined to approve due to safety concerns," and paid a $1.3 billion criminal fine, the DOJ said in a statement. Bextra had been taken off the market four years earlier. statement had been taken off Additionally, Pfizer paid $1 billion to resolve civil claims regarding not only Bextra but also the antipsychotic Geodon, the antibiotic Zyvox, and the anti-epileptic drug Lyrica, per the statement. Pfizer denied all of those accusations, aside from acknowledging the improper promotion of Zyvox, Reuters reported at the time. Reuters reported Shortly after reaching the historic settlement, the company's general counsel told reporters that it regretted "certain actions in the past," but was proud of the action it had taken to strengthen its internal oversight. told reporters But here's how the meme misled people: It lacked critical evidence to show how those cases against Pfizer were relevant to COVID-19 vaccines, pictured below. It also failed to acknowledge that clinical trials have shown the vaccines to be safe and effective. In December 2020, the FDA issued what's called an "Emergency Use Authorization" that deemed a COVID-19 vaccine created by Pfizer and BioNTech, as well as one manufactured by competitor Moderna, safe and effective enough for mass production. December 2020 Emergency Use Authorization BioNTech Moderna The CDC's advisory committee on immunizations also recommended the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, along with Moderna and Johnson & Johnson's (J&J) formulas. (Here's the CDC's explanation for how vaccines like Pfizer's which uses mRNA technology attempt to train people's immune systems into producing antibodies that can fight the coronavirus, if necessary.) CDC's advisory committee (Here's the CDC's explanation mRNA technology Early on, clinical trials showed the Pfizer vaccine 95% effective in preventing COVID-19. The company confirmed "high efficacy and no serious safety concerns" after a March 2021 follow-up study. 95% effective confirmed follow-up study Because of those results, the FDA expanded Pfizer's eligible vaccine population to include adolescents between the ages of 12 to 15 in mid-May. Also, at that time, Pfizer and Moderna were seeking the FDA's full, regular authorization for their inoculation formulas. That status, which requires at least six months of patient data, would allow the companies to begin marketing the shots. Pfizer and Moderna full, regular authorization In other words, if or when the FDA grants the Pfizer vaccine full approval, the company "can advertise on TV and promote their products under the watchful eye of the FDA," former FDA commissioner Dr. Robert Califf told CNBC. told CNBC To conclude our research, we reached out to Pfizer's communication's department with the following questions: No one has answered our inquiry, but we will update this report when, or if, that changes. In sum, we rate the claim regarding Pfizer a "Mixture" of true and misleading information. It was an accurate depiction of the company's alleged violations involving a handful of its numerous drugs over years. However, no evidence connected those offenses with COVID-19 vaccines nor showed Pfizer had made false claims about, or illegally promoted, its vaccine. Next, in attempt to deny the legitimacy of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, the meme claimed the Massachusetts-based company had tried numerous times to develop vaccines for mass production prior to the pandemic with no success. "Moderna: Has never brought a vaccine to market since its founding, despite fielding 9+ vaccine candidates, none of which made it through phase 3 clinical trials," the meme alleged. Similarly to the Pfizer allegation, the claim was rooted in truth. But the statement failed to explain how it was relevant to Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine, as well as erroneously implied the company's other vaccines did not reach mass distribution solely because of shortcomings in the products themselves, such as their effect on patients or alleged lack of success preventing viral outbreaks. Rather, other barriers such as a lack of funding for research also played a role in the pharmaceutical company's vaccine history. In addition to the COVID-19 vaccine, Moderna has developed nine prophylactic immunizations using mRNA technology since its founding in 2010, according to the company's website. The company describes mRNA "like software for the cell" with the potential to fighting many diseases. prophylactic immunizations using mRNA technology company's website like software for the cell In April 2020, before the FDA granted emergency authorization of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine, BioSpace reported: BioSpace reported So far, Moderna has conducted early trials with success on nine vaccine candidates, including respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), human metapneumovirus (hMPV) and parainfluenza virus (PIV3), influenza H7N9, cytomegalovirus (CMV), Zika, Epstein-Barr, chikungunya. [...] However, the meme was accurate in claiming none of those experimental immunizations (aside from the COVID-19 vaccine) progressed past Phase II clinical trails. That's the stage after researchers test a product on an initial group of people and want to see how it affects a larger sample. (See the FDA's website for more differences between phases of clinical research, and see here for Moderna's process for developing and testing its mRNA vaccines.) test a product clinical research here for Moderna's process for Here's Moderna's visualization of its various vaccines and their development: But, as you can see, Moderna's Influenza H7N9 vaccine was only advancing "subject to funding," negating the meme's implication that the company halted development solely due to safety concerns or ineffectiveness. Furthermore, Moderna's Cytomegalovirus (CMV) vaccine was the first of its kind to enter a Phase II clinical trial, showed "promising" results so far, and was scheduled to progress in 2021, The Medicine Maker reported. Studies on the company's other immunizations remained ongoing, too. Phase II clinical trial The Medicine Maker Similar to the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, the Moderna shot was 94% effective in preventing recipients from catching the virus. 94% effective Lastly, Snopes contacted representatives of Moderna with the following questions: Pending answers to those questions, we will update this report. In short, the meme factually stated that the COVID-19 vaccine was Moderna's first inoculation to reach mass production. However, it simultaneously implied, without evidence to substantiate the claim, that the company's other vaccines stalled due to their effects on test patients. For those reasons, we rate the claim a "Mixture" of true and misleading information. Much like the meme's claim about Pfizer, its allegation that Johnson & Johnson was "named in hundreds of thousands of lawsuits for toxic and/or dangerous products, including drugs, shampoos, medical equipment, and asbestos-contaminated baby powder" was at least partially accurate at face value. asbestos-contaminated baby powder But the post failed to provide substantial evidence to prove how, or to what extent, that fact was relevant to the safety of the company's COVID-19 vaccine. Let us explain. In fall 2020, Johnson & Johnson indeed paid over $100 million to resolve more than 1,000 lawsuits claiming that the pharmaceutical giant's banned powder and talc products caused cancer due to asbestos contamination, Bloomberg reported. Some 20,000 pending cases made similar accusations. Bloomberg reported Additionally, unrelated lawsuits alleged the company violated medical equipment or drug safety guidelines, among other offenses, according to Good Jobs First, the corporate accountability watchdog. For instance, one investigation concluded the company did not fully disclose the risks of devices to support women's prolapsed pelvic organs, according to The Gaurdian. Good Jobs First The Gaurdian Let us note here: The exact number of lawsuits that named the company for allegedly selling "toxic and/or dangerous products" since its founding was unknown, which meant the meme's reference to "hundreds of thousands" of cases was unsubstantiated. No violation listed in the Good Jobs First database was related to Johnson & Johnson's single-dose COVID-19 vaccine, which the FDA approved months after Pfizer's and Moderna's, in early 2021. approved Instead of using mRNA technology, the J&J shot takes the form of whats called a viral vector to attack one specific part of SARS-CoV-2. AstraZeneca's COVID-19 immunization (which the FDA has not approved, as of this writing, and discuss below) uses that same process. The J&J shot was about 66% effective in preventing COVID-19 from infecting recipients during clinical trials, according to the CDC. AstraZeneca's COVID-19 according to the CDC That said, J&J's immunization was not without controversy. In mid-April, mass vaccination sites in states including Georgia, Colorado, and North Carolina temporarily halted the shot's distribution after a few recipients felt dizzy, light-headed, and faint. The CDC monitored the reports and continued to recommend the shot's use. temporarily halted Then, shortly later, the CDC recommended all vaccine providers nationwide to temporarily halt giving out the J&J shot while health officials investigated a potential blood clotting issue that occurred in seven cases out of 6.8 million shots administered. recommended That pause ended on April 23, when the CDC said in a statement: said in a statement We reached out to J&J with the following questions: We will update this report when, or if, the company responds. In conclusion, we also rated the meme's statements about J&J a "Mixture" of true and misleading information. While it was a mostly factual representation of the company's alleged lawsuits over the years, nothing linked those cases with the company's COVID-19 immunization nor showed that the product included toxic or dangerous ingredients, like the meme implied. Of all of the meme's claims, the assertion about AstraZeneca was the least misleading. It was a direct reference to the manufacturer's COVID-19 vaccine (which is not currently in use in the U.S. and was developed in partnership with Oxford University) instead of an out-of-context fact pertaining to other pharmaceutical products. not currently "AstraZeneca: Suspended by two dozen European countries due to severe, lethal adverse reactions, like blood clots," the post alleged. lethal Yes, in spring 2021, a number of European countries (Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Bulgaria, etc.) temporarily suspended rollouts of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine after reports of patients developing blood clots. Less than 40 cases of blood clots were reported out of the 17 million vaccine recipients, according to AstraZeneca. Denmark Norway Iceland Bulgaria according to AstraZeneca Reputable sources, including Snopes, said "more than a dozen European countries" issued the suspension not "two dozen," like the meme claimed. Reputable sources Snopes Additionally, the meme's use of the phrase "due to" discredited its message. Rather, AstraZeneca, health officials, the World Health Organization (WHO) and government regulatory bodies all said there was no causal link between the vaccine formula and the patients' blood clots. "In fact, nearly every country that issued a suspension acknowledged that it had no evidence the vaccine had caused the blood clots," NBC reported at the time. "Health experts have pointed out that the people most likely to currently be receiving COVID-19 vaccinations are also more likely to have other health problems, which could put them at higher risk for blood clots." reported at the time See our fact check into the matter here. here Since then, many European countries restarted their programs after the European Medicine Agency dubbed the AstraZeneca vaccine safe and effective" despite the blood-clot reports. EMA said in a statement: European Medicine Agency In other words, we rate the meme's claim regarding AstraZeneca a "Mixture" of false and factual information. It was true that a number of European countries temporarily suspended the use of the manufacturer's COVID-19 vaccine after a handful of recipients reported blood clots. But no evidence proved those thromboembolic issues were a direct, adverse affect of the vaccine (rather than unrelated medical issues), and several countries restarted their AstraZeneca vaccination programs since the brief halt. | [
"accountability"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=17GDufSCZTiWy_qlKtgzzcgNMj9OkGISd",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1qLbq88qBvy0Re1JzFcGljJCcu2-QTbq7",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=17fOc-2uoixi0IFd8fjwq2wMO9Okm5whp",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1232 | 'May They Rot in Hell': Trump Curses Political Enemies in Christmas Day 2023 Post | 12/27/2023 | [
"Readers asked Snopes if it was true that the former U.S. president had ended a Christmas message with the words, \"May they rot in hell.\""
] | On Dec. 27, 2023, readers emailed Snopes to ask if it was true that former U.S. President Donald Trump had written a post on Christmas Day that included the words, "May they rot in hell." A check of Trump's posts on his social media platform, Truth Social, showed dozens of new posts ("Truths") and reposts ("Retruths") in the previous two days. Buried below all of the more recent shared posts was a "trending" post in which Trump had offered a "Merry Christmas" message on Dec. 25. That post truly did include the words, "May they rot in hell," which appeared in all capital letters. The imprecation was aimed at so-called "thugs" Trump claimed were "looking to destroy our once great USA." The full post (archived) read as follows: post archived Merry Christmas to all, including Crooked Joe Bidens ONLY HOPE, Deranged Jack Smith, the out of control Lunatic who just hired outside attorneys, fresh from the SWAMP (unprecedented!), to help him with his poorly executed WITCH HUNT against TRUMP and MAGA. Included also are World Leaders, both good and bad, but none of which are as evil and sick as the THUGS we have inside our Country who, with their Open Borders, INFLATION, Afghanistan Surrender, Green New Scam, High Taxes, No Energy Independence, Woke Military, Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Iran, All Electric Car Lunacy, and so much more, are looking to destroy our once great USA. MAY THEY ROT IN HELL. AGAIN, MERRY CHRISTMAS! Snopes has previously published a wealth of reporting about claims mentioned in the above post: "open borders," worldwide inflation, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Green New Deal, U.S. President Joe Biden's plans for taxes, Biden's record on energy independence, the idea of the U.S. military being "woke," Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the war in Israel and Gaza and electric-powered vehicles. open borders worldwide inflation U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan Green New Deal taxes energy independence woke Russia's invasion of Ukraine war in Israel and Gaza electric-powered vehicles On the same day that Trump posted his Christmas message on Truth Social, a Biden-Harris campaign spokesperson named Seth Schuster responded by calling it an "erratic Christmas Day rant," according to reporting from Washington Examiner. Washington Examiner We reached out to the Trump campaign by email to ask about the statement and will update this story if we receive a response. In addition to the Truth Social post on Christmas Day, Trump also released a video message on Christmas Eve that did not include the words, "May they rot in hell." Rather, the video simply showed Trump offering positive, forward-looking sentiments about Christmas, U.S. military servicemembers and the upcoming 2024 U.S. presidential election. Dapcevich, Madison. Does Biden Support the Green New Deal? Snopes, 1 Oct. 2020, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-biden-support-green-new-deal/. Datoc, Christian. MSN.MSN.Com, Washington Examiner, 26 Dec. 2023, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-campaign-rebukes-trump-s-rot-in-hell-christmas-wish/ar-AA1m43Pg. Electric Vehicles Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/electric-vehicles/. Huberman, Bond. About That Biden Tax Plan Meme. Snopes, 29 Oct. 2020, https://www.snopes.com/collections/about-that-biden-tax-plan-meme/. Ibrahim, Nur. Do Democrats Want Open Borders? Snopes, 17 June 2022, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/17/do-democrats-want-open-borders/. Inflation Is Spiking Around the World Not Just in US. Snopes via The Conversation, 1 Aug. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/08/01/inflation-us-world/. Israel Hamas War Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/israel-hamas_war/. Kasprak, Alex. Did Biden Set US Back 50 Years on Energy Independence Progress? Snopes, 15 Feb. 2021, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-energy-independence/. Liles, Jordan. Did the Trump Admin Agree to Free 5,000 Taliban Prisoners? Snopes, 12 Dec. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-5000-taliban-prisoners/. Palma, Bethania. Top General Blasts Rep. Matt Gaetz for Offensive Comment About Military Being Woke. Snopes, 24 June 2021, https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/06/24/matt-gaetz-mark-milley-woke/. Ukraine War Archives | Snopes.com. https://www.snopes.com/tag/russia-ukraine/. | [
"taxes"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=18B9Vv9_M9aVMqXouu5OSEKcMk6rUwIc5",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1233 | Was a donation made by Home Depot to Herschel Walker's campaign? | 10/10/2022 | [
"The truth of the matter regarding Home Depot and Walker, a Georgia Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, wasn't as simple as it was presented by some news articles."
] | On Oct. 7, 2022, a Twitter user named Nathalie Jacoby tweeted, "Will you join me in boycotting Home Depot for donating $1.75 MILLION to Herschel Walkers campaign?" Walker is a Republican U.S. Senate candidate for the state of Georgia. The tweet led several of our readers to email us about the matter. tweeted In the 2022 U.S. election, Walker was challenging U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock, a Democrat. Should Walker win the seat, it would potentially give Republicans a coveted Senate majority. The race brought with it a lot of rumors and news stories. One of the biggest rumors appeared to be about Walker purportedly encouraging a woman to have two abortions. However, for this fact check, we will only be looking into the claim about Home Depot. Walker encouraging a woman to have two abortions Home Depot responded to Jacoby's tweet by saying that the contribution in question came from the company's co-founder Bernie Marcus. responded We also reached out to the company to inquire about the matter. By email, a company spokesperson told us the following: "Thanks for reaching out. This isnt true. Home Depots PAC hasnt donated to Walkers or Warnocks campaigns. Our co-founder Bernie Marcus left Home Depot more than 20 years ago, and his views do not represent the company." It's true that Marcus retired from the company in 2002. However, despite what some readers may have read in other articles that appeared at the top of Google search results, that wasn't the full story. retired On the morning of Oct. 10, Judd Legum of the Popular Information blog reported that Home Depot PAC, a political action committee associated with the company, had donated funds to a Republican organization that funded ad spending for Walker's campaign. reported associated funded ad spending After reviewing Legum's reporting, we located expenditure records for Home Depot PAC that had been published on OpenSecrets.org. The website calls itself "the nation's premier research and government transparency group tracking money in politics and its effect on elections and policy." published The information on Open Secrets indicated the following: While there is no record of Home Depot directly donating to Walker's efforts to win the Senate seat, Home Depot PAC did provide funds to the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). According to reporting from Politico that was published on Oct. 4, the NRSC was "splitting a new $8.5 million ad buy with the Walker campaign." National Republican Senatorial Committee reporting We contacted Legum by Twitter DM, who told us that the Federal Election Commission website, FEC.gov, also showed four key records related to Home Depot and NRSC. These records indicated that Home Depot PAC, shown on the website as The Home Depot Inc. Political Action Committee, had donated a combined $90,000 to the NRSC in late 2021 and early 2022. four key records Other large expenditures made by the Home Depot PAC in 2021 and 2022 also went to organizations that were associated with the Republican Party, according to the FEC website. Examples included $45,000 to the California Republican Party and $25,000 to the Georgians First Leadership Committee. Other large expenditures At the same time, Home Depot PAC also gave money in 2021 and 2022 to organizations that appeared to be led by Democrats. Examples included $60,000 to the California Legislative Black Caucus Policy Institute, $50,000 to the Los Angeles Delegation Foundation, $30,000 to the Women in Power PAC, and $25,000 to the Asian Pacific Islander Leadership PAC. Home Depot Note: Jacoby, the Twitter user, also previously tweeted in support of boycotting CNN, Chick-fil-A, Kanye West, and Hobby Lobby and MyPillow. CNN Chick-fil-A Kanye West Hobby Lobby and MyPillow Allison, Natalie, and Marianne Levine. Republicans Rally around Walkers Imperiled Candidacy. POLITICO, 4 Oct. 2022, https://www.politico.com/. Federal Election Commission. https://www.fec.gov/. Grace Meng Elected as New Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Leadership PAC. Capacleadership.Org, 13 Apr. 2016, https://www.capacleadership.org/. Home Depot. Twitter, https://twitter.com/homedepot/. Jacoby, Nathalie. Twitter, https://twitter.com/nathaliejacoby1/. Kamisar, Ben. Big Georgia Senate Ad Spending Shift Highlights a Novel Strategy. NBC News, 23 Sept. 2022, https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/big-georgia-senate-ad-spending-shift-highlights-novel-strategy-rcna49125. Kempner, Matt. Home Depot Founders Reunite: $40M for Vets, 1st Responders Health. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 16 Feb. 2021. AJC.com, https://www.ajc.com/ajcjobs/home-depot-founders-reunite-40m-for-vets-1st-responders-health/WRWBASV6GREQTKUU56LWLXGGY4/. Koseff, Alexei. Women Target Seats Held by California Lawmakers Accused of Sexual Harassment. The Sacramento Bee, 15 Feb. 2018, https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article200150799.html. Legum, Judd. Who Is Really Financing Herschel Walkers Campaign? Popular Information, 10 Oct. 2022, https://popular.info/p/who-is-really-financing-herschel. Members. CLBCPI Foundation, https://cablackcaucus.org/members/. National Republican Senatorial Committee. https://www.nrsc.org/. NBCSL | California Legislative Black Caucus Elects New Leadership. 25 Aug. 2022, https://nbcsl.org/media-center/news/item/2376-california-legislative-black-caucus-elects-new-leadership.html. OpenSecrets. https://www.opensecrets.org/. Report: Walker Encouraged Woman to Have Second Abortion. The Associated Press, 8 Oct. 2022, https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-herschel-walker-congress-government-and-politics-9d7d9c68a802169994b9db719d8256c0. Rosenhall, Laurel. The New Thing for California Politicians? Sweet Charity. CalMatters, 18 Feb. 2020, https://calmatters.org/projects/california-lawmaker-nonprofits-politics-charity-campaign-finance-foundation-dark-money/. Scribner, Herb. Home Depot Denies Donating over $1 Million to Herschel Walkers Campaign. Axios, 8 Oct. 2022, https://www.axios.com/2022/10/08/home-depot-herschel-walker-georgia-donation. Werschkul, Ben. Home Depot Now the Biggest Corporate Donor to 2020 Election Objectors, Analysis Finds. Yahoo Finance, 25 Mar. 2022, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/home-depot-biggest-corporate-contributor-to-2020-election-objectors-analysis-finds-185705617.html. After this story was published, on Oct. 10, we added an email statement sent to us by Home Depot. | [
"funds"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1Q7ouL5TGI8FQV5z9Op6LJXbydei6h9fZ",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1234 | Billy Graham's Daughter's Speech | 10/02/2001 | [
"Did Billy Graham's daughter say that 'We cannot just ask God in when disaster strikes'?"
] | As many others have pointed out, one of the pitfalls of the Internet as a means of communication is that it can spread misinformation as rapidly as accurate information. Unfortunately, the former often circulates widely, while corrections come too late, if at all. Here is a case in point illustrating why even a simple memory of a recent event—a television appearance by someone prominent—spread via email cannot be trusted as accurate. Although the gist of the message is true, nearly every detail it contains is incorrect. For example, [Collected on the Internet, 2001] Bryant Gumbel recently interviewed Billy Graham's daughter on the Today Show. Gumbel asked, "Why didn't God stop this or do something about this?" Billy Graham's daughter responded, "For years we have told God we didn't want Him in our schools. We didn't want Him in our government, and we didn't want Him in our finances, and God was being a perfect gentleman in doing just what we asked Him to do. We need to make up our mind—do we want God or do we not want Him? We cannot just ask Him in when disaster strikes." Bryant Gumbel was silent. On September 13, Anne Graham Lotz, the daughter of the Reverend Billy Graham, appeared on CBS's Early Show, not NBC's Today program. She was interviewed by Jane Clayson, not Bryant Gumbel. Neither the question posed to her nor her response is quoted accurately above. Her interviewer was not "silent" after her remarks; the interview continued as before after this exchange: Jane Clayson: "I've heard people say, those who are religious and those who are not, if God is good, how could God let this happen? To that, you say?" Anne Graham Lotz: "I say God is also angry when He sees something like this. I would say also that for several years now, Americans in a sense have shaken their fist at God and said, 'God, we want you out of our schools, our government, our business, we want you out of our marketplace.' And God, who is a gentleman, has just quietly backed out of our national and political life, our public life, removing His hand of blessing and protection. We need to turn to God first of all and say, 'God, we're sorry we have treated you this way, and we invite you now to come into our national life. We put our trust in you.' We have our trust in God on our coins; we need to practice it." Ms. Lotz did say, in effect, that we cannot simultaneously reject God in our daily lives yet still expect His protection when disaster strikes, but now a paraphrase of one response she made during a longer interview has been presented as a direct quote, and all the details about the context in which she made the remark have been misrepresented. | [
"finance"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1235 | Was an 'Omicron' Movie Made in the '60s? | 12/01/2021 | [
"The only thing the internet loves more than a good prediction is pretending that a good prediction exists."
] | The only thing the internet loves more than a good prediction is pretending that a good prediction exists. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, we've seen far-reaching attempts to claim that this contagious and deadly disease had been predicted by episodes of "The Simpsons," George Orwell's book "1984," the alleged soothsayer known as Nostradamus, the alleged psychic Sylvia Browne, South Korean television shows, the video game Resident Evil, and a novel by Dean Koontz. In November 2021, as a new variant of COVID-19 emerged that health officials called "omicron," social media users started looking for old pieces of media containing the word so that they could claim that this variant had been "predicted." What they found was a movie from the 1960s: there really was a movie made in 1963 called "Omicron." And that's where this movie's connection to the current COVID-19 pandemic ends. The word "omicron" isn't new, and its use in a 1960s movie isn't all that surprising. "Omicron" is the 15th letter of the Greek alphabet and has been in use for thousands of years. In academic fields, it is often used to represent the 15th item in a list. The World Health Organization announced in May that it would be naming new COVID-19 variants as they emerge by using the Greek alphabet. While the "delta" variant made headlines, there have been several other variants, such as epsilon, iota, and lambda, that didn't warrant too much concern. When the latest variant emerged, WHO skipped two letters, nu and xi, as they are common surnames, and named the new variant omicron. WHO has assigned simple, easy-to-say and remember labels for key variants of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, using letters of the Greek alphabet. These labels were chosen after wide consultation and a review of many potential naming systems. WHO convened an expert group of partners from around the world to do so, including experts who are part of existing naming systems, nomenclature and virus taxonomic experts, researchers, and national authorities. The word "omicron" is also frequently used by astronomers to name stars. Omicron Persei, Omicron Andromedae, and Omicron Ceti are all real stars in the galaxy. It's not far-fetched to see how a fiction writer could name a fictional planet or a fictional alien "Omicron." In fact, when some social media users encountered the name of this new COVID-19 variant, a number of people noted how "omicron" would make a great name for a sci-fi movie. Some even created and posted fake movie posters. Here's one fake "Omicron" movie poster next to the original movie poster it was created from: While a few fake "Omicron" movie posters were circulated on social media in November 2021, there have been a few movies with this title. In 1963, Italian writer and director Ugo Gregoretti made a movie called "Omicron" about an alien that took over a human body in order to learn more about Earth. Here's one scene from the satirical film: This is a real movie, but it has practically nothing to do with the current pandemic. Furthermore, using "omicron" in a work of fiction isn't all that uncommon. In 2013, "The Visitor from Planet Omicron" explored how an alien invasion could be thwarted by really good cooking. The plot of "The Visitor from Planet Omicron" would probably make better conspiratorial fodder as it involves a botanical virus and a corrupt government, but this low-budget comedy in no way "predicted" COVID-19. The animated show "Futurama" also features an alien character named Lrrr, who is the ruler of the Planet Omicron Persei 8. While one could build a conspiracy theory around Lrrr and the other Omicronians starting the COVID-19 pandemic, Lrrr would probably rather eat humans (or force them to make more sitcoms) than kill them with a plague. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic is not a work of fiction. It wasn't predicted by old sci-fi movies, and it wasn't planned by nefarious forces. The latest variant was named "omicron" because that was the next usable letter in the Greek alphabet. The next variant will likely be called "Pi," the 16th letter of the Greek alphabet, which will undoubtedly lead people to claim that the pandemic was predicted by movies like "Life of Pi" or by Greek mathematician Archimedes of Syracuse, who was the first to calculate an accurate approximation of pi. | [
"lien"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1G2V_pZax6VzEhaTcNmPmMTYN0keyuUbF",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1236 | A Letter addressed to President Obama written by Lou Pritchett. | 05/31/2009 | [
"Lou Pritchett penned an 'open letter' to President Obama?"
] | Claim: Lou Pritchett penned an "open letter" to President Obama. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example: [Collected via e-mail, May 2009] AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA Dear President Obama: You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you. You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support. You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American. You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll. You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.. You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others. You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail. You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad. You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector. You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one. You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves. You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world. You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations. You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals. You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people. You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient. You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do. You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view. You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing. Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years. Lou Pritchett Origins: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat. Lou Pritchett Mr. Pritchett confirmed to us that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter" quoted above: I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the 'experts' has had over 500,000 hits. In April 2012, the following update was added to the original: In April 2009, I sent President Obama and the New York Times a lettertitled "You Scare Me" because, as a candidate, he promised to"fundamentally transform America." Now, after observing his performancefor over three years, he no longer scares me he terrifies me for thefollowing reasons: FIRST-- He has done more to damage America's standing in the world, tolower the standard of living in America, to impoverish future generationsand to shake our faith in the country's future than any other Americanpresident in history. SECOND-- With a compliant Democrat congress, a lapdog media and a weak,almost nonexistent Republican opposition, he has shattered the Americandream of job security, home ownership and rugged individualism formillions of Americans and has poisoned and divided our civil society withhis politics of envy, class warfare, race warfare, and religious warfarewhich he is using as fundamental building blocks for his 'socialist'agenda. THIRD-- culturally, he remains totally out of touch with traditionalAmerican values. This has absolutely nothing to do with race or where hewas born, rather it has everything to do with where, how and with whom hewas raised, schooled, educated, trained and associates with still today. FOURTH-- he has surrounded himself with naive academicians, lawyers,politicians, bureaucrats and socialist leaning czars who arrogantly thinkand behave exactly as he does.People who offer no balanced suggestions or devils advocate positions andthink in lock step with him that big government is the answer to all ourproblems. FIFTH-- he not only encourages but aids and abets the unionization of allAmerican industry, the albatross around the neck of the free market. Inturn, they provide the money and muscle to intimidate his opponents. SIXTH-- he has increased the national debt by over 30% in just threeyears. If re-elected and this rate of increase continues, America will beburdened with an unsustainable 20 trillion dollar debt which will resultin the Country's financial death. Recovery will be impossible ---- Americawill be the Greece of 2016. SEVENTH-- given his fanatical beholding to the 'environmental' and'man-caused global warming' fringe, he has deliberately discouraged U.S.fossil fuel exploration and production while wasting millions of tax payerdollars on solar, wind and algae experiments. He refuses to accept thatoil, gas and coal are not America's enemies, they are America's assetswhich, properly managed, could make us energy independent within ageneration. EIGHTH-- He views the U.S. as a power in retreat which abused its Worlddominance. Therefore he systematically apologizes round the world. LastMarch he whispered to Russian President Medvedev "--this is my lastelection. After my election, I have more flexibility". Just what is thesecret that Obama and Putin are concealing from the American people untilafter the election? With what other leaders has he made similar secretagreements? NINTH---and finally, after all his mis-steps, bad decision making, poormanagement, and zero leadership, the fact that he has the audacity to seekre-election should terrify every American.I predict that if re-elected, future historians and political interpreterswill look back at the eight year period 2008-2016, and conclude "the 44thPresident of the U.S. allowed the takers to overpower the payers whichresulted in the greatest economy in history vanishing from the face of theEarth". Lou Pritchett April 15, 2012Farewell America, the World will really miss you! Last updated: 12 May 2012 | [
"asset"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1237 | Did Major General Paul D. Eaton Say Trump's Decertifying Iran Deal 'Dishonors America'? | 05/09/2018 | [
"A meme reproduces a former general's comment about President Donald Trump's announcement that the U.S. would be withdrawing from a nuclear deal with Iran."
] | On 8 May 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump announced his administration's plans to withdraw the U.S. from an Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran. Shortly afterwards, the Facebook page "Far Left Veteran" shared a meme with a related quote attributed to Major General Paul D. Eaton: withdraw meme Paul D. Eaton Maj. General Eaton is a retired U.S. Army officer who commanded operations to train Iraqi troops during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003-04 before returning to the U.S. to become Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Training, United States Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia. That Eaton made the comment attributed to him above is documented by his verified Twitter account, where he posted that comment on the same day President Trump announced his intentions to withdraw the U.S. from the Iran deal: I have served with foreign Soldiers and armies all my professional life - including Iranian. The American Military word was trusted. I deeply regret @realDonaldTrump decision to walk away from the Iran Deal. He dishonors America and puts us and our allies at risk. #IranDeal @realDonaldTrump #IranDeal Major General (ret) Paul Eaton (@PaulDEaton52) May 8, 2018 May 8, 2018 In a statement published on VoteVets.org, the major general provided additional opinion on the issue: statement Today, Donald Trump has moved us closer to a war with Iran, while he has also moved us closer to a nuclear war with North Korea. All this while we wage a war in Afghanistan. By decertifying the Iran deal, and putting the question of new sanctions before Congress, Iran will now consider restarting its nuclear program. Should Congress reinstitute sanctions, Iran will undoubtedly speed towards nuclear weapons, putting us on the path to war. If Congress inserts new triggers for sanctions, Iran will likely consider whether staying in the deal is worth it, at all. At the same time, North Korea now knows that any deal signed by the United States is not worth the ink it is written in, when it comes to Donald Trump. That chops diplomats off at the knees, as they struggle to find a non-military solution to the crisis in Korea. It moves us closer to nuclear war with North Korea. In short, today Donald Trump has put us on the path to two new wars, with nuclear weapons. We are very much less safe today, than we were yesterday. The path we are now on massive loss of human life, on the scale of millions is not a positive development for America, or humanity. We implore Congress to step in, and rein in this president. VoteVets.org. "Statement of Major General (Ret.) Paul D. Eaton, Former Iraq War Commander, Senior Adviser to VoteVets, on Trump Decertifying Iran Deal."
Accessed 9 May 2018. | [
"loss"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1sDRfqlVnpuzINHy3nt3ikcayGLhxijPp",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1238 | Did Israel-Hamas War Protester Aaron Bushnell Post Antisemitic Comments on Reddit? | 02/29/2024 | [
"On Feb. 25, 2024, Bushnell lit himself on fire to protest Israeli military action in Gaza."
] | 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 According to some posts on X (formerly known as Twitter), a Reddit account supposedly used by Aaron Bushnell, the U.S. Air Force member who died in February 2024 after lighting himself on fire in front of the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C., contained blatantly antisemitic comments. some posts on X These posts used a supposed screenshot ofa comment attributed to Bushnell, which read "Palestine will be free when all the jews are dead," to question his motives for carrying out his protest. These posts (@TheHarrisSultan / X) This was not a real comment posted by "acebush1," the handle Bushnell allegedly used on Reddit, and cannot be attributed to Bushnell. On Feb. 25, 2024, just before 1 p.m. Eastern time, Bushnell went live on the video streaming platform Twitch. Dressed incombat fatigues, he walked up to the gate of the Israeli embassy, set his phone down so it would capture his actions, poured a liquid accelerant over his head out of a metal thermos, put on his cap and lit himself on fire. lit himself on fire While walking toward the embassy, Bushnell did provide a brief explanation for his action. "I will no longer be complicit in genocide," he explained to the camera. "I am about to engage in an extreme act of protest, but compared to what people have been experiencing in Palestine at the hands of their colonizers, it's not extreme at all. This is what our ruling class has decided will be normal." As Bushnell lit himself on fire, he began repeatedly shouting "Free Palestine," interrupted by loud screams of pain. A censored version of the video, posted to X by independent journalist Talia Jane with permission from Bushnell's loved ones, can be viewed here. (Because the video, even censored, is very disturbing, Snopes has elected to only provide a link in lieu of embedding the footage.) Talia Jane here As the news of the act spread, various news outlets and individuals began investigating Bushnell's online presence. By using a since-deleted post on Bushnell's Facebook page that linked to his Twitch account, The Intercept was able to identify one of Bushnell's long-term usernames online: "acebush1." This is the username Bushnell supposedly used to post the antisemitic comment to Reddit. The Intercept We started by investigating who owns/owned the "acebush1" Reddit account, and we came to the same conclusion: It does appear to be owned by Bushnell. The posting history of the now-suspended account contains plenty of references to the Air Force and a confirmation that the user was an active-duty member. It also contains a lot of posts supporting leftist, mainly anarchist, viewpoints. The presence of those political views further solidifies the connection between the account and Bushnell, who, according to the BBC, sent emails to left-wing and anarchist news sites earlier that day alerting them to his planned protest. Finally, we cross-checked the "acebush1" username across other platforms and discovered that the Instagram account with that username, which was created in April 2018, also belonged to Aaron Bushnell. posting history BBC Instagram Next, we attempted to verify whether there was a comment made on Bushnell's Reddit account that matched the screenshots we saw on X. This process was complicated by the fact that many of Bushnell's Reddit posts had been deleted. However, by going to the "acebush1" user profile directly, Bushnell's comment history was still visible. According to the screenshots on X, the post in question was made "2 months ago." acebush1 We looked at all comments from the account that were posted between one month and three months ago just to be sure we would catch the comment in question. It wasn't there. We double-checked this using PullPush, a website that allows you to view the contents of deleted Reddit comments. Nothing matched the screenshot. We reverse image searched the photo of the supposed post on TinEye and Google and looked through those links to see if anyone could provide a link to the original comment. Again, nothing. PullPush TinEye Google In fact, according to athread posted to X(archived) by Talia Jane, the screenshot's original poster "got it from a friend." In conclusion, there is absolutely zero evidence for the claim besides the one screenshot of the supposed post shared on X. As such, we rate this claim "Fake." posted to X archived Some online have claimed that to rationalize his actions, Bushnell must have been mentally unstable. The history of self-immolation does not necessarily support that claim. According to Time magazine, self-immolation as an act of protest dates back centuries, as far back as an old Hindu practice of ritual suicide called sati and Catholic persecution during the Roman Empire. It was brought to international attention when photojournalist Malcolm Browne captured the Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc while he was actively burning in 1963. In the years that followed, several American citizens set themselves on fire to protest the Vietnam War. Some Time sati Thich Quang Duc several American citizens More recently, Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi's self-immolation in 2010 directly started the Tunisian Revolution and is credited as one of the main causes of the Arab Spring. In the United States, multiple people have self-immolated to protest inaction against climate change, first in 2018, then in2020, then in2022. Bushnell became the second American to do so in protest of Israeli military action in Gaza, following an unidentified personwho self-immolated outside the Israeli consulate in Atlanta on Dec. 1, 2023. Mohamed Bouazizi's 2018 2020 2022 unidentified person | [
"credit"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1PzKXfuXvnl1NeKhVl5ipDpHeleNmcFpI",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1239 | Is Pelosi seeking to include 'assured minimum incomes' for 'undocumented immigrants' in the upcoming COVID-19 stimulus package? | 05/11/2020 | [
"A right-wing provocateur made the claim in a May 2020 tweet as federal leaders negotiated what to include in their next COVID-19 economic relief package."
] | Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO On May 4, 2020 as federal leaders debated how to respond to an unprecedented interruption to the U.S. economy due to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic a conservative provocateur tweeted that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wanted the country's next economic relief package to establish "guaranteed minimum incomes" for "illegal aliens." COVID-19 Suggesting that only legal U.S. residents should benefit from federal stimulus packages, Charlie Kirk who's the founder of the conservative political group Turning Point USA and social media ally of U.S. President Donald Trump said in the tweet to his roughly 1.7 million followers: To investigate the validity of his claim, we examined Pelosi's public statements and media appearances to determine if, or when, she used the phrased "guaranteed income" and under what circumstances. While Kirk provides no explanation for where or when or to whom Pelosi made the remarks in the above-displayed tweet aside from the tweet's indication with the word "BREAKING" that the House Speaker had made the comments shortly before he composed the post we considered statements by Pelosi since the beginning of the COVID-19 U.S. outbreak in early 2020 for our investigation. Within that timeframe, she used or referenced the phrase "guaranteed income" in three public statements, two of which were televised interviews. First, the House Speaker spoke the words on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" on April 24. In light of the federal government's approval of the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in March 2020 (and stimulus bills totaling about $500 billion since then), Maher asked Pelosi if the federal government could afford similar economic relief packages for Americans should the pandemic keep businesses closed and systems locked down in the coming months. She responded: April 24 CARES I think that it should be clear that this (COVID-19 stimulus spending so far) is not doing the job that it is set out to do completely, that we may have to consider some other options. Others have proposed a sovereign fund profits of which go to these unemployed people or guaranteed income, other things that may not even be as costly as continuing down this path. She provided no further details on the so-called proposals for "guaranteed income," which generally refers to a government-imposed system so that every citizen receives a minimum income a central idea of the 2020 presidential campaign by former Democratic candidate Andrew Yang. Also in the conversation with Maher, Pelosi did not explicitly state that she wanted the system implemented via Congressional legislation. Andrew Yang Three days later, however, the House Speaker again said the words "guaranteed income" in a televised interview, this time with more specificity on her openness to the social welfare system. In the April 27 segment of MSNBC's "Live with Stephanie Ruhle," while explaining federal leaders' next steps to help small businesses survive the financial crisis, Pelosi said: MSNBC As we go forward, let's see what works: what is operational and what needs other attention. Others have suggested a minimum income for a guaranteed income for people. Is that worthy of attention now? Perhaps so, because there are many more people than just in small business and hired by small business, as important as that is to the vitality of our economy. And other people who are not in the public sector, you know, meeting our needs in so many ways, that may need some assistance as well. Soon after she made the statement on live TV, news outlets including CBS News and CNBC published stories with headlines such as, "Pelosi says 'guaranteed income' for Americans is worth considering for coronavirus recovery." In a story by Business Insider about the televised comments, an aid to Pelosi said the House Speaker was referring to proposals that would guarantee worker paychecks not a sweeping system for universal basic income. CBS News CNBC Business Insider guarantee worker paychecks Then, on May 1, the House Speaker and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus made themselves available to journalists via a conference call to discuss provisions within the CARES Act that exclude immigrants without Social Security numbers from receiving one-time stimulus checks. May 1 receiving one-time stimulus checks. In the call, Pelosi expressed support for legislation that would guarantee COVID-19 economic relief to not only people with Social Security numbers but also immigrants and their families who use Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs), which the IRS assigns to workers without Social Security numbers, to pay annual taxes. According to the IRS, the federal agency issues the numbers "regardless of immigration status, because both resident and nonresident aliens may have a U.S. filing or reporting requirement under the Internal Revenue Code." In other words, some immigrants who use the identification numbers (ITINs) not social security numbers to pay taxes may be "undocumented." According to a transcript of the May 1 call, at one point a reporter asked Pelosi: transcript Pretty recently you said that Congress should consider adding some form of guaranteed monthly income into the next coronavirus relief package. So I was wondering if you would extend that form of guaranteed income to undocumented immigrants and non-citizens who file taxes with tax ID numbers, ITINs, instead of Social Security numbers? In her response, Pelosi reiterated that she thinks federal leaders should consider guaranteed income and that she would talk to chairs of House committees about exploring the idea further. Additionally, as they consider future economic benefits for Americans during the pandemic, she said: Any way we go down the path that [ITINs] should apply, whether its direct payments, whether its participation in PPP (the federal Paycheck Protection Plan loan program)... I said it [guaranteed income] should be considered. And, why it should be considered, in my view, is because there is a lot of money, federal taxpayer dollars, going out the door. Whether its PPP, whether its Unemployment Insurance, whether its direct payments ... But, whatever we do, I think the tax number is an easy entre to many more people who deserve it, who should get this, but are being cut out now, in whatever it is that we are putting out there. Given the nature of and circumstances surrounding the May 1 call, and considering the fact that Pelosi did not mention "guaranteed income" in any other public statements after the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak and before Kirk's viral posting, we determined it to be the most likely source of inspiration for his May 4 tweet. However, though Pelosi said she wants people who use ITINs to receive economic relief from the federal government during the pandemic a group that would include "undocumented" immigrants she did not say she wants the government to provide stimulus payments to all "undocumented" immigrants. Additionally, the House Speaker said she wanted federal leaders to consider, not implement, "guaranteed income" for Americans, unlike what Kirk's tweet implies. In sum, given those reasons as well as the lack of clarity for what Pelosi means by the phrase "guaranteed income," the context in which she made the comments analyzed above, and the fact that she did say she wanted future stimulus money to help foreign people without Social Security numbers we rate this claim as "false." Rosenberg, Mattew and Rogers, Katie. "For Charlie Kirk, Conservative Activist, the Virus Is a Cudgel."
The New York Times. 19 April 2020. Ruhle, Stephanie. "Pelosi says guaranteed income may be worth considering amid coronavirus hardships."
MSNBC. 27 April 2020. Real Time with Bill Maher. "Speaker Nancy Pelosi | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)."
YouTube. 24 April 2020. Silverstein, Jason. "Pelosi says 'guaranteed income' for Americans worth considering for coronavirus recovery."
CBSNews. 28 April 2020. Zeballos-Roig, Joseph. "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opens the door to guaranteed income for Americans, saying it's 'worthy of attention.'"
Business Insider. 27 April 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Pelosi Remarks on Press Call with Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Mixed-Status Families on Denial of COVID-19 Stimulus Checks."
Newsroom. 1 May 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Transcript of Pelosi Interview on MSNBC's Live with Stephanie Ruhle."
Newsroom. 27 April 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Transcript of Pelosi Interview on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher."
Newsroom. 24 April 2020. Internal Revenue Service. "Individual Taxpayer Identification Number."
Accessed 11 May 2020. | [
"taxes"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1XLtvwh-HJy2BmklclY4eMebdYmxiUvQj",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1240 | Is Catherine Elizabeth Clennan's GoFundMe Campaign Authentic? | 12/28/2016 | [
"Social media users mocked what appeared to be a sincere (if tone-deaf) GoFundMe plea from Catherine Clennan, but the campaign resembled a publicity hoax."
] | On 23 December 2016, a woman identifying herself as Catherine Elizabeth Clennan created a GoFundMe campaign destined for viral attention, in which she asked donors to supply her with US$5,000,000 in order to fulfill her "lifelong dream" (of having five million dollars). Clennan's bid for money stated that at 27, she dreamed of one day being independent of her family who "pay for everything" for her. Although she said that she hoped to raise $2,000,000 to buy a home in California, the campaign's goal was set at more than twice that amount: My name is Catherine Elizabeth Clennan and my whole life I have been trying to live by other's definitions of who I 'should be'. I have been trying so hard to live this lie that I came face to face with a choice: either live as others definitions of you and die OR strike out on your own and find for yourself who you really are. Well I chose life. I chose to live by my own definition ... With this choice I am in the process of turning my life in a new direction. Currently I live in Laramie, Wyoming. in a property owned by my family. They pay everything for me - and I am 27 years old. I feel that as long as I live by their definition I am 'taken care of', but this definition is leading me to deaths door - it forces me to live a lie - to turn my back to who I really am; a free spirit, an artist, a woman, a lesbian, a civil rights activist, a woman who goes against the grain, a woman who knows that not everything is as it seems. I need $2,000,000 dollars to purchase my dream home in California. I need the money to help me walk out of the lie that I am living, but more importantly I need the money to live my dream - which is to live as much as my life in the spiritual dimension as possible. The money will go towards the purchase of a new home, new transportation, and the various fees and taxes that accumulate with a move across the country. These funds will help me live the life that I feel I am meant to live, the life I want to live - the life defined not by other people - but by me. These funds will help me break free from the tyranny of what other people think is 'right'. The 'right' job, the 'right' education, the 'right' way to earn a living... Although GoFundMe marked the campaign as "trending" as of 28 December 2016, Clennan had only received $21 of that goal on that date: Although she has not indicated that her campaign is a hoax or prank (and GoFundMe has not flagged or removed it), Clennan does not appear to have much of an online footprint other than this campaign, aside from a LinkedIn profile and what may be a Huffington Post contribution (which as of April 2016 indicated she was an active student). That single article led some social media users to claim Clennan worked for the Huffington Post, but it looked as if she had submitted only one piece as a contributor. LinkedIn contribution In that article, Clennan expressed a desire to "be a public figure": Exposing my vulnerabilities publicly and confidently gave that girl the strength she needed to participate. Thats when I knew exactly what I wanted to do with my life I want to use computer science to inspire other women to explore computer science. I want to be a public figure in computer science that is the exact opposite of what you would typically expect to find in the field. I want to be that girl who no one thought she could, who had all the odds against her, that everyone thought was dumb, and yet she becomes incredibly successful in computer science. Then I want to turn that success around and use it as a pedestal to expose every wound, every failure, every painful vulnerability I have, even with my hands trembling, Clennan invited potential donors to visit her Facebook page for more information, but few additional details were available there. It remains possible that her goal is genuine and presented honestly with no expectations that it would go over poorly or go viral, but also within the realm of possibility that the GoFundMe request was a step in her stated aim to become a public figure. Facebook Clennan, Catherine. "The Benefits Of Being A Dumb Girl In Computer Science."
Huffington Post. 12 April 2016. | [
"taxes"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1mfSTXi-hwkWt8p64CsIlDZhF2XE87Jcx",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1241 | Is this billboard claiming Elon Musk is defending billionaires authentic? | 06/11/2021 | [
"We found no sign of it."
] | In early June 2021, social media users shared a photograph that purportedly showed a billboard displaying a black-and-white image of billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk along with the message, "Defend billionaires. We're just like you." We were unable to find any evidence that this billboard exists in the real world. There are no news reports about it, which would be surprising given that single tweets penned by Musk often spark headlines. Additionally, none of the posts containing the photo included any specific information, such as the location of this alleged billboard. The image appears to be a joke poking fun at Musk and others among the mega-wealthy, a class of people who have been in the news lately for stories critical of wealth inequality and the fact that billionaires are able to avoid paying income taxes. Another red flag is that the image contains what appears to be a picture of Musk that can be easily found on the internet, along with a black background that other social media users have used to create their own billboards. While we are very skeptical that this billboard exists anywhere, without definitive proof we are rating this as "Unproven" for now. This would not be the first time, however, that Musk has been trolled via billboard. | [
"income"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1accJG1r2u1ijcF6-mpoFVDfxoaKnzR8-",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1242 | Is Whataburger Changing Their Colors? | 07/11/2019 | [
"A Chicago investment firm acquired a majority stake in the Texas-based restaurant chain. "
] | In June 2019, the Chicago investment firm BDT Capital Partners acquired a majority stake in the Texas-based restaurant chain Whataburger. The news was unsettling to some Texans who feared that their beloved burger joint would undergo unwanted changes. "Okay, I say we all chip in and buy Whataburger back. Make honey butter chicken biscuits available all day, add kolaches to the menu, and change nothing else. Especially not the ketchup." Shortly after this news broke, an image purportedly showing a screenshot of a message posted to Whataburger's Twitter account—announcing that the restaurant chain was changing its colors from orange and white to blue, black, and white in honor of Chicago's baseball teams—began to circulate on social media. This was not a genuine tweet from Whataburger; it does not appear anywhere on the company's Twitter timeline, and we were unable to locate any archived versions of this supposed message. Furthermore, the Whataburger Twitter account has responded to several curious social media users to inform them that the above-displayed image is fake. In other words, Whataburger is not changing its signature orange color to blue, black, and white in honor of the Chicago Cubs and Chicago White Sox. The social media post announcing that Whataburger was changing its colors was fake, but the following social media post from Whataburger assuring fans that they will continue to make Texas proud is real.
Fernandez, Manny. "Whataburger Got Sold to Chicago. Texas Is Flipping Out." The New York Times. 20 June 2019. | [
"investment"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1_2vu-IJfif8Rbs7eAM6VbLmIXQZPKlFX",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1Bo9bany6sBYevlYZ9lgKgDIeP6p7T7sy",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=16ikCdtXlaNu69ENY77sZWMO4UhCPZOrN",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1243 | Gun Con-Troll | 10/02/2015 | [
""
] | FACT CHECK: Did President Obama "suspend" the Second Amendment? Claim: President Obama has "suspended" the Second Amendment. Examples: [Collected via Twitter, October 2015] BREAKING NEWS- President Barack Hussein Obama Jr. SUSPENDS 2ND AMENDMENTRead more at https://t.co/CVT80kEfls https://t.co/CVT80kEfls The Dc Gazette (@TheDcGazette) October 2, 2015 October 2, 2015 This is bull crap. Get rid of this idiot! He cant do this https://t.co/oqv0GWX1d2 https://t.co/oqv0GWX1d2 Mason Page (@MasonKanePage) October 2, 2015 October 2, 2015 Origins: On 1 October 2015, ten people were killed in a mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. In the wake of the incident (and ensuing interest in the topic of gun violence), the disreputable web site Universal Free Press published an article with the clickbait headline "BREAKING NEWS President Barack Hussein Obama Jr. SUSPENDS 2ND AMENDMENT," stating that: mass shooting In a move unprecedented by a sitting president and in wake of the recent mass shooting in Oregon, Barack Obama said Ive had enough and I will not allow more women and children to die by gun violence on my watch. Sources on Capitol Hill say, that Obama while in a cabinet meeting, was handed the recent statistical reports on violent crime and at the same time was told of another mass shooting, it was then that he exclaimed Are you joking, this is unacceptable and THIS time Im going to do something about it! He continued by saying, For too long, have I sat idly by and watched crime after crime be committed when there was a gun involved, well NO MORE, I have to think of the safety of the American people, after all, I took a solemn oath to do so. Sources close to the president explained that suspending a constitutional right was not within his power, Obama exclaimed, I have certain powers granted to me and I intend to use them to keep the citizens of this great nation safe, if there is a legality issue, we can sort it out later. A few (but not all) users who shared the link on Twitter noted that the article was both prefaced by and concluded with a note indicating that its claims were entirely fabricated (and calculated to take advantage of the tragedy and produce revenue-generating traffic by provoking baseless outrage): *Disclaimer* This article is satire and there is no basis of fact for it to be taken seriously. Last updated: 2 October 2015 Originally published: 2 October 2015 | [
"interest"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1244 | Republican candidate for California governor Travis Allen gave campaign donations to Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom and Barbara Boxer. | 05/25/2018 | [] | DidTravis Allen, arguably the most conservative candidate for California governor, donate campaign money to three of the states leading liberal Democrats? Thats the Republican-on-Republican attack levied by John Coxs campaign for governor in arecent TV adthat goes after Allen, an Orange County assemblyman whos positioned himself as a GOP populist. Heres the full text of the ad, which includes three attacks on Allen: Narrator: For Republicans, the race for governor is crystal clear: Theres conservative businessman John Cox, leading the opposition to Jerry Browns Sanctuary State and chairman of the initiative campaign to repeal the gas tax. Then theres career politician Travis Allen. He gave campaign donations to Jerry Brown. Gavin Newsom and Barbara Boxer. And on the floor vote, Allen refused to join Republicans opposing driver licenses for illegal aliens. The conservative choice is clear: John Cox for governor. The ad was paid for by John Cox for Governor 2018. Well examine the other two attacks on Allen in future fact-checks. In this piece, well focus on the claim he donated to top Democrats. Background on GOP rivals Recent polls show growing support for Coxs campaign for governor, less than a week after President Trumpendorsedthe San Diego businessman. A surveyreleased Wednesday nightfrom the Public Policy Institute of California shows Newsom, the states lieutenant governor, leading Cox, 25 percent to 19 percent. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was third, at 15 percent, followed by Allen with 11 percent, State Treasurer John Chiang at 9 percent and former state schools chief Delaine Eastin with 6 percent. Coxand Allen have sparred at campaign events over who is the most conservative candidate. Theyve both criticized Californias Democratic leadership over the gas tax increase and sanctuary state protections. The top two candidates in the June 5 primary, regardless of party affiliation, will move on to the November runoff. Donating to Democrats? The ad accuses Allen of donating to three of the states top Democrats. The irony, of course, is that Allens run for governor has centered on criticizing those same politicians, particularly Brown and Newsom. We found clear evidence supporting the claim, though Coxs ad ignores the fact that the contributions took place nearly a decade ago, before Allen ran for elected office, and that he also donated to Republicans. Campaign finance records show that in October 2010, Allen donated $1,000 to Jerry Brown for Governor, through Wealth Strategies Group, his wealth management firm in Huntington Beach. In August 2010, Allen gave $100 to Gavin Newsom for Lieutenant Governor. And, in October 2010, he donated $250 to Barbara Boxer for Senate. SOURCE: Campaign finance records from the California Secretary of State'swebsite. Asked about this, a spokeswoman for Allens campaign said in an email that the contributions took place before Travis was an elected official, as a businessman, he purchased tickets to some events. A November 2017 Mercury-Newsarticlesummarized these and additional donations Allen made to Democrats in 2010 and 2011. He told the paper at that time: As a businessman I was invited to some events by friends, and I purchased tickets to these events. Attending these events, however, opened my eyes to the damage the Democrats were doing to California, and brought about my decision to do everything in my power to stop them, including running for public office. Similar claim In April 2016, PolitiFact California ratedMostly Truea similar claim about then Presidential candidate Donald Trump donating to Democrats. Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, at the time Trumps rival for the Republican presidential nomination, claimed Trump has given $12,000 to Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris. Campaign finance data showed the claim was accurate, though we noted Cruz left out that the donations took place long before Trump announced his run for president. The contribution to Jerry Brown took place in 2006, while the donations to the other Democrats took place in 2009, 2011 and 2013. Our ruling In a recentTV ad, John Coxs campaign for governor claimed rival GOP candidate Travis Allen donated to three of Californias top Democrats. Campaign records prove the claim, though the contributions took place a decade ago, before Allen entered politics. The statement is accurate but needs this clarification. We rate it 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. | [
"Campaign Finance",
"Negative Campaigning",
"The 2018 California Governor's Race",
"California"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=10Nww-jkh7tqhaenzNx5RSNQdKRm4xQZC",
"image_caption": "Narrator: For Republicans, the race for governor is crystal clear: Theres conservative businessman John Cox, leading the opposition to Jerry Browns Sanctuary State and chairman of the initiative campaign to repeal the gas tax."
}
] |
FMD_test_1245 | Will the name of Trump be displayed on COVID-19 stimulus checks? | 04/15/2020 | [
"While the unprecedented move could potentially delay these payments, U.S. Treasury officials insist the checks \"are scheduled to go out on time and exactly as planned.\""
] | 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, millions of Americans who lost income due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic were waiting for promised relief payments from the United States government. So when news broke that U.S. President Donald Trump was making the "unprecedented" move of having his name added to these stimulus checks—a decision that could potentially delay their arrival by several days—many citizens took to social media to voice their displeasure. Trump's name is indeed being added to the COVID-19 stimulus checks, otherwise known as Economic Impact Payments. As of this writing, however, officials at the U.S. Treasury Department insist this will not result in any delays.
The Washington Post first reported on Trump's decision on April 14, 2020. According to the news outlet, Trump's name is expected to appear in the memo line of the check, not as the payment's official signatory, and this will be the "first time that a president's name appears on an IRS disbursement." The Treasury Department has ordered President | [
"economy"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1-jVVbrAxTZtmBvipLe5Q8EqvxkFFhiAl",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1246 | Should Hotel Guests Always Put Coins in the Sink? | 04/12/2021 | [
"The claim appeared in an online ad."
] | "Here's Why Hotel Guests Should Always Put Coins in the Sink" is the text in an online advertisement thats been making the rounds since at least November 2020. an online advertisement The key word here appeared to be always. This was not the first such ad about hotels on which we reported. We previously published a story about a similar ad that read: "Why You Should Always Put a Towel Under Hotel Door." published a story Readers who clicked on the ad about putting coins in a hotel's bathroom sink were led to an 80-page slideshow article. Its headline read: "Use These Hacks the Next Time You Stay in a Hotel": We all love to travel, but let's admit it - not every hotel is fit for a king or a queen. Sometimes, we have to compromise if we want to have a vacation that fits our budget. What makes things a bit worse is that the hotel room might not always look exactly as it did in the online photos. The photos might have been misleading - the bed looking bigger than it actually is or the booking website posting photos of a completely different room altogether. The truth is, youll never know until you arrive. That's why sometimes you need to bring some items that will amp up your holiday. With these hacks, you'll always be prepared for a five-star hotel experience! The picture from the ad finally showed up on page 28. The ad about coins in the sink and the one about putting a towel under a hotel door both appeared to imply some sort of ominous safety concerns: Wash and Roll Have you ever paid to have your clothes cleaned by the hotel? There's always the chance that something could get ruined or lost. Even if everything goes off without a hitch, there's still the high price you'll have to pay for this service. Just a few garments can end up costing you a pretty penny. Instead, use a few coins and some plastic to clog the sink and wash your clothes in the sink, then you can hang them around the room to dry them out. The article simply advised hotel guests to grab some plastic and coins to clog the sink for washing clothes. We'll leave it up to readers to decide if they consider it sanitary to wash clothes in a hotel sink with coins and plastic. Also, bathroom sinks typically come with stoppers that can be used to hold water in the basin. The ad in question appeared in a previous submission on Reddit's r/savedyouaclick subreddit. The top-voted comment read: "Why coins??? Why not just a regular plug? This is insane." Another user jokingly replied to the comment with: "ALWAYS put coins in the sink!" submission r/savedyouaclick Perhaps one thing we recommend "always" doing is avoiding ominous clickbait ads that lead to 80-page slideshow articles. 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 | [
"budget"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=19GuHaH41VcLsk947yP39SesGmUzYQeJU",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1247 | Did CDC 'Quietly Update' COVID-19 Deaths To Say Only 6% Are Legitimate? | 09/03/2020 | [
"A rumor downplaying the seriousness of the deadly virus was promoted by a group of people that included U.S. President Donald Trump"
] | 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 an attempt to ring the alarm on supposed deceptive practices by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), hard-line conservatives, including U.S. President Donald Trump, promoted the idea in August 2020 that the public health agency suddenly changed its methods for reporting COVID-19 mortality statistics. As a result, viral social media posts alleged that America only tallied about 9,000 COVID-19 fatalities, or roughly 6% of the more than 150,000 deaths widely reported by politicians, scientists, and news reporters. Many believers, including conspiracy theorist Jeff Berwick, dubbed the alleged change by the CDC evidence that people other than his followers were exaggerating the seriousness of the pandemic and that everyone should be skeptical of rules on social distancing that halt the economy. In a Sept. 1 video, for example, he said: "It's been proven by the CDC [the pandemic] is nothing, it was absolutely nothing. Zero. 9,000 people? That's nothing."
Numerous readers asked Snopes to investigate the matter. Several inquiries included a link to the hyperpartisan, junk news website The Gateway Pundit or another conspiratorial web page that phrased the alleged revelation like this: "The CDC quietly released new COVID numbers showing those who solely died from the virus was only 6% (9,210) of the total deaths (153,504). 94% of those who died did so because they had existing health conditions." Additionally, The Gateway Pundit page claimed that "the overwhelming majority" of reported COVID-19 deaths were among "very old Americans" without going into specifics on what age population that meant and suggested nefarious intentions on the part of the CDC to try to change its guidance without anyone noticing. Versions of this notion circulated widely online in summer 2020, in part because of support from American politicians such as Trump. In two retweets—one by his campaign adviser that linked to the Gateway Pundit page and another by a supporter of the unfounded QAnon conspiracy theory—Trump endorsed the claim, essentially denigrating scientific evidence provided by his own health advisers, Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx. However, as of this writing, Twitter had removed the below-displayed post for violating its terms of service.
First, to unpack the claim, let's be clear about how COVID-19—which is the disease caused by the coronavirus dubbed SARS-CoV-2—attacks the body and can become deadly. According to an article in the journal Science, a highly credible scientific publication, once inside, the virus hijacks the cell's machinery, making myriad copies of itself and invading new cells. As the virus multiplies, an infected person may shed copious amounts of it, especially during the first week or so. Symptoms may be absent at this point, or the virus's new victim may develop a fever, dry cough, sore throat, loss of smell and taste, or head and body aches. If the immune system doesn't beat back SARS-CoV-2 during this initial phase, the virus then marches down the windpipe to attack the lungs, where it can turn deadly. In other words, SARS-CoV-2 attacks lung cells, and that assault on a person's respiratory system can greatly exacerbate other preexisting conditions. This means COVID-19 patients run the risk of previously manageable health problems turning fatal—including cardiac arrest, liver failure, or lung scarring—after they're infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Put another way, Ryan McNamara, a virologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in a series of tweets, compared the SARS-CoV-2 virus with the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, which causes AIDS. He wrote: "After years of (HIV) virus spread, and in the absence of treatment, a patient infected with HIV will develop AIDS. [...] During this state of HIV progression, white blood cells called T-cells are depleted. This can allow co-infecting pathogens to spread unchecked or tumor cells to grow and metastasize. Hence pneumonia and AIDS-associated cancers are leading causes of death in HIV+ patients."
Next, we investigated how the CDC compiles COVID-19 death toll data. Since the viral posts did not specify what "numbers" by the CDC they were alleging nefariousness, we considered the CDC's Provisional Death Counts for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) web page, which is a compilation of death certificates updated weekly by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). Additionally, we obtained an April 2020 document by the World Health Organization titled "International Guidelines For Certification and Classification (Coding) of COVID-19 As Cause of Death," which stated that medical examiners must include as much detail as possible based on records and lab testing when filling out death certificates. For example, a death certification for a patient who was infected with SARS-CoV-2 and subsequently developed pneumonia and fatal respiratory distress would list all three conditions as causes of death.
The document also stated that death certificates for people who suffered from chronic conditions, such as coronary artery disease or diabetes, before their exposure to the coronavirus would list those conditions in addition to COVID-19. The coronavirus would still be labeled the underlying cause of death—or the disease that initiated the train of events leading directly to death—since the preexisting health issues were likely exacerbated by the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. Next, we considered the CDC's process for analyzing those death certificates that list COVID-19. Its website explained: "When a person dies, the cause of death is determined by the certifier—the physician, medical examiner, or coroner who reports it on the death certificate. States register all death certificates and send them to [NCHS], where they are used to produce the nation's official death statistics. [...] When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death on the death certificate, it is coded and counted as a death due to COVID-19. COVID-19 should not be reported on the death certificate if it did not cause or contribute to the death. [...] Complete means describing a clear chain of events from the immediate to the underlying cause of death, reporting any other conditions that contributed to death, and providing information that is specific."
In short, the CDC compiles mortality statistics based on all possible causes of death for one individual. So if a diabetes patient with high blood pressure was infected with COVID-19—which can target blood vessels—and they die because their blood vessels were already so damaged, the CDC would consider their death related to both the coronavirus and diabetes. (According to the CDC database of death certificate data, that was the case for more than 27,500 people.) As of this writing, the CDC last updated its mortality statistics on Sept. 3, 2020. At that point, the agency said 171,787 death certificates included COVID-19 since the beginning of the U.S. outbreak in February 2020. Alongside the coronavirus, the majority of documents also listed comorbidities, or additional health issues that can either worsen or develop after the initial SARS-CoV-2 infection. For instance, 71,700 included influenza or pneumonia and COVID-19 as potential causes of death. However, fueling the conspiracy theory, the CDC web page stated: "For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause [of death] mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death." This meant that medical investigators believed only 6% of COVID-19 patients died from the coronavirus alone, with no reported comorbidities. However, it was dangerously misleading to interpret that fact to mean that the remaining fatalities (or 94 percent) died from health issues other than the coronavirus. Rather, most people's underlying cause of death was COVID-19, and the virus either intensified or caused other illnesses that contributed to patients' deaths.
The "6%" claim was not the first attempt by COVID-19 conspiracy theorists to allege without substantial evidence that the CDC was nefariously compiling data to trick people into thinking the coronavirus was more serious than it actually is. In spring 2020, for instance, they attempted to ring the alarm on the agency supposedly inflating COVID-19 death numbers for political reasons, but in reality, the alleged discrepancy was a result of comparing two separate data sources that report different measurements. The death certification statistics, in short, prove that people with preexisting health problems—such as asthma or hypertension—face a higher risk for serious illness or death if they're infected with COVID-19, according to Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS. He said in a statement to NBC News: "These data are consistent with CDC guidance that those with underlying medical conditions are at greater risk for severe illness and death from COVID-19."
Additionally, Fauci explained the phenomenon in a Sept. 1 interview on the ABC program "Good Morning America": "The point that the CDC was trying to make was that a certain percentage of [COVID-19 deaths] had nothing else but just COVID. That does not mean that someone who has hypertension or diabetes who dies of COVID didn't die of COVID—they did. So the numbers that you've been hearing—the 180,000-plus deaths—are real deaths from COVID-19...It's not 9,000 deaths from COVID-19."
Next, we found data to address another aspect of the fringe theory: that the "overwhelming majority" of reported COVID-19 deaths were among people of a "very advanced age." For the purpose of this report, we considered that group to be people aged 85 or older. According to the CDC death certificate data, 53,000 documents for that population listed COVID-19 as a potential cause of death, accounting for about one-third of the total, or less than the majority. We should note here that epidemiologists and health officials have been upfront with the fact that COVID-19 patients who are older—as well as those who have underlying health problems—are at greater risk for serious problems. "As you get older, your risk of being hospitalized for COVID-19 increases. Everyone, especially older adults and others at increased risk of severe illness, should take steps to protect themselves from getting COVID-19," according to the CDC. Eight out of 10 people who have died as a result of COVID-19 in the U.S. were over the age of 65, per the agency's data.
Lastly, we looked for any evidence to confirm or deny that the CDC attempted to "quietly" adjust its mortality statistics under the public's radar. Bob Anderson, lead mortality statistician at NCHS, told NBC News in a statement that the death certificate data does not represent new information, as NCHS has been publishing this same information since the outset when we began posting data on COVID-19 deaths on our website.
In sum, considering the way in which the coronavirus impacts the human body, the way the CDC compiles data from death certificates—listing comorbidities that were either developed or exacerbated by COVID-19—as well as the fact that one-third of COVID-19 fatalities were people aged 85 or older, we rate this claim as false. | [
"economy"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1CDkLPhOBGp2zvJYTM6Mc6E__0ZSC6C20",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1VsWN-MFWRS9Kiq3FB46i_hdHXtqNW-FF",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1IIGtjIkRAVVBNq0xObFtnDFXNVD-pFuG",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1248 | Is Kamala Harris Jussie Smollett's Aunt? | 02/25/2019 | [
"The surname \"Harris\" is one of the 30 most popular last names in the United States. "
] | In February 2019, a rumor circulated on social media that Jussi Smollett, the Empire actor accused of making false claims about being the victim of a hate crime, was the nephew of Democratic U.S. senator (and presidential candidate) Kamala Harris of California. false claims Conservative radio host Kevin McCullough was one Twitter user who promoted the notion that Harris was Smollett's aunt:McCullough deleted his tweet after it generated a considerable amount of ridicule.The claim that Kamala Harris is Jussie Smollett's aunt was offered by a number of social media users, but the documentation presented with it was flimsy at best. In fact, the most substantial piece of "evidence" presented to support this conspiracy theory was that Smollett's mother and the California senator share a surname:Sharing a last name does not constitute proof that these two women are siblings, however. In fact, the surname "Harris" is one of the most popular surnames in the United States, ranking in the top 30 of the 2010 U.S. Census. We've examined the biographical information available for these two public figures and found that their family branches simply do not intersect. Kamala Harris, who was born in Oakland, California, has a single sibling, a younger sister named Maya who was born in Illinois. In order for Kamala to be Jussie Smollett's aunt, Maya -- who is only 16 years older than Smollett -- would have to his mother. However, Smollett's mother's first name is Janet, not Maya, and she is from New Orleans, not Illinois. Neither did we find any familial relationship between Kamala Harris and the Smollett family through marriage that might provide a basis for referring to Kamala as Jussie's "aunt." Jussie Smollett was born in Santa Rosa, California, to Janet (Harris) Smollett and Joel Smollett Sr. (who migrated to the U.S. from Russia and Poland). Jussie said the family moved to Queens when he was two years old, and afterwards, according to the New York Times, he grew up "bouncing with [his] parents and siblings between New York and Los Angeles, as the kids pursued careers in modeling, acting and music."Neither Kamala Harris' husband, Douglas Emhoff, nor Maya Harris' husband, Tony West, has any discernible connection to Jussie's parents. Emhoff hails from New York, graduated USC law school, is a prominent entertainment and intellectual property lawyer in Los Angeles, and has two grown children from a previous relationship. West hails from San Francisco, graduated Stanford law school, serves as general counsel and Chief Legal Officer at Uber, and has one daughter with his wife Maya. Conservative radio host Kevin McCullough was one Twitter user who promoted the notion that Harris was Smollett's aunt: Kevin McCullough promoted McCullough deleted his tweet after it generated a considerable amount of ridicule. deleted The claim that Kamala Harris is Jussie Smollett's aunt was offered by a number of social media users, but the documentation presented with it was flimsy at best. In fact, the most substantial piece of "evidence" presented to support this conspiracy theory was that Smollett's mother and the California senator share a surname: evidence Sharing a last name does not constitute proof that these two women are siblings, however. In fact, the surname "Harris" is one of the most popular surnames in the United States, ranking in the top 30 of the 2010 U.S. Census. We've examined the biographical information available for these two public figures and found that their family branches simply do not intersect. 2010 U.S. Census biographical information Kamala Harris, who was born in Oakland, California, has a single sibling, a younger sister named Maya who was born in Illinois. In order for Kamala to be Jussie Smollett's aunt, Maya -- who is only 16 years older than Smollett -- would have to his mother. However, Smollett's mother's first name is Janet, not Maya, and she is from New Orleans, not Illinois. Neither did we find any familial relationship between Kamala Harris and the Smollett family through marriage that might provide a basis for referring to Kamala as Jussie's "aunt." Jussie Smollett was born in Santa Rosa, California, to Janet (Harris) Smollett and Joel Smollett Sr. (who migrated to the U.S. from Russia and Poland). Jussie said the family moved to Queens when he was two years old, and afterwards, according to the New York Times, he grew up "bouncing with [his] parents and siblings between New York and Los Angeles, as the kids pursued careers in modeling, acting and music." Neither Kamala Harris' husband, Douglas Emhoff, nor Maya Harris' husband, Tony West, has any discernible connection to Jussie's parents. Emhoff hails from New York, graduated USC law school, is a prominent entertainment and intellectual property lawyer in Los Angeles, and has two grown children from a previous relationship. West hails from San Francisco, graduated Stanford law school, serves as general counsel and Chief Legal Officer at Uber, and has one daughter with his wife Maya. Emhoff West Sullivan, Kevin. "'I Am Who I Am': Kamala Harris, Daughter of Indian and Jamaican Immigrants, Defines Herself Simply as 'American.'"
The Washington Post. 2 February 2019. Ryzik, Melena. "The Smollett Family Business: Acting and Activism."
The New York Times. 9 March May 2016. Driscoll, Sharon. "Tony and Maya: Partners in Public Service."
Stanford Lawyer. 17 May 2010. Fearnow, Benjamin. "Conservative Radio Host Peddles Conspiracy Theory That Kamala Harris Is Jussie Smollet's Aunt, Later Deletes Tweet."
Newsweek. 24 February 2019. | [
"share"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1qGILtEXRYx6ZiBKDjlnk_4Q8t6v08Ult",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=18td2rgUJ1znVgFCyZrvPh4NQC3IP1hsc",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1249 | Legislation on energy known as Cap and Trade Bill. | 11/24/2009 | [
"The 'Cap and Trade energy bill' requires that all real estate must meet new energy standards before it can be sold?"
] | Claim: The "Cap and Trade energy bill" requires that all existing real estate must meet new energy standards before it can be sold. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] For those of you who have real estate for sale or rent, be advised that the Cap and Trade energy bill that passed Congress has the following provisions: Before any real estate, new or old, commercial or residential, can be sold or rented, the building must meet the new energy standards set forth in the Bill. These standards are about a general 35% increase in what is now required in building codes. It requires such things as requiring solar reflective roofs, double pane windows, energy efficient appliances and lighting, increased insulation, leak test, and on and on and on. In order to sell or rent any building, you will be required to have a certificate of efficiency issued by a federal building efficiency inspector (new division of the US Dept. of Energy). No certification, no sell or rent, simple as that. [Collected via e-mail, August 2010] A License Required for your HOUSE? Thinking about selling your house. Take a look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and Trade bill), that has passed the House of Representatives and being considered by the Senate. Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners! Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the "Cap & Trade" bill will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced. The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded. A year from now you won't be able to sell your house. The caveat is, that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes ("mobile homes") are included. In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator. To get this permission,you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Cost $200 to start. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements, which easily could cost over $50,000. Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a "label" in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner. If you don't get a high enough rating, you can't sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act. The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009") and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he/she alone determines to be in the government's best interest. Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year. The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time. Sect. 202 Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America. The label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label. And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often - maybe every year. The government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program. Origins: HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (also known as the "cap-and-trade energy bill"), is a bill intended to "create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy." The bill was passed by the Houseof Representatives in June 2009, but it has not yet been voted upon by the Senate. HR 2454 The version of the bill passed by the House sets energy efficiency standards benchmarks that must be met by new buildings, both residential and commercial, constructed after the bill takes effect (i.e., after the bill was passed by both the House and Senate and signed into law). Contrary to what is claimed above, however, HR 2454 contains no provisions requiring that existing homes "must meet the new energy standards" before they can be re-sold. Likewise, the bill includes no requirements that an existing residential property undergo an energy usage-related audit or inspection and be assigned a "certificate of efficiency issued by a federal building efficiency inspector" before it can be re-sold or rented. This misinformation about mandatory energy standard retrofits and licensing requirements has been promulgated primarily through a misunderstanding of Section 202 of HR 2454, which is headed "Building Retrofit Program" and calls for the establishment of "standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy." However, those standards are specifically indicated as being part of the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program, a program intended to establish state programs to provide cash incentives to property owners who voluntarily choose to make their buildings more energy efficient. REEP The House Energy and Commerce Committee, who has jurisdiction over the implementation of cap-and-trade legislation, notes in their section-by-section explanation of HR 2454 that Section 202: explanation Establishes the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance program to provide allowances to states to conduct cost-effective building retrofits. Provides that states may use local governments or other agencies or entities to carry out the work and may use flexible forms of financial assistance providing up to 50% of the costs of retrofits, with funding increasing in proportion to efficiency achievement. Provides additional assistance for the retrofitting of historic buildings. Directs the Administrator of EPA to establish standards and guidelines for the program, in consultation with the Secretary of DOE. Allows federal funds provided to disaster victims to qualify as a building owner's contribution toward matching requirements. Requires states to offer preferential access to at least 10% of dedicated program funding to public and assisted housing. Nothing would require a homeowner to audit or retrofit their home to ensure that it meets building code requirements. The National Association of Realtors (NAR) also noted of that section of HR 2454: NAR [HR 2454] does not require that buildings be retrofitted. Rather, it provides federal funding for states to offer financial incentives, such as loans or grants, for property owners to voluntarily decide to improve energy efficiency. In order to receive the funding, there are conditions on how states can spend the money, such as verification of energy improvements performed by private contractors, but that is only to ensure that taxpayer dollars are actually spent on the purpose for which it is intended (building efficiency improvements). There is no point-of-sale guideline or any other requirement of any sort in the House passed bill. Nowhere does this bill create a federal requirement that a property owner would have to retrofit a property to any guideline at any time let alone at point of sale. The bill does stipulate federal guidelines to ensure that states spend and verify that bill funding goes to financial incentives for property owners to voluntarily make improvements. An entirely separate bill would have to be drafted, introduced, passed by committees and both houses of Congress, and signed by the President into law in order for the Federal government to go beyond [HR 2454's] financial incentives for voluntary energy improvements. Last updated: 7 September 2010 <!-- Ellen, Daryn. "Guide to Tipping." O, The Oprah Magazine. December 2002. | [
"loan"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1250 | This governor has cut funding repeatedly for people who have AIDS, who need drugs to save their life. | 07/08/2011 | [] | Wearing pink shirts and holding up signs, people gathered outside the Statehouse in Trenton recently as Democratic legislators led a rally to increase women's health care funding in the face of opposition from Gov. Chris Christie. When Assemblyman Herb Conaway Jr. (D-Burlington/Camden) addressed the crowd on June 20, he claimed that Christie has also been cutting health care funding for another group: people with AIDS. "This governor has cut funding repeatedly for people who have AIDS, who need drugs to save their lives," said Conaway, a physician specializing in internal medicine. "People who have AIDS today can live out their lives almost as long as anybody else if they get the drugs they need, and this governor, time and time again, has cut that." PolitiFact New Jersey confirmed that the Christie administration had cut or proposed to cut state funding for AIDS and HIV services, but in two cases, other funding sources would allow the same number of individuals receiving those services to be served. When we asked Conaway's chief of staff, Ethan Hasbrouck, to back up the statement, he pointed to two funding cuts in the governor's proposed budget for fiscal year 2012, as well as a change made last year in eligibility for the AIDS Drug Distribution Program. Although a final budget for fiscal year 2012 was approved at the end of June, this Truth-O-Meter item focuses on the proposed budget at the time of Conaway's statement. We later called Hasbrouck twice and sent him multiple emails to set up an interview with Conaway about our findings, but we never heard back. Let's review those three items one at a time. Hasbrouck said the fiscal year 2011 budget lowered the income eligibility for the AIDS Drug Distribution Program, disqualifying about 960 people from the program and saving $7.9 million. However, the state later set up a new drug benefits program to assist those individuals who would no longer be eligible under the AIDS Drug Distribution Program. That new program was funded through additional rebates from pharmaceutical companies and a new federal grant program. The state increased AIDS Drug Distribution Program funding last year for people who met the new income eligibility but reduced spending in other categories of HIV services, according to Dawn Thomas, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Health and Senior Services. Now, let's turn to the cuts in the originally proposed fiscal year 2012 budget. Hasbrouck correctly states that the governor's proposed budget would have cut $4.7 million for special-care nursing facilities, including Broadway House in Newark, the state's only long-term care facility for people living with HIV and AIDS. The second proposed cut cited by Hasbrouck was $3.7 million from the AIDS Drug Distribution Program. Although that state funding was proposed to be cut, the mix of funding sources would enable the same amount of participants to receive access to medications through both the AIDS Drug Distribution Program and the other drug benefits program, according to Thomas. But remember this: two of the funding cuts cited by Hasbrouck were only proposals at the time of the assemblyman's statement. Here's how the final budget for fiscal year 2012 affects AIDS and HIV funding: The income eligibility for the AIDS Drug Distribution Program was restored to its previous level, but state funding for the program has been further reduced for a total cut of about $10.7 million, Thomas wrote in an email. Other funding sources will allow the same number of participants to be served, she wrote. The budget reduces overall funding for nursing facilities, but there is no longer a specific cut to special-care nursing facilities like Broadway House, Thomas wrote. The impact on those special-care facilities remains unclear, she wrote. Let's review: Conaway claimed at a Statehouse rally that Christie has repeatedly cut AIDS funding. His chief of staff pointed to three pieces of evidence, one from the budget approved last year and two from the proposed budget for fiscal year 2012. A spokeswoman for the state Department of Health and Senior Services confirmed cuts to AIDS and HIV funding in both budgets. However, last year, a new program was created to assist people impacted by the eligibility change. This year, state funding was proposed to be cut, but other funding sources were to maintain services for participants. Conaway correctly stated that Christie has cut state funding for AIDS and HIV programs, but at least when it comes to pharmaceutical assistance, people continued to receive medicine for their AIDS and HIV treatment. We rate his statement Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com. | [
"New Jersey",
"Health Care",
"State Budget"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1251 | Seven years later, (Scott Walker) has not hit his first campaign promise of creating 250,000 jobs. | 06/23/2017 | [] | U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan criticized Gov. Scott Walker's ability to fulfill his No. 1 campaign promise during the Democratic Party of Wisconsin's annual convention. Pocan, D-Madison, attacked Walker and Republican lawmakers on job growth and other issues during his 15-minute speech, at one point focusing on the governor's failed 2010 campaign promise to add 250,000 private-sector jobs within his first term. Seven years later, "Scott Walker has not hit his first campaign promise of creating 250,000 jobs," Pocan said halfway through his June 2, 2017, speech. The convention took place as state Democrats sought to ramp up support among their base before the 2018 mid-term elections. Walker is expected to be on the ballot again, seeking a third term, so the promise is likely to come up repeatedly. Here, we will briefly revisit Walker's original promise and see where the jobs tally currently stands.
In 2010, Walker first sought the governor's office on the promise that he would bring 250,000 private-sector jobs to Wisconsin by the end of his first term. "Scott Walker will get government out of the way of employers ... who will then help Wisconsin create 250,000 jobs by 2015, and as we create those new jobs, we will be able to add 10,000 new businesses," his campaign said at the time. From 2011 through 2014, Wisconsin added 130,153 private-sector jobs, meaning Walker fell short of his first-term promise by about 100,000 jobs, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. For this tally, we used the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, which surveys nearly all state businesses, to get the most accurate picture of Walker's years in office. We made comparisons using the fourth quarter reports from the QCEW. On the Walk-O-Meter, which we use to track the governor's campaign promises, we rated Walker's pledge as a Promise Broken when economists said in September 2014 that it was impossible to reach the target by the end of his first term.
Since then, Wisconsin's economy has continued to add jobs throughout Walker's second term, but at a much slower pace. The fourth quarter numbers for 2015 and 2016 from the BLS show Wisconsin added 38,077 and 11,548 jobs, respectively. The 2016 growth numbers were the worst during Walker's tenure and the worst since the economy rebounded after the 2008-09 recession. In total, Wisconsin has added 179,778 private-sector jobs during Walker's nearly seven years as governor, which puts him 70,000 short of the pledged 250,000 new jobs. Pocan's spokesman, David Kolovson, said in an email that the congressman's claim was based on a March 12, 2017, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story, which stated the governor's promise remains elusive. The Journal Sentinel story listed the total number of jobs under Walker as 185,208, which differs from the total offered here because that article was published before the BLS released final numbers covering the end of 2016. Walker's spokesman, Tom Evenson, also pointed to the same story and Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development numbers, saying in an email, "We don't have anything to add."
"Wisconsin's business climate has consistently improved from one of the worst in the nation to one of the best under Governor Walker, and our state's economy is in the best shape it's been in 16 years," Evenson was quoted as saying in the March story. "We've seen more people employed than ever before, wages are up, and Wisconsin's labor force participation rate continues to be one of the best in the country." And yet, the topic of job creation under Walker lingers. President Donald Trump ran on the platform of being a jobs president, famously saying, "I'll be the greatest jobs president God ever created." In a June 13, 2017, visit to Wisconsin, President Trump hinted at a major manufacturer locating to the state. The Journal Sentinel reported on June 15 that Foxconn, a Taiwanese company that assembles Apple's iPhones and other electronics, is considering Wisconsin as the site for a 1,000-acre manufacturing plant, which could generate thousands of jobs.
At the Democratic Party of Wisconsin's state convention, Pocan said, "Seven years later, Scott Walker has not hit his first campaign promise of creating 250,000 jobs." Pocan is correct in stating that Walker has not fulfilled his first campaign promise. In 2014, we rated Walker's campaign pledge as a Promise Broken. The number of jobs created still falls short of that promise. We rate Pocan's statement as True. | [
"Economy",
"Jobs",
"Wisconsin"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1252 | Who Increased the Debt? | 01/23/2012 | [
"A chart from 2011 compared changes in the U.S. national debt over the last several presidencies."
] | Debt is typically a major campaign issue in elections, from the municipal level all the way up to the office of the President of the United States. Candidates tout their accomplishments in balancing budgets or reducing government debt as examples of fiscal prudence while pointing to increased debts during their opponents' administrations as indicators of profligate and wasteful spending of taxpayers' money. The chart reproduced above, which was posted to the Flickr account of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, attempts to reverse conventional political stereotypes by portraying recent Republican presidents as responsible for significant increases in the national debt, while showing recent Democratic presidents as responsible for much lower increases in the level of debt. As a first step in evaluating this chart, we must determine the applicable definition of "debt." In general, the term "public debt" (or "debt held by the public") refers to money borrowed by the government through the issuance and sale of securities, government bonds, and bills. It includes federal debt held by all investors outside of the federal government, including individuals, corporations, state or local governments, the Federal Reserve banking system, and foreign governments. Another form of debt is "intragovernmental debt" (or "debt held by government accounts"), which refers to money that the government has borrowed from itself, such as when the U.S. government invests money from federal savings programs like Medicare and the Social Security trust fund by purchasing its own treasury securities. A variety of names have been applied to the total of these two forms of debt, including "gross federal debt," "total public debt," and "national debt." Although this chart is labeled as presenting a "percent increase in public debt," it actually uses figures corresponding to the total described as "gross federal debt" above (i.e., a combination of debt held by the public and debt held by government accounts, rather than just the former). We checked the numbers in this chart by using (for pre-1993 years) the U.S. Treasury's Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD), noting the total debt reported as of January 31 of each relevant year, and (for 1993 onwards) the Treasury's The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It application, noting the total debt reported as of Inauguration Day of each relevant year. From these records, we gleaned the following information: Ronald Reagan: Took office January 1981. Total debt: $848 billion. Left office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion. Percent change in total debt: +218%. George H.W. Bush: Took office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion. Left office January 20, 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion. Percent change in total debt: +55%. Bill Clinton: Took office January 20, 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion. Left office January 20, 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion. Percent change in total debt: +37%. George W. Bush: Took office January 20, 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion. Left office January 20, 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion. Percent change in total debt: +86%. Barack Obama: Took office January 20, 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion. Total debt (as of the end of April 2011): $14,288 billion. Percent change in total debt: +34%. So, as far as raw numbers go, the chart is reasonably accurate (although our calculations produced a somewhat higher debt increase for Ronald Reagan than reported). That said, we must consider how valuable these numbers are; whether by themselves they present a reasonable comparative measure of presidential fiscal responsibility. In that regard, one could find several aspects to take issue with: The chart isn't a true comparison of equals, as it includes three presidents who served two full terms (Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush), a president who served one term (George H.W. Bush), and a president who served half a term (Obama). Obviously, the longer a president holds office, the greater the opportunity for him to influence the debt, and certainly (barring a radical change in current circumstances) the increase reported for Barack Obama would be considerably higher by the time he left office. All presidents come into office with policies and budgets that were put into place by their predecessors in the White House and Congress, and they all pass the same along to their successors when they leave office. Therefore, determining how much of the change in debt that occurs during a given president's administration is actually the result of his actions (rather than the consequence of factors over which he had little or no influence) would require a much more complex analysis than the one presented here. Which is the best measure of debt for this purpose: public debt, intragovernmental debt, or a combination of the two? As noted in the General Accounting Office's FAQ on Federal Debt, they represent rather different concepts: Debt held by the public approximates current federal demand on credit markets. It represents a burden on today's economy, and the interest paid on this debt represents a burden on current taxpayers. Federal borrowing from the public absorbs resources available for private investment and may put upward pressure on interest rates. Further, debt held by the public is the accumulation of what the federal government borrowed in the past and is reported as a liability on the balance sheet of the government's consolidated financial statements. In contrast, debt held by government accounts (intragovernmental debt) and the interest on it represent a claim on future resources. This debt performs largely an internal accounting function. Special federal securities credited to government accounts (primarily trust funds) represent the cumulative surpluses of these accounts that have been lent to the general fund. These transactions net out on the government's consolidated financial statements. Debt issued to government accounts does not affect today's economy and does not currently compete with the private sector for available funds in the credit market. Are plain percentage changes in the national debt level a useful figure, or do they need to be placed in context to have relevance? Some would argue, for example, that the Debt-to-GDP ratio is a better measure of economic health relative to the national debt than raw debt figures alone, and a chart that tracked the change in that ratio over the last several presidencies would paint a significantly different picture of debt levels than the one displayed above. All in all, this is a case of relatively accurate information that is of marginal value due to a lack of proper comparative context. | [
"economy"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=12ktKGpR81S9zE8UT5BIn9JF4sHA95WdY",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1253 | In Malaysia many of the workers are indentured servants because their passports are taken away when they come into this country and are working in slave-like conditions. | 04/12/2016 | [] | Bernie Sanders lines up fairly close to Donald Trump when it comes to the topic of trade. To some, that means Sanders has some explaining to do. In aninterviewwith theNew York Daily News, Sanders attempted to detail his position. Its about a fundamental inequity in labor standards, Sanders suggested, enabling human rights abuses at the cost of American jobs. I do believe in trade. But it has to be based on principles that are fair, Sanders said. So if you are in Vietnam, where the minimum wage is 65 an hour, or you're in Malaysia, where many of the workers are indentured servants because their passports are taken away when they come into this country and are working in slave-like conditions, no, I'm not going to have American workers competing against you under those conditions. Sanders has made trade a big topic on the campaign trail highlighting Hillary Clintons comments and votes in favor of trade deals. (PolitiFact has documented a lengthy comparison of the two.) Here, we wanted to fact-check Sanders claim that workers in Malaysia which would be part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership are forced into working under slave-like conditions. In a word, yes. Not only is forced labor widely documented by labor and human rights groups, its openly acknowledged by the U.S. government. From cell phones to sneakers to palm oil The Sanders campaign referred us to a 2014reportfrom Verit, an NGO that monitors labor standard compliance. Verit interviewed 501 workers in Malaysias electronics industry (the countrysleading sector), and found that 28 percent of them were coerced under both global standards and Malaysian law. This work has led us to conclude that forced labour in this industry is systemic and that every company operating in this sector in Malaysia faces a high risk of forced labour in their operations, Dan Viederman, chief executive of Verit,toldthe Guardian in 2014. The International Labor Organization, an agency of the United Nations, defines forced labor usingfour dimensions: unfree recruitment, work and life duress, impossibility of leaving an employer and penalty or menace of penalty. The Malaysian electronics industry violated all these guidelines in some capacity. Like the indentured servants who came to America in the 18th century, the vast majority of foreign workers largely from other parts of Southeast Asia were charged excessive job-finding fees and had to take on debt to pay them off, effectively tethering them to the job (unfree recruitment). One in five workers were also deceived about their wages or other employment conditions, and one in three lived in and often confined to crowded, unsafe housing provided by their employer or recruitment agency (work and life durres). Verit also found that 94 percent of workers had their passports withheld by the factory or agent (penalty), though the practice is prohibited by local labor laws . Fifty-seven percent said they couldnt leave their jobs out of fear of getting slapped with high fines, losing their passport, being reported to the authorities or other forms of retribution (impossibility of leaving an employer). But forced labor is by no means limited to one sector. Malaysia has thefourth-largest migrant worker populationin the world, and its 3 million to 6 million foreign workers all are vulnerable to exploitation in a variety of industries, said Abby McGill, the campaigns director for the International Labor Rights Forum. The State Departmentnotesthat passport confiscation was widespread and generally unpunished, and has placed Malaysia in its Tier 3 watch list for human trafficking the rating reserved for the worst offenders in2001,2007,2009and2014. In addition to electronics, the U.S. Labor Department currentlyliststhe garments and palm oil industries where labor abuses occurs (palm oil is also cited for child labor). Human Rights Watchreportedon exploited migrant domestic workers in 2011. Amnesty Internationalchronicledthe stories of trafficked, trapped and physically and sexually abused workers in a variety of industries from agriculture to construction in 2010. They buy and sell us like cattle, a 25-year-old Bangladeshi working for a palm oil producer whose customers includes U.S. agricultural giant CargilltoldtheWall Street Journalin 2015. Free trade and chained work The debate over whether free trade stymies, improves or has no bearing at all on working conditions is an ongoing one. International labor standards are actually included in many trade agreements.The United Statesmonitors worker conditions in partner countries, and has spent $275 million to support labor rights since 2001, according toa 2014 Government Accountability Office audit. But despite this, the GAO concluded that theres still a lot of room for improvement. The USTR and Labor Department lack a strategic approach to systematically assess whether partner countries conditions and practices are inconsistent with labor provisions in (free trade agreements), according to the audit. Academics have also pointed out these provisions are oftenambiguous,difficult to enforceorsimplyignored. In other words, agreements on paper dont necessarily translate to improved conditions in real life. Malaysia is actually a prime example of labor rights possibly taking a backseat to free trade. In 2015, it wasupgradedto Tier 2 for human trafficking by the State Departmentover the objections of its own human rights experts. Many perceived the move to bepolitically motivated, as the improved rating made the country eligible to join the TPP. Because of Malaysias poor labor record, it also signed abilateral agreementwith the United States, promising to implement workers rights and protect against forced labor before obtaining trade benefits.Human rightsandlaborrightsgroups, however, are skeptical this will lead to actual reform. The devil is in the details of actual implementation, and Malaysia is a very corrupt place where those with connections and money can get away with not complying with the law as both Malaysian and migrant workers have found out frequently over the past two decades, said Phil Robertson, the deputy director of Asia at Human Rights Watch. Said McGill of the International Labor Rights Forum: Given that they get everything they want upfront whether they change anything or not (not an ideal negotiating strategy), the labor enforcement provisions are so weak there isn't a stick to force them to comply. That approach has never worked in the history of free trade agreements. No reason to think it will start now. Nonetheless,manyhavearguedyoucanhaveyourfree trade and be humane, too. A2010 study, for example, found that labor conditions have improved in Cambodia as a result of labor provisions in a trade agreement signed with the United States. But many argue that improved working conditions are actually a cascading effect of global trade, not regulation itself. The kinds of adjustments that go with free trade, while painful in the short run, lead to improved labor conditions in the long run, Stanford labor economist Robert Flanagan said in aninterviewabout his book,Globalization and Labor Conditions. Gary Burtless, a labor economist at the Brookings Institution, acknowledged that some are certainlyworseoffas a result of global trade. He pointed out that working conditions were terrible in the United States a century ago, but improved when the economy developed and standard of living rose. Do we really think it would a good idea for the U.S. not to have been able to trade in 1916 or 1886? Burtless said. It is very hard to think of anything that has delivered a bigger improvement in the lives of poor workers than expanding their ability to sell to other countries. Period. End of story. To pretend otherwise, that youre going to protect their workers by keeping their products out of our country, flips on its head policies most conducive to improving their lives. Our ruling Sanders said, In Malaysia many of the workers are indentured servants because their passports are taken away when they come into this country and are working in slave-like conditions. Forced migrant labor and passport withholding is widely documented across Malaysia by human rights and labor groups. The United States acknowledged the abuses in several government reports and databases. While there is a debate about whether free trade can help curtail these abuses, there is no debate to the veracity of Sanders claim. We rate it True. | [
"Global News Service",
"Human Rights",
"Labor",
"Foreign Policy",
"Trade"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1254 | Says the proposed fiscal year 2013 budget is still below the level of state spending when I took office. | 03/08/2012 | [] | Gov. Chris Christie wants to increase state spending in the coming fiscal year, but he claims the proposed budget is smaller than the one in place when he took office in January 2010.The governor made that point in a Feb. 21 speech before state legislators and other officials, when he unveiled his proposed $32.1 billion budget for fiscal year 2013, which begins July 1. The adjusted budget for the current fiscal year stands at roughly $30.9 billion.The budget I propose would total $32.1 billion for the coming year, Christie said. While this represents minimal growth from last year, it is still below the level of state spending when I took office.PolitiFact New Jersey was interested in whether state spending was higher two years ago, and a state Treasury Department spokesman showed us the numbers that back up Christies claim.The proposed fiscal year 2013 budget is smaller than the fiscal year 2010 budget in place around the time Christie took office -- but just barely. The difference between the two budgets is about $5 million.Lets break down the numbers.Christie, a Republican, was sworn into office on Jan. 19, 2010 -- in the middle of fiscal year 2010, which began under former Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat. Two months later, the new governor introduced his budget for fiscal year 2011.To support the governors statement, Treasury spokesman Andrew Pratt pointed out how the fiscal year 2010 budget when Christie took office was $32.151 billion. That figure represented the adjusted budget as of March 16, 2010, according to a Treasury report at the time.The governors proposed budget for fiscal year 2013 is $32.146 billion, according to a recent budget summary. As such, his statement is true, Pratt told us.So, the proposed budget is roughly $5 million less than the level of state spending when Christie took office, marking a decrease of 0.016 percent. Thats not a lot of money, but it still means Christies statement is correct.But theres a major reason for why the fiscal year 2010 budget was larger than the proposed budget for fiscal year 2013: federal stimulus dollars.That adjusted budget of $32.151 billion for fiscal year 2010 included $2.289 billion worth of appropriations supported by stimulus funds. Those stimulus funds were used to help close a projected budget shortfall.Without those stimulus dollars, the proposed budget for fiscal year 2013 would be larger than the budget in place when Christie took office.Our rulingIn his Feb. 21 budget speech, Christie claimed in regard to his proposed fiscal year 2013 budget: While this represents minimal growth from last year, it is still below the level of state spending when I took office.According to state Treasury documents, Christie is accurate. The proposed budget is $32.146 billion -- about $5 million less than the $32.151 billion spending plan in place when Christie took office.We rate the statement True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com. | [
"New Jersey",
"State Budget"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1255 | The Northridge Earthquake was not accurately reported. | 06/06/2000 | [
"Was the Northridge quake underreported as a 6.7 to get FEMA off the hook?"
] | Claim: The magnitude of the 17 January 1994 Northridge earthquake was deliberately under-reported in order to spare the government from having to pay out emergency relief funds. Examples: [Harvey, 1994] Urban Myth No. 5,212: It's linked to the earthquake, of course what isn't these days? The [Los Angeles] Times has heard from several callers who claim there's a conspiracy to hide the fact that the quake's magnitude was really 8.0. One caller quoted an unnamed structural engineer who said that only an 8.0 temblor could have inflicted the damage of the Northridge quake. And why the conspiracy? The unfounded rumor that FEMA is obligated to give outright grants, rather than loans, to damaged houses and businesses after quakes of 8.0 or more. [Collected on the Internet, 2000] Right after the Northridge earthquake in 1994, word was going around that the State of California coerced CalTech to declare the magnitude of the earthquake under 7.0. This was due to a hidden clause in the state laws saying state income tax in California is suspended that year for affected areas when there is a major earthquake over 7.0 on the Richter Scale. Origins: On 17 January 1994, Los Angeles area residents were shaken awake at 4:31 A.M. by the seismic event that would come to be known as the Northridge quake. In the usual way of earthquakes, those few seconds of violent shaking took a terrible toll. The quake killed 57 people, injured another 9,000, and caused property damage in the $13-$15 billion range. It closed seven freeway sites and two hospitals, and left 150,000 people without water, 40,000 without natural gas, and 25,000 without homes. It was devastatingly awful. Folks were shocked when the quake was reported to have registered a mere 6.7 on the Richter scale. They were thus prepared to believe almost anything that would confirm the quake's intensity to have been much higher. After the Northridge quake, a bogus fax on fake Caltech letterhead (misstated as "Cal Tech") was circulated throughout the Los Angeles area. It purportedly assigned an "intensity scale" to different Los Angeles ZIP codes, with the strength of the quake measured in one ZIP code area listed as a whopping 9.5. The numbers quoted in the fax were, in fact, estimates of the intensity of the shaking around the Los Angeles basin based on the modified Mercalli scale, which uses the Roman numbers I through XII. (The Mercalli scale is a measurement derived from observable earthquake damage; the Richter scale is based on seismometer readings. The Mercalli scale is thus largely a subjective measurement, while the Richter scale is generally considered to be more objective and scientifically accurate.) Parts of Santa Monica and the San Fernando Valley experienced Mercalli IX-level intensity, which was misconstrued on the fax as a 9-level Richter scale measurement (instead of the officially reported 6.7). Caltech (actually the U.S. Geological Survey at Caltech) had not under-reported the figure the Northridge quake was a 6.7 no matter who measured it. Earthquake data is almost instantaneously shared among a number of organizations worldwide, and one group's under-reporting the magnitude would have been quickly picked up by the others. Even if Caltech had wanted to suppress the real numbers, it would have been unable to do so without the cooperation of a number of other scientific organizations. The scary fax played into what people wanted to believe. Those who'd lived through the quake swore it had to have been much stronger than the 6.7 that was being reported. From this belief was the legend born: if Caltech was fudging the magnitude of the event, there had to be a reason. Inventive sorts that humans are, it wasn't long before someone advanced the plausible-sounding explanation that the amount and type of aid provided to disaster victims by the government was predicated upon the severity of the event; by convincing Caltech to under-report, the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) slipped off the hook. According to this rumor, since the quake's intensity was under 7.0, FEMA only had to provide loans to earthquake victims rather than outright grants, which saved the agency billions of dollars. The rumor, of course, was false. FEMA never gives loans to those disadvantaged by disaster; its assistance comes in the form of grants to those affected. That agency works with the Small Business Administration (SBA), which provides low-interest loans. Also, FEMA bases its aid on need, not upon a standardized chart that determines how much can be allocated according to what scientists measure. Likewise, insurance companies base their earthquake policy liability on damage estimates, not on magnitude scales. This makes sense under a system like the one hinted at in the legend, survivors of a large earthquake in a relatively unpopulated zone would be eligible for free aid while those trying cope with the aftermath of a lesser disaster in a far more densely populated area would be saddled with repaying government loan debts (or would receive no financial assistance at all). An extreme hypothetical example could see millions of free dollars directed towards the rebuilding of one house in Alaska while 200,000 uninsured and homeless Californians had do without, all because Alaska was hit by an 8.2 while California had to cope with only a 6.7. The legend took off the way it did for reasons other than just the usual mistrust of government and science that marks such whispers. Getting up close and personal with the unthinkable heightens the experience, which explains in part why this legend was so widely believed by Los Angeleans: they'd been shaken out of bed and back to reality by this earthquake, whereas they had experienced other large quakes that had taken place in other lands merely as words on a page or images on a television screen. In a world where the ruin of the 6.9 Kobe quake (17 January 1995) was dispassionately presented by the nightly news and barely given a second thought here in California, what the authorities were telling skeptical Los Angeleans was a 6.7 felt like it was more because it had been experienced with all our senses, not just the television-dulled ones. There was yet another reason for this legend's running rampant: its location. The quake's epicenter was in the heart of the San Fernando Valley, a heavily-populated area, and so felt stronger to many people because those who experienced the sensation were right on top of the worst of it. Additionally, we humans have a desire to star ourselves in the drama of the moment. A 6.7 didn't sound worthy of the harrowing experience endured by those resident on 17 January 1994, and those who'd been through the shake and looked to regale others with their horrific accounts were especially receptive to any suggestion that the figure was far too low. On a final note, one further rumor attached to FEMA in California: that illegal immigrants who surfaced to apply for disaster relief would be rounded up, handed over to INS, and deported. That rumor did not begin with the Northridge quake, however; it was recorded in the aftermath of the 17 October 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco area. While FEMA's aid is now available only to U.S. citizens, legal residents of the U.S., and the resident parents of U.S. citizens (that is, children born in the USA), at the time of the Loma Prieta quake, the assistance it directed was available to citizens and non-citizens alike. As for alerting the INS to potential illegals, FEMA pointed out at that time that it didn't ask about the citizenship status of aid applicants, with questions about citizenship status not even being presented on any of its forms. (That has since changed FEMA Form 90-69 is specifically for that purpose.) Barbara "not a milked shake" Mikkelson Additional information: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Earthquake Myths (U.S. Geological Survey) Last updated: 18 July 2007 Sources: Harvey, Steve. "Only in L.A." Los Angeles Times. 2 March 1994 (p. B2). Jackson, Robert and Miles Corwin. "Aid Centers Open But No Money Yet." Los Angeles Times. 23 October 1989 (p. A1). Mitchell, Sean. "Warning: The Following L.A. Stories Are Not True." Los Angeles Times. 24 November 1996 (Magazine, p. 32). | [
"income"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1256 | Says black Americans have 10 times less wealth than white Americans. | 08/23/2018 | [] | Beto ORourke, the Democratic nominee challenging Republican U.S. Sen.Ted Cruzof Texas, said that vast U.S. wealth differences show the economy doesnt work for everyone. The El Paso congressmans half-page ad, in theHouston Defenders July 26, 2018,issue, shows ORourke shaking hands with an African-American man. Accompanying text says: Our economy isn't working for everyone when black Americans have 10 times less wealth than white Americans. Let's level the playing field by ensuring access to good jobs, higher pay, skills training, and a fair shot at economic success. A reminder: Wealth is distinct from income. It measures how much we own, not how much we make. While the two are closely tied, economists talk about wealth in terms of net worth. A house, for example, adds to net worth if its value is higher than the amount of the mortgage. Assets minus debts gives you net worth. 2016 federal survey We asked ORourkes campaign about the basis of ORourkes 10 times less claim in the ad, which had come to our attention in a Texas Tribunenews storyon ORourkes advertising expenditures. By email, Chris Evans of ORourkes campaign pointed out an October 2017Washington PostWonkblogstoryand other reports rooted in 2016 consumer survey data summed up by the Federal Reserve in fall 2017. That data, Evans told us, pegged the median net worth of white families at 10 times the median net worth of black families. The Wonkblog story says that according to the survey results, the median net worth of white families $171,000 is now 10 times that of black families and eight times that of Hispanic families. A factor, the story says, is that white families are five times more likely than black or Hispanic families to inherit money. That translates into opportunity a down payment on a home, tuition to go to school, capital to build a small business, savings to retire on. Other factors, the story says, include distinct rates of home ownership and participation in job-related savings plans. Median and average wealth differences According to apairofSeptember 2017 Federal Reserve articles, the agencys 2016 Survey of Consumer Financesreached6,254 familieswith queries onhouseholds total pre-tax income, balance sheets, pensions, income and demographic characteristics. No other study for the country collects comparable information, the agency says. The 2016 survey found about a 10-to-1 difference in the median wealth/net worth of white and black Americans--the ratio between $171,000 and $17,600. Net worth is defined as the difference between families' gross assets and their liabilities. The survey results otherwise suggest the difference in the average wealth of white and black Americans is nearly 7-to-1--$933,700 for white residents and $138,200 for black residents. (An equal number of households earn more and less than each median. Averages are based on adding up reported incomes and dividing by the number of households.) The Fed offered one other comparison: Nearly 1 in 5 black households reported zero or negative net worth compared to a smaller share of white households, 9 percent, the study says. Factors behind white-black difference We spotted a Fed chart specifying disparities by race identified in the survey in household income and by whether people reported owning homes and cars or having retirement accounts: SOURCE:Excerpted from chart in data analysis,Recent Trends in Wealth-Holding by Race and Ethnicity: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances,FEDS Notes, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Sept. 27, 2017 (accessed Aug. 17, 2018) As ORourkes spokesman also noted, the Pew Research Center took a longer view of the wealth disparity singled out by ORourke. Pews November 2017 Fact Tankstorysays that according to the Feds surveys over the years, the wealth gap between white and black and Hispanic households shrank by about half from 2007 to 2016. The month before, another non-partisan entity, the Urban Institute,updated its chartsdrawing on the Feds surveys. For more than 50 years, the institute says, white families have outpaced black and Hispanic families in average wealth. We asked the institute to evaluate ORourkes claim. The statement had the right spirit, we heard back, thoughCaroline Ratcliffe, a senior fellow, offered a caveat in that the 2016 Fed survey suggests that black Americans had one-tenth the median wealth of whites, not 10 times less. Older survey A 2014PunditFact fact-checkled us to fetch what turned out to be older results from a different survey. In June 2017, the U.S. Census Bureaureleasedits estimates of household net incomes attributed to its 2013Survey of Income and Program Participation. Tables in the release suggest that white households at the time had median net worths of $103,796 and black households had net worths of $9,211--signaling an 11-to-1 ratio. White households had average net worths of $292,217, the bureau says, compared to $91,595 for black households--indicating a 3-to-1 ratio. Our ruling ORourke said that black Americans have 10 times less wealth than white Americans. Survey results pinpoint two ways to gauge such disparities. According to the Feds 2016 consumer survey, black Americans had one-tenth the median wealth of white Americans while black Americans had a little over one-seventh the average wealth of white Americans. 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. | [
"Economy",
"Income",
"Poverty",
"Texas"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1bGxUrLQ2qimY_MA4vSzVzjfp1mfrSjIY",
"image_caption": "Houston Defender"
}
] |
FMD_test_1257 | The New American Way of Life | 09/01/2015 | [
""
] | FACT CHECK: Are the claims made in an email titled "New American Way of Life" accurate? Claim: An email titled "New American Way of Life" accurately describes a generous safety net available to Americans who opt not to work. Examples: [Collected via Facebook and email, August 2015] Do you have any information on this article? I find a lot of it to be incorrect, and no sources are cited. From what I understand, less than 5% of the population abuses welfare, and Pell Grants barely cover college tuition and books. Who gets free cell phones? Does a mother of two really receive $600 a month in food stamps? I've seen this posted three times today in my Facebook feed and feel it needs to be dispelled. ------------------------ The Key to Success for Those Who Are Inheriting America in 13 Easy Steps! How to get $75,000 in benefits every year from the US Government for you and your girlfriend? Follow these proven and simple steps. First ... get a girlfriend. 1. Don't marry her. 2. Use your mom's address to receive your mail. 3. The guy buys a house. 4. The guy rents out the house to his girlfriend, who has two of his kids. 5. Section 8 will pay $900 a month for a three-bedroom home. 6. The girlfriend signs up for Obamacare so the guy doesn't have to pay for family insurance. 7. Being a single mother, the girlfriend gets to go to college for free! 8. The girlfriend receives $600 a month for food stamps. 9. The girlfriend gets a free cell phone from the US Government. 10. The girlfriend receives free utilities. 11. The guy moves into the home but still uses his mom's house to receive mail. 12. The girlfriend claims one child, and the guy claims one child on taxes. Now you both get to claim head of household at an $1,800 credit. 13. The girlfriend receives disability for being "crazy" or having a "bad back" at $1,800 a month and never has to work again. This plan is perfectly legal and is being executed now by millions of people. A married couple with a stay-at-home mom yields $0. An unmarried couple with a stay-at-home mom nets $21,600 in disability + $10,800 in free housing + $6,000 in free Obamacare + $6,000 in free food + $4,800 in free utilities + $6,000 in Pell Grant money to spend + $12,000 a year in college tuition free from Pell Grants + $8,800 tax benefit for being a single mother = $75,000 a year in benefits. Any idea why the country is over $18 trillion in debt? Welcome to the new multicultural, diverse, fundamentally changed America, thanks to the ever-popular and exciting notion that everyone is entitled to everything. Origins: The item reproduced above has been circulating online since at least April 2015, and after it was published in the Miller County Liberal of Colquitt, Georgia, on August 19, 2015, it received a boost in popularity due to the implied authority of appearing in print. (Although it was attributed to "John Tabb," an earlier version was credited to "Jeffery Rightmire.") As is often the case with email polemics focused on purported welfare abuse and taxpayer outrage, the "New American Way of Life" offers an implausible, far-fetched scenario to condemn those who use public assistance to make ends meet. 1. Don't marry (your girlfriend). 2. Use your mom's address to receive your mail. 3. The guy buys a house. 4. The guy rents out the house to his girlfriend, who has two of his kids. 5. Section 8 will pay $900 a month for a three-bedroom home. Points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the forward pertain to the imagined generosity of the housing program colloquially called "Section 8," the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) assistance program that provides very low-income families with subsidized vouchers they can use towards paying a portion of their monthly rent. While Section 8 is frequently derided in the fashion referenced above, it's very difficult to play the system in the manner described due to the low supply versus tremendous demand for housing and vouchers among those in need of them. Applicants typically have to spend years on waiting lists before Section 8 housing becomes available, and in many cases, it takes years to even get one's name on a waiting list in the first place. Waiting lists for the program close to new applicants for years at a time on a not-infrequent basis, as a August 24, 2015 article in the Albuquerque Journal reported: The waiting list for Section 8 subsidized housing will re-open on September 1, after closing 28 months ago, the Bernalillo County Housing Department announced Friday. But getting onto that waiting list is no assurance that a person will move into Section 8 housing anytime soon. According to Housing Department senior administrative assistant Craig Smith, the waiting list will re-open with 600 people still on the list, and we expect to add thousands by the time the list is closed again, though there is no tentative date when that will happen. The waitlist was shut down on May 1, 2013, because of sequestering of funds and budget cuts from the federal government, particularly the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD. So it's extremely unlikely the baby daddy landlord in this hypothetical scenario could simply make a residence available for the Section 8 program and then immediately rent it to the tenant of his choosing. He'd typically have to wait years for his preferred renter (i.e., his girlfriend) to get on a Section 8 waiting list, then more years for her to work her way to the top of the list, before he could double-dip by getting the government to subsidize his girlfriend's rent to him for living in a house he owns. The baby daddy in this scenario (one who can afford to buy his own house) would probably be far better off financially if he simply lived in the house with his girlfriend or rented it out to someone other than her. 6. The girlfriend signs up for Obamacare so the guy doesn't have to pay for family insurance. There is a persistent misperception that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) guarantees free health insurance for everyone. 7. Being a single mother, the girlfriend gets to go to college for free! If there is any guaranteed way for a "single mother" to obtain a college education for free, we've yet to locate it. Yes, federal Pell Grants can provide qualifying students with up to almost $6,000 per year towards the cost of attending college (depending upon financial need), but they aren't tied to one's status as a single mother. There are some grants and scholarships available for single parents to help them afford school while they are in and help them pay it off once they have graduated, but those types of programs are scarce, and very few unpartnered mothers could get a free ride to any college based solely on their status as single parents. 8. The girlfriend receives $600 a month for food stamps. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, commonly known as "food stamps") is an often criticized assistance program aimed at combating hunger among financially struggling families. Eligibility for SNAP varies based on household size, but the maximum monthly allotment ranges from $194 for a family of one to $1,169 for a family of eight. Each additional family member after that can qualify a household for up to $146 more each month in benefits, or just under $5 per person per day. The household size posited here (a single mother with two children) wouldn't qualify for $600 per month in SNAP benefits. The Department of Agriculture (under which the program operates) estimates a total annual program "loss" of about four percent. Despite widespread belief that the SNAP program is rampantly abused with little oversight, fraud in the program is aggressively investigated and prosecuted where applicable. 9. The girlfriend gets a free cell phone from the US Government. The Lifeline program (commonly known as "Obamaphones," even though the program was actually initiated long before Barack Obama took office) requires phone service providers to offer monthly discounts on landline or wireless telephone service to eligible low-income consumers. The program does not require those providers to issue "free cell phones" to anyone (although some cellular providers choose to do so at their own expense). 10. The girlfriend receives free utilities. Various programs administered at the state level provide low-income families with financial assistance to offset the costs of essential utilities, but often only in emergency situations. 11. The guy moves into the home but still uses his mom's house to receive mail. One might theoretically do this, but the person who deliberately falsified his residence address in order to live in self-owned housing that he was being paid to rent to another party under the Section 8 program would be committing a crime, not simply taking legitimate and legal advantage of government assistance programs. 12. The girlfriend claims one child, and the guy claims one child on taxes. Now you both get to claim head of household at an $1,800 credit. Whether or not taxpayers are setting out to craftily claim tax deductions to which they are not entitled, the IRS's head of household tax filing status indeed entitles the person filing to a higher deduction ($9,250 in 2015 versus $6,300 for taxpayers filing as Single or Married Filing Separately). It's important to bear in mind that that dollar amount is what taxpayers may deduct from their taxable income, and not necessarily an amount that they will receive back in the form of a tax refund. And of course, if each parent is claiming one of the two children as a dependent, then the mother can't be legally collecting benefits (such as SNAP) for both children. The girlfriend receives disability for being "crazy" or having a "bad back" at $1,800 a month and never has to work again. For starters, one cannot simply declare herself to be mentally ill or have back problems, then sit back and collect disability payments for the rest of her working life. Such claims have to be documented by medical professionals as genuinely disabling conditions, and even then those living with disabilities find that securing benefits isn't quite so easy. Presuming the woman in this anecdote is fairly young, she would have to have accrued sufficient work credits to qualify for lifelong disability payments (an unlikely scenario), and then she would still have to meet separate criteria for a qualifying condition (which precludes having earned more than $1,090 per month in that year). The condition under which a person qualifies also must be one that limits the ability to do any other work: If you cannot do the work you did in the past, we see if you are able to adjust to other work. We consider your medical conditions and your age, education, past work experience, and any transferable skills you may have. If you cannot adjust to other work, your claim will be approved. If you can adjust to other work, your claim will be denied. According to data from the agency, more than half of disability claims are denied, and the wait for hearings has increased (partly due to an aging pool of applicants). The anecdotal claimant's purported plundering of disability benefits also conflicts with her concurrent sponging of educational grants, as the usefulness of the latter is negated by the former: A full-time student wouldn't qualify for lifelong disability payments, and college would be unnecessary for the matriarch of a household who intended to remain home for life collecting benefits for her fabricated disability. This plan is perfectly legal and is being executed now by millions of people. A married couple with a stay-at-home mom yields $0. An unmarried couple with a stay-at-home mom nets $21,600 in disability + $10,800 in free housing + $6,000 in free Obamacare + $6,000 in free food + $4,800 in free utilities + $6,000 in Pell Grant money to spend + $12,000 a year in college tuition free from Pell Grants + $8,800 tax benefit for being a single mother = $75,000 a year in benefits. Any idea why the country is over $18 trillion in debt? As the excerpt above concludes, the figures bandied about in the email encompass virtually all programs available to low-income Americans and extrapolate that the fictional family described routinely accesses all of them. Some of the benefits described (such as free college for single mothers or free utility programs) don't seem to exist, and several forms of assistance (such as Section 8 or disability) are not administered in the simplistic manner suggested by this item. Furthermore, while this item asserts that the complex welfare hustling plan described here is "perfectly legal," several aspects of it involve defrauding the system in an expressly prohibited (and largely criminal) fashion. Were any family to hide assets or lie about household income on application forms, they would be subject to severe penalties and prosecution should their actions be uncovered. The scheme also rests upon the (fallacious) notion that access to assistance programs is easy to both maintain and retain. Finally, the causes of the national debt are fairly complex. However, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and Defense broadly account for most government spending. Last updated: August 31, 2015 Originally published: August 31, 2015 | [
"asset"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1DFNb5fVlHPQcM6D-6jzpNkx5nBylH0rD",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1258 | Most folks wages havent gone up in over a decade. | 02/23/2014 | [] | After giving his fifth State of the Union address, President Barack Obama hit the road. One of hisfirst stopswas a GE gas engines plant in Waukesha, a city about 20 miles west of Milwaukee. In both theHouse chamberand on thefactory floor, the president insisted that over the past four years, corporate profits and stock prices soared while wages fluttered. In the State of the Union, Obama claimed that average wages have barely budged. PolitiFact National rated his statementTrue, finding the average had risen no more than 1.7 percent above inflation from 2008 to 2012. In Waukesha on Jan. 30, 2014, the president alluded to a slightly different statistic and was more bold. He said: Because the truth is -- and you know this in your own lives, and you see it in your neighborhoods among your friends and family -- even though the economy has been growing for four years, even though corporate profits have been doing very well, stock prices have soared, most folks' wages haven't gone up in over a decade. We wondered: Even taking inflation into account, is it true the majority of Americans havent seen their wages increase in more than 10 years? Obamas evidence Income inequalitywas a big topic in the weeks leading up to the State of the Union. So, one thing to make clear upfront is that in his Wisconsin remarks, the president singled out wages -- the paycheck you get from your job. Thats a narrower category than income, which can include money taken in from other sources such as investments or government benefits. When we asked for evidence to back the presidents wages claim, a White House spokesman citeda databasefrom the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. It shows the median weekly earnings for full-time workers in the final quarter of each year from 1999 through 2013. The median wage means half of workers earned more than that amount and half earned less. From the database, we assembled the following table. The wage figures are adjusted for inflation. Year Weekly wages, 4th quarter of each year 1999 $335 2000 334 2001 340 2002 336 2003 337 2004 337 2005 332 2006 337 2007 332 2008 340 2009 344 2010 341 2011 335 2012 334 2013 334 So, the inflation-adjusted median wage during the final quarter of 2013 was $334 -- $1 lower than during the final quarter of 1999, more than a decade earlier. However, the table also shows that the median wage went up in some years and down in others during the period cited by the president. It was as high as $344 and as low as $332. Outside experts We put Obamas claim and the database to four experts: economistAparna Mathurof the conservative American Enterprise Institute; economistEugene Steuerleof the Urban Institute, who served as a deputy assistant Treasury secretary under President Ronald Reagan;Michael Tanner, senior fellow of the libertarian Cato Institute; and Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance research directorDale Knapp. They agreed that its not possible to track the wages of actual individuals over a period of more than a decade, and so it cant be known whether most of them had a higher wage in 2013 than in 2009. But the experts also agreed the median wage figure cited by The White House is the best available. As Steuerle told us: Looking at the median tells us what is happening across the economy, but not what is happening to each individual worker over time. Two other points, neither of which bears directly on the accuracy of Obamas wage claim: Mathur said the broader measure of income gives a better picture of the standard of living of low- and moderate-income people, since it includes assistance such as the earned income tax credit, food stamps and Medicaid. And Tanner said total compensation, including things such as health and retirement benefits, has risen in recent years even if wages havent. Our rating Obama said: Most folks wages havent gone up in over a decade. Its not possible to know, considering all Americans, whether most of them saw a wage increase in the period cited by the president. But he cites the best-available figure, which shows the median weekly wage, adjusted for inflation, was $1 less at the end of 2013 than it was in 1999. We rate the presidents statement Mostly True. Follow us onTwitterandFacebook. | [
"Corporations",
"Economy",
"Income",
"Jobs",
"Workers",
"Wisconsin"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1259 | Does Macaulay Culkin's Real Brother Appear in 'Home Alone'? | 12/19/2021 | [
"Apparently acting runs in the IRL family. "
] | Now deemed a holiday staple, "Home Alone" tells the story of the misadventures of Kevin, one of 11 children who was accidentally left at home when his family went on a Christmas vacation. As the holiday season rolled around in 2021, some social media users pointed out that there was more to the behind-the-scenes lives of the actors who made up the fictional McCallister family. One such claim suggested that cousin Fuller was played by Kieran Culkin, the real-life younger brother of Macaulay Culkin. This fact was first shared on Twitter in December 2018 by the account ChristmasMovieFacts, handle @XmasMovieFacts, and in the years since has been shared by other popular social media accounts, like @iamthirtyaf. A look at the cast list on the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) showed that Kieran Culkin, who played Kevin's cousin Fuller in "Home Alone," is indeed the younger Culkin sibling. According to IMDb, Kieran had one significant line in the first "Home Alone":
Fuller McCallister: What time are we going to bed?
Frank McCallister: Early, we're leaving the house at 8 AM, on the button.
Kate McCallister: Hey, I hope you're all drinking milk; I want to get rid of it.
Kate McCallister: [to Megan who is throwing food] Hey, don't you do that!
A cross-reference of the young brother's IMDb profile also confirmed that the actor is one of six Culkin children. He would have been around 8 years old at the time of the release of the 1990 Christmas classic, two years younger than his real-life brother. Snopes also watched the classic and found that Kieran made his debut in the film just before the 8-minute mark. According to Entertainment Weekly, the part earned Kieran his first feature film credit. Kieran also made an appearance in the sequel, "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York." A photograph hosted by Getty Images showed the two brothers at the premiere in 1992, when the boys would have been 10 and 12 years old.
"Culkin's real-life little brother, Kieran, portrayed his annoying cousin Fuller in the Home Alone films. He has since starred in the Father of the Bride franchise, She's All That, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Quitters, and Infinity Baby," wrote US Magazine in November 2021. "Kieran appeared on Go Fish and a few episodes of Long Live the Royals before playing Roman Roy on Succession, which earned him both an Emmy and Golden Globe nomination in 2020." If you want to see for yourself, "Home Alone" can be streamed throughout the holiday season on Disney+.
Sources:
Boardman, Madeline, et al. "'Home Alone': Where Are They Now?" EW.Com, https://ew.com/gallery/home-alone-where-are-they-now/. Accessed 17 Dec. 2021.
Home Alone (1990) - IMDb. www.imdb.com, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099785/fullcredits. Accessed 17 Dec. 2021.
"'Home Alone' Cast: Where Are They Now?" Us Weekly, 16 Nov. 2021, https://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/pictures/home-alone-cast-where-are-they-now/.
"Kieran Culkin." IMDb, https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001085/. Accessed 17 Dec. 2021.
"Macaulay Culkin and Kiernan Culkin." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/macaulay-culkin-and-kiernan-culkin-news-photo/82149204. Accessed 17 Dec. 2021.
https://twitter.com/XmasMovieFacts/status/1076301766436835328/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1076301766436835328%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.snopes.com%2F%3Fp%3D386295post_type%3Dfact_checkpreview_id%3D386295. Accessed 17 Dec. 2021. | [
"credit"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1_3oKcb8HWNP6r99ADqpIFAD9O_lw4L21",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1260 | 40 percent of American households have female primary breadwinners. | 05/03/2017 | [] | Despite the large number of women in the American workforce, society still treats them as an anomaly, first daughter Ivanka Trump wrote in the introduction to her new book, Women Who Work. Forty-seven percent of the U.S. workforce is made up of women; 70 percent of all mothers support themselves or contribute financially to their family's bottom line; and 40 percent of American households have female primary breadwinners, Trump wrote. Yet we still say "working woman" as if she were an anomaly. We never say "working man." There are a few statistics in that passage, but we wanted to focus on one of them: that women are the primary earners in 40 percent of American households. In the notes section of her book, Trump referenced a widely cited 2013 Pew Research Center report that looked at households with children under the age of 18. The report found that in 2011, women earned most or all of the family's income in 40 percent of these households, adding up to about 13.7 million breadwinner moms. That's quadruple what it was in 1960—11 percent. The Pew figure is a little more specific than what Trump wrote because it only looked at households that had kids, not those that don't. But in context, it's clear Trump was referring to the Pew report—especially because she referred to the same statistic later in the book when talking about being a working mom herself. As much as motherhood is a joy to so many of us, it is also the greatest predictor of wage inequality between men and women in our country, she wrote. Forty-seven percent of the U.S. labor force is female; 40 percent of women are their family's primary breadwinner. The fact is correct, said Betsey Stevenson, a professor of public policy and economics at the University of Michigan and former chief economist at the U.S. Labor Department. We couldn't find any comprehensive data that spoke to how many households total, including those without kids, had women as the primary earners. Of the families where the woman is the primary breadwinner, Pew found that 37 percent are married women who earn more than their husbands, while 63 percent are single mothers. The households with a married primary breadwinner, with a median family income of $80,000, are wealthier than the single mother households, which have a median family income of $23,000. The Pew report is the most recent independent report we could find speaking to this issue. But we also came across a 2016 report by the liberal Center for American Progress that had similar findings. According to the Center for American Progress, 42 percent of mothers were the sole or primary breadwinners in their households in 2015, and 22.4 percent were co-breadwinners, earning one-quarter to one-half of their total household income. Even though women's share of the labor force grew dramatically throughout the latter half of the 20th century, it has stagnated in recent years, at least in part because of a lack of family-friendly labor policies, said Casey Schoeneberger, communications director at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. Our ruling: Ivanka Trump said, "40 percent of American households have female primary breadwinners." A widely cited Pew report found that in 2011, 40 percent of American households with children under 18 had women providing most or all of the family's income. A report by a liberal think tank found similar results looking at 2015 data. The context of Trump's statement shows that she had working moms in mind. We rate her statement Mostly True. | [
"National",
"Economy",
"Income",
"Labor",
"Women",
"Workers"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1W6WnVaTSIdIAcnjbaCf04n-sQk-oAn6-",
"image_caption": "Women Who Work"
}
] |
FMD_test_1261 | "Did Someone Send a Uterus to the Supreme Court? Trending TikTok Story Takes Off" | 06/30/2022 | [
"Some people definitely fantasized about committing such an act after Roe v. Wade was overturned. "
] | In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, ending 50 years of constitutionally protected abortion rights. While many people took to the streets to protest the ruling, others used social media to share fantasy scenarios of protesting by other means. On TikTok, for example, some people fantasized about mailing their uterus to the Supreme Court as an act of protest. While the video described a potential future action ("I need to mail" vs. "I mailed"), other TikTok users shared videos claiming that someone had indeed followed through with this action. Although a number of TikTok users claimed that someone literally sent their uterus to the Supreme Court, there is no actual evidence that this happened. Protests against the Supreme Court in the wake of the Roe v. Wade ruling garnered significant coverage from mainstream media outlets. If someone truly had one of their organs removed, placed it in a box, and sent it to the Supreme Court, there would certainly be news coverage of the incident. However, no credible news outlets have reported any such events. While there are plenty of videos on TikTok of people making this claim, none of them contain images of the alleged package or the identity of the alleged sender. In fact, most of the TikTok videos we viewed involve imagining what it would be like for an employee of the Supreme Court to open such a package. The claim that someone mailed their uterus to the Supreme Court is part of a larger trend on TikTok involving users asserting that some extreme action was taken to protest the abortion ruling. For example, another series of videos claimed (without evidence) that several Supreme Court justices had their credit card numbers leaked. Social media users also claimed (without evidence) that the IP addresses of the justices had been leaked. | [
"credit"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1Xt-Vj68cFrYnkJbaWpBAJysyTGLzgH_W",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1262 | No, Walmart Isn't Writing Off Your Checkout Donations | 06/29/2021 | [
"A social media meme mischaracterized business tax practices."
] | In late June 2021, social media users shared a meme misinforming viewers that Walmart and other large businesses were taking customers' point-of-sale charitable donations and writing them off on their taxes. Readers have been asking Snopes about this meme since at least August 2020. The meme addresses a phenomenon called "checkout charity," in which many large businesses ask customers to donate a small amount to a charitable cause upon checkout: according to What happens to the money you donate at the cash register? This is where you round up your bill to give to a charity designated by the retailer, and the donation amount appears on your receipt. The store serves only as a collection agent for your gift. Assuming the business is following the law, it will not include your donation as part of its business receipts, or income, nor will it claim the charitable gift as an expense. In other words, your gift has zero impact on the stores income taxes. Keep in mind that the store chooses the receiving charity, so make sure it is one you can support. As a customer, the donation will appear on your receipt and you can claim it as a charitable deduction when you file your income tax return. But you probably wont. A whopping nine out of ten customers don't write those donations off, even with a receipt, according to the Tax Policy Center, which estimates only 9% of households claim deductions for charitable donations. according to The Tampa Bay Times reported that the practice is gaining in popularity because both charities and businesses benefit from it: reported "Checkout charity, as it's sometimes called, has become big business for nonprofits and retailers. Charities love it because it raises money from the masses at little cost. Companies love it because it makes them look caring and generous, even if it comes on the backs of customers." | [
"taxes"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1cMwGmel4slSR1Y928LPHLmWdGqARZY5R",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1263 | Equitable Distribution | 08/01/2008 | [
"Did Barack Obama say 'a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably'?"
] | Claim: During an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Barack Obama said, "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably." Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] Well, Barack has finally decided to step up and tell us what he has in mind for us with his promises of 'change.' Just a few short days ago, he had an interview with the Wall Street Journal to further discuss his economic plans/policies for the future and he spelled it out quite clearly. As you can see from the excerpt quote from that interview (below), he plans on officially doing away with capitalism and replacing it with his much favored system of socialism. Many of us already knew of his strong socialist tendencies in the past, but he has now put it out there officially on record. It is amazing that this article, and specifically this quote, is getting overlooked, especially when he is so direct and brazen about his plans. Every single American who works for a living should be absolutely scared spitless. Pass this along to everyone you can. Quote from Wall Street Journal: "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably." Barack Obama, WSJ, 6/17/08 If this doesn't scare Republicans to get out the vote, I don't know what would!! Origins: This item comes from a 17 June 2008 Wall Street Journal article about Senator Barack Obama's economic plans for the U.S., some of which was based on an interview Senator Obama gave to that publication.not article Sen. Obama cited new economic forces to explain what appears like a return to an older-style big-government Democratic platform skeptical of market forces. "Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably. (The phrase "a strong government hand is needed to assure that wealth is distributed more equitably" also does not appear in the Wall Street Journal's transcript of Senator Obama's interview.) transcript As for whether the phrase in question is a fair summary of Senator Obama's economic philosophy (whether or not he actually uttered those words), here is what he said during the portions of the interview apparently summarized by that phrase: I do believe the tax policies over the last eight years have been badly skewed towards the winners of the global economy. And I do think there is a function for tax policy in making sure that everybody benefits from globalization or at least the benefits and burdens are shared a little more easily. If, as some talk about, we've got a winner-take-all economy where the highly skilled, highly educated are reaping huge rewards and the unskilled or even semi-skilled are getting a much smaller share of the economy, then our tax policies can help cushion some of the blow through providing health care. So if people lose their jobs they're not losing their health care as well. That actually makes a more flexible work force that makes workers more mobile and less resistant to change. If we've got investments in education, that will make us more competitive in the long run. We've got to pay for that like anything else. But it would be a mistake to say I view our tax code only as a distribution question. I also think that our tax code has come to distort a lot of economic decision making so I'd like to see simplification as part of an overall tax agenda. On the corporate side, for example, one of the things I've asked my folks to look at is: Are there ways we can close existing loopholes in tax havens at the same time as we're lowering overall rates? We've got this new problem: The biggest problem with our tax code when it comes to the business side is that we have one of the highest tax rates corporate tax rates on paper but our effective tax rate is one of the lowest ... You know, how much you pay in taxes as a corporation a lot of times is going to depend on how good your lobbyist is, as opposed to any sound economic theories. So those distorting effects I'd like to actually remove and eliminate from our tax system, but obviously that's a complicated and difficult task. The last time we did it was in 1986. We're going to have to, I think, revisit that. I say that the combination of globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of workers. I would add an anti-union climate to that list. But all weakens the position of workers, particularly blue-collar workers, in the economy, and some of it is just historical. You know after World War II,we were in this unique position where Europe was decimated, Japan was decimated. China was off the grid because of Mao. And so we didn't have a lot of competition out there, and now other countries are rising and automation has supplanted a lot of work that used to be done by middle-class workers. We have drastically increased productivity since 1995, and there was the theory that if you increase productivity enough some of these problems of living standards would solve themselves. But what we've seen is rising productivity, rising corporate profits but flat-lining or even declining wages and incomes for the average family. What that says is that it's going to be important for us to pay attention to not only growing the pie, which is always critical, but also some attention to how it is sliced. I do not believe that those two things fair distribution and robust economic growth are mutually exclusive. You get to a point, I think, if you have a participatory income tax, for example, where you might be discouraging work because marginal rates are so high. You might undoubtedly get to a point where the capital gain and dividend taxes are so high that they distort investment decisions and you're weaker economically. But you know if you've got a sensible policy that says, we're going to capture some of the nation's economic growth ... and reinvest it in things we know have to be done, like science and technology research or fixing our energy policy, and then that is actually going to be a spur to productivity and not an inhibitor. Last updated: 17 August 2008 Sources: Davis, Bob and Amy Chozicks. "Obama Plans Spending Boost, Possible Cut in Business Tax." The Wall Street Journal. 17 June 2008 (P. A1). Davis, Bob and Amy Chozicks. "Barack Obama on Economics: 'We're Going Through a Big Shift.'" The Wall Street Journal. 17 June 2008. | [
"income"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1264 | According to one study, the minimum wage today is worth $2 less than in 1968. | 02/21/2014 | [] | Debate over raisingthe minimum wageis heating up. President Obama is advocating for it, Democrats in Congress are promoting it and their Republican counterparts are warning that it would have a negative impact on the U.S. economy. Adding fuel to that fire was Tuesday'sCongressional Budget Office report, which predicted that increasing the minimum wage would lift 900,000 people out of poverty but cost 500,000 jobs. U.S. Rep. David Cicilline, D-RI, went on thefloor of the House on Feb. 11to argue that inflation has eroded the value of the minimum wage, now $7.25 per hour, over time. It's been five years since those working for the minimum wage have seen an increase in the minimum wage, and according to one study, the minimum wage today is worth $2 less than in 1968. This is shameful, and we have the responsibility to address growing income inequality by increasing the minimum wage immediately, he said. In other words, a worker in 2014 would need to earn $9.25 an hour to have the same buying power a minimum-wage worker had in 1968. We wondered whether that was true. Cicilline's office wouldn't say what study the congressman was referring to. When we asked Cicilline about it during a Feb. 18 news conference, he said couldn't recall. Instead, his chief of staff said a Google search had just uncovered a June 2013 Huffington Post article headlined, The Minimum Wage Is Worth $2 Less Today Than It Was In 1968: Study. The Huffington Post article citesa study from the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal Washington, D.C. think tank funded by organized labor, that quotes the $2 figure but doesn't analyze the minimum wage directly. Instead, it quotesanother EPI studythat did, looking at the minimum wage value from 1968 through 2012. It reports that the 1968 minimum wage of $1.60 per hour was essentially worth $9.25 in 2012 dollars, precisely two dollars less than $7.25. But what was the difference when Cicilline gave his speech this month?The latest EPI study, issued Dec. 19 byDavid Cooper, puts that difference at $2.15. When we tried to confirm that calculation by going to theonline inflation calculatorfrom the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, we came up with an amount that was even higher: It said that today's $7.25 minimum wage is worth $3.46 less than in 1968, a much bigger difference than what Cicilline cited. Why the difference? The online calculator, Cooper said, uses the conventional Consumer Price Index, known as CPI-U. He and other researchers use a variant of that, called theCPI-U-RS, which tries to take the modifications that have been made to the CPI-U over the years and apply them to previous years. Although the government doesn't claim one index is better than another, he said the CPI-U-RS is designed to do a better job of accurately capturing the changing value of the minimum wage. If you adjust an old minimum wage for inflation using the traditional CPI, its value appears much higher today. In summary, Cicilline says he was quoting a report, but we're not sure what report that was. There is a report that supports his claim, as his staff noted, but it's out of date. He said the buying power of the minimum wage in 1968 was, in effect, $2 higher than its value today. The difference in 2013 dollars, by one measure, is actually $2.15. That's pretty close. By another measure, it's even more: $3.46. His underlying point -- that the minimum wage has significantly less buying power than it had 45 years ago -- is correct, and the erosion in the minimum wage is even more dramatic if you use the conventional cost of living index. We rate his statementMostly True. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.) | [
"Rhode Island",
"Economy",
"Income",
"Jobs",
"Labor"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1265 | Did a Florida Judge Give Vastly Different Sentences to Two Men, Whose Only Difference Was Their Race? | 08/20/2018 | [
"A viral meme, based on a piece of investigative journalism, left out some important context in the cases of Chase Legleitner and Lamar Lloyd."
] | Racial disparities have long been a contentious element of the United States justice system, with black and ethnic minority suspects statistically more likely than their white counterparts to be arrested and charged, and to face stiffer penalties, even in similar circumstances. The Sentencing Project, a non-profit organization that researches and lobbies for fairness in the American criminal justice system, summarized the phenomenon in a 2015 study, writing that "Once arrested, people of color are also likely to be charged more harshly than whites; once charged, they are more likely to be convicted; and once convicted, they are more likely to face stiff sentences - all after accounting for relevant legal differences such as crime severity and criminal history." study From time to time, examples emerge which appear to shine a light on those racial disparities, especially in sentencing. One particular case re-emerged on social media in the summer of 2018, which promoters claimed was a stark illustration of racial discrimination in sentencing. The "I Love Africa" Facebook page was one of many social media accounts which posted a widely-shared meme comparing the widely disparate sentences of Chase Legleitner (who is white) and Lamar Lloyd (who is black) for similar offenses: meme The clear statement made by this meme and those who shared it is that with two similar sets of circumstances involved, only the differing races of the two men could account for their very different sentences. The comparison between Legleitner and Lloyd was first brought to light by the Sarasota Herald-Tribune as part of a 2016 series of articles titled "Bias on the Bench," about racial disparities in sentencing by Florida judges. One article focused on the record of Sherwood "Chip" Bauer Jr., a judge on the 19th judicial circuit in Florida: article Chase Legleitner was 19 when he robbed three men in a 2008 drug deal. Lamar Lloyd was 21 when he stuck up a Pizza Hut and gas station the following year. Both men pleaded no contest to two counts of armed robbery. They went before the same judge, in the same courthouse. Each had a single misdemeanor on his record. They tallied the exact same points on the scoresheets used to determine criminal punishments in Florida. But their sentences could not have been more different. Legleitner spent less than two years in county jail. He is now free to golf and fish on the weekends. Lloyd got 26 years in prison. He will be 47 upon his release in 2034. That disparity is not unusual in the courtroom of Judge Sherwood Chip Bauer Jr. Since taking the bench a decade ago, Bauer has been tougher on those with a darker complexion, often sentencing blacks to two or three times longer than white defendants who committed the same crimes. Or in the case of Lloyd and Legleitner, 13 times longer. Florida's 12th Judicial Circuit Court firmly rejected many of the claims made in the Herald-Tribune's series, publishing a lengthy and detailed rebuttal. In March 2017, the New College of Florida published an audit of the Herald-Tribune's methodology, calling it "deeply flawed." In response, the Herald-Tribune published a detailed fact check of the claims made in the New College study.; rebuttal audit fact check This article will focus exclusively on the factual claims made in the viral meme comparing the sentences given to Legleitner and Lloyd, and the underlying claim that the vast discrepancy in their sentences was due to their differing races. Basic facts armed robbery arrested two armed robberies pled pled Legleitner Lloyd sentenced sentenced So the meme has the basic facts right. The two men were charged with the same crime, in the same court, had an equal number of sentence points, and were sentenced by the same judge -- but one was committed to state prison for 26 years while the other spent just under two years in county jail. "I Love Africa's" Facebook post was off in one respect: the sentences were handed down a year apart, not on the same day, and the meme did not clearly explain that Legleitner spent no time in prison after his conviction because he was given a sentence equal to time already served in jail (just under two years). Different sentences In Florida, sentencing guidelines involve a "scoresheet" of sentence points which correspond to various details about the crime in question, any injury suffered by victims of the crime, the defendant's criminal history, and other contextual factors. Higher points are added, for example, where a crime is committed with a firearm, or when the defendant is on probation or is an escapee from incarceration during the commission of the crime. sentencing guidelines After tallying these sentence points, the judge uses a set formula to calculate the "lowest permissible sentence" in months. In the case of both Legleitner and Lloyd, this minimum sentence was 82.65 months (just under seven years), with a possible maximum sentence of life in prison. So Lloyd's sentence (13 years in prison, doubled for the two counts of armed robbery) was actually within the range of sentencing guidelines in Florida. Damien Louissaint, who committed the Pizza Hut and Sunoco robberies with Lloyd in March 2009, faced the same charges as Lloyd, but Bauer gave him a life sentence. (Louissaint was found to have threatened civilians with a gun whereas Lloyd was merely in possession of one, and Louissaint pled not guilty and was convicted by a jury whereas Lloyd pled no contest to the charges.) sentence What's most notable about the discrepancy in Lloyd and Legleitner's sentences, then, is the relative leniency shown to Legleitner, to whom Bauer gave a much lower sentence than the minimum set out in the sentencing scoresheet. According to the guidelines in place in Florida at that time, the "lowest permissible sentence" was defined as "the minimum sentence that may be imposed by the trial court, absent a valid reason for departure." guidelines So if a judge thinks good reasons exist, he can depart from the minimum sentence yielded by the scoresheet, but he must put those reasons on the record. The factors listed in the guidelines as legitimate grounds for a "downward departure" from the minimum permissible sentence include instances of plea bargains, cases in which the defendant was too young or did not have the mental capacity to appreciate the criminality of their conduct, cases in which the defendant was an accomplice to a crime and not a major participant in it, and instances of a defendant's cooperating with prosecutors. Different facts According to 19th Judicial Circuit Court records which we obtained, the race of the defendant was not the only difference between the cases of Legleitner and Lloyd. During the 23 June 2011 sentencing hearing for Legleitner, the defense attorney and the prosecutor agreed that he qualified for a downward departure in his sentence. David Lustgarten, the prosecutor, said Legleitner had been "contrite and remorseful" and that his testimony had been crucial in convicting the "real bad guys" within the group that committed the armed robbery: [Legleitner] was more than cooperative with us in his pre-trial, his deposition, provided truthful statements at trial ... Mr. Legleitner understands the seriousness of the crime and the severity of the situation that he got himself into. He...was the last to join this party, if you will. He is...the least culpable of the entire group. He knows he should have left the situation. He knows he should have not partook [sic] anything. He did not touch anybody. He did not hurt anybody. And I think that is important for Your Honor to understand that without his assistance we would not [have] been able to get secure convictions, get past a judgment of acquittal, and certainly not to get to the real bad guys here. So ... I would agree that based on what I just represented to you that he qualifies for a downward departure, I would have no good faith basis to object to a downward departure ... Judge Bauer accepted these recommendations and sentenced Legleitner to time served, meaning that he walked free after his sentencing, having already spent 722 days (just under two years) in Martin County Jail. Bauer explained his reasons for ordering a downward departure from the minimum permissible sentence by saying that "[Legleitner] cooperated with the state to resolve current offenses ... The offense was committed in an unsophisticated manner and it was an isolated incident. Of course, the defendant showed remorse and at the time of the offense the defendant was too young to appreciate the consequences of the offense and those are the reasons." These mitigating factors were not present in the case of Lamar Lloyd. In fact, Lloyd's crimes contained elements that would be considered aggravating factors, as the 12th Judicial Circuit pointed out in their rebuttal of the Herald-Tribune series: rebuttal Besides the substantial assistance offered by Legleitner to the prosecutor, there are monumental factual differences in the circumstances of the crimes of Lamar Lloyd, the defendant the [Herald-Tribune] authors chose to compare to Legleitner. One of the foundations of the authors flawed methodology is their insistence that they are comparing like offenses, or making an apples to apples comparison of the cases. To the contrary, there are significant factual differences between the crimes committed by the two defendants. For example, we know that Legleitner did not threaten the general public in the manner that Lloyd did by robbing a public and family friendly restaurant during business hours. We know that Legleitner cooperated fully with the State Attorney and his testimony was needed to get convictions for the co-defendants. Although there may have been multiple parties involved in the robbery of the drug dealers in the Legleitner offense, there was only a single incident. This contrasts dramatically with the circumstances involving the two separate robberies committed by Lloyd and his co-defendant during their crime spree. The rebuttal pointed out that, according to a Stuart Police Department arrest affidavit, Lloyd and his co-defendant Louissaint had caused a Pizza Hut employee to "fear for his life" before handing over $150 in cash, and that when the two men (along with another man who was driving them) were stopped, police found "two young children inside the vehicle ... [who] were inside the vehicle during both armed robberies." The children were aged two and five years old. affidavit Conclusion Whether the discrepancies between the cases of Legleitner and Lloyd amounted to "monumental factual differences," as the 12th Judicial Circuit described them, is ultimately a matter of opinion, as is the question of whether those factual differences warranted such vastly different sentences. However, it cannot be disputed that significant differences existed between the two cases which went beyond the race of the defendants, and in giving Legleitner a relatively lenient sentence, Judge Bauer followed the recommendations of both the defense attorney and the prosecutor, and he fulfilled his obligations by citing the reasons for that lighter sentence. Ghandnoosh, Nazgol. "Black Lives Matter: Eliminating Racial Inequity in the Criminal Justice System."
The Sentencing Project. 3 February 2015. Salman, Josh et al. "Tough on Crime -- Black Defendants Get Longer Sentences in Treasure Coast System."
The Sarasota Herald-Tribune. 12 December 2016. Twelfth Judicial Circuit of Florida. "Twelfth Circuit Court Response to Sarasota Herald Tribune 'Bias on the Bench' Series."
2017. Dowdy, C. et al. "Preliminary Bias Report."
New College of Florida. March 2017. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune. "Rebutting the New College Study."
April 2017. Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, for Martin County. "State of Florida vs. Cerniglia et al -- Information."
17 March 2009. Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, for Martin County. "State of Florida vs. Chase Andrew Legleitner -- Judgment and Sentencing."
23 June 2011. Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, for Martin County. "State of Florida vs. Lamar D. Lloyd -- Judgment and Sentencing."
23 July 2010. The Florida Department of Corrections/The Office of the State Courts Administrator. "Florida Criminal Punishment Code -- Scoresheet Preparation Manual (November 2008 Version.)"
The Supreme Court of Florida. November 2008. Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, for Martin County. "State of Florida vs. Chase Andrew Legleitner -- Sentencing Hearing Transcript."
23 June 2011. | [
"profit"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1gtqrWNWQ2hUo7OdhGHTvsUZBFcBiu1_g",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1266 | Under Republicans, recessions happen four times as frequently as under Democrats. | 09/22/2015 | [] | Recently, Hillary Clinton has been making the ultimate pocketbook argument for her candidacy: When theres a Democrat in the White House, she says, the economy does better. Earlier in this campaign season, she said thestock market does betterunder Democrats. In a speech to theNew Hampshire Democratic Party Conventionon Sept. 19, Clinton went even further. I know its inconvenient for our Republican friends, but the facts do speak for themselves, the former secretary of state said. Economic growth is stronger under Democratic presidents. Unemployment is lower. The stock market rises faster. Businesses do better, and deficits are smaller. And one of my favorite inconvenient facts is under Republicans, recessions happen four times as frequently as under Democrats. In this fact-check, we decided to focus the claim that recessions are four times as likely under Republicans as they are under Democrats. A look at the numbers The primary research on this question -- and the source cited by the Clinton campaign when we asked -- comes from apaperwritten by two Princeton University economists, Alan Blinder and Mark Watson. The paper, published in July 2014, found that the economy tends to do better under Democratic presidents by numerous measures. The authors looked at quarterly economic data from 1947 through mid 2013 and the National Bureau of Economic Researchsofficial list of recessionsand found that Clintons claim is pretty much on point. Since 1947, there have been 11 official recessions, totaling 49 recessionary quarters. Of those 49 quarters, just eight occurred under Democratic presidents, compared to 41 under Republicans. So, over the past 65 years, quarters in recession were about five times more common under a Republican president than under a Democratic president. Sec. Clinton is correct in her claim, Watson, one of the papers authors, told PolitiFact. Looking at how many recessionsstartedunder Republicans, the difference is even more stark, noted Blinder, the co-author. Of the 11 recessions since 1947, nine under Republicans, compared to just two under Democrats. The paper also looked further back in history to 1875 and found that the trend held, though it was less pronounced. But what does this mean? Economists emphasize, however, that Clintons claim needs some additional context. Clinton presumably wants listeners to believe that Republican policies dont work for the economy. But the research doesnt necessarily support this contention. There are far too many factors that contribute to the countrys economic health. Democrats would no doubt like to attribute the large (Democratic/Republican) growth gap to macroeconomic policy choices, but the data do not support such a claim, the Blinder-Watson paper says. In short, the paper found that half of the Democrats economic advantage is a result of factors outside the control of the White House, Congress or the Federal Reserve. The other half remains a mystery, Watson said. It seems we must look instead to several variables that are mostly good luck, with perhaps a touch of good policy, the report says. One section of the paper (its on page 14) gives an overview of booms and busts since World War II. It concludes that its difficult to draw a direct line from a presidents fiscal policy positions to economic cycles. For example, defense spending led to prosperity during the Korean War under Democratic President Harry Truman. His successor, Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, ended the war, and thus the prosperity turned into recession. Energy price shocks are another important factor, since they can produce economic downturns. Unfortunately for the Republicans, shocks hit during the presidencies of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George W. Bush, compared to just once under a Democrat, Jimmy Carter. The authors add that Democratic presidents have benefited from higher total factor productivity, which is essentially a measure of technological growth and dynamism. A clear example is the technology boom under Bill Clinton, which produced significant productivity gains. The authors acknowledge that its unclear why this has been the case under Democratic presidents. And sometimes the fiscal policy of a previous administration bleeds into the next one -- so just because a recession happened when one president was in office, the prior administration might bear some of the responsibility. While Democratic President Lyndon Johnson saw no recessions, for instance, his administration had to implement anti-inflation policies near the end of his tenure. Those policies contributed to a recession early on in Nixons term. Because of all the factors at play, assigning credit for economic results is tricky, said Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University professor and chief economist for the job site Indeed.com. In fact, its possible that causation actually runs the other way. It's possible that the public votes in response to economic conditions, she added, meaning political cycles can follow economic cycles. Our ruling Clinton said that under Republicans, recessions happen four times as frequently as under Democrats. The numbers back up Clintons claim since World War II: Of the 49 quarters in recession since 1947, eight occurred under Democrats, while 41 occurred under Republicans. Its important to note, however, that many factors contribute to general well-being of the economy, so one shouldnt treat Clintons implication -- that Democratic presidencies are better for the economy -- with irrational exuberance. Clinton is right on the numbers, but her claim needs additional information to put its implication into the proper context. We rate her claim Mostly True. | [
"National",
"Economy"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1267 | Has Rep. Joe Kennedy Received $348,000 in Donations from the Pharmaceutical Industry? | 02/02/2018 | [
"A meme targeting the Democratic lawmaker gets some, but not all, of the facts right."
] | In January 2018, Rep. Joe Kennedy III attracted scrutiny from both left-wing and right-wing observers after he was designated to give the official Democratic response to President Donald Trump's first State of the Union address. On 28 January 2018, a meme appeared, making claims about the Massachusetts Congressman's purported links to the pharmaceutical industry and his record on several major issues. The meme stated: "This is Joe. Pharmaceutical companies have given Joe $348K since 2011. Joe has $434K of stock in a company charging $1,000 per pill for a life-saving drug. Joe opposes legal marijuana and universal healthcare legislation. Don't be like Joe." An article from GritPost.com elaborated on these claims, stating that Rep. Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) might be pharma's favorite Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives, given that he has received more than $57,000 from the pharmaceutical/health products industry in this current election cycle alone. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, that is approximately four times more than pharma's average contribution to House Democrats. Over the course of his short Congressional career, Kennedy has received more than $348,000 since 2011. The source of these claims about contributions to Kennedy is the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, DC-based non-profit that tracks political donations on the website Open Secrets. The figures in the article are accurate; the industry's contributions to Kennedy total $348,077 over the course of his six-year career as a politician. The Grit Post article and the meme also allege that Kennedy had personal investments in a controversial pharmaceutical company. Grit Post writes: "As the Boston Globe reported last year, Rep. Kennedy has more than $434,000 invested in Gilead Sciences, Inc. Gilead is the manufacturer of the life-saving hepatitis C drug Sovaldi, which Gilead recently increased to $1,000 per pill, or $84,000 for a treatment." While it's true Kennedy has investments in Gilead, this claim is slightly misleading and out of date. In May 2016, the Boston Globe reported that the Congressman had "earned stock value of up to $434,999 from investments in Gilead Sciences Inc." Furthermore, his holdings in Gilead, as of the end of 2015, totaled between $180,004 and $450,000, according to financial disclosures. So actually, Kennedy's investments in Gilead could have been as low as $180,004 at the time of the Boston Globe article in May 2016. The Globe was careful to point out that members of Congress are not required to provide exact figures for their personal investments and assets, but rather ranges. Grit Post left out this detail. In any event, Kennedy provided a more up-to-date financial disclosure at the end of 2016, which showed his investments in Gilead by then totaled between $80,003 and $200,000. Financial disclosures for 2017 have not yet been published. Whatever the exact amounts involved, Kennedy's investment in Gilead has been controversial largely because the company sells Sovaldi, its brand name for the drug sofosbuvir, which is used to treat Hepatitis C. As Grit Post points out, Gilead Sciences has attracted criticism for the high price of Sovaldi, which is $1,000 per pill or $84,000 for a course of treatment. Kennedy's investment is part of a trust fund managed by a financial adviser. Craig Holman, from the advocacy group Public Citizen, told the Globe in 2016 that the profits Kennedy and the company were making were "harming many of the citizens of Massachusetts." According to Open Secrets, 19 members of Congress (as well as Donald Trump) held shares in Gilead Sciences in 2015. The Grit Post meme's claim that Kennedy opposes marijuana legalization is accurate. While the national conversation has shifted to discuss the legalization of recreational marijuana, many leaders have come to voice support for the medical uses of marijuana. However, Kennedy not only opposes recreational use, but he has a record of voting against measures to protect and enhance access to medical marijuana. In 2015, Kennedy was one of 10 Democrats who sided with a Republican majority to pass a bill that would, among many other things, restrict funding for states that wanted to legalize marijuana. The bill died in the Senate. Grit Post also correctly pointed out that Kennedy, in a 2016 interview, said, "I don't think marijuana should be legalized." The meme's claim that Kennedy opposes "universal healthcare legislation" requires closer examination. In September 2017, Kennedy expressed tentative support for a single-payer healthcare system but hesitated to support bills then before the House of Representatives and Senate that would have expanded Medicare. At the time, Kennedy told Boston Public Radio that the bills were "100 percent right on the value that they're trying to enshrine into federal law -- that healthcare is a right in this country, not a privilege to be enjoyed by the few..." However, he said there were "details" in the House bill (introduced by Democratic Rep. John Conyers) with which he was "struggling." When pressed, Kennedy said he supported universal healthcare but noted that a single-payer system (funded by taxes and administered by the government) was "a way that we could get there, and that's great, but I think that the critical piece to this is ensuring that everybody gets access to quality, affordable, accessible healthcare..." So Kennedy has given theoretical support to universal healthcare but has been vague on the details of how it should be achieved, and he did not support specific legislation that, if passed, would have massively expanded health coverage in the United States. | [
"taxes"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1sq9wuObcIGZ5HZWBLNrv7tviDQx1eICl",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1268 | FBI ATM Cards Scam | 09/10/2008 | [
"Is the FBI offering 'ATM Cards' to help victims recover money from Nigerian scammers?"
] | Scam: The FBI is offering "ATM Cards" to help victims recover money from Nigerian scammers. Example: [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] Federal Bureau Of Investigation ATM CARD PAYMENT NOTIFICATIONFrom: Federal Bureau Of Investigation (robertmueller@fbi.gov)Sent: Mon 9/01/08 9:24 AMReply-to: atm_card_centre303@hotmail.com Anti-Terrorist and Monitory Crimes Division.Federal Bureau Of Investigation.J. Edgar. Hoover Building, Washington D.CTelephone Number : ( 202 )-324-3001 ATTN: BENEFICIARY This is to Officially inform you that it has come to our notice and we have thoroughly completed an Investigated with the help of our Intelligence Monitoring Network System that you are having an illegal transaction with Impostors claiming to be Prof. Charles C. Soludo of the Central Bank Of Nigeria, Mr. Patrick Aziza, Mr Frank Nweke, none officials of Oceanic Bank, none officials of Zenith Bank and some impostors claiming to be the Federal Bureau Of Investigation agents. During our Investigation, it came to our notice that the reason why you have not received your payment is because you have not fulfilled your Financial Obligation given to you in respect of your Contract/Inheritance Payment. So therefore, we have contacted the Federal Ministry Of Finance on your behalf and they have brought a solution to your problem by coordinating your payment in the total amount of $800,000.00 USD which will be deposited into an ATM CARD which you will use to withdraw funds anywhere of the world. You now have the lawful right to claim your funds which have been deposited into the ATM CARD. Since the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been involved in this transaction, you are now to be rest assured that this transaction is legitimate and completely risk-free as it is our duty to Protect and Serve citizens of the United States Of America. All you have to do is immediately contact the ATM CARD CENTER via E-mail for instructions on how to procure your Approval Slip which contains details on how to receive and activate your ATM CARD for immediate use to withdraw funds being paid to you. We have confirmed that the amount required to procure the Approval Slip will cost you a total of $550 USD which will be paid directly to the ATM CARD CENTER agent via Western Union Money Transfer / MoneyGram Money Transfer. Below, you shall find contact details of the Agent whom will process your transaction: CONTACT INFORMATION NAME: MR. PAUL SMITHEMAIL: atm_card_centre303@hotmail.comTelephone Number : +234-808-252-6229 Immediately contact Mr. Paul Smith of the ATM Card Centre with the following information: Full Name:Address:City:State:Zip Code:Direct Phone Number:Current Occupation:Annual Income: Once you have sent the required information to Mr. Paul Smith he will contact you with instructions on how to make the payment of $550 USD for the Approval Slip after which he will proceed towards delivery of the ATM CARD without any further delay. You have hereby been authorized/guaranteed by the Federal Bureau Of Investigation to commence towards completing this transaction, as there shall be NO delay once payment for the Approval Slip has been made to the authorized agent. Once you have completed payment of $550 to the agent in charge of this transaction, immediately contact me back so as to ensure your ATM CARD gets to you rapidly. FBI DirectorRobert Mueller. Origins: The message quoted above represents another slightly different turn on the venerable Nigerian Scam: Rather than providing straightforward bait to Nigerian Scam lure new victims into the scam, it seeks to re-hook those who have already been snared once with yet another false promise of easy money. The basic premise of the Nigerian Scam is that the target is offered a substantial cash reward for helping out with a transaction involving the transfer of a large sum of money (a transaction that usually needs to be kept hush-hush). However, the transaction never takes place, and the reward is never forthcoming; instead, the target is repeatedly called upon to shell out ever-increasing amounts of his own money to clear away a variety of fictitious roadblocks (e.g., legal fees, documentation fees, customs fees, taxes, bribes). This version of the Nigerian Scam targets those who have already participated in (or been victimized by) it, offering the lure of FBI assistance in recovering the rewards that victims were cheated out of the first time around ... all they need do is send $550 to the FBI for an "ATM CARD" that will allow them to tap into accounts holding $800,000. If the numerous red flags in the basic version of the Nigerian Scam weren't enough to warn away potential victims, this variant adds several more factors that should give anyone pause about its legitimacy: The FBI wouldn't acknowledge that you have been participating in "illegal transactions" with foreign nationals and then turn around and reward you for having done so. (They'd probably be hauling you off to custody and charging you with a half-dozen federal crimes.) The FBI wouldn't be conducting criminal investigations and doling out hundreds of thousands of dollars via e-mail. (They'd be sending agents out to meet and talk with you personally.) The FBI wouldn't help fraud victims recover legitimately owed monies and then turn around and charge them several hundred dollars to access those funds. The FBI wouldn't be asking you to contact them by placing a phone call to Nigeria (as indicated by the "234" country code prefix to the phone number provided for "Mr. Paul Smith of the ATM Card Centre"). You'd be talking to an agent from a local or other U.S.-based FBI office. The FBI wouldn't be collecting sensitive personal information from the public by asking them to provide that information via the extremely unsecure method of e-mailing it to a Hotmail account. (They wouldn't be asking for or collecting this kind of information via the Internet in the first place, and even if they were, at the very least they'd be using a secure web protocol with encryption rather than plain-text e-mail, and the collection method would be tied to an FBI web site and not a commercial e-mail provider.)Last updated: 11 July 2011 Flaum, David. "Scam Hits Sellers Over Net." The [Memphis] Commercial Appeal. 2 March 2003 (p. G1). Jones, Matthew. "Beach Police Officers Warn of Fake-Check Web Scam." The Virginian-Pilot. 9 January 2003 (p. B4). Kades, Deborah. "Wisconsin Residents Fall Prey to Used Vehicle, Lottery Scams." The Wisconsin State Journal. 12 December 2002. Kristof, Kathy M. "Nigerian Money Con Targets Small Firms." Los Angeles Times. 7 September 2003 ; (p. C3). Associated Press. "Missoula Credit Union Members Taken." 15 March 2003. | [
"taxes"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1269 | We have the highest corporate income tax in the world right now. | 05/06/2011 | [] | If theres one issue that binds Republicans, its a preference for low taxes. So its no surprise that in the first debate of the 2012 presidential campaign -- held May 5, 2011, in Greenville, S.C. -- the topic came up.At one point, Fox News commentator Juan Williams asked Gary Johnson -- the former Republican governor of New Mexico and a strong libertarian -- about corporate taxation.Gov. Johnson, Williams said, the nation's unemployment rate is 8.8 percent and this week, jobless claims rose to their highest level in eight months. Among your proposals for getting the private sector to start hiring are eliminating corporate income tax, doing away with the federal minimum wage law and to stop extending unemployment benefits. Isn't that just a windfall for big business?Johnson responded, Well, absolutely not. I think that repealing, or doing away with the corporate income tax is simply getting us back to where we were. And we need to understand that the corporate income tax is a double tax -- that we all own the corporations, and when income gets distributed to us, we pay the tax on that. So, we have the highest corporate income tax in the world right now. Let's abolish it.We have looked at the question of whether the United States has the highest corporate income tax in the world inpreviousitems, so we thought wed revisit it now.There are two primary ways to compare corporate tax burdens. One is to compare statutory corporate tax rate -- the rate thats actually on the books.The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of more than two-dozen large, industrialized democracies, publishes the rates of its member countries. The most recent data shows Japan on top at39.54 percent, vs. 39.21 percentfor the United States. Japan had been scheduled to cut its corporate tax rate to a level below the United States, but the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster that crippled portions of the country earlier this yearhas left thatin doubt.The other way to look at it is to gauge what firms actually pay, once exclusions and other adjustments are taken into account. This is called the effective tax rate.The World Bank hasassembled datafrom 183 nations and made a series of statistical adjustments to produce a full international comparison of effective tax rates. By this measurement, the U.S. rate is considerably lower than the published rate -- 27.6 percent. But in a comparative sense, that's still pretty high: Among larger international economies, only Japan, New Zealand and Thailand imposed a higher effective rate, according to the World Bank study.The World Bank also produces another -- and broader -- statistic. It factors in not only the corporate profit tax but also a range of other taxes paid by businesses, including the cost of employee taxes borne by the employer. When the World Bank ranked countries from the lowest level of taxes to the highest, the U.S. ranked 124th out of 183 -- meaning corporate taxes were relatively high. A number of other large and/or democratic countries were higher, including Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Hungary, India, Italy, Spain and Sweden.This last measure provides a wider snapshot of U.S. tax policy toward businesses, but it also introduces some complications. Factoring in the employer-paid portion of labor taxes makes the corporate tax rate seem higher in countries that provide higher benefits such as pensions or health care through business taxes, while making the rate seem lower for countries that provide less generous benefits through the tax code. So making apples-to-apples comparisons can be tricky.There's also broader context that Johnson doesn't get into.In a previous item, we noted that when all taxes, including those such as personal income taxes and property taxes -- not just corporate taxes -- are taken into account and compared to gross domestic product, the U.S. doesn't rank near the top of the OECD table in total tax burden.Still, Johnsons claim was more limited, addressing only corporate taxation.To be more accurate, Johnson should have said the United States has the highest corporate tax rate rather than the highest corporate taxes. By using the term corporate taxes, Johnson opens the door to the broader World Bank figure, which would put a number of other major countries above the U.S. in the rankings.That way of looking at it would undercut Johnsons argument. On the other hand, he is close to correct when using the two more common benchmarks -- statutory tax rates (in which the U.S. trails only Japan, for now) and effective rates (where the U.S. trails only Japan, New Zealand and Thailand). On balance, we rate Johnsons statement Mostly True. | [
"National",
"Taxes"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1270 | Is it required for banks to disclose every transaction exceeding $600 to the IRS as per the Biden proposal? | 09/16/2021 | [
"The American Families Plan has a reporting requirement for banks that has infuriated some."
] | 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. | [
"budget"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1AyzX7ZrCd3LZl_qqgpEbDdjUKsCBzvA4",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1jkd3TBurSDH37NO_BttSEtNQOn_dcaJd",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1271 | Canadian Richard Brunt wrote an open letter regarding the Mid-Term Elections in America. | 11/11/2014 | [
"Canadian Richard Brunt penned an open letter about America's midterm elections."
] | Claim: Canadian Richard Brunt penned an open letter about America's midterm elections. On 7 November 2014, shortly after midterm elections in the U.S., the Detroit Free Press published Canadian Richard Brunt's open letter to American voters, a missive that quickly went viral on the Internet: published A Canadian perspective on the #GOPtakeover. pic.twitter.com/NmBaPjnqju #GOPtakeover pic.twitter.com/NmBaPjnqju Rick Strandlof (@RickStrandlof) November 9, 2014 November 9, 2014 Brunt wrote in his letter, titled "You Americans have no idea just how good you have it with Obama," that his fellow Canadians were confused about the results of the midterm elections. For Brunt, the Republican gains in those elections did not make sense to him when things were seemingly going so well in the U.S.: Many of us Canadians are confused by the U.S. midterm elections. Consider, right now in America, corporate profits are at record highs, the country's adding 200,000 jobs per month, unemployment is below 6%, U.S. gross national product growth is the best of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. The dollar is at its strongest levels in years, the stock market is near record highs, gasoline prices are falling, there's no inflation, interest rates are the lowest in 30 years, U.S. oil imports are declining, U.S. oil production is rapidly increasing, the deficit is rapidly declining, and the wealthy are still making astonishing amounts of money. America is leading the world once again and respected internationally in sharp contrast to the Bush years. Obama brought soldiers home from Iraq and killed Osama bin Laden. So, Americans vote for the party that got you into the mess that Obama just dug you out of? This defies reason. When you are done with Obama, could you send him our way? Richard Brunt Victoria, British Columbia The letter was soon shared thousands of times on Facebook and Twitter by both Republicans and Democrats, although their reasons for sharing the message were very different: Hey Richard Brunt, of Victoria, British Columbia... if you want our Obama, you can have our Obama. Frank Miani (@FJM2425) November 11, 2014 November 11, 2014 Richard Brunt from British Columbia, telling it like it is... pic.twitter.com/OKm0Rkfu5x pic.twitter.com/OKm0Rkfu5x Baumer Kid (@bostonsboy87) November 11, 2014 November 11, 2014 Richard Brunt's letter represented one man's opinion, but it wasn't the first such expression of admiration from fans of President Obama up north. In a 2009 article titled "Canada's Love Affair with Barack Obama," for example, author Charlie Gillis wrote: Charlie Gillis We love him, with an asterisk. The broad-band smile, the Lincolnesque bearing, the sense of the man as an avatar of multiculturalism it all makes Barack Obama the perfect U.S. president in the eyes of Canadians. Heaven knows we've been waiting. When the motorcade rolls down Wellington Street, or pulls up to Rideau Hall, you can expect dewy-eyed kids to line barricades with paper flags, no matter how foul the Ottawa weather. Eighty-two per cent of us say we approve of Obama, the polls indicate, and the number requires a moment to digest. Never mind American politicians. Who's the last American we can say that about? Last updated: 11 November 2014 | [
"inflation"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1vkDq2Imw6ZSLImfQQ0jTHyHf7jDkYOnL",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1272 | Is This 'Your City on Socialism' Meme Accurate? | 06/14/2019 | [
"A meme uses a series of miscaptioned and out-of-context images to make its supposed point about the effects of socialism. "
] | A set of images supposedly documenting the impact of socialism on the lives of people residing in some unidentified locale(s) is frequently circulated on social media as a warning about the alleged deleterious effects of that system: circulated The "Your City on Socialism" meme has been circulated online since at least February 2017, when it was posted to the Facebook page of the conservative nonprofit Turning Point USA along with the caption "Socialism Never Works. Never Has, Never Will." Turning Point USA Turning Point USA's point would be more effective, of course, if they used images that accurately reflected the impact of socialism. The first image ("Your City on Socialism") was not taken in any socialist country but rather in the United States. It's an Associated Press file photo shot by Paul Sancya in July 2011 that captured a row of abandoned stores in Detroit, Michigan: Associated Press In this July 27, 2011 file photo, a section of vacant stores is shown in Detroit. Michigan is getting $100 million in federal aid to demolish abandoned buildings to fight blight in Detroit and four other cities, Gov. Rick Snyder said Tuesday. Snyder said the U.S. Treasury Department has approved the aid. Detroit is getting $52.3 million, Flint $20.1 million and Saginaw 11.2 million. Pontiac is getting $3.7 million and Grand Rapids $2.5 million, while $10.2 million goes to a reserve fund for additional demolition, Snyder said. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya, file) The second image ("Your Hospital on Socialism") is the lone photograph in this meme that was actually taken in a socialist country. It was included in a 2016 New York Times article about the health care crisis in Venezuela: New York Times The economic crisis in this country has exploded into a public health emergency, claiming the lives of untold numbers of Venezuelans. It is just part of a larger unraveling here that has become so severe it has prompted President Nicols Maduro to impose a state of emergency and has raised fears of a government collapse. The economic crisis in Venezuela is frequently brought up by those arguing against the merits of socialism. While Venezuela is a socialist country, that aspect is far from the only factor that has led to the country's severe economic turmoil. As we noted in a previous article on the topic, news outlets ranging from Bloomberg, the New York Times, to Fox News have noted that plunging oil prices, government corruption, and political unrest have also contributed to the crisis. article Bloomberg New York Times Fox News Furthermore, a single photograph of a run-down hospital is not representative of socialized medicine as a whole. The following image, for instance, was taken at a hospital in Switzerland, a country with universal health care: The third image ("Your Grocer Story on Socialism") does not document a grocery store that ran out of food due to a failed socialist economy. It actually captures a Walmart outlet in Texas that ran out of food items and other supplies as it was thronged by customers stocking up ahead of the approach of Hurricane Rita in 2005. The picture was taken by Jay Jenner for the Austin-American Statesman, and the original caption described it as follows: "Preparing for Hurricane Rita, Maria Chavez of Austin looks for a loaf of bread Thursday in the empty shelves of a Wal-Mart at Interstate 35 and Slaughter Lane. The store was sold out." original caption Turning Point USA isn't the only conservative group to use this image to push an anti-socialism narrative. In 2015, the National Review published a doctored version of this image in an article critical of Bernie Sanders. National Review doctored version The final photograph ("Your Politician on Socialism") does not show the home of a politician in a socialist country. Again, this image was taken in the U.S. and pictures a hotel in Glen Cove, New York, called The Mansion. hotel The Mansion Rather than accurately depicting the impacts of socialism, this meme is perhaps a better example of how images can be taken out of context, re-captioned, and repackaged in order to spread a political agenda. Llorente, Elizabeth. "Caracas, Once a Thriving Metropolis, Is Struggling as Country Plunges Further Into Chaos."
Fox News. 4 April 2019. Malkin, Michelle. "Ask Venezuelans How Sanders-Style Socialism Is Working Out for Them."
National Review. 27 May 2015. Novak, Matt. "5 More Viral Photos That Are Totally Fake"
Gizmodo. 2 June 2015. Little Green Footballs. "Busted! National Review Crops and 'Dirties' Photo from Austin Walmart, Claims It Shows 'Venezuela.'"
31 May 2015. Casey, Nicholas. "Dying Infants and No Medicine: Inside Venezuelas Failing Hospitals."
The New York Times. 15 May 2016. This story has been corrected to reflect that Glen Cove is in New York, not New Jersey. | [
"economy"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1w7NyLczqWHc3C8DL771S1n4T8TsfiET1",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=15uvF4sb5v2aFVs30uh4m9__RfHGfPWKe",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1273 | Says his campaign has released his past tax returns. | 04/06/2016 | [] | Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders took some heat from CNNs Jake Tapper during anApril 3 interview. The topic: The degree of public transparency Sanders has provided for his tax returns. Tapper brought up the topic: Im kind of surprised that you havent gone further on transparency. You released the summary page of your 2014 tax returns. Hillary Clinton has posted on her website the last eight years of her personal returns, all of the returns. Before the New York primary, will you match her? Will you post your full returns for the last eight years? Sanders responded, You know who does our tax returns? My wife does our tax returns. Weve been a little bit busy lately. So we will get out as much information as we can. There aint going to be very much exciting in that. I get a salary from the United States Senate, you know, theres not going to be anything new in it that people havent seen for the last many years, but we will get it out as soon as we can. Tapper wasnt satisfied. But nobody has seen them at all, I guess, is the point, and whether or not theres anything exciting in them.... At this point, Sanders interjected, No, that is not true. That is not true. Of course, we have released them in the past. Our financial situation, to the best of my knowledge, has not changed very much, but we will get out all of that information as soon as we can. How transparent has Sanders been with his tax past returns? Not very, compared with others in the 2016 presidential field. Heres a closer look. As our friends at theWashington PostFact Checkerhave noted, Tax Analysts, a publisher specializing in tax policy, has been collecting publicly available tax returns of presidential candidates and other top officials for itsTax History Project. This archive goes back as far as the 1913 tax returns of future president Franklin D. Roosevelt. Heres a look at what theircurrent archiveof the 2016 candidates looks like: In other words, among the candidates still in the race, Sanders releases are less extensive than anybodys but Donald Trump. (Trump, too, hasfaced criticismfor refusing to share his returns.) And Sanders shortcomings are actually bigger than the screenshot above would suggest. The2014 filings Sanders releasedconsist of just the first two summary pages of his Form 1040 and the equivalent summary pages from his home-state Vermont tax form. Why does this matter? Unlike most of the other candidates, Sanders has not released the succeeding pages -- the nitty gritty detail of things like charitable donations and other types of itemized deductions. For instance,Clintons release for tax year 2014is 44 pages long, or more than 10 times the length of Sanders for the same year. Its worth noting that Sanders, as a member of Congress, filesannual financial disclosures, which are accessible online back to 2012. And as a presidential candidate, he also filesfinancial disclosure documentsto the Federal Election Commission. But tax returns are much more detailed. And despite what Sanders said in the exchange with Tapper, his campaign did not provide PolitiFact with any earlier, publicly available tax forms. The campaign told thePostthat it has not released any other tax returns prior to 2014. (The campaign did tell PolitiFact that they would release his 2015 returns once they are filed.) Tax and disclosure experts we contacted agreed that Sanders current disclosures are weak by historical standards. If I filed the first two pages of my return with the IRS, it would not take long for them to ding me, said Kenneth A. Gross of the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and a specialist in political disclosure and ethics. There is a lot of information on the pages following the cover pages. Joseph J. Thorndike, the Tax Analysts official who heads the Tax History Project, agreed. Sanders has not, in fact, released his most recent tax return, Thorndike said. He has released a portion of that return. The IRS would not accept a Form 1040 as a complete return and neither should voters. Also, its worth noting that Sanders has not released any portion of his older returns. If Mitt Romney had tried to release an incomplete return in 2012, the media would never have accepted it. Our ruling Sanders told Tapper that his campaign has released his past tax returns. Sanders said his 2015 return is forthcoming, and he has made other types of disclosures in the past, including congressional and presidential-candidate filings. But his releases of prior-year tax forms -- the specific documents Tapper asked about -- have been limited in several ways. Hes only released information for one year, which pales compared to most other recent presidential candidates, and even that years release only includes a summary page, not the full return. We rate his claim False. UPDATE: As he had promised, Sandersreleasedhisfull 2014 tax returnon April 15, 2016. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/ba140e0d-4c11-436d-ad29-15e562ba5a98 | [
"National",
"Candidate Biography",
"Transparency",
"Taxes"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1WJruaHOTh1Xt-tJClaN96__Qmd5DP_yn",
"image_caption": "Washington Post"
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1JzidF85Fjhd6q1PiavYWDKSSvLPOvYxT",
"image_caption": "Post"
}
] |
FMD_test_1274 | Is Jennifer Aniston Starting a 'Celebrities for Trump' Group? | 11/20/2017 | [
"A particularly brazen attempt at \"clickbait\" scraped together two unrelated stories under a random headline."
] | Here's a glimpse into a particularly brazen attempt at producing "clickbait" by making a huge claim about a beloved celebrity with an attention-grabbing headline that is literally unrelated to the story underneath. A 17 November 2017 post on the website ConservativeSociety.net featured a headline that included a quote misattributed to actress Jennifer Aniston: "Me and All The Trump Supporter Celebrities Decide To Make A Company Named 'Celebrities For Trump,' Which Fight Against All Anti Trump Celebrities, I Think President Trump Needs Our Support." The idea, presumably, was that viewers would share the post online based solely on their reaction to the headline rather than the underlying story, which does not include Aniston's fabricated "quote," and offers no interview, publication, or any other proof of her interest in this subject. To boot, this piece of clickbait appeared to be a mishmash of off-topic information and wholesale reproduction of another site's work. Instead of a reported story, the narrative under the headline opened seemingly in the middle of a recap of a December 2016 Saturday Night Live sketch concerning the president and a 16-year-old supporter, Pete Davidson. Four paragraphs later, the story turned into a "report" on a rumored collaboration between Aniston and singer Sheryl Crow on a clothing line. However, this text was taken verbatim from a 26 October 2017 report published on the gossip site GossipCop.com. A Gossip Cop spokesperson told us they first encountered the story on another questionable website, DailyNewPosts.com, in October 2017: "The word-for-word use of our story, which is clearly unrelated to Donald Trump, is a clear example of willful copyright infringement. We plan to seek all legal remedies and demand the site remove our material immediately." Conservative Society's "story" lists DailyNewPosts.com as its source; however, the latter website's version of the piece is no longer available. | [
"interest"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1FqwsvdmQk878s-91DCw8FqXVWjI-zaJx",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1275 | The deficit ... is coming down, and its coming down rapidly. | 07/02/2018 | [] | Larry Kudlow, director of the National Economic Council for President Donald Trump, raised eyebrows when he said in a Fox Business Network interview that the nation's deficit is falling on Trump's watch. The economy under President Donald Trump, Kudlow stated on June 29, is generating enormous amounts of new tax revenues. As the economy gears up, with more people working and better jobs and careers, those revenues come rolling in, and the deficit, which is one of the criticisms of Trump's economic policy, is coming down, and it's coming down rapidly. Growth solves a lot of problems. As it happens, the deficit hasn't come down to date, which sparked a quick backlash on social media and prompted Kudlow to amend his remarks later that day. Kudlow told the Washington Post that the economy is so strong right now that it's going to produce lower deficits. I probably should have said future deficits. However, that assertion is questionable as well. The most trusted source for future budget projections, the Congressional Budget Office, shows rising deficits for years into the future. In fiscal year 2015, when Barack Obama was president, the federal deficit was $438 billion. (A refresher: The deficit refers to federal revenues minus federal outlays. Each year's deficit adds to the overall public debt.) In fiscal year 2016, which was also under Obama, the deficit rose to $585 billion. In fiscal year 2017, which was about two-thirds on Trump's watch, the deficit rose to $665 billion. The deficit also rose as a percentage of the nation's gross domestic product—a way of comparing economic statistics across time. In fiscal year 2015, the deficit was 2.4 percent of GDP, rising to 3.2 percent of GDP in fiscal 2016 and 3.5 percent in fiscal 2017. So on a full-year basis, Kudlow is wrong. He's also wrong if you look at the first seven months of fiscal year 2018. According to the Treasury Department, the first seven months of the current fiscal year saw a deficit of $385 billion, which is 12 percent higher than the first seven months of fiscal year 2017, when the deficit totaled $344 billion. As for the future, CBO finds no reason to expect the deficit to go down any time soon. For fiscal year 2018, CBO projects a deficit of $804 billion, rising each successive year to $981 billion in 2019, $1 trillion in 2020, $1.1 trillion in 2021, and $1.3 trillion in 2022. The deficit is also poised to increase as a percentage of GDP—from 3.5 percent in 2017 to 4.0 in 2018 and eventually to 5.4 percent in 2022. Here's the full chart from CBO's most recent projections, released in April. Not only that, but CBO specifically cited the tax cut Trump backed and signed into law as a reason for spiraling deficits. The deficit that CBO now estimates for 2018 is $242 billion larger than the one it projected for that year in June 2017, CBO wrote in its April report. Accounting for most of that difference is a $194 billion reduction in projected revenues, mainly because the 2017 tax act is expected to reduce collections of individual and corporate income taxes. And the projections would be even worse if Congress doesn't allow the recent round of tax cuts to expire. In that scenario, far larger deficits and much greater debt would result than in CBO's baseline projections for the 2019-2028 period, CBO wrote. Kudlow said, "The deficit ... is coming down, and it's coming down rapidly." After being criticized, he later clarified that he probably should have said future deficits. Kudlow's first formulation is wrong, and his revised version isn't supported by the most widely trusted barometer—projections by the CBO. The Trump tax bill, which dramatically cut revenues, is a big reason why. The statement is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate the statement Pants on Fire! | [
"National",
"Debt",
"Deficit",
"Economy",
"Taxes"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1fffBZkzrujE2EZHvNRZGTvxL_qY0D9Hd",
"image_caption": "Washington Post"
}
] |
FMD_test_1276 | The average faculty member at UW-Madison brings in close to a quarter million dollars a year in grant money. | 03/23/2015 | [] | A leading Democrat predicts devastation if Gov. Scott Walkers proposed $300 million cut over two years to the University of Wisconsin System is adopted. For UW-Madison its a major issue, Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca, D-Kenosha, said in a March 12, 2015Wisconsin Eye interview. Its penny wise and pound foolish there. Barca added: The average faculty member at UW-Madison brings in close to a quarter million dollars a year. So you cut them and theyre leaving. They have plenty of opportunities to go to Harvard or Princeton or Stanford. Barca was joined on the Wisconsin Eye program by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester. He thinks the university cut is too large, but says Democrats are overreacting. Lets remember that the cut thats happening under Gov. Walker is about the size of the one that happened under (former Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat), and I didnt hear Democrats complaining about the loss of the university and how the world was going to come to an end. Well test Vos claim soon. For now, lets examine Barcas statement about the prowess of the Madison faculty in attracting research grants. Researching the research When we asked Barca to back up the claim, spokeswoman Laura Smith pointed to apage on the UW-Madison websitethat answers frequently asked questions about the 2015-17 budget -- at least from the UW Systems perspective. The page asserts that asking professors to teach more classes -- as Walker suggested -- would cut into critical functions of the university: Research is central to their jobs. According to university statistics, each faculty member is bringing in approximately $242,000 on average to support their research in a highly competitive national environment. Faculty and staff brought in more than $500 million in federal research awards in 2012-13, money that would not otherwise come to Wisconsin. So theres Barcas close to a quarter million figure. We asked UW-Madison about the numbers. They are from 2012-13, and were published in March 2014 in theuniversitys Data Digest. The document provides a detailed look at various aspects of the campus and is put together by three offices: Academic Planning & Institutional Research, Office of the Provost and the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Finance & Administration. UW-Madison is one of the leading research institutions in the country as measured by total grants from outside sources, mostly the federal government. Out of its 2,173 faculty members, 1,275 (or 59 percent) secured research grants in 2012-13, the latest year available. So theres a point of clarification: Barca frames his claim around the idea that any cuts will hurt the universitys ability to bring in research money. But in the year examined, 41 percent did not bring in grants. The university says it uses the total number of faculty when calculating the per-professor grant haul because all faculty members are expected to do research. In all, professors pulled in a total of $525.7 million in grants from outside sources. The grants are in these areas: biological sciences, humanities, physical sciences, social sciences. Spread over 2,173 faculty, thats the $242,000 figure. If you spread it out over just the faculty receiving grants, the average is $412,000. Jocelyn Milner, a UW official who helps prepare the Data Digest, told us that grant productivity is calculated in another way as well. Theres another $355 million in grants that are not awarded to individual professors, but to a dean or other official even though professors end up doing the research. When you add those in the per-faculty grant figure rises to $399,000 per year, Milner said. UW prefers the more conservative methodology that is behind the $241,935 figure, Milner said. We found that ranking universities on research prowess often turns on how much money they pull in. There areother factors that can help judge research prominence, such as journal articles published, endowment assets, faculty awards, and so on. Our rating Barca said, The average faculty member at UW-Madison brings in close to a quarter million dollars a year. He referred to research grants won. UW-Madison figures back up the claim, but theres one point of clarification, in that not all faculty get grants. We rate Barcas statement Mostly True. | [
"Education",
"State Budget",
"Wisconsin"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1277 | Hillary Clinton and the Victims of War | 12/30/2015 | [
"Hillary Clinton asserted that women \"have always been the primary victims of war\" during a domestic violence conference in 1998."
] | In December 2015, an image of Hillary Clinton was circulated via social media along with a quote ostensibly uttered by her about the primary victims of war: This quote originated with a 17 November 1998 speech that Hillary Clinton (as First Lady) delivered at a conference on domestic violence in El Salvador. One of the central themes of Clinton's speech was the effect that war had had on that country (the Salvadoran Civil War had ended a few years earlier), specifically in regards towomen and children. Clinton referred to women as the "primary victims of war" not just in the literal sense of being injured or killed themselves (as civilian non-combatants), but also as being left without the support and care of their male family members and seeing their own children suffer and die: speech The experience that you have gone through is in many ways comparable to what happens with domestic violence. Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today's warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children. Women are again the victims in crime and domestic violence as well. Throughout our hemisphere we have an epidemic of violence against women, even though there is no longer any organized warfare that puts women in the direct line of combat. But domestic violence is now recognized as being the most pervasive human rights violation in the world. Here in El Salvador, according to the statistics gathered by your government, 1 in 6 women have been sexually assaulted and the number of domestic abuse complaints at just one agency topped 10,000 last year. Between 25 and 50 percent of women throughout Latin America have reportedly been victims of domestic violence. The problem is all pervasive, but sometimes difficult to see. Every country on earth shares this dark secret. Too often, the women we see shopping at the markets, working at their jobs, caring for their children by day, go home at night and live in fear. Not fear of an invading army or a natural disaster or even a stranger in a dark alley, but fear of the very people family members who they are supposed to depend upon for help and comfort. This is the trust-destroying terror that attends every step of a victim of violence. For these women, their homes provide inadequate refuge, the law little protection, public opinion often less sympathy. That's why we have to say over and over again, as Elizabeth has done and as so many of you have echoed, that violence against women is not simply cultural or a custom. It is simply criminal, a crime. The devastating effects of domestic violence on women are just as dramatic as the effects of war on women. The physical injury, the mental illness, the terrible loss of confidence limits the capacities of women to fulfill their God-given potentials. While some might argue that Clinton was inaccurate in labeling women as the "primary victims of war" (since the majority of military members are male), a resolutionadoptedby theUnited Nation Security Council in 2000 arrived at a similar conclusion, stating that "civilians, particularly women and children, accountfor the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict." majority resolution The United Nation Security Council repeated this assertion in 2008 when it adopted Resolution 1325, which stated in its introduction that rape and sexual assault were considered tactics of war: stated [C]ivilians account for the vast majority of those adversely affected by armed conflict; women and girls are particularly targeted by the use of sexual violence, including as a tactic of war to humiliate, dominate, instill fear in, disperse and/or forcibly relocate civilian members of a community or ethnic group; and sexual violence perpetrated in this manner may in some instances persist after the cessation of hostilities. [We] condemn in the strongest terms all sexual and other forms of violence committed against civilians in armed conflict, in particular women and children. [We] reiterate deep concern that, despite its repeated condemnation of violence against women and children in situations of armed conflict, including sexual violence in situations of armed conflict, and despite its calls addressed to all parties to armed conflict for the cessation of such acts with immediate effect, such acts continue to occur, and in some situations have become systematic and widespread, reaching appalling levels of brutality. | [
"loss"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1AzKHF8QsmmfoVVq0xLR8BwSvQSnDJW1-",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1278 | Don't Fall for This Squarespace-Wix Email Scam — Your Payments are in Danger | 08/29/2023 | [
"A professional-looking email about verifying Squarespace users' payment information was anything but legitimate."
] | In late August 2023, we reviewed an email scam that deceived recipients by claiming that their Squarespace membership was "on hold" and that a billing address needed to be "verified" in order to continue service. It is possible that a similar scam was also circulating in the form of a text message. This message came from squarespace_usa@icloud.com. The email address was designed to mislead users into believing it had an affiliation with Squarespace. To be clear, Squarespace, a website-building and hosting company, does not send users email messages from iCloud accounts. Furthermore, there is no indication that the companies whose platforms were used in this scam had any involvement in the criminal activity. The scam email included odd language intended to create a sense of urgency for any Squarespace users who received it. For example, one line in the message read, "Please take care of this right away so you can use your domain": Your Squarespace membership is on hold. Verify your billing address to use your domain. We are required to put your domain, and any connected website, on hold if we cannot confirm that we have the correct billing address on file. The message included a link to a website on Wix, a competitor of Squarespace, that redirected to squarespace.account.gs. On this website, scammers asked users to fill out their credit card information and mailing address on a page that resembled Squarespace.com. Domains ending in .gs are affiliated with "a group of islands located off the southernmost tip of South America called South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands," according to GoDaddy.com. Aside from the fraudulent iCloud email address used in this scam, examples of legitimate Squarespace email addresses include noreply@mail.squarespace.com, customercare@squarespace.com, and form-submission@squarespace.info. If any readers fell for this scam, we recommend immediately contacting your credit card company or any other payment method you may have provided to the scammers. We contacted both Wix and iCloud to alert them of the malicious website and email address so that they can take action against the accounts behind the scam. This story will be updated if we receive any responses. | [
"credit"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1uc7Rpw0JKXYm1Z5m14cxgF9mgaRjkASB",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1279 | Did Robin Williams Say 'Politicians Should Wear Sponsor Jackets Like NASCAR Drivers'? | 04/26/2021 | [
"The comedian would not have been the first to make such a suggestion. "
] | Memes are frequently circulated online containing a quip ostensibly uttered by Robin Williams to the effect that "politicians should wear sponsor jackets like NASCAR drivers": Robin Williams This quote is, in fact, a reasonably faithful paraphrase of the following bit from Robin Williams' 2009 television comedy special, "Weapons of Self Destruction": Weapons of Self Destruction And if the whole health care debate -- if you want to know how your congressmen and senators are going to vote, we should actually, maybe they should be like NASCAR drivers. They should actually have to have jackets with the names of all the people who are sponsoring them. Wouldn't that be cool? Then you might have a clue to why the fuck they voted that way. Williams, who died in 2014, also made a similar joke as the character Tom Dobbs in the 2006 movie "Man of the Year." In that film, Dobbs says: "If you're representing special interest groups, maybe we should be like NASCAR with the little patches on the back: 'Enron: We take your money and run!'" This line can be heard around the 50 second mark of the "Man of the Year" trailer: This 2006 movie, however, was not the first time someone suggested that politicians should have to display their corporate sponsorships. In 2004, for instance, columnist Paul Halvey wrote in the Illinois newspaper "The Life" that "when a company springs for a political campaign contributions, it should be able to put its logo on the politician." Five years earlier, in 1999, columnist Jim Hightower made a similar suggestion, writing: The Life writing We'd like to mandate full and forceful disclosuremake every politician or candidate own up to where every dollar of their money's coming from. Maybe we could even make 'em wear their sponsors' logos like NASCAR drivers do, as in the illustrations in this issue. But this idea dates back at least a little further. The earliest example we could find comes from a column published in March 1995 in the Harford Courant entitled "Politicians Should Wear Sponsor Logos" by journalist Don Noel: 08 Mar 1995, Wed Hartford Courant (Hartford, Connecticut) Newspapers.com 08 Mar 1995, Wed Hartford Courant (Hartford, Connecticut) Newspapers.com We're not sure who came up with the exact phrasing of the viral version of the joke. The idea that politicians should wear the logos of their corporate sponsors on their clothes, similar to NASCAR drivers, has been circulating since the 1990s. While it doesn't seem as if this quote originated with Williams, he did tell the joke in a 2009 TV special, and the concept served as a basis for a line his character said in the 2006 film "Man of the Year." Robin Williams: Weapons of Self Destruction. Directed by Marty Callner, David Steinberg Entertainment, 2009. Update [Aug. 16, 2022]: Rating changed to "Correct Attribution" with citation of comedy bit from Williams' 2009 TV special, "Weapons of Self Destruction." | [
"interest"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1Cr1XDktPpCR4gc27xTB77V3j0JI-lH5q",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://img.newspapers.com/img/img?clippingId=76517321&width=700&height=820&ts=1607535806",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1280 | Says Lloyd Doggett voted for the health care, stimulus and cap-and-trade bills. | 10/26/2010 | [] | Seeking to unseat U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, Republican nominee Donna Campbell of Columbus paints him as a career politician with some questionable positions. In an ad posted online Oct. 19, the narrator compares Doggett and Campbell, an emergency room doctor. They disagree on ObamaCare: Doggett voted yes, Dr. Campbell says repeal. Stimulus spending: Doggett voted yes, Dr. Campbell says it's a waste of money. Cap and trade: Doggett voted yes, Campbell says job killer. We're not weighing in on whether the stimulus was a waste of money, or if cap and trade is a job killer. But since earlier this month we ratedTrueDoggett's statement that he voted against big bank bailouts, we were curious whether Campbell accurately recapped his votes on other high-dollar issues. Amanda Tyler, Doggett's campaign manager, told us by e-mail that Doggett voted for each piece of legislation, though the campaign has reservations about the visuals in Campbell's ad; for example, she said, a shot of a foreclosure sign doesn't make sense in connection with his vote for stimulus aid. Let's review Doggett's votes one at a time. Health care On Nov. 7, 2009, the U.S. House voted on its version of health care legislation in a 220-215 vote. Doggett joined 218 Democrats and one Republican, Rep. Anh Cao of Louisiana, in passing the legislation. On March 21, 2010 , Doggett voted for legislation reconciling Senate and House versions of the proposal. The compromise passed 220-211, with no Republicans in support. Doggett said in a floor speech with this reform, every insured American gets valuable consumer protections, and every uninsured American can become insured. We later rated that statement asTrue. Stimulus On Jan. 28, 2009, the House passed the $819 billion economic recovery bill 244-188 without a single Republican vote. Doggett voted aye. One way this bill promotes economic recovery is by promoting educational opportunity, he said on the House floor the day before. $13.5 billion of targeted tax relief to help young people and not-so young people attend college. Today, one out of five graduating high school students does not qualify for this assistance. But because we provided a refundable tax credit, we help them, just as the appropriations section of this bill helps with expanded Pell Grants and other direct aid. We asked Campbell's campaign why it showed an image of foreclosure sign while describing Doggett's vote for the stimulus legislation. Mike Asmus, Campbell's campaign manager, told us the stimulus spending Lloyd Doggett has voted for has prolonged the narrative of economic malaise, running from joblessness to foreclosure and beyond. Cap and trade Doggett voted for a cap-and-trade measure aimed at reducing greenhouse gases. With Doggett's vote, that proposal cleared the House 219-212 on June 26, 2009, though Doggett also aired objections about the measure being too soft, saying the plan stripped too much oversight from the Environmental Protection Agency and encouraged new coal-fired plants. I struggled deeply about whether to support this flawed bill, but I finally determined that voting for it was my best hope for making it better, he said on the floor that day. I've been listening to the debate not so much to those who support a bill that I'm not all that enthusiastic about, but listening to the Flat Earth Society and the climate-change deniers, and some of the most inane arguments I have heard against refusing to act on this vital national security challenge. Tyler also told us that Doggett hoped to improve the bill by being tapped to serve as a House member of a possible House-Senate conference committee on the plan. That panel never was named; the House-approved bill stalled in the Senate. Our vote? The ad's imagery might be objectionable (at least to Doggett). He still gave his 'aye' for all the legislation cited by Campbell. We rate her statement True. | [
"Cap and Trade",
"Climate Change",
"Economy",
"Health Care",
"Message Machine 2010",
"Texas"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1281 | Can Federal Government Workers Be Fired After 30 Days of Shutdown? | 01/17/2019 | [
"The law varies depending on the type of shutdown."
] | In mid-January 2019, a meme spread on social media that led some users to believe furloughed federal government employees could be fired if the government remained in an ongoing shutdown for 30 days. However, the scenario of hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs during the current shutdown will not happen. Federal statute requires agencies to take reduction-in-force (RIF) action against employees who have been furloughed for 30 days or more, but this only applies in administrative furloughs, which are "a planned event by an agency designed to absorb reductions necessitated by downsizing, reduced funding, lack of work, or any budget situation other than a lapse in appropriations." Furloughs of federal workers resulting from lapses in appropriations are called emergency furloughs. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, reduction-in-force regulations do not apply in such events: emergency furloughs do not apply. "Reductions in force (RIF) furlough regulations and SES competitive furlough requirements are not applicable to emergency shutdown furloughs because the ultimate duration of an emergency shutdown furlough is unknown at the outset and is dependent entirely on Congressional action, rather than agency action. The RIF furlough regulations and SES competitive furlough requirements, on the other hand, contemplate planned, foreseeable, money-saving furloughs that, at the outset, are planned to exceed 30 days." As of this writing on January 17, 2019, the federal government is entering its 27th day of partial shutdown, the longest in U.S. history, resulting from an impasse reached between President Donald Trump and Democratic members of Congress over Trump's demand to include $5.7 billion in appropriations for new U.S.-Mexico border-wall construction. The shutdown has resulted in 800,000 federal employees going without pay, thousands of whom have been ordered back to work anyway. | [
"budget"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1YEPUACmgZqbH1pHorSGI8Lp0rX_cPJ-0",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1282 | There was an estimated $5.3 million of economic loss just for a few hours of shutting down the border. Youre talking about millions and millions of dollars billions of dollars of economic consequence, if we continue with this rhetoric around shutting down the border without considering what that means. | 12/03/2018 | [] | During a recent visit to the U.S.-Mexico border, Californias Democratic Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom claimed the Trump administrations temporary border closure last month cost $5.3 million in economic loss in the area and that future shutdowns could run into the billions of dollars. U.S. border officials on Nov. 25 stopped all traffic for several hours at the San Ysidro Port of Entry, which serves as the gateway between Tijuana and San Diego. Its the busiest land border crossing in the United States and among the busiest in the world. The six-hour shutdown happened as migrants from Central America protested just south of the crossing. A group later rushed a border fence and were met with tear gas fired by U.S. border agents, who said some threw rocks at them. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in astatementthe same day that her agency will not hesitate to shut down ports of entry for security and public safety reasons, and would not tolerate this type of lawlessness. Days after the closure, heres what Newsom claimed at apress conferenceheld near the San Ysidro crossing: Every time, with respect, that there is a flippant comment about shutting down the border, it impacts the economy and the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people that are reliant on that trade and commerce on a daily basis. [There was] an estimated $5.3 million of economic loss just for a few hours of shutting down the border. Youre talking about millions and millions of dollars billions of dollars of economic consequence, if we continue with this rhetoric around shutting down the border without considering what that means. As the debate over the shutdown lingers, we wanted to know whether Newsom got his figures right about its economic impact. We set out on a fact check. U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents attend operational readiness exercises at the San Ysidro port of entry on the U.S.-Mexico border in November 2018. (AP Photo/Ramon Espinosa) Our research An average of 90,000 people legally pass north through the San Ysidro crossing each day, 70,000 in cars and 20,000 by foot. Many work, go to school or shop in the community of San Ysidro, which is the southernmost portion of San Diego, and points north, serving as an economic engine for the region. Californias other border crossings include Otay Mesa, about 11 miles east, along with Tecate, an hours drive east, and two in Calexico in Imperial County. For the specific dollar loss from the Nov. 25 closure, Newsom appears to have relied on an estimate from Jason Wells, executive director of the San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce. In an interview with PolitiFact California, Wells said the $5.3 million loss figure is an estimate based on an average day of sales for the 650 businesses in the area during the Nov. 20 to Jan. 6 holiday period. The area is home to outlet malls, money exchanges and many immigration and tax services, all a short distance from the border. Wells said it draws between 97 and 99 percent of its customers from Mexico. The threat of violence at the border led owners of The Las Americas Premium Outlets, a shopping center next to the port of entry, for example, to shut down the mall that day. Wells said some businesses in the area believe the $5.3 million figure is conservative, given the shutdown happened the Sunday after Black Friday. He added that approximately 75 percent of the areas businesses closed within about 90 minutes of the 11:30 a.m. closure of the border crossing. Just in that one Sunday alone, because of the Christmas and holiday season and so forth, we lost $5.3 million. Just in that one day, Wells added on theSan Diego Union-Tribunespodcast,The Conversation. Tijuana itself lost another $6.9 million. So, just between Tijuana and San Ysidro [there] was $12.2 million lost in one day. And thats not even counting Chula Vista, National City, San Diego, LA, all those areas that were affected by the closure. Lynn Reaser, chief economist at San Diegos Point Loma Nazarene University, said at least some of the economic loss was probably recovered. At this point, the impact on San Ysidro may have been primarily temporary during the relatively brief stoppage, Reaser said in an email. Shoppers appeared to have returned to stores at the Las Americas Premium Outlet, which means that sales could have been primarily delayed. Of course, if border closings start recurring, the picture could become much more grave. Wells said its our hope and prayers that the $5.3 million was made up by shoppers who returned to San Ysidro. Newsom didnt say anything about the potential recovery of this loss, but was generally on the mark. We also examined his claim that future shutdowns could cause billions, a figure thats a bit more difficult to assess. Billions in losses? Extended border closings and delays could mount to billions of dollars in economic losses over the coming months, Paola Avila, a vice president at the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, told Bloomberg in a recentarticle. The uncertainty of border closures occurring at any time is a substantial economic threat for our region, she said. Our economies are inextricably linked. We produce together, we work together, we have families together, we have an integrated supply chain worth $2.5 billion. Jerry Sanders, the former Republican mayor of San Diego and current head of the citys regional Chamber of Commerce, echoed those sentiments in aNew York Timesarticle. If people are staying home because they are worried, the economic impact is obviously huge we have 73 million crossings a year and we know that the regions $255 billion gross regional product depends on cross-border commerce, Sanders told the paper. Newsoms spokesman said the news reports supported the claim. Our ruling California Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom claimed there was an estimated $5.3 million in economic loss from the temporary closure of the San Ysidro border crossing that separates San Diego and Tijuana on Nov. 25. He added billions of dollars are potentially at stake should future closures take place. Newsoms $5.3 million figure was supported by the head of the San Ysidro Chamber of Commerce, which represents hundreds of businesses on the U.S. side of the border. A leading economist in the region said San Ysidro is likely to recover at least some of that loss when shoppers who delayed their visits return, as long as there arent additional border closures. Newsom can also point to warnings from business groups about billions of dollars potentially being lost in future shutdowns. San Diegos regional chamber of commerce, including the citys former Republican mayor, said future closures could threaten the billions of dollars in economic activity that flows through the international gateway. This portion of Newsoms claim, however, assumes a worst-case scenario of a prolonged weeks- or months-long closure. While President Trump has threatened to close the border, theres been no evidence that his administration is seeking an extended shutdown. We found Newsoms overall statement was accurate but could use some clarifications. We rated it Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. | [
"Immigration",
"Economy",
"Public Safety",
"California"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.politifact.com/politifact/photos/border_closure_san_ysidro_AP_1.jpg",
"image_caption": "Every time, with respect, that there is a flippant comment about shutting down the border, it impacts the economy and the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people that are reliant on that trade and commerce on a daily basis. [There was] an estimated $5.3 million of economic loss just for a few hours of shutting down the border."
}
] |
FMD_test_1283 | Is Biden implying that there might be the biggest tax hike ever in the United States? | 10/15/2020 | [
"The Trump campaign repeatedly made the claim to try to convince average Americans they would pay more in taxes under Biden."
] | Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but misinformation continues to spread. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. During his 2020 presidential campaign, U.S. President Donald Trump claimed on multiple occasions that his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, would impose the "biggest tax increase in history" if voters elected him. In an August interview on Fox News, for instance, Trump said of Democrats, "They want to tax $4 trillion; it's going to be the biggest tax increase in history by far. It will triple records, and they're big taxers. It's just something that won't work. You will see a depression the likes of which you have never seen." In the following weeks, he reiterated the claim that "you are going to have the tax increase of your life" if Biden wins the 2020 election in social media posts and during campaign events, without explaining who would bear the brunt of the alleged hike. Trump tweeted on Oct. 5: "Below is an analysis of Biden's tax proposal assessing whether it would indeed raise taxes by an amount never seen before in modern U.S. history, and who would most feel its impact." According to his campaign website, Biden ran for president on the promise that he would change multiple aspects of the country's tax system, specifically regarding individual income and payroll taxes, business taxes, and tax expenditures. The proposed changes would repeal aspects of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which the Trump administration and Republicans framed as a solution to fuel economic growth, while Democrats saw it as a gift to the country's richest individuals and large corporations at the expense of low-to-middle-class Americans. Specifically, Biden's tax plan would roll back the act's income tax reductions for the country's top bracket of taxpayers and expand that category to include Americans with incomes over $400,000 annually, rather than just those who earn more than $518,400. His proposal would also require that group of top earners to limit deductions and pay an additional Social Security payroll tax, according to an analysis by Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow with the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Millionaires and billionaires would be subject to taxes on long-term capital gains at ordinary, not preferential, income tax rates. Additionally, Biden's plan would increase the top tax rate for corporations from 21% to 28% and impose a 15% minimum tax on companies' book income, according to his campaign website. It would also reduce tax subsidies for commercial real estate and fossil fuels and incentivize renewable energy investments, among other changes. All of that said, the country's richest taxpayers and corporations would cover the majority of Biden's proposed tax increases, not average Americans, both in dollar amounts and as a share of their incomes. But let's look at the anticipated impact at a granular level. All income levels would face some sort of tax burden in 2021 under Biden's plan (we explain more below), though the highest-income households would pay higher income taxes directly and see substantially larger increases than anyone else. Gleckman made the following estimations: His plan would raise taxes on households in the top 1% of the income distribution (those with income more than $837,000) by an average of about $299,000. By contrast, taxpayers in the middle-income quintile (those with income between $52,000 and $93,000) would experience an average tax increase of just $260. Taxpayers in the bottom quintile (those with income less than $26,000) would see an average tax increase of only $30. That added burden on low- and middle-income households, representing about 2% of the proposed change, would be an indirect result of employers shifting the cost of the higher corporate tax rate to some workers. Corporations on a grand scale would slightly lower wages and investment income, which would, on average, more than offset the effects of Biden's new tax credits, the center concluded. Alicyn McLeod, a tax adviser and writer for Accounting Today, said in October 2020, "Biden's proposal is primarily motivated by fairness. Many U.S. taxpayers are concerned that large corporations aren't paying their fair share." While understandable, this position ignores the belief among many tax and economic policy experts that a significant portion of corporate taxes are ultimately paid by workers, shareholders, and consumers, rather than companies themselves. In sum, the overwhelming majority of Americans—those who earn $400,000 or less annually—would not see their taxes increase as a direct result of Biden's tax proposal, and the top 1% earners would shoulder the brunt of his proposed hike. However, low-to-middle-class workers would see slightly lower investment returns and wages as a result of corporate tax increases, according to economists' analysis, including a budgetary model by the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Biden's plan would raise about $3.38 trillion in additional tax revenue over 10 years, according to the university's model. Concurrently, per Gleckman's analysis, that would amount to an increase in federal revenue by about 1.5% of the country's gross domestic product (GDP). GDP is the economy's total output of goods and services, and economists rely on it greatly to measure the economy's health and how fiscal or regulatory policies could impact it—not raw dollar amounts that don't consider inflation and population changes. To determine the legitimacy of Trump's claim, we considered federal tax proposals and their impact on GDP over decades. Of almost two dozen congressional tax bills that increased federal tax revenues between 1940 and 2012, for example, the five largest tax increases raised annual revenue between 1.33% and 5.04% of GDP, according to a 2013 compilation of such records by the U.S. Department of Treasury. The following table compiled by the Tax Foundation, another independent public policy think tank, showed where Biden's plan would stand in comparison to those other proposals: According to those findings, Biden's tax proposal, if enacted by Congress, would amount to the fifth-largest tax increase since the 1940s—not the biggest hike in modern U.S. history. | [
"income"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1zvYtiySwyDwTRdWIjPbtN7T9mC7JR6ZQ",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1rLN0GH91X8kEYErZItTX8HtJo6lLwE-4",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1284 | What alterations have occurred in the net worths of presidents? | 12/28/2017 | [
"An image comparing changes in the financial status of former and current United States presidents is not particularly revealing."
] | An image comparing changes in the financial status of former and current United States presidents was widely shared on social media at the end of 2017, with minimal text suggesting that the data it presented was particularly revealing of something (without providing any detail about what that "something" might be). As for the hard data, we won't dwell on precise numbers because net worth figures are typically estimates that are at least partially based on assets with fluctuating valuations, and federal election disclosure laws have only required that candidates list their assets and liabilities in ranges rather than specific amounts. However, in general, we can note that the information in the image is at least within the ballpark of reasonable. The Clintons' net worth was reported as $700,000 in their 1992 statement, the Obamas' net worth was estimated at about $1.3 million in 2007 (mostly derived from book publishing advances and royalties), while the Trumps' net worth was pegged at $3.7 billion in 2016. As of 2017, the Clintons were estimated to have made $240 million since Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the Obamas' combined net worth was reckoned to be about $24 million, while the Trumps' net worth was thought to have dropped to about $3.1 billion. Suffice it to say that the Clinton and Obama families have done very well for themselves since leaving the White House, but the Trumps have realized no similar windfall and have possibly seen their overall wealth decline a bit. The comparison in this image is one of apples and oranges, however, and therefore it reveals nothing remarkable or surprising. It contrasts two men who each served eight years as President and are no longer in office with one man who has only been the U.S. chief executive for a year and still occupies that position. The longer one holds high office, the more opportunity one has to establish connections and build experience that might prove financially lucrative later on, so obviously, two men who sat in the White House for eight years each have a considerable advantage over the one who has barely been in Washington for a year. More importantly, though, is that former Presidents Clinton and Obama are ex-presidents who have returned to private life, and thus they can avail themselves of many money-making opportunities common to ex-presidents—writing books, giving speeches, consulting for private companies, holding board seats, advising businessmen and politicians—that are simply not available to a sitting president. For the incumbent chief executive, the position of President of the United States affords its holder little time to manage any outside business interests, and conflict of interest laws make it difficult for presidents to engage in profitable business ventures while they are serving as public officials. Most sitting presidents choose to put their business interests into blind trusts or otherwise delegate their day-to-day management to others during their terms of office. This image also conveniently omits data that demonstrates the money-making proclivities of former presidents to be neither an aberration nor an activity limited to Democrats: George H.W. Bush saw his fortune grow from $4 million in his pre-presidential days to $23 million in 2017, and his son, George W. Bush, began his presidency with $20 million and is now reportedly worth $35 million. Finally, nothing about this subject has anything to do with any presidents, current or former, "stealing" anyone's money. Whatever controversies may have surrounded Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Trump so far, none of them has been accused of enriching themselves by looting the public treasury. | [
"asset"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1EfKE4gdixF50nUDwUhbm2VfjI5TAIGKw",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=15bgItTdvAYzqMggbj0AXVuTcDZWCk6od",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1TWbZ-uraNfDqsj-jHFaYYwyUcNFS9k6q",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1285 | Is Actor Tom Hanks Related to Fred Rogers? | 11/21/2019 | [
"You may be surprised to find out just how many sixth cousins the average person has."
] | A few days before the release of "A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood," a movie starring Tom Hanks about children's television host Fred Rogers, a representative for Ancestry.com told CBS News that the two men were related. CBS News reported that Tom Hanks bears a striking resemblance to children's television star Fred Rogers, whom he portrays in the upcoming film. However, the similarities extend beyond mere casting; the performers are actually related, according to a discovery made by Ancestry.com. Hanks is sixth cousins with Rogers, and they share the same great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, Johannes Mefford, as a company representative informed CBS News. The company utilized its database of over 20 billion online historical records to construct Hanks' family tree, the representative said. We have no reason to doubt Ancestry.com's findings. However, some readers may not fully grasp just how distant a distant cousin really is. The genealogy website reported that Rogers and Hanks are sixth cousins who share a 5x great-grandfather (or a great-great-great-great-great-grandfather). Here's how Ancestry.com described Hanks' relationship to Rogers: Fred Rogers and Tom Hanks are sixth cousins sharing the same 5x great-grandfather, Johannes Mefford, who immigrated from Germany to America in the 18th century. Johannes raised a family of patriots; three of his sons (including the ancestors of Tom Hanks and Fred Rogers) served in the Revolutionary War. Fred Rogers' 4x great-grandfather, William Mefford, served in the navy and was captured by the British in 1782. He endured life on a prison ship in Barbados and Antigua until he was released ten months later. Tom Hanks' 4x great-grandfather, Jacob Mefford, joined the War as a private and participated in a skirmish at Chesapeake Bay. Thus, Rogers and Hanks not only share the same ancestor, but they also descend from two brothers who fought for America's independence. While it may be "true" to say that Hanks and Rogers are related, phrasing their relationship this way can be somewhat misleading. We found varying estimates about just how closely related sixth cousins really are, but the general conclusion was that these "relatives" are very distant. For instance, a study by Ancestry DNA in 2014, based on British birth rates and census data, found that the average person in Britain has about 175,000 sixth cousins. While it's true that Hanks and Rogers are related, they are distant cousins who probably don't share much in terms of DNA. But don't let that detract from Hanks' performance as Rogers in "A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood." We reached out to the Association of Professional Genealogists and the International Society of Genetic Genealogy. We will update this article when more information becomes available. Garrand, Danielle. "Tom Hanks Discovers He's Related to Mister Rogers Days Before 'A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood' Released." CBS News. 20 November 2019. Mirror. "Average British Person Has 193,000 Living Cousins Says New Research." 17 June 2015. Correction [21 November 2019]: A table about the probability of sixth cousins sharing DNA was mischaracterized and removed from the article. | [
"share"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1HHls-X26UJeYxzCnK6fMGOO3CPd4uUaW",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1286 | Is the USPS intentionally delaying mail to support Trump's reelection? | 08/06/2020 | [
"U.S. Postal Service workers nationwide reported backlogs of letters and packages in summer 2020. But was the issue political?"
] | As U.S. President Donald Trump accelerated unsubstantiated attacks on the legitimacy of mail-in voting during the summer of 2020, numerous Snopes readers asked us to investigate whether the leader of the U.S. Postal Service was carrying out a nefarious scheme to help Trump win another presidential term. mail-in voting In late July and early August, various rumors surfaced regarding Louis DeJoy, a North Carolina businessman whom the Postal Service's governing board selected to run the agency in May 2020. For example, a viral tweet thread alleged: viral tweet My mailman just confirmed they have all officially been told to "SLOW THE MAIL DOWN," per trump's Postmaster General...He says that there is backed up mail ALL OVER THE FLOOR. He's never seen anything like it. It has ALREADY begun. But as long as we keep each other informed, we can beat their dirty tricks with INFORMATION. The claim's underlying notions were these: DeJoy was a political ally to the Republican president, and the new postmaster general had used his new authority to order Postal Service carriers and clerks to slow deliveries to help Trump win the 2020 November election. A backlog of ballots in the weeks or days before Election Day, critics of the president worried, could lead to votes going uncounted or deemed invalid due to state laws governing mail-in election deadlines. state laws What follows is an examination of federal documents obtained by Snopes including letters by members of Congress, campaign finance reports, and internal memos to Postal Service employees as well as interviews with postal union representatives and a Postal Service spokesperson, to determine the legitimacy of those questions. DeJoy could not be reached for an interview for this report. Note: Snopes not only investigated DeJoy's relationship to Trump, but his financial stake in companies that compete with the Postal Service to evaluate if, or to what extent, his past investments provided any evidence of a plan to undermine the Postal Service's longstanding mission: to provide mail service to every American, no matter their address or income. Yes. DeJoy, who lives in Greensboro, donated more than $1.2 million to the Trump campaign between August 2016 and February 2020, according to campaign finance reports compiled by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Federal Elections Commission It's unclear when or how DeJoy developed a relationship with Trump, and why he decided to support the billionaire's political pursuits. In a 2005 interview with Greensboro's local newspaper, DeJoy then-CEO of New Breed Logistics, a distribution and warehousing company appeared less supportive of Trump, saying his self-important attitude on the reality-TV show "The Apprentice" was destructive. 2005 interview The Apprentice "I'd be fired," DeJoy said, if he was a contestant. Nonetheless, by early 2017, DeJoy was among his state's top donors to Trump (see below for The Charlotte Observer's list that ranks DeJoy at No. 3 with a total contribution of $111,000). And by October of that year, DeJoy had become close enough to the president to host him and other donors for fundraiser at his Greensboro house. top donors Greensboro house. Also, by that time, DeJoy's wife, Aldona Wos, had been appointed by the president to serve as vice chair of a White House commission that oversees paid fellowships in federal offices, according to the couple's foundation website. foundation website In addition to his contributions to Trump's political campaigns specifically, DeJoy has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republican causes or campaigns over decades, the FEC records show. The Postal Service's governing board, a group appointed by the president with confirmation from the Senate, selected DeJoy as Postmaster General on May 6, 2020, after what it described as an extensive nationwide search for qualified candidates. At the time of that decision, Trump had appointed all six board members Chairman Robert Duncan, John Barger, Ron Bloom, Roman Martinez IV, Donald Moak, and William Zollars since the early days of his presidency. what it described Robert Duncan John Barger Ron Bloom Roman Martinez IV Donald Moak William Zollars DeJoy, who was in charge of fundraising for the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Charlotte when the board made its announcement, made the following donations since the start of 2020, according to filings from the FEC: National Republican Congressional Committee. National Republican Congressional Committee Facebook In sum, considering DeJoy's record of donations, as well as evidence of him hosting a Trump fundraiser at his Greensboro home in fall 2017, it is accurate to claim that the new postmaster general is a political ally to the Republican president. home The answer to this question is less clear. In summer 2020, the viral claim about DeJoy that he had directed carriers to delay mail to benefit Trump's reelection campaign (which we unpack below) took on another layer: that DeJoy had also allegedly invested $70 million of his own money in delivery companies that compete with the Postal Service. another layer allegedly That allegation, which we deemed true (see the explanation below), was particularly worrisome for critics of Trump and DeJoy, who believed the alleged holdings were more proof of the two leaders conspiring together this time in an attempt to privatize the Postal Service. critics Here's some context before we dive into DeJoy's personal assets: Conservative Republicans have long pushed to remove government from mail services that they believe should be left to the private commercial market. Since Trump took office, he has called the Postal Service "a joke" or Amazon's "delivery boy," considering its package rates, and has floated the idea of eventually privatizing the agency. a joke delivery boy eventually privatizing the agency Meanwhile, others fear dismantling the federally-mandated mail service would disproportionately affect people who live in rural areas, where private companies such as FedEx and UPS either charge higher rates or do no shipments at all. At the same time, the Postal Service which does not receive tax dollars for its operating expenses faces a worsening financial situation due to a 2006 congressional mandate that required the agency to prepay health care benefits of retirees, as well as a decline in first-class mail customers. The coronavirus pandemic exacerbated those long-standing problems, forcing several post offices nationwide to completely close or scale back hours. congressional mandate coronavirus pandemic scale back hours For instance, on April 9, 2020, roughly one month before DeJoy was selected to lead the Postal Service, then-Postmaster General Megan Brennan said the agency was preparing for a $13 billion revenue shortfall due directly to COVID-19 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 the end of September without federal intervention. (Brennan announced her retirement in October 2019, after more than 30 years with the agency.) April 9, 2020 announced her retirement The former Postal Service leader made those comments shortly after federal leaders negotiated a $2.2 trillion COVID-19 economic relief package, called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which, initially, included a $13 billion one-time boost for the mail service. But, purportedly at the urging of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and aides to Trump, congressional leaders removed that provision from the stimulus package, and instead included a $10 billion loan that the Trump administration could leverage in its favor. Then, on July 29, 2020, The Washington Post reported that under DeJoy's leadership, the postal agency gave Mnuchin's office's proprietary information about the Postal Service's most lucrative private-sector contracts, such as Amazon, FedEx and UPS, in exchange for the loan money. economic relief package Steven Mnuchin The Washington Post By that time, Congressional leaders and Trump were battling yet again over another emergency relief package; Democrats proposed a $25 billion boost for the Postal Service but then lowered that amount to $10 billion during talks with Republicans. On Aug. 13, 2020, during an interview on Fox Business Network, the president said frankly the tug-and-pull over Postal Service funding was part of his administration's plan to try to make it harder for the agency to handle the expected surge in mail-in ballots in the November election. If we dont make a deal, that means they dont get the money, Trump told host Maria Bartiromo, referring to the false claim that Democrats are are proposing a universal mail-in voting system. That means they cant have universal mail-in voting; they just cant have it. told Which brings us to DeJoy's assets, and the above-mentioned claim that he had "$70 million invested in companies that compete with USPS." For the basis of this analysis, we considered private companies that provide shipping or distribution services, such as DHL, the FedEx Corporation, and United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), business competitors with the post office. For more than 30 years, DeJoy was the CEO of New Breed Logistics, a supply chain business that contracted with a variety of public and private companies, including the Postal Service. In 2014, XPO Logistics acquired DeJoy's company, and he served on the company's executive team or board of directors until May 2018. According to internal documents, which we obtained using the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) database of company filings, XPO Logistics considered its competitors to include DHL, FedEx, UPS, and J.B. Hunt Transport Services. XPO Logistics DHL FedEx UPS J.B. Hunt Transport Services Aside from that evidence, which proved DeJoy's former company competed for business with organizations that also competed with the Postal Service, Snopes uncovered a letter from his wife, Wos, to a White House legal advisor on January 3, 2020, that listed her family's financial assets, known as "Attachment A." According to that list, the family had stock in companies including UPS, J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., and XPO Logistics, Inc. letter She wrote the letter in response to a nomination by the Trump administration to serve as U.S. ambassador to Canada, and she said she would divest from all holdings in the document within 90 days of her confirmation. However, as of this writing, Wos had not been sworn into the position. The letter, which was available via the Office of Government Ethics, read: nomination Office of Government Ethics As of June 15, 2020, the day DeJoy assumed his role as postmaster general, The Washington Post reported the couple had between $30.1 million and $75.3 million in assets in Postal Service competitors or contractors. XPO Logistics represented the vast majority of those investments, and the couple's combined stake in UPS and trucking company J.B. Hunt, for examples, was roughly $265,000. The Washington Post reported On DeJoy's first day, the Senate's top Democrat, Charles Schumer of New York, said in letter to the Postal Service's board of governors' chairman: "[DeJoy's] financial interests in companies that have business ties with the Postal Services, as well as his extensive campaign fundraising efforts, raise questions" over his ethical conflicts of interest and partisan interests. letter By that point, a spokeswoman for DeJoy told journalists he had resigned as finance chair for the Republican National Convention, and would "comply with any financial divestitures that are required" for the new leadership position. told journalists In sum, reports proved the DeJoy family at one point had millions of dollars in assets in companies that compete or contract with the Postal Service, which lend credibility to the viral assertion. But the exact amount of such investments was unclear, and as of this writing, it was unknown if or to what extent the couple had divested any of the financial holdings. Not exactly but there is some truth to the claim. Upon our analysis, the rumor seems to have stemmed from a series of directives DeJoy gave Postal Service employees since he took over the agency. On his first day, for example, he addressed the agency in a video that alluded to impending changes under his leadership that aimed to create a "viable operating model," though he did not go into specifics. video Then, in mid-July, he issued several memos to employees, including a "New [Postmaster General's] expectations and plan." Those messages to all managers, clerks, and carriers nationwide appeared to be the source of the claim, and detailed changes to how and when the Postal Agency would deliver mail. A July 10, 2020, internal document to managers, which Snopes received from the American Postal Workers Union and refers to an "operational pivot" for the agency, said the following, for example: American Postal Workers Union The initial step in our pivot is targeted on transportation and the soaring costs we incur due to late trips and extra trips, which costs the organization somewhere around $200 million in added expenses. $200 million in added expenses The shifts are simple, but they will be challenging, as we seek to change our culture and move away from past practices previously used. But perhaps most relevant to the claim, the DeJoy-sponsored directives included instructions for employees to leave letters or packages at distribution centers if they delayed carriers from their routes contradicting previous rules for deliveries and said the Postal Service would no longer pay employees overtime to complete all mail deliveries. The July 10, 2020 memo said: contradicting One aspect of these changes that may be difficult for employees is that temporarily we may see mail left behind or mail on the workroom floor or docks [in Processing and Distribution Centers], which is not typical. We will address root causes of these delays and adjust the very next day. Any mail left behind must be properly reported, and employees should ensure this action is taken with integrity and accuracy. As we adjust to the ongoing pivot, which will have a number of phases, we know that operations will begin to run more efficiently and that delayed mail volumes will soon shrink significantly. We also considered a separate message to employees in July 2020 that said, under a new initiative, carriers in certain regions would not sort any mail during the morning and instead clock in, retrieve sorted mail from the previous day and limit time in the office as much as possible. Then, when they returned from the streets, they would sort all available mail for the next day. July 2020 The agency said the extra spending on employees' overtime or delivery trips had not improved "our performance scores," without going into detail on what that meant, and framed the changes as necessary steps to improve its financial position. A July 27, 2020, public statement from DeJoy said: said public statement Given our current situation, it is critical that the Postal Service take a fresh look at our operations and make necessary adjustments. We are highly focused on our public service mission to provide prompt, reliable, and efficient service to every person and business in this country, and to remain a part of the nations critical infrastructure. David Partenheimer, manager of media relations for the Postal Service, told Snopes that the postmaster general was not doing any media interviews regarding the initiatives, nor about the underlying claims of this report. In a roughly 760-word email to us, however, Partenheimer reemphasized what the agency viewed as the need for the adjustments, and said: "We acknowledge that temporary service impacts can occur as we redouble our efforts to conform to the current operating plans, but any such impacts will be monitored and temporary ... and corrected as appropriate." Soon after the directives, American Postal Workers Union President Mark Dimondstein told us in a phone interview that employees and customers across the country were noticing mail delays. In the Philadelphia region, for instance, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported situations where residents were going upwards of three weeks without receiving packages and letters, and postal union leaders and carriers said mail was piling up at offices, unscanned and unsorted. Mark Dimondstein employees Philadelphia Inquirer "When you ... say this is what you have to do as workers, then that's what we have to do [the change] runs counter to everything that the Postal Service is about, which is we treat the mail as our own; we get it to the customer as quickly as we can," Dimondstein said. "They've never seen mail backed up like this it's not being moved." That meant, while DeJoy had not told carriers to "slow the mail down" verbatim, he initiated changes to how and when carriers go about doing their job that the Postal Agency said would cause temporary mail delays. However, it would be inaccurate to assume all slow deliveries under DeJoy's leadership were a result of the July 2020 directives specifically, when they could also be linked to reduced hours for some post offices or other circumstances. Roughly three months before the 2020 presidential election, voting rights groups and outspoken critics to the president believed the new directives by DeJoy occurred at a convenient time for Trump: when a record number of Americans were preparing to vote by mail and avoid potential exposure to the COVID-19 coronavirus by casting ballots at in-person polling places. Specifically, they worried the new requirements for post office carriers and clerks would lead to backlogs of mail-in ballots and thus create challenges for elections officials who, in the majority of states, must invalidate ballots that reach them after Election Day even if they were postmarked before that date. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat from New York, for example, led colleagues in writing a letter to DeJoy on July 20, 2020, that said: Rep. Carolyn Maloney "While these changes [to mail service] in a normal year would be drastic, in a presidential election year when many states are relying heavily on absentee mail-in ballots, increases in mail delivery timing would impair the ability of ballots to be received and counted in a timely manner an unacceptable outcome for a free and fair election." We asked Dimondstein, APWU president, whether he believed the July directives by Postal Service leadership were somehow linked to a plan to cause mail service chaos before the November election and help Trump win reelection. He said: What we do know for truth is this administration is, in written record, proposing and planning to sell the post office to private corporations, i.e. privatizing...That was June 2018. We also know as a fact that ...that [there are] calls for reduced service, increased prices, and less workers' rights and benefits. So if you take those two things together, certainly if they're implemented, then they're going to cause delays in mail; they're going to cause service being undermined... written record This is a fact: [DeJoy is] what's considered a mega-donor of the Trump administration and the Republican party... Anything that undermines the Postal Service' [service to customers] ... has us concerned that it could be linked back to those who have an agenda to eliminate [the Postal Service]. But I can't sit here and tell you that that's a fact. Partenheimer said any notion that DeJoy made decisions for the Postal Service under directions from Trump (which include claims that he issued the July 2020 changes that resulted in delays to help Trump's re-election campaign) were "wholly misplaced and off-base." He said the Postal Service, typically an apolitical agency, remains committed to "fulfilling our role in the electoral process" in places where politicians allow voters to cast ballots by mail and "to delivering Election Mail in a timely manner consistent with our operational standards." He elaborated: "[Despite] any assertions to the contrary, we are not slowing down Election Mail or any other mail. Instead, we continue to employ a robust and proven process to ensure proper handling of all Election Mail consistent with our standards." Days later, he said in a statement to news media that certain deadlines concerning mail-in ballots, may be incompatible with the Postal Services delivery standards, especially if election officials dont pay more for first-class postage. To the extent that states choose to use the mail as part of their elections, they should do so in a manner that realistically reflects how the mail works, he said. news media Then, on Aug. 18, 2020, DeJoy issued a statement in which he said he would temporarily suspend initiatives "that have been raised as areas of concern as the nation prepares to hold an election in the midst of a devastating pandemic," including the controversial July 2020 directives that eliminated overtime and some delivery trips. The statement read: statement To avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail, I am suspending these initiatives until after the election is concluded. I want to assure all Americans of the following: In addition, effective Oct. 1, we will engage standby resources in all areas of our operations, including transportation, to satisfy any unforeseen demand. In sum, it was accurate to state that DeJoy, a political ally to Trump, ordered Postal Service workers to leave late-arriving mail at distribution centers for delivery the following day and eliminate extra trips in July 2020 a change the Postal Service was expecting to cause temporary mail delays although no verifiable evidence proved those directives were part of a deliberate scheme to disenfranchise voters in the November 2020 election. Additionally, there was no proof to show the changes aimed to help Trump win reelection. For those reasons, we rate this claim "Unproven." Ye Hee Lee, Michelle and Bogage, Jacob. "Postal Service Backlog Sparks Worries That Ballot Delivery Could Be Delayed In November".
The Washington Post. 30 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "Pending Postal Service Changes Could Delay Mail And Deliveries, Advocates War".
NPR. 29 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "Pending Postal Service Changes Could Delay Mail And Deliveries, Advocates War".
NPR. 29 July 2020. USPS Contributor. "What Is The History Behind The Unofficial USPS Motto?"
Postal Posts. 11 September 2015. USPS. "Postmaster General Statement On Operational Excellence And Financial Stability".
27 July 2020. Office of Inspector General. "U.S. Postal Service's Processing Network Optimization And Service Impacts".
USPS. 16 June 2020. Dawsey, Josh, et. al. "Top Republican Fundraiser And Trump Ally Named Postmaster General, Giving President New Influence Over Postal Service".
The Washington Post. 6 May 2020. Bogage, Jacob. "Postal Service Memos Detail 'Difficult' Changes, Including Slower Mail Delivery".
The Washington Post. 14 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "New Postmaster General Is Top GOP Fundraiser".
NPR. 7 May 2020. Hummel, Marta. "New Breed CEO No One's 'Apprentice' Louis DeJoy Is A Big Supporter Of George W. Bush But Says The Clinton Era Was His Most Profitable".
News & Record. 7 January 2005. Heckman, Jory. "USPS Board Names Logistics Executive As New Postmaster General".
Federal News Network. 6 May 2020. Gordon, Aaron. "USPS Plans To Slash Hours At Many Post Offices, Hoping To Save A Buck".
Vice. 29 July 2020. Cohen, Rachel. "USPS Workers Concerned New Policies Will Pave The Way To Privatization".
The Intercept. 29 July 2020. Derysh, Igor. "With Trump Donor In Charge, Postal Service May Shut Locations And Cut Service Before Election Day".
Salon. 31 July 2020. Rushing, Ellie. "Mail Delays Are Frustrating Philly Residents, And A Short-Staffed Postal Service Is Struggling To Keep Up".
The Philadelphia Inquirer. 2 August 2020. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney. "Maloney, King Lead Bipartisan NY Delegation Call For Immediate Help For The Postal Service".
28 April 2020. House Committee On Oversight And Reform. "Senior Democrats Request Information On Postal Service's Operational Changes".
20 July 2020. Bogage, Jacob. "Trump Ally Takes Over Crisis-Ridden Postal Service As Top Senate Democrat Demands Inquiry On Hiring".
The Washington Post. 15 June 2020. Murphy, Brian. "NC Businessman, A Big-Time GOP Donor, Is Tapped To Lead US Postal Service".
The News & Observer. 7 May 2020. Shear, Michael. "Mail Delays Fuel Concern Trump Is Undercutting Postal Service Ahead Of Voting".
The New York Times. 1 August 2020. Sargent, Greg. "Trump Just Told Us How Mail Delays Could Help Him Corrupt The Election".
The Washington Post. 31 July 2020. Reichmann, Deb, and Izaguirre, Anthony. "Trump Admits He's Blocking Postal Cash To Stop Mail-In Votes."
Associated Press. 14 August 2020. USPS. "Postmaster General Louis DeJoy Statement."
18 August 2020. This report was updated to include an interview by Trump with Fox Business Network on Aug. 13, 2020, where he acknowledged that he was intentionally blocking Postal Service funding in an attempt to make it harder for the agency to process mail-in ballots in the November presidential election. This report was updated to include a statement by DeJoy on Aug. 18, 2020, in which he announced the suspension of certain initiatives "to avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail." | [
"loan"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1MuxtC2mF0rUC5-PEEJmw62FLR6FaqGoA",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1pZkbxPhoKP6eD3QxjYokkLY9HQlc7bOp",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1t619KoLVfE5ypRgBNN2FW5XytonAhhKO",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1K_dV52S5RuURK2H9K8kFrobwDTGSR-9F",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1N32A62GPp6gNGVbQNrMuCC8yKdHzf2A0",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=11x0twvb0Vc-xoqiG4-hbZ3varF1Jj-sP",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1287 | A tax plan promoted by North Carolina Senate candidate Thom Tillis will overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. | 07/25/2014 | [] | Controversial changes to North Carolinas tax code passed under Thom Tillis leadership are now a target in his Senate campaign. In 2013, the North Carolina government received national attention for a wave of conservative legislation. The Republican-dominated General Assembly -- with Tillis as speaker of the House -- passed laws increasing voter ID requirements, lowering business regulations, upping restrictions on abortion providers,tightening education spendingand trimming unemployment benefits. Now, Patriot Majority USA, a liberal political action committee, hasreleased a television adsaying Tillis policies have disproportionately benefited the wealthy. The ad notes in particular thetax legislationenacted last summer -- which Tillis touts in his campaign against incumbent Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan. The ad says Tillis is cozy with Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who cofounded Americans for Prosperity, an influential conservative PAC. And his policies are designed to benefit people like them. Thom Tillis thinks the wealthy, like the Koch brothers, deserve tax breaks, while teachers get a pay freeze, the ad says. Tillis thinks corporations like the ones owned by the Koch brothers should also get tax breaks, while seniors see their pensions taxed and pay more for prescription drugs. Thom Tillis: He may not be a Koch brother, but he certainly treats them like family. At one point, text on the screen says the Tillis tax plan will overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. We looked into it and found that the law does not overtly harm those at lower-income levels, but the wealthy reap more of the benefits. Lets go to the numbers. Income taxes Supporters of the tax plan most often point to the reduced income tax rate, which they say cuts taxes for people in every income bracket. Thats true. However, people in higher-income brackets get bigger cuts than those in the lowest brackets. The income taxpart of the law sets the rate for everyone at 5.75 percent. Previously, the state had a graduated three-tier system, with rates of 6 percent for the lowest earners, and rates of 7 percent and 7.75 percent for higher earners. The lowest earners tax rates shrunk only marginally -- 0.25 points, while higher earners rates went down 1.25 and 2 points, respectively. Lower earners get a small break, though, in the income tax changes. The child tax credit goes from $100 to $125 per child for those earning below $40,000. The North Carolina Legislatures Fiscal Research Divisioncalculated how muchpeople in various scenarios would owe on average based on the changes to the income tax (other tax changes not included). Heres a sample of what they found: Scenario Tax owed before change Tax owed after change Change in taxes owed Married, two children, $20,000 income $40 $38 -$2 -5% change Married, two children, $250,000 income $15,832 $13,398 -$2,434 -15% change Married, no children, $20,000 income $540 $288 -$252 -47% change Married, no children, $250,000 income $16,142 $13,398 -$2,744 -17% change Single, $20,000 income $870 $719 -$151 -17% change Single, $250,000 income $17,858 $13,786 -$4,072 -22% change In none of the scenarios examined by the Fiscal Research Division do people owe more in income taxes than they did under the previous tax code. But some benefit more than others. Theres no question who benefits the most -- the people at the upper end of the income distribution, said Lawrence Zelenak, a tax law professor at the Duke University School of Law, which is in North Carolina. For most people, it hardly makes any difference. But the people who get the major decrease have incomes of $200,000 or more. Other changes Critics say the new tax law also disproportionately benefits the wealthy because the Legislature did not renew -- effectively eliminating -- the State Earned Income Tax Credit, which is a refundable tax credit for low-income workers. In 2011, about 907,000 North Carolina tax filers claimed the state EITC, according to theNorth Carolina Justice Center, a liberal advocacy group. The maximum credit ranges between $24 for a single person and $302 for a family with three or more children. Additionally, the Legislature expanded the sales tax base -- making more goods and services subject to the tax, which everyone pays regardless of income. The tax base widened to include natural gas, electricity and some entertainment services, including admissions charges. The law also eliminated North Carolinas sales tax holidays and several sales tax exemptions, such as those for newspapers, vending machines and meals sold in schools. Opponents of raising the sales tax andother regressive taxessay they are unfairly burdensome on lower-income people because a higher percentage of their income is subject to these taxes than wealthier people. For example, if two people -- one making $500 a week and the other making $2,000 a week -- spend $100 each on groceries, the person with the lower income is spending a greater share of their income on these taxed items than the person with a higher income. Its worth noting that in 2011 -- Tillis first year as speaker -- the Legislature reduced sales tax rates from 5.75 percent to 4.75 percent. Tillis andother Republicansalso say the new laws reductions in corporate tax rates (down from 6.9 percent to 5 percent, and 3 percent if certain parameters are met) will bring business and jobs to North Carolina, which will benefit everyone and bring in more revenue over the long term. In total, the new tax code will reduce tax-collected revenue by about $684 million between 2013 and 2015, according to the Fiscal Research Division. Less revenue means less money for the state to spend on social programs, which hurts people in low income brackets, Zelenak said. Even if the law does not obviously harm poor people, this is a possible indirect effect. Our ruling A Patriot Majority USA ad said Tillis tax plan would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. North Carolinas tax code saw a wide array of changes in 2013 under Tillis leadership. We found that changes to the income tax code reduced taxes for everyone, but much more for wealthier people than lower-income people. Additionally, sales tax expansions, less government revenue and eliminating the state EITC are especially burdensome on poorer people. But some changes -- such as the increased child credit for lower-income tax filers and the possibility of more jobs and business due to lowered corporate tax rates -- could benefit the whole. Overwhelmingly is a strong word. For that reason, we rate this claim Mostly True. | [
"National",
"State Budget",
"Welfare",
"Taxes"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1288 | Says U.S. corporate tax rate is highest in the world at 35 percent. | 11/01/2012 | [] | Finally, a point where Republicans and at least one prominent Democrat agree.LikePresident Barack Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, Austins U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul says corporate tax rates are too high.To a recentvoters guidequestion on how to combat unemployment, McCaul -- a Republican seeking another term representing the 10th Congressional District -- gave responses that included lowering Americas corporate tax rate, highest in the world at 35 percent.A decrease to 25 percent would stop driving American businesses overseas, McCaul said in the guide, produced by the Austin and Texas chapters of the League of Women Voters and theAustin American-Statesman. McCaul faces Tawana Cadien (Democrat) and Richard Priest (Libertarian) on Nov. 6.PolitiFact has recently checked corporate tax rate claims with a different figure, so we decided to compare this statement.McCaul spokesman Mike Rosen told us by email that 35 percent is the top statutory rate for U.S. corporate taxes, citing an April 5, 2012,backgrounderfrom the Council on Foreign Relations.The council, an independent, nonpartisan think-tank, said the U.S. had the highest corporate tax rate in the world by two measures: Excluding state and local taxes, the rate was 35 percent. With those sub-national taxes, the rate was 39.2 percent.Most news stories we read while researching this fact-check used the latter rate -- combining federal, state and local. Thats the yardstick used in related PolitiFact articles, and its also the statistic that made headlines when an April 1, 2012, rate cut took effect in Japan and moved the U.S. into first place. The rest of the top five are France, Belgium and Germany, according to a September 2011reportby the Washington-based Tax Foundation that gave 2012 federal-plus-state/local rates, weighted to reflect the economies sizes so that small countries would not have a disproportional effect on the average. OECD statutory corporate tax rates, 2012 Source: Tax Foundation 2011report The foundations 2011 report and most of the news articles we read for this story limited their comparisons to advanced industrialized countries -- often citing the34 membersof the global Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. We asked foundation spokesman Richard Morrison for help tracking down country-by-country rates that did not include taxes below the federal level, to make an apples-to-apples comparison with McCauls 35 percent.Morrison pointed us, via email, to anOECD web pagewith achartshowing those numbers for 2012.The U.S. rate of 35 percent is the highest on the chart, with the other OECD nations averaging 23.6 percent (figures that, unlike the statistics cited above, are not weighted to reflect size of national economies).So McCauls statement holds true for federal-level-only corporate tax rates as well as for the state/local-plus-federal rate.Butrecent PolitiFact itemshave also taken into account the rate corporations pay after deductions and exemptions, called the effective rate.In anAug. 27, 2012, Truth-O-Meter article, PolitiFact New Jersey wrote, When you factor in various tax breaks, the rate actually paid by U.S. businesses has been among the highest in the world, but not in first place, studies show.The 2011 foundationreportsummarized 13 studies of effective corporate tax rates across the world, which used different methodologies and were not limited to the OECD roster. The smallest study compared 10 countries; the largest, 183.Those studies found the U.S. effective tax rate ranging from 23 percent to 34.9 percent, which often placed it in the top five, but never No. 1.But the U.S. hit the top spot in a more recent report. Morrison told us the latest such comparison was made in September 2012 for the libertarian Cato Institute. Thatreportcalculated the U.S. effective rate at 35.6 percent and ranked it highest among OECD nations but fourth among all 90 nations it examined.How did U.S. rates get to be among the highest? Actually, other countries dropped theirs, we learned by phone from Jonathan Masters, author of the Council on Foreign Relations piece.We found succinct descriptions of the history in Time magazine and The Hill, a Washington, D.C. newspaper. An April 2, 2012, Timeblog postsays that while the U.S. rate stayed steady for two decades, the trend internationally has been towards lower corporate tax rates. The Hills Aug. 27, 2012blog postsays that in 1986, the OECD nations average corporate tax was 50 percent, but today, its 25 percent for those countries -- it has fallen in half. Meanwhile, the U.S. rate, which fell from 46 percent to 34 percent as a result of tax reform in 1986, is now stuck at 35 percent.Our rulingMcCaul said the U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest in the world at 35 percent.The rate set by federal statute is the highest, both by itself and when considering the federal rate plus state and local taxes.However, theres much less consensus about effective corporate tax rates -- the rates corporations actually pay. Studies dont even agree on what the U.S. effective rate is, pegging it between 23 percent and 35.6 percent. Older studies put the U.S. near the top; a recent study says the U.S. is No. 1 among OECD nations.We rate McCauls statement as Mostly True. | [
"Economy",
"Federal Budget",
"Jobs",
"Taxes",
"Texas"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1gZX7Vx-xQKVLRrmOi3udzrCAaUy-vjDa",
"image_caption": "Austin American-Statesman"
}
] |
FMD_test_1289 | Marco Polo on Muslims | 01/23/2015 | [
"Rumor: Marco Polo commented on the difference between 'militant' and 'moderate' Muslims."
] | Claim: Marco Polo said: "The militant Muslim is the person who beheads the infidel, while the moderate Muslim holds the feet of the victim." Example: [Collected via e-mail, January 2015] A quote attributed to Marco Polo. Marco Polo, a Venetian merchant whose travels are recorded in the Book of the Marvels of the World, was the first to leave a detailed chronicle of his travel experience through Central Asia and China. "The militant Muslim is the person who beheads the infidel, while the moderate Muslim holds the feet of the victim." Is this accurate and attributed to Polo? Origins: The Book of the Marvels of the World, more commonly known in English as The Travels of Marco Polo, is a travelogue compiled in the 13th century by Rustichello da Pisa. The work was based on accounts told to da Pisa by Venetian merchant traveler Marco Polo when the two men were imprisoned together in Genoa and comprises tales of Polo's world travels and his experiences at the court of Kublai Khan. The Book of the Marvels of the World includes descriptions of a number of different cultures and comments about the religion of Islam, but neither Marco Polo nor the compiler of his travel tales wrote a "militant Muslim is the person who beheads the infidel, while the moderate Muslim holds the feet of the victim." The referenced quote has been circulating on the Internet for several years and seems to have originated in an article titled "The Alien Concept of Free Speech" published on a web site called Islamic Scriptures Unveiled. That article offered up several quotes from "great thinkers" about Islam, including the phrase that has since been attributed to Marco Polo. But credit for that quotation was given to a professor of philosophy named Dr. M. Sabieski, not the famous Venetian traveler. originated It's uncertain when Marco Polo's name became incorrectly attached to the "militant Muslim" quote, but it probably started after the Islam Watch web site reproduced the quotes used in the "Alien Concepts of Free Speech" article in August 2008. Islam Watch changed the order of many of the quotes and placed Marco Polo's name below the words originally attributed to Sabieski: reproduced These quotes have subsequently been copied and pasted to various blogs over the years, and somewhere along the line Dr. M. Sabieski's name was elided. An e-mail circulated in January 2015 under the title "Marco Polo Got It Right" included the quote superimposed over an image of Marco Polo: Marco Polo got it right. Marco Polo, a Venetian merchant whose travels are recorded in the Book of the Marvels of the World, was the first to leave a detailed chronicle of his travel experience through Central Asia and China. There is no mention of "moderate" or "militant" Muslims in Book of the Marvels of the World. Marco Polo's name apparently became attached to the quotation now credited to him only because his name appeared in close proximity to the statement when it was reproduced online in 2008. So that's the end of that, right? Well, the origins of the quote are still something a mystery, as no reliable information about Dr. M. Sabieski, the professor of philosophy who was originally credited for these words, is currently available. Last updated: 23 January 2015 | [
"credit"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1YVlZKwiw-ZvRZJWlxXW7me6gFPRtzD0M",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1B0h85d2BKwgg1tbAbWSApbwGTh7JnVmD",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1yV0DfkwylklHbwlVapJlVMQM6uZspjFt",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1290 | Mathias Dopfner on Europe Cowardice | 02/02/2005 | [
"Did German publisher Mathias Dpfner write an editorial blasting the timidity of Europe?"
] | Claim: Axel Springer CEO Mathias Dpfner wrote an editorial for Die Welt blasting Europe for its timidity in confronting Islamic fanaticism. Example: [Dpfner, 2004] A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true. Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements. Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman, suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and, even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us. Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U. N. Oil-for-Food program. And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany. I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time". What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction. It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness. Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed. In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China. On the contrary, we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic, so devoid of a moral compass. For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy, because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake literally everything. While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation, or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "Reach out to terrorists, to understand and forgive". These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house. Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice. Origins: The editorial reproduced above, entitled "Europe, Thy Name Is Cowardice," was written by Mathias Dpfner, CEO of the large German publishing firm Axel Springer, and published in the German periodical Die Welt on 20 November 2004. Axel Springer published However, many of the English-language translations of this editorial that have been circulated via the Internet (such as the one reproduced above) include alterations or additional invective not present in the original. Here is our own translation, which we have prepared to be as faithful to the original as possible: A few days ago, Henryk M. Broder wrote in the Welt am Sonntag, "Europe thy name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so painfully true. Appeasement cost millions of Jews and Gentiles their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated far too long before realizing that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. Appeasement stabilized the Communist Soviet Union and the former East Germany, those parts of Eastern Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the ideological alternative. Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and we debated and debated and were still debating when the Americans finally came in and did our work for us. Rather than protecting the only democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," relativizes the fundamentalist Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel. Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to condone the 300,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery in Iraq and condemn the actions of George Bush in the self-righteousness of the peace movement. And in the end it is also appeasement at its most grotesque when Germany reacts to the escalating violence of Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by proposing a national Muslim holiday. What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership realize that there is a form of crusade underway, an especially perfidious one of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims targeting civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies. This is a conflict that will likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century, waged by an adversary who cannot be tamed by tolerance and accommodation but is instead spurred on by such gestures, mistaking them as signs of weakness. Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for staunch anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, and Bush supported only by the persuasive Social Democrat politician Tony Blair recognized the danger in the Islamic war against democracy. His place in history will need to be evaluated a number of years down the road. In the meantime, Europe snuggles into its multicultural niche instead of defending the values of a liberal society with charismatic certitude and acting as a positive center of power in a delicate balance between the true global powers, America and China. We instead present ourselves as the world champions of tolerance against the intolerants, which even Otto Schily [Germany's former Federal Minister of the Interior] justifiably criticizes. And why, actually? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic. For his policies, Bush risks the devaluation of the dollar, huge amounts of added national debt, and a massive and lasting strain on the American economy because everything is at stake. Yet while America's so allegedly materialistic robber baron capitalists know their priorities, we timidly defend the benefice of our social affluence. Just stay out of it; it could get expensive. We'd rather discuss our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage or listen to televangelists preach about the need to "Reach out to murderers." These days, it sometimes seems that Europe is like a little old lady who cups her shaking hands around her last pieces of jewelry as a thief breaks in right next door. Europe, thy name is Cowardice. Last updated: 29 July 2006 Sources: Dpfner, Mathias. "Europa Dein Name Ist Feigheit." Die Welt. 20 November 2004. | [
"economy"
] | [] |
FMD_test_1291 | Mentos and Coke Death | 11/08/2006 | [
"Mixture of Mentos and Coca-Cola kills child?"
] | Claim: A mixture of Mentos and Coca-Cola killed two Brazilian children. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2006] One year before the same accident happened with another boy in Brazil. Please check the experiment that has been done by mixing Coca Cola with MENTOS........ Be careful with your Coke Origins: Mentos, a candy that has a soft, chewy interior encased in a slightly hard shell, is no longer just for noshing on when combined with a carbonated beverage in a closed environment that has a small opening (think "soda bottle"), it serves to produce a frothy geyser that shoots many feet into the air, a secondary use of the product that has served to enthrall countless persons with a penchant for making things explode. The combination of any carbonated liquid and mint-flavored Mentos will rapidly produce copious amounts of foam because the candy works to disrupt the surface tension of the liquid, thereby releasing all the drink's fizz (carbon dioxide) in one surprisingly speedy whoosh. The resulting effect is quick, high, and explosive, yet what takes place is not a chemical reaction but a physical one (even though some are moved to believe the confection's gum arabic component or diet soda's aspartame has something to do with the process). As Steve Spangler, former high school science teacher turned hands-on science guru, explained: "The Mentos effect has nothing to do with the inside of the Mentos and everything to Steve Spangler do with the outside." The candy's shell is pocked with little nooks and crannies the beverage's carbon dioxide molecules are immediately drawn to, and the confection's relatively large surface area provides infinitely more such nooks and crannies (nucleation sites) than, say, an M&M would. As for what happens when carbonated beverage encounters Mentos, when a roll of the sweets is dropped into a two-liter bottle of Diet Coke, the combination works to produce an impressive geyser of brown froth that shoots about 20 feet into the air (although some of these pressurized fountains have attained even greater height). Diet cola of any manufacture is regarded as the liquid of choice for creating a "Mentos eruption" or "Mentos effect" because a cola's brown color serves to make the reaction much more starkly dramatic in all its explosive glory, and diet versions of those sodas don't leave the same sticky residue that their sugared counterparts do (an aspect well worth considering when contemplating spraying a wide area that you may afterward be called upon to clean). Plus, some folks swear diet sodas make for higher geysers. Numerous video clips of "Mentos eruptions" exist on the Internet; one needn't search all that diligently to stumble across scads of them. Not all such videos found on the Web are on the up-and-up, however, including the famed "Pepsi Girl" clip, which purports to document a demise caused by the ingestion of a mixture of Mentos and Coca-Cola. Which brings us back to this article's topic, the ballyhooed death of a youngster who consumed this combination. This alert about an unnamed child in Brazil's sorry fate began circulating on the Internet in November 2006. Since no checkable details are provided in the account (the deceased is described as "a little boy" rather than by name, he died in "Brazil" rather than in any particular city or region within that country, and his demise occurred "last week" rather than on a specific date), the story should be regarded as fiction. No news accounts of such a death (in Brazil or elsewhere) have surfaced, and given the media's interest in "Mentos effects," such write-ups wouldn't have gasped their last on a jaded editor's desk because they weren't deemed sufficiently newsworthy to include in that day's edition of the local rag. Likewise, with regard to "One year before the same accident happened with another boy in Brazil," once again the news is silent regarding such a death. However, the failure of this explosive combination of candy and soda to cause any fatalities should not be taken as a ringing endorsement of chasing down a handful of Mentos with as much pop as can be gulped. A harmless procedure it's clearly not one look at online video clips of the force of "Mentos effect" eruptions shooting out of pop bottles should convince even the most adventurous not to risk any part of their digestive systems on such parlor tricks. Those who have disregarded common sense and tried such anyway report that the intensity of the reaction forces the mouth open, thereby releasing most of the gas and foam into the wild, as it were, rather than keeping them contained within the person. Do not try such experiments yourself though. Videos of those who have attempted such foolishness consistently show the subjects experiencing great physical distress in the aftermath of their ill-judged stunts. The "child who died from combining Mentos and Coca-Cola" story is an updating of an older legend that began in 1979. That year, the grist being run through the rumor mill included the sad tale of a misadventuring tot who had gulped soda and ingested Pop Rocks, a carbonated candy known for producing a fizzling sensation in the mouth. According to legend, said child went out with a bang. Further versions of the story specified the deceased youngster was the taciturn "Mikey" of LIFE cereal commercials. Mikey Once again there hadn't been such a child, but that did little to slow the rumor's spread. The gruesome appeal of the combusted tot story kept the legend in circulation long after it had been repeatedly debunked and dismissed. Barbara "fizzical attraction" Mikkelson Last updated: 9 November 2006 Sources: | [
"interest"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1eXOAnbyVJywVd-59MZ0WjO5BjM3MLHWY",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1292 | Is there a photograph depicting Ice Cube and 50 Cent wearing hats with the Trump logo? | 10/20/2020 | [
"A manipulated image was just a lil bit misleading."
] | Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but misinformation continues to spread. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. On Oct. 20, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump's son, Eric Trump, posted an image to social media that supposedly showed musicians Ice Cube and Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson wearing "Trump 2020" hats. This is not a genuine photograph of 50 Cent and Ice Cube wearing "Trump 2020" hats; it is a doctored image created from a photograph of Ice Cube and 50 Cent at a BIG3 basketball game in Las Vegas, Nevada, in 2017. In the original image, Ice Cube is wearing a hat with the BIG3 logo, while 50 Cent is wearing a hat with a New York Yankees logo. Ice Cube shared the original photograph on his Twitter page in July 2020, along with a birthday message for his friend 50 Cent. Getty Images has archived a few other photographs taken at this event. The image at the top of this article, for example, carries the caption: "LAS VEGAS, NV - AUGUST 26: BIG3 founder and recording artist Ice Cube and Curtis '50 Cent' Jackson attend the BIG3 three-on-three basketball league championship game on August 26, 2017, in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by Sean M. Haffey/BIG3/Getty Images)." Ice Cube confirmed that the image was fake in a message posted to Twitter, and Trump has since deleted his tweet. Although this image is fake, both musicians have indeed aligned themselves, at least in part, with the Trump administration. While Ice Cube has not endorsed Trump for 2020, he did work with the president's administration to create a "Contract With Black America." Ice Cube stated that he would "advise anyone on the planet who has the power to help Black Americans close the enormous wealth gap." 50 Cent's support for Trump was more explicit. On Oct. 19, 50 Cent took to Instagram and shared a message endorsing Trump, along with a screenshot from CNBC's "Power Lunch" concerning a report that Biden's tax plan would raise the tax rate to as much as 62% on Americans who make more than $400,000 a year. This screenshot comes from a segment of "Power Lunch" that aired on Oct. 19. During this segment, CNBC's Robert Frank explained how people earning more than $400,000 a year could pay income taxes at a rate of more than 62%. Interestingly, Ice Cube and 50 Cent appear to be aligning themselves with Trump for polar opposite reasons. Ice Cube, for instance, said that he was willing to work with either presidential campaign in order to improve the lives of Black Americans and to "close the enormous wealth gap." 50 Cent, on the other hand, stated he didn't care that "Trump doesn't like Black people" and that he was endorsing the incumbent because his opponent's tax plan would increase taxes on wealthy Americans. | [
"income"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=18tbm9FFtV6qhdf8AqTJou9LWKlhVd8fW",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1xKEuNZWjHDx6xfaOYrl3PNeuo6gOuClW",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1293 | Alabama Mother's Tale of Woe with the Affordable Care Act | 01/02/2014 | [
"Alabama mom's Obamacare horror story gives America a glimpse of government run healthcare."
] | Claim: Alabama mom's Obamacare horror story gives America a glimpse of government run healthcare. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example: [Collected on the Internet, December 2013] My family's journey with securing our new insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) started on October 1, 2013. I have decided to write this letter to let the American people know what it has been like for us. We are a family of four, with two little boys' ages seven years old and three years old. My husband and I have had full time jobs for 6 years and 13 years respectively. We have been with the same two companies for those years. We are a middle class family; we own our three bedroom two bath house, we own two cars, and previously provided our own insurance for the four of us. We have coverage through Individual Blue from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama until 12/31/13. Our premiums have been $380.00 a month, which also included dental coverage for all four of us. On October, 1, 2013 we received our letters like other Alabamians about our new premiums and plans for 2014 from Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama. When I opened our letter to say I had sticker shock was an understatement. Our premiums for the Blue Saver Silver would now be $753.26. This included the ACA tax but did not include the additional $75.00 we would need to pay in order to keep dental for me and my husband. So we would need to pay total $828.26 to keep health and dental insurance for the four of us. This payment is roughly $64.00 less than what we pay for our mortgage each month. I was outraged that anyone thought we could afford this. Sure we have some savings, but with that price tag we would whittle it down to almost nothing very quickly. I consider savings as a rainy day fund, a start to saving for the kids college, our retirement, etc. I never dreamed in a million years we would need to use it to pay our insurance premiums each month how in the world could this help the economy too? [Rest of article here.] here Origins: The item referenced above, an open detailing one Alabama woman's extreme difficulty and frustration in obtaining ACA-compliant health insurance coverage for her family (including her 7-year-old son with ADHD) was posted under the name of Karri Kinder on 23 December 2013 as the sole entry in a blog and was republished (without additional comment) by the Independent Journal Review on 31 December 2013. blog republished Certainly her experience is not unique in kind, as many residents of Alabama covered by Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama (an insurer who has an 88% share of the state's health insurance market) found out at the end of 2013 that they would be paying much higher premiums for ACA-compliant coverage through BCBS: Doug Hoffman, who works statewide to help people sign up for benefits through the Affordable Care Act, just received a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama notice in the mail to find health insurance rates for his family have doubled. And he's mad at Blue Cross. "I just got my benefits renewal from Blue Cross for next year and they doubled my rate!" he wrote AL.com in an email. "I was paying $675 for a family premium (2 adults, one 22 yo dependent) with a $1,500 deducible. The new rate for a comparable plan is $1,360 with a $3,000 deductible. Basically they have doubled my costs." "It appears as though Blue Cross is taking advantage of the ACA by hiking rates big time," said Hoffman, who is based in Birmingham with Enroll Alabama. Others, who have received the notices from the state's dominant health insurer are mad as well at Obamacare. "Obama thinks that he is making insurance affordable," wrote one reader to the Mobile Press Register Sound Off feature. "I just got a letter from my Blue Cross Blue Shield that if I want to keep their insurance it's going to cost me $300 more a month. I already pay $300 a month now and they're wanting right at $600 a month for this Affordable Care Act." Blue Cross posted an explanation for the rate hikes to its Facebook page, maintaining that several reasons are behind the increased premiums: more taxes and fees, a requirement to rate family members individually, and the elimination of health underwriting and waiting periods for preexisting conditions: explanation The new law requires all health insurance companies in the individual and small group markets to use a consistent rating method called "member level rating." For the individual market, this means each person on an insurance policy will now be rated based on age, whether he or she uses tobacco, and the county in which the policy holder lives. In the past Blue Cross was able to offer one family premium, no matter the size. For family plans, most family members will now be rated individually. Once each person has been rated, the amounts are added together to get a family's premium cost. For children age 20 and younger, the oldest three children will be individually rated and included in the family premium amount. As a result, larger families may experience higher premiums. As Mike Oliver noted in an article for AL.com, the elimination of health underwriting may have a substantial effect on health insurance premiums in that state: article "Alabama has allowed medical underwriting you're going to be quoted a high premium if you have something wrong with you," said Michael Morrisey, director of the University of Alabama at Birmingham Lister Hill Center for Health Policy. "The Affordable Care Act abolishes medical underwriting." This means that those with expensive health problems will likely now jump in and buy coverage because it will be less expensive for them or if they already have coverage their rates will go down. But that also means rates will go up for everyone else as the insurer spreads that new cost around. "The thing that happens when you eliminate underwriting is that you lump dissimilar people together," Morrisey said. "When you combine groups, one group is better off and the other group is worse off" in terms of premium prices. As a policy, the elimination of medical underwriting and preexisting condition clauses helps broaden access to health care coverage and that was the aim of its inclusion in the Affordable Care Act. Reformers say it eliminates insurers from "cherry-picking" and reduces uncompensated care. Karri Kinder subsequently posted followups to her original blog entry about her insurance issue, the update of 4 January 2014 stating that: Karri Kinder blog entry I do have some good news. Because I decided to write my letter and speak out, people stepped up and helped us. We were contacted on January 1, 2014 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. I was told by the woman I spoke with that she had read my letter and wanted to get her team involved and see what they could do to help us. I recounted to her what was happening and that I had been advised to go ahead and sign me and my husband up for a plan on healthcare.gov. We went with a lower cost plan because it was going to just be the two of us. We had no idea what it was going to cost for the children once we got some answers. So we went with BCBS Blue Value Saver plan. The cost of the plan is $459.19. We qualified for $255.00 in subsidies so the final cost of the plan to us is $204.19 each month. I told the lady that I would cancel that plan if I needed to. What we wanted was to have all of us on one plan like we always have been. She said, "If the kids qualify for All Kids then I am pretty sure they have to go that route or you will have to buy them a plan at the normal rate." So again we were told more than likely we will have to go through All Kids. She took the rest of our information down and said she was getting her team to work on it and would either call us back or All Kids would contact us. Last updated: 4 January 2014 Oliver, Mike. "Blue Cross in Alabama: We Didn't 'Cancel' Health Policies." AL.com. 2 December 2013. Walsh, Alex. "Obamacare, Big Blue, and You." AL.com. 31 December 2013. | [
"economy"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1asodV_dRjQO_HnBw3AOpadJFUVprffli",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1294 | Las Vegas Casino Owners, Gaming Commission Seek to Legalize Dog Fighting | 10/20/2014 | [
"Are Las Vegas casino owners lobbying to legalize dogfighting?"
] | Claim: Las Vegas casino owners and the Nevada Gaming Commission are lobbying to legalize dog fighting. Example: [Collected via email, October 2014] There is an article on a website known as "Empire News" which states that casino owners in Las Vegas are attempting to legalize dog fighting as a new gambling incentive !Is this true ???? Origins: On 12 October 2014, Empire News published an article positing that a steep drop in gambling revenues was inspiring Vegas casino owners and the Nevada gaming commission to push for the legalization of dog fighting in order to reverse that financial decline: article The steady decline in revenue affecting many casinos across the country has forced many gaming houses to seek other sources of income. As a result, the gambling industry has been quietly seeking a controversial betting offshoot legalized and industry regulated dog fighting Social media users erupted in anger and disgust at the claim as it wended its way through Facebook and similar sites: "Think of the images of Michael Vick and everything else that comes to mind when you mention dog fighting," said Roger Kenny, administrator with the Nevada Gaming Commission. In a press release he stated, "If we regulate dog fighting, promote it as a sport, eventually people will come to accept it, and it will be as common as blackjack or prostitution. We'd like to change the negative perception that certain groups have put out there about the activity," he said. If the "as common as blackjack or prostitution" line didn't tip off readers to the article's true nature, the following should have: Dog trainer and television host Cesar Millan said, "This is the most inhumane act that I can think of. Dogs are our companions and are among the most intelligent creatures on Earth. Something like this with cats, now that I could understand," continued Millan. "Put a couple of cats in a boxing ring, maybe with little gloves and helmets nobody's going to give a crap, it's just cats. But with dogs, it's different they're man's best friend. When I heard this news I wanted to rabidly tear the Commission's collective throat out. Of course, you'd be hard-pressed to find a beast more beloved by the internet at large than cats; and the Vegas dog fighting yarn is just one of many "satirical" stories from Empire News, a web site whose stock in trade is posting outrage-provoking fake news articles. Other leg-pulls from the site include "Record-Shattering Snowfall Coming Soon (Bread and Milk Prices Expected to Soar)," "MTV Begins Production On New Show '12 And Pregnant'," and "Colorado Becomes First State to Legalize Crystal Meth." Record-Shattering Snowfall Coming Soon MTV Begins Production On New Show '12 And Pregnant' Colorado Becomes First State to Legalize Crystal Meth A disclaimer page on Empire News admits the publication "is a satirical and entertainment website." disclaimer page Last updated: 20 October 2014 | [
"income"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1IQxNG44ws2NOOtLNfmvfbq0izMYuVGkH",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1295 | Did President Trump Profit from the U.S. Missile Strike Against Syria? | 04/10/2017 | [
"Online reports claimed that President Trump owns stock in Raytheon and thereby profited from a U.S. Tomahawk missile strike on a Syrian airbase in April 2017."
] | On 7 April 2017 multiple web sites reported that President Trump owned stock in defense contractor Raytheon (RTN), thereby standing to personally profit from a U.S. military action strike he ordered that had launched some 59 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian air base the previous day. (Those missiles have an estimated replacement cost of $60 million.) profit replacement cost The headline in one of the more prominent articles of that nature held that "Trump owns stock in the Tomahawk missiles he used in Syria," although the body of the article only averred that Trump had once owned stock in Raytheon: headline In other words Trump just set a bunch of Tomahawk missiles on fire which, according to a recent Defense Department report, may have been worth as much as $93.8 million in total. Why would he do this? Well, he does own shares of stock in the company that makes the Tomahawks. Tomahawk missiles are manufactured by Raytheon Inc., and according to [a] report from Business Insider, Donald Trump owned stock in Raytheon up through at least the start of the presidential election cycle. There is no record that he subsequently sold that stock. Cited at least two links away from that article was a 15 July 2015 Federal Election Committee (FEC) document disclosing then-candidate Donald Trump's financial holdings prior to his election. Page 37 of that 2015 disclosure report listed Raytheon as one of Trump's assorted smaller holdings in 2015: two document Line 23 of that July 2015 form also disclosed that that portion of Donald Trump's portfolio had a value of between $1,001 and $15,000 and brought him $201 or less in income: Newer FEC disclosure forms for President Trump are available, including a similar May 2016 report: The 2016 Raytheon holding was reported as being within the same value range previously stated (i.e., between $1,001 and $15,000), but the listed income derived from it was slightly higher ($1,001 to $2,500): If the stated holdings are accurate, it doesn't appear that President Trump stood to directly gain much, in anything (especially relative to his extant wealth), from Raytheon's market gain following the Syrian attack. According to MarketWatch, several other defense stocks also experienced modest bumps in their value immediately after the event: value Raytheon RTN, +0.25% the maker of the Tomahawk missiles that were used in the attack, was last up 0.8%, after jumping more than 3% in the premarket to lead S&P 500 gainers. Another defense stock, Lockheed Martin Corp. LMT, +0.28% rose 0.9%. L3 Technologies Inc. LLL, +1.78% gained 1.4% and Harris Corp. HRS, +0.62% was up 0.9%. General Dynamics Corp. was up 0.8% and Northrop Grumman Corp. NOC, +0.90% was up 0.7%. A critical long-form piece published by the Atlantic examined President Trump's putative financial conflicts of interest in depth but did not mention Raytheon. examined Rumors that Donald Trump stood to profit off Raytheon stock due to the Syrian missile strike of 7 April 2017 were not the first of their kind. In November 2016, then-President Elect Trump was rumored to be profiting off Energy Transfer Partners's (ETP) Dakota Access Pipeline (completion of which he green-lighted as president), and in December 2016 he was said to hold stock in Carrier (with whom he had just negotiated a pre-inaugural deal). Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks asserted the President Elect sold off his minor stakes in ETP in mid-2016, and Trump's 2016 Personal Financial Disclosure did not include a listing for stock in United Technologies (Carrier's parent corporation). Dakota Access Pipeline Carrier asserted The White House has not responded to our request for comment on President Trump's defense stock holdings. Linnane, Ciara. "Tomahawk Maker Raytheon, Defense Stocks Retreat from Highs Fueled by Syrian Strike."
MarketWatch. 7 April 2017. Mufson, Steven. "Trump Dumped His Stock in the Dakota Access Pipeline Owner Over the Summer."
The Washington Post. 23 November 2016. Murphy, Olive. "Trump Caught Profiting from Missiles Used in Syria Stock Price Skyrockets."
Bipartisan Report. 7 April 2017. Palmer, Bill. "Donald Trump Owns Stock in the Tomahawk Missiles He Used in Syria."
Palmer Report. 7 April 2017. Terrarosa, Tom. "How Raytheon Really Stands to Gain from U.S. Missile Attack."
TheStreet. 7 April 2017. Venook, Jeremy. "Donald Trumps Conflicts of Interest: A Crib Sheet."
The Atlantic. 7 April 2017. Walker, Hunter and Myles Udland. "Here's What's In Donald Trump's Stock Portfolio."
Business Insider. 22 July 2015. Walker, Hunter. "Donald Trump Personal Financial Disclosure Report."
Scribd. 22 July 2015 (page 37). The Dallas Morning News. "Donald Trump Form 278E Disclosure 2016."
14 June 2016 (page 37). | [
"income"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1_1CYAf1xk0NzQPxRKYcrCWmOvly_oFVA",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1HhJ204keFpBhEpWKdxl9TBlTRaxpSgLl",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1296 | Pele and Lava Rocks | 03/03/2003 | [
"Tourists who have taken rocks from Hawaiian beaches have returned them in hopes of ending streaks of bad luck."
] | Claim: Tourists who have taken rocks from Hawaiian beaches have returned them in hopes of ending streaks of bad luck. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2001] Hawaiian legend: anyone that removes a piece of rock from the Hawaiian Volcanoes National Park will incur the wrath of the Godess Pele. Supposedly terrible curses follow those that do prompting them to soon abandon the rock(s) in interest of self-preservation. Origins: Can a souvenir casually pocketed on a Hawaiian beach bring misfortune? Though the more skeptical will scoffingly dismiss the notion as pure hooey, thousands have come to believe that yes, volcanic rocks taken from Hawaii fetch with them a curse of impressive proportions. And the only way to undo the jinx is to return the purloined items whence they came. Legend has it that Pele, goddess of fire and volcanoes, is so angered when the rocks (which she sees as her children) are taken from her that she exacts a terrible revenge on the thief. She is especially protective of volcanic rock and sand, two items tourists almost unthinkingly pocket as mementos of their vacations. After all, who would miss a rock? Pele, apparently. Hawaii Volcanoes National Park and far too many hotels to name receive a never-ending stream of packages containing sand, shells, and rocks from guilty-minded vacationers who are intent upon reversing their sudden downpours of bad luck. Many of these returns are accompanied by notes begging forgiveness of the goddess or detailing litanies of calamities that have befallen these casual purloiners: Please take this sand and put it back somewhere on your island. I have had very bad luck since it came into my life and I am very sorry I took it. Please forgive me and I pray that once I send it back where it comes from, my bad luck will go away. Please return to soil. I have been having bad luck. Ever since we have taken items, we have had nothing but back luck and medical problems. We apologize for taking items, so we are returning same to Hawaii. We placed the rock last fall on a cast iron chair in our garden, this spring the chair's leg had fallen off. This is the least of the problems we have had since we have taken the rock. Pele's supposed curse is not a mild-mannered one. Those allegedly afflicted by it don't misplace their car keys or develop runs in their stockings their bad luck is of the grievous variety. Pets die. Jobs are lost. Houses burn down. Sudden and devastating illness strikes loved ones. Marriages break apart. The Los Angeles Times reported on the sad case of Timothy Murray, a 32-year-old who scooped some of the unusual black sand from Hawaii Volcanoes National Park into a bottle and brought it back with him to Florida. Everything in his life immediately went into a nosedive: his pet died, his five-year relationship with a gal he was to marry ended, and the FBI arrested him in a computer copyright infringement case. The native Hawaiian view of taking such souvenirs is that it's tantamount to stealing from Pele while visiting her home. Only the return of the stolen items appeases her wrath. Some believe the curse is the invention of park rangers who became fed up with visitors making off with little bits of the island. Whether the curse has an ancient origin or a modern one, many have come to respect it thanks to the cascade of bad luck that descends upon those who take volcanic keepsakes. Barbara "rock steadied" Mikkelson Additional Information: Rock Return Service (Volcano Gallery) Last updated: 16 May 2013 Honolulu Advertiser. 28 January 2003. Cart, Julie. "Hard Luck Blamed on Hot Rocks." Los Angeles Times. 7 May 2001. Chalfant, Anne. "Returned Lava Rocks Fill a Garden to Appease a Goddess in Hawaii." The Salt Lake Tribune. 12 January 2003. Cart, Julie. "Hard Luck Blamed on Hot Rocks." Los Angeles Times. 7 May 2001. Chalfant, Anne. "Returned Lava Rocks Fill a Garden to Appease a Goddess in Hawaii." The Salt Lake Tribune. 12 January 2003. Los Angeles Times. 7 May 2001. Chalfant, Anne. "Returned Lava Rocks Fill a Garden to Appease a Goddess in Hawaii." The Salt Lake Tribune. 12 January 2003. Chalfant, Anne. "Returned Lava Rocks Fill a Garden to Appease a Goddess in Hawaii." The Salt Lake Tribune. 12 January 2003. The Salt Lake Tribune. 12 January 2003. | [
"interest"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1m_gIouM4pqkkfYkn7rgdzgtz4k4iO0k2",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1297 | Did 30,000 Cows Freeze to Death in a Winter Storm? | 01/11/2017 | [
"A story that thousands of cattle were left dead after a winter storm was from 2015, not 2017."
] | In January 2017, a photograph purportedly showing a group of cows that had apparently frozen solid was circulated on Facebook along with the claim that 30,000 animals had just died in a winter storm. Both the photograph displayed here and its accompanying claim are legitimate. However, while this meme reappeared (and was mistaken for current) in January 2017, this graphic actually references a winter storm that occurred at the end of December 2015. Weather.com reported that more than 15,000 cows died during Winter Storm Goliath in Texas, while another 20,000 froze to death in New Mexico. Dairy producers in Texas and New Mexico have estimated that the number of animals that died during Winter Storm Goliath will climb to more than 30,000. The winds are believed to be the cause of many of the animals' deaths. They created drifts as high as 14 feet and pushed animals into fenced corners where they suffocated, according to The Associated Press. "As Winter Storm Goliath wrapped up over the southern Plains, strong winds were associated with the storm's tightening pressure gradient," said Weather.com meteorologist Quincy Vagell. "When combined with snow, the winds were strong enough to create dangerous blizzard conditions." Executive director of the Texas Association of Dairymen, Darren Turley, stated that an estimated 15,000 mature dairy cows died between Lubbock, Muleshoe, and Friona, the primary impact area of the storm, AP also reports. This region includes half of the state's top 10 milk-producing counties, which provide 40 percent of Texas milk. According to an agent with New Mexico State University's extension service, the state lost an estimated 20,000 cows. "Like all agriculture, dairy producers always operate at the mercy of Mother Nature," said Turley. "With Goliath, she dealt a particularly harsh and costly blow to the area's dairy producers, from the death of thousands of livestock they spend so much time caring for to a loss of milk production both over the weekend and in the future." The photograph is also real, although we were unable to determine a definite source. An uncropped version of the image was published by Tri-State Livestock News shortly after the storm, which showed a group of frozen (or near-frozen) cattle on the side of the road. The other part of the meme heavily implied that the cows froze to death out of neglect because nobody "felt the need" to bring them inside in the cold weather. The truth is, of course, more complicated. A January 5, 2016 report from the Houston Chronicle detailed efforts farmers undertook to protect their cattle from the freak storm. More than one foot of snow on December 27 surprised ranchers and dairy farmers in a region accustomed to a few inches of precipitation each winter. Unlike their northern peers, Texas cattle raisers rarely own four-walled barns designed to keep cattle warm, often opting instead for open structures meant to keep Texas cattle cool during the long, hot summers. Forecast warnings of a "historic blizzard" came too late. Voinis said some cattle raisers had tried to build shelters with hay bales and machinery, to little avail. Some cattle were buried in snowdrifts formed by gale-force winds. Others froze to death in the open, died of frostbite in later days, or just disappeared. Initial loss estimates increased greatly in the days following the storm. A similar story unfolded in New Mexico, which was swept by the same storm. Meteorologists sounded the first warnings about the storm some eight days before it hit on December 26. Farmers prepared as best they could—putting down extra bedding behind windbreaks, placing extra bales of hay in front of calf bungalows, and in places where snow typically accumulates. But as the blizzard raged on, cows that had sought shelter behind windbreakers were buried alive by drifting snow. Others froze to death in open fields. Calves that had been nestled inside hutches went hungry because no one could reach them. Farmers who tried to rescue their animals became disoriented and lost on their own land. "We did the best we could for our animals," Ms. Beckerink said. "But as the storm worsened, saving them meant risking the lives of our workers—a horrifying decision to make." The deaths of the cattle dramatically affected the livelihoods of farmers in both states. It is extremely unlikely that any farmer (dependent on their animals for money and food) would cavalierly leave their main source of income and food out in the snow to freeze to death, despite what this meme implies. | [
"loss"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1aYYjpBZRxFfddfoDtCKJwXhhNYotcNNF",
"image_caption": null
},
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1nKfmfmVogYpd4933fpod0b3isnhBh7i8",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1298 | Pic Shows Taylor Swift Eating Ice Cream as Children Cry? | 11/13/2023 | [
"The photo was supposedly taken while she was visiting a small African village, according to a viral post."
] | In November 2023, an image circulated online allegedly showing Taylor Swift holding an ice cream cone as children cry. One post on X (formerly Twitter) claimed, Taylor Swift has recently shared a photo of her visiting a small village and enjoying an ice cream on her most recent trip to Africa." claimed ? BREAKING NEWS ? Taylor Swift has recently shared a photo of her visiting a small village and enjoying an ice cream on her most recent trip to Africa ? the photo is disturbing to say the least as it's obvious this child is crying and she is enjoying his misery. How cruel... pic.twitter.com/Yql07nhrTL pic.twitter.com/Yql07nhrTL TheButcher_1776 (@TheButcher_1776) November 12, 2023 November 12, 2023 "I hope this is fake," one X user commented on the above-mentioned post. "Why would Taylor do this?" read another post with over 72,900 views, as of this writing. Some social media users shared the image as part of an alleged conversation containing the message, "All i know is that she went to Africa and flew on her private jet just to take this photo." commented read shared alleged conversation From the Africa leg of her tourbyu/_tomato_paste_ inpopheadscirclejerk From the Africa leg of her tour u/_tomato_paste_ popheadscirclejerk We used reverse-image search to verify the authenticity of the viral image. The results showed it had been shared, for instance, on iFunny a meme website. However, no reliable sources of news had posted the photo, nor was it published by any of Swift's official social media accounts. reverse-image search results iFunny Moreover, we closely examined the image and saw telltale signs of artificial-intelligence (AI) software. For instance, a child's body in the center of the image was deformed, and several hands in the background were unnaturally shaped or blurred. artificial-intelligence (X user @TheButcher_1776) In sum, because the photo was created using AI software, we rated it "Fake." this Furthermore, at the time of its circulation, Swift had not recently made a trip to a small village in Africa, much less anywhere else on the continent. She was instead in South America for a run of performances in Buenos Aires, Argentina, as part of "The Eras Tour." South America The Eras Tour Argentina, Billboard. 5 Highlights From Taylor Swifts First of Three Sold-Out Shows in Buenos Aires.Billboard, 10 Nov. 2023, https://www.billboard.com/music/concerts/taylor-swift-buenos-aires-concert-highlights-1235468238/. | [
"share"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1BMgPRjoP9ghGFgn4TkaclEADGK70LFL9",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
FMD_test_1299 | Elijah Cummings Said Democrats Gave Black People the Right to Vote? | 07/27/2016 | [
"A meme claiming Rep. Elijah Cummings misattributed responsibility for the 15th Amendment during his 2016 DNC speech was mostly inaccurate itself."
] | Around July 25, 2016, various versions of the claim reproduced above began circulating, suggesting that Representative Elijah Cummings incorrectly stated that Democrats were responsible for giving black people the right to vote during his 2016 Democratic National Convention speech. The portion most in line with the meme included the following remarks: "It was our Democratic Party that pushed open the opportunities for me and millions of children across this great country. It was our party that fought for Head Start and good schools, made college affordable, championed affirmative action and school desegregation, passed Social Security and Medicare, fought for veterans back home, fought for the rights of workers, and made the dream of home ownership possible for millions of American families. Yes, it still is our Democratic Party. Civil rights and voting rights—and voting rights. As we Democrats—it is we Democrats who fully understand that when you take away a person's right to vote, you take away their ability to shape their own destiny. And it was and it is our Democratic Party that fights for women's rights, gay rights, and LGBTQ rights. Our party understands that black lives matter." Cummings' quote was ambiguous, but he appeared to say that the Democrats "fought" for civil rights and voting rights, a fairly open-ended statement. Many critics argued that Cummings' statement was incorrect based on historical fact: The 15th Amendment to the Constitution granted African American men the right to vote by declaring that the "right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Although ratified on February 3, 1870, the promise of the 15th Amendment would not be fully realized for almost a century. Through the use of poll taxes, literacy tests, and other means, Southern states were able to effectively disenfranchise African Americans. It would take the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 before the majority of African Americans in the South were registered to vote. The meme reproduced above stated that 141 Republicans voted to approve the 15th Amendment, with zero Democrats in favor, 39 no votes, and seven abstentions. According to the Library of Congress, the vote was as follows: The House of Representatives passed the 15th Amendment on February 25, 1869, by a vote of 144 to 44. The Senate passed the 15th Amendment on February 26, 1869, by a vote of 39 to 13. The text of the 15th Amendment can be found in the United States Statutes at Large, volume 16, page 346 (15 Stat. 346). Secretary of State Hamilton Fish issued a proclamation certifying the ratification of the 15th Amendment by the states on March 30, 1870. A detailed tally of Senate Vote #586 in January 1869 indicated support by Republicans with 33 "yea" votes and zero for Democrats. While the meme was close to accurate in providing tallies by party for votes on the 15th Amendment, it was less so with Cummings' remarks. Putting aside the fact that it did not mention any changes in party dynamics between the 1940s and 1970s, it also misconstrued Cummings' statements to suggest that he incorrectly attributed the 15th Amendment specifically to Democrats and not Republicans. | [
"taxes"
] | [
{
"image_src": "https://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=19rz7l1WpaHbUT3NxDc7Nay-NGn9evUUe",
"image_caption": null
}
] |
Subsets and Splits