Datasets:

tingchih

/

EM

like 0

A candidate named Vermin Supreme is running for President in 2016 on a platform of free ponies for everyone.

Neutral

The above-reproduced meme, which has been circulating on social media for an indeterminate amount of time, showed a man wearing two ties and a boot on his head. It maintained: In New Hampshire, a man calling himself vermin supreme filed for the presidential primary. He said in his administration, every American will receive a pony. He also plans to defeat ISIS by going back in time. On 24 November 2015, the web site deathandtaxes published an article titled 'Vermin Supreme running for president, still wants to give everyone a pony'; that item subsequently explained the 'candidate' was no newcomer to politics and had been engaging in acts of political art and protest since the 1980s: Perennial political candidate Vermin Supreme filed papers on Friday to run for the presidential primary in New Hampshire. In a field that includes 30 Republicans and 28 Democrats, the Maryland Democrat stands out for his unique headgear, lush, wizard-like beard, and consistently pro-pony platform. Asked about how he'd defeat terrorists, he answered 'Hooves on the ground and boots on our heads!' Political Monitor reports that Mr. Supreme paid his $1,000 registration fee in $50 bills marked 'not to be used for bribing politicians.' Of course, this ain't his first rodeo; this will be the protest candidate's seventh run for president of these United States, and he's been using absurdist humor to agitate against bourgeois democracy and stir up protest votes since the 1980s. But with 'serious' candidates for president like Ben Carson and Donald Trump getting more outlandish by the day, the Vermin message seems more relevant than ever. An ABC.net.au article titled 'Vermin Supreme 2016: Alternative US presidential candidate promises free ponies for all' reported that the 'bearded eccentric ... regularly sports a boot on his head' and 'has been running for public office since 1987': A well-known performance artist and activist has declared he will run as a US presidential candidate on a free pony platform. Vermin Supreme filed his paperwork for the New Hampshire presidential primary ballot on the last day before applications closed, along with the registration fee of $US1,000 - which he paid in $50 bills marked 'not to be used for bribing politicians'. 'The pony-based economy is truly the most important issue in America today. Fossil fuels are literally killing the planet, and today, we stop that,' he told the crowd gathered for his filing. 'We don't need no more cars, we have ponies.' The approximate date on which the above-reproduced meme was created was unclear, but the image in question appeared no later than May 2012, and was unrelated to Vermin Supreme's November 2015 filings. A 21 January 2016 CNN piece titled 'The presidential candidates you've never heard of' reported that Supreme's earlier campaigns were thwarted by a ban relating to 'property damage' during a 2011 debate: At the last lesser-known candidate debate in 2011, he stood up and poured glitter over the head of one of his competitors in order to, in his words, 'make him gay.' Supreme was barred from the forum this year for 'property damage' and relegated to a zone surrounded by police tape outside the debate hall, where he stood with two toy ponies, a campaign sign painted onto a boogie board and a giant boot on his head. A 2012 item from CNN described Supreme's 28 August 2012 appearance outside the Republican National Convention in Tampa: The gray-bearded hippie standing between them wore a boot on his head. 'Between the cops and the protesters, there's a vacuum. That's the space I occupy,' Vermin Supreme explained afterward. 'It looked a little scary. It looked like it might get tense.' The self-described 'friendly fascist,' who is a perennial presidential candidate and veteran of countless protests, recited passages from police manuals on crowd control tactics. Using the bullhorn, he urged calm: 'Nobody needs to get hurt here.' A man next to him started to warble 'Over the Rainbow,' and Vermin Supreme felt soothed. He held the bullhorn close to the singer, letting the melody wash over the crowd of about 150. The tension melted away. It was, he said, 'a beautiful moment.' So while it's true Vermin Supreme has been throwing his hat (or boot) into the ring electorally since roughly 1987, his forays were never intended to be serious campaigns. Supreme is a performance artist, and political events are a common medium through which he performs.

nan

A candidate named Vermin Supreme is running for President in 2016 on a platform of free ponies for everyone.

Neutral

The above-reproduced meme, which has been circulating on social media for an indeterminate amount of time, showed a man wearing two ties and a boot on his head. It maintained: In New Hampshire, a man calling himself vermin supreme filed for the presidential primary. He said in his administration, every American will receive a pony. He also plans to defeat ISIS by going back in time. On 24 November 2015, the web site deathandtaxes published an article titled 'Vermin Supreme running for president, still wants to give everyone a pony'; that item subsequently explained the 'candidate' was no newcomer to politics and had been engaging in acts of political art and protest since the 1980s: Perennial political candidate Vermin Supreme filed papers on Friday to run for the presidential primary in New Hampshire. In a field that includes 30 Republicans and 28 Democrats, the Maryland Democrat stands out for his unique headgear, lush, wizard-like beard, and consistently pro-pony platform. Asked about how he'd defeat terrorists, he answered 'Hooves on the ground and boots on our heads!' Political Monitor reports that Mr. Supreme paid his $1,000 registration fee in $50 bills marked 'not to be used for bribing politicians.' Of course, this ain't his first rodeo; this will be the protest candidate's seventh run for president of these United States, and he's been using absurdist humor to agitate against bourgeois democracy and stir up protest votes since the 1980s. But with 'serious' candidates for president like Ben Carson and Donald Trump getting more outlandish by the day, the Vermin message seems more relevant than ever. An ABC.net.au article titled 'Vermin Supreme 2016: Alternative US presidential candidate promises free ponies for all' reported that the 'bearded eccentric ... regularly sports a boot on his head' and 'has been running for public office since 1987': A well-known performance artist and activist has declared he will run as a US presidential candidate on a free pony platform. Vermin Supreme filed his paperwork for the New Hampshire presidential primary ballot on the last day before applications closed, along with the registration fee of $US1,000 - which he paid in $50 bills marked 'not to be used for bribing politicians'. 'The pony-based economy is truly the most important issue in America today. Fossil fuels are literally killing the planet, and today, we stop that,' he told the crowd gathered for his filing. 'We don't need no more cars, we have ponies.' The approximate date on which the above-reproduced meme was created was unclear, but the image in question appeared no later than May 2012, and was unrelated to Vermin Supreme's November 2015 filings. A 21 January 2016 CNN piece titled 'The presidential candidates you've never heard of' reported that Supreme's earlier campaigns were thwarted by a ban relating to 'property damage' during a 2011 debate: At the last lesser-known candidate debate in 2011, he stood up and poured glitter over the head of one of his competitors in order to, in his words, 'make him gay.' Supreme was barred from the forum this year for 'property damage' and relegated to a zone surrounded by police tape outside the debate hall, where he stood with two toy ponies, a campaign sign painted onto a boogie board and a giant boot on his head. A 2012 item from CNN described Supreme's 28 August 2012 appearance outside the Republican National Convention in Tampa: The gray-bearded hippie standing between them wore a boot on his head. 'Between the cops and the protesters, there's a vacuum. That's the space I occupy,' Vermin Supreme explained afterward. 'It looked a little scary. It looked like it might get tense.' The self-described 'friendly fascist,' who is a perennial presidential candidate and veteran of countless protests, recited passages from police manuals on crowd control tactics. Using the bullhorn, he urged calm: 'Nobody needs to get hurt here.' A man next to him started to warble 'Over the Rainbow,' and Vermin Supreme felt soothed. He held the bullhorn close to the singer, letting the melody wash over the crowd of about 150. The tension melted away. It was, he said, 'a beautiful moment.' So while it's true Vermin Supreme has been throwing his hat (or boot) into the ring electorally since roughly 1987, his forays were never intended to be serious campaigns. Supreme is a performance artist, and political events are a common medium through which he performs.

nan

A candidate named Vermin Supreme is running for President in 2016 on a platform of free ponies for everyone.

Neutral

The above-reproduced meme, which has been circulating on social media for an indeterminate amount of time, showed a man wearing two ties and a boot on his head. It maintained: In New Hampshire, a man calling himself vermin supreme filed for the presidential primary. He said in his administration, every American will receive a pony. He also plans to defeat ISIS by going back in time. On 24 November 2015, the web site deathandtaxes published an article titled 'Vermin Supreme running for president, still wants to give everyone a pony'; that item subsequently explained the 'candidate' was no newcomer to politics and had been engaging in acts of political art and protest since the 1980s: Perennial political candidate Vermin Supreme filed papers on Friday to run for the presidential primary in New Hampshire. In a field that includes 30 Republicans and 28 Democrats, the Maryland Democrat stands out for his unique headgear, lush, wizard-like beard, and consistently pro-pony platform. Asked about how he'd defeat terrorists, he answered 'Hooves on the ground and boots on our heads!' Political Monitor reports that Mr. Supreme paid his $1,000 registration fee in $50 bills marked 'not to be used for bribing politicians.' Of course, this ain't his first rodeo; this will be the protest candidate's seventh run for president of these United States, and he's been using absurdist humor to agitate against bourgeois democracy and stir up protest votes since the 1980s. But with 'serious' candidates for president like Ben Carson and Donald Trump getting more outlandish by the day, the Vermin message seems more relevant than ever. An ABC.net.au article titled 'Vermin Supreme 2016: Alternative US presidential candidate promises free ponies for all' reported that the 'bearded eccentric ... regularly sports a boot on his head' and 'has been running for public office since 1987': A well-known performance artist and activist has declared he will run as a US presidential candidate on a free pony platform. Vermin Supreme filed his paperwork for the New Hampshire presidential primary ballot on the last day before applications closed, along with the registration fee of $US1,000 - which he paid in $50 bills marked 'not to be used for bribing politicians'. 'The pony-based economy is truly the most important issue in America today. Fossil fuels are literally killing the planet, and today, we stop that,' he told the crowd gathered for his filing. 'We don't need no more cars, we have ponies.' The approximate date on which the above-reproduced meme was created was unclear, but the image in question appeared no later than May 2012, and was unrelated to Vermin Supreme's November 2015 filings. A 21 January 2016 CNN piece titled 'The presidential candidates you've never heard of' reported that Supreme's earlier campaigns were thwarted by a ban relating to 'property damage' during a 2011 debate: At the last lesser-known candidate debate in 2011, he stood up and poured glitter over the head of one of his competitors in order to, in his words, 'make him gay.' Supreme was barred from the forum this year for 'property damage' and relegated to a zone surrounded by police tape outside the debate hall, where he stood with two toy ponies, a campaign sign painted onto a boogie board and a giant boot on his head. A 2012 item from CNN described Supreme's 28 August 2012 appearance outside the Republican National Convention in Tampa: The gray-bearded hippie standing between them wore a boot on his head. 'Between the cops and the protesters, there's a vacuum. That's the space I occupy,' Vermin Supreme explained afterward. 'It looked a little scary. It looked like it might get tense.' The self-described 'friendly fascist,' who is a perennial presidential candidate and veteran of countless protests, recited passages from police manuals on crowd control tactics. Using the bullhorn, he urged calm: 'Nobody needs to get hurt here.' A man next to him started to warble 'Over the Rainbow,' and Vermin Supreme felt soothed. He held the bullhorn close to the singer, letting the melody wash over the crowd of about 150. The tension melted away. It was, he said, 'a beautiful moment.' So while it's true Vermin Supreme has been throwing his hat (or boot) into the ring electorally since roughly 1987, his forays were never intended to be serious campaigns. Supreme is a performance artist, and political events are a common medium through which he performs.

nan

John Kasich said he won elections because women came out of their kitchens to vote for him.

Neutral

On 22 February 2016, a clip featuring remarks made by presidential candidate John Kasich circulated widely on social media. A short snippet (or a transcribed quote taken from it) from earlier that day suggested that Kasich declared female voters had 'left their kitchens' to cast ballots for him: How did I get elected? I didn't have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, and many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me. The video spliced together Kasich's comments with those of a town hall attendee, creating the impression of a direct statement and response. After Kasich spoke, she said she would come out to vote for him, but wouldn't be leaving her kitchen to do so. That interpretation was quickly disseminated across the web: Gov. John Kasich is still in the race and still trying to frame himself as the moderate, compassionate Republican, but on Monday, the governor issued two glaring reminders of his very un-moderate contempt for women. During a campaign event, in a video that went viral almost instantaneously, Kasich made a comment about his female supporters that was as bizarrely unnecessary as it was condescending. 'How did I get elected?' Kasich said. 'I didn't have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, and many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me.' He did not specify if they untied their aprons or put on their shoes. Later, a woman in the audience decided to confront him, sort of, on this. 'I'll support you,' she said. 'But I won't be coming out of the kitchen.' It's 2016. A woman's place is...wherever she wants it to be. https://t.co/lkXdirHlap - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 22, 2016 Ohio Governor John Kasich, who defunded Planned Parenthood yesterday, said Monday morning at a town hall in Virginia that he got elected governor to the state Senate because women 'came out of their kitchens to support me.' Oh? 'I didn't have anybody for me,' Kasich said, during a town hall at George Mason University in Fairfax this morning. 'We just got an army of people who-and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and put yard signs up.' Not all reporting seized upon the use of the word 'kitchens' alone. Some also included context: Quickly, a highly misleading, a 22-second edited version of Kasich's remarks began circulating, with the implication being that Kasich was an out-of-touch throwback who in his mind at least still consigned women to the kitchen. The edited clip included a woman in the audience later in the rally telling Kasich she would be supporting him but she wouldn't be coming out of her kitchen to do it. Early on in the fray, reporters attempted to clarify the comments' context: Here's the full verbate on John Kasich's women/kitchen comment... pic.twitter.com/rYRZTwzPl2 - Kailani Koenig (@kailanikm) February 22, 2016 Here's Kasich spox @chrisschrimpf on 'kitchen' remark: 'to try and twist his comments' is 'just desperate politics' pic.twitter.com/KGYsVWXVdm - Hallie Jackson (@HallieJackson) February 22, 2016 Jezebel updated their coverage with a clarification: The full verbatim quote from the rally shows that Kasich was either talking about his race to the state Senate in 1978, or winning a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982. We assure you women were working outside of the kitchen in both those years. The New York Times was among outlets that carried the quote in its larger context, observing that Kasich credited women for helping launch his political career: 'How did I get elected? I didn't have anybody for me,' he said at a town-hall-style forum at George Mason University. 'We just got an army of people - and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and to put yard signs up for me, all the way back when, you know, things were different.' Mr. Kasich was elected to the Ohio Senate in 1978, when he was 26. 'Now you call homes and everybody's out working,' Mr. Kasich added. 'But at that time, early days, it was an army of the women that really helped me to get elected to the State Senate.' The paper also quoted Kasich on the reaction tweet: Asked later Monday about the Twitter post by Mrs. Clinton's campaign, Mr. Kasich told reporters, 'I completely agree.' Before an event at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Mr. Kasich said the town-hall-style meetings he now holds on the campaign trail used to be in kitchens and living rooms, and said women have played a large role in his political career. He noted that his campaign manager, his lone appointment to Ohio's Supreme Court, and his lieutenant governor are all women. After the short clip made the social media rounds, Kasich's complete remarks were published to YouTube: In light of the broader context, some outlets revised their coverage of Kasich's statement in order to provide a more accurate portrayal of the remarks. Kasich himself later admitted that the wording was clumsy. While it was true Kasich described women 'coming out of kitchens' to support him, he was describing a grassroots campaign effort at the start of his career in 1978, not election days in any recent years. A portion of the remarks mentioned an 'army of women' who were responsible for getting his career off the ground. After the context of the quote was added, some outlets revised their original reports, and others noted that women weren't exclusively homemakers in 1978. While there were plenty of career women in 1978 (51 percent of women were in the labor force to at least some degree in 1978, compared to 57 percent in 2014) Kasich's remarks were edited to appear far more regressive than they did in context, and most initial takes were based on nothing more than a partial quote.

nan

John Kasich said he won elections because women came out of their kitchens to vote for him.

Neutral

On 22 February 2016, a clip featuring remarks made by presidential candidate John Kasich circulated widely on social media. A short snippet (or a transcribed quote taken from it) from earlier that day suggested that Kasich declared female voters had 'left their kitchens' to cast ballots for him: How did I get elected? I didn't have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, and many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me. The video spliced together Kasich's comments with those of a town hall attendee, creating the impression of a direct statement and response. After Kasich spoke, she said she would come out to vote for him, but wouldn't be leaving her kitchen to do so. That interpretation was quickly disseminated across the web: Gov. John Kasich is still in the race and still trying to frame himself as the moderate, compassionate Republican, but on Monday, the governor issued two glaring reminders of his very un-moderate contempt for women. During a campaign event, in a video that went viral almost instantaneously, Kasich made a comment about his female supporters that was as bizarrely unnecessary as it was condescending. 'How did I get elected?' Kasich said. 'I didn't have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, and many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me.' He did not specify if they untied their aprons or put on their shoes. Later, a woman in the audience decided to confront him, sort of, on this. 'I'll support you,' she said. 'But I won't be coming out of the kitchen.' It's 2016. A woman's place is...wherever she wants it to be. https://t.co/lkXdirHlap - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 22, 2016 Ohio Governor John Kasich, who defunded Planned Parenthood yesterday, said Monday morning at a town hall in Virginia that he got elected governor to the state Senate because women 'came out of their kitchens to support me.' Oh? 'I didn't have anybody for me,' Kasich said, during a town hall at George Mason University in Fairfax this morning. 'We just got an army of people who-and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and put yard signs up.' Not all reporting seized upon the use of the word 'kitchens' alone. Some also included context: Quickly, a highly misleading, a 22-second edited version of Kasich's remarks began circulating, with the implication being that Kasich was an out-of-touch throwback who in his mind at least still consigned women to the kitchen. The edited clip included a woman in the audience later in the rally telling Kasich she would be supporting him but she wouldn't be coming out of her kitchen to do it. Early on in the fray, reporters attempted to clarify the comments' context: Here's the full verbate on John Kasich's women/kitchen comment... pic.twitter.com/rYRZTwzPl2 - Kailani Koenig (@kailanikm) February 22, 2016 Here's Kasich spox @chrisschrimpf on 'kitchen' remark: 'to try and twist his comments' is 'just desperate politics' pic.twitter.com/KGYsVWXVdm - Hallie Jackson (@HallieJackson) February 22, 2016 Jezebel updated their coverage with a clarification: The full verbatim quote from the rally shows that Kasich was either talking about his race to the state Senate in 1978, or winning a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982. We assure you women were working outside of the kitchen in both those years. The New York Times was among outlets that carried the quote in its larger context, observing that Kasich credited women for helping launch his political career: 'How did I get elected? I didn't have anybody for me,' he said at a town-hall-style forum at George Mason University. 'We just got an army of people - and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and to put yard signs up for me, all the way back when, you know, things were different.' Mr. Kasich was elected to the Ohio Senate in 1978, when he was 26. 'Now you call homes and everybody's out working,' Mr. Kasich added. 'But at that time, early days, it was an army of the women that really helped me to get elected to the State Senate.' The paper also quoted Kasich on the reaction tweet: Asked later Monday about the Twitter post by Mrs. Clinton's campaign, Mr. Kasich told reporters, 'I completely agree.' Before an event at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Mr. Kasich said the town-hall-style meetings he now holds on the campaign trail used to be in kitchens and living rooms, and said women have played a large role in his political career. He noted that his campaign manager, his lone appointment to Ohio's Supreme Court, and his lieutenant governor are all women. After the short clip made the social media rounds, Kasich's complete remarks were published to YouTube: In light of the broader context, some outlets revised their coverage of Kasich's statement in order to provide a more accurate portrayal of the remarks. Kasich himself later admitted that the wording was clumsy. While it was true Kasich described women 'coming out of kitchens' to support him, he was describing a grassroots campaign effort at the start of his career in 1978, not election days in any recent years. A portion of the remarks mentioned an 'army of women' who were responsible for getting his career off the ground. After the context of the quote was added, some outlets revised their original reports, and others noted that women weren't exclusively homemakers in 1978. While there were plenty of career women in 1978 (51 percent of women were in the labor force to at least some degree in 1978, compared to 57 percent in 2014) Kasich's remarks were edited to appear far more regressive than they did in context, and most initial takes were based on nothing more than a partial quote.

nan

John Kasich said he won elections because women came out of their kitchens to vote for him.

Neutral

On 22 February 2016, a clip featuring remarks made by presidential candidate John Kasich circulated widely on social media. A short snippet (or a transcribed quote taken from it) from earlier that day suggested that Kasich declared female voters had 'left their kitchens' to cast ballots for him: How did I get elected? I didn't have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, and many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me. The video spliced together Kasich's comments with those of a town hall attendee, creating the impression of a direct statement and response. After Kasich spoke, she said she would come out to vote for him, but wouldn't be leaving her kitchen to do so. That interpretation was quickly disseminated across the web: Gov. John Kasich is still in the race and still trying to frame himself as the moderate, compassionate Republican, but on Monday, the governor issued two glaring reminders of his very un-moderate contempt for women. During a campaign event, in a video that went viral almost instantaneously, Kasich made a comment about his female supporters that was as bizarrely unnecessary as it was condescending. 'How did I get elected?' Kasich said. 'I didn't have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, and many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me.' He did not specify if they untied their aprons or put on their shoes. Later, a woman in the audience decided to confront him, sort of, on this. 'I'll support you,' she said. 'But I won't be coming out of the kitchen.' It's 2016. A woman's place is...wherever she wants it to be. https://t.co/lkXdirHlap - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 22, 2016 Ohio Governor John Kasich, who defunded Planned Parenthood yesterday, said Monday morning at a town hall in Virginia that he got elected governor to the state Senate because women 'came out of their kitchens to support me.' Oh? 'I didn't have anybody for me,' Kasich said, during a town hall at George Mason University in Fairfax this morning. 'We just got an army of people who-and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and put yard signs up.' Not all reporting seized upon the use of the word 'kitchens' alone. Some also included context: Quickly, a highly misleading, a 22-second edited version of Kasich's remarks began circulating, with the implication being that Kasich was an out-of-touch throwback who in his mind at least still consigned women to the kitchen. The edited clip included a woman in the audience later in the rally telling Kasich she would be supporting him but she wouldn't be coming out of her kitchen to do it. Early on in the fray, reporters attempted to clarify the comments' context: Here's the full verbate on John Kasich's women/kitchen comment... pic.twitter.com/rYRZTwzPl2 - Kailani Koenig (@kailanikm) February 22, 2016 Here's Kasich spox @chrisschrimpf on 'kitchen' remark: 'to try and twist his comments' is 'just desperate politics' pic.twitter.com/KGYsVWXVdm - Hallie Jackson (@HallieJackson) February 22, 2016 Jezebel updated their coverage with a clarification: The full verbatim quote from the rally shows that Kasich was either talking about his race to the state Senate in 1978, or winning a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982. We assure you women were working outside of the kitchen in both those years. The New York Times was among outlets that carried the quote in its larger context, observing that Kasich credited women for helping launch his political career: 'How did I get elected? I didn't have anybody for me,' he said at a town-hall-style forum at George Mason University. 'We just got an army of people - and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and to put yard signs up for me, all the way back when, you know, things were different.' Mr. Kasich was elected to the Ohio Senate in 1978, when he was 26. 'Now you call homes and everybody's out working,' Mr. Kasich added. 'But at that time, early days, it was an army of the women that really helped me to get elected to the State Senate.' The paper also quoted Kasich on the reaction tweet: Asked later Monday about the Twitter post by Mrs. Clinton's campaign, Mr. Kasich told reporters, 'I completely agree.' Before an event at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Mr. Kasich said the town-hall-style meetings he now holds on the campaign trail used to be in kitchens and living rooms, and said women have played a large role in his political career. He noted that his campaign manager, his lone appointment to Ohio's Supreme Court, and his lieutenant governor are all women. After the short clip made the social media rounds, Kasich's complete remarks were published to YouTube: In light of the broader context, some outlets revised their coverage of Kasich's statement in order to provide a more accurate portrayal of the remarks. Kasich himself later admitted that the wording was clumsy. While it was true Kasich described women 'coming out of kitchens' to support him, he was describing a grassroots campaign effort at the start of his career in 1978, not election days in any recent years. A portion of the remarks mentioned an 'army of women' who were responsible for getting his career off the ground. After the context of the quote was added, some outlets revised their original reports, and others noted that women weren't exclusively homemakers in 1978. While there were plenty of career women in 1978 (51 percent of women were in the labor force to at least some degree in 1978, compared to 57 percent in 2014) Kasich's remarks were edited to appear far more regressive than they did in context, and most initial takes were based on nothing more than a partial quote.

nan

John Kasich said he won elections because women came out of their kitchens to vote for him.

Neutral

On 22 February 2016, a clip featuring remarks made by presidential candidate John Kasich circulated widely on social media. A short snippet (or a transcribed quote taken from it) from earlier that day suggested that Kasich declared female voters had 'left their kitchens' to cast ballots for him: How did I get elected? I didn't have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, and many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me. The video spliced together Kasich's comments with those of a town hall attendee, creating the impression of a direct statement and response. After Kasich spoke, she said she would come out to vote for him, but wouldn't be leaving her kitchen to do so. That interpretation was quickly disseminated across the web: Gov. John Kasich is still in the race and still trying to frame himself as the moderate, compassionate Republican, but on Monday, the governor issued two glaring reminders of his very un-moderate contempt for women. During a campaign event, in a video that went viral almost instantaneously, Kasich made a comment about his female supporters that was as bizarrely unnecessary as it was condescending. 'How did I get elected?' Kasich said. 'I didn't have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, and many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me.' He did not specify if they untied their aprons or put on their shoes. Later, a woman in the audience decided to confront him, sort of, on this. 'I'll support you,' she said. 'But I won't be coming out of the kitchen.' It's 2016. A woman's place is...wherever she wants it to be. https://t.co/lkXdirHlap - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 22, 2016 Ohio Governor John Kasich, who defunded Planned Parenthood yesterday, said Monday morning at a town hall in Virginia that he got elected governor to the state Senate because women 'came out of their kitchens to support me.' Oh? 'I didn't have anybody for me,' Kasich said, during a town hall at George Mason University in Fairfax this morning. 'We just got an army of people who-and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and put yard signs up.' Not all reporting seized upon the use of the word 'kitchens' alone. Some also included context: Quickly, a highly misleading, a 22-second edited version of Kasich's remarks began circulating, with the implication being that Kasich was an out-of-touch throwback who in his mind at least still consigned women to the kitchen. The edited clip included a woman in the audience later in the rally telling Kasich she would be supporting him but she wouldn't be coming out of her kitchen to do it. Early on in the fray, reporters attempted to clarify the comments' context: Here's the full verbate on John Kasich's women/kitchen comment... pic.twitter.com/rYRZTwzPl2 - Kailani Koenig (@kailanikm) February 22, 2016 Here's Kasich spox @chrisschrimpf on 'kitchen' remark: 'to try and twist his comments' is 'just desperate politics' pic.twitter.com/KGYsVWXVdm - Hallie Jackson (@HallieJackson) February 22, 2016 Jezebel updated their coverage with a clarification: The full verbatim quote from the rally shows that Kasich was either talking about his race to the state Senate in 1978, or winning a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982. We assure you women were working outside of the kitchen in both those years. The New York Times was among outlets that carried the quote in its larger context, observing that Kasich credited women for helping launch his political career: 'How did I get elected? I didn't have anybody for me,' he said at a town-hall-style forum at George Mason University. 'We just got an army of people - and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and to put yard signs up for me, all the way back when, you know, things were different.' Mr. Kasich was elected to the Ohio Senate in 1978, when he was 26. 'Now you call homes and everybody's out working,' Mr. Kasich added. 'But at that time, early days, it was an army of the women that really helped me to get elected to the State Senate.' The paper also quoted Kasich on the reaction tweet: Asked later Monday about the Twitter post by Mrs. Clinton's campaign, Mr. Kasich told reporters, 'I completely agree.' Before an event at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Mr. Kasich said the town-hall-style meetings he now holds on the campaign trail used to be in kitchens and living rooms, and said women have played a large role in his political career. He noted that his campaign manager, his lone appointment to Ohio's Supreme Court, and his lieutenant governor are all women. After the short clip made the social media rounds, Kasich's complete remarks were published to YouTube: In light of the broader context, some outlets revised their coverage of Kasich's statement in order to provide a more accurate portrayal of the remarks. Kasich himself later admitted that the wording was clumsy. While it was true Kasich described women 'coming out of kitchens' to support him, he was describing a grassroots campaign effort at the start of his career in 1978, not election days in any recent years. A portion of the remarks mentioned an 'army of women' who were responsible for getting his career off the ground. After the context of the quote was added, some outlets revised their original reports, and others noted that women weren't exclusively homemakers in 1978. While there were plenty of career women in 1978 (51 percent of women were in the labor force to at least some degree in 1978, compared to 57 percent in 2014) Kasich's remarks were edited to appear far more regressive than they did in context, and most initial takes were based on nothing more than a partial quote.

nan

John Kasich said he won elections because women came out of their kitchens to vote for him.

Neutral

On 22 February 2016, a clip featuring remarks made by presidential candidate John Kasich circulated widely on social media. A short snippet (or a transcribed quote taken from it) from earlier that day suggested that Kasich declared female voters had 'left their kitchens' to cast ballots for him: How did I get elected? I didn't have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, and many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me. The video spliced together Kasich's comments with those of a town hall attendee, creating the impression of a direct statement and response. After Kasich spoke, she said she would come out to vote for him, but wouldn't be leaving her kitchen to do so. That interpretation was quickly disseminated across the web: Gov. John Kasich is still in the race and still trying to frame himself as the moderate, compassionate Republican, but on Monday, the governor issued two glaring reminders of his very un-moderate contempt for women. During a campaign event, in a video that went viral almost instantaneously, Kasich made a comment about his female supporters that was as bizarrely unnecessary as it was condescending. 'How did I get elected?' Kasich said. 'I didn't have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, and many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me.' He did not specify if they untied their aprons or put on their shoes. Later, a woman in the audience decided to confront him, sort of, on this. 'I'll support you,' she said. 'But I won't be coming out of the kitchen.' It's 2016. A woman's place is...wherever she wants it to be. https://t.co/lkXdirHlap - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 22, 2016 Ohio Governor John Kasich, who defunded Planned Parenthood yesterday, said Monday morning at a town hall in Virginia that he got elected governor to the state Senate because women 'came out of their kitchens to support me.' Oh? 'I didn't have anybody for me,' Kasich said, during a town hall at George Mason University in Fairfax this morning. 'We just got an army of people who-and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and put yard signs up.' Not all reporting seized upon the use of the word 'kitchens' alone. Some also included context: Quickly, a highly misleading, a 22-second edited version of Kasich's remarks began circulating, with the implication being that Kasich was an out-of-touch throwback who in his mind at least still consigned women to the kitchen. The edited clip included a woman in the audience later in the rally telling Kasich she would be supporting him but she wouldn't be coming out of her kitchen to do it. Early on in the fray, reporters attempted to clarify the comments' context: Here's the full verbate on John Kasich's women/kitchen comment... pic.twitter.com/rYRZTwzPl2 - Kailani Koenig (@kailanikm) February 22, 2016 Here's Kasich spox @chrisschrimpf on 'kitchen' remark: 'to try and twist his comments' is 'just desperate politics' pic.twitter.com/KGYsVWXVdm - Hallie Jackson (@HallieJackson) February 22, 2016 Jezebel updated their coverage with a clarification: The full verbatim quote from the rally shows that Kasich was either talking about his race to the state Senate in 1978, or winning a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982. We assure you women were working outside of the kitchen in both those years. The New York Times was among outlets that carried the quote in its larger context, observing that Kasich credited women for helping launch his political career: 'How did I get elected? I didn't have anybody for me,' he said at a town-hall-style forum at George Mason University. 'We just got an army of people - and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and to put yard signs up for me, all the way back when, you know, things were different.' Mr. Kasich was elected to the Ohio Senate in 1978, when he was 26. 'Now you call homes and everybody's out working,' Mr. Kasich added. 'But at that time, early days, it was an army of the women that really helped me to get elected to the State Senate.' The paper also quoted Kasich on the reaction tweet: Asked later Monday about the Twitter post by Mrs. Clinton's campaign, Mr. Kasich told reporters, 'I completely agree.' Before an event at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Mr. Kasich said the town-hall-style meetings he now holds on the campaign trail used to be in kitchens and living rooms, and said women have played a large role in his political career. He noted that his campaign manager, his lone appointment to Ohio's Supreme Court, and his lieutenant governor are all women. After the short clip made the social media rounds, Kasich's complete remarks were published to YouTube: In light of the broader context, some outlets revised their coverage of Kasich's statement in order to provide a more accurate portrayal of the remarks. Kasich himself later admitted that the wording was clumsy. While it was true Kasich described women 'coming out of kitchens' to support him, he was describing a grassroots campaign effort at the start of his career in 1978, not election days in any recent years. A portion of the remarks mentioned an 'army of women' who were responsible for getting his career off the ground. After the context of the quote was added, some outlets revised their original reports, and others noted that women weren't exclusively homemakers in 1978. While there were plenty of career women in 1978 (51 percent of women were in the labor force to at least some degree in 1978, compared to 57 percent in 2014) Kasich's remarks were edited to appear far more regressive than they did in context, and most initial takes were based on nothing more than a partial quote.

nan

John Kasich said he won elections because women came out of their kitchens to vote for him.

Neutral

On 22 February 2016, a clip featuring remarks made by presidential candidate John Kasich circulated widely on social media. A short snippet (or a transcribed quote taken from it) from earlier that day suggested that Kasich declared female voters had 'left their kitchens' to cast ballots for him: How did I get elected? I didn't have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, and many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me. The video spliced together Kasich's comments with those of a town hall attendee, creating the impression of a direct statement and response. After Kasich spoke, she said she would come out to vote for him, but wouldn't be leaving her kitchen to do so. That interpretation was quickly disseminated across the web: Gov. John Kasich is still in the race and still trying to frame himself as the moderate, compassionate Republican, but on Monday, the governor issued two glaring reminders of his very un-moderate contempt for women. During a campaign event, in a video that went viral almost instantaneously, Kasich made a comment about his female supporters that was as bizarrely unnecessary as it was condescending. 'How did I get elected?' Kasich said. 'I didn't have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, and many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me.' He did not specify if they untied their aprons or put on their shoes. Later, a woman in the audience decided to confront him, sort of, on this. 'I'll support you,' she said. 'But I won't be coming out of the kitchen.' It's 2016. A woman's place is...wherever she wants it to be. https://t.co/lkXdirHlap - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 22, 2016 Ohio Governor John Kasich, who defunded Planned Parenthood yesterday, said Monday morning at a town hall in Virginia that he got elected governor to the state Senate because women 'came out of their kitchens to support me.' Oh? 'I didn't have anybody for me,' Kasich said, during a town hall at George Mason University in Fairfax this morning. 'We just got an army of people who-and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and put yard signs up.' Not all reporting seized upon the use of the word 'kitchens' alone. Some also included context: Quickly, a highly misleading, a 22-second edited version of Kasich's remarks began circulating, with the implication being that Kasich was an out-of-touch throwback who in his mind at least still consigned women to the kitchen. The edited clip included a woman in the audience later in the rally telling Kasich she would be supporting him but she wouldn't be coming out of her kitchen to do it. Early on in the fray, reporters attempted to clarify the comments' context: Here's the full verbate on John Kasich's women/kitchen comment... pic.twitter.com/rYRZTwzPl2 - Kailani Koenig (@kailanikm) February 22, 2016 Here's Kasich spox @chrisschrimpf on 'kitchen' remark: 'to try and twist his comments' is 'just desperate politics' pic.twitter.com/KGYsVWXVdm - Hallie Jackson (@HallieJackson) February 22, 2016 Jezebel updated their coverage with a clarification: The full verbatim quote from the rally shows that Kasich was either talking about his race to the state Senate in 1978, or winning a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982. We assure you women were working outside of the kitchen in both those years. The New York Times was among outlets that carried the quote in its larger context, observing that Kasich credited women for helping launch his political career: 'How did I get elected? I didn't have anybody for me,' he said at a town-hall-style forum at George Mason University. 'We just got an army of people - and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and to put yard signs up for me, all the way back when, you know, things were different.' Mr. Kasich was elected to the Ohio Senate in 1978, when he was 26. 'Now you call homes and everybody's out working,' Mr. Kasich added. 'But at that time, early days, it was an army of the women that really helped me to get elected to the State Senate.' The paper also quoted Kasich on the reaction tweet: Asked later Monday about the Twitter post by Mrs. Clinton's campaign, Mr. Kasich told reporters, 'I completely agree.' Before an event at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Mr. Kasich said the town-hall-style meetings he now holds on the campaign trail used to be in kitchens and living rooms, and said women have played a large role in his political career. He noted that his campaign manager, his lone appointment to Ohio's Supreme Court, and his lieutenant governor are all women. After the short clip made the social media rounds, Kasich's complete remarks were published to YouTube: In light of the broader context, some outlets revised their coverage of Kasich's statement in order to provide a more accurate portrayal of the remarks. Kasich himself later admitted that the wording was clumsy. While it was true Kasich described women 'coming out of kitchens' to support him, he was describing a grassroots campaign effort at the start of his career in 1978, not election days in any recent years. A portion of the remarks mentioned an 'army of women' who were responsible for getting his career off the ground. After the context of the quote was added, some outlets revised their original reports, and others noted that women weren't exclusively homemakers in 1978. While there were plenty of career women in 1978 (51 percent of women were in the labor force to at least some degree in 1978, compared to 57 percent in 2014) Kasich's remarks were edited to appear far more regressive than they did in context, and most initial takes were based on nothing more than a partial quote.

nan

John Kasich said he won elections because women came out of their kitchens to vote for him.

Neutral

On 22 February 2016, a clip featuring remarks made by presidential candidate John Kasich circulated widely on social media. A short snippet (or a transcribed quote taken from it) from earlier that day suggested that Kasich declared female voters had 'left their kitchens' to cast ballots for him: How did I get elected? I didn't have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, and many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me. The video spliced together Kasich's comments with those of a town hall attendee, creating the impression of a direct statement and response. After Kasich spoke, she said she would come out to vote for him, but wouldn't be leaving her kitchen to do so. That interpretation was quickly disseminated across the web: Gov. John Kasich is still in the race and still trying to frame himself as the moderate, compassionate Republican, but on Monday, the governor issued two glaring reminders of his very un-moderate contempt for women. During a campaign event, in a video that went viral almost instantaneously, Kasich made a comment about his female supporters that was as bizarrely unnecessary as it was condescending. 'How did I get elected?' Kasich said. 'I didn't have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, and many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me.' He did not specify if they untied their aprons or put on their shoes. Later, a woman in the audience decided to confront him, sort of, on this. 'I'll support you,' she said. 'But I won't be coming out of the kitchen.' It's 2016. A woman's place is...wherever she wants it to be. https://t.co/lkXdirHlap - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 22, 2016 Ohio Governor John Kasich, who defunded Planned Parenthood yesterday, said Monday morning at a town hall in Virginia that he got elected governor to the state Senate because women 'came out of their kitchens to support me.' Oh? 'I didn't have anybody for me,' Kasich said, during a town hall at George Mason University in Fairfax this morning. 'We just got an army of people who-and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and put yard signs up.' Not all reporting seized upon the use of the word 'kitchens' alone. Some also included context: Quickly, a highly misleading, a 22-second edited version of Kasich's remarks began circulating, with the implication being that Kasich was an out-of-touch throwback who in his mind at least still consigned women to the kitchen. The edited clip included a woman in the audience later in the rally telling Kasich she would be supporting him but she wouldn't be coming out of her kitchen to do it. Early on in the fray, reporters attempted to clarify the comments' context: Here's the full verbate on John Kasich's women/kitchen comment... pic.twitter.com/rYRZTwzPl2 - Kailani Koenig (@kailanikm) February 22, 2016 Here's Kasich spox @chrisschrimpf on 'kitchen' remark: 'to try and twist his comments' is 'just desperate politics' pic.twitter.com/KGYsVWXVdm - Hallie Jackson (@HallieJackson) February 22, 2016 Jezebel updated their coverage with a clarification: The full verbatim quote from the rally shows that Kasich was either talking about his race to the state Senate in 1978, or winning a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982. We assure you women were working outside of the kitchen in both those years. The New York Times was among outlets that carried the quote in its larger context, observing that Kasich credited women for helping launch his political career: 'How did I get elected? I didn't have anybody for me,' he said at a town-hall-style forum at George Mason University. 'We just got an army of people - and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and to put yard signs up for me, all the way back when, you know, things were different.' Mr. Kasich was elected to the Ohio Senate in 1978, when he was 26. 'Now you call homes and everybody's out working,' Mr. Kasich added. 'But at that time, early days, it was an army of the women that really helped me to get elected to the State Senate.' The paper also quoted Kasich on the reaction tweet: Asked later Monday about the Twitter post by Mrs. Clinton's campaign, Mr. Kasich told reporters, 'I completely agree.' Before an event at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Mr. Kasich said the town-hall-style meetings he now holds on the campaign trail used to be in kitchens and living rooms, and said women have played a large role in his political career. He noted that his campaign manager, his lone appointment to Ohio's Supreme Court, and his lieutenant governor are all women. After the short clip made the social media rounds, Kasich's complete remarks were published to YouTube: In light of the broader context, some outlets revised their coverage of Kasich's statement in order to provide a more accurate portrayal of the remarks. Kasich himself later admitted that the wording was clumsy. While it was true Kasich described women 'coming out of kitchens' to support him, he was describing a grassroots campaign effort at the start of his career in 1978, not election days in any recent years. A portion of the remarks mentioned an 'army of women' who were responsible for getting his career off the ground. After the context of the quote was added, some outlets revised their original reports, and others noted that women weren't exclusively homemakers in 1978. While there were plenty of career women in 1978 (51 percent of women were in the labor force to at least some degree in 1978, compared to 57 percent in 2014) Kasich's remarks were edited to appear far more regressive than they did in context, and most initial takes were based on nothing more than a partial quote.

nan

John Kasich said he won elections because women came out of their kitchens to vote for him.

Neutral

On 22 February 2016, a clip featuring remarks made by presidential candidate John Kasich circulated widely on social media. A short snippet (or a transcribed quote taken from it) from earlier that day suggested that Kasich declared female voters had 'left their kitchens' to cast ballots for him: How did I get elected? I didn't have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, and many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me. The video spliced together Kasich's comments with those of a town hall attendee, creating the impression of a direct statement and response. After Kasich spoke, she said she would come out to vote for him, but wouldn't be leaving her kitchen to do so. That interpretation was quickly disseminated across the web: Gov. John Kasich is still in the race and still trying to frame himself as the moderate, compassionate Republican, but on Monday, the governor issued two glaring reminders of his very un-moderate contempt for women. During a campaign event, in a video that went viral almost instantaneously, Kasich made a comment about his female supporters that was as bizarrely unnecessary as it was condescending. 'How did I get elected?' Kasich said. 'I didn't have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, and many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me.' He did not specify if they untied their aprons or put on their shoes. Later, a woman in the audience decided to confront him, sort of, on this. 'I'll support you,' she said. 'But I won't be coming out of the kitchen.' It's 2016. A woman's place is...wherever she wants it to be. https://t.co/lkXdirHlap - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 22, 2016 Ohio Governor John Kasich, who defunded Planned Parenthood yesterday, said Monday morning at a town hall in Virginia that he got elected governor to the state Senate because women 'came out of their kitchens to support me.' Oh? 'I didn't have anybody for me,' Kasich said, during a town hall at George Mason University in Fairfax this morning. 'We just got an army of people who-and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and put yard signs up.' Not all reporting seized upon the use of the word 'kitchens' alone. Some also included context: Quickly, a highly misleading, a 22-second edited version of Kasich's remarks began circulating, with the implication being that Kasich was an out-of-touch throwback who in his mind at least still consigned women to the kitchen. The edited clip included a woman in the audience later in the rally telling Kasich she would be supporting him but she wouldn't be coming out of her kitchen to do it. Early on in the fray, reporters attempted to clarify the comments' context: Here's the full verbate on John Kasich's women/kitchen comment... pic.twitter.com/rYRZTwzPl2 - Kailani Koenig (@kailanikm) February 22, 2016 Here's Kasich spox @chrisschrimpf on 'kitchen' remark: 'to try and twist his comments' is 'just desperate politics' pic.twitter.com/KGYsVWXVdm - Hallie Jackson (@HallieJackson) February 22, 2016 Jezebel updated their coverage with a clarification: The full verbatim quote from the rally shows that Kasich was either talking about his race to the state Senate in 1978, or winning a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982. We assure you women were working outside of the kitchen in both those years. The New York Times was among outlets that carried the quote in its larger context, observing that Kasich credited women for helping launch his political career: 'How did I get elected? I didn't have anybody for me,' he said at a town-hall-style forum at George Mason University. 'We just got an army of people - and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and to put yard signs up for me, all the way back when, you know, things were different.' Mr. Kasich was elected to the Ohio Senate in 1978, when he was 26. 'Now you call homes and everybody's out working,' Mr. Kasich added. 'But at that time, early days, it was an army of the women that really helped me to get elected to the State Senate.' The paper also quoted Kasich on the reaction tweet: Asked later Monday about the Twitter post by Mrs. Clinton's campaign, Mr. Kasich told reporters, 'I completely agree.' Before an event at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Mr. Kasich said the town-hall-style meetings he now holds on the campaign trail used to be in kitchens and living rooms, and said women have played a large role in his political career. He noted that his campaign manager, his lone appointment to Ohio's Supreme Court, and his lieutenant governor are all women. After the short clip made the social media rounds, Kasich's complete remarks were published to YouTube: In light of the broader context, some outlets revised their coverage of Kasich's statement in order to provide a more accurate portrayal of the remarks. Kasich himself later admitted that the wording was clumsy. While it was true Kasich described women 'coming out of kitchens' to support him, he was describing a grassroots campaign effort at the start of his career in 1978, not election days in any recent years. A portion of the remarks mentioned an 'army of women' who were responsible for getting his career off the ground. After the context of the quote was added, some outlets revised their original reports, and others noted that women weren't exclusively homemakers in 1978. While there were plenty of career women in 1978 (51 percent of women were in the labor force to at least some degree in 1978, compared to 57 percent in 2014) Kasich's remarks were edited to appear far more regressive than they did in context, and most initial takes were based on nothing more than a partial quote.

nan

John Kasich said he won elections because women came out of their kitchens to vote for him.

Neutral

On 22 February 2016, a clip featuring remarks made by presidential candidate John Kasich circulated widely on social media. A short snippet (or a transcribed quote taken from it) from earlier that day suggested that Kasich declared female voters had 'left their kitchens' to cast ballots for him: How did I get elected? I didn't have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, and many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me. The video spliced together Kasich's comments with those of a town hall attendee, creating the impression of a direct statement and response. After Kasich spoke, she said she would come out to vote for him, but wouldn't be leaving her kitchen to do so. That interpretation was quickly disseminated across the web: Gov. John Kasich is still in the race and still trying to frame himself as the moderate, compassionate Republican, but on Monday, the governor issued two glaring reminders of his very un-moderate contempt for women. During a campaign event, in a video that went viral almost instantaneously, Kasich made a comment about his female supporters that was as bizarrely unnecessary as it was condescending. 'How did I get elected?' Kasich said. 'I didn't have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, and many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me.' He did not specify if they untied their aprons or put on their shoes. Later, a woman in the audience decided to confront him, sort of, on this. 'I'll support you,' she said. 'But I won't be coming out of the kitchen.' It's 2016. A woman's place is...wherever she wants it to be. https://t.co/lkXdirHlap - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 22, 2016 Ohio Governor John Kasich, who defunded Planned Parenthood yesterday, said Monday morning at a town hall in Virginia that he got elected governor to the state Senate because women 'came out of their kitchens to support me.' Oh? 'I didn't have anybody for me,' Kasich said, during a town hall at George Mason University in Fairfax this morning. 'We just got an army of people who-and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and put yard signs up.' Not all reporting seized upon the use of the word 'kitchens' alone. Some also included context: Quickly, a highly misleading, a 22-second edited version of Kasich's remarks began circulating, with the implication being that Kasich was an out-of-touch throwback who in his mind at least still consigned women to the kitchen. The edited clip included a woman in the audience later in the rally telling Kasich she would be supporting him but she wouldn't be coming out of her kitchen to do it. Early on in the fray, reporters attempted to clarify the comments' context: Here's the full verbate on John Kasich's women/kitchen comment... pic.twitter.com/rYRZTwzPl2 - Kailani Koenig (@kailanikm) February 22, 2016 Here's Kasich spox @chrisschrimpf on 'kitchen' remark: 'to try and twist his comments' is 'just desperate politics' pic.twitter.com/KGYsVWXVdm - Hallie Jackson (@HallieJackson) February 22, 2016 Jezebel updated their coverage with a clarification: The full verbatim quote from the rally shows that Kasich was either talking about his race to the state Senate in 1978, or winning a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982. We assure you women were working outside of the kitchen in both those years. The New York Times was among outlets that carried the quote in its larger context, observing that Kasich credited women for helping launch his political career: 'How did I get elected? I didn't have anybody for me,' he said at a town-hall-style forum at George Mason University. 'We just got an army of people - and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and to put yard signs up for me, all the way back when, you know, things were different.' Mr. Kasich was elected to the Ohio Senate in 1978, when he was 26. 'Now you call homes and everybody's out working,' Mr. Kasich added. 'But at that time, early days, it was an army of the women that really helped me to get elected to the State Senate.' The paper also quoted Kasich on the reaction tweet: Asked later Monday about the Twitter post by Mrs. Clinton's campaign, Mr. Kasich told reporters, 'I completely agree.' Before an event at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Mr. Kasich said the town-hall-style meetings he now holds on the campaign trail used to be in kitchens and living rooms, and said women have played a large role in his political career. He noted that his campaign manager, his lone appointment to Ohio's Supreme Court, and his lieutenant governor are all women. After the short clip made the social media rounds, Kasich's complete remarks were published to YouTube: In light of the broader context, some outlets revised their coverage of Kasich's statement in order to provide a more accurate portrayal of the remarks. Kasich himself later admitted that the wording was clumsy. While it was true Kasich described women 'coming out of kitchens' to support him, he was describing a grassroots campaign effort at the start of his career in 1978, not election days in any recent years. A portion of the remarks mentioned an 'army of women' who were responsible for getting his career off the ground. After the context of the quote was added, some outlets revised their original reports, and others noted that women weren't exclusively homemakers in 1978. While there were plenty of career women in 1978 (51 percent of women were in the labor force to at least some degree in 1978, compared to 57 percent in 2014) Kasich's remarks were edited to appear far more regressive than they did in context, and most initial takes were based on nothing more than a partial quote.

nan

John Kasich said he won elections because women came out of their kitchens to vote for him.

Neutral

On 22 February 2016, a clip featuring remarks made by presidential candidate John Kasich circulated widely on social media. A short snippet (or a transcribed quote taken from it) from earlier that day suggested that Kasich declared female voters had 'left their kitchens' to cast ballots for him: How did I get elected? I didn't have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, and many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me. The video spliced together Kasich's comments with those of a town hall attendee, creating the impression of a direct statement and response. After Kasich spoke, she said she would come out to vote for him, but wouldn't be leaving her kitchen to do so. That interpretation was quickly disseminated across the web: Gov. John Kasich is still in the race and still trying to frame himself as the moderate, compassionate Republican, but on Monday, the governor issued two glaring reminders of his very un-moderate contempt for women. During a campaign event, in a video that went viral almost instantaneously, Kasich made a comment about his female supporters that was as bizarrely unnecessary as it was condescending. 'How did I get elected?' Kasich said. 'I didn't have anybody for me. We just got an army of people, and many women who left their kitchens to go out and to go door to door to put up yard signs for me.' He did not specify if they untied their aprons or put on their shoes. Later, a woman in the audience decided to confront him, sort of, on this. 'I'll support you,' she said. 'But I won't be coming out of the kitchen.' It's 2016. A woman's place is...wherever she wants it to be. https://t.co/lkXdirHlap - Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 22, 2016 Ohio Governor John Kasich, who defunded Planned Parenthood yesterday, said Monday morning at a town hall in Virginia that he got elected governor to the state Senate because women 'came out of their kitchens to support me.' Oh? 'I didn't have anybody for me,' Kasich said, during a town hall at George Mason University in Fairfax this morning. 'We just got an army of people who-and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and put yard signs up.' Not all reporting seized upon the use of the word 'kitchens' alone. Some also included context: Quickly, a highly misleading, a 22-second edited version of Kasich's remarks began circulating, with the implication being that Kasich was an out-of-touch throwback who in his mind at least still consigned women to the kitchen. The edited clip included a woman in the audience later in the rally telling Kasich she would be supporting him but she wouldn't be coming out of her kitchen to do it. Early on in the fray, reporters attempted to clarify the comments' context: Here's the full verbate on John Kasich's women/kitchen comment... pic.twitter.com/rYRZTwzPl2 - Kailani Koenig (@kailanikm) February 22, 2016 Here's Kasich spox @chrisschrimpf on 'kitchen' remark: 'to try and twist his comments' is 'just desperate politics' pic.twitter.com/KGYsVWXVdm - Hallie Jackson (@HallieJackson) February 22, 2016 Jezebel updated their coverage with a clarification: The full verbatim quote from the rally shows that Kasich was either talking about his race to the state Senate in 1978, or winning a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982. We assure you women were working outside of the kitchen in both those years. The New York Times was among outlets that carried the quote in its larger context, observing that Kasich credited women for helping launch his political career: 'How did I get elected? I didn't have anybody for me,' he said at a town-hall-style forum at George Mason University. 'We just got an army of people - and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and to put yard signs up for me, all the way back when, you know, things were different.' Mr. Kasich was elected to the Ohio Senate in 1978, when he was 26. 'Now you call homes and everybody's out working,' Mr. Kasich added. 'But at that time, early days, it was an army of the women that really helped me to get elected to the State Senate.' The paper also quoted Kasich on the reaction tweet: Asked later Monday about the Twitter post by Mrs. Clinton's campaign, Mr. Kasich told reporters, 'I completely agree.' Before an event at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Mr. Kasich said the town-hall-style meetings he now holds on the campaign trail used to be in kitchens and living rooms, and said women have played a large role in his political career. He noted that his campaign manager, his lone appointment to Ohio's Supreme Court, and his lieutenant governor are all women. After the short clip made the social media rounds, Kasich's complete remarks were published to YouTube: In light of the broader context, some outlets revised their coverage of Kasich's statement in order to provide a more accurate portrayal of the remarks. Kasich himself later admitted that the wording was clumsy. While it was true Kasich described women 'coming out of kitchens' to support him, he was describing a grassroots campaign effort at the start of his career in 1978, not election days in any recent years. A portion of the remarks mentioned an 'army of women' who were responsible for getting his career off the ground. After the context of the quote was added, some outlets revised their original reports, and others noted that women weren't exclusively homemakers in 1978. While there were plenty of career women in 1978 (51 percent of women were in the labor force to at least some degree in 1978, compared to 57 percent in 2014) Kasich's remarks were edited to appear far more regressive than they did in context, and most initial takes were based on nothing more than a partial quote.

nan

Ramsey Orta went to jail for filming the fatal encounter between Eric Garner and New York City police officers.

Neutral

Ramsey Orta was unwittingly thrust into the national spotlight after filming galvanizing footage of the death of Eric Garner (who died after being restrained in a chokehold by New York City Police in Staten Island) in July 2014, and on 3 October 2016 Orta was sentenced to four years in prison for what many posited was the crime of filming alleged police misconduct. Orta's experiences after he was credited with filming Garner's death drew scrutiny from many who suspected he was being targeted by police for harassment. Garner was killed on 17 July 2014, and Orta was arrested on unrelated gun charges within weeks of capturing Garner's death on camera. Orta was arrested a second time six months later for the alleged sale of drugs and then was initially blocked from posting bail via funds obtained through crowdsourcing. During Orta's pretrial incarceration at Rikers' Island, he and more than a dozen other inmates sued, claiming their food was laced with rat poison. Between July 2014 and July 2016, Orta was arrested three times and moved due to what he maintained was a pattern of police harassment: In the last year, Orta's life has been upended. He has been arrested three times since August 2014. The first, for criminal possession of a handgun he allegedly tried to give a 17-year-old, came a day after Garner's death was ruled a homicide by the city's medical examiner. In February [2015], he was arrested again on multiple charges of selling and possessing drugs. The third came on June 30 [2015] when he was accused of selling MDMA to an undercover cop. A lab test later showed that the alleged MDMA was fake and the charges were reduced. All told, Orta is facing more than 60 years in prison if convicted on all charges. After entering a guilty plea in July 2016 on charges stemming from those arrests, Orta was sentenced to four years in prison on 3 October 2016 on charges relating to possession of a gun and a controlled substance: In July [2016], Orta, 25, pleaded guilty in state Supreme Court, St. George, to third-degree criminal possession of a weapon stemming from an Aug. 2, 2014, arrest in St. George. Orta admitted to possessing a .25-caliber semiautomatic pistol. Authorities had accused him of stuffing the weapon down a 17-year-old woman's pants outside the Hotel Richmond on Central Avenue. He also pleaded guilty then to third-degree criminal sale of a controlled substance to satisfy charges arising from a Jan. 3, 2015, incident in which he sold heroin to an undercover officer. Although Orta's supporters maintained the charges were retaliatory in nature, Orta was neither charged nor convicted in relation to the act filming Eric Garner's death. Orta pled guilty to weapons and drug charges in July 2016 and was sentenced based on those pleas.Recent Updates The status of this page was modified to MIXTURE to better reflect the complexities of the case.

nan

Ramsey Orta went to jail for filming the fatal encounter between Eric Garner and New York City police officers.

Neutral

Ramsey Orta was unwittingly thrust into the national spotlight after filming galvanizing footage of the death of Eric Garner (who died after being restrained in a chokehold by New York City Police in Staten Island) in July 2014, and on 3 October 2016 Orta was sentenced to four years in prison for what many posited was the crime of filming alleged police misconduct. Orta's experiences after he was credited with filming Garner's death drew scrutiny from many who suspected he was being targeted by police for harassment. Garner was killed on 17 July 2014, and Orta was arrested on unrelated gun charges within weeks of capturing Garner's death on camera. Orta was arrested a second time six months later for the alleged sale of drugs and then was initially blocked from posting bail via funds obtained through crowdsourcing. During Orta's pretrial incarceration at Rikers' Island, he and more than a dozen other inmates sued, claiming their food was laced with rat poison. Between July 2014 and July 2016, Orta was arrested three times and moved due to what he maintained was a pattern of police harassment: In the last year, Orta's life has been upended. He has been arrested three times since August 2014. The first, for criminal possession of a handgun he allegedly tried to give a 17-year-old, came a day after Garner's death was ruled a homicide by the city's medical examiner. In February [2015], he was arrested again on multiple charges of selling and possessing drugs. The third came on June 30 [2015] when he was accused of selling MDMA to an undercover cop. A lab test later showed that the alleged MDMA was fake and the charges were reduced. All told, Orta is facing more than 60 years in prison if convicted on all charges. After entering a guilty plea in July 2016 on charges stemming from those arrests, Orta was sentenced to four years in prison on 3 October 2016 on charges relating to possession of a gun and a controlled substance: In July [2016], Orta, 25, pleaded guilty in state Supreme Court, St. George, to third-degree criminal possession of a weapon stemming from an Aug. 2, 2014, arrest in St. George. Orta admitted to possessing a .25-caliber semiautomatic pistol. Authorities had accused him of stuffing the weapon down a 17-year-old woman's pants outside the Hotel Richmond on Central Avenue. He also pleaded guilty then to third-degree criminal sale of a controlled substance to satisfy charges arising from a Jan. 3, 2015, incident in which he sold heroin to an undercover officer. Although Orta's supporters maintained the charges were retaliatory in nature, Orta was neither charged nor convicted in relation to the act filming Eric Garner's death. Orta pled guilty to weapons and drug charges in July 2016 and was sentenced based on those pleas.Recent Updates The status of this page was modified to MIXTURE to better reflect the complexities of the case.

nan

Bill O'Reily hired 'university grad students' to conduct a phone survey of 25,000 people about the presidential election.

Neutral

On 11 October 2016, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly announced on his show that his website had posted a survey asking his viewers, 'If the presidential election were held this week, who would win?' The poll question (which didn't ask respondents to indicate whom they were voting for, but merely who they thought would win) was also displayed on-screen: Three days later, the survey - not surprisingly, given the nature of O'Reilly's audience and the laxity of online surveys - ended with 84% of their 29,799 respondents predicting that Republican nominee Donald Trump would win the election: The tweet reproduced above misrepresented the nature of that survey, however, claiming that O'Reilly employed college graduate students to 'call 250 people from each party's voting rolls in all 50 states.' The image has since been cited by conservative websites as proof that Trump is 'far ahead' of Clinton in the president race. Another similar version of a fake poll from a clickbait web site put the number of people surveyed at 700,000 and attributed it to different conservative source, One America News Network: However, this version was based on no actual survey at all; it was simply a digitally altered version of a graphic used during a 11 May 2016 report about 'a nearly neck-and-neck race brewing' between the two candidates': The claim regarding the O'Reilly 'poll' was also similar to another post allegedly conducted by 'graduate students' calling 1,000 homes in each state: Economy was the number one factor that Americans are concerned about and terrorism was number two. Presidential pick was Trump by a large percentage. Trump 33478 votes 67% Clinton 9788 Votes 19% Undecided or other 6739 votes 13% My friends and I are all Graduate students from all walks of life we meet to discuss stuff. 13 people who like and have served in the Military. It took us most of two weeks to be sure our calls were to all people and not just one party or an other we called Americans.. our poll is by taking registered voter lists and we accumulated 33% repub, 33% dems and 34% ind.. our poll consisted of 1000 calls per state. all 50 states. 50,000 people are in this poll not the 100 like other polls. Several sites referencing the post attributed it to PG Farnsworth, a Georgia-based minister who posted it on his Facebook page on 6 August 2016. We reached out to Farnsworth for comment, and also to Fox News regarding the image touting the 'grad student' survey attributed to O'Reilly.

nan

Dr. Roger Hodkinson, the Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, called COVID-19 a hoax.

Neutral

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 November 2020, social media users began sharing a video that supposedly captured a man named Dr. Roger Hodkinson stating that COVID-19 was the 'biggest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspected public' during a city council meeting in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Although this sort of claim can typically be dismissed out of hand (COVID-19 is not a hoax, and the coronavirus pandemic has resulted in more than 1.3 million deaths worldwide), social media users claimed that this person's opinion was worth listening to since he was, according to the postings, the 'Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.' This caller in question was not the Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (nor did he claim to be in the video), and that medical organization has released a statement distancing themselves from any association with his comments. While some online outlets presented this viral video (seen below) as if it captured 'secretly recorded audio' of a meeting between 'top pathologist' Hodkinson and government officials in Canada, this audio actually originated with a city council meeting held in Edmonton on Nov. 13, 2020, which involved various members of the community calling in to voice their concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic. Hodkinson was one such caller. Although many callers told the members of Edmonton City Council that they were unhappy with various mask mandates, the internet paid special attention to Hodkinson's comments, in large part because he detailed some seemingly praiseworthy credentials before he offered his opinions. It should be noted that while the caller identified himself as Hodkinson and a viral video released later displayed Hodkinson's picture and his title, the original video of the call simply showed a telephone logo displayed on a black screen. In other words, Hodkinson was not an advertised speaker at this meeting, and it's possible (although not probable) that the audio featured someone claiming to be Hodkinson and not the doctor himself. We reached out to Hodkinson for confirmation and will update this article accordingly if he responds. The person who identified as Hodkinson listed his credentials as follows: So you don't immediately think I'm a quack, I'm going to briefly outline my credentials so that you can understand where I'm coming from in terms of knowledge base in all of this. I'm a medical specialist in pathology which includes virology. I trained at Cambridge University in the UK. I'm the ex-president of the pathology section of the Medical Association. I was previously an assistant professor in the Faculty of Medicine doing a lot of teaching. I was the Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada examination committee in pathology in Ottawa. But more to the point, I'm currently the Chairman of a biotechnology company in North Carolina selling a COVID-19 test, and you might say I know a little bit about all this. As the video circulated on social media, some of Hodkinson's credentials were misconstrued. Some commenters claimed, for example, that Hodkinson was (or had been) the chairman of Canada's Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. This was not the case. In fact, that medical organization released a statement explaining that while Hodkinson was certified as a general pathologist by the Royal College in 1976, he was never the organization's chairman: We would like to clarify that Dr. Hodkinson is not nor has ever held the position of chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. We can confirm that Dr. Roger Hodkinson was certified by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada as a general pathologist in 1976. The Royal College believes COVID-19 presents a serious threat to the health of Canadians. The Royal College strongly supports all public health advice given by the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, including recommendations to practise physical distancing and to wear masks to help prevent COVID-19 transmission. We are very appreciative of the dedication and commitment of our Royal College Fellows, residents and all front-line health care workers in the fight against COVID-19. It was also claimed that Hodkinson was the President of the Alberta Society of Laboratory Physicians (ASLP), as shown in the caption of the viral video. The ASLP is no longer an active organization. The ASLP was a precursor to the Alberta Medical Association's Section of Laboratory Physicians - a change that occurred at least 25 years ago - and that organization has distanced itself from Hodkinson's comments. The Alberta Medical Association (AMA) released a statement saying that it 'does not share any of the views of the individual in question': Re: public comments made recently by a pathologist that may leave an impression to the contrary, the Alberta Section of Laboratory Physicians does not share any of the views of the individual in question. The #Alberta Section of Laboratory Physicians endorses the use of masks, hand washing and physical distancing along with all other public health measures to prevent the spread of #COVID19. His credentials aside, the comments Hodkinson made during this city council meeting ran counter (by his own admission) to the general consensus of the scientific community. Here we'll address a few of his claims: COVID-19 Is Just Like the Flu? (No.) Among many claims Hodkinson made during the call, he said that COVID-19 should be treated as if it were 'nothing more than a bad flu season.' In reality, COVID-19 has proven to be far deadlier than the flu. In Canada, the flu kills approximately 3,500 people a year. COVID-19, on the other hand, has resulted in more than 11,500 deaths in Canada so far in 2020. Globally, the flu kills between 290,000 to 650,000 people every year. In the eight months since the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic, more than 1.3 million people have died. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) explained other differences between the flu and COVID-19: There are some key differences between flu and COVID-19. COVID-19 seems to spread more easily than flu and causes more serious illnesses in some people. It can also take longer before people show symptoms and people can be contagious for longer. Another important difference is there is a vaccine to protect against flu. There is currently no vaccine to prevent COVID-19. The best way to prevent infection is to avoid being exposed to the virus. Masks Are 'Utterly Useless'? (No.) Hodkinson also claimed on the call that 'masks are utterly useless' and that 'there is no evidence base for their effectiveness whatsoever.' But this, again, is false. Multiple studies have shown mask use to slow the spread of COVID-19 and nearly every reputable health organization recommends the use of face masks (in addition to social distancing measures and regular hand-washing). In fact, a recent U.S. study found counties in Kansas that implemented mask mandates saw COVID-19 cases decrease, while counties that did not implement mask mandates saw cases increase. NPR reported: Researchers analyzed coronavirus infection rates in Kansas following a statewide mask mandate. They found that counties that chose to enforce the mandate saw their cases decrease. Counties that chose to opt out saw their cases continue to rise. 'This adds to the growing body of evidence that says large, widespread masking helps to slow the spread of COVID,' says Dr. Aaron Carroll, a professor at Indiana University School of Medicine. Carroll cautions that this was not a randomized, controlled study and there could have been other factors at play (such as more physical distancing in social situations and fewer large gatherings) in the counties that were enforcing masks. Still, as the study notes, the findings were consistent with declines in coronavirus cases observed in 15 states and the District of Columbia where masks were mandated, compared with states that didn't require the face coverings. To sum up: A man claiming to be Dr. Roger Hodkinson called into a public city council meeting in Edmonton, Alberta, to give his two cents about how the city was dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. While Hodkinson, who said that he is currently the chairman of a company that produces COVID-19 tests, does have an educational background in pathology, both the Alberta Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons have published statements refuting his claims. Our review of Hodkinson's comments also found that his statements contained inaccuracies as well as opinions that fall outside the consensus of the scientific community. With that being said, here's the video of Hodkinson's public remarks during a city council meeting in Edmonton:

nan

Dr. Roger Hodkinson, the Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, called COVID-19 a hoax.

Neutral

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 November 2020, social media users began sharing a video that supposedly captured a man named Dr. Roger Hodkinson stating that COVID-19 was the 'biggest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspected public' during a city council meeting in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Although this sort of claim can typically be dismissed out of hand (COVID-19 is not a hoax, and the coronavirus pandemic has resulted in more than 1.3 million deaths worldwide), social media users claimed that this person's opinion was worth listening to since he was, according to the postings, the 'Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.' This caller in question was not the Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (nor did he claim to be in the video), and that medical organization has released a statement distancing themselves from any association with his comments. While some online outlets presented this viral video (seen below) as if it captured 'secretly recorded audio' of a meeting between 'top pathologist' Hodkinson and government officials in Canada, this audio actually originated with a city council meeting held in Edmonton on Nov. 13, 2020, which involved various members of the community calling in to voice their concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic. Hodkinson was one such caller. Although many callers told the members of Edmonton City Council that they were unhappy with various mask mandates, the internet paid special attention to Hodkinson's comments, in large part because he detailed some seemingly praiseworthy credentials before he offered his opinions. It should be noted that while the caller identified himself as Hodkinson and a viral video released later displayed Hodkinson's picture and his title, the original video of the call simply showed a telephone logo displayed on a black screen. In other words, Hodkinson was not an advertised speaker at this meeting, and it's possible (although not probable) that the audio featured someone claiming to be Hodkinson and not the doctor himself. We reached out to Hodkinson for confirmation and will update this article accordingly if he responds. The person who identified as Hodkinson listed his credentials as follows: So you don't immediately think I'm a quack, I'm going to briefly outline my credentials so that you can understand where I'm coming from in terms of knowledge base in all of this. I'm a medical specialist in pathology which includes virology. I trained at Cambridge University in the UK. I'm the ex-president of the pathology section of the Medical Association. I was previously an assistant professor in the Faculty of Medicine doing a lot of teaching. I was the Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada examination committee in pathology in Ottawa. But more to the point, I'm currently the Chairman of a biotechnology company in North Carolina selling a COVID-19 test, and you might say I know a little bit about all this. As the video circulated on social media, some of Hodkinson's credentials were misconstrued. Some commenters claimed, for example, that Hodkinson was (or had been) the chairman of Canada's Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. This was not the case. In fact, that medical organization released a statement explaining that while Hodkinson was certified as a general pathologist by the Royal College in 1976, he was never the organization's chairman: We would like to clarify that Dr. Hodkinson is not nor has ever held the position of chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. We can confirm that Dr. Roger Hodkinson was certified by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada as a general pathologist in 1976. The Royal College believes COVID-19 presents a serious threat to the health of Canadians. The Royal College strongly supports all public health advice given by the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, including recommendations to practise physical distancing and to wear masks to help prevent COVID-19 transmission. We are very appreciative of the dedication and commitment of our Royal College Fellows, residents and all front-line health care workers in the fight against COVID-19. It was also claimed that Hodkinson was the President of the Alberta Society of Laboratory Physicians (ASLP), as shown in the caption of the viral video. The ASLP is no longer an active organization. The ASLP was a precursor to the Alberta Medical Association's Section of Laboratory Physicians - a change that occurred at least 25 years ago - and that organization has distanced itself from Hodkinson's comments. The Alberta Medical Association (AMA) released a statement saying that it 'does not share any of the views of the individual in question': Re: public comments made recently by a pathologist that may leave an impression to the contrary, the Alberta Section of Laboratory Physicians does not share any of the views of the individual in question. The #Alberta Section of Laboratory Physicians endorses the use of masks, hand washing and physical distancing along with all other public health measures to prevent the spread of #COVID19. His credentials aside, the comments Hodkinson made during this city council meeting ran counter (by his own admission) to the general consensus of the scientific community. Here we'll address a few of his claims: COVID-19 Is Just Like the Flu? (No.) Among many claims Hodkinson made during the call, he said that COVID-19 should be treated as if it were 'nothing more than a bad flu season.' In reality, COVID-19 has proven to be far deadlier than the flu. In Canada, the flu kills approximately 3,500 people a year. COVID-19, on the other hand, has resulted in more than 11,500 deaths in Canada so far in 2020. Globally, the flu kills between 290,000 to 650,000 people every year. In the eight months since the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic, more than 1.3 million people have died. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) explained other differences between the flu and COVID-19: There are some key differences between flu and COVID-19. COVID-19 seems to spread more easily than flu and causes more serious illnesses in some people. It can also take longer before people show symptoms and people can be contagious for longer. Another important difference is there is a vaccine to protect against flu. There is currently no vaccine to prevent COVID-19. The best way to prevent infection is to avoid being exposed to the virus. Masks Are 'Utterly Useless'? (No.) Hodkinson also claimed on the call that 'masks are utterly useless' and that 'there is no evidence base for their effectiveness whatsoever.' But this, again, is false. Multiple studies have shown mask use to slow the spread of COVID-19 and nearly every reputable health organization recommends the use of face masks (in addition to social distancing measures and regular hand-washing). In fact, a recent U.S. study found counties in Kansas that implemented mask mandates saw COVID-19 cases decrease, while counties that did not implement mask mandates saw cases increase. NPR reported: Researchers analyzed coronavirus infection rates in Kansas following a statewide mask mandate. They found that counties that chose to enforce the mandate saw their cases decrease. Counties that chose to opt out saw their cases continue to rise. 'This adds to the growing body of evidence that says large, widespread masking helps to slow the spread of COVID,' says Dr. Aaron Carroll, a professor at Indiana University School of Medicine. Carroll cautions that this was not a randomized, controlled study and there could have been other factors at play (such as more physical distancing in social situations and fewer large gatherings) in the counties that were enforcing masks. Still, as the study notes, the findings were consistent with declines in coronavirus cases observed in 15 states and the District of Columbia where masks were mandated, compared with states that didn't require the face coverings. To sum up: A man claiming to be Dr. Roger Hodkinson called into a public city council meeting in Edmonton, Alberta, to give his two cents about how the city was dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. While Hodkinson, who said that he is currently the chairman of a company that produces COVID-19 tests, does have an educational background in pathology, both the Alberta Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons have published statements refuting his claims. Our review of Hodkinson's comments also found that his statements contained inaccuracies as well as opinions that fall outside the consensus of the scientific community. With that being said, here's the video of Hodkinson's public remarks during a city council meeting in Edmonton:

nan

Dr. Roger Hodkinson, the Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, called COVID-19 a hoax.

Neutral

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 November 2020, social media users began sharing a video that supposedly captured a man named Dr. Roger Hodkinson stating that COVID-19 was the 'biggest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspected public' during a city council meeting in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Although this sort of claim can typically be dismissed out of hand (COVID-19 is not a hoax, and the coronavirus pandemic has resulted in more than 1.3 million deaths worldwide), social media users claimed that this person's opinion was worth listening to since he was, according to the postings, the 'Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.' This caller in question was not the Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (nor did he claim to be in the video), and that medical organization has released a statement distancing themselves from any association with his comments. While some online outlets presented this viral video (seen below) as if it captured 'secretly recorded audio' of a meeting between 'top pathologist' Hodkinson and government officials in Canada, this audio actually originated with a city council meeting held in Edmonton on Nov. 13, 2020, which involved various members of the community calling in to voice their concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic. Hodkinson was one such caller. Although many callers told the members of Edmonton City Council that they were unhappy with various mask mandates, the internet paid special attention to Hodkinson's comments, in large part because he detailed some seemingly praiseworthy credentials before he offered his opinions. It should be noted that while the caller identified himself as Hodkinson and a viral video released later displayed Hodkinson's picture and his title, the original video of the call simply showed a telephone logo displayed on a black screen. In other words, Hodkinson was not an advertised speaker at this meeting, and it's possible (although not probable) that the audio featured someone claiming to be Hodkinson and not the doctor himself. We reached out to Hodkinson for confirmation and will update this article accordingly if he responds. The person who identified as Hodkinson listed his credentials as follows: So you don't immediately think I'm a quack, I'm going to briefly outline my credentials so that you can understand where I'm coming from in terms of knowledge base in all of this. I'm a medical specialist in pathology which includes virology. I trained at Cambridge University in the UK. I'm the ex-president of the pathology section of the Medical Association. I was previously an assistant professor in the Faculty of Medicine doing a lot of teaching. I was the Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada examination committee in pathology in Ottawa. But more to the point, I'm currently the Chairman of a biotechnology company in North Carolina selling a COVID-19 test, and you might say I know a little bit about all this. As the video circulated on social media, some of Hodkinson's credentials were misconstrued. Some commenters claimed, for example, that Hodkinson was (or had been) the chairman of Canada's Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. This was not the case. In fact, that medical organization released a statement explaining that while Hodkinson was certified as a general pathologist by the Royal College in 1976, he was never the organization's chairman: We would like to clarify that Dr. Hodkinson is not nor has ever held the position of chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. We can confirm that Dr. Roger Hodkinson was certified by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada as a general pathologist in 1976. The Royal College believes COVID-19 presents a serious threat to the health of Canadians. The Royal College strongly supports all public health advice given by the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, including recommendations to practise physical distancing and to wear masks to help prevent COVID-19 transmission. We are very appreciative of the dedication and commitment of our Royal College Fellows, residents and all front-line health care workers in the fight against COVID-19. It was also claimed that Hodkinson was the President of the Alberta Society of Laboratory Physicians (ASLP), as shown in the caption of the viral video. The ASLP is no longer an active organization. The ASLP was a precursor to the Alberta Medical Association's Section of Laboratory Physicians - a change that occurred at least 25 years ago - and that organization has distanced itself from Hodkinson's comments. The Alberta Medical Association (AMA) released a statement saying that it 'does not share any of the views of the individual in question': Re: public comments made recently by a pathologist that may leave an impression to the contrary, the Alberta Section of Laboratory Physicians does not share any of the views of the individual in question. The #Alberta Section of Laboratory Physicians endorses the use of masks, hand washing and physical distancing along with all other public health measures to prevent the spread of #COVID19. His credentials aside, the comments Hodkinson made during this city council meeting ran counter (by his own admission) to the general consensus of the scientific community. Here we'll address a few of his claims: COVID-19 Is Just Like the Flu? (No.) Among many claims Hodkinson made during the call, he said that COVID-19 should be treated as if it were 'nothing more than a bad flu season.' In reality, COVID-19 has proven to be far deadlier than the flu. In Canada, the flu kills approximately 3,500 people a year. COVID-19, on the other hand, has resulted in more than 11,500 deaths in Canada so far in 2020. Globally, the flu kills between 290,000 to 650,000 people every year. In the eight months since the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic, more than 1.3 million people have died. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) explained other differences between the flu and COVID-19: There are some key differences between flu and COVID-19. COVID-19 seems to spread more easily than flu and causes more serious illnesses in some people. It can also take longer before people show symptoms and people can be contagious for longer. Another important difference is there is a vaccine to protect against flu. There is currently no vaccine to prevent COVID-19. The best way to prevent infection is to avoid being exposed to the virus. Masks Are 'Utterly Useless'? (No.) Hodkinson also claimed on the call that 'masks are utterly useless' and that 'there is no evidence base for their effectiveness whatsoever.' But this, again, is false. Multiple studies have shown mask use to slow the spread of COVID-19 and nearly every reputable health organization recommends the use of face masks (in addition to social distancing measures and regular hand-washing). In fact, a recent U.S. study found counties in Kansas that implemented mask mandates saw COVID-19 cases decrease, while counties that did not implement mask mandates saw cases increase. NPR reported: Researchers analyzed coronavirus infection rates in Kansas following a statewide mask mandate. They found that counties that chose to enforce the mandate saw their cases decrease. Counties that chose to opt out saw their cases continue to rise. 'This adds to the growing body of evidence that says large, widespread masking helps to slow the spread of COVID,' says Dr. Aaron Carroll, a professor at Indiana University School of Medicine. Carroll cautions that this was not a randomized, controlled study and there could have been other factors at play (such as more physical distancing in social situations and fewer large gatherings) in the counties that were enforcing masks. Still, as the study notes, the findings were consistent with declines in coronavirus cases observed in 15 states and the District of Columbia where masks were mandated, compared with states that didn't require the face coverings. To sum up: A man claiming to be Dr. Roger Hodkinson called into a public city council meeting in Edmonton, Alberta, to give his two cents about how the city was dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. While Hodkinson, who said that he is currently the chairman of a company that produces COVID-19 tests, does have an educational background in pathology, both the Alberta Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons have published statements refuting his claims. Our review of Hodkinson's comments also found that his statements contained inaccuracies as well as opinions that fall outside the consensus of the scientific community. With that being said, here's the video of Hodkinson's public remarks during a city council meeting in Edmonton:

nan

Dr. Roger Hodkinson, the Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, called COVID-19 a hoax.

Neutral

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 November 2020, social media users began sharing a video that supposedly captured a man named Dr. Roger Hodkinson stating that COVID-19 was the 'biggest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspected public' during a city council meeting in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Although this sort of claim can typically be dismissed out of hand (COVID-19 is not a hoax, and the coronavirus pandemic has resulted in more than 1.3 million deaths worldwide), social media users claimed that this person's opinion was worth listening to since he was, according to the postings, the 'Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.' This caller in question was not the Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (nor did he claim to be in the video), and that medical organization has released a statement distancing themselves from any association with his comments. While some online outlets presented this viral video (seen below) as if it captured 'secretly recorded audio' of a meeting between 'top pathologist' Hodkinson and government officials in Canada, this audio actually originated with a city council meeting held in Edmonton on Nov. 13, 2020, which involved various members of the community calling in to voice their concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic. Hodkinson was one such caller. Although many callers told the members of Edmonton City Council that they were unhappy with various mask mandates, the internet paid special attention to Hodkinson's comments, in large part because he detailed some seemingly praiseworthy credentials before he offered his opinions. It should be noted that while the caller identified himself as Hodkinson and a viral video released later displayed Hodkinson's picture and his title, the original video of the call simply showed a telephone logo displayed on a black screen. In other words, Hodkinson was not an advertised speaker at this meeting, and it's possible (although not probable) that the audio featured someone claiming to be Hodkinson and not the doctor himself. We reached out to Hodkinson for confirmation and will update this article accordingly if he responds. The person who identified as Hodkinson listed his credentials as follows: So you don't immediately think I'm a quack, I'm going to briefly outline my credentials so that you can understand where I'm coming from in terms of knowledge base in all of this. I'm a medical specialist in pathology which includes virology. I trained at Cambridge University in the UK. I'm the ex-president of the pathology section of the Medical Association. I was previously an assistant professor in the Faculty of Medicine doing a lot of teaching. I was the Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada examination committee in pathology in Ottawa. But more to the point, I'm currently the Chairman of a biotechnology company in North Carolina selling a COVID-19 test, and you might say I know a little bit about all this. As the video circulated on social media, some of Hodkinson's credentials were misconstrued. Some commenters claimed, for example, that Hodkinson was (or had been) the chairman of Canada's Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. This was not the case. In fact, that medical organization released a statement explaining that while Hodkinson was certified as a general pathologist by the Royal College in 1976, he was never the organization's chairman: We would like to clarify that Dr. Hodkinson is not nor has ever held the position of chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. We can confirm that Dr. Roger Hodkinson was certified by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada as a general pathologist in 1976. The Royal College believes COVID-19 presents a serious threat to the health of Canadians. The Royal College strongly supports all public health advice given by the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, including recommendations to practise physical distancing and to wear masks to help prevent COVID-19 transmission. We are very appreciative of the dedication and commitment of our Royal College Fellows, residents and all front-line health care workers in the fight against COVID-19. It was also claimed that Hodkinson was the President of the Alberta Society of Laboratory Physicians (ASLP), as shown in the caption of the viral video. The ASLP is no longer an active organization. The ASLP was a precursor to the Alberta Medical Association's Section of Laboratory Physicians - a change that occurred at least 25 years ago - and that organization has distanced itself from Hodkinson's comments. The Alberta Medical Association (AMA) released a statement saying that it 'does not share any of the views of the individual in question': Re: public comments made recently by a pathologist that may leave an impression to the contrary, the Alberta Section of Laboratory Physicians does not share any of the views of the individual in question. The #Alberta Section of Laboratory Physicians endorses the use of masks, hand washing and physical distancing along with all other public health measures to prevent the spread of #COVID19. His credentials aside, the comments Hodkinson made during this city council meeting ran counter (by his own admission) to the general consensus of the scientific community. Here we'll address a few of his claims: COVID-19 Is Just Like the Flu? (No.) Among many claims Hodkinson made during the call, he said that COVID-19 should be treated as if it were 'nothing more than a bad flu season.' In reality, COVID-19 has proven to be far deadlier than the flu. In Canada, the flu kills approximately 3,500 people a year. COVID-19, on the other hand, has resulted in more than 11,500 deaths in Canada so far in 2020. Globally, the flu kills between 290,000 to 650,000 people every year. In the eight months since the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic, more than 1.3 million people have died. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) explained other differences between the flu and COVID-19: There are some key differences between flu and COVID-19. COVID-19 seems to spread more easily than flu and causes more serious illnesses in some people. It can also take longer before people show symptoms and people can be contagious for longer. Another important difference is there is a vaccine to protect against flu. There is currently no vaccine to prevent COVID-19. The best way to prevent infection is to avoid being exposed to the virus. Masks Are 'Utterly Useless'? (No.) Hodkinson also claimed on the call that 'masks are utterly useless' and that 'there is no evidence base for their effectiveness whatsoever.' But this, again, is false. Multiple studies have shown mask use to slow the spread of COVID-19 and nearly every reputable health organization recommends the use of face masks (in addition to social distancing measures and regular hand-washing). In fact, a recent U.S. study found counties in Kansas that implemented mask mandates saw COVID-19 cases decrease, while counties that did not implement mask mandates saw cases increase. NPR reported: Researchers analyzed coronavirus infection rates in Kansas following a statewide mask mandate. They found that counties that chose to enforce the mandate saw their cases decrease. Counties that chose to opt out saw their cases continue to rise. 'This adds to the growing body of evidence that says large, widespread masking helps to slow the spread of COVID,' says Dr. Aaron Carroll, a professor at Indiana University School of Medicine. Carroll cautions that this was not a randomized, controlled study and there could have been other factors at play (such as more physical distancing in social situations and fewer large gatherings) in the counties that were enforcing masks. Still, as the study notes, the findings were consistent with declines in coronavirus cases observed in 15 states and the District of Columbia where masks were mandated, compared with states that didn't require the face coverings. To sum up: A man claiming to be Dr. Roger Hodkinson called into a public city council meeting in Edmonton, Alberta, to give his two cents about how the city was dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. While Hodkinson, who said that he is currently the chairman of a company that produces COVID-19 tests, does have an educational background in pathology, both the Alberta Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons have published statements refuting his claims. Our review of Hodkinson's comments also found that his statements contained inaccuracies as well as opinions that fall outside the consensus of the scientific community. With that being said, here's the video of Hodkinson's public remarks during a city council meeting in Edmonton:

nan

Dr. Roger Hodkinson, the Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, called COVID-19 a hoax.

Neutral

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 November 2020, social media users began sharing a video that supposedly captured a man named Dr. Roger Hodkinson stating that COVID-19 was the 'biggest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspected public' during a city council meeting in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Although this sort of claim can typically be dismissed out of hand (COVID-19 is not a hoax, and the coronavirus pandemic has resulted in more than 1.3 million deaths worldwide), social media users claimed that this person's opinion was worth listening to since he was, according to the postings, the 'Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.' This caller in question was not the Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (nor did he claim to be in the video), and that medical organization has released a statement distancing themselves from any association with his comments. While some online outlets presented this viral video (seen below) as if it captured 'secretly recorded audio' of a meeting between 'top pathologist' Hodkinson and government officials in Canada, this audio actually originated with a city council meeting held in Edmonton on Nov. 13, 2020, which involved various members of the community calling in to voice their concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic. Hodkinson was one such caller. Although many callers told the members of Edmonton City Council that they were unhappy with various mask mandates, the internet paid special attention to Hodkinson's comments, in large part because he detailed some seemingly praiseworthy credentials before he offered his opinions. It should be noted that while the caller identified himself as Hodkinson and a viral video released later displayed Hodkinson's picture and his title, the original video of the call simply showed a telephone logo displayed on a black screen. In other words, Hodkinson was not an advertised speaker at this meeting, and it's possible (although not probable) that the audio featured someone claiming to be Hodkinson and not the doctor himself. We reached out to Hodkinson for confirmation and will update this article accordingly if he responds. The person who identified as Hodkinson listed his credentials as follows: So you don't immediately think I'm a quack, I'm going to briefly outline my credentials so that you can understand where I'm coming from in terms of knowledge base in all of this. I'm a medical specialist in pathology which includes virology. I trained at Cambridge University in the UK. I'm the ex-president of the pathology section of the Medical Association. I was previously an assistant professor in the Faculty of Medicine doing a lot of teaching. I was the Chairman of the Royal College of Physicians of Canada examination committee in pathology in Ottawa. But more to the point, I'm currently the Chairman of a biotechnology company in North Carolina selling a COVID-19 test, and you might say I know a little bit about all this. As the video circulated on social media, some of Hodkinson's credentials were misconstrued. Some commenters claimed, for example, that Hodkinson was (or had been) the chairman of Canada's Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. This was not the case. In fact, that medical organization released a statement explaining that while Hodkinson was certified as a general pathologist by the Royal College in 1976, he was never the organization's chairman: We would like to clarify that Dr. Hodkinson is not nor has ever held the position of chairman of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. We can confirm that Dr. Roger Hodkinson was certified by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada as a general pathologist in 1976. The Royal College believes COVID-19 presents a serious threat to the health of Canadians. The Royal College strongly supports all public health advice given by the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, including recommendations to practise physical distancing and to wear masks to help prevent COVID-19 transmission. We are very appreciative of the dedication and commitment of our Royal College Fellows, residents and all front-line health care workers in the fight against COVID-19. It was also claimed that Hodkinson was the President of the Alberta Society of Laboratory Physicians (ASLP), as shown in the caption of the viral video. The ASLP is no longer an active organization. The ASLP was a precursor to the Alberta Medical Association's Section of Laboratory Physicians - a change that occurred at least 25 years ago - and that organization has distanced itself from Hodkinson's comments. The Alberta Medical Association (AMA) released a statement saying that it 'does not share any of the views of the individual in question': Re: public comments made recently by a pathologist that may leave an impression to the contrary, the Alberta Section of Laboratory Physicians does not share any of the views of the individual in question. The #Alberta Section of Laboratory Physicians endorses the use of masks, hand washing and physical distancing along with all other public health measures to prevent the spread of #COVID19. His credentials aside, the comments Hodkinson made during this city council meeting ran counter (by his own admission) to the general consensus of the scientific community. Here we'll address a few of his claims: COVID-19 Is Just Like the Flu? (No.) Among many claims Hodkinson made during the call, he said that COVID-19 should be treated as if it were 'nothing more than a bad flu season.' In reality, COVID-19 has proven to be far deadlier than the flu. In Canada, the flu kills approximately 3,500 people a year. COVID-19, on the other hand, has resulted in more than 11,500 deaths in Canada so far in 2020. Globally, the flu kills between 290,000 to 650,000 people every year. In the eight months since the World Health Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic, more than 1.3 million people have died. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) explained other differences between the flu and COVID-19: There are some key differences between flu and COVID-19. COVID-19 seems to spread more easily than flu and causes more serious illnesses in some people. It can also take longer before people show symptoms and people can be contagious for longer. Another important difference is there is a vaccine to protect against flu. There is currently no vaccine to prevent COVID-19. The best way to prevent infection is to avoid being exposed to the virus. Masks Are 'Utterly Useless'? (No.) Hodkinson also claimed on the call that 'masks are utterly useless' and that 'there is no evidence base for their effectiveness whatsoever.' But this, again, is false. Multiple studies have shown mask use to slow the spread of COVID-19 and nearly every reputable health organization recommends the use of face masks (in addition to social distancing measures and regular hand-washing). In fact, a recent U.S. study found counties in Kansas that implemented mask mandates saw COVID-19 cases decrease, while counties that did not implement mask mandates saw cases increase. NPR reported: Researchers analyzed coronavirus infection rates in Kansas following a statewide mask mandate. They found that counties that chose to enforce the mandate saw their cases decrease. Counties that chose to opt out saw their cases continue to rise. 'This adds to the growing body of evidence that says large, widespread masking helps to slow the spread of COVID,' says Dr. Aaron Carroll, a professor at Indiana University School of Medicine. Carroll cautions that this was not a randomized, controlled study and there could have been other factors at play (such as more physical distancing in social situations and fewer large gatherings) in the counties that were enforcing masks. Still, as the study notes, the findings were consistent with declines in coronavirus cases observed in 15 states and the District of Columbia where masks were mandated, compared with states that didn't require the face coverings. To sum up: A man claiming to be Dr. Roger Hodkinson called into a public city council meeting in Edmonton, Alberta, to give his two cents about how the city was dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. While Hodkinson, who said that he is currently the chairman of a company that produces COVID-19 tests, does have an educational background in pathology, both the Alberta Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons have published statements refuting his claims. Our review of Hodkinson's comments also found that his statements contained inaccuracies as well as opinions that fall outside the consensus of the scientific community. With that being said, here's the video of Hodkinson's public remarks during a city council meeting in Edmonton:

nan

The smell of a rare mushroom causes women to have spontaneous orgasms.

Neutral

On 8 October 2015, the web site IFLScience published a article reporting that the smell of a rare Hawaiian mushroom could cause women to have a spontaneous orgasms: Officially discovered back in 2001, John Halliday and Noah Soule were the first to record the effects of a fungus that could instantly induce female orgasm. Published in the International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms, Halliday explains that he and his colleague Soule heard of an unusual fungi growing in recent lava flows on the island of Hawaii - a bright orange mushroom which supposedly caused women to suddenly reach climax for no apparent reason. Forming on lava flows 600-1000 years old, the unnamed Dictyophora species was deemed a very intense aphrodisiac when smelled by women - despite, or maybe because, of its 'fetid' smell. The pair put the claim to the test by asking volunteers (I wonder how they whittled the number of applicants down?) to take a deep whiff, and recording their arousal levels. The results recorded in the Journal show a significant increase in arousal, with nearly half of the women experiencing spontaneous orgasms. All of the men, on the other hand, claimed it smelled absolutely disgusting. IFLScience was not the first to report on this orgasmic fungus: since Holliday and Soule published their paper on it in 2001, dozens of news publications, websites, and blogs have written about this mushroom's alleged abilities to induce olfactory orgasms. It appears, however, that the only people who have not been writing about this titillating phenomenon are other scientists. Our research did not turn up any other scientific studies about this orgasm-inducing and unnamed Dictyophora species, and the one extant study is itself a bit flimsy. Holliday and Soule conducted a 'smell test' in 2001 involving 16 women and 20 men. Six women from that group reportedly experienced spontaneous (but not 'earth-shattering') orgasms while smelling the fungus, and the other 10 (who received smaller doses) experienced an increase in heart rate. What caused the spontaneous orgasms? Halliday speculated that the fetid odor of the mushrooms may have had 'hormonelike compounds present' that had some 'similarity to human neurotransmitters released during sexual encounters': The island of Hawaii in the Central Pacific, there has long been the rumor of a bright orange colored mushroom with peculiar properties. Found growing only on recent lava flows approximately 600 to 10,000 years old, this variety of mushroom has the reputation of being a potent female aphrodisiac when smelled. In this study the morphology and chemistry of this unnamed Dictyophora species is described, along with the results of a smell test conducted on volunteer participants, showing that there are significant sexual arousal characteristics present in the fetid odor of this unique mushroom. Indeed, nearly half of the female test subjects experienced spontaneous orgasms while smelling this mushroom. These results suggest that the hormonelike compounds present in the volatile portion of the spore mass may have some similarity to human neurotransmitters released during sexual encounters. While Holliday's study is certainly intriguing, it's somewhat short of representing a rigorous scientific standard: it's a single, decades-old study that was conducted with a very small sample group and published in a minor journal, one which has not since been replicated or vetted by other researchers in the scientific community. On 14 February 2016, Discover published a first-person account of the search for the mysterious fungus. According to the author of the piece, the results were (in a word) underwhelming.

nan

The smell of a rare mushroom causes women to have spontaneous orgasms.

Neutral

On 8 October 2015, the web site IFLScience published a article reporting that the smell of a rare Hawaiian mushroom could cause women to have a spontaneous orgasms: Officially discovered back in 2001, John Halliday and Noah Soule were the first to record the effects of a fungus that could instantly induce female orgasm. Published in the International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms, Halliday explains that he and his colleague Soule heard of an unusual fungi growing in recent lava flows on the island of Hawaii - a bright orange mushroom which supposedly caused women to suddenly reach climax for no apparent reason. Forming on lava flows 600-1000 years old, the unnamed Dictyophora species was deemed a very intense aphrodisiac when smelled by women - despite, or maybe because, of its 'fetid' smell. The pair put the claim to the test by asking volunteers (I wonder how they whittled the number of applicants down?) to take a deep whiff, and recording their arousal levels. The results recorded in the Journal show a significant increase in arousal, with nearly half of the women experiencing spontaneous orgasms. All of the men, on the other hand, claimed it smelled absolutely disgusting. IFLScience was not the first to report on this orgasmic fungus: since Holliday and Soule published their paper on it in 2001, dozens of news publications, websites, and blogs have written about this mushroom's alleged abilities to induce olfactory orgasms. It appears, however, that the only people who have not been writing about this titillating phenomenon are other scientists. Our research did not turn up any other scientific studies about this orgasm-inducing and unnamed Dictyophora species, and the one extant study is itself a bit flimsy. Holliday and Soule conducted a 'smell test' in 2001 involving 16 women and 20 men. Six women from that group reportedly experienced spontaneous (but not 'earth-shattering') orgasms while smelling the fungus, and the other 10 (who received smaller doses) experienced an increase in heart rate. What caused the spontaneous orgasms? Halliday speculated that the fetid odor of the mushrooms may have had 'hormonelike compounds present' that had some 'similarity to human neurotransmitters released during sexual encounters': The island of Hawaii in the Central Pacific, there has long been the rumor of a bright orange colored mushroom with peculiar properties. Found growing only on recent lava flows approximately 600 to 10,000 years old, this variety of mushroom has the reputation of being a potent female aphrodisiac when smelled. In this study the morphology and chemistry of this unnamed Dictyophora species is described, along with the results of a smell test conducted on volunteer participants, showing that there are significant sexual arousal characteristics present in the fetid odor of this unique mushroom. Indeed, nearly half of the female test subjects experienced spontaneous orgasms while smelling this mushroom. These results suggest that the hormonelike compounds present in the volatile portion of the spore mass may have some similarity to human neurotransmitters released during sexual encounters. While Holliday's study is certainly intriguing, it's somewhat short of representing a rigorous scientific standard: it's a single, decades-old study that was conducted with a very small sample group and published in a minor journal, one which has not since been replicated or vetted by other researchers in the scientific community. On 14 February 2016, Discover published a first-person account of the search for the mysterious fungus. According to the author of the piece, the results were (in a word) underwhelming.

nan

Eleanor Roosevelt once said U.S. Marines have 'the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals,' or words to that effect.

Neutral

In May 2021, readers asked Snopes to look into a popular and colorful quotation, widely attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt, in which the former first lady supposedly said the U.S. Marines have 'the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen.' Over the years, the quip has appeared in various places of prominence: in countless memes and in books about the history of the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC). In many cases, the quotation was dated to 1945, including a widely shared 2013 post by the official USMC Facebook page: 'The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps!' -Eleanor Roosevelt, 1945 Despite its prevalence, and despite what could be regarded as an official endorsement from the USMC itself, it remains uncertain whether Roosevelt ever actually wrote or spoke those words, and we found a few indicators that the attribution to the former first lady might well be erroneous. Until or unless definitive evidence becomes available, we are issuing a rating of 'Unproven.' Snopes asked the USMC and the FDR Presidential Library and Museum to look into the provenance of the quote. Despite what appeared to be extensive research efforts, neither could locate the original source, or find evidence to support the attribution to Roosevelt. Kirsten Carter, supervisory archivist at the FDR Library, told Snopes the quote was 'out of character,' but could not necessarily be dismissed as something Roosevelt may have said: We have been asked many times to verify this quotation, but after surveying many of her writings have not as yet identified any direct source for the attribution. This is not to say Mrs. Roosevelt never uttered these words, as they may have been overheard in conversation, paraphrased, or recorded in some other manner. We simply cannot confirm it with a traceable citation. Generally speaking, while this particular quote seems out of character for Eleanor Roosevelt and bears no similarity to other statements she made publicly about the Marines (for which one of her sons served), we can neither confirm nor disprove it. Furthermore, we found extensive evidence of the same quotation being used in reference to the U.S. Navy and American sailors. For example, in his 1996 memoir, former Naval Commander Edward Raymer wrote: I wondered what she thought about my enlisting in the navy. Did she hold me in the same low regard that so much of society held for the American sailor? Perhaps she had heard the comment President Roosevelt's wife, Eleanor, had made about sailors: 'The cleanest bodies and dirtiest minds in the world.' The existence of this naval variant on the Roosevelt quote does not mean she never said it, or never said it about Marines, but it does raise the possibility of an old anonymous saying, popular among both sailors and Marines, later being attributed to a prominent public figure. And finally, we found definitive proof that the quotation existed before 1945. In October 1942, a group of Marine sergeants and corporals commissioned during World War II wrote a colorful letter to the editor of the Wisconsin State Journal. In it, they included the following observation: It has been said that, 'The Marines have the neatest uniforms, cleanest bodies, dirtiest minds, and are the best fighters in the world.' That is what we try to live up to. Since most examples of the Roosevelt quote have been dated to 1945, and we know for sure she didn't say it for the first time then, it does give cause to doubt the veracity of other aspects of that citation, including the attribution to Roosevelt. Several possibilities exist. It could be that Roosevelt did come up with the phrase, first said it before 1942, and the 1945 date is the only inaccurate component of the citation that has become popular in recent years. Equally, Roosevelt may have used the saying in a speech or letter, but she didn't invent it, and was simply repeating an already-popular quip about Marines, only for the quotation to be incorrectly attributed to her alone. Alternatively, it may have been a popular, humorous saying about Marines and or the Navy, which was later attributed to Roosevelt in order to lend credibility and prominence to it. As of now, we don't have enough evidence to reach a conclusion about which scenario is true. Until such time, our rating remains 'Unproven.'

nan

Eleanor Roosevelt once said U.S. Marines have 'the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals,' or words to that effect.

Neutral

In May 2021, readers asked Snopes to look into a popular and colorful quotation, widely attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt, in which the former first lady supposedly said the U.S. Marines have 'the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen.' Over the years, the quip has appeared in various places of prominence: in countless memes and in books about the history of the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC). In many cases, the quotation was dated to 1945, including a widely shared 2013 post by the official USMC Facebook page: 'The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps!' -Eleanor Roosevelt, 1945 Despite its prevalence, and despite what could be regarded as an official endorsement from the USMC itself, it remains uncertain whether Roosevelt ever actually wrote or spoke those words, and we found a few indicators that the attribution to the former first lady might well be erroneous. Until or unless definitive evidence becomes available, we are issuing a rating of 'Unproven.' Snopes asked the USMC and the FDR Presidential Library and Museum to look into the provenance of the quote. Despite what appeared to be extensive research efforts, neither could locate the original source, or find evidence to support the attribution to Roosevelt. Kirsten Carter, supervisory archivist at the FDR Library, told Snopes the quote was 'out of character,' but could not necessarily be dismissed as something Roosevelt may have said: We have been asked many times to verify this quotation, but after surveying many of her writings have not as yet identified any direct source for the attribution. This is not to say Mrs. Roosevelt never uttered these words, as they may have been overheard in conversation, paraphrased, or recorded in some other manner. We simply cannot confirm it with a traceable citation. Generally speaking, while this particular quote seems out of character for Eleanor Roosevelt and bears no similarity to other statements she made publicly about the Marines (for which one of her sons served), we can neither confirm nor disprove it. Furthermore, we found extensive evidence of the same quotation being used in reference to the U.S. Navy and American sailors. For example, in his 1996 memoir, former Naval Commander Edward Raymer wrote: I wondered what she thought about my enlisting in the navy. Did she hold me in the same low regard that so much of society held for the American sailor? Perhaps she had heard the comment President Roosevelt's wife, Eleanor, had made about sailors: 'The cleanest bodies and dirtiest minds in the world.' The existence of this naval variant on the Roosevelt quote does not mean she never said it, or never said it about Marines, but it does raise the possibility of an old anonymous saying, popular among both sailors and Marines, later being attributed to a prominent public figure. And finally, we found definitive proof that the quotation existed before 1945. In October 1942, a group of Marine sergeants and corporals commissioned during World War II wrote a colorful letter to the editor of the Wisconsin State Journal. In it, they included the following observation: It has been said that, 'The Marines have the neatest uniforms, cleanest bodies, dirtiest minds, and are the best fighters in the world.' That is what we try to live up to. Since most examples of the Roosevelt quote have been dated to 1945, and we know for sure she didn't say it for the first time then, it does give cause to doubt the veracity of other aspects of that citation, including the attribution to Roosevelt. Several possibilities exist. It could be that Roosevelt did come up with the phrase, first said it before 1942, and the 1945 date is the only inaccurate component of the citation that has become popular in recent years. Equally, Roosevelt may have used the saying in a speech or letter, but she didn't invent it, and was simply repeating an already-popular quip about Marines, only for the quotation to be incorrectly attributed to her alone. Alternatively, it may have been a popular, humorous saying about Marines and or the Navy, which was later attributed to Roosevelt in order to lend credibility and prominence to it. As of now, we don't have enough evidence to reach a conclusion about which scenario is true. Until such time, our rating remains 'Unproven.'

nan

Eleanor Roosevelt once said U.S. Marines have 'the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals,' or words to that effect.

Neutral

In May 2021, readers asked Snopes to look into a popular and colorful quotation, widely attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt, in which the former first lady supposedly said the U.S. Marines have 'the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen.' Over the years, the quip has appeared in various places of prominence: in countless memes and in books about the history of the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC). In many cases, the quotation was dated to 1945, including a widely shared 2013 post by the official USMC Facebook page: 'The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps!' -Eleanor Roosevelt, 1945 Despite its prevalence, and despite what could be regarded as an official endorsement from the USMC itself, it remains uncertain whether Roosevelt ever actually wrote or spoke those words, and we found a few indicators that the attribution to the former first lady might well be erroneous. Until or unless definitive evidence becomes available, we are issuing a rating of 'Unproven.' Snopes asked the USMC and the FDR Presidential Library and Museum to look into the provenance of the quote. Despite what appeared to be extensive research efforts, neither could locate the original source, or find evidence to support the attribution to Roosevelt. Kirsten Carter, supervisory archivist at the FDR Library, told Snopes the quote was 'out of character,' but could not necessarily be dismissed as something Roosevelt may have said: We have been asked many times to verify this quotation, but after surveying many of her writings have not as yet identified any direct source for the attribution. This is not to say Mrs. Roosevelt never uttered these words, as they may have been overheard in conversation, paraphrased, or recorded in some other manner. We simply cannot confirm it with a traceable citation. Generally speaking, while this particular quote seems out of character for Eleanor Roosevelt and bears no similarity to other statements she made publicly about the Marines (for which one of her sons served), we can neither confirm nor disprove it. Furthermore, we found extensive evidence of the same quotation being used in reference to the U.S. Navy and American sailors. For example, in his 1996 memoir, former Naval Commander Edward Raymer wrote: I wondered what she thought about my enlisting in the navy. Did she hold me in the same low regard that so much of society held for the American sailor? Perhaps she had heard the comment President Roosevelt's wife, Eleanor, had made about sailors: 'The cleanest bodies and dirtiest minds in the world.' The existence of this naval variant on the Roosevelt quote does not mean she never said it, or never said it about Marines, but it does raise the possibility of an old anonymous saying, popular among both sailors and Marines, later being attributed to a prominent public figure. And finally, we found definitive proof that the quotation existed before 1945. In October 1942, a group of Marine sergeants and corporals commissioned during World War II wrote a colorful letter to the editor of the Wisconsin State Journal. In it, they included the following observation: It has been said that, 'The Marines have the neatest uniforms, cleanest bodies, dirtiest minds, and are the best fighters in the world.' That is what we try to live up to. Since most examples of the Roosevelt quote have been dated to 1945, and we know for sure she didn't say it for the first time then, it does give cause to doubt the veracity of other aspects of that citation, including the attribution to Roosevelt. Several possibilities exist. It could be that Roosevelt did come up with the phrase, first said it before 1942, and the 1945 date is the only inaccurate component of the citation that has become popular in recent years. Equally, Roosevelt may have used the saying in a speech or letter, but she didn't invent it, and was simply repeating an already-popular quip about Marines, only for the quotation to be incorrectly attributed to her alone. Alternatively, it may have been a popular, humorous saying about Marines and or the Navy, which was later attributed to Roosevelt in order to lend credibility and prominence to it. As of now, we don't have enough evidence to reach a conclusion about which scenario is true. Until such time, our rating remains 'Unproven.'

nan

Eleanor Roosevelt once said U.S. Marines have 'the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals,' or words to that effect.

Neutral

In May 2021, readers asked Snopes to look into a popular and colorful quotation, widely attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt, in which the former first lady supposedly said the U.S. Marines have 'the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen.' Over the years, the quip has appeared in various places of prominence: in countless memes and in books about the history of the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC). In many cases, the quotation was dated to 1945, including a widely shared 2013 post by the official USMC Facebook page: 'The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps!' -Eleanor Roosevelt, 1945 Despite its prevalence, and despite what could be regarded as an official endorsement from the USMC itself, it remains uncertain whether Roosevelt ever actually wrote or spoke those words, and we found a few indicators that the attribution to the former first lady might well be erroneous. Until or unless definitive evidence becomes available, we are issuing a rating of 'Unproven.' Snopes asked the USMC and the FDR Presidential Library and Museum to look into the provenance of the quote. Despite what appeared to be extensive research efforts, neither could locate the original source, or find evidence to support the attribution to Roosevelt. Kirsten Carter, supervisory archivist at the FDR Library, told Snopes the quote was 'out of character,' but could not necessarily be dismissed as something Roosevelt may have said: We have been asked many times to verify this quotation, but after surveying many of her writings have not as yet identified any direct source for the attribution. This is not to say Mrs. Roosevelt never uttered these words, as they may have been overheard in conversation, paraphrased, or recorded in some other manner. We simply cannot confirm it with a traceable citation. Generally speaking, while this particular quote seems out of character for Eleanor Roosevelt and bears no similarity to other statements she made publicly about the Marines (for which one of her sons served), we can neither confirm nor disprove it. Furthermore, we found extensive evidence of the same quotation being used in reference to the U.S. Navy and American sailors. For example, in his 1996 memoir, former Naval Commander Edward Raymer wrote: I wondered what she thought about my enlisting in the navy. Did she hold me in the same low regard that so much of society held for the American sailor? Perhaps she had heard the comment President Roosevelt's wife, Eleanor, had made about sailors: 'The cleanest bodies and dirtiest minds in the world.' The existence of this naval variant on the Roosevelt quote does not mean she never said it, or never said it about Marines, but it does raise the possibility of an old anonymous saying, popular among both sailors and Marines, later being attributed to a prominent public figure. And finally, we found definitive proof that the quotation existed before 1945. In October 1942, a group of Marine sergeants and corporals commissioned during World War II wrote a colorful letter to the editor of the Wisconsin State Journal. In it, they included the following observation: It has been said that, 'The Marines have the neatest uniforms, cleanest bodies, dirtiest minds, and are the best fighters in the world.' That is what we try to live up to. Since most examples of the Roosevelt quote have been dated to 1945, and we know for sure she didn't say it for the first time then, it does give cause to doubt the veracity of other aspects of that citation, including the attribution to Roosevelt. Several possibilities exist. It could be that Roosevelt did come up with the phrase, first said it before 1942, and the 1945 date is the only inaccurate component of the citation that has become popular in recent years. Equally, Roosevelt may have used the saying in a speech or letter, but she didn't invent it, and was simply repeating an already-popular quip about Marines, only for the quotation to be incorrectly attributed to her alone. Alternatively, it may have been a popular, humorous saying about Marines and or the Navy, which was later attributed to Roosevelt in order to lend credibility and prominence to it. As of now, we don't have enough evidence to reach a conclusion about which scenario is true. Until such time, our rating remains 'Unproven.'

nan

A man spat at a young Marine holding the door open for him because the American people no longer support the military.

Neutral

On 1 October 2015, Facebook user Melissa Butz-Uhl Dingle published the photograph below: Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2015] I saw this posted on Facebook today by a friend. Really hard to believe the story is true. So hard, I'm letting you know about it rather than share it. Appended was the following statement: I have a favor to ask you all....My son, My Marine experienced some recent crapola (someone decided it was OK to SPIT on my son while he was in uniform!) and then my son said this to me.... 'people don't like us anymore'. Please let my son, Ezekiel Dingle, KNOW that there are A LOT of people that support our Military and They support him too. Butz-Uhl Dingle later elaborated on her initial account as highlighted below: I have a favor to ask you all....My son, My Marine experienced some recent crapola (someone decided it was OK to SPIT on my son while he was in uniform holding the door open for them!) and then my son said this to me.... 'people don't like us anymore, all I wanted to do was be a change in the world'. He is only 19 years old and took on this great title. Please let my son, Ezekiel Dingle, KNOW that there are A LOT of people that support our Military and They support him too. Butz-Uhl Dingle's tale closely resembled a classic urban legend about a shunned serviceman, iterations of which have remained intermittently popular since Vietnam. In 2014 and 2015, the trope appeared repeatedly in a constellation of outrages on social media and spread beyond the world of servicemen. Amid debate about the use of police force, rumors began to pop up alleging police officers were refused service or disrespected by employees of various companies (although many such claims proved to be exaggerated or entirely fabricated). According to Dingle's Facebook page, he was at boot camp as of 28 June 2015. An active GoFundMe page created by Butz-Uhl Dingle indicated he graduated on 28 August 2015; it remained active and listed a new graduation date of 12 November 2015. Butz-Uhl Dingle did not provide a date, location, or other information about the spitting incident in her Facebook post. We've contacted Butz-Uhl Dingle in an attempt to obtain more details about the claim but have received no answers to date.

nan

A man spat at a young Marine holding the door open for him because the American people no longer support the military.

Neutral

On 1 October 2015, Facebook user Melissa Butz-Uhl Dingle published the photograph below: Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2015] I saw this posted on Facebook today by a friend. Really hard to believe the story is true. So hard, I'm letting you know about it rather than share it. Appended was the following statement: I have a favor to ask you all....My son, My Marine experienced some recent crapola (someone decided it was OK to SPIT on my son while he was in uniform!) and then my son said this to me.... 'people don't like us anymore'. Please let my son, Ezekiel Dingle, KNOW that there are A LOT of people that support our Military and They support him too. Butz-Uhl Dingle later elaborated on her initial account as highlighted below: I have a favor to ask you all....My son, My Marine experienced some recent crapola (someone decided it was OK to SPIT on my son while he was in uniform holding the door open for them!) and then my son said this to me.... 'people don't like us anymore, all I wanted to do was be a change in the world'. He is only 19 years old and took on this great title. Please let my son, Ezekiel Dingle, KNOW that there are A LOT of people that support our Military and They support him too. Butz-Uhl Dingle's tale closely resembled a classic urban legend about a shunned serviceman, iterations of which have remained intermittently popular since Vietnam. In 2014 and 2015, the trope appeared repeatedly in a constellation of outrages on social media and spread beyond the world of servicemen. Amid debate about the use of police force, rumors began to pop up alleging police officers were refused service or disrespected by employees of various companies (although many such claims proved to be exaggerated or entirely fabricated). According to Dingle's Facebook page, he was at boot camp as of 28 June 2015. An active GoFundMe page created by Butz-Uhl Dingle indicated he graduated on 28 August 2015; it remained active and listed a new graduation date of 12 November 2015. Butz-Uhl Dingle did not provide a date, location, or other information about the spitting incident in her Facebook post. We've contacted Butz-Uhl Dingle in an attempt to obtain more details about the claim but have received no answers to date.

nan

A man spat at a young Marine holding the door open for him because the American people no longer support the military.

Neutral

On 1 October 2015, Facebook user Melissa Butz-Uhl Dingle published the photograph below: Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2015] I saw this posted on Facebook today by a friend. Really hard to believe the story is true. So hard, I'm letting you know about it rather than share it. Appended was the following statement: I have a favor to ask you all....My son, My Marine experienced some recent crapola (someone decided it was OK to SPIT on my son while he was in uniform!) and then my son said this to me.... 'people don't like us anymore'. Please let my son, Ezekiel Dingle, KNOW that there are A LOT of people that support our Military and They support him too. Butz-Uhl Dingle later elaborated on her initial account as highlighted below: I have a favor to ask you all....My son, My Marine experienced some recent crapola (someone decided it was OK to SPIT on my son while he was in uniform holding the door open for them!) and then my son said this to me.... 'people don't like us anymore, all I wanted to do was be a change in the world'. He is only 19 years old and took on this great title. Please let my son, Ezekiel Dingle, KNOW that there are A LOT of people that support our Military and They support him too. Butz-Uhl Dingle's tale closely resembled a classic urban legend about a shunned serviceman, iterations of which have remained intermittently popular since Vietnam. In 2014 and 2015, the trope appeared repeatedly in a constellation of outrages on social media and spread beyond the world of servicemen. Amid debate about the use of police force, rumors began to pop up alleging police officers were refused service or disrespected by employees of various companies (although many such claims proved to be exaggerated or entirely fabricated). According to Dingle's Facebook page, he was at boot camp as of 28 June 2015. An active GoFundMe page created by Butz-Uhl Dingle indicated he graduated on 28 August 2015; it remained active and listed a new graduation date of 12 November 2015. Butz-Uhl Dingle did not provide a date, location, or other information about the spitting incident in her Facebook post. We've contacted Butz-Uhl Dingle in an attempt to obtain more details about the claim but have received no answers to date.

nan

FBI agent Peter Strzok II grew up in Iran; had a father who engaged in clandestine activities overseas under the guise of doing charitable work; served as a 'Middle East intel operative' in the Obama administration; and was a CIA agent 'placed' in the FBI to help Hillary Clinton win the presidency.

Neutral

Longtime FBI agent Peter Strzok II, who until recently served as deputy assistant director of the agency's Counterintelligence Division, gained public notoriety when he was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Trump-Russia investigation for sending private text messages critical of the president. Formerly the lead FBI investigator into Hillary Clinton's use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state, Strzok has since come under investigation himself by the Justice Department's inspector general, been grilled on his ethical integrity by the House Oversight Committee, and stands accused by conspiracy theorists of being a linchpin in a 'deep state' plot to sabotage Trump's presidency. A July 2018 salvo from the far-right blog Big League Politics attempted to make the case that Strzok, who spent part of his childhood in Iran, is a covert CIA operative who served the Iranian regime's interests while allegedly acting as a 'key Middle Eastern Intel operative' for President Obama, then was 'placed in the FBI to ensure a win for Hillary Clinton' in the 2016 presidential election. That salvo was a mishmash of accusations derived in part from the supposed 'insider' testimony of an anonymous former co-worker of Strzok's, in part from misreadings of public documents (including decades-old press clippings about Strzok's father), and in part from a labored effort to connect dots that simply aren't there. The post began as follows: EXPOSED: Peter Strzok Grew Up In Iran, Worked As Obama and Brennan's Envoy To Iranian Regime A former co-worker of Peter Strzok tells Big League Politics about Strzok's extensive background in the intelligence community, including the fact that he grew up in Iran. Many intelligence officers like Strzok are complete ghosts with questionable history and gaps in their life story. But now we have some insight. (RELATED: Strzok Worked For CIA And FBI At Same Time, According To Document). Peter Strzok was born in the late 1960's - he attended the American School in Iran up until 1978 when it closed down and then he attended the American School in Saudi Arabia. He supposedly attended a Catholic School, St. John's Prep in Minneapolis (the school refused to confirm or deny attendance) and then completed a Bachelors at Georgetown and some form of graduate degree after that. The truth is that after Peter Strzok III turned 18 his life is arcane, which is the usual story of many like him. Did you know that Peter Strzok II (Strzok's father) and Hillary Clinton have a lot in common? It turns out after advocating for Khomeni in Iran and then working in Saudi Arabia to calm the waters of an Iranian government (appeasing them with anti-Semitic rhetoric), Strzok's father Strzok II also dabbled in 'charity work.' Strzok's father was involved in so-called charity work in Haiti but also helped dismantle and reassemble Upper Volta..now known as Burkina Faso. We interrupt here to point out that the author of the post appears to have misstated several details: Peter Strzok wasn't born in the late 1960s; he was born on 7 March 1970 (according to a birth announcement in the Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan Evening News). His father is Peter Strzok Sr., not Peter Strzok II (Strzok Sr.'s father's name was Michael, not Peter). Peter Strzok II is FBI agent Peter Strzok. Unless the latter fathered a namesake, there is no Peter Strzok III. The claim that Strzok 'grew up' in Iran is an overstatement. The Strzoks moved there while Strzok Sr. was serving in the Army Corps of Engineers, from which he retired in July 1978. While we don't know precisely how long the family resided there, the Eau Claire, Wisconsin Leader-Telegram reported in 1979 that the Strzoks left Iran at the beginning of that year to return to the U.S. because of the political unrest that followed the overthrow of the Shah. Peter was eight years old at the time. The same article said that Strzok Sr. was then considering taking a job in Saudi Arabia. It's unclear whether he did or not. If the Strzok family did move to Saudi Arabia, it was for a very short period of time, given that Strzok Sr. accepted a job with the international aid organization Catholic Relief Services (CRS) in 1980 and relocated his family to Upper Volta (a country in Africa now known as Burkina Faso). The Strzoks would be there for three years. As for his schooling, the younger Strzok attended the American School in Tehran (where his mother also taught), as claimed. We've not been able to confirm that he attended school in Saudi Arabia. Once back in the United States, Strzok didn't 'supposedly' attend St. John's Preparatory School (as the Big League Politics blogger put it) - he did, in fact, attend that school (which is in St. Cloud, Minnesota, not Minneapolis) from 1983 through 1987, and his graduation notice appeared in the St. Cloud Times on 15 May 1987. He later earned bachelor's and master's degrees at Georgetown University (as noted on an alumni donor list published on the school's web site). An outsized portion of the Big League Politics post was devoted to Strzok's father's life, as if to posit that father and son have been operating some sort of 'deep state' conspiratorial family business for the past 40 years. The author went to great lengths to impute insidious motives to Strzok Sr.'s overseas humanitarian projects, which - far from being something he 'dabbled' in (as the post describes it) - to all appearances became his life's work after he retired from military service. Strzok Sr. served as the director of Catholic Relief Services in Upper Volta for three years. There is no evidence that he 'helped dismantle and reassemble' that country, which underwent a military coup while he was there. Strzok ran a food assistance and nutrition education program that served some 150,000 children and mothers. Nor, contrary to another claim in the post, was he still present in Upper Volta when its name was changed to Burkina Faso in 1984 (not 1985, as claimed). In mid-1983 Strzok accepted the post of CRS director in Haiti. We know he was there for less than two years, because a New York Times report published in August 1985 names 'former employee' Peter Strzok as one of three complainants in a dispute over Catholic Relief Services' alleged mishandling of funds. His time in Haiti coincided with the final few years of the rule of Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier, who would be overthrown in 1986. Our blogger took a special interest in the fact that Strzok Sr. lived and worked in a succession of international hot spots, repeatedly insinuating that he must have been engaged in espionage or other clandestine activities. 'Looks like whenever there is a regime change in modern history a Strzok is lying in the shadows waiting,' the post said. But ironically, far from 'lying in the shadows,' the only reason we know as much as we do about Peter Strzok Sr.'s whereabouts over the past 40 years is that he spoke so freely and openly about his activities in the press. We can't prove he wasn't a covert operative, of course, but neither has anyone else demonstrated that he was. One of the oddest claims in the post was that Strzok Sr. was involved in the Iran-Contra affair (involving the illegal sale of arms to Iran to fund the Contras in Nicaragua), which took place during the mid-1980s under President Reagan. We were unable to find evidence that Strzok played any role at all in Iran-Contra, or was mentioned in the news coverage or congressional hearings that followed the scandal. The coverage that does exist about Strzok from that time indicates that he was actively engaged in doing humanitarian aid work in West Africa. There was also an attempt to link Strzok Sr. up with the Clintons: The Clinton Foundation and The Catholic Relief Services (CRS) seem to work in tangent [sic]. Coincidence? Peter Strzok Sr. was actually the director of CRS in Haiti. If we look into CRS financials they seem to overlap and feed into Clinton Global initiatives and balance sheets. Never mind that the Clinton Foundation wasn't launched until 1997, more than a decade after Strzok left CRS and founded his own non-government agency, AFGRO (Agency to Facilitate the Growth of Rural Organizations). Whatever 'overlap' there may be, or have been - if any - between the Clinton Foundation and Catholic Relief Services, no such thing could have existed when Strzok was involved with the latter organization. The purpose of asserting these nonexistent connections was to create the appearance of a continuum of father-son involvement with Iran, Haiti, and the Clintons: We know Peter Strzok III [sic], the man who sent those vile text messages about our President. The man who was biased and wanted to ensure a Clinton Presidency was raised in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Our source reveals how Strzok and his father both talked about Iran favorably and both accidently reminisced about the rose water smell of the ju-jeh kebab by Shemiran Hill... something that disappeared after 1987 and only those who are old enough to remember can discuss. Peter Strzok's Persian is impeccable. Our insider tells us that Peter Strzok III [sic] is the key Middle Eastern Intel operative for the Iranian airline Mahan Air's purchase of United States government planes during the Obama administration from 2011 to 2013 (when Iran sanctions were in place). He handled the Iranian relations from start to finish. Just like his father did for Reagan and just like he's been doing for years under cloak and dagger says the BLP insider. Once again, we have searched for any scrap of documentation that might prove that Peter Strzok II (the FBI agent) served as 'the key Middle Eastern intel operative' in negotiations between the U.S. and Iran during the Obama administration, and we found none. As an FBI counterintelligence officer, there is no reason why the younger Strzok would or could have played such a role anyway. Big League Politics had a ready explanation for this, though, namely that Strzok was actually working for the CIA: The BLP insider who's worked with both [former CIA director John] Breannan [sic] and Strzok tells us that Strzok was never FBI he was part of the highest level of covert operatives, sliding into posts within the CIA or FBI to infiltrate, influence and observe. This is exactly what we saw with the Special Counsel appointment that resulted after a failed operation. Peter Strzok Jr. was placed in the FBI to ensure a win for Hillary Clinton and buffer negative press (like the Weiner laptop case, which he covered up). That's the real deal. Revealing Peter Strzok's identity would have been a problem because it's called unmasking but since he is in the limelight and out of the shadows it's time to lay all the cards FACE up on the table for all to see who Peter Strzok really is. In addition to citing the anonymous informant as the source of this claim, the post linked out to an article referencing an unclassified document that supposedly proved Strzok worked for the CIA and the FBI at the same time: A [sic] unclassified document printed on FBI letterhead dated January 20, 2016, which contains the subject line 'Supplemental Classification Review and Determination' was addressed to the Bureau of National Security's Assistant Secretary Gregory B. Starr from Peter Strzok who is listed as 'Section Chief' of the 'Counterespionage Section' in reference to Strzok's CIA post. Keep in mind, this is not an FBI post as Strzok's position at the FBI is 'Deputy Assistant Director Counterintelligence Division' not 'Section Chief' which is a CIA post. Which is utter nonsense. Although the specified document did list Strzok's title as 'section chief' of the Counterespionage Section, it's patently untrue that section chief isn't an FBI post. Both agencies have sections and chiefs (and assistant section chiefs). Not only was section chief precisely the position Strzok held before being promoted to deputy assistant director at the FBI, but others have held that title, too. The claim that Strzok was 'placed in the FBI to ensure a win for Hillary Clinton' is flatly absurd. Strzok joined the agency in 1996. Was the plot to ensure a Hillary Clinton win in 2016 already in motion 20 years beforehand? The Big League Politics post was a clumsy, error-ridden effort to generate a 'deep state' conspiracy theory around FBI agent Peter Strzok, who, up until the text message incident that derailed him in 2017, seems to have trodden a fairly straightforward career path in the agency over a period of more than two decades. Peter Strzok spent several years of his childhood in Iran, but he did not 'grow up' there. There is no evidence nor any good reason to suppose that he acted as an 'envoy' or 'intel operative' in U.S. dealings with Iran at any time during the Obama administration. And the claim that Strzok is or was a covert CIA operative 'placed' in the FBI to help Hillary Clinton win the presidency and subvert the Trump administration is a flight of fancy divorced from all evidence and logic.

nan

FBI agent Peter Strzok II grew up in Iran; had a father who engaged in clandestine activities overseas under the guise of doing charitable work; served as a 'Middle East intel operative' in the Obama administration; and was a CIA agent 'placed' in the FBI to help Hillary Clinton win the presidency.

Neutral

Longtime FBI agent Peter Strzok II, who until recently served as deputy assistant director of the agency's Counterintelligence Division, gained public notoriety when he was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Trump-Russia investigation for sending private text messages critical of the president. Formerly the lead FBI investigator into Hillary Clinton's use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state, Strzok has since come under investigation himself by the Justice Department's inspector general, been grilled on his ethical integrity by the House Oversight Committee, and stands accused by conspiracy theorists of being a linchpin in a 'deep state' plot to sabotage Trump's presidency. A July 2018 salvo from the far-right blog Big League Politics attempted to make the case that Strzok, who spent part of his childhood in Iran, is a covert CIA operative who served the Iranian regime's interests while allegedly acting as a 'key Middle Eastern Intel operative' for President Obama, then was 'placed in the FBI to ensure a win for Hillary Clinton' in the 2016 presidential election. That salvo was a mishmash of accusations derived in part from the supposed 'insider' testimony of an anonymous former co-worker of Strzok's, in part from misreadings of public documents (including decades-old press clippings about Strzok's father), and in part from a labored effort to connect dots that simply aren't there. The post began as follows: EXPOSED: Peter Strzok Grew Up In Iran, Worked As Obama and Brennan's Envoy To Iranian Regime A former co-worker of Peter Strzok tells Big League Politics about Strzok's extensive background in the intelligence community, including the fact that he grew up in Iran. Many intelligence officers like Strzok are complete ghosts with questionable history and gaps in their life story. But now we have some insight. (RELATED: Strzok Worked For CIA And FBI At Same Time, According To Document). Peter Strzok was born in the late 1960's - he attended the American School in Iran up until 1978 when it closed down and then he attended the American School in Saudi Arabia. He supposedly attended a Catholic School, St. John's Prep in Minneapolis (the school refused to confirm or deny attendance) and then completed a Bachelors at Georgetown and some form of graduate degree after that. The truth is that after Peter Strzok III turned 18 his life is arcane, which is the usual story of many like him. Did you know that Peter Strzok II (Strzok's father) and Hillary Clinton have a lot in common? It turns out after advocating for Khomeni in Iran and then working in Saudi Arabia to calm the waters of an Iranian government (appeasing them with anti-Semitic rhetoric), Strzok's father Strzok II also dabbled in 'charity work.' Strzok's father was involved in so-called charity work in Haiti but also helped dismantle and reassemble Upper Volta..now known as Burkina Faso. We interrupt here to point out that the author of the post appears to have misstated several details: Peter Strzok wasn't born in the late 1960s; he was born on 7 March 1970 (according to a birth announcement in the Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan Evening News). His father is Peter Strzok Sr., not Peter Strzok II (Strzok Sr.'s father's name was Michael, not Peter). Peter Strzok II is FBI agent Peter Strzok. Unless the latter fathered a namesake, there is no Peter Strzok III. The claim that Strzok 'grew up' in Iran is an overstatement. The Strzoks moved there while Strzok Sr. was serving in the Army Corps of Engineers, from which he retired in July 1978. While we don't know precisely how long the family resided there, the Eau Claire, Wisconsin Leader-Telegram reported in 1979 that the Strzoks left Iran at the beginning of that year to return to the U.S. because of the political unrest that followed the overthrow of the Shah. Peter was eight years old at the time. The same article said that Strzok Sr. was then considering taking a job in Saudi Arabia. It's unclear whether he did or not. If the Strzok family did move to Saudi Arabia, it was for a very short period of time, given that Strzok Sr. accepted a job with the international aid organization Catholic Relief Services (CRS) in 1980 and relocated his family to Upper Volta (a country in Africa now known as Burkina Faso). The Strzoks would be there for three years. As for his schooling, the younger Strzok attended the American School in Tehran (where his mother also taught), as claimed. We've not been able to confirm that he attended school in Saudi Arabia. Once back in the United States, Strzok didn't 'supposedly' attend St. John's Preparatory School (as the Big League Politics blogger put it) - he did, in fact, attend that school (which is in St. Cloud, Minnesota, not Minneapolis) from 1983 through 1987, and his graduation notice appeared in the St. Cloud Times on 15 May 1987. He later earned bachelor's and master's degrees at Georgetown University (as noted on an alumni donor list published on the school's web site). An outsized portion of the Big League Politics post was devoted to Strzok's father's life, as if to posit that father and son have been operating some sort of 'deep state' conspiratorial family business for the past 40 years. The author went to great lengths to impute insidious motives to Strzok Sr.'s overseas humanitarian projects, which - far from being something he 'dabbled' in (as the post describes it) - to all appearances became his life's work after he retired from military service. Strzok Sr. served as the director of Catholic Relief Services in Upper Volta for three years. There is no evidence that he 'helped dismantle and reassemble' that country, which underwent a military coup while he was there. Strzok ran a food assistance and nutrition education program that served some 150,000 children and mothers. Nor, contrary to another claim in the post, was he still present in Upper Volta when its name was changed to Burkina Faso in 1984 (not 1985, as claimed). In mid-1983 Strzok accepted the post of CRS director in Haiti. We know he was there for less than two years, because a New York Times report published in August 1985 names 'former employee' Peter Strzok as one of three complainants in a dispute over Catholic Relief Services' alleged mishandling of funds. His time in Haiti coincided with the final few years of the rule of Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier, who would be overthrown in 1986. Our blogger took a special interest in the fact that Strzok Sr. lived and worked in a succession of international hot spots, repeatedly insinuating that he must have been engaged in espionage or other clandestine activities. 'Looks like whenever there is a regime change in modern history a Strzok is lying in the shadows waiting,' the post said. But ironically, far from 'lying in the shadows,' the only reason we know as much as we do about Peter Strzok Sr.'s whereabouts over the past 40 years is that he spoke so freely and openly about his activities in the press. We can't prove he wasn't a covert operative, of course, but neither has anyone else demonstrated that he was. One of the oddest claims in the post was that Strzok Sr. was involved in the Iran-Contra affair (involving the illegal sale of arms to Iran to fund the Contras in Nicaragua), which took place during the mid-1980s under President Reagan. We were unable to find evidence that Strzok played any role at all in Iran-Contra, or was mentioned in the news coverage or congressional hearings that followed the scandal. The coverage that does exist about Strzok from that time indicates that he was actively engaged in doing humanitarian aid work in West Africa. There was also an attempt to link Strzok Sr. up with the Clintons: The Clinton Foundation and The Catholic Relief Services (CRS) seem to work in tangent [sic]. Coincidence? Peter Strzok Sr. was actually the director of CRS in Haiti. If we look into CRS financials they seem to overlap and feed into Clinton Global initiatives and balance sheets. Never mind that the Clinton Foundation wasn't launched until 1997, more than a decade after Strzok left CRS and founded his own non-government agency, AFGRO (Agency to Facilitate the Growth of Rural Organizations). Whatever 'overlap' there may be, or have been - if any - between the Clinton Foundation and Catholic Relief Services, no such thing could have existed when Strzok was involved with the latter organization. The purpose of asserting these nonexistent connections was to create the appearance of a continuum of father-son involvement with Iran, Haiti, and the Clintons: We know Peter Strzok III [sic], the man who sent those vile text messages about our President. The man who was biased and wanted to ensure a Clinton Presidency was raised in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Our source reveals how Strzok and his father both talked about Iran favorably and both accidently reminisced about the rose water smell of the ju-jeh kebab by Shemiran Hill... something that disappeared after 1987 and only those who are old enough to remember can discuss. Peter Strzok's Persian is impeccable. Our insider tells us that Peter Strzok III [sic] is the key Middle Eastern Intel operative for the Iranian airline Mahan Air's purchase of United States government planes during the Obama administration from 2011 to 2013 (when Iran sanctions were in place). He handled the Iranian relations from start to finish. Just like his father did for Reagan and just like he's been doing for years under cloak and dagger says the BLP insider. Once again, we have searched for any scrap of documentation that might prove that Peter Strzok II (the FBI agent) served as 'the key Middle Eastern intel operative' in negotiations between the U.S. and Iran during the Obama administration, and we found none. As an FBI counterintelligence officer, there is no reason why the younger Strzok would or could have played such a role anyway. Big League Politics had a ready explanation for this, though, namely that Strzok was actually working for the CIA: The BLP insider who's worked with both [former CIA director John] Breannan [sic] and Strzok tells us that Strzok was never FBI he was part of the highest level of covert operatives, sliding into posts within the CIA or FBI to infiltrate, influence and observe. This is exactly what we saw with the Special Counsel appointment that resulted after a failed operation. Peter Strzok Jr. was placed in the FBI to ensure a win for Hillary Clinton and buffer negative press (like the Weiner laptop case, which he covered up). That's the real deal. Revealing Peter Strzok's identity would have been a problem because it's called unmasking but since he is in the limelight and out of the shadows it's time to lay all the cards FACE up on the table for all to see who Peter Strzok really is. In addition to citing the anonymous informant as the source of this claim, the post linked out to an article referencing an unclassified document that supposedly proved Strzok worked for the CIA and the FBI at the same time: A [sic] unclassified document printed on FBI letterhead dated January 20, 2016, which contains the subject line 'Supplemental Classification Review and Determination' was addressed to the Bureau of National Security's Assistant Secretary Gregory B. Starr from Peter Strzok who is listed as 'Section Chief' of the 'Counterespionage Section' in reference to Strzok's CIA post. Keep in mind, this is not an FBI post as Strzok's position at the FBI is 'Deputy Assistant Director Counterintelligence Division' not 'Section Chief' which is a CIA post. Which is utter nonsense. Although the specified document did list Strzok's title as 'section chief' of the Counterespionage Section, it's patently untrue that section chief isn't an FBI post. Both agencies have sections and chiefs (and assistant section chiefs). Not only was section chief precisely the position Strzok held before being promoted to deputy assistant director at the FBI, but others have held that title, too. The claim that Strzok was 'placed in the FBI to ensure a win for Hillary Clinton' is flatly absurd. Strzok joined the agency in 1996. Was the plot to ensure a Hillary Clinton win in 2016 already in motion 20 years beforehand? The Big League Politics post was a clumsy, error-ridden effort to generate a 'deep state' conspiracy theory around FBI agent Peter Strzok, who, up until the text message incident that derailed him in 2017, seems to have trodden a fairly straightforward career path in the agency over a period of more than two decades. Peter Strzok spent several years of his childhood in Iran, but he did not 'grow up' there. There is no evidence nor any good reason to suppose that he acted as an 'envoy' or 'intel operative' in U.S. dealings with Iran at any time during the Obama administration. And the claim that Strzok is or was a covert CIA operative 'placed' in the FBI to help Hillary Clinton win the presidency and subvert the Trump administration is a flight of fancy divorced from all evidence and logic.

nan

FBI agent Peter Strzok II grew up in Iran; had a father who engaged in clandestine activities overseas under the guise of doing charitable work; served as a 'Middle East intel operative' in the Obama administration; and was a CIA agent 'placed' in the FBI to help Hillary Clinton win the presidency.

Neutral

Longtime FBI agent Peter Strzok II, who until recently served as deputy assistant director of the agency's Counterintelligence Division, gained public notoriety when he was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Trump-Russia investigation for sending private text messages critical of the president. Formerly the lead FBI investigator into Hillary Clinton's use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state, Strzok has since come under investigation himself by the Justice Department's inspector general, been grilled on his ethical integrity by the House Oversight Committee, and stands accused by conspiracy theorists of being a linchpin in a 'deep state' plot to sabotage Trump's presidency. A July 2018 salvo from the far-right blog Big League Politics attempted to make the case that Strzok, who spent part of his childhood in Iran, is a covert CIA operative who served the Iranian regime's interests while allegedly acting as a 'key Middle Eastern Intel operative' for President Obama, then was 'placed in the FBI to ensure a win for Hillary Clinton' in the 2016 presidential election. That salvo was a mishmash of accusations derived in part from the supposed 'insider' testimony of an anonymous former co-worker of Strzok's, in part from misreadings of public documents (including decades-old press clippings about Strzok's father), and in part from a labored effort to connect dots that simply aren't there. The post began as follows: EXPOSED: Peter Strzok Grew Up In Iran, Worked As Obama and Brennan's Envoy To Iranian Regime A former co-worker of Peter Strzok tells Big League Politics about Strzok's extensive background in the intelligence community, including the fact that he grew up in Iran. Many intelligence officers like Strzok are complete ghosts with questionable history and gaps in their life story. But now we have some insight. (RELATED: Strzok Worked For CIA And FBI At Same Time, According To Document). Peter Strzok was born in the late 1960's - he attended the American School in Iran up until 1978 when it closed down and then he attended the American School in Saudi Arabia. He supposedly attended a Catholic School, St. John's Prep in Minneapolis (the school refused to confirm or deny attendance) and then completed a Bachelors at Georgetown and some form of graduate degree after that. The truth is that after Peter Strzok III turned 18 his life is arcane, which is the usual story of many like him. Did you know that Peter Strzok II (Strzok's father) and Hillary Clinton have a lot in common? It turns out after advocating for Khomeni in Iran and then working in Saudi Arabia to calm the waters of an Iranian government (appeasing them with anti-Semitic rhetoric), Strzok's father Strzok II also dabbled in 'charity work.' Strzok's father was involved in so-called charity work in Haiti but also helped dismantle and reassemble Upper Volta..now known as Burkina Faso. We interrupt here to point out that the author of the post appears to have misstated several details: Peter Strzok wasn't born in the late 1960s; he was born on 7 March 1970 (according to a birth announcement in the Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan Evening News). His father is Peter Strzok Sr., not Peter Strzok II (Strzok Sr.'s father's name was Michael, not Peter). Peter Strzok II is FBI agent Peter Strzok. Unless the latter fathered a namesake, there is no Peter Strzok III. The claim that Strzok 'grew up' in Iran is an overstatement. The Strzoks moved there while Strzok Sr. was serving in the Army Corps of Engineers, from which he retired in July 1978. While we don't know precisely how long the family resided there, the Eau Claire, Wisconsin Leader-Telegram reported in 1979 that the Strzoks left Iran at the beginning of that year to return to the U.S. because of the political unrest that followed the overthrow of the Shah. Peter was eight years old at the time. The same article said that Strzok Sr. was then considering taking a job in Saudi Arabia. It's unclear whether he did or not. If the Strzok family did move to Saudi Arabia, it was for a very short period of time, given that Strzok Sr. accepted a job with the international aid organization Catholic Relief Services (CRS) in 1980 and relocated his family to Upper Volta (a country in Africa now known as Burkina Faso). The Strzoks would be there for three years. As for his schooling, the younger Strzok attended the American School in Tehran (where his mother also taught), as claimed. We've not been able to confirm that he attended school in Saudi Arabia. Once back in the United States, Strzok didn't 'supposedly' attend St. John's Preparatory School (as the Big League Politics blogger put it) - he did, in fact, attend that school (which is in St. Cloud, Minnesota, not Minneapolis) from 1983 through 1987, and his graduation notice appeared in the St. Cloud Times on 15 May 1987. He later earned bachelor's and master's degrees at Georgetown University (as noted on an alumni donor list published on the school's web site). An outsized portion of the Big League Politics post was devoted to Strzok's father's life, as if to posit that father and son have been operating some sort of 'deep state' conspiratorial family business for the past 40 years. The author went to great lengths to impute insidious motives to Strzok Sr.'s overseas humanitarian projects, which - far from being something he 'dabbled' in (as the post describes it) - to all appearances became his life's work after he retired from military service. Strzok Sr. served as the director of Catholic Relief Services in Upper Volta for three years. There is no evidence that he 'helped dismantle and reassemble' that country, which underwent a military coup while he was there. Strzok ran a food assistance and nutrition education program that served some 150,000 children and mothers. Nor, contrary to another claim in the post, was he still present in Upper Volta when its name was changed to Burkina Faso in 1984 (not 1985, as claimed). In mid-1983 Strzok accepted the post of CRS director in Haiti. We know he was there for less than two years, because a New York Times report published in August 1985 names 'former employee' Peter Strzok as one of three complainants in a dispute over Catholic Relief Services' alleged mishandling of funds. His time in Haiti coincided with the final few years of the rule of Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier, who would be overthrown in 1986. Our blogger took a special interest in the fact that Strzok Sr. lived and worked in a succession of international hot spots, repeatedly insinuating that he must have been engaged in espionage or other clandestine activities. 'Looks like whenever there is a regime change in modern history a Strzok is lying in the shadows waiting,' the post said. But ironically, far from 'lying in the shadows,' the only reason we know as much as we do about Peter Strzok Sr.'s whereabouts over the past 40 years is that he spoke so freely and openly about his activities in the press. We can't prove he wasn't a covert operative, of course, but neither has anyone else demonstrated that he was. One of the oddest claims in the post was that Strzok Sr. was involved in the Iran-Contra affair (involving the illegal sale of arms to Iran to fund the Contras in Nicaragua), which took place during the mid-1980s under President Reagan. We were unable to find evidence that Strzok played any role at all in Iran-Contra, or was mentioned in the news coverage or congressional hearings that followed the scandal. The coverage that does exist about Strzok from that time indicates that he was actively engaged in doing humanitarian aid work in West Africa. There was also an attempt to link Strzok Sr. up with the Clintons: The Clinton Foundation and The Catholic Relief Services (CRS) seem to work in tangent [sic]. Coincidence? Peter Strzok Sr. was actually the director of CRS in Haiti. If we look into CRS financials they seem to overlap and feed into Clinton Global initiatives and balance sheets. Never mind that the Clinton Foundation wasn't launched until 1997, more than a decade after Strzok left CRS and founded his own non-government agency, AFGRO (Agency to Facilitate the Growth of Rural Organizations). Whatever 'overlap' there may be, or have been - if any - between the Clinton Foundation and Catholic Relief Services, no such thing could have existed when Strzok was involved with the latter organization. The purpose of asserting these nonexistent connections was to create the appearance of a continuum of father-son involvement with Iran, Haiti, and the Clintons: We know Peter Strzok III [sic], the man who sent those vile text messages about our President. The man who was biased and wanted to ensure a Clinton Presidency was raised in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Our source reveals how Strzok and his father both talked about Iran favorably and both accidently reminisced about the rose water smell of the ju-jeh kebab by Shemiran Hill... something that disappeared after 1987 and only those who are old enough to remember can discuss. Peter Strzok's Persian is impeccable. Our insider tells us that Peter Strzok III [sic] is the key Middle Eastern Intel operative for the Iranian airline Mahan Air's purchase of United States government planes during the Obama administration from 2011 to 2013 (when Iran sanctions were in place). He handled the Iranian relations from start to finish. Just like his father did for Reagan and just like he's been doing for years under cloak and dagger says the BLP insider. Once again, we have searched for any scrap of documentation that might prove that Peter Strzok II (the FBI agent) served as 'the key Middle Eastern intel operative' in negotiations between the U.S. and Iran during the Obama administration, and we found none. As an FBI counterintelligence officer, there is no reason why the younger Strzok would or could have played such a role anyway. Big League Politics had a ready explanation for this, though, namely that Strzok was actually working for the CIA: The BLP insider who's worked with both [former CIA director John] Breannan [sic] and Strzok tells us that Strzok was never FBI he was part of the highest level of covert operatives, sliding into posts within the CIA or FBI to infiltrate, influence and observe. This is exactly what we saw with the Special Counsel appointment that resulted after a failed operation. Peter Strzok Jr. was placed in the FBI to ensure a win for Hillary Clinton and buffer negative press (like the Weiner laptop case, which he covered up). That's the real deal. Revealing Peter Strzok's identity would have been a problem because it's called unmasking but since he is in the limelight and out of the shadows it's time to lay all the cards FACE up on the table for all to see who Peter Strzok really is. In addition to citing the anonymous informant as the source of this claim, the post linked out to an article referencing an unclassified document that supposedly proved Strzok worked for the CIA and the FBI at the same time: A [sic] unclassified document printed on FBI letterhead dated January 20, 2016, which contains the subject line 'Supplemental Classification Review and Determination' was addressed to the Bureau of National Security's Assistant Secretary Gregory B. Starr from Peter Strzok who is listed as 'Section Chief' of the 'Counterespionage Section' in reference to Strzok's CIA post. Keep in mind, this is not an FBI post as Strzok's position at the FBI is 'Deputy Assistant Director Counterintelligence Division' not 'Section Chief' which is a CIA post. Which is utter nonsense. Although the specified document did list Strzok's title as 'section chief' of the Counterespionage Section, it's patently untrue that section chief isn't an FBI post. Both agencies have sections and chiefs (and assistant section chiefs). Not only was section chief precisely the position Strzok held before being promoted to deputy assistant director at the FBI, but others have held that title, too. The claim that Strzok was 'placed in the FBI to ensure a win for Hillary Clinton' is flatly absurd. Strzok joined the agency in 1996. Was the plot to ensure a Hillary Clinton win in 2016 already in motion 20 years beforehand? The Big League Politics post was a clumsy, error-ridden effort to generate a 'deep state' conspiracy theory around FBI agent Peter Strzok, who, up until the text message incident that derailed him in 2017, seems to have trodden a fairly straightforward career path in the agency over a period of more than two decades. Peter Strzok spent several years of his childhood in Iran, but he did not 'grow up' there. There is no evidence nor any good reason to suppose that he acted as an 'envoy' or 'intel operative' in U.S. dealings with Iran at any time during the Obama administration. And the claim that Strzok is or was a covert CIA operative 'placed' in the FBI to help Hillary Clinton win the presidency and subvert the Trump administration is a flight of fancy divorced from all evidence and logic.

nan

FBI agent Peter Strzok II grew up in Iran; had a father who engaged in clandestine activities overseas under the guise of doing charitable work; served as a 'Middle East intel operative' in the Obama administration; and was a CIA agent 'placed' in the FBI to help Hillary Clinton win the presidency.

Neutral

Longtime FBI agent Peter Strzok II, who until recently served as deputy assistant director of the agency's Counterintelligence Division, gained public notoriety when he was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Trump-Russia investigation for sending private text messages critical of the president. Formerly the lead FBI investigator into Hillary Clinton's use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state, Strzok has since come under investigation himself by the Justice Department's inspector general, been grilled on his ethical integrity by the House Oversight Committee, and stands accused by conspiracy theorists of being a linchpin in a 'deep state' plot to sabotage Trump's presidency. A July 2018 salvo from the far-right blog Big League Politics attempted to make the case that Strzok, who spent part of his childhood in Iran, is a covert CIA operative who served the Iranian regime's interests while allegedly acting as a 'key Middle Eastern Intel operative' for President Obama, then was 'placed in the FBI to ensure a win for Hillary Clinton' in the 2016 presidential election. That salvo was a mishmash of accusations derived in part from the supposed 'insider' testimony of an anonymous former co-worker of Strzok's, in part from misreadings of public documents (including decades-old press clippings about Strzok's father), and in part from a labored effort to connect dots that simply aren't there. The post began as follows: EXPOSED: Peter Strzok Grew Up In Iran, Worked As Obama and Brennan's Envoy To Iranian Regime A former co-worker of Peter Strzok tells Big League Politics about Strzok's extensive background in the intelligence community, including the fact that he grew up in Iran. Many intelligence officers like Strzok are complete ghosts with questionable history and gaps in their life story. But now we have some insight. (RELATED: Strzok Worked For CIA And FBI At Same Time, According To Document). Peter Strzok was born in the late 1960's - he attended the American School in Iran up until 1978 when it closed down and then he attended the American School in Saudi Arabia. He supposedly attended a Catholic School, St. John's Prep in Minneapolis (the school refused to confirm or deny attendance) and then completed a Bachelors at Georgetown and some form of graduate degree after that. The truth is that after Peter Strzok III turned 18 his life is arcane, which is the usual story of many like him. Did you know that Peter Strzok II (Strzok's father) and Hillary Clinton have a lot in common? It turns out after advocating for Khomeni in Iran and then working in Saudi Arabia to calm the waters of an Iranian government (appeasing them with anti-Semitic rhetoric), Strzok's father Strzok II also dabbled in 'charity work.' Strzok's father was involved in so-called charity work in Haiti but also helped dismantle and reassemble Upper Volta..now known as Burkina Faso. We interrupt here to point out that the author of the post appears to have misstated several details: Peter Strzok wasn't born in the late 1960s; he was born on 7 March 1970 (according to a birth announcement in the Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan Evening News). His father is Peter Strzok Sr., not Peter Strzok II (Strzok Sr.'s father's name was Michael, not Peter). Peter Strzok II is FBI agent Peter Strzok. Unless the latter fathered a namesake, there is no Peter Strzok III. The claim that Strzok 'grew up' in Iran is an overstatement. The Strzoks moved there while Strzok Sr. was serving in the Army Corps of Engineers, from which he retired in July 1978. While we don't know precisely how long the family resided there, the Eau Claire, Wisconsin Leader-Telegram reported in 1979 that the Strzoks left Iran at the beginning of that year to return to the U.S. because of the political unrest that followed the overthrow of the Shah. Peter was eight years old at the time. The same article said that Strzok Sr. was then considering taking a job in Saudi Arabia. It's unclear whether he did or not. If the Strzok family did move to Saudi Arabia, it was for a very short period of time, given that Strzok Sr. accepted a job with the international aid organization Catholic Relief Services (CRS) in 1980 and relocated his family to Upper Volta (a country in Africa now known as Burkina Faso). The Strzoks would be there for three years. As for his schooling, the younger Strzok attended the American School in Tehran (where his mother also taught), as claimed. We've not been able to confirm that he attended school in Saudi Arabia. Once back in the United States, Strzok didn't 'supposedly' attend St. John's Preparatory School (as the Big League Politics blogger put it) - he did, in fact, attend that school (which is in St. Cloud, Minnesota, not Minneapolis) from 1983 through 1987, and his graduation notice appeared in the St. Cloud Times on 15 May 1987. He later earned bachelor's and master's degrees at Georgetown University (as noted on an alumni donor list published on the school's web site). An outsized portion of the Big League Politics post was devoted to Strzok's father's life, as if to posit that father and son have been operating some sort of 'deep state' conspiratorial family business for the past 40 years. The author went to great lengths to impute insidious motives to Strzok Sr.'s overseas humanitarian projects, which - far from being something he 'dabbled' in (as the post describes it) - to all appearances became his life's work after he retired from military service. Strzok Sr. served as the director of Catholic Relief Services in Upper Volta for three years. There is no evidence that he 'helped dismantle and reassemble' that country, which underwent a military coup while he was there. Strzok ran a food assistance and nutrition education program that served some 150,000 children and mothers. Nor, contrary to another claim in the post, was he still present in Upper Volta when its name was changed to Burkina Faso in 1984 (not 1985, as claimed). In mid-1983 Strzok accepted the post of CRS director in Haiti. We know he was there for less than two years, because a New York Times report published in August 1985 names 'former employee' Peter Strzok as one of three complainants in a dispute over Catholic Relief Services' alleged mishandling of funds. His time in Haiti coincided with the final few years of the rule of Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier, who would be overthrown in 1986. Our blogger took a special interest in the fact that Strzok Sr. lived and worked in a succession of international hot spots, repeatedly insinuating that he must have been engaged in espionage or other clandestine activities. 'Looks like whenever there is a regime change in modern history a Strzok is lying in the shadows waiting,' the post said. But ironically, far from 'lying in the shadows,' the only reason we know as much as we do about Peter Strzok Sr.'s whereabouts over the past 40 years is that he spoke so freely and openly about his activities in the press. We can't prove he wasn't a covert operative, of course, but neither has anyone else demonstrated that he was. One of the oddest claims in the post was that Strzok Sr. was involved in the Iran-Contra affair (involving the illegal sale of arms to Iran to fund the Contras in Nicaragua), which took place during the mid-1980s under President Reagan. We were unable to find evidence that Strzok played any role at all in Iran-Contra, or was mentioned in the news coverage or congressional hearings that followed the scandal. The coverage that does exist about Strzok from that time indicates that he was actively engaged in doing humanitarian aid work in West Africa. There was also an attempt to link Strzok Sr. up with the Clintons: The Clinton Foundation and The Catholic Relief Services (CRS) seem to work in tangent [sic]. Coincidence? Peter Strzok Sr. was actually the director of CRS in Haiti. If we look into CRS financials they seem to overlap and feed into Clinton Global initiatives and balance sheets. Never mind that the Clinton Foundation wasn't launched until 1997, more than a decade after Strzok left CRS and founded his own non-government agency, AFGRO (Agency to Facilitate the Growth of Rural Organizations). Whatever 'overlap' there may be, or have been - if any - between the Clinton Foundation and Catholic Relief Services, no such thing could have existed when Strzok was involved with the latter organization. The purpose of asserting these nonexistent connections was to create the appearance of a continuum of father-son involvement with Iran, Haiti, and the Clintons: We know Peter Strzok III [sic], the man who sent those vile text messages about our President. The man who was biased and wanted to ensure a Clinton Presidency was raised in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Our source reveals how Strzok and his father both talked about Iran favorably and both accidently reminisced about the rose water smell of the ju-jeh kebab by Shemiran Hill... something that disappeared after 1987 and only those who are old enough to remember can discuss. Peter Strzok's Persian is impeccable. Our insider tells us that Peter Strzok III [sic] is the key Middle Eastern Intel operative for the Iranian airline Mahan Air's purchase of United States government planes during the Obama administration from 2011 to 2013 (when Iran sanctions were in place). He handled the Iranian relations from start to finish. Just like his father did for Reagan and just like he's been doing for years under cloak and dagger says the BLP insider. Once again, we have searched for any scrap of documentation that might prove that Peter Strzok II (the FBI agent) served as 'the key Middle Eastern intel operative' in negotiations between the U.S. and Iran during the Obama administration, and we found none. As an FBI counterintelligence officer, there is no reason why the younger Strzok would or could have played such a role anyway. Big League Politics had a ready explanation for this, though, namely that Strzok was actually working for the CIA: The BLP insider who's worked with both [former CIA director John] Breannan [sic] and Strzok tells us that Strzok was never FBI he was part of the highest level of covert operatives, sliding into posts within the CIA or FBI to infiltrate, influence and observe. This is exactly what we saw with the Special Counsel appointment that resulted after a failed operation. Peter Strzok Jr. was placed in the FBI to ensure a win for Hillary Clinton and buffer negative press (like the Weiner laptop case, which he covered up). That's the real deal. Revealing Peter Strzok's identity would have been a problem because it's called unmasking but since he is in the limelight and out of the shadows it's time to lay all the cards FACE up on the table for all to see who Peter Strzok really is. In addition to citing the anonymous informant as the source of this claim, the post linked out to an article referencing an unclassified document that supposedly proved Strzok worked for the CIA and the FBI at the same time: A [sic] unclassified document printed on FBI letterhead dated January 20, 2016, which contains the subject line 'Supplemental Classification Review and Determination' was addressed to the Bureau of National Security's Assistant Secretary Gregory B. Starr from Peter Strzok who is listed as 'Section Chief' of the 'Counterespionage Section' in reference to Strzok's CIA post. Keep in mind, this is not an FBI post as Strzok's position at the FBI is 'Deputy Assistant Director Counterintelligence Division' not 'Section Chief' which is a CIA post. Which is utter nonsense. Although the specified document did list Strzok's title as 'section chief' of the Counterespionage Section, it's patently untrue that section chief isn't an FBI post. Both agencies have sections and chiefs (and assistant section chiefs). Not only was section chief precisely the position Strzok held before being promoted to deputy assistant director at the FBI, but others have held that title, too. The claim that Strzok was 'placed in the FBI to ensure a win for Hillary Clinton' is flatly absurd. Strzok joined the agency in 1996. Was the plot to ensure a Hillary Clinton win in 2016 already in motion 20 years beforehand? The Big League Politics post was a clumsy, error-ridden effort to generate a 'deep state' conspiracy theory around FBI agent Peter Strzok, who, up until the text message incident that derailed him in 2017, seems to have trodden a fairly straightforward career path in the agency over a period of more than two decades. Peter Strzok spent several years of his childhood in Iran, but he did not 'grow up' there. There is no evidence nor any good reason to suppose that he acted as an 'envoy' or 'intel operative' in U.S. dealings with Iran at any time during the Obama administration. And the claim that Strzok is or was a covert CIA operative 'placed' in the FBI to help Hillary Clinton win the presidency and subvert the Trump administration is a flight of fancy divorced from all evidence and logic.

nan

FBI agent Peter Strzok II grew up in Iran; had a father who engaged in clandestine activities overseas under the guise of doing charitable work; served as a 'Middle East intel operative' in the Obama administration; and was a CIA agent 'placed' in the FBI to help Hillary Clinton win the presidency.

Neutral

Longtime FBI agent Peter Strzok II, who until recently served as deputy assistant director of the agency's Counterintelligence Division, gained public notoriety when he was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Trump-Russia investigation for sending private text messages critical of the president. Formerly the lead FBI investigator into Hillary Clinton's use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state, Strzok has since come under investigation himself by the Justice Department's inspector general, been grilled on his ethical integrity by the House Oversight Committee, and stands accused by conspiracy theorists of being a linchpin in a 'deep state' plot to sabotage Trump's presidency. A July 2018 salvo from the far-right blog Big League Politics attempted to make the case that Strzok, who spent part of his childhood in Iran, is a covert CIA operative who served the Iranian regime's interests while allegedly acting as a 'key Middle Eastern Intel operative' for President Obama, then was 'placed in the FBI to ensure a win for Hillary Clinton' in the 2016 presidential election. That salvo was a mishmash of accusations derived in part from the supposed 'insider' testimony of an anonymous former co-worker of Strzok's, in part from misreadings of public documents (including decades-old press clippings about Strzok's father), and in part from a labored effort to connect dots that simply aren't there. The post began as follows: EXPOSED: Peter Strzok Grew Up In Iran, Worked As Obama and Brennan's Envoy To Iranian Regime A former co-worker of Peter Strzok tells Big League Politics about Strzok's extensive background in the intelligence community, including the fact that he grew up in Iran. Many intelligence officers like Strzok are complete ghosts with questionable history and gaps in their life story. But now we have some insight. (RELATED: Strzok Worked For CIA And FBI At Same Time, According To Document). Peter Strzok was born in the late 1960's - he attended the American School in Iran up until 1978 when it closed down and then he attended the American School in Saudi Arabia. He supposedly attended a Catholic School, St. John's Prep in Minneapolis (the school refused to confirm or deny attendance) and then completed a Bachelors at Georgetown and some form of graduate degree after that. The truth is that after Peter Strzok III turned 18 his life is arcane, which is the usual story of many like him. Did you know that Peter Strzok II (Strzok's father) and Hillary Clinton have a lot in common? It turns out after advocating for Khomeni in Iran and then working in Saudi Arabia to calm the waters of an Iranian government (appeasing them with anti-Semitic rhetoric), Strzok's father Strzok II also dabbled in 'charity work.' Strzok's father was involved in so-called charity work in Haiti but also helped dismantle and reassemble Upper Volta..now known as Burkina Faso. We interrupt here to point out that the author of the post appears to have misstated several details: Peter Strzok wasn't born in the late 1960s; he was born on 7 March 1970 (according to a birth announcement in the Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan Evening News). His father is Peter Strzok Sr., not Peter Strzok II (Strzok Sr.'s father's name was Michael, not Peter). Peter Strzok II is FBI agent Peter Strzok. Unless the latter fathered a namesake, there is no Peter Strzok III. The claim that Strzok 'grew up' in Iran is an overstatement. The Strzoks moved there while Strzok Sr. was serving in the Army Corps of Engineers, from which he retired in July 1978. While we don't know precisely how long the family resided there, the Eau Claire, Wisconsin Leader-Telegram reported in 1979 that the Strzoks left Iran at the beginning of that year to return to the U.S. because of the political unrest that followed the overthrow of the Shah. Peter was eight years old at the time. The same article said that Strzok Sr. was then considering taking a job in Saudi Arabia. It's unclear whether he did or not. If the Strzok family did move to Saudi Arabia, it was for a very short period of time, given that Strzok Sr. accepted a job with the international aid organization Catholic Relief Services (CRS) in 1980 and relocated his family to Upper Volta (a country in Africa now known as Burkina Faso). The Strzoks would be there for three years. As for his schooling, the younger Strzok attended the American School in Tehran (where his mother also taught), as claimed. We've not been able to confirm that he attended school in Saudi Arabia. Once back in the United States, Strzok didn't 'supposedly' attend St. John's Preparatory School (as the Big League Politics blogger put it) - he did, in fact, attend that school (which is in St. Cloud, Minnesota, not Minneapolis) from 1983 through 1987, and his graduation notice appeared in the St. Cloud Times on 15 May 1987. He later earned bachelor's and master's degrees at Georgetown University (as noted on an alumni donor list published on the school's web site). An outsized portion of the Big League Politics post was devoted to Strzok's father's life, as if to posit that father and son have been operating some sort of 'deep state' conspiratorial family business for the past 40 years. The author went to great lengths to impute insidious motives to Strzok Sr.'s overseas humanitarian projects, which - far from being something he 'dabbled' in (as the post describes it) - to all appearances became his life's work after he retired from military service. Strzok Sr. served as the director of Catholic Relief Services in Upper Volta for three years. There is no evidence that he 'helped dismantle and reassemble' that country, which underwent a military coup while he was there. Strzok ran a food assistance and nutrition education program that served some 150,000 children and mothers. Nor, contrary to another claim in the post, was he still present in Upper Volta when its name was changed to Burkina Faso in 1984 (not 1985, as claimed). In mid-1983 Strzok accepted the post of CRS director in Haiti. We know he was there for less than two years, because a New York Times report published in August 1985 names 'former employee' Peter Strzok as one of three complainants in a dispute over Catholic Relief Services' alleged mishandling of funds. His time in Haiti coincided with the final few years of the rule of Haitian dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier, who would be overthrown in 1986. Our blogger took a special interest in the fact that Strzok Sr. lived and worked in a succession of international hot spots, repeatedly insinuating that he must have been engaged in espionage or other clandestine activities. 'Looks like whenever there is a regime change in modern history a Strzok is lying in the shadows waiting,' the post said. But ironically, far from 'lying in the shadows,' the only reason we know as much as we do about Peter Strzok Sr.'s whereabouts over the past 40 years is that he spoke so freely and openly about his activities in the press. We can't prove he wasn't a covert operative, of course, but neither has anyone else demonstrated that he was. One of the oddest claims in the post was that Strzok Sr. was involved in the Iran-Contra affair (involving the illegal sale of arms to Iran to fund the Contras in Nicaragua), which took place during the mid-1980s under President Reagan. We were unable to find evidence that Strzok played any role at all in Iran-Contra, or was mentioned in the news coverage or congressional hearings that followed the scandal. The coverage that does exist about Strzok from that time indicates that he was actively engaged in doing humanitarian aid work in West Africa. There was also an attempt to link Strzok Sr. up with the Clintons: The Clinton Foundation and The Catholic Relief Services (CRS) seem to work in tangent [sic]. Coincidence? Peter Strzok Sr. was actually the director of CRS in Haiti. If we look into CRS financials they seem to overlap and feed into Clinton Global initiatives and balance sheets. Never mind that the Clinton Foundation wasn't launched until 1997, more than a decade after Strzok left CRS and founded his own non-government agency, AFGRO (Agency to Facilitate the Growth of Rural Organizations). Whatever 'overlap' there may be, or have been - if any - between the Clinton Foundation and Catholic Relief Services, no such thing could have existed when Strzok was involved with the latter organization. The purpose of asserting these nonexistent connections was to create the appearance of a continuum of father-son involvement with Iran, Haiti, and the Clintons: We know Peter Strzok III [sic], the man who sent those vile text messages about our President. The man who was biased and wanted to ensure a Clinton Presidency was raised in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Our source reveals how Strzok and his father both talked about Iran favorably and both accidently reminisced about the rose water smell of the ju-jeh kebab by Shemiran Hill... something that disappeared after 1987 and only those who are old enough to remember can discuss. Peter Strzok's Persian is impeccable. Our insider tells us that Peter Strzok III [sic] is the key Middle Eastern Intel operative for the Iranian airline Mahan Air's purchase of United States government planes during the Obama administration from 2011 to 2013 (when Iran sanctions were in place). He handled the Iranian relations from start to finish. Just like his father did for Reagan and just like he's been doing for years under cloak and dagger says the BLP insider. Once again, we have searched for any scrap of documentation that might prove that Peter Strzok II (the FBI agent) served as 'the key Middle Eastern intel operative' in negotiations between the U.S. and Iran during the Obama administration, and we found none. As an FBI counterintelligence officer, there is no reason why the younger Strzok would or could have played such a role anyway. Big League Politics had a ready explanation for this, though, namely that Strzok was actually working for the CIA: The BLP insider who's worked with both [former CIA director John] Breannan [sic] and Strzok tells us that Strzok was never FBI he was part of the highest level of covert operatives, sliding into posts within the CIA or FBI to infiltrate, influence and observe. This is exactly what we saw with the Special Counsel appointment that resulted after a failed operation. Peter Strzok Jr. was placed in the FBI to ensure a win for Hillary Clinton and buffer negative press (like the Weiner laptop case, which he covered up). That's the real deal. Revealing Peter Strzok's identity would have been a problem because it's called unmasking but since he is in the limelight and out of the shadows it's time to lay all the cards FACE up on the table for all to see who Peter Strzok really is. In addition to citing the anonymous informant as the source of this claim, the post linked out to an article referencing an unclassified document that supposedly proved Strzok worked for the CIA and the FBI at the same time: A [sic] unclassified document printed on FBI letterhead dated January 20, 2016, which contains the subject line 'Supplemental Classification Review and Determination' was addressed to the Bureau of National Security's Assistant Secretary Gregory B. Starr from Peter Strzok who is listed as 'Section Chief' of the 'Counterespionage Section' in reference to Strzok's CIA post. Keep in mind, this is not an FBI post as Strzok's position at the FBI is 'Deputy Assistant Director Counterintelligence Division' not 'Section Chief' which is a CIA post. Which is utter nonsense. Although the specified document did list Strzok's title as 'section chief' of the Counterespionage Section, it's patently untrue that section chief isn't an FBI post. Both agencies have sections and chiefs (and assistant section chiefs). Not only was section chief precisely the position Strzok held before being promoted to deputy assistant director at the FBI, but others have held that title, too. The claim that Strzok was 'placed in the FBI to ensure a win for Hillary Clinton' is flatly absurd. Strzok joined the agency in 1996. Was the plot to ensure a Hillary Clinton win in 2016 already in motion 20 years beforehand? The Big League Politics post was a clumsy, error-ridden effort to generate a 'deep state' conspiracy theory around FBI agent Peter Strzok, who, up until the text message incident that derailed him in 2017, seems to have trodden a fairly straightforward career path in the agency over a period of more than two decades. Peter Strzok spent several years of his childhood in Iran, but he did not 'grow up' there. There is no evidence nor any good reason to suppose that he acted as an 'envoy' or 'intel operative' in U.S. dealings with Iran at any time during the Obama administration. And the claim that Strzok is or was a covert CIA operative 'placed' in the FBI to help Hillary Clinton win the presidency and subvert the Trump administration is a flight of fancy divorced from all evidence and logic.

nan

Donald Trump has paid up to eight sexual partners to obtain abortions and sign nondisclosure agreements.

Neutral

Rumors have circulated for years to the effect that U.S. President Donald Trump has paid off multiple sexual partners to undergo abortions after he impregnated them, and to sign nondisclosure agreements precluding them from discussing their involvement with him. One common form of this rumor holds that Trump may have paid as many as eight different women to undergo abortions. Critics of Trump are inclined to believe such rumors because: 1) Two women - Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal - have publicly asserted that they were paid 'hush money' to keep quiet about their sexual encounters with Trump: Daniels, a porn actress whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, alleges she had an affair with Trump in 2006, and [Trump attorney Michael] Cohen paid her $130,000 to keep her from speaking about it publicly ahead of the 2016 election. McDougal, a former Playboy model who also says she had an affair with Trump, was paid $150,000 by National Enquirer parent company American Media Inc. as part of a 'catch-and-kill' scheme in which the company paid for her story and then buried it. 2) Both women alleged that Trump eschewed the use of condoms during the sexual encounters they each had with him in 2006: In describing their alleged affairs with President Donald Trump publicly, Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels have raised a host of legal issues about possible abuse of power and campaign-finance violations. But they also revealed to Anderson Cooper a health-related detail that has raised other questions. They say that Trump preferred to not use condoms in the sexual encounters they had with him in 2006. The TV anchor pointedly asked both women if 'protection' was used during their alleged encounters with the future president. They said no, and people on Twitter took note. 3) During a 2016 interview, Trump dodged answering a question about whether he had ever been involved with anyone who had an abortion: Given [Trump's] draconian comment [about] sending women back to back alleys, I had to ask: When he was a swinging bachelor in Manhattan, was he ever involved with anyone who had an abortion? 'Such an interesting question,' he said. 'So what's your next question?' On the other hand, this rumor seems to be driven purely by speculation rather than by any hard evidence: 1) The origin of the claim about the supposed existence of up to eight 'Trump mistresses paid to have abortions and kept quiet with nondisclosure agreements' appears to be a gossip blog item that attributed the information to nothing more specific than 'one source.' 2) Neither Daniels nor McDougal claimed to have been impregnated by Trump, nor has any other woman come forward to make such a claim. 3) While testifying under oath before Congress in February 2019, Trump personal attorney and 'fixer' Michael Cohen denied the existence of a Trump 'love child' and said he was not aware of Trump's having paid for any women to obtain abortions: Cohen said Trump did not have a child out of wedlock, despite the fact that Trump-friendly American Media, Inc. paid $15,000 to 'catch-and-kill' a story by former Trump bodyguard' Dino Sajudin about the purported child. 'Not to the best of my knowledge,' Cohen told Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) during [a] hearing about the supposed love child. Cohen was asked to address rumors that Trump may have paid for a mistress' abortion. 'Do you have any knowledge of President Trump arranging any health-care procedures for women not in his family?' Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) asked, euphemistically. 'I'm not aware of that, no,' Cohen flatly answered. No matter how fervently some Trump opponents might want to believe in this rumor, from an evidentiary standpoint it currently lives only in the realms of surmise and conjecture rather than established fact.

nan

Donald Trump has paid up to eight sexual partners to obtain abortions and sign nondisclosure agreements.

Neutral

Rumors have circulated for years to the effect that U.S. President Donald Trump has paid off multiple sexual partners to undergo abortions after he impregnated them, and to sign nondisclosure agreements precluding them from discussing their involvement with him. One common form of this rumor holds that Trump may have paid as many as eight different women to undergo abortions. Critics of Trump are inclined to believe such rumors because: 1) Two women - Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal - have publicly asserted that they were paid 'hush money' to keep quiet about their sexual encounters with Trump: Daniels, a porn actress whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, alleges she had an affair with Trump in 2006, and [Trump attorney Michael] Cohen paid her $130,000 to keep her from speaking about it publicly ahead of the 2016 election. McDougal, a former Playboy model who also says she had an affair with Trump, was paid $150,000 by National Enquirer parent company American Media Inc. as part of a 'catch-and-kill' scheme in which the company paid for her story and then buried it. 2) Both women alleged that Trump eschewed the use of condoms during the sexual encounters they each had with him in 2006: In describing their alleged affairs with President Donald Trump publicly, Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels have raised a host of legal issues about possible abuse of power and campaign-finance violations. But they also revealed to Anderson Cooper a health-related detail that has raised other questions. They say that Trump preferred to not use condoms in the sexual encounters they had with him in 2006. The TV anchor pointedly asked both women if 'protection' was used during their alleged encounters with the future president. They said no, and people on Twitter took note. 3) During a 2016 interview, Trump dodged answering a question about whether he had ever been involved with anyone who had an abortion: Given [Trump's] draconian comment [about] sending women back to back alleys, I had to ask: When he was a swinging bachelor in Manhattan, was he ever involved with anyone who had an abortion? 'Such an interesting question,' he said. 'So what's your next question?' On the other hand, this rumor seems to be driven purely by speculation rather than by any hard evidence: 1) The origin of the claim about the supposed existence of up to eight 'Trump mistresses paid to have abortions and kept quiet with nondisclosure agreements' appears to be a gossip blog item that attributed the information to nothing more specific than 'one source.' 2) Neither Daniels nor McDougal claimed to have been impregnated by Trump, nor has any other woman come forward to make such a claim. 3) While testifying under oath before Congress in February 2019, Trump personal attorney and 'fixer' Michael Cohen denied the existence of a Trump 'love child' and said he was not aware of Trump's having paid for any women to obtain abortions: Cohen said Trump did not have a child out of wedlock, despite the fact that Trump-friendly American Media, Inc. paid $15,000 to 'catch-and-kill' a story by former Trump bodyguard' Dino Sajudin about the purported child. 'Not to the best of my knowledge,' Cohen told Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) during [a] hearing about the supposed love child. Cohen was asked to address rumors that Trump may have paid for a mistress' abortion. 'Do you have any knowledge of President Trump arranging any health-care procedures for women not in his family?' Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) asked, euphemistically. 'I'm not aware of that, no,' Cohen flatly answered. No matter how fervently some Trump opponents might want to believe in this rumor, from an evidentiary standpoint it currently lives only in the realms of surmise and conjecture rather than established fact.

nan

Donald Trump has paid up to eight sexual partners to obtain abortions and sign nondisclosure agreements.

Neutral

Rumors have circulated for years to the effect that U.S. President Donald Trump has paid off multiple sexual partners to undergo abortions after he impregnated them, and to sign nondisclosure agreements precluding them from discussing their involvement with him. One common form of this rumor holds that Trump may have paid as many as eight different women to undergo abortions. Critics of Trump are inclined to believe such rumors because: 1) Two women - Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal - have publicly asserted that they were paid 'hush money' to keep quiet about their sexual encounters with Trump: Daniels, a porn actress whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, alleges she had an affair with Trump in 2006, and [Trump attorney Michael] Cohen paid her $130,000 to keep her from speaking about it publicly ahead of the 2016 election. McDougal, a former Playboy model who also says she had an affair with Trump, was paid $150,000 by National Enquirer parent company American Media Inc. as part of a 'catch-and-kill' scheme in which the company paid for her story and then buried it. 2) Both women alleged that Trump eschewed the use of condoms during the sexual encounters they each had with him in 2006: In describing their alleged affairs with President Donald Trump publicly, Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels have raised a host of legal issues about possible abuse of power and campaign-finance violations. But they also revealed to Anderson Cooper a health-related detail that has raised other questions. They say that Trump preferred to not use condoms in the sexual encounters they had with him in 2006. The TV anchor pointedly asked both women if 'protection' was used during their alleged encounters with the future president. They said no, and people on Twitter took note. 3) During a 2016 interview, Trump dodged answering a question about whether he had ever been involved with anyone who had an abortion: Given [Trump's] draconian comment [about] sending women back to back alleys, I had to ask: When he was a swinging bachelor in Manhattan, was he ever involved with anyone who had an abortion? 'Such an interesting question,' he said. 'So what's your next question?' On the other hand, this rumor seems to be driven purely by speculation rather than by any hard evidence: 1) The origin of the claim about the supposed existence of up to eight 'Trump mistresses paid to have abortions and kept quiet with nondisclosure agreements' appears to be a gossip blog item that attributed the information to nothing more specific than 'one source.' 2) Neither Daniels nor McDougal claimed to have been impregnated by Trump, nor has any other woman come forward to make such a claim. 3) While testifying under oath before Congress in February 2019, Trump personal attorney and 'fixer' Michael Cohen denied the existence of a Trump 'love child' and said he was not aware of Trump's having paid for any women to obtain abortions: Cohen said Trump did not have a child out of wedlock, despite the fact that Trump-friendly American Media, Inc. paid $15,000 to 'catch-and-kill' a story by former Trump bodyguard' Dino Sajudin about the purported child. 'Not to the best of my knowledge,' Cohen told Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) during [a] hearing about the supposed love child. Cohen was asked to address rumors that Trump may have paid for a mistress' abortion. 'Do you have any knowledge of President Trump arranging any health-care procedures for women not in his family?' Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) asked, euphemistically. 'I'm not aware of that, no,' Cohen flatly answered. No matter how fervently some Trump opponents might want to believe in this rumor, from an evidentiary standpoint it currently lives only in the realms of surmise and conjecture rather than established fact.

nan

Donald Trump has paid up to eight sexual partners to obtain abortions and sign nondisclosure agreements.

Neutral

Rumors have circulated for years to the effect that U.S. President Donald Trump has paid off multiple sexual partners to undergo abortions after he impregnated them, and to sign nondisclosure agreements precluding them from discussing their involvement with him. One common form of this rumor holds that Trump may have paid as many as eight different women to undergo abortions. Critics of Trump are inclined to believe such rumors because: 1) Two women - Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal - have publicly asserted that they were paid 'hush money' to keep quiet about their sexual encounters with Trump: Daniels, a porn actress whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, alleges she had an affair with Trump in 2006, and [Trump attorney Michael] Cohen paid her $130,000 to keep her from speaking about it publicly ahead of the 2016 election. McDougal, a former Playboy model who also says she had an affair with Trump, was paid $150,000 by National Enquirer parent company American Media Inc. as part of a 'catch-and-kill' scheme in which the company paid for her story and then buried it. 2) Both women alleged that Trump eschewed the use of condoms during the sexual encounters they each had with him in 2006: In describing their alleged affairs with President Donald Trump publicly, Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels have raised a host of legal issues about possible abuse of power and campaign-finance violations. But they also revealed to Anderson Cooper a health-related detail that has raised other questions. They say that Trump preferred to not use condoms in the sexual encounters they had with him in 2006. The TV anchor pointedly asked both women if 'protection' was used during their alleged encounters with the future president. They said no, and people on Twitter took note. 3) During a 2016 interview, Trump dodged answering a question about whether he had ever been involved with anyone who had an abortion: Given [Trump's] draconian comment [about] sending women back to back alleys, I had to ask: When he was a swinging bachelor in Manhattan, was he ever involved with anyone who had an abortion? 'Such an interesting question,' he said. 'So what's your next question?' On the other hand, this rumor seems to be driven purely by speculation rather than by any hard evidence: 1) The origin of the claim about the supposed existence of up to eight 'Trump mistresses paid to have abortions and kept quiet with nondisclosure agreements' appears to be a gossip blog item that attributed the information to nothing more specific than 'one source.' 2) Neither Daniels nor McDougal claimed to have been impregnated by Trump, nor has any other woman come forward to make such a claim. 3) While testifying under oath before Congress in February 2019, Trump personal attorney and 'fixer' Michael Cohen denied the existence of a Trump 'love child' and said he was not aware of Trump's having paid for any women to obtain abortions: Cohen said Trump did not have a child out of wedlock, despite the fact that Trump-friendly American Media, Inc. paid $15,000 to 'catch-and-kill' a story by former Trump bodyguard' Dino Sajudin about the purported child. 'Not to the best of my knowledge,' Cohen told Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) during [a] hearing about the supposed love child. Cohen was asked to address rumors that Trump may have paid for a mistress' abortion. 'Do you have any knowledge of President Trump arranging any health-care procedures for women not in his family?' Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) asked, euphemistically. 'I'm not aware of that, no,' Cohen flatly answered. No matter how fervently some Trump opponents might want to believe in this rumor, from an evidentiary standpoint it currently lives only in the realms of surmise and conjecture rather than established fact.

nan

Viral videos shows Ferrero Rocher chocolates crawling with maggots .

Neutral

On 30 November 2015, Facebook user Yeesum Lo posted a Facebook video purportedly showing a Ferrero Rocher chocolate filled with maggots. A few years later, Rachel Vile of Bourbonnais, Illinois, posted a similar video showing a box of the chocolates that was seemingly infested with maggots: The first video quickly went viral, racking up more than 4 million views within the first two weeks of its publication. While we have no reason to believe that the video was doctored, the claim that a Ferrero Rocher 'customer care representative' said that it was a 'common problem' with the chocolates isn't believable. In fact, the company disputed the claim on 8 December 2015 on Facebook while responding to a customer who was concerned about the video: We appreciate you bringing this to our attention as we certainly don't want our fans to experience this or any type of problem with our products. The video you shared reflects a problem that can sometimes occur with food products, called Infestation. Infestation is a problem which can occur during the storage and sometimes the distribution of food products when the products are not stored in ideal conditions. Ferrero has comprehensive pest management programs in place at each of its manufacturing facilities worldwide. In addition, at several stages during the manufacturing processes, insects would not be able to survive given the high temperatures and machinery used. Although we print proper storage instructions on all of our outer cartons and each consumer package, we have no control over the storage conditions and stock rotation policies of our distributors and retailers. Infestation can occur if the product is stored with or near infested food products or pet products. Pests, such as the ones in the video, penetrate nearly any type of confectionery packaging on the market today, except glass or metal. When WUSA looked into the later video, they also noted that: We spoke to Rachael Vile, the woman who posted the video. She said she bought the unexpired chocolate a week before opening it in late August [2017]. When she went to eat it, her roommate stopped her and said, 'Don't eat those' after discovering worms inside the chocolates. Rachael said she and her roommate opened every piece of chocolate in the box and found a bugs on each one. Our team tracked down Gary Hevel, Public Information Officer from the Smithsonian Institute Entomology Department. He backed up the candy company by saying infestation typically occurs in how products are stored after leaving the manufacturer. The bug expert said he believes these creepy crawlers aren't maggots, but instead Indian meal moths, which lay eggs near food and can get in your home by transport from grocery stores. Several other confectionary companies have experienced similar problems. Videos purportedly showing World's Finest Chocolates, Huggies Diapers, and Reese's Peanut Butter Cups infested with maggots have circulated around the internet in recent years. In all cases, the company explained that infestation is a distribution or storage problem and is rarely linked to the manufacturing of a product.

nan

Viral videos shows Ferrero Rocher chocolates crawling with maggots .

Neutral

On 30 November 2015, Facebook user Yeesum Lo posted a Facebook video purportedly showing a Ferrero Rocher chocolate filled with maggots. A few years later, Rachel Vile of Bourbonnais, Illinois, posted a similar video showing a box of the chocolates that was seemingly infested with maggots: The first video quickly went viral, racking up more than 4 million views within the first two weeks of its publication. While we have no reason to believe that the video was doctored, the claim that a Ferrero Rocher 'customer care representative' said that it was a 'common problem' with the chocolates isn't believable. In fact, the company disputed the claim on 8 December 2015 on Facebook while responding to a customer who was concerned about the video: We appreciate you bringing this to our attention as we certainly don't want our fans to experience this or any type of problem with our products. The video you shared reflects a problem that can sometimes occur with food products, called Infestation. Infestation is a problem which can occur during the storage and sometimes the distribution of food products when the products are not stored in ideal conditions. Ferrero has comprehensive pest management programs in place at each of its manufacturing facilities worldwide. In addition, at several stages during the manufacturing processes, insects would not be able to survive given the high temperatures and machinery used. Although we print proper storage instructions on all of our outer cartons and each consumer package, we have no control over the storage conditions and stock rotation policies of our distributors and retailers. Infestation can occur if the product is stored with or near infested food products or pet products. Pests, such as the ones in the video, penetrate nearly any type of confectionery packaging on the market today, except glass or metal. When WUSA looked into the later video, they also noted that: We spoke to Rachael Vile, the woman who posted the video. She said she bought the unexpired chocolate a week before opening it in late August [2017]. When she went to eat it, her roommate stopped her and said, 'Don't eat those' after discovering worms inside the chocolates. Rachael said she and her roommate opened every piece of chocolate in the box and found a bugs on each one. Our team tracked down Gary Hevel, Public Information Officer from the Smithsonian Institute Entomology Department. He backed up the candy company by saying infestation typically occurs in how products are stored after leaving the manufacturer. The bug expert said he believes these creepy crawlers aren't maggots, but instead Indian meal moths, which lay eggs near food and can get in your home by transport from grocery stores. Several other confectionary companies have experienced similar problems. Videos purportedly showing World's Finest Chocolates, Huggies Diapers, and Reese's Peanut Butter Cups infested with maggots have circulated around the internet in recent years. In all cases, the company explained that infestation is a distribution or storage problem and is rarely linked to the manufacturing of a product.

nan

Reusing, freezing, or warming plastic water bottles will cause them to break down into carcinogenic compounds or release dioxins.

Neutral

Sorting out the various claims made about potential health issues associated with plastic water bottles is a difficult process, both because so many different claims about them are circulated and because the generic term 'plastic bottle' can in fact refer to any one of several different types of bottles with distinctly different chemical properties. [Collected via e-mail, 2007] No water bottles in freezer. A dioxin chemical causes cancer, especially breast cancer. Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don't freeze your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from the plastic. [Collected via e-mail, 2004] Many are unaware of poisoning caused by re-using plastic bottles. Some of you may be in the habit of using and re-using your disposable mineral water bottles (eg. Evian, Aqua, Ice Mountain, Vita, etc), keeping them in your car or at work. Not a good idea. In a nutshell, the plastic (called polyethylene terephthalate or PET) used in these bottles contains a potentially carcinogenic element (something called diethylhydroxylamine or DEHA). The bottles are safe for one-time use only; if you must keep them longer, it should be or no more than a few days, a week max, and keep them away from heat as well. Repeated washing and rinsing can cause the plastic to break down and the carcinogens (cancer-causing chemical agents) can leach into the water that YOU are drinking. Better to invest in water bottles that are really meant for multiple uses. This is not something we should be scrimping on. Those of you with family - please advise them, especially for their children's sake. [Collected via e-mail, 2007] Do Not Drink Water Bottles Left in the Car This information was given to me by my husband and I know all the ladies in my life should know and please forward it to all the ladies in your life. My husband has a friend whose mother recently got diagnosed with breast cancer. The doctor told her women should not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. The doctor said that the heat and the plastic of the bottle have certain chemicals that can lead to breast cancer. So please be careful and do not drink that water bottle that has been left in a car and pass this on to all the women in your life. [Collected via e-mail, 2009] On the Ellen show, Sheryl Crow said this is what caused her breast cancer. It has been identified as the most common cause of the high levels of dioxin in breast cancer tissue. Sheryl Crow's oncologist told her: women should not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. The heat reacts with the chemicals in the plastic of the bottle which releases dioxin into the water. Dioxin is a toxin increasingly found in breast cancer tissue. So please be careful and do not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. Pass this on to all the women in your life. Don't leave water in the car!! pic.twitter.com/o75cDhX11m - APRIIL🌷 (@aprilmartinez__) October 3, 2019 Water, soda, and juice are typically sold in bottles made from polyethylene terephthalate, also known as PET or PETE. These containers are intended to be disposable, single-use bottles, although many consumers wash them and re-use them to hold drinking water or other beverages. Some of the example items reproduced above claim that freezing or re-using PET bottles releases unsafe levels of carcinogens such as 'dioxins' or the plastics additive DEHA (diethylhydroxylamine) into whatever liquids they may contain. However, according to the American Chemistry Council, such claims are inaccurate on two counts: DEHA is not used in the manufacture of PET bottles (nor is it created through the breakdown of such bottles), and DEHA is not classified as a human carcinogen: DEHA is neither regulated nor classified as a human carcinogen by the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the National Toxicology Program or the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the leading authorities on carcinogenic substances. In 1991, on the basis of very limited data, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classified DEHA as a 'possible human carcinogen.' However, in 1995, EPA again evaluated the science and concluded that ' ... overall, the evidence is too limited to establish that DEHA is likely to cause cancer.' Further, DEHA is not inherent in PET as a raw material, byproduct or decomposition product. Moreover, DEHA has been cleared by FDA for food-contact applications and would not pose a health risk even if it were present. Finally, in June 2003, the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research conducted a scientific study of migration in new and reused plastic water bottles from three countries. The Swiss study did not find DEHA at concentrations significantly above the background levels detected in distilled water, indicating DEHA was unlikely to have migrated from the bottles. The study concluded that the levels of DEHA were distinctly below the World Health Organization guidelines for safe drinking water. The American Cancer Society also debunked such claims, stating: In fact, DEHA is not inherent in the plastic used to make these bottles, and even if it was the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says DEHA 'cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer, teratogenic effects, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, gene mutations, liver, kidney, reproductive, or developmental toxicity or other serious or irreversible chronic health effects.' Meanwhile, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), says diethylhexyl adipate 'is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.' As for the notion that freezing water in plastic bottles releases dioxin, the American Chemical Council asserted: There simply is no scientific basis to support the claim that PET bottles will release dioxin when frozen. Dioxins are a family of chemical compounds that are produced by combustion at extremely high temperatures. They can only be formed at temperatures well above 700 degrees Fahrenheit; they cannot be formed at room temperature or in freezing temperatures. Moreover, there is no reasonable scientific basis for expecting dioxins to be present in plastic food or beverage containers in the first place. Johns Hopkins researcher Dr. Rolf Halden also said of such claims that: Q: What do you make of this recent email warning that claims dioxins can be released by freezing water in plastic bottles? A: This is an urban legend. There are no dioxins in plastics. In addition, freezing actually works against the release of chemicals. Chemicals do not diffuse as readily in cold temperatures, which would limit chemical release if there were dioxins in plastic, and we don't think there are. Dr. Halden did note that drinking water from plastic bottles that had been exposed to high temperatures could be problematic, though: There is another group of chemicals, called phthalates that are sometimes added to plastics to make them flexible and less brittle. Phthalates are environmental contaminants that can exhibit hormone-like behavior by acting as endocrine disruptors in humans and animals. If you heat up plastics, you could increase the leaching of phthalates from the containers into water and food. Another common type of plastic bottle is made with bisphenol A, also known as BPA. These products are typically rigid plastic bottles intended for multiple re-use, such as baby bottles or water bottles carried by cyclists. Concerns about tests that may link BPA ingestion with cancer and reproductive damage in some animals and the possibility that BPA could leach out of plastic bottles and into the liquids they contain has led to bans on the use of BPA in plastic products intended for children (such as baby bottles), and has prompted some consumers to seek out non-BPA alternatives.Recent Updates Updated with viral tweet about leaving plastic water bottles in cars.

nan

Reusing, freezing, or warming plastic water bottles will cause them to break down into carcinogenic compounds or release dioxins.

Neutral

Sorting out the various claims made about potential health issues associated with plastic water bottles is a difficult process, both because so many different claims about them are circulated and because the generic term 'plastic bottle' can in fact refer to any one of several different types of bottles with distinctly different chemical properties. [Collected via e-mail, 2007] No water bottles in freezer. A dioxin chemical causes cancer, especially breast cancer. Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don't freeze your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from the plastic. [Collected via e-mail, 2004] Many are unaware of poisoning caused by re-using plastic bottles. Some of you may be in the habit of using and re-using your disposable mineral water bottles (eg. Evian, Aqua, Ice Mountain, Vita, etc), keeping them in your car or at work. Not a good idea. In a nutshell, the plastic (called polyethylene terephthalate or PET) used in these bottles contains a potentially carcinogenic element (something called diethylhydroxylamine or DEHA). The bottles are safe for one-time use only; if you must keep them longer, it should be or no more than a few days, a week max, and keep them away from heat as well. Repeated washing and rinsing can cause the plastic to break down and the carcinogens (cancer-causing chemical agents) can leach into the water that YOU are drinking. Better to invest in water bottles that are really meant for multiple uses. This is not something we should be scrimping on. Those of you with family - please advise them, especially for their children's sake. [Collected via e-mail, 2007] Do Not Drink Water Bottles Left in the Car This information was given to me by my husband and I know all the ladies in my life should know and please forward it to all the ladies in your life. My husband has a friend whose mother recently got diagnosed with breast cancer. The doctor told her women should not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. The doctor said that the heat and the plastic of the bottle have certain chemicals that can lead to breast cancer. So please be careful and do not drink that water bottle that has been left in a car and pass this on to all the women in your life. [Collected via e-mail, 2009] On the Ellen show, Sheryl Crow said this is what caused her breast cancer. It has been identified as the most common cause of the high levels of dioxin in breast cancer tissue. Sheryl Crow's oncologist told her: women should not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. The heat reacts with the chemicals in the plastic of the bottle which releases dioxin into the water. Dioxin is a toxin increasingly found in breast cancer tissue. So please be careful and do not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. Pass this on to all the women in your life. Don't leave water in the car!! pic.twitter.com/o75cDhX11m - APRIIL🌷 (@aprilmartinez__) October 3, 2019 Water, soda, and juice are typically sold in bottles made from polyethylene terephthalate, also known as PET or PETE. These containers are intended to be disposable, single-use bottles, although many consumers wash them and re-use them to hold drinking water or other beverages. Some of the example items reproduced above claim that freezing or re-using PET bottles releases unsafe levels of carcinogens such as 'dioxins' or the plastics additive DEHA (diethylhydroxylamine) into whatever liquids they may contain. However, according to the American Chemistry Council, such claims are inaccurate on two counts: DEHA is not used in the manufacture of PET bottles (nor is it created through the breakdown of such bottles), and DEHA is not classified as a human carcinogen: DEHA is neither regulated nor classified as a human carcinogen by the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the National Toxicology Program or the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the leading authorities on carcinogenic substances. In 1991, on the basis of very limited data, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classified DEHA as a 'possible human carcinogen.' However, in 1995, EPA again evaluated the science and concluded that ' ... overall, the evidence is too limited to establish that DEHA is likely to cause cancer.' Further, DEHA is not inherent in PET as a raw material, byproduct or decomposition product. Moreover, DEHA has been cleared by FDA for food-contact applications and would not pose a health risk even if it were present. Finally, in June 2003, the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research conducted a scientific study of migration in new and reused plastic water bottles from three countries. The Swiss study did not find DEHA at concentrations significantly above the background levels detected in distilled water, indicating DEHA was unlikely to have migrated from the bottles. The study concluded that the levels of DEHA were distinctly below the World Health Organization guidelines for safe drinking water. The American Cancer Society also debunked such claims, stating: In fact, DEHA is not inherent in the plastic used to make these bottles, and even if it was the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says DEHA 'cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer, teratogenic effects, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, gene mutations, liver, kidney, reproductive, or developmental toxicity or other serious or irreversible chronic health effects.' Meanwhile, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), says diethylhexyl adipate 'is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.' As for the notion that freezing water in plastic bottles releases dioxin, the American Chemical Council asserted: There simply is no scientific basis to support the claim that PET bottles will release dioxin when frozen. Dioxins are a family of chemical compounds that are produced by combustion at extremely high temperatures. They can only be formed at temperatures well above 700 degrees Fahrenheit; they cannot be formed at room temperature or in freezing temperatures. Moreover, there is no reasonable scientific basis for expecting dioxins to be present in plastic food or beverage containers in the first place. Johns Hopkins researcher Dr. Rolf Halden also said of such claims that: Q: What do you make of this recent email warning that claims dioxins can be released by freezing water in plastic bottles? A: This is an urban legend. There are no dioxins in plastics. In addition, freezing actually works against the release of chemicals. Chemicals do not diffuse as readily in cold temperatures, which would limit chemical release if there were dioxins in plastic, and we don't think there are. Dr. Halden did note that drinking water from plastic bottles that had been exposed to high temperatures could be problematic, though: There is another group of chemicals, called phthalates that are sometimes added to plastics to make them flexible and less brittle. Phthalates are environmental contaminants that can exhibit hormone-like behavior by acting as endocrine disruptors in humans and animals. If you heat up plastics, you could increase the leaching of phthalates from the containers into water and food. Another common type of plastic bottle is made with bisphenol A, also known as BPA. These products are typically rigid plastic bottles intended for multiple re-use, such as baby bottles or water bottles carried by cyclists. Concerns about tests that may link BPA ingestion with cancer and reproductive damage in some animals and the possibility that BPA could leach out of plastic bottles and into the liquids they contain has led to bans on the use of BPA in plastic products intended for children (such as baby bottles), and has prompted some consumers to seek out non-BPA alternatives.Recent Updates Updated with viral tweet about leaving plastic water bottles in cars.

nan

Reusing, freezing, or warming plastic water bottles will cause them to break down into carcinogenic compounds or release dioxins.

Neutral

Sorting out the various claims made about potential health issues associated with plastic water bottles is a difficult process, both because so many different claims about them are circulated and because the generic term 'plastic bottle' can in fact refer to any one of several different types of bottles with distinctly different chemical properties. [Collected via e-mail, 2007] No water bottles in freezer. A dioxin chemical causes cancer, especially breast cancer. Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don't freeze your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from the plastic. [Collected via e-mail, 2004] Many are unaware of poisoning caused by re-using plastic bottles. Some of you may be in the habit of using and re-using your disposable mineral water bottles (eg. Evian, Aqua, Ice Mountain, Vita, etc), keeping them in your car or at work. Not a good idea. In a nutshell, the plastic (called polyethylene terephthalate or PET) used in these bottles contains a potentially carcinogenic element (something called diethylhydroxylamine or DEHA). The bottles are safe for one-time use only; if you must keep them longer, it should be or no more than a few days, a week max, and keep them away from heat as well. Repeated washing and rinsing can cause the plastic to break down and the carcinogens (cancer-causing chemical agents) can leach into the water that YOU are drinking. Better to invest in water bottles that are really meant for multiple uses. This is not something we should be scrimping on. Those of you with family - please advise them, especially for their children's sake. [Collected via e-mail, 2007] Do Not Drink Water Bottles Left in the Car This information was given to me by my husband and I know all the ladies in my life should know and please forward it to all the ladies in your life. My husband has a friend whose mother recently got diagnosed with breast cancer. The doctor told her women should not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. The doctor said that the heat and the plastic of the bottle have certain chemicals that can lead to breast cancer. So please be careful and do not drink that water bottle that has been left in a car and pass this on to all the women in your life. [Collected via e-mail, 2009] On the Ellen show, Sheryl Crow said this is what caused her breast cancer. It has been identified as the most common cause of the high levels of dioxin in breast cancer tissue. Sheryl Crow's oncologist told her: women should not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. The heat reacts with the chemicals in the plastic of the bottle which releases dioxin into the water. Dioxin is a toxin increasingly found in breast cancer tissue. So please be careful and do not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. Pass this on to all the women in your life. Don't leave water in the car!! pic.twitter.com/o75cDhX11m - APRIIL🌷 (@aprilmartinez__) October 3, 2019 Water, soda, and juice are typically sold in bottles made from polyethylene terephthalate, also known as PET or PETE. These containers are intended to be disposable, single-use bottles, although many consumers wash them and re-use them to hold drinking water or other beverages. Some of the example items reproduced above claim that freezing or re-using PET bottles releases unsafe levels of carcinogens such as 'dioxins' or the plastics additive DEHA (diethylhydroxylamine) into whatever liquids they may contain. However, according to the American Chemistry Council, such claims are inaccurate on two counts: DEHA is not used in the manufacture of PET bottles (nor is it created through the breakdown of such bottles), and DEHA is not classified as a human carcinogen: DEHA is neither regulated nor classified as a human carcinogen by the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the National Toxicology Program or the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the leading authorities on carcinogenic substances. In 1991, on the basis of very limited data, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classified DEHA as a 'possible human carcinogen.' However, in 1995, EPA again evaluated the science and concluded that ' ... overall, the evidence is too limited to establish that DEHA is likely to cause cancer.' Further, DEHA is not inherent in PET as a raw material, byproduct or decomposition product. Moreover, DEHA has been cleared by FDA for food-contact applications and would not pose a health risk even if it were present. Finally, in June 2003, the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research conducted a scientific study of migration in new and reused plastic water bottles from three countries. The Swiss study did not find DEHA at concentrations significantly above the background levels detected in distilled water, indicating DEHA was unlikely to have migrated from the bottles. The study concluded that the levels of DEHA were distinctly below the World Health Organization guidelines for safe drinking water. The American Cancer Society also debunked such claims, stating: In fact, DEHA is not inherent in the plastic used to make these bottles, and even if it was the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says DEHA 'cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer, teratogenic effects, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, gene mutations, liver, kidney, reproductive, or developmental toxicity or other serious or irreversible chronic health effects.' Meanwhile, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), says diethylhexyl adipate 'is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.' As for the notion that freezing water in plastic bottles releases dioxin, the American Chemical Council asserted: There simply is no scientific basis to support the claim that PET bottles will release dioxin when frozen. Dioxins are a family of chemical compounds that are produced by combustion at extremely high temperatures. They can only be formed at temperatures well above 700 degrees Fahrenheit; they cannot be formed at room temperature or in freezing temperatures. Moreover, there is no reasonable scientific basis for expecting dioxins to be present in plastic food or beverage containers in the first place. Johns Hopkins researcher Dr. Rolf Halden also said of such claims that: Q: What do you make of this recent email warning that claims dioxins can be released by freezing water in plastic bottles? A: This is an urban legend. There are no dioxins in plastics. In addition, freezing actually works against the release of chemicals. Chemicals do not diffuse as readily in cold temperatures, which would limit chemical release if there were dioxins in plastic, and we don't think there are. Dr. Halden did note that drinking water from plastic bottles that had been exposed to high temperatures could be problematic, though: There is another group of chemicals, called phthalates that are sometimes added to plastics to make them flexible and less brittle. Phthalates are environmental contaminants that can exhibit hormone-like behavior by acting as endocrine disruptors in humans and animals. If you heat up plastics, you could increase the leaching of phthalates from the containers into water and food. Another common type of plastic bottle is made with bisphenol A, also known as BPA. These products are typically rigid plastic bottles intended for multiple re-use, such as baby bottles or water bottles carried by cyclists. Concerns about tests that may link BPA ingestion with cancer and reproductive damage in some animals and the possibility that BPA could leach out of plastic bottles and into the liquids they contain has led to bans on the use of BPA in plastic products intended for children (such as baby bottles), and has prompted some consumers to seek out non-BPA alternatives.Recent Updates Updated with viral tweet about leaving plastic water bottles in cars.

nan

Reusing, freezing, or warming plastic water bottles will cause them to break down into carcinogenic compounds or release dioxins.

Neutral

Sorting out the various claims made about potential health issues associated with plastic water bottles is a difficult process, both because so many different claims about them are circulated and because the generic term 'plastic bottle' can in fact refer to any one of several different types of bottles with distinctly different chemical properties. [Collected via e-mail, 2007] No water bottles in freezer. A dioxin chemical causes cancer, especially breast cancer. Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don't freeze your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from the plastic. [Collected via e-mail, 2004] Many are unaware of poisoning caused by re-using plastic bottles. Some of you may be in the habit of using and re-using your disposable mineral water bottles (eg. Evian, Aqua, Ice Mountain, Vita, etc), keeping them in your car or at work. Not a good idea. In a nutshell, the plastic (called polyethylene terephthalate or PET) used in these bottles contains a potentially carcinogenic element (something called diethylhydroxylamine or DEHA). The bottles are safe for one-time use only; if you must keep them longer, it should be or no more than a few days, a week max, and keep them away from heat as well. Repeated washing and rinsing can cause the plastic to break down and the carcinogens (cancer-causing chemical agents) can leach into the water that YOU are drinking. Better to invest in water bottles that are really meant for multiple uses. This is not something we should be scrimping on. Those of you with family - please advise them, especially for their children's sake. [Collected via e-mail, 2007] Do Not Drink Water Bottles Left in the Car This information was given to me by my husband and I know all the ladies in my life should know and please forward it to all the ladies in your life. My husband has a friend whose mother recently got diagnosed with breast cancer. The doctor told her women should not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. The doctor said that the heat and the plastic of the bottle have certain chemicals that can lead to breast cancer. So please be careful and do not drink that water bottle that has been left in a car and pass this on to all the women in your life. [Collected via e-mail, 2009] On the Ellen show, Sheryl Crow said this is what caused her breast cancer. It has been identified as the most common cause of the high levels of dioxin in breast cancer tissue. Sheryl Crow's oncologist told her: women should not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. The heat reacts with the chemicals in the plastic of the bottle which releases dioxin into the water. Dioxin is a toxin increasingly found in breast cancer tissue. So please be careful and do not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. Pass this on to all the women in your life. Don't leave water in the car!! pic.twitter.com/o75cDhX11m - APRIIL🌷 (@aprilmartinez__) October 3, 2019 Water, soda, and juice are typically sold in bottles made from polyethylene terephthalate, also known as PET or PETE. These containers are intended to be disposable, single-use bottles, although many consumers wash them and re-use them to hold drinking water or other beverages. Some of the example items reproduced above claim that freezing or re-using PET bottles releases unsafe levels of carcinogens such as 'dioxins' or the plastics additive DEHA (diethylhydroxylamine) into whatever liquids they may contain. However, according to the American Chemistry Council, such claims are inaccurate on two counts: DEHA is not used in the manufacture of PET bottles (nor is it created through the breakdown of such bottles), and DEHA is not classified as a human carcinogen: DEHA is neither regulated nor classified as a human carcinogen by the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the National Toxicology Program or the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the leading authorities on carcinogenic substances. In 1991, on the basis of very limited data, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classified DEHA as a 'possible human carcinogen.' However, in 1995, EPA again evaluated the science and concluded that ' ... overall, the evidence is too limited to establish that DEHA is likely to cause cancer.' Further, DEHA is not inherent in PET as a raw material, byproduct or decomposition product. Moreover, DEHA has been cleared by FDA for food-contact applications and would not pose a health risk even if it were present. Finally, in June 2003, the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research conducted a scientific study of migration in new and reused plastic water bottles from three countries. The Swiss study did not find DEHA at concentrations significantly above the background levels detected in distilled water, indicating DEHA was unlikely to have migrated from the bottles. The study concluded that the levels of DEHA were distinctly below the World Health Organization guidelines for safe drinking water. The American Cancer Society also debunked such claims, stating: In fact, DEHA is not inherent in the plastic used to make these bottles, and even if it was the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says DEHA 'cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer, teratogenic effects, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, gene mutations, liver, kidney, reproductive, or developmental toxicity or other serious or irreversible chronic health effects.' Meanwhile, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), says diethylhexyl adipate 'is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.' As for the notion that freezing water in plastic bottles releases dioxin, the American Chemical Council asserted: There simply is no scientific basis to support the claim that PET bottles will release dioxin when frozen. Dioxins are a family of chemical compounds that are produced by combustion at extremely high temperatures. They can only be formed at temperatures well above 700 degrees Fahrenheit; they cannot be formed at room temperature or in freezing temperatures. Moreover, there is no reasonable scientific basis for expecting dioxins to be present in plastic food or beverage containers in the first place. Johns Hopkins researcher Dr. Rolf Halden also said of such claims that: Q: What do you make of this recent email warning that claims dioxins can be released by freezing water in plastic bottles? A: This is an urban legend. There are no dioxins in plastics. In addition, freezing actually works against the release of chemicals. Chemicals do not diffuse as readily in cold temperatures, which would limit chemical release if there were dioxins in plastic, and we don't think there are. Dr. Halden did note that drinking water from plastic bottles that had been exposed to high temperatures could be problematic, though: There is another group of chemicals, called phthalates that are sometimes added to plastics to make them flexible and less brittle. Phthalates are environmental contaminants that can exhibit hormone-like behavior by acting as endocrine disruptors in humans and animals. If you heat up plastics, you could increase the leaching of phthalates from the containers into water and food. Another common type of plastic bottle is made with bisphenol A, also known as BPA. These products are typically rigid plastic bottles intended for multiple re-use, such as baby bottles or water bottles carried by cyclists. Concerns about tests that may link BPA ingestion with cancer and reproductive damage in some animals and the possibility that BPA could leach out of plastic bottles and into the liquids they contain has led to bans on the use of BPA in plastic products intended for children (such as baby bottles), and has prompted some consumers to seek out non-BPA alternatives.Recent Updates Updated with viral tweet about leaving plastic water bottles in cars.

nan

Reusing, freezing, or warming plastic water bottles will cause them to break down into carcinogenic compounds or release dioxins.

Neutral

Sorting out the various claims made about potential health issues associated with plastic water bottles is a difficult process, both because so many different claims about them are circulated and because the generic term 'plastic bottle' can in fact refer to any one of several different types of bottles with distinctly different chemical properties. [Collected via e-mail, 2007] No water bottles in freezer. A dioxin chemical causes cancer, especially breast cancer. Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don't freeze your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from the plastic. [Collected via e-mail, 2004] Many are unaware of poisoning caused by re-using plastic bottles. Some of you may be in the habit of using and re-using your disposable mineral water bottles (eg. Evian, Aqua, Ice Mountain, Vita, etc), keeping them in your car or at work. Not a good idea. In a nutshell, the plastic (called polyethylene terephthalate or PET) used in these bottles contains a potentially carcinogenic element (something called diethylhydroxylamine or DEHA). The bottles are safe for one-time use only; if you must keep them longer, it should be or no more than a few days, a week max, and keep them away from heat as well. Repeated washing and rinsing can cause the plastic to break down and the carcinogens (cancer-causing chemical agents) can leach into the water that YOU are drinking. Better to invest in water bottles that are really meant for multiple uses. This is not something we should be scrimping on. Those of you with family - please advise them, especially for their children's sake. [Collected via e-mail, 2007] Do Not Drink Water Bottles Left in the Car This information was given to me by my husband and I know all the ladies in my life should know and please forward it to all the ladies in your life. My husband has a friend whose mother recently got diagnosed with breast cancer. The doctor told her women should not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. The doctor said that the heat and the plastic of the bottle have certain chemicals that can lead to breast cancer. So please be careful and do not drink that water bottle that has been left in a car and pass this on to all the women in your life. [Collected via e-mail, 2009] On the Ellen show, Sheryl Crow said this is what caused her breast cancer. It has been identified as the most common cause of the high levels of dioxin in breast cancer tissue. Sheryl Crow's oncologist told her: women should not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. The heat reacts with the chemicals in the plastic of the bottle which releases dioxin into the water. Dioxin is a toxin increasingly found in breast cancer tissue. So please be careful and do not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. Pass this on to all the women in your life. Don't leave water in the car!! pic.twitter.com/o75cDhX11m - APRIIL🌷 (@aprilmartinez__) October 3, 2019 Water, soda, and juice are typically sold in bottles made from polyethylene terephthalate, also known as PET or PETE. These containers are intended to be disposable, single-use bottles, although many consumers wash them and re-use them to hold drinking water or other beverages. Some of the example items reproduced above claim that freezing or re-using PET bottles releases unsafe levels of carcinogens such as 'dioxins' or the plastics additive DEHA (diethylhydroxylamine) into whatever liquids they may contain. However, according to the American Chemistry Council, such claims are inaccurate on two counts: DEHA is not used in the manufacture of PET bottles (nor is it created through the breakdown of such bottles), and DEHA is not classified as a human carcinogen: DEHA is neither regulated nor classified as a human carcinogen by the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the National Toxicology Program or the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the leading authorities on carcinogenic substances. In 1991, on the basis of very limited data, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classified DEHA as a 'possible human carcinogen.' However, in 1995, EPA again evaluated the science and concluded that ' ... overall, the evidence is too limited to establish that DEHA is likely to cause cancer.' Further, DEHA is not inherent in PET as a raw material, byproduct or decomposition product. Moreover, DEHA has been cleared by FDA for food-contact applications and would not pose a health risk even if it were present. Finally, in June 2003, the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research conducted a scientific study of migration in new and reused plastic water bottles from three countries. The Swiss study did not find DEHA at concentrations significantly above the background levels detected in distilled water, indicating DEHA was unlikely to have migrated from the bottles. The study concluded that the levels of DEHA were distinctly below the World Health Organization guidelines for safe drinking water. The American Cancer Society also debunked such claims, stating: In fact, DEHA is not inherent in the plastic used to make these bottles, and even if it was the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says DEHA 'cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer, teratogenic effects, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, gene mutations, liver, kidney, reproductive, or developmental toxicity or other serious or irreversible chronic health effects.' Meanwhile, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), says diethylhexyl adipate 'is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.' As for the notion that freezing water in plastic bottles releases dioxin, the American Chemical Council asserted: There simply is no scientific basis to support the claim that PET bottles will release dioxin when frozen. Dioxins are a family of chemical compounds that are produced by combustion at extremely high temperatures. They can only be formed at temperatures well above 700 degrees Fahrenheit; they cannot be formed at room temperature or in freezing temperatures. Moreover, there is no reasonable scientific basis for expecting dioxins to be present in plastic food or beverage containers in the first place. Johns Hopkins researcher Dr. Rolf Halden also said of such claims that: Q: What do you make of this recent email warning that claims dioxins can be released by freezing water in plastic bottles? A: This is an urban legend. There are no dioxins in plastics. In addition, freezing actually works against the release of chemicals. Chemicals do not diffuse as readily in cold temperatures, which would limit chemical release if there were dioxins in plastic, and we don't think there are. Dr. Halden did note that drinking water from plastic bottles that had been exposed to high temperatures could be problematic, though: There is another group of chemicals, called phthalates that are sometimes added to plastics to make them flexible and less brittle. Phthalates are environmental contaminants that can exhibit hormone-like behavior by acting as endocrine disruptors in humans and animals. If you heat up plastics, you could increase the leaching of phthalates from the containers into water and food. Another common type of plastic bottle is made with bisphenol A, also known as BPA. These products are typically rigid plastic bottles intended for multiple re-use, such as baby bottles or water bottles carried by cyclists. Concerns about tests that may link BPA ingestion with cancer and reproductive damage in some animals and the possibility that BPA could leach out of plastic bottles and into the liquids they contain has led to bans on the use of BPA in plastic products intended for children (such as baby bottles), and has prompted some consumers to seek out non-BPA alternatives.Recent Updates Updated with viral tweet about leaving plastic water bottles in cars.

nan

Reusing, freezing, or warming plastic water bottles will cause them to break down into carcinogenic compounds or release dioxins.

Neutral

Sorting out the various claims made about potential health issues associated with plastic water bottles is a difficult process, both because so many different claims about them are circulated and because the generic term 'plastic bottle' can in fact refer to any one of several different types of bottles with distinctly different chemical properties. [Collected via e-mail, 2007] No water bottles in freezer. A dioxin chemical causes cancer, especially breast cancer. Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don't freeze your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from the plastic. [Collected via e-mail, 2004] Many are unaware of poisoning caused by re-using plastic bottles. Some of you may be in the habit of using and re-using your disposable mineral water bottles (eg. Evian, Aqua, Ice Mountain, Vita, etc), keeping them in your car or at work. Not a good idea. In a nutshell, the plastic (called polyethylene terephthalate or PET) used in these bottles contains a potentially carcinogenic element (something called diethylhydroxylamine or DEHA). The bottles are safe for one-time use only; if you must keep them longer, it should be or no more than a few days, a week max, and keep them away from heat as well. Repeated washing and rinsing can cause the plastic to break down and the carcinogens (cancer-causing chemical agents) can leach into the water that YOU are drinking. Better to invest in water bottles that are really meant for multiple uses. This is not something we should be scrimping on. Those of you with family - please advise them, especially for their children's sake. [Collected via e-mail, 2007] Do Not Drink Water Bottles Left in the Car This information was given to me by my husband and I know all the ladies in my life should know and please forward it to all the ladies in your life. My husband has a friend whose mother recently got diagnosed with breast cancer. The doctor told her women should not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. The doctor said that the heat and the plastic of the bottle have certain chemicals that can lead to breast cancer. So please be careful and do not drink that water bottle that has been left in a car and pass this on to all the women in your life. [Collected via e-mail, 2009] On the Ellen show, Sheryl Crow said this is what caused her breast cancer. It has been identified as the most common cause of the high levels of dioxin in breast cancer tissue. Sheryl Crow's oncologist told her: women should not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. The heat reacts with the chemicals in the plastic of the bottle which releases dioxin into the water. Dioxin is a toxin increasingly found in breast cancer tissue. So please be careful and do not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. Pass this on to all the women in your life. Don't leave water in the car!! pic.twitter.com/o75cDhX11m - APRIIL🌷 (@aprilmartinez__) October 3, 2019 Water, soda, and juice are typically sold in bottles made from polyethylene terephthalate, also known as PET or PETE. These containers are intended to be disposable, single-use bottles, although many consumers wash them and re-use them to hold drinking water or other beverages. Some of the example items reproduced above claim that freezing or re-using PET bottles releases unsafe levels of carcinogens such as 'dioxins' or the plastics additive DEHA (diethylhydroxylamine) into whatever liquids they may contain. However, according to the American Chemistry Council, such claims are inaccurate on two counts: DEHA is not used in the manufacture of PET bottles (nor is it created through the breakdown of such bottles), and DEHA is not classified as a human carcinogen: DEHA is neither regulated nor classified as a human carcinogen by the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the National Toxicology Program or the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the leading authorities on carcinogenic substances. In 1991, on the basis of very limited data, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classified DEHA as a 'possible human carcinogen.' However, in 1995, EPA again evaluated the science and concluded that ' ... overall, the evidence is too limited to establish that DEHA is likely to cause cancer.' Further, DEHA is not inherent in PET as a raw material, byproduct or decomposition product. Moreover, DEHA has been cleared by FDA for food-contact applications and would not pose a health risk even if it were present. Finally, in June 2003, the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research conducted a scientific study of migration in new and reused plastic water bottles from three countries. The Swiss study did not find DEHA at concentrations significantly above the background levels detected in distilled water, indicating DEHA was unlikely to have migrated from the bottles. The study concluded that the levels of DEHA were distinctly below the World Health Organization guidelines for safe drinking water. The American Cancer Society also debunked such claims, stating: In fact, DEHA is not inherent in the plastic used to make these bottles, and even if it was the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says DEHA 'cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer, teratogenic effects, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, gene mutations, liver, kidney, reproductive, or developmental toxicity or other serious or irreversible chronic health effects.' Meanwhile, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), says diethylhexyl adipate 'is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.' As for the notion that freezing water in plastic bottles releases dioxin, the American Chemical Council asserted: There simply is no scientific basis to support the claim that PET bottles will release dioxin when frozen. Dioxins are a family of chemical compounds that are produced by combustion at extremely high temperatures. They can only be formed at temperatures well above 700 degrees Fahrenheit; they cannot be formed at room temperature or in freezing temperatures. Moreover, there is no reasonable scientific basis for expecting dioxins to be present in plastic food or beverage containers in the first place. Johns Hopkins researcher Dr. Rolf Halden also said of such claims that: Q: What do you make of this recent email warning that claims dioxins can be released by freezing water in plastic bottles? A: This is an urban legend. There are no dioxins in plastics. In addition, freezing actually works against the release of chemicals. Chemicals do not diffuse as readily in cold temperatures, which would limit chemical release if there were dioxins in plastic, and we don't think there are. Dr. Halden did note that drinking water from plastic bottles that had been exposed to high temperatures could be problematic, though: There is another group of chemicals, called phthalates that are sometimes added to plastics to make them flexible and less brittle. Phthalates are environmental contaminants that can exhibit hormone-like behavior by acting as endocrine disruptors in humans and animals. If you heat up plastics, you could increase the leaching of phthalates from the containers into water and food. Another common type of plastic bottle is made with bisphenol A, also known as BPA. These products are typically rigid plastic bottles intended for multiple re-use, such as baby bottles or water bottles carried by cyclists. Concerns about tests that may link BPA ingestion with cancer and reproductive damage in some animals and the possibility that BPA could leach out of plastic bottles and into the liquids they contain has led to bans on the use of BPA in plastic products intended for children (such as baby bottles), and has prompted some consumers to seek out non-BPA alternatives.Recent Updates Updated with viral tweet about leaving plastic water bottles in cars.

nan

Reusing, freezing, or warming plastic water bottles will cause them to break down into carcinogenic compounds or release dioxins.

Neutral

Sorting out the various claims made about potential health issues associated with plastic water bottles is a difficult process, both because so many different claims about them are circulated and because the generic term 'plastic bottle' can in fact refer to any one of several different types of bottles with distinctly different chemical properties. [Collected via e-mail, 2007] No water bottles in freezer. A dioxin chemical causes cancer, especially breast cancer. Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don't freeze your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from the plastic. [Collected via e-mail, 2004] Many are unaware of poisoning caused by re-using plastic bottles. Some of you may be in the habit of using and re-using your disposable mineral water bottles (eg. Evian, Aqua, Ice Mountain, Vita, etc), keeping them in your car or at work. Not a good idea. In a nutshell, the plastic (called polyethylene terephthalate or PET) used in these bottles contains a potentially carcinogenic element (something called diethylhydroxylamine or DEHA). The bottles are safe for one-time use only; if you must keep them longer, it should be or no more than a few days, a week max, and keep them away from heat as well. Repeated washing and rinsing can cause the plastic to break down and the carcinogens (cancer-causing chemical agents) can leach into the water that YOU are drinking. Better to invest in water bottles that are really meant for multiple uses. This is not something we should be scrimping on. Those of you with family - please advise them, especially for their children's sake. [Collected via e-mail, 2007] Do Not Drink Water Bottles Left in the Car This information was given to me by my husband and I know all the ladies in my life should know and please forward it to all the ladies in your life. My husband has a friend whose mother recently got diagnosed with breast cancer. The doctor told her women should not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. The doctor said that the heat and the plastic of the bottle have certain chemicals that can lead to breast cancer. So please be careful and do not drink that water bottle that has been left in a car and pass this on to all the women in your life. [Collected via e-mail, 2009] On the Ellen show, Sheryl Crow said this is what caused her breast cancer. It has been identified as the most common cause of the high levels of dioxin in breast cancer tissue. Sheryl Crow's oncologist told her: women should not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. The heat reacts with the chemicals in the plastic of the bottle which releases dioxin into the water. Dioxin is a toxin increasingly found in breast cancer tissue. So please be careful and do not drink bottled water that has been left in a car. Pass this on to all the women in your life. Don't leave water in the car!! pic.twitter.com/o75cDhX11m - APRIIL🌷 (@aprilmartinez__) October 3, 2019 Water, soda, and juice are typically sold in bottles made from polyethylene terephthalate, also known as PET or PETE. These containers are intended to be disposable, single-use bottles, although many consumers wash them and re-use them to hold drinking water or other beverages. Some of the example items reproduced above claim that freezing or re-using PET bottles releases unsafe levels of carcinogens such as 'dioxins' or the plastics additive DEHA (diethylhydroxylamine) into whatever liquids they may contain. However, according to the American Chemistry Council, such claims are inaccurate on two counts: DEHA is not used in the manufacture of PET bottles (nor is it created through the breakdown of such bottles), and DEHA is not classified as a human carcinogen: DEHA is neither regulated nor classified as a human carcinogen by the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the National Toxicology Program or the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the leading authorities on carcinogenic substances. In 1991, on the basis of very limited data, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classified DEHA as a 'possible human carcinogen.' However, in 1995, EPA again evaluated the science and concluded that ' ... overall, the evidence is too limited to establish that DEHA is likely to cause cancer.' Further, DEHA is not inherent in PET as a raw material, byproduct or decomposition product. Moreover, DEHA has been cleared by FDA for food-contact applications and would not pose a health risk even if it were present. Finally, in June 2003, the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research conducted a scientific study of migration in new and reused plastic water bottles from three countries. The Swiss study did not find DEHA at concentrations significantly above the background levels detected in distilled water, indicating DEHA was unlikely to have migrated from the bottles. The study concluded that the levels of DEHA were distinctly below the World Health Organization guidelines for safe drinking water. The American Cancer Society also debunked such claims, stating: In fact, DEHA is not inherent in the plastic used to make these bottles, and even if it was the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says DEHA 'cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer, teratogenic effects, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, gene mutations, liver, kidney, reproductive, or developmental toxicity or other serious or irreversible chronic health effects.' Meanwhile, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), says diethylhexyl adipate 'is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.' As for the notion that freezing water in plastic bottles releases dioxin, the American Chemical Council asserted: There simply is no scientific basis to support the claim that PET bottles will release dioxin when frozen. Dioxins are a family of chemical compounds that are produced by combustion at extremely high temperatures. They can only be formed at temperatures well above 700 degrees Fahrenheit; they cannot be formed at room temperature or in freezing temperatures. Moreover, there is no reasonable scientific basis for expecting dioxins to be present in plastic food or beverage containers in the first place. Johns Hopkins researcher Dr. Rolf Halden also said of such claims that: Q: What do you make of this recent email warning that claims dioxins can be released by freezing water in plastic bottles? A: This is an urban legend. There are no dioxins in plastics. In addition, freezing actually works against the release of chemicals. Chemicals do not diffuse as readily in cold temperatures, which would limit chemical release if there were dioxins in plastic, and we don't think there are. Dr. Halden did note that drinking water from plastic bottles that had been exposed to high temperatures could be problematic, though: There is another group of chemicals, called phthalates that are sometimes added to plastics to make them flexible and less brittle. Phthalates are environmental contaminants that can exhibit hormone-like behavior by acting as endocrine disruptors in humans and animals. If you heat up plastics, you could increase the leaching of phthalates from the containers into water and food. Another common type of plastic bottle is made with bisphenol A, also known as BPA. These products are typically rigid plastic bottles intended for multiple re-use, such as baby bottles or water bottles carried by cyclists. Concerns about tests that may link BPA ingestion with cancer and reproductive damage in some animals and the possibility that BPA could leach out of plastic bottles and into the liquids they contain has led to bans on the use of BPA in plastic products intended for children (such as baby bottles), and has prompted some consumers to seek out non-BPA alternatives.Recent Updates Updated with viral tweet about leaving plastic water bottles in cars.

nan

A meme contains accurate information about the founders of Papa John's (John Schnatter) and Little Caesar's (Mike Ilitch) respectively.

Neutral

On 2 November 2017, the Facebook page 'The Other 98%' shared a meme comparing purported facts about the founder of the Papa John's (John Schnatter) and Little Caesar's (the late Mike Ilitch) pizza chains: Purported facts about Schnatter were accompanied by a red 'X' (indicating dispproval) and those about Ilitch with a green check mark (indicating approval). The meme comprised seven claims in total, four about Schnatter and three about Ilitch, which we'll cover one by one: [Papa John's] John Schnatter, Founder Donated to Trump's campaign Cut workers hours to avoid paying health insurance Found guilty of wage theft and not paying employees overtime. Threatened to raise pizza prices to keep share holders happy. [Little Caesar's] Mike Illitch [sic], Founder Quietly PAID Rosa Park's [sic] rent for years until her passing. Ran a charity for the homeless that was recognized by Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Received the 'Secretaries Award' for his philanthropic work with veterans. Schnatter donated to Trump's campaign According to Federal Election Committee (FEC) filings, Schnatter made a total of $85,500 in political contributions in 2016, just over two percent of which went to the Trump campaign. Schnatter donated $1,000 each to two Trump campaign political action committees (PACs), he donated $33,400 to the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Kentucky Republican Leadership Fund in 2016, and $6,200 to Rand Paul's PACs. As such, the claim was true but somewhat misleading: Schnatter (a resident of Louisville) did donate to the Trump campaign, but the bulk of his financial support went elsewhere, most of it to political activity on the state level. Schnatter cut workers' hours to circumvent laws requiring he provide health insurance In early November 2012, it was widely reported that Schnatter planned to cut worker hours in response to provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or 'Obamacare'): The CEO of popular pizza chain Papa John's says his employees may face reduced hours and he expects his business costs to rise because President Obama's re-election most likely insures the president's health care reform law will be implemented in full. NaplesNews.com reports John Schnatter made the remarks to a small group at Edison State College's Collier County campus the day after the election. Schnatter, who supported Mitt Romney in the election, said all Americans having health insurance under ObamaCare is a good, but estimates the change will cost Papa John's $5 million to $8 million annually. However, Schnatter asserted that his comments had been misinterpreted in an op-ed piece, explaining that his earlier remarks were speculative and pertained to franchisees of Papa John's (not the corporation itself): Many in the media reported that I said Papa John's is going to close stores and cut jobs because of Obamacare. I never said that. The fact is we are going to open over hundreds of stores this year and next and increase employment by over 5,000 jobs worldwide. And, we have no plans to cut team hours as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Clearly there was some misunderstanding somewhere. The remarks that generated the headlines were made during an entrepreneur class I was asked to speak to at a Florida college. I was asked to share my experience as an entrepreneur and to provide the students with real-life small business situations. Unbeknownst to me, until she identified herself, a reporter was there. Here is the part of the interchange that was the genesis of the news: Reporter: 'Do you think your - you know - franchise owners... are going to cut people hours back to make them part time instead of full time?' Me: 'Well, in Hawaii there is a form of the same kind of health insurance and that's what you do, you find loopholes to get around it. That's what they're going to do.' Reporter: 'My understanding is that if you're a full time employee, which is 35 hours or over, you'd be covered. Or if you're part time then you wouldn't be. So wouldn't some business owners just cut people down like 34 hours a week so they wouldn't have to pay for health insurance?' The reporter asked what I believed Papa John's franchisees would do in response to Obamacare, not what Papa John's would do ... Papa John's, like most businesses, is still researching what the Affordable Care Act means to our operations. Regardless of the conclusion of our analysis, we will honor this law, as we do all laws, and continue to offer 100% of Papa John's corporate employees and workers in company-owned stores health insurance as we have since the company was founded in 1984. Schnatter was found guilty of wage theft and failure to pay overtime to workers In 2015, a Papa John's franchisee (not the chain, nor Schnatter) was found guilty of wage theft and noncompliance with New York State laws pertaining to overtime: Abdul Jamil Khokhar, who owns nine Papa John's locations in New York City with BMY Foods, pled guilty to failing to pay workers in compliance with the New York Labor Law, which is a misdemeanor, and to filing false business records, a felony. He will serve 60 days in jail for failing to pay his workers the minimum wage and overtime and has agreed to pay $230,000 in restitution to the workers ... Instead of paying his employees the proper minimum overtime wages according to New York State law, Khokhar paid them the same minimum wage they would make during regular hours. To hide this illegal practice, he created fake names for employees in the computer system and used the fake names to avoid paying the time-and-a-half rate required for overtime. So an employee who worked for more than 40 hours would be paid for regular work hours under his or her own name, and any overtime hours would be paid as straight hours to a fictitious employee. Khokar was an independent franchise owner, and his 2015 conviction was falsely attributed to Schnatter in the meme. Separate instances also involved the actions of independent franchisees, not Papa John's itself. Schnatter threatened to raise pizza prices to keep shareholders happy In August 2012, news outlets reported that Schnatter was planning to pass increased health insurance costs onto customers in order to protect 'shareholders' best interests': And if the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act rolls out as planned in 2014, Schnatter's strategy is 'of course ... to pass that cost on the consumer in order to protect our shareholders' best interest,' he said in a recent conference call. Schnatter estimates that the legislation will cost Papa John's about 11 cents to 14 cents per pizza, which equates to 15 cents to 20 cents per order. An average delivery charge runs $1.75 to $2.50. Schnatter's claims about an 11- to 14-cent per pizza increase in prices occurred in tandem with his earlier referenced ACA-related remarks. As with those previous comments, Schnatter later maintained his remarks had been misinterpreted: Most visibly, Papa John's CEO John Schnatter repeatedly claimed that Obamacare would increase the price of a pizza by eleven to fourteen cents (even if you accept his numbers, hardly a dramatic setback). CNN did some fact checking, and found that the exact costs of Obamacare for the chain were incalculable thanks to the pizza franchise's refusal to provide pertinent data (such as the number of pizzas they sell, how many full-time employees they have, what their current health care plan is, etc.). However, they rated Schnatter's claims as 'false' because Obamacare does not require companies to provide health care plans to part-time employees, as well as exempts many small businesses (such as the local franchises which compose Papa John's retail locations) from the health care requirements. After being debunked, Papa John's is backing off from its claims that Obamacare would raise prices and potentially cost jobs, now saying Schnatter was quoted incorrectly. Due to the business' strength, the company now says, Papa John's could absorb the added costs easily. Schnatter stated that his earlier remarks were misconstrued, and denied pizza prices would go up by the minor amount mentioned. Although it was true Schnatter speculated higher Obamacare-related costs would be 'pass[ed] on' to customers, he soon revised his position and no surcharge was added. The meme then turned to Ilitch, who died in February 2017. Ilitch quietly paid Rosa Parks' rent until she died Back in February 2014, SportsBusiness Daily reported that Ilitch had arranged to pay for housing for civil rights icon Rosa Parks after she was robbed and assaulted in her Detroit home: On Aug. 31, 1994, Parks, then 81, was robbed and assaulted in her home in central Detroit. [Judge Damon] Keith called real estate developer Alfred Taubman, the owner of Riverfront Apartments, about finding a safer home for Parks. Taubman pledged to find the best home available. When Ilitch read about Keith's plan and Taubman's promise in the newspaper, he called the judge and said he would pay for Parks' housing for as long as necessary. (Parks passed away in 2005 at the age of 92). Keith served as the executor of the trust established for Parks' housing. The episode is just one of many throughout Ilitch's life when he stepped forward to help (see box), usually outside of the spotlight. Keith produced a canceled November 1994 check and affirmed that Ilitch had paid Parks' rent from 1994 until her death in 2005, adding that it was 'important' people learn of that circumstance. Ilitch ran a homeless charity recognized by Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton This claim appears to reference Little Caesar's Love Kitchen, described on the company's web site as follows: THE LITTLE CAESARS LOVE KITCHEN travels across the United States to help those in need. We have two trucks in operation so we can be of service 365 days a year. These restaurants on wheels have served more than three million people. The Love Kitchen has been recognized for its charitable efforts as well, receiving The President's Volunteer Action Award Citation from former Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The Reagan administration also awarded the Love Kitchen a Presidential Citation for Private Sector Initiatives. Additionally, the Love Kitchen has received a certificate of appreciation from the State of Michigan and was recognized by the Detroit City Council for its efforts in the Gulf Coast region. The Love Kitchen's 30th anniversary was recognized when it was listed in the Congressional Record by U.S. Congresswoman Candice Miller, on April 30, 2015. The Love Kitchen charity was founded by Ilitch in 1985. Ilitch received the '[Secretary's] Award' for his philanthropic work with veterans In September 2007, news outlets reported that Ilitch had 'received the U.S. Veterans Affairs Department's top civilian honor for giving war veterans franchise opportunities,' with one press release stating: In recognition of his service to Veterans, Honorable R. James Nicholson, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, will present Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. founder Michael Ilitch with the Secretary's Award, the highest tribute given to a private citizen by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. The ceremony, which will take place today in the nation's capitol at the Department of Veterans Affairs at 2:30 p.m. ET, recognizes Mr. Ilitch's industry-leading support of Veterans through the Little Caesars Veterans Program. 'Michael Ilitch has demonstrated great patriotism by providing business opportunities to honorably discharged Veterans through the Little Caesars Veterans Program,' said Nicholson. 'This award, the highest honor my office can bestow, represents the VA's appreciation of a Detroit business leader who is making a difference for U.S. military Veterans as they transition to civilian life or make a career change.' Launched on Veterans Day (November 9) 2006, the program provides honorably discharged, service-disabled Veterans who qualify as Little Caesars franchisees a benefit of up to $68,000. Honorably discharged, non service-disabled Veterans who qualify as Little Caesars franchisees are eligible for a benefit of $10,000. Ilitch, a former Marine, has made giving back part of the way Little Caesars has done business since shortly after opening the first store in 1959. 'Veterans and their families have made significant sacrifices for our country, and I feel that it's important to acknowledge that, and to thank them for their service,' said Michael Ilitch, founder and chairman, Little Caesars. 'As I thought about the businesses I own, I thought what better way to say thank you to the men and women who have given so much for our nation than to provide them with a business opportunity: becoming a Little Caesars franchisee. I'm very honored that the program, and the people who created it, are being recognized with this prestigious award.' Aside from its literal veracity (or lack thereof), this meme also cherry-picks its 'facts' to reflect poorly on Schnatter (whose political positions are well-known) and elides charitable contributions Papa John's has made to causes such as the Red Cross, children affected by domestic violence, and general philanthropic donations that Schnatter estimated to total around $30 million.

nan

A meme contains accurate information about the founders of Papa John's (John Schnatter) and Little Caesar's (Mike Ilitch) respectively.

Neutral

On 2 November 2017, the Facebook page 'The Other 98%' shared a meme comparing purported facts about the founder of the Papa John's (John Schnatter) and Little Caesar's (the late Mike Ilitch) pizza chains: Purported facts about Schnatter were accompanied by a red 'X' (indicating dispproval) and those about Ilitch with a green check mark (indicating approval). The meme comprised seven claims in total, four about Schnatter and three about Ilitch, which we'll cover one by one: [Papa John's] John Schnatter, Founder Donated to Trump's campaign Cut workers hours to avoid paying health insurance Found guilty of wage theft and not paying employees overtime. Threatened to raise pizza prices to keep share holders happy. [Little Caesar's] Mike Illitch [sic], Founder Quietly PAID Rosa Park's [sic] rent for years until her passing. Ran a charity for the homeless that was recognized by Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Received the 'Secretaries Award' for his philanthropic work with veterans. Schnatter donated to Trump's campaign According to Federal Election Committee (FEC) filings, Schnatter made a total of $85,500 in political contributions in 2016, just over two percent of which went to the Trump campaign. Schnatter donated $1,000 each to two Trump campaign political action committees (PACs), he donated $33,400 to the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Kentucky Republican Leadership Fund in 2016, and $6,200 to Rand Paul's PACs. As such, the claim was true but somewhat misleading: Schnatter (a resident of Louisville) did donate to the Trump campaign, but the bulk of his financial support went elsewhere, most of it to political activity on the state level. Schnatter cut workers' hours to circumvent laws requiring he provide health insurance In early November 2012, it was widely reported that Schnatter planned to cut worker hours in response to provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or 'Obamacare'): The CEO of popular pizza chain Papa John's says his employees may face reduced hours and he expects his business costs to rise because President Obama's re-election most likely insures the president's health care reform law will be implemented in full. NaplesNews.com reports John Schnatter made the remarks to a small group at Edison State College's Collier County campus the day after the election. Schnatter, who supported Mitt Romney in the election, said all Americans having health insurance under ObamaCare is a good, but estimates the change will cost Papa John's $5 million to $8 million annually. However, Schnatter asserted that his comments had been misinterpreted in an op-ed piece, explaining that his earlier remarks were speculative and pertained to franchisees of Papa John's (not the corporation itself): Many in the media reported that I said Papa John's is going to close stores and cut jobs because of Obamacare. I never said that. The fact is we are going to open over hundreds of stores this year and next and increase employment by over 5,000 jobs worldwide. And, we have no plans to cut team hours as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Clearly there was some misunderstanding somewhere. The remarks that generated the headlines were made during an entrepreneur class I was asked to speak to at a Florida college. I was asked to share my experience as an entrepreneur and to provide the students with real-life small business situations. Unbeknownst to me, until she identified herself, a reporter was there. Here is the part of the interchange that was the genesis of the news: Reporter: 'Do you think your - you know - franchise owners... are going to cut people hours back to make them part time instead of full time?' Me: 'Well, in Hawaii there is a form of the same kind of health insurance and that's what you do, you find loopholes to get around it. That's what they're going to do.' Reporter: 'My understanding is that if you're a full time employee, which is 35 hours or over, you'd be covered. Or if you're part time then you wouldn't be. So wouldn't some business owners just cut people down like 34 hours a week so they wouldn't have to pay for health insurance?' The reporter asked what I believed Papa John's franchisees would do in response to Obamacare, not what Papa John's would do ... Papa John's, like most businesses, is still researching what the Affordable Care Act means to our operations. Regardless of the conclusion of our analysis, we will honor this law, as we do all laws, and continue to offer 100% of Papa John's corporate employees and workers in company-owned stores health insurance as we have since the company was founded in 1984. Schnatter was found guilty of wage theft and failure to pay overtime to workers In 2015, a Papa John's franchisee (not the chain, nor Schnatter) was found guilty of wage theft and noncompliance with New York State laws pertaining to overtime: Abdul Jamil Khokhar, who owns nine Papa John's locations in New York City with BMY Foods, pled guilty to failing to pay workers in compliance with the New York Labor Law, which is a misdemeanor, and to filing false business records, a felony. He will serve 60 days in jail for failing to pay his workers the minimum wage and overtime and has agreed to pay $230,000 in restitution to the workers ... Instead of paying his employees the proper minimum overtime wages according to New York State law, Khokhar paid them the same minimum wage they would make during regular hours. To hide this illegal practice, he created fake names for employees in the computer system and used the fake names to avoid paying the time-and-a-half rate required for overtime. So an employee who worked for more than 40 hours would be paid for regular work hours under his or her own name, and any overtime hours would be paid as straight hours to a fictitious employee. Khokar was an independent franchise owner, and his 2015 conviction was falsely attributed to Schnatter in the meme. Separate instances also involved the actions of independent franchisees, not Papa John's itself. Schnatter threatened to raise pizza prices to keep shareholders happy In August 2012, news outlets reported that Schnatter was planning to pass increased health insurance costs onto customers in order to protect 'shareholders' best interests': And if the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act rolls out as planned in 2014, Schnatter's strategy is 'of course ... to pass that cost on the consumer in order to protect our shareholders' best interest,' he said in a recent conference call. Schnatter estimates that the legislation will cost Papa John's about 11 cents to 14 cents per pizza, which equates to 15 cents to 20 cents per order. An average delivery charge runs $1.75 to $2.50. Schnatter's claims about an 11- to 14-cent per pizza increase in prices occurred in tandem with his earlier referenced ACA-related remarks. As with those previous comments, Schnatter later maintained his remarks had been misinterpreted: Most visibly, Papa John's CEO John Schnatter repeatedly claimed that Obamacare would increase the price of a pizza by eleven to fourteen cents (even if you accept his numbers, hardly a dramatic setback). CNN did some fact checking, and found that the exact costs of Obamacare for the chain were incalculable thanks to the pizza franchise's refusal to provide pertinent data (such as the number of pizzas they sell, how many full-time employees they have, what their current health care plan is, etc.). However, they rated Schnatter's claims as 'false' because Obamacare does not require companies to provide health care plans to part-time employees, as well as exempts many small businesses (such as the local franchises which compose Papa John's retail locations) from the health care requirements. After being debunked, Papa John's is backing off from its claims that Obamacare would raise prices and potentially cost jobs, now saying Schnatter was quoted incorrectly. Due to the business' strength, the company now says, Papa John's could absorb the added costs easily. Schnatter stated that his earlier remarks were misconstrued, and denied pizza prices would go up by the minor amount mentioned. Although it was true Schnatter speculated higher Obamacare-related costs would be 'pass[ed] on' to customers, he soon revised his position and no surcharge was added. The meme then turned to Ilitch, who died in February 2017. Ilitch quietly paid Rosa Parks' rent until she died Back in February 2014, SportsBusiness Daily reported that Ilitch had arranged to pay for housing for civil rights icon Rosa Parks after she was robbed and assaulted in her Detroit home: On Aug. 31, 1994, Parks, then 81, was robbed and assaulted in her home in central Detroit. [Judge Damon] Keith called real estate developer Alfred Taubman, the owner of Riverfront Apartments, about finding a safer home for Parks. Taubman pledged to find the best home available. When Ilitch read about Keith's plan and Taubman's promise in the newspaper, he called the judge and said he would pay for Parks' housing for as long as necessary. (Parks passed away in 2005 at the age of 92). Keith served as the executor of the trust established for Parks' housing. The episode is just one of many throughout Ilitch's life when he stepped forward to help (see box), usually outside of the spotlight. Keith produced a canceled November 1994 check and affirmed that Ilitch had paid Parks' rent from 1994 until her death in 2005, adding that it was 'important' people learn of that circumstance. Ilitch ran a homeless charity recognized by Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton This claim appears to reference Little Caesar's Love Kitchen, described on the company's web site as follows: THE LITTLE CAESARS LOVE KITCHEN travels across the United States to help those in need. We have two trucks in operation so we can be of service 365 days a year. These restaurants on wheels have served more than three million people. The Love Kitchen has been recognized for its charitable efforts as well, receiving The President's Volunteer Action Award Citation from former Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The Reagan administration also awarded the Love Kitchen a Presidential Citation for Private Sector Initiatives. Additionally, the Love Kitchen has received a certificate of appreciation from the State of Michigan and was recognized by the Detroit City Council for its efforts in the Gulf Coast region. The Love Kitchen's 30th anniversary was recognized when it was listed in the Congressional Record by U.S. Congresswoman Candice Miller, on April 30, 2015. The Love Kitchen charity was founded by Ilitch in 1985. Ilitch received the '[Secretary's] Award' for his philanthropic work with veterans In September 2007, news outlets reported that Ilitch had 'received the U.S. Veterans Affairs Department's top civilian honor for giving war veterans franchise opportunities,' with one press release stating: In recognition of his service to Veterans, Honorable R. James Nicholson, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, will present Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. founder Michael Ilitch with the Secretary's Award, the highest tribute given to a private citizen by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. The ceremony, which will take place today in the nation's capitol at the Department of Veterans Affairs at 2:30 p.m. ET, recognizes Mr. Ilitch's industry-leading support of Veterans through the Little Caesars Veterans Program. 'Michael Ilitch has demonstrated great patriotism by providing business opportunities to honorably discharged Veterans through the Little Caesars Veterans Program,' said Nicholson. 'This award, the highest honor my office can bestow, represents the VA's appreciation of a Detroit business leader who is making a difference for U.S. military Veterans as they transition to civilian life or make a career change.' Launched on Veterans Day (November 9) 2006, the program provides honorably discharged, service-disabled Veterans who qualify as Little Caesars franchisees a benefit of up to $68,000. Honorably discharged, non service-disabled Veterans who qualify as Little Caesars franchisees are eligible for a benefit of $10,000. Ilitch, a former Marine, has made giving back part of the way Little Caesars has done business since shortly after opening the first store in 1959. 'Veterans and their families have made significant sacrifices for our country, and I feel that it's important to acknowledge that, and to thank them for their service,' said Michael Ilitch, founder and chairman, Little Caesars. 'As I thought about the businesses I own, I thought what better way to say thank you to the men and women who have given so much for our nation than to provide them with a business opportunity: becoming a Little Caesars franchisee. I'm very honored that the program, and the people who created it, are being recognized with this prestigious award.' Aside from its literal veracity (or lack thereof), this meme also cherry-picks its 'facts' to reflect poorly on Schnatter (whose political positions are well-known) and elides charitable contributions Papa John's has made to causes such as the Red Cross, children affected by domestic violence, and general philanthropic donations that Schnatter estimated to total around $30 million.

nan

A meme contains accurate information about the founders of Papa John's (John Schnatter) and Little Caesar's (Mike Ilitch) respectively.

Neutral

On 2 November 2017, the Facebook page 'The Other 98%' shared a meme comparing purported facts about the founder of the Papa John's (John Schnatter) and Little Caesar's (the late Mike Ilitch) pizza chains: Purported facts about Schnatter were accompanied by a red 'X' (indicating dispproval) and those about Ilitch with a green check mark (indicating approval). The meme comprised seven claims in total, four about Schnatter and three about Ilitch, which we'll cover one by one: [Papa John's] John Schnatter, Founder Donated to Trump's campaign Cut workers hours to avoid paying health insurance Found guilty of wage theft and not paying employees overtime. Threatened to raise pizza prices to keep share holders happy. [Little Caesar's] Mike Illitch [sic], Founder Quietly PAID Rosa Park's [sic] rent for years until her passing. Ran a charity for the homeless that was recognized by Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Received the 'Secretaries Award' for his philanthropic work with veterans. Schnatter donated to Trump's campaign According to Federal Election Committee (FEC) filings, Schnatter made a total of $85,500 in political contributions in 2016, just over two percent of which went to the Trump campaign. Schnatter donated $1,000 each to two Trump campaign political action committees (PACs), he donated $33,400 to the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Kentucky Republican Leadership Fund in 2016, and $6,200 to Rand Paul's PACs. As such, the claim was true but somewhat misleading: Schnatter (a resident of Louisville) did donate to the Trump campaign, but the bulk of his financial support went elsewhere, most of it to political activity on the state level. Schnatter cut workers' hours to circumvent laws requiring he provide health insurance In early November 2012, it was widely reported that Schnatter planned to cut worker hours in response to provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or 'Obamacare'): The CEO of popular pizza chain Papa John's says his employees may face reduced hours and he expects his business costs to rise because President Obama's re-election most likely insures the president's health care reform law will be implemented in full. NaplesNews.com reports John Schnatter made the remarks to a small group at Edison State College's Collier County campus the day after the election. Schnatter, who supported Mitt Romney in the election, said all Americans having health insurance under ObamaCare is a good, but estimates the change will cost Papa John's $5 million to $8 million annually. However, Schnatter asserted that his comments had been misinterpreted in an op-ed piece, explaining that his earlier remarks were speculative and pertained to franchisees of Papa John's (not the corporation itself): Many in the media reported that I said Papa John's is going to close stores and cut jobs because of Obamacare. I never said that. The fact is we are going to open over hundreds of stores this year and next and increase employment by over 5,000 jobs worldwide. And, we have no plans to cut team hours as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Clearly there was some misunderstanding somewhere. The remarks that generated the headlines were made during an entrepreneur class I was asked to speak to at a Florida college. I was asked to share my experience as an entrepreneur and to provide the students with real-life small business situations. Unbeknownst to me, until she identified herself, a reporter was there. Here is the part of the interchange that was the genesis of the news: Reporter: 'Do you think your - you know - franchise owners... are going to cut people hours back to make them part time instead of full time?' Me: 'Well, in Hawaii there is a form of the same kind of health insurance and that's what you do, you find loopholes to get around it. That's what they're going to do.' Reporter: 'My understanding is that if you're a full time employee, which is 35 hours or over, you'd be covered. Or if you're part time then you wouldn't be. So wouldn't some business owners just cut people down like 34 hours a week so they wouldn't have to pay for health insurance?' The reporter asked what I believed Papa John's franchisees would do in response to Obamacare, not what Papa John's would do ... Papa John's, like most businesses, is still researching what the Affordable Care Act means to our operations. Regardless of the conclusion of our analysis, we will honor this law, as we do all laws, and continue to offer 100% of Papa John's corporate employees and workers in company-owned stores health insurance as we have since the company was founded in 1984. Schnatter was found guilty of wage theft and failure to pay overtime to workers In 2015, a Papa John's franchisee (not the chain, nor Schnatter) was found guilty of wage theft and noncompliance with New York State laws pertaining to overtime: Abdul Jamil Khokhar, who owns nine Papa John's locations in New York City with BMY Foods, pled guilty to failing to pay workers in compliance with the New York Labor Law, which is a misdemeanor, and to filing false business records, a felony. He will serve 60 days in jail for failing to pay his workers the minimum wage and overtime and has agreed to pay $230,000 in restitution to the workers ... Instead of paying his employees the proper minimum overtime wages according to New York State law, Khokhar paid them the same minimum wage they would make during regular hours. To hide this illegal practice, he created fake names for employees in the computer system and used the fake names to avoid paying the time-and-a-half rate required for overtime. So an employee who worked for more than 40 hours would be paid for regular work hours under his or her own name, and any overtime hours would be paid as straight hours to a fictitious employee. Khokar was an independent franchise owner, and his 2015 conviction was falsely attributed to Schnatter in the meme. Separate instances also involved the actions of independent franchisees, not Papa John's itself. Schnatter threatened to raise pizza prices to keep shareholders happy In August 2012, news outlets reported that Schnatter was planning to pass increased health insurance costs onto customers in order to protect 'shareholders' best interests': And if the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act rolls out as planned in 2014, Schnatter's strategy is 'of course ... to pass that cost on the consumer in order to protect our shareholders' best interest,' he said in a recent conference call. Schnatter estimates that the legislation will cost Papa John's about 11 cents to 14 cents per pizza, which equates to 15 cents to 20 cents per order. An average delivery charge runs $1.75 to $2.50. Schnatter's claims about an 11- to 14-cent per pizza increase in prices occurred in tandem with his earlier referenced ACA-related remarks. As with those previous comments, Schnatter later maintained his remarks had been misinterpreted: Most visibly, Papa John's CEO John Schnatter repeatedly claimed that Obamacare would increase the price of a pizza by eleven to fourteen cents (even if you accept his numbers, hardly a dramatic setback). CNN did some fact checking, and found that the exact costs of Obamacare for the chain were incalculable thanks to the pizza franchise's refusal to provide pertinent data (such as the number of pizzas they sell, how many full-time employees they have, what their current health care plan is, etc.). However, they rated Schnatter's claims as 'false' because Obamacare does not require companies to provide health care plans to part-time employees, as well as exempts many small businesses (such as the local franchises which compose Papa John's retail locations) from the health care requirements. After being debunked, Papa John's is backing off from its claims that Obamacare would raise prices and potentially cost jobs, now saying Schnatter was quoted incorrectly. Due to the business' strength, the company now says, Papa John's could absorb the added costs easily. Schnatter stated that his earlier remarks were misconstrued, and denied pizza prices would go up by the minor amount mentioned. Although it was true Schnatter speculated higher Obamacare-related costs would be 'pass[ed] on' to customers, he soon revised his position and no surcharge was added. The meme then turned to Ilitch, who died in February 2017. Ilitch quietly paid Rosa Parks' rent until she died Back in February 2014, SportsBusiness Daily reported that Ilitch had arranged to pay for housing for civil rights icon Rosa Parks after she was robbed and assaulted in her Detroit home: On Aug. 31, 1994, Parks, then 81, was robbed and assaulted in her home in central Detroit. [Judge Damon] Keith called real estate developer Alfred Taubman, the owner of Riverfront Apartments, about finding a safer home for Parks. Taubman pledged to find the best home available. When Ilitch read about Keith's plan and Taubman's promise in the newspaper, he called the judge and said he would pay for Parks' housing for as long as necessary. (Parks passed away in 2005 at the age of 92). Keith served as the executor of the trust established for Parks' housing. The episode is just one of many throughout Ilitch's life when he stepped forward to help (see box), usually outside of the spotlight. Keith produced a canceled November 1994 check and affirmed that Ilitch had paid Parks' rent from 1994 until her death in 2005, adding that it was 'important' people learn of that circumstance. Ilitch ran a homeless charity recognized by Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton This claim appears to reference Little Caesar's Love Kitchen, described on the company's web site as follows: THE LITTLE CAESARS LOVE KITCHEN travels across the United States to help those in need. We have two trucks in operation so we can be of service 365 days a year. These restaurants on wheels have served more than three million people. The Love Kitchen has been recognized for its charitable efforts as well, receiving The President's Volunteer Action Award Citation from former Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The Reagan administration also awarded the Love Kitchen a Presidential Citation for Private Sector Initiatives. Additionally, the Love Kitchen has received a certificate of appreciation from the State of Michigan and was recognized by the Detroit City Council for its efforts in the Gulf Coast region. The Love Kitchen's 30th anniversary was recognized when it was listed in the Congressional Record by U.S. Congresswoman Candice Miller, on April 30, 2015. The Love Kitchen charity was founded by Ilitch in 1985. Ilitch received the '[Secretary's] Award' for his philanthropic work with veterans In September 2007, news outlets reported that Ilitch had 'received the U.S. Veterans Affairs Department's top civilian honor for giving war veterans franchise opportunities,' with one press release stating: In recognition of his service to Veterans, Honorable R. James Nicholson, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, will present Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. founder Michael Ilitch with the Secretary's Award, the highest tribute given to a private citizen by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. The ceremony, which will take place today in the nation's capitol at the Department of Veterans Affairs at 2:30 p.m. ET, recognizes Mr. Ilitch's industry-leading support of Veterans through the Little Caesars Veterans Program. 'Michael Ilitch has demonstrated great patriotism by providing business opportunities to honorably discharged Veterans through the Little Caesars Veterans Program,' said Nicholson. 'This award, the highest honor my office can bestow, represents the VA's appreciation of a Detroit business leader who is making a difference for U.S. military Veterans as they transition to civilian life or make a career change.' Launched on Veterans Day (November 9) 2006, the program provides honorably discharged, service-disabled Veterans who qualify as Little Caesars franchisees a benefit of up to $68,000. Honorably discharged, non service-disabled Veterans who qualify as Little Caesars franchisees are eligible for a benefit of $10,000. Ilitch, a former Marine, has made giving back part of the way Little Caesars has done business since shortly after opening the first store in 1959. 'Veterans and their families have made significant sacrifices for our country, and I feel that it's important to acknowledge that, and to thank them for their service,' said Michael Ilitch, founder and chairman, Little Caesars. 'As I thought about the businesses I own, I thought what better way to say thank you to the men and women who have given so much for our nation than to provide them with a business opportunity: becoming a Little Caesars franchisee. I'm very honored that the program, and the people who created it, are being recognized with this prestigious award.' Aside from its literal veracity (or lack thereof), this meme also cherry-picks its 'facts' to reflect poorly on Schnatter (whose political positions are well-known) and elides charitable contributions Papa John's has made to causes such as the Red Cross, children affected by domestic violence, and general philanthropic donations that Schnatter estimated to total around $30 million.

nan

A meme contains accurate information about the founders of Papa John's (John Schnatter) and Little Caesar's (Mike Ilitch) respectively.

Neutral

On 2 November 2017, the Facebook page 'The Other 98%' shared a meme comparing purported facts about the founder of the Papa John's (John Schnatter) and Little Caesar's (the late Mike Ilitch) pizza chains: Purported facts about Schnatter were accompanied by a red 'X' (indicating dispproval) and those about Ilitch with a green check mark (indicating approval). The meme comprised seven claims in total, four about Schnatter and three about Ilitch, which we'll cover one by one: [Papa John's] John Schnatter, Founder Donated to Trump's campaign Cut workers hours to avoid paying health insurance Found guilty of wage theft and not paying employees overtime. Threatened to raise pizza prices to keep share holders happy. [Little Caesar's] Mike Illitch [sic], Founder Quietly PAID Rosa Park's [sic] rent for years until her passing. Ran a charity for the homeless that was recognized by Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Received the 'Secretaries Award' for his philanthropic work with veterans. Schnatter donated to Trump's campaign According to Federal Election Committee (FEC) filings, Schnatter made a total of $85,500 in political contributions in 2016, just over two percent of which went to the Trump campaign. Schnatter donated $1,000 each to two Trump campaign political action committees (PACs), he donated $33,400 to the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Kentucky Republican Leadership Fund in 2016, and $6,200 to Rand Paul's PACs. As such, the claim was true but somewhat misleading: Schnatter (a resident of Louisville) did donate to the Trump campaign, but the bulk of his financial support went elsewhere, most of it to political activity on the state level. Schnatter cut workers' hours to circumvent laws requiring he provide health insurance In early November 2012, it was widely reported that Schnatter planned to cut worker hours in response to provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or 'Obamacare'): The CEO of popular pizza chain Papa John's says his employees may face reduced hours and he expects his business costs to rise because President Obama's re-election most likely insures the president's health care reform law will be implemented in full. NaplesNews.com reports John Schnatter made the remarks to a small group at Edison State College's Collier County campus the day after the election. Schnatter, who supported Mitt Romney in the election, said all Americans having health insurance under ObamaCare is a good, but estimates the change will cost Papa John's $5 million to $8 million annually. However, Schnatter asserted that his comments had been misinterpreted in an op-ed piece, explaining that his earlier remarks were speculative and pertained to franchisees of Papa John's (not the corporation itself): Many in the media reported that I said Papa John's is going to close stores and cut jobs because of Obamacare. I never said that. The fact is we are going to open over hundreds of stores this year and next and increase employment by over 5,000 jobs worldwide. And, we have no plans to cut team hours as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Clearly there was some misunderstanding somewhere. The remarks that generated the headlines were made during an entrepreneur class I was asked to speak to at a Florida college. I was asked to share my experience as an entrepreneur and to provide the students with real-life small business situations. Unbeknownst to me, until she identified herself, a reporter was there. Here is the part of the interchange that was the genesis of the news: Reporter: 'Do you think your - you know - franchise owners... are going to cut people hours back to make them part time instead of full time?' Me: 'Well, in Hawaii there is a form of the same kind of health insurance and that's what you do, you find loopholes to get around it. That's what they're going to do.' Reporter: 'My understanding is that if you're a full time employee, which is 35 hours or over, you'd be covered. Or if you're part time then you wouldn't be. So wouldn't some business owners just cut people down like 34 hours a week so they wouldn't have to pay for health insurance?' The reporter asked what I believed Papa John's franchisees would do in response to Obamacare, not what Papa John's would do ... Papa John's, like most businesses, is still researching what the Affordable Care Act means to our operations. Regardless of the conclusion of our analysis, we will honor this law, as we do all laws, and continue to offer 100% of Papa John's corporate employees and workers in company-owned stores health insurance as we have since the company was founded in 1984. Schnatter was found guilty of wage theft and failure to pay overtime to workers In 2015, a Papa John's franchisee (not the chain, nor Schnatter) was found guilty of wage theft and noncompliance with New York State laws pertaining to overtime: Abdul Jamil Khokhar, who owns nine Papa John's locations in New York City with BMY Foods, pled guilty to failing to pay workers in compliance with the New York Labor Law, which is a misdemeanor, and to filing false business records, a felony. He will serve 60 days in jail for failing to pay his workers the minimum wage and overtime and has agreed to pay $230,000 in restitution to the workers ... Instead of paying his employees the proper minimum overtime wages according to New York State law, Khokhar paid them the same minimum wage they would make during regular hours. To hide this illegal practice, he created fake names for employees in the computer system and used the fake names to avoid paying the time-and-a-half rate required for overtime. So an employee who worked for more than 40 hours would be paid for regular work hours under his or her own name, and any overtime hours would be paid as straight hours to a fictitious employee. Khokar was an independent franchise owner, and his 2015 conviction was falsely attributed to Schnatter in the meme. Separate instances also involved the actions of independent franchisees, not Papa John's itself. Schnatter threatened to raise pizza prices to keep shareholders happy In August 2012, news outlets reported that Schnatter was planning to pass increased health insurance costs onto customers in order to protect 'shareholders' best interests': And if the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act rolls out as planned in 2014, Schnatter's strategy is 'of course ... to pass that cost on the consumer in order to protect our shareholders' best interest,' he said in a recent conference call. Schnatter estimates that the legislation will cost Papa John's about 11 cents to 14 cents per pizza, which equates to 15 cents to 20 cents per order. An average delivery charge runs $1.75 to $2.50. Schnatter's claims about an 11- to 14-cent per pizza increase in prices occurred in tandem with his earlier referenced ACA-related remarks. As with those previous comments, Schnatter later maintained his remarks had been misinterpreted: Most visibly, Papa John's CEO John Schnatter repeatedly claimed that Obamacare would increase the price of a pizza by eleven to fourteen cents (even if you accept his numbers, hardly a dramatic setback). CNN did some fact checking, and found that the exact costs of Obamacare for the chain were incalculable thanks to the pizza franchise's refusal to provide pertinent data (such as the number of pizzas they sell, how many full-time employees they have, what their current health care plan is, etc.). However, they rated Schnatter's claims as 'false' because Obamacare does not require companies to provide health care plans to part-time employees, as well as exempts many small businesses (such as the local franchises which compose Papa John's retail locations) from the health care requirements. After being debunked, Papa John's is backing off from its claims that Obamacare would raise prices and potentially cost jobs, now saying Schnatter was quoted incorrectly. Due to the business' strength, the company now says, Papa John's could absorb the added costs easily. Schnatter stated that his earlier remarks were misconstrued, and denied pizza prices would go up by the minor amount mentioned. Although it was true Schnatter speculated higher Obamacare-related costs would be 'pass[ed] on' to customers, he soon revised his position and no surcharge was added. The meme then turned to Ilitch, who died in February 2017. Ilitch quietly paid Rosa Parks' rent until she died Back in February 2014, SportsBusiness Daily reported that Ilitch had arranged to pay for housing for civil rights icon Rosa Parks after she was robbed and assaulted in her Detroit home: On Aug. 31, 1994, Parks, then 81, was robbed and assaulted in her home in central Detroit. [Judge Damon] Keith called real estate developer Alfred Taubman, the owner of Riverfront Apartments, about finding a safer home for Parks. Taubman pledged to find the best home available. When Ilitch read about Keith's plan and Taubman's promise in the newspaper, he called the judge and said he would pay for Parks' housing for as long as necessary. (Parks passed away in 2005 at the age of 92). Keith served as the executor of the trust established for Parks' housing. The episode is just one of many throughout Ilitch's life when he stepped forward to help (see box), usually outside of the spotlight. Keith produced a canceled November 1994 check and affirmed that Ilitch had paid Parks' rent from 1994 until her death in 2005, adding that it was 'important' people learn of that circumstance. Ilitch ran a homeless charity recognized by Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton This claim appears to reference Little Caesar's Love Kitchen, described on the company's web site as follows: THE LITTLE CAESARS LOVE KITCHEN travels across the United States to help those in need. We have two trucks in operation so we can be of service 365 days a year. These restaurants on wheels have served more than three million people. The Love Kitchen has been recognized for its charitable efforts as well, receiving The President's Volunteer Action Award Citation from former Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The Reagan administration also awarded the Love Kitchen a Presidential Citation for Private Sector Initiatives. Additionally, the Love Kitchen has received a certificate of appreciation from the State of Michigan and was recognized by the Detroit City Council for its efforts in the Gulf Coast region. The Love Kitchen's 30th anniversary was recognized when it was listed in the Congressional Record by U.S. Congresswoman Candice Miller, on April 30, 2015. The Love Kitchen charity was founded by Ilitch in 1985. Ilitch received the '[Secretary's] Award' for his philanthropic work with veterans In September 2007, news outlets reported that Ilitch had 'received the U.S. Veterans Affairs Department's top civilian honor for giving war veterans franchise opportunities,' with one press release stating: In recognition of his service to Veterans, Honorable R. James Nicholson, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, will present Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. founder Michael Ilitch with the Secretary's Award, the highest tribute given to a private citizen by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. The ceremony, which will take place today in the nation's capitol at the Department of Veterans Affairs at 2:30 p.m. ET, recognizes Mr. Ilitch's industry-leading support of Veterans through the Little Caesars Veterans Program. 'Michael Ilitch has demonstrated great patriotism by providing business opportunities to honorably discharged Veterans through the Little Caesars Veterans Program,' said Nicholson. 'This award, the highest honor my office can bestow, represents the VA's appreciation of a Detroit business leader who is making a difference for U.S. military Veterans as they transition to civilian life or make a career change.' Launched on Veterans Day (November 9) 2006, the program provides honorably discharged, service-disabled Veterans who qualify as Little Caesars franchisees a benefit of up to $68,000. Honorably discharged, non service-disabled Veterans who qualify as Little Caesars franchisees are eligible for a benefit of $10,000. Ilitch, a former Marine, has made giving back part of the way Little Caesars has done business since shortly after opening the first store in 1959. 'Veterans and their families have made significant sacrifices for our country, and I feel that it's important to acknowledge that, and to thank them for their service,' said Michael Ilitch, founder and chairman, Little Caesars. 'As I thought about the businesses I own, I thought what better way to say thank you to the men and women who have given so much for our nation than to provide them with a business opportunity: becoming a Little Caesars franchisee. I'm very honored that the program, and the people who created it, are being recognized with this prestigious award.' Aside from its literal veracity (or lack thereof), this meme also cherry-picks its 'facts' to reflect poorly on Schnatter (whose political positions are well-known) and elides charitable contributions Papa John's has made to causes such as the Red Cross, children affected by domestic violence, and general philanthropic donations that Schnatter estimated to total around $30 million.

nan

A meme contains accurate information about the founders of Papa John's (John Schnatter) and Little Caesar's (Mike Ilitch) respectively.

Neutral

On 2 November 2017, the Facebook page 'The Other 98%' shared a meme comparing purported facts about the founder of the Papa John's (John Schnatter) and Little Caesar's (the late Mike Ilitch) pizza chains: Purported facts about Schnatter were accompanied by a red 'X' (indicating dispproval) and those about Ilitch with a green check mark (indicating approval). The meme comprised seven claims in total, four about Schnatter and three about Ilitch, which we'll cover one by one: [Papa John's] John Schnatter, Founder Donated to Trump's campaign Cut workers hours to avoid paying health insurance Found guilty of wage theft and not paying employees overtime. Threatened to raise pizza prices to keep share holders happy. [Little Caesar's] Mike Illitch [sic], Founder Quietly PAID Rosa Park's [sic] rent for years until her passing. Ran a charity for the homeless that was recognized by Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Received the 'Secretaries Award' for his philanthropic work with veterans. Schnatter donated to Trump's campaign According to Federal Election Committee (FEC) filings, Schnatter made a total of $85,500 in political contributions in 2016, just over two percent of which went to the Trump campaign. Schnatter donated $1,000 each to two Trump campaign political action committees (PACs), he donated $33,400 to the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Kentucky Republican Leadership Fund in 2016, and $6,200 to Rand Paul's PACs. As such, the claim was true but somewhat misleading: Schnatter (a resident of Louisville) did donate to the Trump campaign, but the bulk of his financial support went elsewhere, most of it to political activity on the state level. Schnatter cut workers' hours to circumvent laws requiring he provide health insurance In early November 2012, it was widely reported that Schnatter planned to cut worker hours in response to provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or 'Obamacare'): The CEO of popular pizza chain Papa John's says his employees may face reduced hours and he expects his business costs to rise because President Obama's re-election most likely insures the president's health care reform law will be implemented in full. NaplesNews.com reports John Schnatter made the remarks to a small group at Edison State College's Collier County campus the day after the election. Schnatter, who supported Mitt Romney in the election, said all Americans having health insurance under ObamaCare is a good, but estimates the change will cost Papa John's $5 million to $8 million annually. However, Schnatter asserted that his comments had been misinterpreted in an op-ed piece, explaining that his earlier remarks were speculative and pertained to franchisees of Papa John's (not the corporation itself): Many in the media reported that I said Papa John's is going to close stores and cut jobs because of Obamacare. I never said that. The fact is we are going to open over hundreds of stores this year and next and increase employment by over 5,000 jobs worldwide. And, we have no plans to cut team hours as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Clearly there was some misunderstanding somewhere. The remarks that generated the headlines were made during an entrepreneur class I was asked to speak to at a Florida college. I was asked to share my experience as an entrepreneur and to provide the students with real-life small business situations. Unbeknownst to me, until she identified herself, a reporter was there. Here is the part of the interchange that was the genesis of the news: Reporter: 'Do you think your - you know - franchise owners... are going to cut people hours back to make them part time instead of full time?' Me: 'Well, in Hawaii there is a form of the same kind of health insurance and that's what you do, you find loopholes to get around it. That's what they're going to do.' Reporter: 'My understanding is that if you're a full time employee, which is 35 hours or over, you'd be covered. Or if you're part time then you wouldn't be. So wouldn't some business owners just cut people down like 34 hours a week so they wouldn't have to pay for health insurance?' The reporter asked what I believed Papa John's franchisees would do in response to Obamacare, not what Papa John's would do ... Papa John's, like most businesses, is still researching what the Affordable Care Act means to our operations. Regardless of the conclusion of our analysis, we will honor this law, as we do all laws, and continue to offer 100% of Papa John's corporate employees and workers in company-owned stores health insurance as we have since the company was founded in 1984. Schnatter was found guilty of wage theft and failure to pay overtime to workers In 2015, a Papa John's franchisee (not the chain, nor Schnatter) was found guilty of wage theft and noncompliance with New York State laws pertaining to overtime: Abdul Jamil Khokhar, who owns nine Papa John's locations in New York City with BMY Foods, pled guilty to failing to pay workers in compliance with the New York Labor Law, which is a misdemeanor, and to filing false business records, a felony. He will serve 60 days in jail for failing to pay his workers the minimum wage and overtime and has agreed to pay $230,000 in restitution to the workers ... Instead of paying his employees the proper minimum overtime wages according to New York State law, Khokhar paid them the same minimum wage they would make during regular hours. To hide this illegal practice, he created fake names for employees in the computer system and used the fake names to avoid paying the time-and-a-half rate required for overtime. So an employee who worked for more than 40 hours would be paid for regular work hours under his or her own name, and any overtime hours would be paid as straight hours to a fictitious employee. Khokar was an independent franchise owner, and his 2015 conviction was falsely attributed to Schnatter in the meme. Separate instances also involved the actions of independent franchisees, not Papa John's itself. Schnatter threatened to raise pizza prices to keep shareholders happy In August 2012, news outlets reported that Schnatter was planning to pass increased health insurance costs onto customers in order to protect 'shareholders' best interests': And if the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act rolls out as planned in 2014, Schnatter's strategy is 'of course ... to pass that cost on the consumer in order to protect our shareholders' best interest,' he said in a recent conference call. Schnatter estimates that the legislation will cost Papa John's about 11 cents to 14 cents per pizza, which equates to 15 cents to 20 cents per order. An average delivery charge runs $1.75 to $2.50. Schnatter's claims about an 11- to 14-cent per pizza increase in prices occurred in tandem with his earlier referenced ACA-related remarks. As with those previous comments, Schnatter later maintained his remarks had been misinterpreted: Most visibly, Papa John's CEO John Schnatter repeatedly claimed that Obamacare would increase the price of a pizza by eleven to fourteen cents (even if you accept his numbers, hardly a dramatic setback). CNN did some fact checking, and found that the exact costs of Obamacare for the chain were incalculable thanks to the pizza franchise's refusal to provide pertinent data (such as the number of pizzas they sell, how many full-time employees they have, what their current health care plan is, etc.). However, they rated Schnatter's claims as 'false' because Obamacare does not require companies to provide health care plans to part-time employees, as well as exempts many small businesses (such as the local franchises which compose Papa John's retail locations) from the health care requirements. After being debunked, Papa John's is backing off from its claims that Obamacare would raise prices and potentially cost jobs, now saying Schnatter was quoted incorrectly. Due to the business' strength, the company now says, Papa John's could absorb the added costs easily. Schnatter stated that his earlier remarks were misconstrued, and denied pizza prices would go up by the minor amount mentioned. Although it was true Schnatter speculated higher Obamacare-related costs would be 'pass[ed] on' to customers, he soon revised his position and no surcharge was added. The meme then turned to Ilitch, who died in February 2017. Ilitch quietly paid Rosa Parks' rent until she died Back in February 2014, SportsBusiness Daily reported that Ilitch had arranged to pay for housing for civil rights icon Rosa Parks after she was robbed and assaulted in her Detroit home: On Aug. 31, 1994, Parks, then 81, was robbed and assaulted in her home in central Detroit. [Judge Damon] Keith called real estate developer Alfred Taubman, the owner of Riverfront Apartments, about finding a safer home for Parks. Taubman pledged to find the best home available. When Ilitch read about Keith's plan and Taubman's promise in the newspaper, he called the judge and said he would pay for Parks' housing for as long as necessary. (Parks passed away in 2005 at the age of 92). Keith served as the executor of the trust established for Parks' housing. The episode is just one of many throughout Ilitch's life when he stepped forward to help (see box), usually outside of the spotlight. Keith produced a canceled November 1994 check and affirmed that Ilitch had paid Parks' rent from 1994 until her death in 2005, adding that it was 'important' people learn of that circumstance. Ilitch ran a homeless charity recognized by Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton This claim appears to reference Little Caesar's Love Kitchen, described on the company's web site as follows: THE LITTLE CAESARS LOVE KITCHEN travels across the United States to help those in need. We have two trucks in operation so we can be of service 365 days a year. These restaurants on wheels have served more than three million people. The Love Kitchen has been recognized for its charitable efforts as well, receiving The President's Volunteer Action Award Citation from former Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The Reagan administration also awarded the Love Kitchen a Presidential Citation for Private Sector Initiatives. Additionally, the Love Kitchen has received a certificate of appreciation from the State of Michigan and was recognized by the Detroit City Council for its efforts in the Gulf Coast region. The Love Kitchen's 30th anniversary was recognized when it was listed in the Congressional Record by U.S. Congresswoman Candice Miller, on April 30, 2015. The Love Kitchen charity was founded by Ilitch in 1985. Ilitch received the '[Secretary's] Award' for his philanthropic work with veterans In September 2007, news outlets reported that Ilitch had 'received the U.S. Veterans Affairs Department's top civilian honor for giving war veterans franchise opportunities,' with one press release stating: In recognition of his service to Veterans, Honorable R. James Nicholson, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, will present Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. founder Michael Ilitch with the Secretary's Award, the highest tribute given to a private citizen by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. The ceremony, which will take place today in the nation's capitol at the Department of Veterans Affairs at 2:30 p.m. ET, recognizes Mr. Ilitch's industry-leading support of Veterans through the Little Caesars Veterans Program. 'Michael Ilitch has demonstrated great patriotism by providing business opportunities to honorably discharged Veterans through the Little Caesars Veterans Program,' said Nicholson. 'This award, the highest honor my office can bestow, represents the VA's appreciation of a Detroit business leader who is making a difference for U.S. military Veterans as they transition to civilian life or make a career change.' Launched on Veterans Day (November 9) 2006, the program provides honorably discharged, service-disabled Veterans who qualify as Little Caesars franchisees a benefit of up to $68,000. Honorably discharged, non service-disabled Veterans who qualify as Little Caesars franchisees are eligible for a benefit of $10,000. Ilitch, a former Marine, has made giving back part of the way Little Caesars has done business since shortly after opening the first store in 1959. 'Veterans and their families have made significant sacrifices for our country, and I feel that it's important to acknowledge that, and to thank them for their service,' said Michael Ilitch, founder and chairman, Little Caesars. 'As I thought about the businesses I own, I thought what better way to say thank you to the men and women who have given so much for our nation than to provide them with a business opportunity: becoming a Little Caesars franchisee. I'm very honored that the program, and the people who created it, are being recognized with this prestigious award.' Aside from its literal veracity (or lack thereof), this meme also cherry-picks its 'facts' to reflect poorly on Schnatter (whose political positions are well-known) and elides charitable contributions Papa John's has made to causes such as the Red Cross, children affected by domestic violence, and general philanthropic donations that Schnatter estimated to total around $30 million.

nan

A meme contains accurate information about the founders of Papa John's (John Schnatter) and Little Caesar's (Mike Ilitch) respectively.

Neutral

On 2 November 2017, the Facebook page 'The Other 98%' shared a meme comparing purported facts about the founder of the Papa John's (John Schnatter) and Little Caesar's (the late Mike Ilitch) pizza chains: Purported facts about Schnatter were accompanied by a red 'X' (indicating dispproval) and those about Ilitch with a green check mark (indicating approval). The meme comprised seven claims in total, four about Schnatter and three about Ilitch, which we'll cover one by one: [Papa John's] John Schnatter, Founder Donated to Trump's campaign Cut workers hours to avoid paying health insurance Found guilty of wage theft and not paying employees overtime. Threatened to raise pizza prices to keep share holders happy. [Little Caesar's] Mike Illitch [sic], Founder Quietly PAID Rosa Park's [sic] rent for years until her passing. Ran a charity for the homeless that was recognized by Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Received the 'Secretaries Award' for his philanthropic work with veterans. Schnatter donated to Trump's campaign According to Federal Election Committee (FEC) filings, Schnatter made a total of $85,500 in political contributions in 2016, just over two percent of which went to the Trump campaign. Schnatter donated $1,000 each to two Trump campaign political action committees (PACs), he donated $33,400 to the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Kentucky Republican Leadership Fund in 2016, and $6,200 to Rand Paul's PACs. As such, the claim was true but somewhat misleading: Schnatter (a resident of Louisville) did donate to the Trump campaign, but the bulk of his financial support went elsewhere, most of it to political activity on the state level. Schnatter cut workers' hours to circumvent laws requiring he provide health insurance In early November 2012, it was widely reported that Schnatter planned to cut worker hours in response to provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or 'Obamacare'): The CEO of popular pizza chain Papa John's says his employees may face reduced hours and he expects his business costs to rise because President Obama's re-election most likely insures the president's health care reform law will be implemented in full. NaplesNews.com reports John Schnatter made the remarks to a small group at Edison State College's Collier County campus the day after the election. Schnatter, who supported Mitt Romney in the election, said all Americans having health insurance under ObamaCare is a good, but estimates the change will cost Papa John's $5 million to $8 million annually. However, Schnatter asserted that his comments had been misinterpreted in an op-ed piece, explaining that his earlier remarks were speculative and pertained to franchisees of Papa John's (not the corporation itself): Many in the media reported that I said Papa John's is going to close stores and cut jobs because of Obamacare. I never said that. The fact is we are going to open over hundreds of stores this year and next and increase employment by over 5,000 jobs worldwide. And, we have no plans to cut team hours as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Clearly there was some misunderstanding somewhere. The remarks that generated the headlines were made during an entrepreneur class I was asked to speak to at a Florida college. I was asked to share my experience as an entrepreneur and to provide the students with real-life small business situations. Unbeknownst to me, until she identified herself, a reporter was there. Here is the part of the interchange that was the genesis of the news: Reporter: 'Do you think your - you know - franchise owners... are going to cut people hours back to make them part time instead of full time?' Me: 'Well, in Hawaii there is a form of the same kind of health insurance and that's what you do, you find loopholes to get around it. That's what they're going to do.' Reporter: 'My understanding is that if you're a full time employee, which is 35 hours or over, you'd be covered. Or if you're part time then you wouldn't be. So wouldn't some business owners just cut people down like 34 hours a week so they wouldn't have to pay for health insurance?' The reporter asked what I believed Papa John's franchisees would do in response to Obamacare, not what Papa John's would do ... Papa John's, like most businesses, is still researching what the Affordable Care Act means to our operations. Regardless of the conclusion of our analysis, we will honor this law, as we do all laws, and continue to offer 100% of Papa John's corporate employees and workers in company-owned stores health insurance as we have since the company was founded in 1984. Schnatter was found guilty of wage theft and failure to pay overtime to workers In 2015, a Papa John's franchisee (not the chain, nor Schnatter) was found guilty of wage theft and noncompliance with New York State laws pertaining to overtime: Abdul Jamil Khokhar, who owns nine Papa John's locations in New York City with BMY Foods, pled guilty to failing to pay workers in compliance with the New York Labor Law, which is a misdemeanor, and to filing false business records, a felony. He will serve 60 days in jail for failing to pay his workers the minimum wage and overtime and has agreed to pay $230,000 in restitution to the workers ... Instead of paying his employees the proper minimum overtime wages according to New York State law, Khokhar paid them the same minimum wage they would make during regular hours. To hide this illegal practice, he created fake names for employees in the computer system and used the fake names to avoid paying the time-and-a-half rate required for overtime. So an employee who worked for more than 40 hours would be paid for regular work hours under his or her own name, and any overtime hours would be paid as straight hours to a fictitious employee. Khokar was an independent franchise owner, and his 2015 conviction was falsely attributed to Schnatter in the meme. Separate instances also involved the actions of independent franchisees, not Papa John's itself. Schnatter threatened to raise pizza prices to keep shareholders happy In August 2012, news outlets reported that Schnatter was planning to pass increased health insurance costs onto customers in order to protect 'shareholders' best interests': And if the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act rolls out as planned in 2014, Schnatter's strategy is 'of course ... to pass that cost on the consumer in order to protect our shareholders' best interest,' he said in a recent conference call. Schnatter estimates that the legislation will cost Papa John's about 11 cents to 14 cents per pizza, which equates to 15 cents to 20 cents per order. An average delivery charge runs $1.75 to $2.50. Schnatter's claims about an 11- to 14-cent per pizza increase in prices occurred in tandem with his earlier referenced ACA-related remarks. As with those previous comments, Schnatter later maintained his remarks had been misinterpreted: Most visibly, Papa John's CEO John Schnatter repeatedly claimed that Obamacare would increase the price of a pizza by eleven to fourteen cents (even if you accept his numbers, hardly a dramatic setback). CNN did some fact checking, and found that the exact costs of Obamacare for the chain were incalculable thanks to the pizza franchise's refusal to provide pertinent data (such as the number of pizzas they sell, how many full-time employees they have, what their current health care plan is, etc.). However, they rated Schnatter's claims as 'false' because Obamacare does not require companies to provide health care plans to part-time employees, as well as exempts many small businesses (such as the local franchises which compose Papa John's retail locations) from the health care requirements. After being debunked, Papa John's is backing off from its claims that Obamacare would raise prices and potentially cost jobs, now saying Schnatter was quoted incorrectly. Due to the business' strength, the company now says, Papa John's could absorb the added costs easily. Schnatter stated that his earlier remarks were misconstrued, and denied pizza prices would go up by the minor amount mentioned. Although it was true Schnatter speculated higher Obamacare-related costs would be 'pass[ed] on' to customers, he soon revised his position and no surcharge was added. The meme then turned to Ilitch, who died in February 2017. Ilitch quietly paid Rosa Parks' rent until she died Back in February 2014, SportsBusiness Daily reported that Ilitch had arranged to pay for housing for civil rights icon Rosa Parks after she was robbed and assaulted in her Detroit home: On Aug. 31, 1994, Parks, then 81, was robbed and assaulted in her home in central Detroit. [Judge Damon] Keith called real estate developer Alfred Taubman, the owner of Riverfront Apartments, about finding a safer home for Parks. Taubman pledged to find the best home available. When Ilitch read about Keith's plan and Taubman's promise in the newspaper, he called the judge and said he would pay for Parks' housing for as long as necessary. (Parks passed away in 2005 at the age of 92). Keith served as the executor of the trust established for Parks' housing. The episode is just one of many throughout Ilitch's life when he stepped forward to help (see box), usually outside of the spotlight. Keith produced a canceled November 1994 check and affirmed that Ilitch had paid Parks' rent from 1994 until her death in 2005, adding that it was 'important' people learn of that circumstance. Ilitch ran a homeless charity recognized by Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton This claim appears to reference Little Caesar's Love Kitchen, described on the company's web site as follows: THE LITTLE CAESARS LOVE KITCHEN travels across the United States to help those in need. We have two trucks in operation so we can be of service 365 days a year. These restaurants on wheels have served more than three million people. The Love Kitchen has been recognized for its charitable efforts as well, receiving The President's Volunteer Action Award Citation from former Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The Reagan administration also awarded the Love Kitchen a Presidential Citation for Private Sector Initiatives. Additionally, the Love Kitchen has received a certificate of appreciation from the State of Michigan and was recognized by the Detroit City Council for its efforts in the Gulf Coast region. The Love Kitchen's 30th anniversary was recognized when it was listed in the Congressional Record by U.S. Congresswoman Candice Miller, on April 30, 2015. The Love Kitchen charity was founded by Ilitch in 1985. Ilitch received the '[Secretary's] Award' for his philanthropic work with veterans In September 2007, news outlets reported that Ilitch had 'received the U.S. Veterans Affairs Department's top civilian honor for giving war veterans franchise opportunities,' with one press release stating: In recognition of his service to Veterans, Honorable R. James Nicholson, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, will present Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. founder Michael Ilitch with the Secretary's Award, the highest tribute given to a private citizen by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. The ceremony, which will take place today in the nation's capitol at the Department of Veterans Affairs at 2:30 p.m. ET, recognizes Mr. Ilitch's industry-leading support of Veterans through the Little Caesars Veterans Program. 'Michael Ilitch has demonstrated great patriotism by providing business opportunities to honorably discharged Veterans through the Little Caesars Veterans Program,' said Nicholson. 'This award, the highest honor my office can bestow, represents the VA's appreciation of a Detroit business leader who is making a difference for U.S. military Veterans as they transition to civilian life or make a career change.' Launched on Veterans Day (November 9) 2006, the program provides honorably discharged, service-disabled Veterans who qualify as Little Caesars franchisees a benefit of up to $68,000. Honorably discharged, non service-disabled Veterans who qualify as Little Caesars franchisees are eligible for a benefit of $10,000. Ilitch, a former Marine, has made giving back part of the way Little Caesars has done business since shortly after opening the first store in 1959. 'Veterans and their families have made significant sacrifices for our country, and I feel that it's important to acknowledge that, and to thank them for their service,' said Michael Ilitch, founder and chairman, Little Caesars. 'As I thought about the businesses I own, I thought what better way to say thank you to the men and women who have given so much for our nation than to provide them with a business opportunity: becoming a Little Caesars franchisee. I'm very honored that the program, and the people who created it, are being recognized with this prestigious award.' Aside from its literal veracity (or lack thereof), this meme also cherry-picks its 'facts' to reflect poorly on Schnatter (whose political positions are well-known) and elides charitable contributions Papa John's has made to causes such as the Red Cross, children affected by domestic violence, and general philanthropic donations that Schnatter estimated to total around $30 million.

nan

A meme contains accurate information about the founders of Papa John's (John Schnatter) and Little Caesar's (Mike Ilitch) respectively.

Neutral

On 2 November 2017, the Facebook page 'The Other 98%' shared a meme comparing purported facts about the founder of the Papa John's (John Schnatter) and Little Caesar's (the late Mike Ilitch) pizza chains: Purported facts about Schnatter were accompanied by a red 'X' (indicating dispproval) and those about Ilitch with a green check mark (indicating approval). The meme comprised seven claims in total, four about Schnatter and three about Ilitch, which we'll cover one by one: [Papa John's] John Schnatter, Founder Donated to Trump's campaign Cut workers hours to avoid paying health insurance Found guilty of wage theft and not paying employees overtime. Threatened to raise pizza prices to keep share holders happy. [Little Caesar's] Mike Illitch [sic], Founder Quietly PAID Rosa Park's [sic] rent for years until her passing. Ran a charity for the homeless that was recognized by Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Received the 'Secretaries Award' for his philanthropic work with veterans. Schnatter donated to Trump's campaign According to Federal Election Committee (FEC) filings, Schnatter made a total of $85,500 in political contributions in 2016, just over two percent of which went to the Trump campaign. Schnatter donated $1,000 each to two Trump campaign political action committees (PACs), he donated $33,400 to the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Kentucky Republican Leadership Fund in 2016, and $6,200 to Rand Paul's PACs. As such, the claim was true but somewhat misleading: Schnatter (a resident of Louisville) did donate to the Trump campaign, but the bulk of his financial support went elsewhere, most of it to political activity on the state level. Schnatter cut workers' hours to circumvent laws requiring he provide health insurance In early November 2012, it was widely reported that Schnatter planned to cut worker hours in response to provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or 'Obamacare'): The CEO of popular pizza chain Papa John's says his employees may face reduced hours and he expects his business costs to rise because President Obama's re-election most likely insures the president's health care reform law will be implemented in full. NaplesNews.com reports John Schnatter made the remarks to a small group at Edison State College's Collier County campus the day after the election. Schnatter, who supported Mitt Romney in the election, said all Americans having health insurance under ObamaCare is a good, but estimates the change will cost Papa John's $5 million to $8 million annually. However, Schnatter asserted that his comments had been misinterpreted in an op-ed piece, explaining that his earlier remarks were speculative and pertained to franchisees of Papa John's (not the corporation itself): Many in the media reported that I said Papa John's is going to close stores and cut jobs because of Obamacare. I never said that. The fact is we are going to open over hundreds of stores this year and next and increase employment by over 5,000 jobs worldwide. And, we have no plans to cut team hours as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Clearly there was some misunderstanding somewhere. The remarks that generated the headlines were made during an entrepreneur class I was asked to speak to at a Florida college. I was asked to share my experience as an entrepreneur and to provide the students with real-life small business situations. Unbeknownst to me, until she identified herself, a reporter was there. Here is the part of the interchange that was the genesis of the news: Reporter: 'Do you think your - you know - franchise owners... are going to cut people hours back to make them part time instead of full time?' Me: 'Well, in Hawaii there is a form of the same kind of health insurance and that's what you do, you find loopholes to get around it. That's what they're going to do.' Reporter: 'My understanding is that if you're a full time employee, which is 35 hours or over, you'd be covered. Or if you're part time then you wouldn't be. So wouldn't some business owners just cut people down like 34 hours a week so they wouldn't have to pay for health insurance?' The reporter asked what I believed Papa John's franchisees would do in response to Obamacare, not what Papa John's would do ... Papa John's, like most businesses, is still researching what the Affordable Care Act means to our operations. Regardless of the conclusion of our analysis, we will honor this law, as we do all laws, and continue to offer 100% of Papa John's corporate employees and workers in company-owned stores health insurance as we have since the company was founded in 1984. Schnatter was found guilty of wage theft and failure to pay overtime to workers In 2015, a Papa John's franchisee (not the chain, nor Schnatter) was found guilty of wage theft and noncompliance with New York State laws pertaining to overtime: Abdul Jamil Khokhar, who owns nine Papa John's locations in New York City with BMY Foods, pled guilty to failing to pay workers in compliance with the New York Labor Law, which is a misdemeanor, and to filing false business records, a felony. He will serve 60 days in jail for failing to pay his workers the minimum wage and overtime and has agreed to pay $230,000 in restitution to the workers ... Instead of paying his employees the proper minimum overtime wages according to New York State law, Khokhar paid them the same minimum wage they would make during regular hours. To hide this illegal practice, he created fake names for employees in the computer system and used the fake names to avoid paying the time-and-a-half rate required for overtime. So an employee who worked for more than 40 hours would be paid for regular work hours under his or her own name, and any overtime hours would be paid as straight hours to a fictitious employee. Khokar was an independent franchise owner, and his 2015 conviction was falsely attributed to Schnatter in the meme. Separate instances also involved the actions of independent franchisees, not Papa John's itself. Schnatter threatened to raise pizza prices to keep shareholders happy In August 2012, news outlets reported that Schnatter was planning to pass increased health insurance costs onto customers in order to protect 'shareholders' best interests': And if the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act rolls out as planned in 2014, Schnatter's strategy is 'of course ... to pass that cost on the consumer in order to protect our shareholders' best interest,' he said in a recent conference call. Schnatter estimates that the legislation will cost Papa John's about 11 cents to 14 cents per pizza, which equates to 15 cents to 20 cents per order. An average delivery charge runs $1.75 to $2.50. Schnatter's claims about an 11- to 14-cent per pizza increase in prices occurred in tandem with his earlier referenced ACA-related remarks. As with those previous comments, Schnatter later maintained his remarks had been misinterpreted: Most visibly, Papa John's CEO John Schnatter repeatedly claimed that Obamacare would increase the price of a pizza by eleven to fourteen cents (even if you accept his numbers, hardly a dramatic setback). CNN did some fact checking, and found that the exact costs of Obamacare for the chain were incalculable thanks to the pizza franchise's refusal to provide pertinent data (such as the number of pizzas they sell, how many full-time employees they have, what their current health care plan is, etc.). However, they rated Schnatter's claims as 'false' because Obamacare does not require companies to provide health care plans to part-time employees, as well as exempts many small businesses (such as the local franchises which compose Papa John's retail locations) from the health care requirements. After being debunked, Papa John's is backing off from its claims that Obamacare would raise prices and potentially cost jobs, now saying Schnatter was quoted incorrectly. Due to the business' strength, the company now says, Papa John's could absorb the added costs easily. Schnatter stated that his earlier remarks were misconstrued, and denied pizza prices would go up by the minor amount mentioned. Although it was true Schnatter speculated higher Obamacare-related costs would be 'pass[ed] on' to customers, he soon revised his position and no surcharge was added. The meme then turned to Ilitch, who died in February 2017. Ilitch quietly paid Rosa Parks' rent until she died Back in February 2014, SportsBusiness Daily reported that Ilitch had arranged to pay for housing for civil rights icon Rosa Parks after she was robbed and assaulted in her Detroit home: On Aug. 31, 1994, Parks, then 81, was robbed and assaulted in her home in central Detroit. [Judge Damon] Keith called real estate developer Alfred Taubman, the owner of Riverfront Apartments, about finding a safer home for Parks. Taubman pledged to find the best home available. When Ilitch read about Keith's plan and Taubman's promise in the newspaper, he called the judge and said he would pay for Parks' housing for as long as necessary. (Parks passed away in 2005 at the age of 92). Keith served as the executor of the trust established for Parks' housing. The episode is just one of many throughout Ilitch's life when he stepped forward to help (see box), usually outside of the spotlight. Keith produced a canceled November 1994 check and affirmed that Ilitch had paid Parks' rent from 1994 until her death in 2005, adding that it was 'important' people learn of that circumstance. Ilitch ran a homeless charity recognized by Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton This claim appears to reference Little Caesar's Love Kitchen, described on the company's web site as follows: THE LITTLE CAESARS LOVE KITCHEN travels across the United States to help those in need. We have two trucks in operation so we can be of service 365 days a year. These restaurants on wheels have served more than three million people. The Love Kitchen has been recognized for its charitable efforts as well, receiving The President's Volunteer Action Award Citation from former Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The Reagan administration also awarded the Love Kitchen a Presidential Citation for Private Sector Initiatives. Additionally, the Love Kitchen has received a certificate of appreciation from the State of Michigan and was recognized by the Detroit City Council for its efforts in the Gulf Coast region. The Love Kitchen's 30th anniversary was recognized when it was listed in the Congressional Record by U.S. Congresswoman Candice Miller, on April 30, 2015. The Love Kitchen charity was founded by Ilitch in 1985. Ilitch received the '[Secretary's] Award' for his philanthropic work with veterans In September 2007, news outlets reported that Ilitch had 'received the U.S. Veterans Affairs Department's top civilian honor for giving war veterans franchise opportunities,' with one press release stating: In recognition of his service to Veterans, Honorable R. James Nicholson, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, will present Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. founder Michael Ilitch with the Secretary's Award, the highest tribute given to a private citizen by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. The ceremony, which will take place today in the nation's capitol at the Department of Veterans Affairs at 2:30 p.m. ET, recognizes Mr. Ilitch's industry-leading support of Veterans through the Little Caesars Veterans Program. 'Michael Ilitch has demonstrated great patriotism by providing business opportunities to honorably discharged Veterans through the Little Caesars Veterans Program,' said Nicholson. 'This award, the highest honor my office can bestow, represents the VA's appreciation of a Detroit business leader who is making a difference for U.S. military Veterans as they transition to civilian life or make a career change.' Launched on Veterans Day (November 9) 2006, the program provides honorably discharged, service-disabled Veterans who qualify as Little Caesars franchisees a benefit of up to $68,000. Honorably discharged, non service-disabled Veterans who qualify as Little Caesars franchisees are eligible for a benefit of $10,000. Ilitch, a former Marine, has made giving back part of the way Little Caesars has done business since shortly after opening the first store in 1959. 'Veterans and their families have made significant sacrifices for our country, and I feel that it's important to acknowledge that, and to thank them for their service,' said Michael Ilitch, founder and chairman, Little Caesars. 'As I thought about the businesses I own, I thought what better way to say thank you to the men and women who have given so much for our nation than to provide them with a business opportunity: becoming a Little Caesars franchisee. I'm very honored that the program, and the people who created it, are being recognized with this prestigious award.' Aside from its literal veracity (or lack thereof), this meme also cherry-picks its 'facts' to reflect poorly on Schnatter (whose political positions are well-known) and elides charitable contributions Papa John's has made to causes such as the Red Cross, children affected by domestic violence, and general philanthropic donations that Schnatter estimated to total around $30 million.

nan

A meme contains accurate information about the founders of Papa John's (John Schnatter) and Little Caesar's (Mike Ilitch) respectively.

Neutral

On 2 November 2017, the Facebook page 'The Other 98%' shared a meme comparing purported facts about the founder of the Papa John's (John Schnatter) and Little Caesar's (the late Mike Ilitch) pizza chains: Purported facts about Schnatter were accompanied by a red 'X' (indicating dispproval) and those about Ilitch with a green check mark (indicating approval). The meme comprised seven claims in total, four about Schnatter and three about Ilitch, which we'll cover one by one: [Papa John's] John Schnatter, Founder Donated to Trump's campaign Cut workers hours to avoid paying health insurance Found guilty of wage theft and not paying employees overtime. Threatened to raise pizza prices to keep share holders happy. [Little Caesar's] Mike Illitch [sic], Founder Quietly PAID Rosa Park's [sic] rent for years until her passing. Ran a charity for the homeless that was recognized by Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Received the 'Secretaries Award' for his philanthropic work with veterans. Schnatter donated to Trump's campaign According to Federal Election Committee (FEC) filings, Schnatter made a total of $85,500 in political contributions in 2016, just over two percent of which went to the Trump campaign. Schnatter donated $1,000 each to two Trump campaign political action committees (PACs), he donated $33,400 to the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Kentucky Republican Leadership Fund in 2016, and $6,200 to Rand Paul's PACs. As such, the claim was true but somewhat misleading: Schnatter (a resident of Louisville) did donate to the Trump campaign, but the bulk of his financial support went elsewhere, most of it to political activity on the state level. Schnatter cut workers' hours to circumvent laws requiring he provide health insurance In early November 2012, it was widely reported that Schnatter planned to cut worker hours in response to provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or 'Obamacare'): The CEO of popular pizza chain Papa John's says his employees may face reduced hours and he expects his business costs to rise because President Obama's re-election most likely insures the president's health care reform law will be implemented in full. NaplesNews.com reports John Schnatter made the remarks to a small group at Edison State College's Collier County campus the day after the election. Schnatter, who supported Mitt Romney in the election, said all Americans having health insurance under ObamaCare is a good, but estimates the change will cost Papa John's $5 million to $8 million annually. However, Schnatter asserted that his comments had been misinterpreted in an op-ed piece, explaining that his earlier remarks were speculative and pertained to franchisees of Papa John's (not the corporation itself): Many in the media reported that I said Papa John's is going to close stores and cut jobs because of Obamacare. I never said that. The fact is we are going to open over hundreds of stores this year and next and increase employment by over 5,000 jobs worldwide. And, we have no plans to cut team hours as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Clearly there was some misunderstanding somewhere. The remarks that generated the headlines were made during an entrepreneur class I was asked to speak to at a Florida college. I was asked to share my experience as an entrepreneur and to provide the students with real-life small business situations. Unbeknownst to me, until she identified herself, a reporter was there. Here is the part of the interchange that was the genesis of the news: Reporter: 'Do you think your - you know - franchise owners... are going to cut people hours back to make them part time instead of full time?' Me: 'Well, in Hawaii there is a form of the same kind of health insurance and that's what you do, you find loopholes to get around it. That's what they're going to do.' Reporter: 'My understanding is that if you're a full time employee, which is 35 hours or over, you'd be covered. Or if you're part time then you wouldn't be. So wouldn't some business owners just cut people down like 34 hours a week so they wouldn't have to pay for health insurance?' The reporter asked what I believed Papa John's franchisees would do in response to Obamacare, not what Papa John's would do ... Papa John's, like most businesses, is still researching what the Affordable Care Act means to our operations. Regardless of the conclusion of our analysis, we will honor this law, as we do all laws, and continue to offer 100% of Papa John's corporate employees and workers in company-owned stores health insurance as we have since the company was founded in 1984. Schnatter was found guilty of wage theft and failure to pay overtime to workers In 2015, a Papa John's franchisee (not the chain, nor Schnatter) was found guilty of wage theft and noncompliance with New York State laws pertaining to overtime: Abdul Jamil Khokhar, who owns nine Papa John's locations in New York City with BMY Foods, pled guilty to failing to pay workers in compliance with the New York Labor Law, which is a misdemeanor, and to filing false business records, a felony. He will serve 60 days in jail for failing to pay his workers the minimum wage and overtime and has agreed to pay $230,000 in restitution to the workers ... Instead of paying his employees the proper minimum overtime wages according to New York State law, Khokhar paid them the same minimum wage they would make during regular hours. To hide this illegal practice, he created fake names for employees in the computer system and used the fake names to avoid paying the time-and-a-half rate required for overtime. So an employee who worked for more than 40 hours would be paid for regular work hours under his or her own name, and any overtime hours would be paid as straight hours to a fictitious employee. Khokar was an independent franchise owner, and his 2015 conviction was falsely attributed to Schnatter in the meme. Separate instances also involved the actions of independent franchisees, not Papa John's itself. Schnatter threatened to raise pizza prices to keep shareholders happy In August 2012, news outlets reported that Schnatter was planning to pass increased health insurance costs onto customers in order to protect 'shareholders' best interests': And if the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act rolls out as planned in 2014, Schnatter's strategy is 'of course ... to pass that cost on the consumer in order to protect our shareholders' best interest,' he said in a recent conference call. Schnatter estimates that the legislation will cost Papa John's about 11 cents to 14 cents per pizza, which equates to 15 cents to 20 cents per order. An average delivery charge runs $1.75 to $2.50. Schnatter's claims about an 11- to 14-cent per pizza increase in prices occurred in tandem with his earlier referenced ACA-related remarks. As with those previous comments, Schnatter later maintained his remarks had been misinterpreted: Most visibly, Papa John's CEO John Schnatter repeatedly claimed that Obamacare would increase the price of a pizza by eleven to fourteen cents (even if you accept his numbers, hardly a dramatic setback). CNN did some fact checking, and found that the exact costs of Obamacare for the chain were incalculable thanks to the pizza franchise's refusal to provide pertinent data (such as the number of pizzas they sell, how many full-time employees they have, what their current health care plan is, etc.). However, they rated Schnatter's claims as 'false' because Obamacare does not require companies to provide health care plans to part-time employees, as well as exempts many small businesses (such as the local franchises which compose Papa John's retail locations) from the health care requirements. After being debunked, Papa John's is backing off from its claims that Obamacare would raise prices and potentially cost jobs, now saying Schnatter was quoted incorrectly. Due to the business' strength, the company now says, Papa John's could absorb the added costs easily. Schnatter stated that his earlier remarks were misconstrued, and denied pizza prices would go up by the minor amount mentioned. Although it was true Schnatter speculated higher Obamacare-related costs would be 'pass[ed] on' to customers, he soon revised his position and no surcharge was added. The meme then turned to Ilitch, who died in February 2017. Ilitch quietly paid Rosa Parks' rent until she died Back in February 2014, SportsBusiness Daily reported that Ilitch had arranged to pay for housing for civil rights icon Rosa Parks after she was robbed and assaulted in her Detroit home: On Aug. 31, 1994, Parks, then 81, was robbed and assaulted in her home in central Detroit. [Judge Damon] Keith called real estate developer Alfred Taubman, the owner of Riverfront Apartments, about finding a safer home for Parks. Taubman pledged to find the best home available. When Ilitch read about Keith's plan and Taubman's promise in the newspaper, he called the judge and said he would pay for Parks' housing for as long as necessary. (Parks passed away in 2005 at the age of 92). Keith served as the executor of the trust established for Parks' housing. The episode is just one of many throughout Ilitch's life when he stepped forward to help (see box), usually outside of the spotlight. Keith produced a canceled November 1994 check and affirmed that Ilitch had paid Parks' rent from 1994 until her death in 2005, adding that it was 'important' people learn of that circumstance. Ilitch ran a homeless charity recognized by Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton This claim appears to reference Little Caesar's Love Kitchen, described on the company's web site as follows: THE LITTLE CAESARS LOVE KITCHEN travels across the United States to help those in need. We have two trucks in operation so we can be of service 365 days a year. These restaurants on wheels have served more than three million people. The Love Kitchen has been recognized for its charitable efforts as well, receiving The President's Volunteer Action Award Citation from former Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The Reagan administration also awarded the Love Kitchen a Presidential Citation for Private Sector Initiatives. Additionally, the Love Kitchen has received a certificate of appreciation from the State of Michigan and was recognized by the Detroit City Council for its efforts in the Gulf Coast region. The Love Kitchen's 30th anniversary was recognized when it was listed in the Congressional Record by U.S. Congresswoman Candice Miller, on April 30, 2015. The Love Kitchen charity was founded by Ilitch in 1985. Ilitch received the '[Secretary's] Award' for his philanthropic work with veterans In September 2007, news outlets reported that Ilitch had 'received the U.S. Veterans Affairs Department's top civilian honor for giving war veterans franchise opportunities,' with one press release stating: In recognition of his service to Veterans, Honorable R. James Nicholson, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, will present Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. founder Michael Ilitch with the Secretary's Award, the highest tribute given to a private citizen by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. The ceremony, which will take place today in the nation's capitol at the Department of Veterans Affairs at 2:30 p.m. ET, recognizes Mr. Ilitch's industry-leading support of Veterans through the Little Caesars Veterans Program. 'Michael Ilitch has demonstrated great patriotism by providing business opportunities to honorably discharged Veterans through the Little Caesars Veterans Program,' said Nicholson. 'This award, the highest honor my office can bestow, represents the VA's appreciation of a Detroit business leader who is making a difference for U.S. military Veterans as they transition to civilian life or make a career change.' Launched on Veterans Day (November 9) 2006, the program provides honorably discharged, service-disabled Veterans who qualify as Little Caesars franchisees a benefit of up to $68,000. Honorably discharged, non service-disabled Veterans who qualify as Little Caesars franchisees are eligible for a benefit of $10,000. Ilitch, a former Marine, has made giving back part of the way Little Caesars has done business since shortly after opening the first store in 1959. 'Veterans and their families have made significant sacrifices for our country, and I feel that it's important to acknowledge that, and to thank them for their service,' said Michael Ilitch, founder and chairman, Little Caesars. 'As I thought about the businesses I own, I thought what better way to say thank you to the men and women who have given so much for our nation than to provide them with a business opportunity: becoming a Little Caesars franchisee. I'm very honored that the program, and the people who created it, are being recognized with this prestigious award.' Aside from its literal veracity (or lack thereof), this meme also cherry-picks its 'facts' to reflect poorly on Schnatter (whose political positions are well-known) and elides charitable contributions Papa John's has made to causes such as the Red Cross, children affected by domestic violence, and general philanthropic donations that Schnatter estimated to total around $30 million.

nan

A meme contains accurate information about the founders of Papa John's (John Schnatter) and Little Caesar's (Mike Ilitch) respectively.

Neutral

On 2 November 2017, the Facebook page 'The Other 98%' shared a meme comparing purported facts about the founder of the Papa John's (John Schnatter) and Little Caesar's (the late Mike Ilitch) pizza chains: Purported facts about Schnatter were accompanied by a red 'X' (indicating dispproval) and those about Ilitch with a green check mark (indicating approval). The meme comprised seven claims in total, four about Schnatter and three about Ilitch, which we'll cover one by one: [Papa John's] John Schnatter, Founder Donated to Trump's campaign Cut workers hours to avoid paying health insurance Found guilty of wage theft and not paying employees overtime. Threatened to raise pizza prices to keep share holders happy. [Little Caesar's] Mike Illitch [sic], Founder Quietly PAID Rosa Park's [sic] rent for years until her passing. Ran a charity for the homeless that was recognized by Reagan, Bush and Clinton. Received the 'Secretaries Award' for his philanthropic work with veterans. Schnatter donated to Trump's campaign According to Federal Election Committee (FEC) filings, Schnatter made a total of $85,500 in political contributions in 2016, just over two percent of which went to the Trump campaign. Schnatter donated $1,000 each to two Trump campaign political action committees (PACs), he donated $33,400 to the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Kentucky Republican Leadership Fund in 2016, and $6,200 to Rand Paul's PACs. As such, the claim was true but somewhat misleading: Schnatter (a resident of Louisville) did donate to the Trump campaign, but the bulk of his financial support went elsewhere, most of it to political activity on the state level. Schnatter cut workers' hours to circumvent laws requiring he provide health insurance In early November 2012, it was widely reported that Schnatter planned to cut worker hours in response to provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or 'Obamacare'): The CEO of popular pizza chain Papa John's says his employees may face reduced hours and he expects his business costs to rise because President Obama's re-election most likely insures the president's health care reform law will be implemented in full. NaplesNews.com reports John Schnatter made the remarks to a small group at Edison State College's Collier County campus the day after the election. Schnatter, who supported Mitt Romney in the election, said all Americans having health insurance under ObamaCare is a good, but estimates the change will cost Papa John's $5 million to $8 million annually. However, Schnatter asserted that his comments had been misinterpreted in an op-ed piece, explaining that his earlier remarks were speculative and pertained to franchisees of Papa John's (not the corporation itself): Many in the media reported that I said Papa John's is going to close stores and cut jobs because of Obamacare. I never said that. The fact is we are going to open over hundreds of stores this year and next and increase employment by over 5,000 jobs worldwide. And, we have no plans to cut team hours as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Clearly there was some misunderstanding somewhere. The remarks that generated the headlines were made during an entrepreneur class I was asked to speak to at a Florida college. I was asked to share my experience as an entrepreneur and to provide the students with real-life small business situations. Unbeknownst to me, until she identified herself, a reporter was there. Here is the part of the interchange that was the genesis of the news: Reporter: 'Do you think your - you know - franchise owners... are going to cut people hours back to make them part time instead of full time?' Me: 'Well, in Hawaii there is a form of the same kind of health insurance and that's what you do, you find loopholes to get around it. That's what they're going to do.' Reporter: 'My understanding is that if you're a full time employee, which is 35 hours or over, you'd be covered. Or if you're part time then you wouldn't be. So wouldn't some business owners just cut people down like 34 hours a week so they wouldn't have to pay for health insurance?' The reporter asked what I believed Papa John's franchisees would do in response to Obamacare, not what Papa John's would do ... Papa John's, like most businesses, is still researching what the Affordable Care Act means to our operations. Regardless of the conclusion of our analysis, we will honor this law, as we do all laws, and continue to offer 100% of Papa John's corporate employees and workers in company-owned stores health insurance as we have since the company was founded in 1984. Schnatter was found guilty of wage theft and failure to pay overtime to workers In 2015, a Papa John's franchisee (not the chain, nor Schnatter) was found guilty of wage theft and noncompliance with New York State laws pertaining to overtime: Abdul Jamil Khokhar, who owns nine Papa John's locations in New York City with BMY Foods, pled guilty to failing to pay workers in compliance with the New York Labor Law, which is a misdemeanor, and to filing false business records, a felony. He will serve 60 days in jail for failing to pay his workers the minimum wage and overtime and has agreed to pay $230,000 in restitution to the workers ... Instead of paying his employees the proper minimum overtime wages according to New York State law, Khokhar paid them the same minimum wage they would make during regular hours. To hide this illegal practice, he created fake names for employees in the computer system and used the fake names to avoid paying the time-and-a-half rate required for overtime. So an employee who worked for more than 40 hours would be paid for regular work hours under his or her own name, and any overtime hours would be paid as straight hours to a fictitious employee. Khokar was an independent franchise owner, and his 2015 conviction was falsely attributed to Schnatter in the meme. Separate instances also involved the actions of independent franchisees, not Papa John's itself. Schnatter threatened to raise pizza prices to keep shareholders happy In August 2012, news outlets reported that Schnatter was planning to pass increased health insurance costs onto customers in order to protect 'shareholders' best interests': And if the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act rolls out as planned in 2014, Schnatter's strategy is 'of course ... to pass that cost on the consumer in order to protect our shareholders' best interest,' he said in a recent conference call. Schnatter estimates that the legislation will cost Papa John's about 11 cents to 14 cents per pizza, which equates to 15 cents to 20 cents per order. An average delivery charge runs $1.75 to $2.50. Schnatter's claims about an 11- to 14-cent per pizza increase in prices occurred in tandem with his earlier referenced ACA-related remarks. As with those previous comments, Schnatter later maintained his remarks had been misinterpreted: Most visibly, Papa John's CEO John Schnatter repeatedly claimed that Obamacare would increase the price of a pizza by eleven to fourteen cents (even if you accept his numbers, hardly a dramatic setback). CNN did some fact checking, and found that the exact costs of Obamacare for the chain were incalculable thanks to the pizza franchise's refusal to provide pertinent data (such as the number of pizzas they sell, how many full-time employees they have, what their current health care plan is, etc.). However, they rated Schnatter's claims as 'false' because Obamacare does not require companies to provide health care plans to part-time employees, as well as exempts many small businesses (such as the local franchises which compose Papa John's retail locations) from the health care requirements. After being debunked, Papa John's is backing off from its claims that Obamacare would raise prices and potentially cost jobs, now saying Schnatter was quoted incorrectly. Due to the business' strength, the company now says, Papa John's could absorb the added costs easily. Schnatter stated that his earlier remarks were misconstrued, and denied pizza prices would go up by the minor amount mentioned. Although it was true Schnatter speculated higher Obamacare-related costs would be 'pass[ed] on' to customers, he soon revised his position and no surcharge was added. The meme then turned to Ilitch, who died in February 2017. Ilitch quietly paid Rosa Parks' rent until she died Back in February 2014, SportsBusiness Daily reported that Ilitch had arranged to pay for housing for civil rights icon Rosa Parks after she was robbed and assaulted in her Detroit home: On Aug. 31, 1994, Parks, then 81, was robbed and assaulted in her home in central Detroit. [Judge Damon] Keith called real estate developer Alfred Taubman, the owner of Riverfront Apartments, about finding a safer home for Parks. Taubman pledged to find the best home available. When Ilitch read about Keith's plan and Taubman's promise in the newspaper, he called the judge and said he would pay for Parks' housing for as long as necessary. (Parks passed away in 2005 at the age of 92). Keith served as the executor of the trust established for Parks' housing. The episode is just one of many throughout Ilitch's life when he stepped forward to help (see box), usually outside of the spotlight. Keith produced a canceled November 1994 check and affirmed that Ilitch had paid Parks' rent from 1994 until her death in 2005, adding that it was 'important' people learn of that circumstance. Ilitch ran a homeless charity recognized by Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton This claim appears to reference Little Caesar's Love Kitchen, described on the company's web site as follows: THE LITTLE CAESARS LOVE KITCHEN travels across the United States to help those in need. We have two trucks in operation so we can be of service 365 days a year. These restaurants on wheels have served more than three million people. The Love Kitchen has been recognized for its charitable efforts as well, receiving The President's Volunteer Action Award Citation from former Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The Reagan administration also awarded the Love Kitchen a Presidential Citation for Private Sector Initiatives. Additionally, the Love Kitchen has received a certificate of appreciation from the State of Michigan and was recognized by the Detroit City Council for its efforts in the Gulf Coast region. The Love Kitchen's 30th anniversary was recognized when it was listed in the Congressional Record by U.S. Congresswoman Candice Miller, on April 30, 2015. The Love Kitchen charity was founded by Ilitch in 1985. Ilitch received the '[Secretary's] Award' for his philanthropic work with veterans In September 2007, news outlets reported that Ilitch had 'received the U.S. Veterans Affairs Department's top civilian honor for giving war veterans franchise opportunities,' with one press release stating: In recognition of his service to Veterans, Honorable R. James Nicholson, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, will present Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. founder Michael Ilitch with the Secretary's Award, the highest tribute given to a private citizen by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. The ceremony, which will take place today in the nation's capitol at the Department of Veterans Affairs at 2:30 p.m. ET, recognizes Mr. Ilitch's industry-leading support of Veterans through the Little Caesars Veterans Program. 'Michael Ilitch has demonstrated great patriotism by providing business opportunities to honorably discharged Veterans through the Little Caesars Veterans Program,' said Nicholson. 'This award, the highest honor my office can bestow, represents the VA's appreciation of a Detroit business leader who is making a difference for U.S. military Veterans as they transition to civilian life or make a career change.' Launched on Veterans Day (November 9) 2006, the program provides honorably discharged, service-disabled Veterans who qualify as Little Caesars franchisees a benefit of up to $68,000. Honorably discharged, non service-disabled Veterans who qualify as Little Caesars franchisees are eligible for a benefit of $10,000. Ilitch, a former Marine, has made giving back part of the way Little Caesars has done business since shortly after opening the first store in 1959. 'Veterans and their families have made significant sacrifices for our country, and I feel that it's important to acknowledge that, and to thank them for their service,' said Michael Ilitch, founder and chairman, Little Caesars. 'As I thought about the businesses I own, I thought what better way to say thank you to the men and women who have given so much for our nation than to provide them with a business opportunity: becoming a Little Caesars franchisee. I'm very honored that the program, and the people who created it, are being recognized with this prestigious award.' Aside from its literal veracity (or lack thereof), this meme also cherry-picks its 'facts' to reflect poorly on Schnatter (whose political positions are well-known) and elides charitable contributions Papa John's has made to causes such as the Red Cross, children affected by domestic violence, and general philanthropic donations that Schnatter estimated to total around $30 million.

nan

At an Arizona town hall event, Sen. Jeff Flake told constituents 'we can't rely on solar power because we can't tell people they will not have lights during the night.

Neutral

On 13 April 2017, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona took part in a town hall meeting with some of his constituents that, like several other such events held by U.S. Congress members in the early part of the year, proved to be something of a contentious one for the Republican U.S. senator: Sen. Jeff Flake encountered a raucous audience at a town hall meeting in Mesa, Arizona. Constituents peppered the Republican lawmaker with questions about President Donald Trump's actions in office, and his broader agenda on climate change, the president's taxes, the Supreme Court and Planned Parenthood. Much like other GOP town halls held since Trump assumed the Oval Office, attendees railed against Flake, many of whom accused him of being a rubber stamp for Trump. Flake, like Reps. Jason Chaffetz, Mike Coffman, and Sen. Mitch McConnell before him, attempted to answer the audience's concerns, though most explanations drew shouts and boos from the crowd. Though Flake's town hall did not appear to have a large presence of demonstrators as those of some high-profile congress members in recent months, Flake at times struggled to contend with fits of chanting and jeering from the crowd at the Mesa Convention Center. Not all of the questions were hostile, and some constituents applauded Flake for sharing his time. The senator extended the meeting by one hour to take more questions, but the mood frequently returned to a bitter note. 'Can you just remind me when you're up for reelection,' one woman asked. The audience erupted in cheers at the question. During that town hall meeting, Senator Flake engaged in a several-minute exchange with a constituent who urged the lawmaker to support efforts to promote alternative energy sources over fossil fuels and address climate change issues. One small portion of that exchange was later incorporated into an image macro that was widely spread online to make it appear as if the senator were ignorant about the basics of solar power: Portraying people as fools for proclaiming that wind and solar power technologies don't work when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining is a common trope (revealing them to be unaware of the basic fact that energy derived from intermittent production sources is typically stored via batteries or other methods to be used during periods of non-production). However, although Senator Flake did make the statement attributed to him (actually expressed by him as 'you can't tell people we're gonna turn off your power at night because the sun isn't shining'), in this case that trope has been unfairly applied to him, as his comment has been stripped of context that showed it to be not so foolish or unreasonable. As video of the town hall event captures, Senator Flake engaged a constituent (who introduced himself as a major in the U.S. Army Reserve and a recent graduate of Arizona State University with a degree in Sustainability) in a fairly extensive conversation about alternative energy sources, with the constituent advocating the promotion of solar power technologies in Arizona, given that the state is blessed with an abundance of sunshine. In response, the senator didn't disdain the idea by expressing the absurd concept that solar energy wouldn't be available at night. Rather, Flake's contention was that battery technology was not yet sufficiently developed to be able to store enough solar-derived energy to provide 'base load power' to cities during non-daylight hours, and thus the use of solar energy exclusively was not yet feasible - that if we wished to completely eliminate our use of fossil fuels, for the time being solar power would have to be supplemented by other non-carbon energy sources, such as nuclear power. This discussion of alternative energy sources begins at the 13:00 mark in the following video, with Senator Flake's now-infamous comment occurring a 18:20 - after more than five minutes of back-and-forth that established the context in which he made it: As the constituent interrupted the senator's remarks by interjecting 'battery ... battery' (contending solar energy can be harvested and stored), Flake responded by saying that 'what we've gotta do is we've gotta have baseload power now ... you can't tell people we're going to turn off your power at night because the sun isn't shining.' Clearly, Senator Flake was aware that solar-derived energy can be stored in batteries for later use, as the point he was disputing with his constituent was the state of the art in battery technology - Flake maintained batteries couldn't currently provide 'base load power' levels to cities, while the constituent countered by referencing a solar energy station built by Tesla on the Hawaiian island of Kauai: Renewable energy supplies are great because they produce power without filling the air with pollution. Yet, once the sun goes down solar panels become pretty useless. But Tesla and Hawaii have a solution that'll use the sun's rays both day and night using Powerpacks built at the Gigafactory. The Kapaia project is a combination 13MW SolarCity solar farm and 53MWh Tesla Powerpack station on the island of Kauai. In partnership with the KIUC (Kauai Island Utility Cooperative) the project will store the sun's energy during the day and release it at night. The station (along with Kauai's other renewable resource solutions including wind and biomass) won't completely keep the island from using fossil fuels but it will temper the need. In addition to using Tesla's station to battle the island's incredibly high electric bills, it's also part of a long-term Hawaii-state plan to be completely powered by renewable energy sources by 2045. Kauai has its own goal of using 70 percent renewable energy by 2030. With this project the island is getting closer to that goal and can now produce 100 percent of the energy it needs during high usage mid days and low loads via renewables during a brief period of time. Whether Senator Flake was right or wrong about the particulars of the current state of solar energy and battery technologies, he did demonstrate a working awareness of the manner in which energy from the sun is collected and stored, and he did not express a belief that dependence on solar energy would necessarily mean residents would have to go without power at night. The video of the town hall event shows that Senator Flake and a constituent disagreed about the current scalability of power gathered from the sun but were not in disagreement about the existence of solar technologies or the availability of sun-harvested energy at night. Nonetheless, the senator's remarks were misleadingly truncated and altered (replacing 'power' with 'lights') and shared online in a form that falsely suggested he did not understand how solar power works.Kim LaCapria

nan

At an Arizona town hall event, Sen. Jeff Flake told constituents 'we can't rely on solar power because we can't tell people they will not have lights during the night.

Neutral

On 13 April 2017, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona took part in a town hall meeting with some of his constituents that, like several other such events held by U.S. Congress members in the early part of the year, proved to be something of a contentious one for the Republican U.S. senator: Sen. Jeff Flake encountered a raucous audience at a town hall meeting in Mesa, Arizona. Constituents peppered the Republican lawmaker with questions about President Donald Trump's actions in office, and his broader agenda on climate change, the president's taxes, the Supreme Court and Planned Parenthood. Much like other GOP town halls held since Trump assumed the Oval Office, attendees railed against Flake, many of whom accused him of being a rubber stamp for Trump. Flake, like Reps. Jason Chaffetz, Mike Coffman, and Sen. Mitch McConnell before him, attempted to answer the audience's concerns, though most explanations drew shouts and boos from the crowd. Though Flake's town hall did not appear to have a large presence of demonstrators as those of some high-profile congress members in recent months, Flake at times struggled to contend with fits of chanting and jeering from the crowd at the Mesa Convention Center. Not all of the questions were hostile, and some constituents applauded Flake for sharing his time. The senator extended the meeting by one hour to take more questions, but the mood frequently returned to a bitter note. 'Can you just remind me when you're up for reelection,' one woman asked. The audience erupted in cheers at the question. During that town hall meeting, Senator Flake engaged in a several-minute exchange with a constituent who urged the lawmaker to support efforts to promote alternative energy sources over fossil fuels and address climate change issues. One small portion of that exchange was later incorporated into an image macro that was widely spread online to make it appear as if the senator were ignorant about the basics of solar power: Portraying people as fools for proclaiming that wind and solar power technologies don't work when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining is a common trope (revealing them to be unaware of the basic fact that energy derived from intermittent production sources is typically stored via batteries or other methods to be used during periods of non-production). However, although Senator Flake did make the statement attributed to him (actually expressed by him as 'you can't tell people we're gonna turn off your power at night because the sun isn't shining'), in this case that trope has been unfairly applied to him, as his comment has been stripped of context that showed it to be not so foolish or unreasonable. As video of the town hall event captures, Senator Flake engaged a constituent (who introduced himself as a major in the U.S. Army Reserve and a recent graduate of Arizona State University with a degree in Sustainability) in a fairly extensive conversation about alternative energy sources, with the constituent advocating the promotion of solar power technologies in Arizona, given that the state is blessed with an abundance of sunshine. In response, the senator didn't disdain the idea by expressing the absurd concept that solar energy wouldn't be available at night. Rather, Flake's contention was that battery technology was not yet sufficiently developed to be able to store enough solar-derived energy to provide 'base load power' to cities during non-daylight hours, and thus the use of solar energy exclusively was not yet feasible - that if we wished to completely eliminate our use of fossil fuels, for the time being solar power would have to be supplemented by other non-carbon energy sources, such as nuclear power. This discussion of alternative energy sources begins at the 13:00 mark in the following video, with Senator Flake's now-infamous comment occurring a 18:20 - after more than five minutes of back-and-forth that established the context in which he made it: As the constituent interrupted the senator's remarks by interjecting 'battery ... battery' (contending solar energy can be harvested and stored), Flake responded by saying that 'what we've gotta do is we've gotta have baseload power now ... you can't tell people we're going to turn off your power at night because the sun isn't shining.' Clearly, Senator Flake was aware that solar-derived energy can be stored in batteries for later use, as the point he was disputing with his constituent was the state of the art in battery technology - Flake maintained batteries couldn't currently provide 'base load power' levels to cities, while the constituent countered by referencing a solar energy station built by Tesla on the Hawaiian island of Kauai: Renewable energy supplies are great because they produce power without filling the air with pollution. Yet, once the sun goes down solar panels become pretty useless. But Tesla and Hawaii have a solution that'll use the sun's rays both day and night using Powerpacks built at the Gigafactory. The Kapaia project is a combination 13MW SolarCity solar farm and 53MWh Tesla Powerpack station on the island of Kauai. In partnership with the KIUC (Kauai Island Utility Cooperative) the project will store the sun's energy during the day and release it at night. The station (along with Kauai's other renewable resource solutions including wind and biomass) won't completely keep the island from using fossil fuels but it will temper the need. In addition to using Tesla's station to battle the island's incredibly high electric bills, it's also part of a long-term Hawaii-state plan to be completely powered by renewable energy sources by 2045. Kauai has its own goal of using 70 percent renewable energy by 2030. With this project the island is getting closer to that goal and can now produce 100 percent of the energy it needs during high usage mid days and low loads via renewables during a brief period of time. Whether Senator Flake was right or wrong about the particulars of the current state of solar energy and battery technologies, he did demonstrate a working awareness of the manner in which energy from the sun is collected and stored, and he did not express a belief that dependence on solar energy would necessarily mean residents would have to go without power at night. The video of the town hall event shows that Senator Flake and a constituent disagreed about the current scalability of power gathered from the sun but were not in disagreement about the existence of solar technologies or the availability of sun-harvested energy at night. Nonetheless, the senator's remarks were misleadingly truncated and altered (replacing 'power' with 'lights') and shared online in a form that falsely suggested he did not understand how solar power works.Kim LaCapria

nan

Pizza Hut pressured employees in Florida to return to work 'within 72 hours' if they evacuated because of tropical storm Irma.

Neutral

In September 2017, as the Caribbean and southeastern United States geared up for monster storm Irma, the Pizza Hut restaurant chain came under criticism when a picture circulated online of employee directives. The note reportedly originated in a Jacksonville, Florida restaurant, asking workers - referenced here as TMs, short for team members - to make sure they 'are ready NOW' and to inform regional general managers (or RGMs for short) if they planned to evacuate because of the storm: However, the note also informed workers: If evacuating, you will have a 24-hour period before storm 'grace period' to not be scheduled. You cannot evacuate Friday for a Tuesday storm event! Failure to show for these shifts, regardless of reason, will be considered a no call/no show and documentation will be issued. Expectation is that all TM's work their schedule until store related storm closure (unless evacuating), then a 24 hour period will be given. Again, failure to show for these shifts, regardless of reason, will be considered a no call/no show and documentation will be issued. In the event of an evacuation, you MUST return within 72 hours. Pizza Hut spokesperson Doug Terfehr confirmed the note's existence to us on 11 September 2017, but added that it was created by a manager at a franchise-owned location, rather than one owned by the company. The unidentified manager, he said, 'elected to add a few things on their own' to a set of recommendations Pizza Hut provided to franchise locations. The company also released a statement: We are uncompromising in our commitment to the safety and well-being of our team members. All locations in the path of Irma are closed and will remain closed until local authorities deem the area safe. We absolutely do not have a policy that dictates when team members can leave or return from a disaster, and the manager who posted this letter did not follow company guidelines. We can also confirm that the local franchise operator has addressed this situation with the manager involved. It is unclear whether Pizza Hut employees in Florida who evacuated because of Irma would be protected from losing their jobs or eligibility for payment if their individual restaurants were closed or affected by the storm. Governor Rick Scott urged employers on 8 September 2017: Be compassionate with your employees as they prepare for this storm and evacuate. However, Florida is an 'at-will' employment state, which allows employers to terminate workers without notice or cause, so long as the reason for their firing does not violate federal or state anti-discrimination laws. We contacted Pizza Hut asking if any workers who evacuated because of the storm were eligible for payment or at risk of being disciplined, but have not heard back.

nan

Pizza Hut pressured employees in Florida to return to work 'within 72 hours' if they evacuated because of tropical storm Irma.

Neutral

In September 2017, as the Caribbean and southeastern United States geared up for monster storm Irma, the Pizza Hut restaurant chain came under criticism when a picture circulated online of employee directives. The note reportedly originated in a Jacksonville, Florida restaurant, asking workers - referenced here as TMs, short for team members - to make sure they 'are ready NOW' and to inform regional general managers (or RGMs for short) if they planned to evacuate because of the storm: However, the note also informed workers: If evacuating, you will have a 24-hour period before storm 'grace period' to not be scheduled. You cannot evacuate Friday for a Tuesday storm event! Failure to show for these shifts, regardless of reason, will be considered a no call/no show and documentation will be issued. Expectation is that all TM's work their schedule until store related storm closure (unless evacuating), then a 24 hour period will be given. Again, failure to show for these shifts, regardless of reason, will be considered a no call/no show and documentation will be issued. In the event of an evacuation, you MUST return within 72 hours. Pizza Hut spokesperson Doug Terfehr confirmed the note's existence to us on 11 September 2017, but added that it was created by a manager at a franchise-owned location, rather than one owned by the company. The unidentified manager, he said, 'elected to add a few things on their own' to a set of recommendations Pizza Hut provided to franchise locations. The company also released a statement: We are uncompromising in our commitment to the safety and well-being of our team members. All locations in the path of Irma are closed and will remain closed until local authorities deem the area safe. We absolutely do not have a policy that dictates when team members can leave or return from a disaster, and the manager who posted this letter did not follow company guidelines. We can also confirm that the local franchise operator has addressed this situation with the manager involved. It is unclear whether Pizza Hut employees in Florida who evacuated because of Irma would be protected from losing their jobs or eligibility for payment if their individual restaurants were closed or affected by the storm. Governor Rick Scott urged employers on 8 September 2017: Be compassionate with your employees as they prepare for this storm and evacuate. However, Florida is an 'at-will' employment state, which allows employers to terminate workers without notice or cause, so long as the reason for their firing does not violate federal or state anti-discrimination laws. We contacted Pizza Hut asking if any workers who evacuated because of the storm were eligible for payment or at risk of being disciplined, but have not heard back.

nan

Pizza Hut pressured employees in Florida to return to work 'within 72 hours' if they evacuated because of tropical storm Irma.

Neutral

In September 2017, as the Caribbean and southeastern United States geared up for monster storm Irma, the Pizza Hut restaurant chain came under criticism when a picture circulated online of employee directives. The note reportedly originated in a Jacksonville, Florida restaurant, asking workers - referenced here as TMs, short for team members - to make sure they 'are ready NOW' and to inform regional general managers (or RGMs for short) if they planned to evacuate because of the storm: However, the note also informed workers: If evacuating, you will have a 24-hour period before storm 'grace period' to not be scheduled. You cannot evacuate Friday for a Tuesday storm event! Failure to show for these shifts, regardless of reason, will be considered a no call/no show and documentation will be issued. Expectation is that all TM's work their schedule until store related storm closure (unless evacuating), then a 24 hour period will be given. Again, failure to show for these shifts, regardless of reason, will be considered a no call/no show and documentation will be issued. In the event of an evacuation, you MUST return within 72 hours. Pizza Hut spokesperson Doug Terfehr confirmed the note's existence to us on 11 September 2017, but added that it was created by a manager at a franchise-owned location, rather than one owned by the company. The unidentified manager, he said, 'elected to add a few things on their own' to a set of recommendations Pizza Hut provided to franchise locations. The company also released a statement: We are uncompromising in our commitment to the safety and well-being of our team members. All locations in the path of Irma are closed and will remain closed until local authorities deem the area safe. We absolutely do not have a policy that dictates when team members can leave or return from a disaster, and the manager who posted this letter did not follow company guidelines. We can also confirm that the local franchise operator has addressed this situation with the manager involved. It is unclear whether Pizza Hut employees in Florida who evacuated because of Irma would be protected from losing their jobs or eligibility for payment if their individual restaurants were closed or affected by the storm. Governor Rick Scott urged employers on 8 September 2017: Be compassionate with your employees as they prepare for this storm and evacuate. However, Florida is an 'at-will' employment state, which allows employers to terminate workers without notice or cause, so long as the reason for their firing does not violate federal or state anti-discrimination laws. We contacted Pizza Hut asking if any workers who evacuated because of the storm were eligible for payment or at risk of being disciplined, but have not heard back.

nan

Betsy Ross made the first American flag (or one of the first American flags), known as the 'Betsy Ross flag,' and was a Quaker who opposed slavery.

Neutral

During her life, Betsy Ross was a craftswoman who made flags. After her death, her name and a historical flag design linked to it took on a life of their own. But much of what is assumed to be true is an emotionally fraught myth. Over time, Betsy Ross became something of a legend whose role in the American Revolutionary War was the creation of the first version of the Stars and Stripes. But in the Trump era, the meaning of the flag associated with her name has shifted, as illustrated by a meme that circulated on Facebook in late September 2019: How did the historical flag dubbed 'Betsy Ross,' named after the woman who is often depicted in art work sewing the 13-star design in her parlor at the behest of George Washington, come to represent slavery in the minds of some, as inferred by the meme? The furor started in the summer of 2019, when clothing brand Nike canceled a sneaker design that featured the flag, purportedly after athlete-turned-civil-rights activist Colin Kaepernick and others raised concerns about it. Not only did placing the flag on the Air Max 1 sneaker give the problematic appearance of celebrating an era in American history in which slavery was legal, critics stated, the flag had also been spotted among extremists at the deadly 'Unite the Right' white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017. The criticism and Nike's actions attracted what has become a typical backlash against topics of racial justice in the Trump era: hyperbole that fails to directly address the issue at hand: It's a good thing @Nike only wants to sell sneakers to people who hate the American flag.... @NFL #HappyFourth https://t.co/G6w8vDjvLP - Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) July 2, 2019 Since this controversy, many have attempted to defend the Betsy Ross flag with heavy doses of whataboutism or misdirection. The criticism over the shoe design, after all, was not about Betsy Ross herself. It instead questioned a popular brand for appearing to celebrate an American era in which black people were enslaved, and raised concerns over the the evolution of that flag's meaning, post-Charlottesville. The facts about Ross, the historical person, differ greatly from the myth. Although she was born into a Quaker family and the Quakers were opposed to slavery, her personal views on the subject are unknown because no historical documentation from her point of view (letters, journals, or other records) is known to survive. That's largely because Ross was not famous until well after her death, according Marla R. Miller, professor of history at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and author of the book 'Betsy Ross and the Making of America.' 'There is no document that answers the specific question' about her views on slavery, Miller told us by phone. 'We do know that she was a member of the Quaker community, raised in the Quaker tradition, and that in these decades, the Quaker community increasingly rejected slavery.' Only slight evidence exists that documents Ross' work making flags during the War of Independence. She was a craftswoman in the upholstery trades. She did make numerous flags for the federal government alongside her daughter, Clarissa Wilson, particularly in the years before the War of 1812. The design of the American flag evolved over the course of the Revolutionary era, and no evidence exists that any of the flags she made bore the 13 stars-in-a-circle pattern. Ross did know George Washington - he patronized her upholstery business. Early documentation of her story given by her daughter asserts that Ross was proud of introducing Washington to a method of folding that allowed five-point stars to be created with just one cut of the scissors, making production quicker and easier. But Ross' story, as relayed by her daughter, does not include the claim that she made the first American flag. Ross was indeed raised in the Quaker tradition, although she was forced out of the faith when she married John Ross, an Anglican. She was widowed and remarried twice, returning to the Quaker tradition later in life with the formation of the Free Quakers after the Revolutionary War. There's a reason for that lack of historical clarity around the origins of the flag, said Marc Leepson, historian and author of the book 'Flag: An American Biography.' During Ross' lifetime, flags weren't endowed with the type of sanctity characteristic of current norms - so the making of flags wasn't considered noteworthy. Furthermore, an official flag design didn't exist until President William Howard Taft signed an order designating one in 1912. Popular images depicting Washington crossing the Delaware with the Betsy Ross flag, for instance, are apocryphal. The oldest physical flag with that configuration of stars found to date was made in the early 1800s. 'We don't know who made the first American flag,' Leepson told us. 'It wouldn't have been newsworthy that someone made the first flag, because people didn't feel even remotely the same way about it like they do now.' Adulation of the flag, in the way that it is done now, started in the North at the commencement of the American Civil War, Leepson said. After the war, it spread nationwide. The symbol of a nation united after a bloody civil war was part of the flag's newfound importance, Leepson noted. Miller theorizes that the story of Ross and the first American flag took off because the time period her descendants were going public with it coincided with the women's suffrage movement. It solved a cultural problem by giving a woman an important place in the Revolutionary War while doing something domestic and non-threatening, which was sewing. It was solidified in the popular imagination with a public campaign to preserve her historic Philadelphia home on Arch Street. No known documentation of Betsy Ross' personally held beliefs about slavery exist, but because she was a member of the Quaker community for a significant portion of her life, it's probably a credible assumption that she herself opposed it. However, the origins of the so-called Betsy Ross flag are apocryphal, which arguably renders her beliefs in relation to that flag's use irrelevant. Furthermore, the more recent argument against the use of the flag for mainstream purposes stems from a new evolution of the flag's use by far-right groups at a racist rally in 2017.

nan

An analysis determined that Senator Elizabeth Warren pays her female staffers less than their male counterparts.

Neutral

On 4 April 2017, the Washington Free Beacon published a report stating that Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who is considered one of the more politically progressive members of the U.S. Senate, pays her male staffers more than she pays her female staffers, despite the her emphatic public statements on behalf of equal pay for female workers: [W]omen working for Warren were paid just 71 cents for every dollar paid to men during the 2016 fiscal year, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis. The median annual earnings for women staffers, $52,750, was more than $20,000 less than the median annual earnings for men, $73,750, according to the analysis of publicly available Senate data. When calculated using average salaries rather than median, the pay gap expands to just over $26,051, or about 31 percent. Consistent with previous Free Beacon analyses of Senate salary data, only full-time staffers who were employed for the entire period in question were included in the calculations. For example, Warren's former chief of staff Mindy Myers and her male replacement Dan Geldon were not included because neither worked the full year. Among employees employed the entire year, only one woman, Warren's director of scheduling, earned a six-figure salary, at $100,624.88. Five men - Warren's director of oversight and investigations ($156,000), legislative director ($149,458), deputy chief of staff ($119,375), Massachusetts state director ($152,310), and deputy state director ($113,750) - earned more than Warren's highest paid woman staffer in 2016. However, the implied claim that Warren pays women less than men for equivalent work is flawed because the Free Beacon report didn't account for differing pay among job titles - in other words, it was an apples-to-oranges comparison that didn't actually compare the pay of workers of both genders who perform equivalent job duties. The report also only used salary data for staffers who worked in Warren's office for the full 2016 fiscal year (which spanned parts of 2015 and 2016), a selective and arbitrary timeframe that eliminated the most obvious comparison available. In regards to the latter point, we note that Mindy Myers, a woman, and Daniel Geldon, a man, held the same position as Warren's chief of staff consecutively. As Chief of Staff in 2015, Myers earned $164,458, and when she left at the end of the year (and later accepted a position as executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee), she was replaced by Geldon, whose salary is the same as hers was, according to salary data from the Secretary of the Senate. The Free Beacon excluded Myers and Geldon from their analysis on the basis that neither worked for Warren throughout the full 2015-2016 fiscal year and therefore didn't note that the two were paid equally for holding the same job position. As to the former point, Brad Fitch, chief executive officer at the Congressional Management Foundation (a nonprofit dedicated to improving operations in Congress and citizen engagement with lawmakers), noted that in order to fairly assess gender pay parity, researchers must take into account variables such as experience and education levels, as well as staff turnover and the reality that people with different job titles earn different salaries - factors not considered in the Free Beacon's analysis: The methodology used in the analysis is flawed; they combined positions and people at different levels in the office. It's the equivalent of comparing a female astronaut to a male welder to conclude some people get paid more than others. If you compare a staff assistant to a chief of staff, it's not a fair comparison. Fairly comparing pay rates between men and women who work in Senator Warren's office is therefore a challenge because not many of her staffers hold the same job titles, and even among those who do, pay discrepancies between men and women are not obvious when education and experience are factored in. For example, of the ten people who were 'regional directors' on Warren's staff in the first half of the 2016 fiscal year, the highest-paid was a man who holds a J.D. and has worked for Warren since 2012. The second-highest paid was a woman who was promoted and received a raise in the second half of the year, setting her pay higher than that of the highest-paid male regional director (but also changing her job title). Additional factors not considered include that at least one of Warren's staffers, Lauren Miller, also works for the senator's campaign, so her office salary of $69,324 in the 2016 fiscal year is probably only part of her full compensation. Additionally, Kaaren Hinck earned $118,332 in 2015 as an adviser to Warren, but she wasn't included in the report because she left her job halfway through the fiscal year. Yet another woman whose pay wasn't counted was Tracey Lewis, who earned $33,000 while working as Warren's state strategic adviser for just 4 months. Salary information for Senator Warren's staff is publicly available through the Secretary of the Senate's office, but the Free Beacon's use of only the most recent fiscal year's data, their exclusion of high-earning women on Senator Warren's office staff due to narrow (and seemingly arbitrary) selection criteria, and their non-consideration of job duties and titles doesn't support the implication that Senator Warren pays women less than men for equivalent work. At best, it shows that male staffers earned more than female staffers in Senator Warren's office because more men occupied the top positions among her staff during a selected time frame.

nan

An analysis determined that Senator Elizabeth Warren pays her female staffers less than their male counterparts.

Neutral

On 4 April 2017, the Washington Free Beacon published a report stating that Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who is considered one of the more politically progressive members of the U.S. Senate, pays her male staffers more than she pays her female staffers, despite the her emphatic public statements on behalf of equal pay for female workers: [W]omen working for Warren were paid just 71 cents for every dollar paid to men during the 2016 fiscal year, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis. The median annual earnings for women staffers, $52,750, was more than $20,000 less than the median annual earnings for men, $73,750, according to the analysis of publicly available Senate data. When calculated using average salaries rather than median, the pay gap expands to just over $26,051, or about 31 percent. Consistent with previous Free Beacon analyses of Senate salary data, only full-time staffers who were employed for the entire period in question were included in the calculations. For example, Warren's former chief of staff Mindy Myers and her male replacement Dan Geldon were not included because neither worked the full year. Among employees employed the entire year, only one woman, Warren's director of scheduling, earned a six-figure salary, at $100,624.88. Five men - Warren's director of oversight and investigations ($156,000), legislative director ($149,458), deputy chief of staff ($119,375), Massachusetts state director ($152,310), and deputy state director ($113,750) - earned more than Warren's highest paid woman staffer in 2016. However, the implied claim that Warren pays women less than men for equivalent work is flawed because the Free Beacon report didn't account for differing pay among job titles - in other words, it was an apples-to-oranges comparison that didn't actually compare the pay of workers of both genders who perform equivalent job duties. The report also only used salary data for staffers who worked in Warren's office for the full 2016 fiscal year (which spanned parts of 2015 and 2016), a selective and arbitrary timeframe that eliminated the most obvious comparison available. In regards to the latter point, we note that Mindy Myers, a woman, and Daniel Geldon, a man, held the same position as Warren's chief of staff consecutively. As Chief of Staff in 2015, Myers earned $164,458, and when she left at the end of the year (and later accepted a position as executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee), she was replaced by Geldon, whose salary is the same as hers was, according to salary data from the Secretary of the Senate. The Free Beacon excluded Myers and Geldon from their analysis on the basis that neither worked for Warren throughout the full 2015-2016 fiscal year and therefore didn't note that the two were paid equally for holding the same job position. As to the former point, Brad Fitch, chief executive officer at the Congressional Management Foundation (a nonprofit dedicated to improving operations in Congress and citizen engagement with lawmakers), noted that in order to fairly assess gender pay parity, researchers must take into account variables such as experience and education levels, as well as staff turnover and the reality that people with different job titles earn different salaries - factors not considered in the Free Beacon's analysis: The methodology used in the analysis is flawed; they combined positions and people at different levels in the office. It's the equivalent of comparing a female astronaut to a male welder to conclude some people get paid more than others. If you compare a staff assistant to a chief of staff, it's not a fair comparison. Fairly comparing pay rates between men and women who work in Senator Warren's office is therefore a challenge because not many of her staffers hold the same job titles, and even among those who do, pay discrepancies between men and women are not obvious when education and experience are factored in. For example, of the ten people who were 'regional directors' on Warren's staff in the first half of the 2016 fiscal year, the highest-paid was a man who holds a J.D. and has worked for Warren since 2012. The second-highest paid was a woman who was promoted and received a raise in the second half of the year, setting her pay higher than that of the highest-paid male regional director (but also changing her job title). Additional factors not considered include that at least one of Warren's staffers, Lauren Miller, also works for the senator's campaign, so her office salary of $69,324 in the 2016 fiscal year is probably only part of her full compensation. Additionally, Kaaren Hinck earned $118,332 in 2015 as an adviser to Warren, but she wasn't included in the report because she left her job halfway through the fiscal year. Yet another woman whose pay wasn't counted was Tracey Lewis, who earned $33,000 while working as Warren's state strategic adviser for just 4 months. Salary information for Senator Warren's staff is publicly available through the Secretary of the Senate's office, but the Free Beacon's use of only the most recent fiscal year's data, their exclusion of high-earning women on Senator Warren's office staff due to narrow (and seemingly arbitrary) selection criteria, and their non-consideration of job duties and titles doesn't support the implication that Senator Warren pays women less than men for equivalent work. At best, it shows that male staffers earned more than female staffers in Senator Warren's office because more men occupied the top positions among her staff during a selected time frame.

nan

After Hillary Clinton refused to participate in a final debate, GOP candidate Donald Trump agreed to debate Democrat challenger Bernie Sanders.

Neutral

On 26 May 2016, conflicting media and social media rumors claimed that Republican frontrunner Donald Trump and Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders agreed to debate before California's primary. Previously, Clinton had agreed to but then backed out of a final debate with Sanders before the primary in California (and one in New Jersey on the same date). On 24 May 2016, a spokesperson stated that Clinton would not be participating in any further debates, due to time constraints: Hillary Clinton will not debate Bernie Sanders in California, her top campaign spokeswoman said Monday. 'As we have said previously, we plan to compete hard in the remaining primary states, particularly California, while turning our attention to the threat a Donald Trump presidency poses,' Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton's spokeswoman, said. 'We believe that Hillary Clinton's time is best spent campaigning and meeting directly with voters across California and preparing for a general election campaign that will ensure the White House remains in Democratic hands.' The report originated with Trump's 25 May 2016 appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live: The idea of a debate between the two men came up on Wednesday when Mr. Trump was appearing on 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' and Mr. Kimmel said that Mr. Sanders had passed along an invitation to Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee. Mr. Trump, who opted out of a debate in Iowa in January and decided that he would no longer participate in primary debates after the Republican field narrowed to three candidates, said he would be open to debating Mr. Sanders if the proceeds were donated to charity, although there were conflicting reports about how serious he was. Just before his interview with Kimmel, Trump knocked Clinton on Twitter for her lengthy and arduous primary contest against Sanders: Crooked Hillary Clinton just can't close the deal with Bernie. I had to knock out 16 very good and smart candidates. Hillary doesn't have it - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 25, 2016 Almost immediately after the Kimmel segment aired, Sanders tweeted a response to Trump's remarks: Game on. I look forward to debating Donald Trump in California before the June 7 primary. - Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 26, 2016 On the morning of 26 May 2016, CNN reported that Trump appeared to be serious about the prospect of debating Sanders before the California primary: Trump made it clear that he wants to follow through with the debate. 'I'd love to debate Bernie. He's a dream,' he said in Bismarck, North Dakota. 'If we can raise for maybe women's health issues or something. If we can raise $10 or $15 million for charity, which would be a very appropriate amount.' 'I understand the television business very well. I think it would get high ratings,' Trump added. The Republican nominee said his team has been in conversations with several networks about hosting the debate. 'It should be in a big arena somewhere. And we can have a lot of fun with it. I'd love to debate Bernie' he said. 'The problem with debating Bernie is he's going to lose. Because honestly his system is rigged. Just like our system is rigged.' However, those reports were soon contradicted, and then potentially reconfirmed: Donald Trump said that he would 'love to' debate Bernie Sanders, a day after discussing the prospects of a debate with the Democratic insurgent on a late night talk show. Trump laid out his conditions for a potential debate with Sanders, saying he would want it to raise '$10 million or $15 million for charity,' including women's health issues, adding he would want to do it in a large arena. Trump's high bar for the debate make such a meeting before the California primary highly unlikely, but Trump sees it as a win-win proposition, as it puts likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in a bind. Clinton declined earlier this week to debate Sanders before the June 7 vote. A Trump aide initially dismissed the candidate's openness to the debate as a joke, but the candidate again entertained the prospect after this article was published. That afternoon, Sanders followed up on Twitter to say: I am delighted that @realDonaldTrump has agreed to debate. Let's do it in the biggest stadium possible. - Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 26, 2016 As of 26 May 2016, the probability of the debate remained unclear. However, political news outlet The Hill noted that a 'bipartisan debate between the two while the primaries are still ongoing would be unprecedented.' In the latter part of the day, a spokesperson for Trump provided an ambiguous response to Reuters: Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said in an email to Reuters there were no formal plans yet for such an event. Representatives for the Sanders campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. On 27 May 2016, Donald Trump issued a statement saying that it would be 'inappropriate' of him to debate Sanders: Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women's health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be. The hashtags #BernieTrumpDebate (and variations thereof) began trending on Facebook and Twitter in anticipation of the suggested matchup.

nan

After Hillary Clinton refused to participate in a final debate, GOP candidate Donald Trump agreed to debate Democrat challenger Bernie Sanders.

Neutral

On 26 May 2016, conflicting media and social media rumors claimed that Republican frontrunner Donald Trump and Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders agreed to debate before California's primary. Previously, Clinton had agreed to but then backed out of a final debate with Sanders before the primary in California (and one in New Jersey on the same date). On 24 May 2016, a spokesperson stated that Clinton would not be participating in any further debates, due to time constraints: Hillary Clinton will not debate Bernie Sanders in California, her top campaign spokeswoman said Monday. 'As we have said previously, we plan to compete hard in the remaining primary states, particularly California, while turning our attention to the threat a Donald Trump presidency poses,' Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton's spokeswoman, said. 'We believe that Hillary Clinton's time is best spent campaigning and meeting directly with voters across California and preparing for a general election campaign that will ensure the White House remains in Democratic hands.' The report originated with Trump's 25 May 2016 appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live: The idea of a debate between the two men came up on Wednesday when Mr. Trump was appearing on 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' and Mr. Kimmel said that Mr. Sanders had passed along an invitation to Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee. Mr. Trump, who opted out of a debate in Iowa in January and decided that he would no longer participate in primary debates after the Republican field narrowed to three candidates, said he would be open to debating Mr. Sanders if the proceeds were donated to charity, although there were conflicting reports about how serious he was. Just before his interview with Kimmel, Trump knocked Clinton on Twitter for her lengthy and arduous primary contest against Sanders: Crooked Hillary Clinton just can't close the deal with Bernie. I had to knock out 16 very good and smart candidates. Hillary doesn't have it - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 25, 2016 Almost immediately after the Kimmel segment aired, Sanders tweeted a response to Trump's remarks: Game on. I look forward to debating Donald Trump in California before the June 7 primary. - Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 26, 2016 On the morning of 26 May 2016, CNN reported that Trump appeared to be serious about the prospect of debating Sanders before the California primary: Trump made it clear that he wants to follow through with the debate. 'I'd love to debate Bernie. He's a dream,' he said in Bismarck, North Dakota. 'If we can raise for maybe women's health issues or something. If we can raise $10 or $15 million for charity, which would be a very appropriate amount.' 'I understand the television business very well. I think it would get high ratings,' Trump added. The Republican nominee said his team has been in conversations with several networks about hosting the debate. 'It should be in a big arena somewhere. And we can have a lot of fun with it. I'd love to debate Bernie' he said. 'The problem with debating Bernie is he's going to lose. Because honestly his system is rigged. Just like our system is rigged.' However, those reports were soon contradicted, and then potentially reconfirmed: Donald Trump said that he would 'love to' debate Bernie Sanders, a day after discussing the prospects of a debate with the Democratic insurgent on a late night talk show. Trump laid out his conditions for a potential debate with Sanders, saying he would want it to raise '$10 million or $15 million for charity,' including women's health issues, adding he would want to do it in a large arena. Trump's high bar for the debate make such a meeting before the California primary highly unlikely, but Trump sees it as a win-win proposition, as it puts likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in a bind. Clinton declined earlier this week to debate Sanders before the June 7 vote. A Trump aide initially dismissed the candidate's openness to the debate as a joke, but the candidate again entertained the prospect after this article was published. That afternoon, Sanders followed up on Twitter to say: I am delighted that @realDonaldTrump has agreed to debate. Let's do it in the biggest stadium possible. - Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 26, 2016 As of 26 May 2016, the probability of the debate remained unclear. However, political news outlet The Hill noted that a 'bipartisan debate between the two while the primaries are still ongoing would be unprecedented.' In the latter part of the day, a spokesperson for Trump provided an ambiguous response to Reuters: Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said in an email to Reuters there were no formal plans yet for such an event. Representatives for the Sanders campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. On 27 May 2016, Donald Trump issued a statement saying that it would be 'inappropriate' of him to debate Sanders: Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women's health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be. The hashtags #BernieTrumpDebate (and variations thereof) began trending on Facebook and Twitter in anticipation of the suggested matchup.

nan

After Hillary Clinton refused to participate in a final debate, GOP candidate Donald Trump agreed to debate Democrat challenger Bernie Sanders.

Neutral

On 26 May 2016, conflicting media and social media rumors claimed that Republican frontrunner Donald Trump and Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders agreed to debate before California's primary. Previously, Clinton had agreed to but then backed out of a final debate with Sanders before the primary in California (and one in New Jersey on the same date). On 24 May 2016, a spokesperson stated that Clinton would not be participating in any further debates, due to time constraints: Hillary Clinton will not debate Bernie Sanders in California, her top campaign spokeswoman said Monday. 'As we have said previously, we plan to compete hard in the remaining primary states, particularly California, while turning our attention to the threat a Donald Trump presidency poses,' Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton's spokeswoman, said. 'We believe that Hillary Clinton's time is best spent campaigning and meeting directly with voters across California and preparing for a general election campaign that will ensure the White House remains in Democratic hands.' The report originated with Trump's 25 May 2016 appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live: The idea of a debate between the two men came up on Wednesday when Mr. Trump was appearing on 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' and Mr. Kimmel said that Mr. Sanders had passed along an invitation to Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee. Mr. Trump, who opted out of a debate in Iowa in January and decided that he would no longer participate in primary debates after the Republican field narrowed to three candidates, said he would be open to debating Mr. Sanders if the proceeds were donated to charity, although there were conflicting reports about how serious he was. Just before his interview with Kimmel, Trump knocked Clinton on Twitter for her lengthy and arduous primary contest against Sanders: Crooked Hillary Clinton just can't close the deal with Bernie. I had to knock out 16 very good and smart candidates. Hillary doesn't have it - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 25, 2016 Almost immediately after the Kimmel segment aired, Sanders tweeted a response to Trump's remarks: Game on. I look forward to debating Donald Trump in California before the June 7 primary. - Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 26, 2016 On the morning of 26 May 2016, CNN reported that Trump appeared to be serious about the prospect of debating Sanders before the California primary: Trump made it clear that he wants to follow through with the debate. 'I'd love to debate Bernie. He's a dream,' he said in Bismarck, North Dakota. 'If we can raise for maybe women's health issues or something. If we can raise $10 or $15 million for charity, which would be a very appropriate amount.' 'I understand the television business very well. I think it would get high ratings,' Trump added. The Republican nominee said his team has been in conversations with several networks about hosting the debate. 'It should be in a big arena somewhere. And we can have a lot of fun with it. I'd love to debate Bernie' he said. 'The problem with debating Bernie is he's going to lose. Because honestly his system is rigged. Just like our system is rigged.' However, those reports were soon contradicted, and then potentially reconfirmed: Donald Trump said that he would 'love to' debate Bernie Sanders, a day after discussing the prospects of a debate with the Democratic insurgent on a late night talk show. Trump laid out his conditions for a potential debate with Sanders, saying he would want it to raise '$10 million or $15 million for charity,' including women's health issues, adding he would want to do it in a large arena. Trump's high bar for the debate make such a meeting before the California primary highly unlikely, but Trump sees it as a win-win proposition, as it puts likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in a bind. Clinton declined earlier this week to debate Sanders before the June 7 vote. A Trump aide initially dismissed the candidate's openness to the debate as a joke, but the candidate again entertained the prospect after this article was published. That afternoon, Sanders followed up on Twitter to say: I am delighted that @realDonaldTrump has agreed to debate. Let's do it in the biggest stadium possible. - Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 26, 2016 As of 26 May 2016, the probability of the debate remained unclear. However, political news outlet The Hill noted that a 'bipartisan debate between the two while the primaries are still ongoing would be unprecedented.' In the latter part of the day, a spokesperson for Trump provided an ambiguous response to Reuters: Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said in an email to Reuters there were no formal plans yet for such an event. Representatives for the Sanders campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. On 27 May 2016, Donald Trump issued a statement saying that it would be 'inappropriate' of him to debate Sanders: Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women's health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be. The hashtags #BernieTrumpDebate (and variations thereof) began trending on Facebook and Twitter in anticipation of the suggested matchup.

nan

After Hillary Clinton refused to participate in a final debate, GOP candidate Donald Trump agreed to debate Democrat challenger Bernie Sanders.

Neutral

On 26 May 2016, conflicting media and social media rumors claimed that Republican frontrunner Donald Trump and Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders agreed to debate before California's primary. Previously, Clinton had agreed to but then backed out of a final debate with Sanders before the primary in California (and one in New Jersey on the same date). On 24 May 2016, a spokesperson stated that Clinton would not be participating in any further debates, due to time constraints: Hillary Clinton will not debate Bernie Sanders in California, her top campaign spokeswoman said Monday. 'As we have said previously, we plan to compete hard in the remaining primary states, particularly California, while turning our attention to the threat a Donald Trump presidency poses,' Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton's spokeswoman, said. 'We believe that Hillary Clinton's time is best spent campaigning and meeting directly with voters across California and preparing for a general election campaign that will ensure the White House remains in Democratic hands.' The report originated with Trump's 25 May 2016 appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live: The idea of a debate between the two men came up on Wednesday when Mr. Trump was appearing on 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' and Mr. Kimmel said that Mr. Sanders had passed along an invitation to Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee. Mr. Trump, who opted out of a debate in Iowa in January and decided that he would no longer participate in primary debates after the Republican field narrowed to three candidates, said he would be open to debating Mr. Sanders if the proceeds were donated to charity, although there were conflicting reports about how serious he was. Just before his interview with Kimmel, Trump knocked Clinton on Twitter for her lengthy and arduous primary contest against Sanders: Crooked Hillary Clinton just can't close the deal with Bernie. I had to knock out 16 very good and smart candidates. Hillary doesn't have it - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 25, 2016 Almost immediately after the Kimmel segment aired, Sanders tweeted a response to Trump's remarks: Game on. I look forward to debating Donald Trump in California before the June 7 primary. - Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 26, 2016 On the morning of 26 May 2016, CNN reported that Trump appeared to be serious about the prospect of debating Sanders before the California primary: Trump made it clear that he wants to follow through with the debate. 'I'd love to debate Bernie. He's a dream,' he said in Bismarck, North Dakota. 'If we can raise for maybe women's health issues or something. If we can raise $10 or $15 million for charity, which would be a very appropriate amount.' 'I understand the television business very well. I think it would get high ratings,' Trump added. The Republican nominee said his team has been in conversations with several networks about hosting the debate. 'It should be in a big arena somewhere. And we can have a lot of fun with it. I'd love to debate Bernie' he said. 'The problem with debating Bernie is he's going to lose. Because honestly his system is rigged. Just like our system is rigged.' However, those reports were soon contradicted, and then potentially reconfirmed: Donald Trump said that he would 'love to' debate Bernie Sanders, a day after discussing the prospects of a debate with the Democratic insurgent on a late night talk show. Trump laid out his conditions for a potential debate with Sanders, saying he would want it to raise '$10 million or $15 million for charity,' including women's health issues, adding he would want to do it in a large arena. Trump's high bar for the debate make such a meeting before the California primary highly unlikely, but Trump sees it as a win-win proposition, as it puts likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in a bind. Clinton declined earlier this week to debate Sanders before the June 7 vote. A Trump aide initially dismissed the candidate's openness to the debate as a joke, but the candidate again entertained the prospect after this article was published. That afternoon, Sanders followed up on Twitter to say: I am delighted that @realDonaldTrump has agreed to debate. Let's do it in the biggest stadium possible. - Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 26, 2016 As of 26 May 2016, the probability of the debate remained unclear. However, political news outlet The Hill noted that a 'bipartisan debate between the two while the primaries are still ongoing would be unprecedented.' In the latter part of the day, a spokesperson for Trump provided an ambiguous response to Reuters: Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said in an email to Reuters there were no formal plans yet for such an event. Representatives for the Sanders campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. On 27 May 2016, Donald Trump issued a statement saying that it would be 'inappropriate' of him to debate Sanders: Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women's health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be. The hashtags #BernieTrumpDebate (and variations thereof) began trending on Facebook and Twitter in anticipation of the suggested matchup.

nan

After Hillary Clinton refused to participate in a final debate, GOP candidate Donald Trump agreed to debate Democrat challenger Bernie Sanders.

Neutral

On 26 May 2016, conflicting media and social media rumors claimed that Republican frontrunner Donald Trump and Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders agreed to debate before California's primary. Previously, Clinton had agreed to but then backed out of a final debate with Sanders before the primary in California (and one in New Jersey on the same date). On 24 May 2016, a spokesperson stated that Clinton would not be participating in any further debates, due to time constraints: Hillary Clinton will not debate Bernie Sanders in California, her top campaign spokeswoman said Monday. 'As we have said previously, we plan to compete hard in the remaining primary states, particularly California, while turning our attention to the threat a Donald Trump presidency poses,' Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton's spokeswoman, said. 'We believe that Hillary Clinton's time is best spent campaigning and meeting directly with voters across California and preparing for a general election campaign that will ensure the White House remains in Democratic hands.' The report originated with Trump's 25 May 2016 appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live: The idea of a debate between the two men came up on Wednesday when Mr. Trump was appearing on 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' and Mr. Kimmel said that Mr. Sanders had passed along an invitation to Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee. Mr. Trump, who opted out of a debate in Iowa in January and decided that he would no longer participate in primary debates after the Republican field narrowed to three candidates, said he would be open to debating Mr. Sanders if the proceeds were donated to charity, although there were conflicting reports about how serious he was. Just before his interview with Kimmel, Trump knocked Clinton on Twitter for her lengthy and arduous primary contest against Sanders: Crooked Hillary Clinton just can't close the deal with Bernie. I had to knock out 16 very good and smart candidates. Hillary doesn't have it - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 25, 2016 Almost immediately after the Kimmel segment aired, Sanders tweeted a response to Trump's remarks: Game on. I look forward to debating Donald Trump in California before the June 7 primary. - Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 26, 2016 On the morning of 26 May 2016, CNN reported that Trump appeared to be serious about the prospect of debating Sanders before the California primary: Trump made it clear that he wants to follow through with the debate. 'I'd love to debate Bernie. He's a dream,' he said in Bismarck, North Dakota. 'If we can raise for maybe women's health issues or something. If we can raise $10 or $15 million for charity, which would be a very appropriate amount.' 'I understand the television business very well. I think it would get high ratings,' Trump added. The Republican nominee said his team has been in conversations with several networks about hosting the debate. 'It should be in a big arena somewhere. And we can have a lot of fun with it. I'd love to debate Bernie' he said. 'The problem with debating Bernie is he's going to lose. Because honestly his system is rigged. Just like our system is rigged.' However, those reports were soon contradicted, and then potentially reconfirmed: Donald Trump said that he would 'love to' debate Bernie Sanders, a day after discussing the prospects of a debate with the Democratic insurgent on a late night talk show. Trump laid out his conditions for a potential debate with Sanders, saying he would want it to raise '$10 million or $15 million for charity,' including women's health issues, adding he would want to do it in a large arena. Trump's high bar for the debate make such a meeting before the California primary highly unlikely, but Trump sees it as a win-win proposition, as it puts likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in a bind. Clinton declined earlier this week to debate Sanders before the June 7 vote. A Trump aide initially dismissed the candidate's openness to the debate as a joke, but the candidate again entertained the prospect after this article was published. That afternoon, Sanders followed up on Twitter to say: I am delighted that @realDonaldTrump has agreed to debate. Let's do it in the biggest stadium possible. - Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 26, 2016 As of 26 May 2016, the probability of the debate remained unclear. However, political news outlet The Hill noted that a 'bipartisan debate between the two while the primaries are still ongoing would be unprecedented.' In the latter part of the day, a spokesperson for Trump provided an ambiguous response to Reuters: Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said in an email to Reuters there were no formal plans yet for such an event. Representatives for the Sanders campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. On 27 May 2016, Donald Trump issued a statement saying that it would be 'inappropriate' of him to debate Sanders: Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women's health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be. The hashtags #BernieTrumpDebate (and variations thereof) began trending on Facebook and Twitter in anticipation of the suggested matchup.

nan

After Hillary Clinton refused to participate in a final debate, GOP candidate Donald Trump agreed to debate Democrat challenger Bernie Sanders.

Neutral

On 26 May 2016, conflicting media and social media rumors claimed that Republican frontrunner Donald Trump and Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders agreed to debate before California's primary. Previously, Clinton had agreed to but then backed out of a final debate with Sanders before the primary in California (and one in New Jersey on the same date). On 24 May 2016, a spokesperson stated that Clinton would not be participating in any further debates, due to time constraints: Hillary Clinton will not debate Bernie Sanders in California, her top campaign spokeswoman said Monday. 'As we have said previously, we plan to compete hard in the remaining primary states, particularly California, while turning our attention to the threat a Donald Trump presidency poses,' Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton's spokeswoman, said. 'We believe that Hillary Clinton's time is best spent campaigning and meeting directly with voters across California and preparing for a general election campaign that will ensure the White House remains in Democratic hands.' The report originated with Trump's 25 May 2016 appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live: The idea of a debate between the two men came up on Wednesday when Mr. Trump was appearing on 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' and Mr. Kimmel said that Mr. Sanders had passed along an invitation to Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee. Mr. Trump, who opted out of a debate in Iowa in January and decided that he would no longer participate in primary debates after the Republican field narrowed to three candidates, said he would be open to debating Mr. Sanders if the proceeds were donated to charity, although there were conflicting reports about how serious he was. Just before his interview with Kimmel, Trump knocked Clinton on Twitter for her lengthy and arduous primary contest against Sanders: Crooked Hillary Clinton just can't close the deal with Bernie. I had to knock out 16 very good and smart candidates. Hillary doesn't have it - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 25, 2016 Almost immediately after the Kimmel segment aired, Sanders tweeted a response to Trump's remarks: Game on. I look forward to debating Donald Trump in California before the June 7 primary. - Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 26, 2016 On the morning of 26 May 2016, CNN reported that Trump appeared to be serious about the prospect of debating Sanders before the California primary: Trump made it clear that he wants to follow through with the debate. 'I'd love to debate Bernie. He's a dream,' he said in Bismarck, North Dakota. 'If we can raise for maybe women's health issues or something. If we can raise $10 or $15 million for charity, which would be a very appropriate amount.' 'I understand the television business very well. I think it would get high ratings,' Trump added. The Republican nominee said his team has been in conversations with several networks about hosting the debate. 'It should be in a big arena somewhere. And we can have a lot of fun with it. I'd love to debate Bernie' he said. 'The problem with debating Bernie is he's going to lose. Because honestly his system is rigged. Just like our system is rigged.' However, those reports were soon contradicted, and then potentially reconfirmed: Donald Trump said that he would 'love to' debate Bernie Sanders, a day after discussing the prospects of a debate with the Democratic insurgent on a late night talk show. Trump laid out his conditions for a potential debate with Sanders, saying he would want it to raise '$10 million or $15 million for charity,' including women's health issues, adding he would want to do it in a large arena. Trump's high bar for the debate make such a meeting before the California primary highly unlikely, but Trump sees it as a win-win proposition, as it puts likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in a bind. Clinton declined earlier this week to debate Sanders before the June 7 vote. A Trump aide initially dismissed the candidate's openness to the debate as a joke, but the candidate again entertained the prospect after this article was published. That afternoon, Sanders followed up on Twitter to say: I am delighted that @realDonaldTrump has agreed to debate. Let's do it in the biggest stadium possible. - Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 26, 2016 As of 26 May 2016, the probability of the debate remained unclear. However, political news outlet The Hill noted that a 'bipartisan debate between the two while the primaries are still ongoing would be unprecedented.' In the latter part of the day, a spokesperson for Trump provided an ambiguous response to Reuters: Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said in an email to Reuters there were no formal plans yet for such an event. Representatives for the Sanders campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. On 27 May 2016, Donald Trump issued a statement saying that it would be 'inappropriate' of him to debate Sanders: Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women's health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be. The hashtags #BernieTrumpDebate (and variations thereof) began trending on Facebook and Twitter in anticipation of the suggested matchup.

nan

After Hillary Clinton refused to participate in a final debate, GOP candidate Donald Trump agreed to debate Democrat challenger Bernie Sanders.

Neutral

On 26 May 2016, conflicting media and social media rumors claimed that Republican frontrunner Donald Trump and Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders agreed to debate before California's primary. Previously, Clinton had agreed to but then backed out of a final debate with Sanders before the primary in California (and one in New Jersey on the same date). On 24 May 2016, a spokesperson stated that Clinton would not be participating in any further debates, due to time constraints: Hillary Clinton will not debate Bernie Sanders in California, her top campaign spokeswoman said Monday. 'As we have said previously, we plan to compete hard in the remaining primary states, particularly California, while turning our attention to the threat a Donald Trump presidency poses,' Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton's spokeswoman, said. 'We believe that Hillary Clinton's time is best spent campaigning and meeting directly with voters across California and preparing for a general election campaign that will ensure the White House remains in Democratic hands.' The report originated with Trump's 25 May 2016 appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live: The idea of a debate between the two men came up on Wednesday when Mr. Trump was appearing on 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' and Mr. Kimmel said that Mr. Sanders had passed along an invitation to Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee. Mr. Trump, who opted out of a debate in Iowa in January and decided that he would no longer participate in primary debates after the Republican field narrowed to three candidates, said he would be open to debating Mr. Sanders if the proceeds were donated to charity, although there were conflicting reports about how serious he was. Just before his interview with Kimmel, Trump knocked Clinton on Twitter for her lengthy and arduous primary contest against Sanders: Crooked Hillary Clinton just can't close the deal with Bernie. I had to knock out 16 very good and smart candidates. Hillary doesn't have it - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 25, 2016 Almost immediately after the Kimmel segment aired, Sanders tweeted a response to Trump's remarks: Game on. I look forward to debating Donald Trump in California before the June 7 primary. - Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 26, 2016 On the morning of 26 May 2016, CNN reported that Trump appeared to be serious about the prospect of debating Sanders before the California primary: Trump made it clear that he wants to follow through with the debate. 'I'd love to debate Bernie. He's a dream,' he said in Bismarck, North Dakota. 'If we can raise for maybe women's health issues or something. If we can raise $10 or $15 million for charity, which would be a very appropriate amount.' 'I understand the television business very well. I think it would get high ratings,' Trump added. The Republican nominee said his team has been in conversations with several networks about hosting the debate. 'It should be in a big arena somewhere. And we can have a lot of fun with it. I'd love to debate Bernie' he said. 'The problem with debating Bernie is he's going to lose. Because honestly his system is rigged. Just like our system is rigged.' However, those reports were soon contradicted, and then potentially reconfirmed: Donald Trump said that he would 'love to' debate Bernie Sanders, a day after discussing the prospects of a debate with the Democratic insurgent on a late night talk show. Trump laid out his conditions for a potential debate with Sanders, saying he would want it to raise '$10 million or $15 million for charity,' including women's health issues, adding he would want to do it in a large arena. Trump's high bar for the debate make such a meeting before the California primary highly unlikely, but Trump sees it as a win-win proposition, as it puts likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in a bind. Clinton declined earlier this week to debate Sanders before the June 7 vote. A Trump aide initially dismissed the candidate's openness to the debate as a joke, but the candidate again entertained the prospect after this article was published. That afternoon, Sanders followed up on Twitter to say: I am delighted that @realDonaldTrump has agreed to debate. Let's do it in the biggest stadium possible. - Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 26, 2016 As of 26 May 2016, the probability of the debate remained unclear. However, political news outlet The Hill noted that a 'bipartisan debate between the two while the primaries are still ongoing would be unprecedented.' In the latter part of the day, a spokesperson for Trump provided an ambiguous response to Reuters: Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said in an email to Reuters there were no formal plans yet for such an event. Representatives for the Sanders campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. On 27 May 2016, Donald Trump issued a statement saying that it would be 'inappropriate' of him to debate Sanders: Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women's health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be. The hashtags #BernieTrumpDebate (and variations thereof) began trending on Facebook and Twitter in anticipation of the suggested matchup.

nan

After Hillary Clinton refused to participate in a final debate, GOP candidate Donald Trump agreed to debate Democrat challenger Bernie Sanders.

Neutral

On 26 May 2016, conflicting media and social media rumors claimed that Republican frontrunner Donald Trump and Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders agreed to debate before California's primary. Previously, Clinton had agreed to but then backed out of a final debate with Sanders before the primary in California (and one in New Jersey on the same date). On 24 May 2016, a spokesperson stated that Clinton would not be participating in any further debates, due to time constraints: Hillary Clinton will not debate Bernie Sanders in California, her top campaign spokeswoman said Monday. 'As we have said previously, we plan to compete hard in the remaining primary states, particularly California, while turning our attention to the threat a Donald Trump presidency poses,' Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton's spokeswoman, said. 'We believe that Hillary Clinton's time is best spent campaigning and meeting directly with voters across California and preparing for a general election campaign that will ensure the White House remains in Democratic hands.' The report originated with Trump's 25 May 2016 appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live: The idea of a debate between the two men came up on Wednesday when Mr. Trump was appearing on 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' and Mr. Kimmel said that Mr. Sanders had passed along an invitation to Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee. Mr. Trump, who opted out of a debate in Iowa in January and decided that he would no longer participate in primary debates after the Republican field narrowed to three candidates, said he would be open to debating Mr. Sanders if the proceeds were donated to charity, although there were conflicting reports about how serious he was. Just before his interview with Kimmel, Trump knocked Clinton on Twitter for her lengthy and arduous primary contest against Sanders: Crooked Hillary Clinton just can't close the deal with Bernie. I had to knock out 16 very good and smart candidates. Hillary doesn't have it - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 25, 2016 Almost immediately after the Kimmel segment aired, Sanders tweeted a response to Trump's remarks: Game on. I look forward to debating Donald Trump in California before the June 7 primary. - Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 26, 2016 On the morning of 26 May 2016, CNN reported that Trump appeared to be serious about the prospect of debating Sanders before the California primary: Trump made it clear that he wants to follow through with the debate. 'I'd love to debate Bernie. He's a dream,' he said in Bismarck, North Dakota. 'If we can raise for maybe women's health issues or something. If we can raise $10 or $15 million for charity, which would be a very appropriate amount.' 'I understand the television business very well. I think it would get high ratings,' Trump added. The Republican nominee said his team has been in conversations with several networks about hosting the debate. 'It should be in a big arena somewhere. And we can have a lot of fun with it. I'd love to debate Bernie' he said. 'The problem with debating Bernie is he's going to lose. Because honestly his system is rigged. Just like our system is rigged.' However, those reports were soon contradicted, and then potentially reconfirmed: Donald Trump said that he would 'love to' debate Bernie Sanders, a day after discussing the prospects of a debate with the Democratic insurgent on a late night talk show. Trump laid out his conditions for a potential debate with Sanders, saying he would want it to raise '$10 million or $15 million for charity,' including women's health issues, adding he would want to do it in a large arena. Trump's high bar for the debate make such a meeting before the California primary highly unlikely, but Trump sees it as a win-win proposition, as it puts likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in a bind. Clinton declined earlier this week to debate Sanders before the June 7 vote. A Trump aide initially dismissed the candidate's openness to the debate as a joke, but the candidate again entertained the prospect after this article was published. That afternoon, Sanders followed up on Twitter to say: I am delighted that @realDonaldTrump has agreed to debate. Let's do it in the biggest stadium possible. - Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 26, 2016 As of 26 May 2016, the probability of the debate remained unclear. However, political news outlet The Hill noted that a 'bipartisan debate between the two while the primaries are still ongoing would be unprecedented.' In the latter part of the day, a spokesperson for Trump provided an ambiguous response to Reuters: Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said in an email to Reuters there were no formal plans yet for such an event. Representatives for the Sanders campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. On 27 May 2016, Donald Trump issued a statement saying that it would be 'inappropriate' of him to debate Sanders: Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women's health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be. The hashtags #BernieTrumpDebate (and variations thereof) began trending on Facebook and Twitter in anticipation of the suggested matchup.

nan

After Hillary Clinton refused to participate in a final debate, GOP candidate Donald Trump agreed to debate Democrat challenger Bernie Sanders.

Neutral

On 26 May 2016, conflicting media and social media rumors claimed that Republican frontrunner Donald Trump and Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders agreed to debate before California's primary. Previously, Clinton had agreed to but then backed out of a final debate with Sanders before the primary in California (and one in New Jersey on the same date). On 24 May 2016, a spokesperson stated that Clinton would not be participating in any further debates, due to time constraints: Hillary Clinton will not debate Bernie Sanders in California, her top campaign spokeswoman said Monday. 'As we have said previously, we plan to compete hard in the remaining primary states, particularly California, while turning our attention to the threat a Donald Trump presidency poses,' Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton's spokeswoman, said. 'We believe that Hillary Clinton's time is best spent campaigning and meeting directly with voters across California and preparing for a general election campaign that will ensure the White House remains in Democratic hands.' The report originated with Trump's 25 May 2016 appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live: The idea of a debate between the two men came up on Wednesday when Mr. Trump was appearing on 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' and Mr. Kimmel said that Mr. Sanders had passed along an invitation to Mr. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee. Mr. Trump, who opted out of a debate in Iowa in January and decided that he would no longer participate in primary debates after the Republican field narrowed to three candidates, said he would be open to debating Mr. Sanders if the proceeds were donated to charity, although there were conflicting reports about how serious he was. Just before his interview with Kimmel, Trump knocked Clinton on Twitter for her lengthy and arduous primary contest against Sanders: Crooked Hillary Clinton just can't close the deal with Bernie. I had to knock out 16 very good and smart candidates. Hillary doesn't have it - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 25, 2016 Almost immediately after the Kimmel segment aired, Sanders tweeted a response to Trump's remarks: Game on. I look forward to debating Donald Trump in California before the June 7 primary. - Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 26, 2016 On the morning of 26 May 2016, CNN reported that Trump appeared to be serious about the prospect of debating Sanders before the California primary: Trump made it clear that he wants to follow through with the debate. 'I'd love to debate Bernie. He's a dream,' he said in Bismarck, North Dakota. 'If we can raise for maybe women's health issues or something. If we can raise $10 or $15 million for charity, which would be a very appropriate amount.' 'I understand the television business very well. I think it would get high ratings,' Trump added. The Republican nominee said his team has been in conversations with several networks about hosting the debate. 'It should be in a big arena somewhere. And we can have a lot of fun with it. I'd love to debate Bernie' he said. 'The problem with debating Bernie is he's going to lose. Because honestly his system is rigged. Just like our system is rigged.' However, those reports were soon contradicted, and then potentially reconfirmed: Donald Trump said that he would 'love to' debate Bernie Sanders, a day after discussing the prospects of a debate with the Democratic insurgent on a late night talk show. Trump laid out his conditions for a potential debate with Sanders, saying he would want it to raise '$10 million or $15 million for charity,' including women's health issues, adding he would want to do it in a large arena. Trump's high bar for the debate make such a meeting before the California primary highly unlikely, but Trump sees it as a win-win proposition, as it puts likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in a bind. Clinton declined earlier this week to debate Sanders before the June 7 vote. A Trump aide initially dismissed the candidate's openness to the debate as a joke, but the candidate again entertained the prospect after this article was published. That afternoon, Sanders followed up on Twitter to say: I am delighted that @realDonaldTrump has agreed to debate. Let's do it in the biggest stadium possible. - Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) May 26, 2016 As of 26 May 2016, the probability of the debate remained unclear. However, political news outlet The Hill noted that a 'bipartisan debate between the two while the primaries are still ongoing would be unprecedented.' In the latter part of the day, a spokesperson for Trump provided an ambiguous response to Reuters: Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said in an email to Reuters there were no formal plans yet for such an event. Representatives for the Sanders campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. On 27 May 2016, Donald Trump issued a statement saying that it would be 'inappropriate' of him to debate Sanders: Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women's health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be. The hashtags #BernieTrumpDebate (and variations thereof) began trending on Facebook and Twitter in anticipation of the suggested matchup.

nan

'The Simpsons' television show predicted the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and 'murder wasp' incursion in a 1993 episode.

Neutral

The animated television comedy series 'The Simpsons' has been said, in its 30-plus years on air, to have predicted numerous events that came to pass only well after particular episodes that referenced them had aired - everything from the common autocorrect feature on phones, tablets and computers to the 2019 fire at the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris. Many of those so-called 'predictions' were simply hoaxes (created by altering screenshots or misrepresenting the timing of episodes), and even those that might have rung true weren't astonishingly remarkable for a show that lampoons American culture, society, and many aspects of the human condition - 'anticipated' might be a better word than 'predicted' for such cases. Nonetheless, in April 2020 a 1993 episode of 'The Simpsons' was claimed to have predicted both the outbreak of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease and the incursion of 'murder hornets' into the U.S. - events that were prominent news items some 27 years after 'The Simpsons' episode in question originally aired: Shit the simpsons really did predict 2020 pic.twitter.com/dadM5jvLrB - Eddie D'ohgrou (@didgeridougrou) May 6, 2020 This item is 'true' in the sense that the referenced clip is unaltered and dated correctly, but the predictive powers attributed to it are rather weak. The episode this clip was taken from, 'Marge in Chains,' originally aired on May 6, 1993. In that episode, Springfield was hit by an outbreak of 'Osaka Flu,' transmitted via an infected worker in Japan who boxed up packages of Juice Looseners to be shipped to customers in the U.S.: When townspeople gather at Dr. Hibbert's medical clinic to demand a cure for the Osaka Flu, the doctor informs them that the only useful treatment for the illness is bed rest, and that anything he gave them would just be a placebo. The gathered crowd then tips over a nearby truck in search of 'placebos,' thereby breaking and unleashing a crate full of 'killer bees': Although some similarities to events of 2020 are evident here - the spread of an illness believed to have originated in Asia and an insect with a homicidal name - they're rather loosely connected and are more commentary on past events than predictors of future ones, as 'Marge in Chains' co-writer Bill Oakley told the Hollywood Reporter (THR): 'I don't like [the episode] being used for nefarious purposes,' Oakley told THR of 'Marge in Chains,' which he wrote with Josh Weinstein. 'The idea that anyone misappropriates it to make coronavirus seem like an Asian plot is terrible. In terms of trying to place blame on Asia - I think that is gross.' 'I believe the most antecedent to [Osaka Flu] was the Hong Kong flu of 1968,' Oakley says, adding he was aware of that flu from news headlines during childhood. 'It was just supposed to be a quick joke about how the flu got here.' He continues, 'It was meant to be absurd that someone could cough into a box and the virus would survive for six to eight weeks in the box. It is cartoonish. We intentionally made it cartoonish because we wanted it to be silly and not scary, and not carry any of these bad associations along with it, which is why the virus itself was acting like a cartoon character and behaving in extremely unrealistic ways.' (At one point, one cloud of the virus waits at a red light when another cloud goes down the street with a green light.) Oakley also opined that, 'There are very few cases where 'The Simpsons' predicted something. It's mainly just coincidence because the episodes are so old that history repeats itself. Most of these episodes are based on things that happened in the '60s, '70s or '80s that we knew about.'

nan

'The Simpsons' television show predicted the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and 'murder wasp' incursion in a 1993 episode.

Neutral

The animated television comedy series 'The Simpsons' has been said, in its 30-plus years on air, to have predicted numerous events that came to pass only well after particular episodes that referenced them had aired - everything from the common autocorrect feature on phones, tablets and computers to the 2019 fire at the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris. Many of those so-called 'predictions' were simply hoaxes (created by altering screenshots or misrepresenting the timing of episodes), and even those that might have rung true weren't astonishingly remarkable for a show that lampoons American culture, society, and many aspects of the human condition - 'anticipated' might be a better word than 'predicted' for such cases. Nonetheless, in April 2020 a 1993 episode of 'The Simpsons' was claimed to have predicted both the outbreak of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease and the incursion of 'murder hornets' into the U.S. - events that were prominent news items some 27 years after 'The Simpsons' episode in question originally aired: Shit the simpsons really did predict 2020 pic.twitter.com/dadM5jvLrB - Eddie D'ohgrou (@didgeridougrou) May 6, 2020 This item is 'true' in the sense that the referenced clip is unaltered and dated correctly, but the predictive powers attributed to it are rather weak. The episode this clip was taken from, 'Marge in Chains,' originally aired on May 6, 1993. In that episode, Springfield was hit by an outbreak of 'Osaka Flu,' transmitted via an infected worker in Japan who boxed up packages of Juice Looseners to be shipped to customers in the U.S.: When townspeople gather at Dr. Hibbert's medical clinic to demand a cure for the Osaka Flu, the doctor informs them that the only useful treatment for the illness is bed rest, and that anything he gave them would just be a placebo. The gathered crowd then tips over a nearby truck in search of 'placebos,' thereby breaking and unleashing a crate full of 'killer bees': Although some similarities to events of 2020 are evident here - the spread of an illness believed to have originated in Asia and an insect with a homicidal name - they're rather loosely connected and are more commentary on past events than predictors of future ones, as 'Marge in Chains' co-writer Bill Oakley told the Hollywood Reporter (THR): 'I don't like [the episode] being used for nefarious purposes,' Oakley told THR of 'Marge in Chains,' which he wrote with Josh Weinstein. 'The idea that anyone misappropriates it to make coronavirus seem like an Asian plot is terrible. In terms of trying to place blame on Asia - I think that is gross.' 'I believe the most antecedent to [Osaka Flu] was the Hong Kong flu of 1968,' Oakley says, adding he was aware of that flu from news headlines during childhood. 'It was just supposed to be a quick joke about how the flu got here.' He continues, 'It was meant to be absurd that someone could cough into a box and the virus would survive for six to eight weeks in the box. It is cartoonish. We intentionally made it cartoonish because we wanted it to be silly and not scary, and not carry any of these bad associations along with it, which is why the virus itself was acting like a cartoon character and behaving in extremely unrealistic ways.' (At one point, one cloud of the virus waits at a red light when another cloud goes down the street with a green light.) Oakley also opined that, 'There are very few cases where 'The Simpsons' predicted something. It's mainly just coincidence because the episodes are so old that history repeats itself. Most of these episodes are based on things that happened in the '60s, '70s or '80s that we knew about.'

nan

HR 1313 would allow employers to force workers to disclose their genetic information

Neutral

On 8 March 2017, the House Committee on Education and and the Workforce moved forward with a bill that has been criticized by both geneticists and disability advocates for allegedly placing the privacy of workers' genetic records at risk. H.R. 1313 states that employers may provide additional insurance premium discounts to workers who take part in their companies' voluntary wellness programs. Once enrolled, the bill says, businesses are allowed to collect 'information about the manifested disease or disorder of a family member' of participating employees. The bill, which was sponsored by committee chair Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), does not in and of itself require employees to enroll in such programs. But it notes that according to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, employers could reduce annual health insurance premiums by up to 50 percent for employees who did take part. A spokesperson for the committee told us via e-mail that such programs would continue to be voluntary if the bill became law: If a worker chooses to voluntarily participate in an employee wellness program, they would then typically participate in a health risk assessment. This has long been the case for employee wellness programs, including employee wellness programs promoted by the Affordable Care Act, and it would continue to be true for employee wellness programs under H.R. 1313. A May 2016 ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) stated that premiums could be cut by 30 percent for individuals and 60 percent for couples who enrolled in such programs. But under the new bill, premiums could be cut by up to 50 percent. The EEOC has also sued employers accused of imposing penalties on workers who refused to join their wellness programs. The American Society of Human Genetics criticized the bill, saying that it would 'fundamentally undermine' the privacy protections covered by the the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA): A key component of ADA and GINA is that they prevent workers and their families from being coerced into sharing sensitive medical or genetic information with their employer. For GINA, genetic information encompasses not only employees' genetic test results but also their family medical histories. H.R.1313 would effectively repeal these protections by allowing employers to ask employees invasive questions about their and their families' health, including genetic tests they, their spouses, and their children may have undergone. GINA's requirement that employees' genetic information collected through a workplace wellness program only be shared with health care professionals would no longer apply. National Council on Disability chair Clyde Terry said in a letter to Foxx and the committee's ranking member, Rep. Robert C. Scott (D-VA) that the increase in potential premium cuts for employees in their workplace programs 'opens the door to discrimination by employers.' Terry wrote: NCD had urged the EEOC to promulgate that regulation and was appreciative of the agency's attempt to allow employers to carry out effective wellness programs while limiting the potential for coercion that could lead employees to submit to medical examinations and inquiries regarding information that they otherwise would have preferred to keep confidential. The reward permitted under this legislation seem to tip that delicate balance. The GINA bill, which was passed in 2008, also prohibits employers from using genetic information as the basis for hiring, terminating, or promoting their employees. But both that measure and the ADA contain exceptions for wellness programs. Vendors operating the programs are often not required to follow the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which restricts the information doctors and hospitals can share regarding their patients. In a statement supporting the bill, GOP Rep. Bradley Byrne of Alabama accused the EEOC of trying to 'undermine' efforts to lower health care costs through the use of wellness programs: These plans are not only effective, but they are also popular and widely supported by employers and employees. A recent survey showed more than 60 percent of all employers offer their employees the option of enrolling in a wellness program. And this free-market health care solution has long received bipartisan support from Congress. A 2015 study found that 81 percent of U.S. companies with more than 200 employees offer wellness programs, while 49 percent of companies with smaller workforces do the same. The bill has been forwarded to the House Ways and Means Committee.Arturo Garcia American Society of Human Genetics Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act House Committee on Education and and the Workforce Sources American Society of Human Genetics. 'ASHG Opposes H.R.1313, the Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act Bill Would Undermine Genetic Privacy Protections.' 8 March 2017. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 'Genetic Information Discrimination.' Mole, Beth. 'Wellness Programs Strong-Arm Employees Into Giving Up Health Info, Suit Says.' Ars Technica. 26 October 2016. Hancock, Jay. 'Workplace Wellness Programs Put Employee Privacy at Risk.' Kaiser Health News. 28 September 2015. Terry, Clyde. 'NCD Letter to House Committee on Education and the Workforce on the H.R. 1313, 'Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act.' National Council on Disability. 7 March 2017. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. '2015 Employer Health Benefits Survey.' 22 September 2015.

nan

HR 1313 would allow employers to force workers to disclose their genetic information

Neutral

On 8 March 2017, the House Committee on Education and and the Workforce moved forward with a bill that has been criticized by both geneticists and disability advocates for allegedly placing the privacy of workers' genetic records at risk. H.R. 1313 states that employers may provide additional insurance premium discounts to workers who take part in their companies' voluntary wellness programs. Once enrolled, the bill says, businesses are allowed to collect 'information about the manifested disease or disorder of a family member' of participating employees. The bill, which was sponsored by committee chair Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), does not in and of itself require employees to enroll in such programs. But it notes that according to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, employers could reduce annual health insurance premiums by up to 50 percent for employees who did take part. A spokesperson for the committee told us via e-mail that such programs would continue to be voluntary if the bill became law: If a worker chooses to voluntarily participate in an employee wellness program, they would then typically participate in a health risk assessment. This has long been the case for employee wellness programs, including employee wellness programs promoted by the Affordable Care Act, and it would continue to be true for employee wellness programs under H.R. 1313. A May 2016 ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) stated that premiums could be cut by 30 percent for individuals and 60 percent for couples who enrolled in such programs. But under the new bill, premiums could be cut by up to 50 percent. The EEOC has also sued employers accused of imposing penalties on workers who refused to join their wellness programs. The American Society of Human Genetics criticized the bill, saying that it would 'fundamentally undermine' the privacy protections covered by the the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA): A key component of ADA and GINA is that they prevent workers and their families from being coerced into sharing sensitive medical or genetic information with their employer. For GINA, genetic information encompasses not only employees' genetic test results but also their family medical histories. H.R.1313 would effectively repeal these protections by allowing employers to ask employees invasive questions about their and their families' health, including genetic tests they, their spouses, and their children may have undergone. GINA's requirement that employees' genetic information collected through a workplace wellness program only be shared with health care professionals would no longer apply. National Council on Disability chair Clyde Terry said in a letter to Foxx and the committee's ranking member, Rep. Robert C. Scott (D-VA) that the increase in potential premium cuts for employees in their workplace programs 'opens the door to discrimination by employers.' Terry wrote: NCD had urged the EEOC to promulgate that regulation and was appreciative of the agency's attempt to allow employers to carry out effective wellness programs while limiting the potential for coercion that could lead employees to submit to medical examinations and inquiries regarding information that they otherwise would have preferred to keep confidential. The reward permitted under this legislation seem to tip that delicate balance. The GINA bill, which was passed in 2008, also prohibits employers from using genetic information as the basis for hiring, terminating, or promoting their employees. But both that measure and the ADA contain exceptions for wellness programs. Vendors operating the programs are often not required to follow the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which restricts the information doctors and hospitals can share regarding their patients. In a statement supporting the bill, GOP Rep. Bradley Byrne of Alabama accused the EEOC of trying to 'undermine' efforts to lower health care costs through the use of wellness programs: These plans are not only effective, but they are also popular and widely supported by employers and employees. A recent survey showed more than 60 percent of all employers offer their employees the option of enrolling in a wellness program. And this free-market health care solution has long received bipartisan support from Congress. A 2015 study found that 81 percent of U.S. companies with more than 200 employees offer wellness programs, while 49 percent of companies with smaller workforces do the same. The bill has been forwarded to the House Ways and Means Committee.Arturo Garcia American Society of Human Genetics Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act House Committee on Education and and the Workforce Sources American Society of Human Genetics. 'ASHG Opposes H.R.1313, the Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act Bill Would Undermine Genetic Privacy Protections.' 8 March 2017. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 'Genetic Information Discrimination.' Mole, Beth. 'Wellness Programs Strong-Arm Employees Into Giving Up Health Info, Suit Says.' Ars Technica. 26 October 2016. Hancock, Jay. 'Workplace Wellness Programs Put Employee Privacy at Risk.' Kaiser Health News. 28 September 2015. Terry, Clyde. 'NCD Letter to House Committee on Education and the Workforce on the H.R. 1313, 'Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act.' National Council on Disability. 7 March 2017. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. '2015 Employer Health Benefits Survey.' 22 September 2015.

nan

HR 1313 would allow employers to force workers to disclose their genetic information

Neutral

On 8 March 2017, the House Committee on Education and and the Workforce moved forward with a bill that has been criticized by both geneticists and disability advocates for allegedly placing the privacy of workers' genetic records at risk. H.R. 1313 states that employers may provide additional insurance premium discounts to workers who take part in their companies' voluntary wellness programs. Once enrolled, the bill says, businesses are allowed to collect 'information about the manifested disease or disorder of a family member' of participating employees. The bill, which was sponsored by committee chair Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), does not in and of itself require employees to enroll in such programs. But it notes that according to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, employers could reduce annual health insurance premiums by up to 50 percent for employees who did take part. A spokesperson for the committee told us via e-mail that such programs would continue to be voluntary if the bill became law: If a worker chooses to voluntarily participate in an employee wellness program, they would then typically participate in a health risk assessment. This has long been the case for employee wellness programs, including employee wellness programs promoted by the Affordable Care Act, and it would continue to be true for employee wellness programs under H.R. 1313. A May 2016 ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) stated that premiums could be cut by 30 percent for individuals and 60 percent for couples who enrolled in such programs. But under the new bill, premiums could be cut by up to 50 percent. The EEOC has also sued employers accused of imposing penalties on workers who refused to join their wellness programs. The American Society of Human Genetics criticized the bill, saying that it would 'fundamentally undermine' the privacy protections covered by the the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA): A key component of ADA and GINA is that they prevent workers and their families from being coerced into sharing sensitive medical or genetic information with their employer. For GINA, genetic information encompasses not only employees' genetic test results but also their family medical histories. H.R.1313 would effectively repeal these protections by allowing employers to ask employees invasive questions about their and their families' health, including genetic tests they, their spouses, and their children may have undergone. GINA's requirement that employees' genetic information collected through a workplace wellness program only be shared with health care professionals would no longer apply. National Council on Disability chair Clyde Terry said in a letter to Foxx and the committee's ranking member, Rep. Robert C. Scott (D-VA) that the increase in potential premium cuts for employees in their workplace programs 'opens the door to discrimination by employers.' Terry wrote: NCD had urged the EEOC to promulgate that regulation and was appreciative of the agency's attempt to allow employers to carry out effective wellness programs while limiting the potential for coercion that could lead employees to submit to medical examinations and inquiries regarding information that they otherwise would have preferred to keep confidential. The reward permitted under this legislation seem to tip that delicate balance. The GINA bill, which was passed in 2008, also prohibits employers from using genetic information as the basis for hiring, terminating, or promoting their employees. But both that measure and the ADA contain exceptions for wellness programs. Vendors operating the programs are often not required to follow the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which restricts the information doctors and hospitals can share regarding their patients. In a statement supporting the bill, GOP Rep. Bradley Byrne of Alabama accused the EEOC of trying to 'undermine' efforts to lower health care costs through the use of wellness programs: These plans are not only effective, but they are also popular and widely supported by employers and employees. A recent survey showed more than 60 percent of all employers offer their employees the option of enrolling in a wellness program. And this free-market health care solution has long received bipartisan support from Congress. A 2015 study found that 81 percent of U.S. companies with more than 200 employees offer wellness programs, while 49 percent of companies with smaller workforces do the same. The bill has been forwarded to the House Ways and Means Committee.Arturo Garcia American Society of Human Genetics Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act House Committee on Education and and the Workforce Sources American Society of Human Genetics. 'ASHG Opposes H.R.1313, the Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act Bill Would Undermine Genetic Privacy Protections.' 8 March 2017. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 'Genetic Information Discrimination.' Mole, Beth. 'Wellness Programs Strong-Arm Employees Into Giving Up Health Info, Suit Says.' Ars Technica. 26 October 2016. Hancock, Jay. 'Workplace Wellness Programs Put Employee Privacy at Risk.' Kaiser Health News. 28 September 2015. Terry, Clyde. 'NCD Letter to House Committee on Education and the Workforce on the H.R. 1313, 'Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act.' National Council on Disability. 7 March 2017. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. '2015 Employer Health Benefits Survey.' 22 September 2015.

nan

HR 1313 would allow employers to force workers to disclose their genetic information

Neutral

On 8 March 2017, the House Committee on Education and and the Workforce moved forward with a bill that has been criticized by both geneticists and disability advocates for allegedly placing the privacy of workers' genetic records at risk. H.R. 1313 states that employers may provide additional insurance premium discounts to workers who take part in their companies' voluntary wellness programs. Once enrolled, the bill says, businesses are allowed to collect 'information about the manifested disease or disorder of a family member' of participating employees. The bill, which was sponsored by committee chair Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), does not in and of itself require employees to enroll in such programs. But it notes that according to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, employers could reduce annual health insurance premiums by up to 50 percent for employees who did take part. A spokesperson for the committee told us via e-mail that such programs would continue to be voluntary if the bill became law: If a worker chooses to voluntarily participate in an employee wellness program, they would then typically participate in a health risk assessment. This has long been the case for employee wellness programs, including employee wellness programs promoted by the Affordable Care Act, and it would continue to be true for employee wellness programs under H.R. 1313. A May 2016 ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) stated that premiums could be cut by 30 percent for individuals and 60 percent for couples who enrolled in such programs. But under the new bill, premiums could be cut by up to 50 percent. The EEOC has also sued employers accused of imposing penalties on workers who refused to join their wellness programs. The American Society of Human Genetics criticized the bill, saying that it would 'fundamentally undermine' the privacy protections covered by the the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA): A key component of ADA and GINA is that they prevent workers and their families from being coerced into sharing sensitive medical or genetic information with their employer. For GINA, genetic information encompasses not only employees' genetic test results but also their family medical histories. H.R.1313 would effectively repeal these protections by allowing employers to ask employees invasive questions about their and their families' health, including genetic tests they, their spouses, and their children may have undergone. GINA's requirement that employees' genetic information collected through a workplace wellness program only be shared with health care professionals would no longer apply. National Council on Disability chair Clyde Terry said in a letter to Foxx and the committee's ranking member, Rep. Robert C. Scott (D-VA) that the increase in potential premium cuts for employees in their workplace programs 'opens the door to discrimination by employers.' Terry wrote: NCD had urged the EEOC to promulgate that regulation and was appreciative of the agency's attempt to allow employers to carry out effective wellness programs while limiting the potential for coercion that could lead employees to submit to medical examinations and inquiries regarding information that they otherwise would have preferred to keep confidential. The reward permitted under this legislation seem to tip that delicate balance. The GINA bill, which was passed in 2008, also prohibits employers from using genetic information as the basis for hiring, terminating, or promoting their employees. But both that measure and the ADA contain exceptions for wellness programs. Vendors operating the programs are often not required to follow the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which restricts the information doctors and hospitals can share regarding their patients. In a statement supporting the bill, GOP Rep. Bradley Byrne of Alabama accused the EEOC of trying to 'undermine' efforts to lower health care costs through the use of wellness programs: These plans are not only effective, but they are also popular and widely supported by employers and employees. A recent survey showed more than 60 percent of all employers offer their employees the option of enrolling in a wellness program. And this free-market health care solution has long received bipartisan support from Congress. A 2015 study found that 81 percent of U.S. companies with more than 200 employees offer wellness programs, while 49 percent of companies with smaller workforces do the same. The bill has been forwarded to the House Ways and Means Committee.Arturo Garcia American Society of Human Genetics Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act House Committee on Education and and the Workforce Sources American Society of Human Genetics. 'ASHG Opposes H.R.1313, the Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act Bill Would Undermine Genetic Privacy Protections.' 8 March 2017. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 'Genetic Information Discrimination.' Mole, Beth. 'Wellness Programs Strong-Arm Employees Into Giving Up Health Info, Suit Says.' Ars Technica. 26 October 2016. Hancock, Jay. 'Workplace Wellness Programs Put Employee Privacy at Risk.' Kaiser Health News. 28 September 2015. Terry, Clyde. 'NCD Letter to House Committee on Education and the Workforce on the H.R. 1313, 'Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act.' National Council on Disability. 7 March 2017. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. '2015 Employer Health Benefits Survey.' 22 September 2015.

nan

A California resident died hours after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.

Neutral

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. Authorities have concluded their investigation of a Northern California resident who died within hours of receiving the COVID-19 vaccine in late January 2021. According to the Placer County Sheriff's Office (PCSO), a 64-year-old unnamed male, who was employed as a healthcare worker, was administered the SARS-CoV-2 immunization several hours before his death on Jan. 21. However, officials reported in a Jan. 30 update that a clinical examination and lab results determined that the COVID-19 vaccine was 'ruled out as a contributing factor in the individual's death.' 'The individual began complaining of side effects within ten minutes of vaccination, which led to our decision to inform the public of the investigation occurring,' wrote the PCSO in an update shared to Facebook. 'Through our investigation, we have learned more details about the individual. We have learned that not only had he recently been diagnosed with COVID-19, he also had underlying health issues, and had been exhibiting symptoms of illness at the time the vaccine was administered.' Snopes contacted PCSO Public Information Officer Angela Musallan, whose department also oversees communication for the county coroner's office, who confirmed the details of the Jan. 30 update. According to an initial Facebook post shared by the sheriff's office on Jan. 23, the individual had tested positive for the novel coronavirus in late December 2020. However, the department did not release any additional details at the time as to the cause of his death. And although some news reports alluded to a possible link between receiving the vaccine and the individual's death, there was no conclusive evidence that this was the case. Furthermore, it was not clear whether the individual received the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, or who administered the vaccine. The sheriff's department said that the vaccine was not administered by Placer County Public Health, but did not specify the circumstances under which the individual was vaccinated. Snopes contacted the sheriff's department at the time, which declined to provide additional information. 'There are multiple local, state, and federal agencies actively investigating this case; any reports surrounding the cause of death are premature, pending the outcome of the investigation. Our thoughts are with the family of the deceased,' stated the County of Placer Public Health and Sheriff-Coroner in a news release published on Jan. 23. A report published by CBS Sacramento described an anonymous woman who wrote on Facebook that the person who died was her 56-year-old grandfather. She alleged that the man died after experiencing an allergic reaction to the vaccination. She reportedly wrote: Twenty minutes later he realized his legs felt tingly and he was having shortness of breath. He was wheeled out in an ambulance...1 hour later he was in ICU on a ventilator and three hours later he passed away. Hearing this broke my families [sic] heart as he has taken care of my grandpa for years, and was there helping as we were coming to say our goodbyes. Snopes contacted the publication in an attempt to identify the woman and was told by reporter Marissa Perlman that the alleged granddaughter asked to remain anonymous. A report published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on Jan. 14, 2021, noted that a small percentage of vaccine recipients may experience anaphylaxis, a rare and severe life-threatening allergic reaction, after vaccination. Of more than 1.8 million first doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the agency detected 21 cases of anaphylaxis, nearly three-quarters of which occurred within 15 minutes of vaccination. 'Based on early safety monitoring, anaphylaxis after the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine appears to be a rare event,' wrote the CDC. 'However, comparisons of anaphylaxis risk with that associated with non-COVID-19 vaccines are constrained at this time by the limited data available this early in the COVID-19 vaccination program.' Although the vaccine carries with it a rare risk of an allergic reaction, the CDC recommended in January 2021 that people still receive their immunization - even if they've already been diagnosed with COVID-19. But with that recommendation comes a small caveat: If a person was treated for COVID-19 symptoms with monoclonal antibodies or convalescent plasma, it is suggested they wait 90 days before receiving the vaccine. Snopes contacted California Health & Human Services, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the Yale Public School of Health for further clarification about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine. We will update this article if we receive more information.Recent Updates [Feb. 16, 2021]: This article was updated to include a Jan. 30, 2021, statement issued by the Placer County Sheriff's Office. Update [Jan. 29, 2021]: This article was updated to include comments from CBS Sacramento reporter Marissa Perlman.

nan

Donald Trump once said: 'You never blame yourself; you have to blame something else. If you do something bad, never, ever blame yourself.

Neutral

On March 13, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump said during a press conference that he 'didn't take responsibility at all' for the government's lagging behind other countries in terms of testing for new cases of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease after it was first detected in the United States (see video here). This led to some renewed interest in an old quote ostensibly uttered by Trump and supposedly published in a 2005 issue of The Sun: The alleged quote reads: 'You never blame yourself. You have to blame something else. If you do something bad, never, ever blame yourself.' We have been unable to verify the authenticity of this quote, nor have we been able to confirm that this image shows a genuine copy of The Sun from Sept. 12, 2005. We reached out to The Sun for comment and will update this article if more information becomes available. We did find an instance of this quote in a 2004 article from the celebrity news agency WENN that was published on Contact Music. This 2004 story, however, is very light on details and provides no information about where, when, or in what context Trump made the comment. The fact that this quote has been online since at least 2004 lends some credence to the idea that it is a genuine comment from Trump. Many of the fake quotes we encounter, for instance, are modern inventions that are only presented, perhaps in a fake newspaper clip, as if they were years old. However, we have been unable to find any other sources for this quote or any verifiable information about when and where it was said. As such, we've rated the truth of this claim as 'Unproven.' Trump has made other statements regarding blame. In October 2017, for instance, Trump was speaking about how his administration wasn't following through on its agenda before he shifted the blame to Congress: 'We're not getting the job done ... And I'm not going to blame myself. I'll be honest: They are not getting the job done.' Before taking office, Trump expressed a different opinion about 'where the buck stops.' In November 2013, he posted the following message on Twitter: Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.

nan

Donald Trump once said: 'You never blame yourself; you have to blame something else. If you do something bad, never, ever blame yourself.

Neutral

On March 13, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump said during a press conference that he 'didn't take responsibility at all' for the government's lagging behind other countries in terms of testing for new cases of the COVID-19 coronavirus disease after it was first detected in the United States (see video here). This led to some renewed interest in an old quote ostensibly uttered by Trump and supposedly published in a 2005 issue of The Sun: The alleged quote reads: 'You never blame yourself. You have to blame something else. If you do something bad, never, ever blame yourself.' We have been unable to verify the authenticity of this quote, nor have we been able to confirm that this image shows a genuine copy of The Sun from Sept. 12, 2005. We reached out to The Sun for comment and will update this article if more information becomes available. We did find an instance of this quote in a 2004 article from the celebrity news agency WENN that was published on Contact Music. This 2004 story, however, is very light on details and provides no information about where, when, or in what context Trump made the comment. The fact that this quote has been online since at least 2004 lends some credence to the idea that it is a genuine comment from Trump. Many of the fake quotes we encounter, for instance, are modern inventions that are only presented, perhaps in a fake newspaper clip, as if they were years old. However, we have been unable to find any other sources for this quote or any verifiable information about when and where it was said. As such, we've rated the truth of this claim as 'Unproven.' Trump has made other statements regarding blame. In October 2017, for instance, Trump was speaking about how his administration wasn't following through on its agenda before he shifted the blame to Congress: 'We're not getting the job done ... And I'm not going to blame myself. I'll be honest: They are not getting the job done.' Before taking office, Trump expressed a different opinion about 'where the buck stops.' In November 2013, he posted the following message on Twitter: Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.

nan

Devin Nunes' financial wealth is invested in a wine company with 'strong ties' to Russia.

Neutral

On 22 March 2017, liberal blogs such as the Palmer Report and Addicting Info posted stories that said House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes had business ties to Russia, because a winery he is invested in sold wine bottles in Russia through a Russian beverage distributor: According to Scott Dworkin of the respected Democratic Coalition Against Trump, the Nunes' winery has a Russian distributor who is close to Vladimir Putin. This means Nunes has the vast majority of his small net worth tied up in a business venture which partially relies on sales in Russia. At the least, Nunes benefits greatly if Trump remains in office long enough to continue repealing Russian sanctions. Is this why Nunes is so desperate to protect Trump? The Palmer Report post quoted above contained a link to a table published by the Los Angeles Times listing Nunes' financial wealth. (The Times provided information for all California members of Congress, not just Nunes, who was listed by the publication as 37th in wealth out of 55 legislators.) Nunes reported having $50,001 invested in Alpha Omega Winery, a family-owned Napa Valley-based business. According to Alpha Omega spokeswoman Kelly Carter, the winery's founder Robin Bagget invited Nunes and a few other personal friends to invest in his winery in 2005. It opened for business in 2006. Carter sent us a company statement by e-mail: The only time Alpha Omega did business in Russia was in 2013 when a broker handled a one-time transaction for 22 cases of wine. Rep. Devin Nunes is one of a few friends Alpha Omega managing partner Robin Baggett invited to invest in the winery in 2005. None of the investors has ever been involved with the management of the company. Robin is the sole managing partner and ultimate decision maker at Alpha Omega. Robin has made a point to never mix politics with the business of Alpha Omega. Our business model is simple: grow great grapes, make great wine, hire great people and provide our customers with a great experience. The Russian alcohol broker Luding was listed on the winery's web site as a distributor, but was removed. Screen shots of the page were posted to social media along with the claim that it proved Russian ties between the winery and Russian President Vladimir Putin: Rep Devin Nunes owns part of a winery-that has Russian distributor-who's close to Putin#trumprussia #russiagate #resist #trumpLeaks #trump pic.twitter.com/It1C4ZLfZi - Scott Dworkin (@funder) February 27, 2017 There is no evidence that Alpha Omega Winery has any substantive business relationship with Russian wine brokers. According to Carter, the company's primary business is in the United States: 90 percent of sales are direct-to-customer, and only 10 percent of sales are through distributors. Most of the distribution occurs in the United States, with some sales in various countries, such as Canada, Japan, China, Switzerland and Thailand. Carter confirmed that Luding was the broker that sells Alpha Omega's wine to Russian customers, but added the information was removed from the California winery's web site because it was out of date. Luding still lists Alpha Omega on its web site as a supplier, along with six other U.S. wineries. Purchasers can select one of three offerings from Alpha Omega (which were, as the company stated, from vintages prior to 2013: a 2009 cabernet sauvignon, a 2010 proprietary red or a 2012 chardonnay). Luding also lists wine makers from 31 other countries among its suppliers including France, Spain, Italy, South Africa and New Zealand. Scott Dworkin, a community organizer for Democratic Coalition Against Trump, tweeted to his 111,000 followers that that Luding was 'close' to Russian president Vladimir Putin, with the only proof being that they had offered Putin a birthday greeting and gift basket in 2007. We have not received a response from Nunes' spokesman, Jack Langer. However, we don't find the fact that Alpha Omega Winery sold wine to a distributor in Russia proves that Nunes has any improper business interests in Russia relating to his wine investment. If the company's statement is true that the wine was sold to Luding for distribution in Russia in 2013, that would place the transaction well before the Russian government was accused of meddling in the 2016 presidential election. There also doesn't seem to be anything suspicious at face value about California wine being sold in Russia - Luding sells wine from all over the world to its customers.Bethania Palma russia russia manipulating the election trump administration Sources Palmer, Bill. 'Devin Nunes Has Most of His Net Worth Tied Up in a Company That Does Business in Russia.' Palmer Report. 22 March 2017. Christensen, Rika. 'BOMBSHELL: Devin Nunes' Entire Net Worth Sunk in Company with Strong Ties to Russia.' AddictingInfo. 22 March 2017. The Los Angeles Times. 'How Many Millionaires Does California Send to Congress?' 3 November 2015.

nan

Devin Nunes' financial wealth is invested in a wine company with 'strong ties' to Russia.

Neutral

On 22 March 2017, liberal blogs such as the Palmer Report and Addicting Info posted stories that said House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes had business ties to Russia, because a winery he is invested in sold wine bottles in Russia through a Russian beverage distributor: According to Scott Dworkin of the respected Democratic Coalition Against Trump, the Nunes' winery has a Russian distributor who is close to Vladimir Putin. This means Nunes has the vast majority of his small net worth tied up in a business venture which partially relies on sales in Russia. At the least, Nunes benefits greatly if Trump remains in office long enough to continue repealing Russian sanctions. Is this why Nunes is so desperate to protect Trump? The Palmer Report post quoted above contained a link to a table published by the Los Angeles Times listing Nunes' financial wealth. (The Times provided information for all California members of Congress, not just Nunes, who was listed by the publication as 37th in wealth out of 55 legislators.) Nunes reported having $50,001 invested in Alpha Omega Winery, a family-owned Napa Valley-based business. According to Alpha Omega spokeswoman Kelly Carter, the winery's founder Robin Bagget invited Nunes and a few other personal friends to invest in his winery in 2005. It opened for business in 2006. Carter sent us a company statement by e-mail: The only time Alpha Omega did business in Russia was in 2013 when a broker handled a one-time transaction for 22 cases of wine. Rep. Devin Nunes is one of a few friends Alpha Omega managing partner Robin Baggett invited to invest in the winery in 2005. None of the investors has ever been involved with the management of the company. Robin is the sole managing partner and ultimate decision maker at Alpha Omega. Robin has made a point to never mix politics with the business of Alpha Omega. Our business model is simple: grow great grapes, make great wine, hire great people and provide our customers with a great experience. The Russian alcohol broker Luding was listed on the winery's web site as a distributor, but was removed. Screen shots of the page were posted to social media along with the claim that it proved Russian ties between the winery and Russian President Vladimir Putin: Rep Devin Nunes owns part of a winery-that has Russian distributor-who's close to Putin#trumprussia #russiagate #resist #trumpLeaks #trump pic.twitter.com/It1C4ZLfZi - Scott Dworkin (@funder) February 27, 2017 There is no evidence that Alpha Omega Winery has any substantive business relationship with Russian wine brokers. According to Carter, the company's primary business is in the United States: 90 percent of sales are direct-to-customer, and only 10 percent of sales are through distributors. Most of the distribution occurs in the United States, with some sales in various countries, such as Canada, Japan, China, Switzerland and Thailand. Carter confirmed that Luding was the broker that sells Alpha Omega's wine to Russian customers, but added the information was removed from the California winery's web site because it was out of date. Luding still lists Alpha Omega on its web site as a supplier, along with six other U.S. wineries. Purchasers can select one of three offerings from Alpha Omega (which were, as the company stated, from vintages prior to 2013: a 2009 cabernet sauvignon, a 2010 proprietary red or a 2012 chardonnay). Luding also lists wine makers from 31 other countries among its suppliers including France, Spain, Italy, South Africa and New Zealand. Scott Dworkin, a community organizer for Democratic Coalition Against Trump, tweeted to his 111,000 followers that that Luding was 'close' to Russian president Vladimir Putin, with the only proof being that they had offered Putin a birthday greeting and gift basket in 2007. We have not received a response from Nunes' spokesman, Jack Langer. However, we don't find the fact that Alpha Omega Winery sold wine to a distributor in Russia proves that Nunes has any improper business interests in Russia relating to his wine investment. If the company's statement is true that the wine was sold to Luding for distribution in Russia in 2013, that would place the transaction well before the Russian government was accused of meddling in the 2016 presidential election. There also doesn't seem to be anything suspicious at face value about California wine being sold in Russia - Luding sells wine from all over the world to its customers.Bethania Palma russia russia manipulating the election trump administration Sources Palmer, Bill. 'Devin Nunes Has Most of His Net Worth Tied Up in a Company That Does Business in Russia.' Palmer Report. 22 March 2017. Christensen, Rika. 'BOMBSHELL: Devin Nunes' Entire Net Worth Sunk in Company with Strong Ties to Russia.' AddictingInfo. 22 March 2017. The Los Angeles Times. 'How Many Millionaires Does California Send to Congress?' 3 November 2015.

nan

Devin Nunes' financial wealth is invested in a wine company with 'strong ties' to Russia.

Neutral

On 22 March 2017, liberal blogs such as the Palmer Report and Addicting Info posted stories that said House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes had business ties to Russia, because a winery he is invested in sold wine bottles in Russia through a Russian beverage distributor: According to Scott Dworkin of the respected Democratic Coalition Against Trump, the Nunes' winery has a Russian distributor who is close to Vladimir Putin. This means Nunes has the vast majority of his small net worth tied up in a business venture which partially relies on sales in Russia. At the least, Nunes benefits greatly if Trump remains in office long enough to continue repealing Russian sanctions. Is this why Nunes is so desperate to protect Trump? The Palmer Report post quoted above contained a link to a table published by the Los Angeles Times listing Nunes' financial wealth. (The Times provided information for all California members of Congress, not just Nunes, who was listed by the publication as 37th in wealth out of 55 legislators.) Nunes reported having $50,001 invested in Alpha Omega Winery, a family-owned Napa Valley-based business. According to Alpha Omega spokeswoman Kelly Carter, the winery's founder Robin Bagget invited Nunes and a few other personal friends to invest in his winery in 2005. It opened for business in 2006. Carter sent us a company statement by e-mail: The only time Alpha Omega did business in Russia was in 2013 when a broker handled a one-time transaction for 22 cases of wine. Rep. Devin Nunes is one of a few friends Alpha Omega managing partner Robin Baggett invited to invest in the winery in 2005. None of the investors has ever been involved with the management of the company. Robin is the sole managing partner and ultimate decision maker at Alpha Omega. Robin has made a point to never mix politics with the business of Alpha Omega. Our business model is simple: grow great grapes, make great wine, hire great people and provide our customers with a great experience. The Russian alcohol broker Luding was listed on the winery's web site as a distributor, but was removed. Screen shots of the page were posted to social media along with the claim that it proved Russian ties between the winery and Russian President Vladimir Putin: Rep Devin Nunes owns part of a winery-that has Russian distributor-who's close to Putin#trumprussia #russiagate #resist #trumpLeaks #trump pic.twitter.com/It1C4ZLfZi - Scott Dworkin (@funder) February 27, 2017 There is no evidence that Alpha Omega Winery has any substantive business relationship with Russian wine brokers. According to Carter, the company's primary business is in the United States: 90 percent of sales are direct-to-customer, and only 10 percent of sales are through distributors. Most of the distribution occurs in the United States, with some sales in various countries, such as Canada, Japan, China, Switzerland and Thailand. Carter confirmed that Luding was the broker that sells Alpha Omega's wine to Russian customers, but added the information was removed from the California winery's web site because it was out of date. Luding still lists Alpha Omega on its web site as a supplier, along with six other U.S. wineries. Purchasers can select one of three offerings from Alpha Omega (which were, as the company stated, from vintages prior to 2013: a 2009 cabernet sauvignon, a 2010 proprietary red or a 2012 chardonnay). Luding also lists wine makers from 31 other countries among its suppliers including France, Spain, Italy, South Africa and New Zealand. Scott Dworkin, a community organizer for Democratic Coalition Against Trump, tweeted to his 111,000 followers that that Luding was 'close' to Russian president Vladimir Putin, with the only proof being that they had offered Putin a birthday greeting and gift basket in 2007. We have not received a response from Nunes' spokesman, Jack Langer. However, we don't find the fact that Alpha Omega Winery sold wine to a distributor in Russia proves that Nunes has any improper business interests in Russia relating to his wine investment. If the company's statement is true that the wine was sold to Luding for distribution in Russia in 2013, that would place the transaction well before the Russian government was accused of meddling in the 2016 presidential election. There also doesn't seem to be anything suspicious at face value about California wine being sold in Russia - Luding sells wine from all over the world to its customers.Bethania Palma russia russia manipulating the election trump administration Sources Palmer, Bill. 'Devin Nunes Has Most of His Net Worth Tied Up in a Company That Does Business in Russia.' Palmer Report. 22 March 2017. Christensen, Rika. 'BOMBSHELL: Devin Nunes' Entire Net Worth Sunk in Company with Strong Ties to Russia.' AddictingInfo. 22 March 2017. The Los Angeles Times. 'How Many Millionaires Does California Send to Congress?' 3 November 2015.

nan

Atheists are trying to ban Bibles from all hotel rooms.

Neutral

On 4 December 2015 the Facebook page 'American Center for Law and Justice' (ACLJ), a Christian advocacy group founded by Pat Robertson, published the above-reproduced image along with the following text: A radical group of atheists is demanding all hotels remove Bibles from their rooms, claiming the Bible 'may endanger your health and life.' This is not only absurd, it's unconstitutional. Help us fight back: http://bit.ly/1N8YmlN The status update claimed a 'radical group of atheists' had demanded 'all hotels remove Bibles' from their rooms, and references to it in social media asserted that the Bible banners sought to 'ban the Bible in ALL hotel rooms.' The link appended to the update pointed to an ACLJ petition titled 'Don't Ban the Bible. Defend It,' which read (in part): Banning the Bible ... That's what one angry atheist group is trying to do in hotels at public universities. The anti-Christian Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) is demanding that the Bible - placed by a Christian group - be banned from university hotel rooms. It's already had them banned from universities in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa. FFRF extremists call the Bible 'obnoxious' and insultingly claim that the '[B]ible calls for killing nonbelievers.' It even absurdly claims that it is 'unconstitutional to have them' - Bibles - in university hotel rooms. FFRF is legally and constitutionally wrong. It's time to set the record straight. We've been defending constitutionally protected religious speech at the Supreme Court for decades. Now, we're sending these universities a critical legal letter to protect the Bible. Add your name today: The image asserted simply that 'angry atheists [were] trying to ban the Bible,' while the status update maintained a 'radical group of atheists is demanding all hotels remove Bibles from their rooms,' and the linked petition claimed '[the] Freedom from Religion Foundation (a non-profit non-theist advocacy group) is demanding that the Bible ... be banned from university hotel rooms.' The petition published on Facebook by the ACLJ specifically referenced 'university hotel rooms,' which in turn suggested that the conflict in question pertained to religious materials and public institutions. On 30 October 2015, the FFRF had published a press release on the matter which stated that: Northern Illinois University quickly removed all bibles from the Holmes Student Center Hotel after receiving a letter from the Freedom from Religion Foundation stating that it was unconstitutional to have them there. FFRF Legal Fellow Ryan D. Jayne sent the letter on Oct. 20 to Norm Jenkins, director of the Holmes Student Center, stating, in part: 'Providing bibles to Holmes Student Center Hotel guests sends the message that NIU endorses the religious texts. Including bibles sends the message to non-Christian and non-religious guests that they should read the bible, and specifically the version of the bible provided: the Gideon Bible. Certainly, if guests want to read this religious text during their stay, they can bring their own copy or access any of the numerous churches or libraries near the university.' The next day, Oct. 21, Gregory A. Brady, deputy general counsel for Governance and Administration at NIU, responded to FFRF by stating that the university 'will be removing any such bibles from their hotel guest rooms.' As such, the 4 December 2015 ACLJ image meme was misleading at the time it was issued. The so-called 'Bible ban' involved public universities and the issue of government endorsement of religious texts, not a call to remove all Bibles from all hotel rooms. On 2 December 2015, the ACLJ published an article titled 'Angry Atheists Demand Hotels Ban the Bible Comparing Scripture to Danger of Smoking' which held that: The radical anti-Christian Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) has launched a crusade to ban the Bible in hotel rooms. Now FFRF is moving beyond public university hotel rooms and demanding that all hotels remove the Bible from bedside tables. Again, removing the Bible from his room is not good enough. This anti-Christian organization will not be satisfied until every Bible is banned from every hotel in America - and even then I'm sure they'll find a new place to hate. That article referenced a 12 October 2015 article about the issue of hotel rooms and Bibles published on the blog Patheos: FFRF has long complained about the Gideon Bibles. In the late 1980s we launched a national 'Bible Free Room' campaign, with limited success. Although this is not a state-church issue (unless the hotel is owned by the state or the military), we consider it an important consumer complaint, much like asking for smoke-free rooms. The Gideon Bibles are not owned by the hotel. Many establishments are dunned into contributing to the Gideons International for the 'donation,' which means that we guests are paying for them. The Gideons say that readers are welcome to take the book ... Why should we be posting complaints on their book? Can you imagine what would happen if the hospitality industry were placing The God Delusion in every room? To be clear, the 2 December 2015 ACLJ article referenced a think-piece suggesting (not demanding) that hotels offer Bible-free rooms for guests. However, on 7 December 2015 the FFRF issued a press release titled 'FFRF Requests 'Bible-Free' Hotel Rooms,' which read in part: The Freedom from Religion Foundation ... is making a major consumer request to the hospitality industry, asking it to be more hospitable to non-Christian and nonreligious clientele by offering 'bible-free' rooms. In early December, FFRF sent a letter to a number of companies, including Wyndham Worldwide, Intercontinental Hotel Groups (Holiday Inn), Choice Hotels International (Quality Inn), Hilton Worldwide, G6 Hospitality (Motel 6), Marriott International, Best Western, Carlson Rezidor Hotel Group (Radisson, Carlson, Country Inn) and Starwood Hotels and Resorts (Sheraton). FFRF does ask the hotel industry to follow the lead of Gansevoort Hotel Groups, which, to provide a friendlier environment, removed religious materials from guest rooms but provides such materials upon request. Many boutique hotels have likewise stopped serving as a conduit for Protestant missionaries. Travelodge (UK) removed bibles from more than 500 hotels last August 'in order not to discriminate against any religion.' Whether the chain of press releases from ACLJ and FFRF regarding Bibles in hotel rooms (both public university lodging and otherwise) were part of a direct rhetorical escalation or simply coincidental was unclear. Further obfuscating the chain of debate were assertions that the FFRF sought to ban 'all Bibles' from 'all hotel rooms' at any point during the controversy. According to releases from both the FFRF and the ACLJ, the FFRF requested that Bibles be removed from hotel rooms at public universities in or around October 2015, and that request (framed as more broad that it actually was at the time by the ACLJ) was granted. Concurrently, the FFRF asked that commercial hospitality properties consider offering 'Bible-free hotel rooms' to non-theists or non-Christian guests. Whether that request involved removal of Bibles from all rooms (with the books remaining available to guests who asked for them) was unclear, but the specific use of the term 'Bible-free rooms' and the comparison to smoke-free hotel rooms suggested that the request extended to some (but not all) rooms.

nan

Atheists are trying to ban Bibles from all hotel rooms.

Neutral

On 4 December 2015 the Facebook page 'American Center for Law and Justice' (ACLJ), a Christian advocacy group founded by Pat Robertson, published the above-reproduced image along with the following text: A radical group of atheists is demanding all hotels remove Bibles from their rooms, claiming the Bible 'may endanger your health and life.' This is not only absurd, it's unconstitutional. Help us fight back: http://bit.ly/1N8YmlN The status update claimed a 'radical group of atheists' had demanded 'all hotels remove Bibles' from their rooms, and references to it in social media asserted that the Bible banners sought to 'ban the Bible in ALL hotel rooms.' The link appended to the update pointed to an ACLJ petition titled 'Don't Ban the Bible. Defend It,' which read (in part): Banning the Bible ... That's what one angry atheist group is trying to do in hotels at public universities. The anti-Christian Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) is demanding that the Bible - placed by a Christian group - be banned from university hotel rooms. It's already had them banned from universities in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa. FFRF extremists call the Bible 'obnoxious' and insultingly claim that the '[B]ible calls for killing nonbelievers.' It even absurdly claims that it is 'unconstitutional to have them' - Bibles - in university hotel rooms. FFRF is legally and constitutionally wrong. It's time to set the record straight. We've been defending constitutionally protected religious speech at the Supreme Court for decades. Now, we're sending these universities a critical legal letter to protect the Bible. Add your name today: The image asserted simply that 'angry atheists [were] trying to ban the Bible,' while the status update maintained a 'radical group of atheists is demanding all hotels remove Bibles from their rooms,' and the linked petition claimed '[the] Freedom from Religion Foundation (a non-profit non-theist advocacy group) is demanding that the Bible ... be banned from university hotel rooms.' The petition published on Facebook by the ACLJ specifically referenced 'university hotel rooms,' which in turn suggested that the conflict in question pertained to religious materials and public institutions. On 30 October 2015, the FFRF had published a press release on the matter which stated that: Northern Illinois University quickly removed all bibles from the Holmes Student Center Hotel after receiving a letter from the Freedom from Religion Foundation stating that it was unconstitutional to have them there. FFRF Legal Fellow Ryan D. Jayne sent the letter on Oct. 20 to Norm Jenkins, director of the Holmes Student Center, stating, in part: 'Providing bibles to Holmes Student Center Hotel guests sends the message that NIU endorses the religious texts. Including bibles sends the message to non-Christian and non-religious guests that they should read the bible, and specifically the version of the bible provided: the Gideon Bible. Certainly, if guests want to read this religious text during their stay, they can bring their own copy or access any of the numerous churches or libraries near the university.' The next day, Oct. 21, Gregory A. Brady, deputy general counsel for Governance and Administration at NIU, responded to FFRF by stating that the university 'will be removing any such bibles from their hotel guest rooms.' As such, the 4 December 2015 ACLJ image meme was misleading at the time it was issued. The so-called 'Bible ban' involved public universities and the issue of government endorsement of religious texts, not a call to remove all Bibles from all hotel rooms. On 2 December 2015, the ACLJ published an article titled 'Angry Atheists Demand Hotels Ban the Bible Comparing Scripture to Danger of Smoking' which held that: The radical anti-Christian Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) has launched a crusade to ban the Bible in hotel rooms. Now FFRF is moving beyond public university hotel rooms and demanding that all hotels remove the Bible from bedside tables. Again, removing the Bible from his room is not good enough. This anti-Christian organization will not be satisfied until every Bible is banned from every hotel in America - and even then I'm sure they'll find a new place to hate. That article referenced a 12 October 2015 article about the issue of hotel rooms and Bibles published on the blog Patheos: FFRF has long complained about the Gideon Bibles. In the late 1980s we launched a national 'Bible Free Room' campaign, with limited success. Although this is not a state-church issue (unless the hotel is owned by the state or the military), we consider it an important consumer complaint, much like asking for smoke-free rooms. The Gideon Bibles are not owned by the hotel. Many establishments are dunned into contributing to the Gideons International for the 'donation,' which means that we guests are paying for them. The Gideons say that readers are welcome to take the book ... Why should we be posting complaints on their book? Can you imagine what would happen if the hospitality industry were placing The God Delusion in every room? To be clear, the 2 December 2015 ACLJ article referenced a think-piece suggesting (not demanding) that hotels offer Bible-free rooms for guests. However, on 7 December 2015 the FFRF issued a press release titled 'FFRF Requests 'Bible-Free' Hotel Rooms,' which read in part: The Freedom from Religion Foundation ... is making a major consumer request to the hospitality industry, asking it to be more hospitable to non-Christian and nonreligious clientele by offering 'bible-free' rooms. In early December, FFRF sent a letter to a number of companies, including Wyndham Worldwide, Intercontinental Hotel Groups (Holiday Inn), Choice Hotels International (Quality Inn), Hilton Worldwide, G6 Hospitality (Motel 6), Marriott International, Best Western, Carlson Rezidor Hotel Group (Radisson, Carlson, Country Inn) and Starwood Hotels and Resorts (Sheraton). FFRF does ask the hotel industry to follow the lead of Gansevoort Hotel Groups, which, to provide a friendlier environment, removed religious materials from guest rooms but provides such materials upon request. Many boutique hotels have likewise stopped serving as a conduit for Protestant missionaries. Travelodge (UK) removed bibles from more than 500 hotels last August 'in order not to discriminate against any religion.' Whether the chain of press releases from ACLJ and FFRF regarding Bibles in hotel rooms (both public university lodging and otherwise) were part of a direct rhetorical escalation or simply coincidental was unclear. Further obfuscating the chain of debate were assertions that the FFRF sought to ban 'all Bibles' from 'all hotel rooms' at any point during the controversy. According to releases from both the FFRF and the ACLJ, the FFRF requested that Bibles be removed from hotel rooms at public universities in or around October 2015, and that request (framed as more broad that it actually was at the time by the ACLJ) was granted. Concurrently, the FFRF asked that commercial hospitality properties consider offering 'Bible-free hotel rooms' to non-theists or non-Christian guests. Whether that request involved removal of Bibles from all rooms (with the books remaining available to guests who asked for them) was unclear, but the specific use of the term 'Bible-free rooms' and the comparison to smoke-free hotel rooms suggested that the request extended to some (but not all) rooms.

nan

Atheists are trying to ban Bibles from all hotel rooms.

Neutral

On 4 December 2015 the Facebook page 'American Center for Law and Justice' (ACLJ), a Christian advocacy group founded by Pat Robertson, published the above-reproduced image along with the following text: A radical group of atheists is demanding all hotels remove Bibles from their rooms, claiming the Bible 'may endanger your health and life.' This is not only absurd, it's unconstitutional. Help us fight back: http://bit.ly/1N8YmlN The status update claimed a 'radical group of atheists' had demanded 'all hotels remove Bibles' from their rooms, and references to it in social media asserted that the Bible banners sought to 'ban the Bible in ALL hotel rooms.' The link appended to the update pointed to an ACLJ petition titled 'Don't Ban the Bible. Defend It,' which read (in part): Banning the Bible ... That's what one angry atheist group is trying to do in hotels at public universities. The anti-Christian Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) is demanding that the Bible - placed by a Christian group - be banned from university hotel rooms. It's already had them banned from universities in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa. FFRF extremists call the Bible 'obnoxious' and insultingly claim that the '[B]ible calls for killing nonbelievers.' It even absurdly claims that it is 'unconstitutional to have them' - Bibles - in university hotel rooms. FFRF is legally and constitutionally wrong. It's time to set the record straight. We've been defending constitutionally protected religious speech at the Supreme Court for decades. Now, we're sending these universities a critical legal letter to protect the Bible. Add your name today: The image asserted simply that 'angry atheists [were] trying to ban the Bible,' while the status update maintained a 'radical group of atheists is demanding all hotels remove Bibles from their rooms,' and the linked petition claimed '[the] Freedom from Religion Foundation (a non-profit non-theist advocacy group) is demanding that the Bible ... be banned from university hotel rooms.' The petition published on Facebook by the ACLJ specifically referenced 'university hotel rooms,' which in turn suggested that the conflict in question pertained to religious materials and public institutions. On 30 October 2015, the FFRF had published a press release on the matter which stated that: Northern Illinois University quickly removed all bibles from the Holmes Student Center Hotel after receiving a letter from the Freedom from Religion Foundation stating that it was unconstitutional to have them there. FFRF Legal Fellow Ryan D. Jayne sent the letter on Oct. 20 to Norm Jenkins, director of the Holmes Student Center, stating, in part: 'Providing bibles to Holmes Student Center Hotel guests sends the message that NIU endorses the religious texts. Including bibles sends the message to non-Christian and non-religious guests that they should read the bible, and specifically the version of the bible provided: the Gideon Bible. Certainly, if guests want to read this religious text during their stay, they can bring their own copy or access any of the numerous churches or libraries near the university.' The next day, Oct. 21, Gregory A. Brady, deputy general counsel for Governance and Administration at NIU, responded to FFRF by stating that the university 'will be removing any such bibles from their hotel guest rooms.' As such, the 4 December 2015 ACLJ image meme was misleading at the time it was issued. The so-called 'Bible ban' involved public universities and the issue of government endorsement of religious texts, not a call to remove all Bibles from all hotel rooms. On 2 December 2015, the ACLJ published an article titled 'Angry Atheists Demand Hotels Ban the Bible Comparing Scripture to Danger of Smoking' which held that: The radical anti-Christian Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) has launched a crusade to ban the Bible in hotel rooms. Now FFRF is moving beyond public university hotel rooms and demanding that all hotels remove the Bible from bedside tables. Again, removing the Bible from his room is not good enough. This anti-Christian organization will not be satisfied until every Bible is banned from every hotel in America - and even then I'm sure they'll find a new place to hate. That article referenced a 12 October 2015 article about the issue of hotel rooms and Bibles published on the blog Patheos: FFRF has long complained about the Gideon Bibles. In the late 1980s we launched a national 'Bible Free Room' campaign, with limited success. Although this is not a state-church issue (unless the hotel is owned by the state or the military), we consider it an important consumer complaint, much like asking for smoke-free rooms. The Gideon Bibles are not owned by the hotel. Many establishments are dunned into contributing to the Gideons International for the 'donation,' which means that we guests are paying for them. The Gideons say that readers are welcome to take the book ... Why should we be posting complaints on their book? Can you imagine what would happen if the hospitality industry were placing The God Delusion in every room? To be clear, the 2 December 2015 ACLJ article referenced a think-piece suggesting (not demanding) that hotels offer Bible-free rooms for guests. However, on 7 December 2015 the FFRF issued a press release titled 'FFRF Requests 'Bible-Free' Hotel Rooms,' which read in part: The Freedom from Religion Foundation ... is making a major consumer request to the hospitality industry, asking it to be more hospitable to non-Christian and nonreligious clientele by offering 'bible-free' rooms. In early December, FFRF sent a letter to a number of companies, including Wyndham Worldwide, Intercontinental Hotel Groups (Holiday Inn), Choice Hotels International (Quality Inn), Hilton Worldwide, G6 Hospitality (Motel 6), Marriott International, Best Western, Carlson Rezidor Hotel Group (Radisson, Carlson, Country Inn) and Starwood Hotels and Resorts (Sheraton). FFRF does ask the hotel industry to follow the lead of Gansevoort Hotel Groups, which, to provide a friendlier environment, removed religious materials from guest rooms but provides such materials upon request. Many boutique hotels have likewise stopped serving as a conduit for Protestant missionaries. Travelodge (UK) removed bibles from more than 500 hotels last August 'in order not to discriminate against any religion.' Whether the chain of press releases from ACLJ and FFRF regarding Bibles in hotel rooms (both public university lodging and otherwise) were part of a direct rhetorical escalation or simply coincidental was unclear. Further obfuscating the chain of debate were assertions that the FFRF sought to ban 'all Bibles' from 'all hotel rooms' at any point during the controversy. According to releases from both the FFRF and the ACLJ, the FFRF requested that Bibles be removed from hotel rooms at public universities in or around October 2015, and that request (framed as more broad that it actually was at the time by the ACLJ) was granted. Concurrently, the FFRF asked that commercial hospitality properties consider offering 'Bible-free hotel rooms' to non-theists or non-Christian guests. Whether that request involved removal of Bibles from all rooms (with the books remaining available to guests who asked for them) was unclear, but the specific use of the term 'Bible-free rooms' and the comparison to smoke-free hotel rooms suggested that the request extended to some (but not all) rooms.

nan

Atheists are trying to ban Bibles from all hotel rooms.

Neutral

On 4 December 2015 the Facebook page 'American Center for Law and Justice' (ACLJ), a Christian advocacy group founded by Pat Robertson, published the above-reproduced image along with the following text: A radical group of atheists is demanding all hotels remove Bibles from their rooms, claiming the Bible 'may endanger your health and life.' This is not only absurd, it's unconstitutional. Help us fight back: http://bit.ly/1N8YmlN The status update claimed a 'radical group of atheists' had demanded 'all hotels remove Bibles' from their rooms, and references to it in social media asserted that the Bible banners sought to 'ban the Bible in ALL hotel rooms.' The link appended to the update pointed to an ACLJ petition titled 'Don't Ban the Bible. Defend It,' which read (in part): Banning the Bible ... That's what one angry atheist group is trying to do in hotels at public universities. The anti-Christian Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) is demanding that the Bible - placed by a Christian group - be banned from university hotel rooms. It's already had them banned from universities in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa. FFRF extremists call the Bible 'obnoxious' and insultingly claim that the '[B]ible calls for killing nonbelievers.' It even absurdly claims that it is 'unconstitutional to have them' - Bibles - in university hotel rooms. FFRF is legally and constitutionally wrong. It's time to set the record straight. We've been defending constitutionally protected religious speech at the Supreme Court for decades. Now, we're sending these universities a critical legal letter to protect the Bible. Add your name today: The image asserted simply that 'angry atheists [were] trying to ban the Bible,' while the status update maintained a 'radical group of atheists is demanding all hotels remove Bibles from their rooms,' and the linked petition claimed '[the] Freedom from Religion Foundation (a non-profit non-theist advocacy group) is demanding that the Bible ... be banned from university hotel rooms.' The petition published on Facebook by the ACLJ specifically referenced 'university hotel rooms,' which in turn suggested that the conflict in question pertained to religious materials and public institutions. On 30 October 2015, the FFRF had published a press release on the matter which stated that: Northern Illinois University quickly removed all bibles from the Holmes Student Center Hotel after receiving a letter from the Freedom from Religion Foundation stating that it was unconstitutional to have them there. FFRF Legal Fellow Ryan D. Jayne sent the letter on Oct. 20 to Norm Jenkins, director of the Holmes Student Center, stating, in part: 'Providing bibles to Holmes Student Center Hotel guests sends the message that NIU endorses the religious texts. Including bibles sends the message to non-Christian and non-religious guests that they should read the bible, and specifically the version of the bible provided: the Gideon Bible. Certainly, if guests want to read this religious text during their stay, they can bring their own copy or access any of the numerous churches or libraries near the university.' The next day, Oct. 21, Gregory A. Brady, deputy general counsel for Governance and Administration at NIU, responded to FFRF by stating that the university 'will be removing any such bibles from their hotel guest rooms.' As such, the 4 December 2015 ACLJ image meme was misleading at the time it was issued. The so-called 'Bible ban' involved public universities and the issue of government endorsement of religious texts, not a call to remove all Bibles from all hotel rooms. On 2 December 2015, the ACLJ published an article titled 'Angry Atheists Demand Hotels Ban the Bible Comparing Scripture to Danger of Smoking' which held that: The radical anti-Christian Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) has launched a crusade to ban the Bible in hotel rooms. Now FFRF is moving beyond public university hotel rooms and demanding that all hotels remove the Bible from bedside tables. Again, removing the Bible from his room is not good enough. This anti-Christian organization will not be satisfied until every Bible is banned from every hotel in America - and even then I'm sure they'll find a new place to hate. That article referenced a 12 October 2015 article about the issue of hotel rooms and Bibles published on the blog Patheos: FFRF has long complained about the Gideon Bibles. In the late 1980s we launched a national 'Bible Free Room' campaign, with limited success. Although this is not a state-church issue (unless the hotel is owned by the state or the military), we consider it an important consumer complaint, much like asking for smoke-free rooms. The Gideon Bibles are not owned by the hotel. Many establishments are dunned into contributing to the Gideons International for the 'donation,' which means that we guests are paying for them. The Gideons say that readers are welcome to take the book ... Why should we be posting complaints on their book? Can you imagine what would happen if the hospitality industry were placing The God Delusion in every room? To be clear, the 2 December 2015 ACLJ article referenced a think-piece suggesting (not demanding) that hotels offer Bible-free rooms for guests. However, on 7 December 2015 the FFRF issued a press release titled 'FFRF Requests 'Bible-Free' Hotel Rooms,' which read in part: The Freedom from Religion Foundation ... is making a major consumer request to the hospitality industry, asking it to be more hospitable to non-Christian and nonreligious clientele by offering 'bible-free' rooms. In early December, FFRF sent a letter to a number of companies, including Wyndham Worldwide, Intercontinental Hotel Groups (Holiday Inn), Choice Hotels International (Quality Inn), Hilton Worldwide, G6 Hospitality (Motel 6), Marriott International, Best Western, Carlson Rezidor Hotel Group (Radisson, Carlson, Country Inn) and Starwood Hotels and Resorts (Sheraton). FFRF does ask the hotel industry to follow the lead of Gansevoort Hotel Groups, which, to provide a friendlier environment, removed religious materials from guest rooms but provides such materials upon request. Many boutique hotels have likewise stopped serving as a conduit for Protestant missionaries. Travelodge (UK) removed bibles from more than 500 hotels last August 'in order not to discriminate against any religion.' Whether the chain of press releases from ACLJ and FFRF regarding Bibles in hotel rooms (both public university lodging and otherwise) were part of a direct rhetorical escalation or simply coincidental was unclear. Further obfuscating the chain of debate were assertions that the FFRF sought to ban 'all Bibles' from 'all hotel rooms' at any point during the controversy. According to releases from both the FFRF and the ACLJ, the FFRF requested that Bibles be removed from hotel rooms at public universities in or around October 2015, and that request (framed as more broad that it actually was at the time by the ACLJ) was granted. Concurrently, the FFRF asked that commercial hospitality properties consider offering 'Bible-free hotel rooms' to non-theists or non-Christian guests. Whether that request involved removal of Bibles from all rooms (with the books remaining available to guests who asked for them) was unclear, but the specific use of the term 'Bible-free rooms' and the comparison to smoke-free hotel rooms suggested that the request extended to some (but not all) rooms.

nan

Atheists are trying to ban Bibles from all hotel rooms.

Neutral

On 4 December 2015 the Facebook page 'American Center for Law and Justice' (ACLJ), a Christian advocacy group founded by Pat Robertson, published the above-reproduced image along with the following text: A radical group of atheists is demanding all hotels remove Bibles from their rooms, claiming the Bible 'may endanger your health and life.' This is not only absurd, it's unconstitutional. Help us fight back: http://bit.ly/1N8YmlN The status update claimed a 'radical group of atheists' had demanded 'all hotels remove Bibles' from their rooms, and references to it in social media asserted that the Bible banners sought to 'ban the Bible in ALL hotel rooms.' The link appended to the update pointed to an ACLJ petition titled 'Don't Ban the Bible. Defend It,' which read (in part): Banning the Bible ... That's what one angry atheist group is trying to do in hotels at public universities. The anti-Christian Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) is demanding that the Bible - placed by a Christian group - be banned from university hotel rooms. It's already had them banned from universities in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa. FFRF extremists call the Bible 'obnoxious' and insultingly claim that the '[B]ible calls for killing nonbelievers.' It even absurdly claims that it is 'unconstitutional to have them' - Bibles - in university hotel rooms. FFRF is legally and constitutionally wrong. It's time to set the record straight. We've been defending constitutionally protected religious speech at the Supreme Court for decades. Now, we're sending these universities a critical legal letter to protect the Bible. Add your name today: The image asserted simply that 'angry atheists [were] trying to ban the Bible,' while the status update maintained a 'radical group of atheists is demanding all hotels remove Bibles from their rooms,' and the linked petition claimed '[the] Freedom from Religion Foundation (a non-profit non-theist advocacy group) is demanding that the Bible ... be banned from university hotel rooms.' The petition published on Facebook by the ACLJ specifically referenced 'university hotel rooms,' which in turn suggested that the conflict in question pertained to religious materials and public institutions. On 30 October 2015, the FFRF had published a press release on the matter which stated that: Northern Illinois University quickly removed all bibles from the Holmes Student Center Hotel after receiving a letter from the Freedom from Religion Foundation stating that it was unconstitutional to have them there. FFRF Legal Fellow Ryan D. Jayne sent the letter on Oct. 20 to Norm Jenkins, director of the Holmes Student Center, stating, in part: 'Providing bibles to Holmes Student Center Hotel guests sends the message that NIU endorses the religious texts. Including bibles sends the message to non-Christian and non-religious guests that they should read the bible, and specifically the version of the bible provided: the Gideon Bible. Certainly, if guests want to read this religious text during their stay, they can bring their own copy or access any of the numerous churches or libraries near the university.' The next day, Oct. 21, Gregory A. Brady, deputy general counsel for Governance and Administration at NIU, responded to FFRF by stating that the university 'will be removing any such bibles from their hotel guest rooms.' As such, the 4 December 2015 ACLJ image meme was misleading at the time it was issued. The so-called 'Bible ban' involved public universities and the issue of government endorsement of religious texts, not a call to remove all Bibles from all hotel rooms. On 2 December 2015, the ACLJ published an article titled 'Angry Atheists Demand Hotels Ban the Bible Comparing Scripture to Danger of Smoking' which held that: The radical anti-Christian Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) has launched a crusade to ban the Bible in hotel rooms. Now FFRF is moving beyond public university hotel rooms and demanding that all hotels remove the Bible from bedside tables. Again, removing the Bible from his room is not good enough. This anti-Christian organization will not be satisfied until every Bible is banned from every hotel in America - and even then I'm sure they'll find a new place to hate. That article referenced a 12 October 2015 article about the issue of hotel rooms and Bibles published on the blog Patheos: FFRF has long complained about the Gideon Bibles. In the late 1980s we launched a national 'Bible Free Room' campaign, with limited success. Although this is not a state-church issue (unless the hotel is owned by the state or the military), we consider it an important consumer complaint, much like asking for smoke-free rooms. The Gideon Bibles are not owned by the hotel. Many establishments are dunned into contributing to the Gideons International for the 'donation,' which means that we guests are paying for them. The Gideons say that readers are welcome to take the book ... Why should we be posting complaints on their book? Can you imagine what would happen if the hospitality industry were placing The God Delusion in every room? To be clear, the 2 December 2015 ACLJ article referenced a think-piece suggesting (not demanding) that hotels offer Bible-free rooms for guests. However, on 7 December 2015 the FFRF issued a press release titled 'FFRF Requests 'Bible-Free' Hotel Rooms,' which read in part: The Freedom from Religion Foundation ... is making a major consumer request to the hospitality industry, asking it to be more hospitable to non-Christian and nonreligious clientele by offering 'bible-free' rooms. In early December, FFRF sent a letter to a number of companies, including Wyndham Worldwide, Intercontinental Hotel Groups (Holiday Inn), Choice Hotels International (Quality Inn), Hilton Worldwide, G6 Hospitality (Motel 6), Marriott International, Best Western, Carlson Rezidor Hotel Group (Radisson, Carlson, Country Inn) and Starwood Hotels and Resorts (Sheraton). FFRF does ask the hotel industry to follow the lead of Gansevoort Hotel Groups, which, to provide a friendlier environment, removed religious materials from guest rooms but provides such materials upon request. Many boutique hotels have likewise stopped serving as a conduit for Protestant missionaries. Travelodge (UK) removed bibles from more than 500 hotels last August 'in order not to discriminate against any religion.' Whether the chain of press releases from ACLJ and FFRF regarding Bibles in hotel rooms (both public university lodging and otherwise) were part of a direct rhetorical escalation or simply coincidental was unclear. Further obfuscating the chain of debate were assertions that the FFRF sought to ban 'all Bibles' from 'all hotel rooms' at any point during the controversy. According to releases from both the FFRF and the ACLJ, the FFRF requested that Bibles be removed from hotel rooms at public universities in or around October 2015, and that request (framed as more broad that it actually was at the time by the ACLJ) was granted. Concurrently, the FFRF asked that commercial hospitality properties consider offering 'Bible-free hotel rooms' to non-theists or non-Christian guests. Whether that request involved removal of Bibles from all rooms (with the books remaining available to guests who asked for them) was unclear, but the specific use of the term 'Bible-free rooms' and the comparison to smoke-free hotel rooms suggested that the request extended to some (but not all) rooms.

nan

Atheists are trying to ban Bibles from all hotel rooms.

Neutral

On 4 December 2015 the Facebook page 'American Center for Law and Justice' (ACLJ), a Christian advocacy group founded by Pat Robertson, published the above-reproduced image along with the following text: A radical group of atheists is demanding all hotels remove Bibles from their rooms, claiming the Bible 'may endanger your health and life.' This is not only absurd, it's unconstitutional. Help us fight back: http://bit.ly/1N8YmlN The status update claimed a 'radical group of atheists' had demanded 'all hotels remove Bibles' from their rooms, and references to it in social media asserted that the Bible banners sought to 'ban the Bible in ALL hotel rooms.' The link appended to the update pointed to an ACLJ petition titled 'Don't Ban the Bible. Defend It,' which read (in part): Banning the Bible ... That's what one angry atheist group is trying to do in hotels at public universities. The anti-Christian Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) is demanding that the Bible - placed by a Christian group - be banned from university hotel rooms. It's already had them banned from universities in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Iowa. FFRF extremists call the Bible 'obnoxious' and insultingly claim that the '[B]ible calls for killing nonbelievers.' It even absurdly claims that it is 'unconstitutional to have them' - Bibles - in university hotel rooms. FFRF is legally and constitutionally wrong. It's time to set the record straight. We've been defending constitutionally protected religious speech at the Supreme Court for decades. Now, we're sending these universities a critical legal letter to protect the Bible. Add your name today: The image asserted simply that 'angry atheists [were] trying to ban the Bible,' while the status update maintained a 'radical group of atheists is demanding all hotels remove Bibles from their rooms,' and the linked petition claimed '[the] Freedom from Religion Foundation (a non-profit non-theist advocacy group) is demanding that the Bible ... be banned from university hotel rooms.' The petition published on Facebook by the ACLJ specifically referenced 'university hotel rooms,' which in turn suggested that the conflict in question pertained to religious materials and public institutions. On 30 October 2015, the FFRF had published a press release on the matter which stated that: Northern Illinois University quickly removed all bibles from the Holmes Student Center Hotel after receiving a letter from the Freedom from Religion Foundation stating that it was unconstitutional to have them there. FFRF Legal Fellow Ryan D. Jayne sent the letter on Oct. 20 to Norm Jenkins, director of the Holmes Student Center, stating, in part: 'Providing bibles to Holmes Student Center Hotel guests sends the message that NIU endorses the religious texts. Including bibles sends the message to non-Christian and non-religious guests that they should read the bible, and specifically the version of the bible provided: the Gideon Bible. Certainly, if guests want to read this religious text during their stay, they can bring their own copy or access any of the numerous churches or libraries near the university.' The next day, Oct. 21, Gregory A. Brady, deputy general counsel for Governance and Administration at NIU, responded to FFRF by stating that the university 'will be removing any such bibles from their hotel guest rooms.' As such, the 4 December 2015 ACLJ image meme was misleading at the time it was issued. The so-called 'Bible ban' involved public universities and the issue of government endorsement of religious texts, not a call to remove all Bibles from all hotel rooms. On 2 December 2015, the ACLJ published an article titled 'Angry Atheists Demand Hotels Ban the Bible Comparing Scripture to Danger of Smoking' which held that: The radical anti-Christian Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) has launched a crusade to ban the Bible in hotel rooms. Now FFRF is moving beyond public university hotel rooms and demanding that all hotels remove the Bible from bedside tables. Again, removing the Bible from his room is not good enough. This anti-Christian organization will not be satisfied until every Bible is banned from every hotel in America - and even then I'm sure they'll find a new place to hate. That article referenced a 12 October 2015 article about the issue of hotel rooms and Bibles published on the blog Patheos: FFRF has long complained about the Gideon Bibles. In the late 1980s we launched a national 'Bible Free Room' campaign, with limited success. Although this is not a state-church issue (unless the hotel is owned by the state or the military), we consider it an important consumer complaint, much like asking for smoke-free rooms. The Gideon Bibles are not owned by the hotel. Many establishments are dunned into contributing to the Gideons International for the 'donation,' which means that we guests are paying for them. The Gideons say that readers are welcome to take the book ... Why should we be posting complaints on their book? Can you imagine what would happen if the hospitality industry were placing The God Delusion in every room? To be clear, the 2 December 2015 ACLJ article referenced a think-piece suggesting (not demanding) that hotels offer Bible-free rooms for guests. However, on 7 December 2015 the FFRF issued a press release titled 'FFRF Requests 'Bible-Free' Hotel Rooms,' which read in part: The Freedom from Religion Foundation ... is making a major consumer request to the hospitality industry, asking it to be more hospitable to non-Christian and nonreligious clientele by offering 'bible-free' rooms. In early December, FFRF sent a letter to a number of companies, including Wyndham Worldwide, Intercontinental Hotel Groups (Holiday Inn), Choice Hotels International (Quality Inn), Hilton Worldwide, G6 Hospitality (Motel 6), Marriott International, Best Western, Carlson Rezidor Hotel Group (Radisson, Carlson, Country Inn) and Starwood Hotels and Resorts (Sheraton). FFRF does ask the hotel industry to follow the lead of Gansevoort Hotel Groups, which, to provide a friendlier environment, removed religious materials from guest rooms but provides such materials upon request. Many boutique hotels have likewise stopped serving as a conduit for Protestant missionaries. Travelodge (UK) removed bibles from more than 500 hotels last August 'in order not to discriminate against any religion.' Whether the chain of press releases from ACLJ and FFRF regarding Bibles in hotel rooms (both public university lodging and otherwise) were part of a direct rhetorical escalation or simply coincidental was unclear. Further obfuscating the chain of debate were assertions that the FFRF sought to ban 'all Bibles' from 'all hotel rooms' at any point during the controversy. According to releases from both the FFRF and the ACLJ, the FFRF requested that Bibles be removed from hotel rooms at public universities in or around October 2015, and that request (framed as more broad that it actually was at the time by the ACLJ) was granted. Concurrently, the FFRF asked that commercial hospitality properties consider offering 'Bible-free hotel rooms' to non-theists or non-Christian guests. Whether that request involved removal of Bibles from all rooms (with the books remaining available to guests who asked for them) was unclear, but the specific use of the term 'Bible-free rooms' and the comparison to smoke-free hotel rooms suggested that the request extended to some (but not all) rooms.

nan

A step-dad refused to pay for his daughter's wedding at the last minute because she allowed her biological father back into her life.

Neutral

In October 2015, multiple content-scraping, clickbait web sites published a tale of wedding revenge involving a purportedly devoted step-dad, his ungrateful common-law wife and step-daughter, and a lauded but deadbeat biological father: My step-daughter will be getting married on August 3rd. The wedding planning has consumed most of her and her mother's life (I say her mother because we aren't married, though we've lived together for 10 years) for the past six months. My step-daughter graduated last December from University. I paid for her to go to college, though it was a state school, it still ran $40K. She does not have a job and has been living with us for the duration of her college career and since her graduation. I also bought her a car to get back and forth from school when she finished high school. From time to time her deadbeat father would pop into her life and she would fawn all over him. Although he has not contributed a cent to her education or paid any child support, though that is my girlfriend's fault as c.s. was not part of the settlement, she still loves him and wants him in her life. He stays long enough to break her heart by skipping town and breaking some promise that he made her. The wedding venue holds 250 people max. I gave them a list of 20 people that I wanted invited, you know, since I was paying for everything. They told me that was no problem and they'd take care of it. So I let these people know they'd be getting an invite and they should save the date. Saturday, I saw one of my friends on this list at the golf course and asked if he was coming. He told me that he wasn't invited. He told me that he got an announcement, but not an invitation. He had it in his back seat (along with probably six months of mail) and showed it to me. Sure enough, it was just an announcement, and my name was nowhere on it. It had her dad's name and her mom's name and not mine. This led to a pretty big fight with my GF, as I found out that NONE of my list of twenty 'made the cut' for the final guest list because '250 people is very tight.' I was pissed, but not a hell of a lot I could do because the important people in my life had already been offended. My GF said 'if some people didn't rsvp yes, I might be able to get a couple people in.' But that is an ultimate slap in the face in my opinion. So, I was boiling on Saturday. Yesterday, we had a Sunday dinner with the future in-law's family and us and a surprise guest, the 'Real Dad.' At this little dinner my step-daughter announced that her 'Real Dad' was going to be able to make it to her wedding and that now he'd be able to give her away. This was greeted with a chorus of 'Oh how great' and 'How wonderful's. I don't think I have ever felt so angry and so disrespected. I was shaking. I took a few seconds to gather my composure, because I honestly wasn't sure if I would cry or start throwing punches or both. Once I was sure I'd be able to speak I got up from my chair and said I'd like to make a toast. I can't remember exactly what I said but the gist of it was this: 'I'd like to make a toast.' The sound of spoons against glasses ring in my years. 'It has been my great pleasure to be a part of this family for the past ten years.' Awe, how sweet. 'At this point in my life I feel I owe a debt of gratitude to bride and groom, because they have opened my eyes to something very important.' Confident smiles exchanged. 'They have showed me that my position in this family is not what I once thought it was.' And now a glimmer of confusion and shock begins to spread on the faces in the room. 'Though I once thought of myself as the patriarch or godfather of the family, commanding great respect and sought out for help in times of need, it seems instead that I hold the position of an ATM, good for a stream of money, but not much else. As I have been replaced as host, both on the invitations and in the ceremony, I am resigning my financial duties as host to my successor, Real Dad. So cheers to the happy couple and the path they have chosen.' I finished my drink. 'You all can let yourselves out.' Is this selfish? I'm supposed to shell out 40 - 50 grand for a wedding that I can't invite anyone to? That I am not a part of? I'm so done with this crap. I'm done with my step-daughter, I'm done with my GF. I transferred the money out of our joint account last night. (she has not had a job since she moved in with me) This morning I called all the vendors I had written checks to for deposits to refund my money. At present it looks like I'll lose around 1500, for the venue, but the other vendors have been great about refunding. Would you have done the same? The tale appeared on sites such as Tickld and Hrtwarming ('Step-Dad Pulls Out Of Funding Daughter's Wedding at Last Minute. But His Reasoning Is Heartbreaking'), the Conservative Post ('Step Dad REFUSES to Pay For His Daughter's Wedding Because This INCREDIBLE THING HAPPENED'), and Top Right News ('Step Dad Stops Paying for His Daughter's Wedding at The Last Minute, His Reason Broke My Heart') at roughly the same time. Nearly all the sites opted to present the story in an image-based format, forcing readers who wished to share it to drive traffic to those sites rather than simply copying the text. All versions were near-verbatim recitations the same (too-good-to-be-true) anecdote. In it, a long-suffering step-dad was fed up with his freeloading live-in girlfriend (and the step-child for whom he's footed the bill for years) and was subjected to implausibly exploitative treatment for years at the hands of the mother and daughter - who, in his words, treated him 'like an ATM.' After funding college for his girlfriend's daughter, he was then conscripted into financing a $40,000 wedding for her; and (in keeping with their comically boorish demeanor) she and her mother sent announcements to his friends and family instead of invitations, cutting them from the guest list. Incensed, he waited until a family gathering weeks prior to the wedding to 'make a toast,' theatrically denouncing his mooching partner and her progeny in front of gathered guests. Afterwards, the man claimed he left his jobless girlfriend penniless (by draining their joint account) and canceled payments to all wedding vendors, essentially calling off his daughter's wedding. The story was certainly very pat, leaning heavily on deeply entrenched stereotypes of shiftless women and the meal-ticket men they routinely drain dry. Every character in it occupied a single dimension, either a long-suffering man-wallet or a callous woman with dollar signs in her eyes. Further implicit was the insinuation that the gold-digging step-daughter maintained no interest in her once-upcoming wedding other than the lavish event, as step-dad's last-minute funding withdrawal left no outcome in which the young bride availed herself of alternatives such as opting to say her vows in a county courthouse. Another unpleasant subtext involved the stepfather's 'heartbreaking' motivation for breaking up with his family in front of an assembled crowd. Whether or not the narrative represented events that once occurred (or was simply the product of an active, misogynist imagination), the girl's major sin involved mending fences with her unreliable biological father in the weeks before her big day. While the writer took pains to paint the bride and her mother as greedy and selfish, he similarly admitted that his step-daughter's reconciliation with her biological dad was unacceptable to him. Through that lens, it seemed clear the writer (and not his erstwhile family) viewed their established relationship as purely transactional; after he implicitly bought and paid for them, they betrayed that unstated contract by failing to abide his every wish. As to whether a 3 November 2015 wedding was canceled as related in the narrative, that claim was provably false. The story was lifted in its entirety from a 3 June 2013 post to Reddit's r/offmychest titled 'My step-daughter wants her 'Real Dad' to give her away,' but it was subsequently reposted in subreddits devoted to misogyny and revenge tales. In the original version the wedding was scheduled for 3 August 2013 (not 3 November 2015), and it appeared the dates were revised to make the tale sound new. The user who claimed credit for originating it racked up a grand total of only four posts and was not an established Reddit user. That user returned to update the original post twice, but the story and its subsequent repetitions were still based on a single, unverified Reddit thread from 2013 (which perhaps would have more aptly been posted to this subreddit). While the narrative certainly resonated with readers, there's no evidence it occurred outside the imagination of the individual who wrote it.

nan

JFK smoked cannabis in the White House during his presidency to treat various medical ailments.

Neutral

A long-circulating image seen often on social media claims that President John F. Kennedy (JFK) habitually smoked cannabis in the White House during his presidency to alleviate back pain and the symptoms of Addison's Disease: References to the rumor appeared in the New York Daily News in 1991 and the New York Times in 1984 (the latter in a letter to the editor about questionable biographical accounts of JFK's life). So prolific has the claim been that a strain of cannabis was informally named in Kennedy's honor. The rumor appeared to originate with information about Kennedy's health uncovered by biographers long after JFK's 1963 assassination. In 2002, a number of outlets reported on newly unveiled information about Kennedy's declining health in the years prior to his assassination: The first thorough examination of President John F. Kennedy's medical records, conducted by an independent presidential historian with a medical consultant, has found that Kennedy suffered from more ailments, was in far greater pain and was taking many more medications than the public knew at the time or biographers have since described. As president, he was famous for having a bad back, and since his death, biographers have pieced together details of other illnesses, including persistent digestive problems and Addison's disease, a life-threatening lack of adrenal function. But newly disclosed medical files covering the last eight years of Kennedy's life, including X-rays and prescription records, show that he took painkillers, antianxiety agents, stimulants and sleeping pills, as well as hormones to keep him alive, with extra doses in times of stress. At times the president took as many as eight medications a day, says the historian, Robert Dallek. A committee of three longtime Kennedy family associates, who for decades refused all requests to look at the records, granted Mr. Dallek's, in part because of his 'tremendous reputation,' said one of them, Theodore C. Sorensen, who was the president's special counsel. Mr. Dallek is writing a biography, 'An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963,' to be published by Little, Brown. He was allowed to examine the records over two days last spring in the company of a physician, Jeffrey A. Kelman, and to make notes but not photocopies. Their findings appear in the December issue of The Atlantic, and they discussed them in interviews with The New York Times. The new information shows how far Kennedy went to conceal his ailments and shatters the image he projected as the most vigorous of men. It is a remarkable example of a phenomenon that has been seen many times, notably in the case of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Yet for all of Kennedy's suffering, the ailments did not incapacitate him, Mr. Dallek concluded. In fact, he said, while Kennedy sometimes complained of grogginess, detailed transcripts of tape-recorded conversations during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 and other times show the president as lucid and in firm command. The most widely referenced account of Kennedy's supposed marijuana use was not primarily linked with his health or with medical treatment. Rather, it was an anecdotal account of JFK's supposedly being introduced to recreational pot use by one of his mistresses that was published in the National Enquirer tabloid in 1976 and referenced in the 1984 book The Kennedys: An American Drama by Peter Collier and David Horowitz. That latter work drew the following criticism in the aforementioned New York Times letter to the editor: The allegation by Mr. Collier and Mr. Horowitz that President John F. Kennedy had an affair with Mary Meyer is not new. But their charge that Mrs. Meyer introduced him to marijuana in the White House bedroom and 'joked with him about being high when it was time to push the nuclear button,' if true, makes President Reagan's remark about bombing the Russians appear an act of diplomacy. Newsweek and New Times are cited as the sources for this quotation. Those periodicals, however, merely repeated the allegation as it originally appeared in an interview in the March 2, 1976, National Enquirer. Moreover, the man making the charge had previously been adjudged mentally ill and a court had appointed a conservator to handle his affairs. The authors responded to that criticism by defending the provenance of their account of Kennedy's marijuana use: One the matter of President Kennedy's relationship wth Mary Meyer ... Newsweek and New Times, cited in our footnotes, did indeed report on their relationship and their use of drugs. The primary source for this information, according to the respected historian Herbert Parmet in his book 'JFK: The Presidency of John F. Kennedy,' was one of Mrs. Meyer's confidants, a former Washington Post editor named James Truitt. Mr. Truitt actually took the subject of the drug use farther than we did in our book. He said that one one occasion after J.F.K. and Mrs. Meyer had smoked marijuana, President Kennedy remarked that its effect was different from that of cocaine, which he had apparently tried and which he offered to bring to a future tryst. According to Mr. Truitt, 'They smoked three of the joints before he (J.F.K.) told her: 'No more. Suppose the Russians did something now.'' Accounts that came to light in 2002 appeared to have merged with the brief and oft-repeated anecdote involving Meyer, which was both anecdotal and did not match the assertion Kennedy had used marijuana as a medicinal purposes in treating back pain or Addison's Disease. We contacted the John F. Kennedy Library to inquire as to whether any firm information in their extensive archives substantiated the long-held rumor that JFK had medicated his largely secret medical problems with marijuana. An archivist noted that documentation supported the use of off-label or possibly illicit medications for his ailments, but that marijuana was not among those treatments: I'm not seeing anything that confirms this assertion. I've never actually seen the medical records from his Personal Papers, but am relying on accounts of biographers, Dallek and O'Brien, who have both viewed the papers with physicians and wrote about their findings. While they list a number of drugs and various treatments used, the use of cannabis is not among them. As you know there is a good deal written about Max Jacobsen's unofficial treatments using amphetamines, but once again, no mention of cannabis being something President Kennedy used on the side, too.

nan

JFK smoked cannabis in the White House during his presidency to treat various medical ailments.

Neutral

A long-circulating image seen often on social media claims that President John F. Kennedy (JFK) habitually smoked cannabis in the White House during his presidency to alleviate back pain and the symptoms of Addison's Disease: References to the rumor appeared in the New York Daily News in 1991 and the New York Times in 1984 (the latter in a letter to the editor about questionable biographical accounts of JFK's life). So prolific has the claim been that a strain of cannabis was informally named in Kennedy's honor. The rumor appeared to originate with information about Kennedy's health uncovered by biographers long after JFK's 1963 assassination. In 2002, a number of outlets reported on newly unveiled information about Kennedy's declining health in the years prior to his assassination: The first thorough examination of President John F. Kennedy's medical records, conducted by an independent presidential historian with a medical consultant, has found that Kennedy suffered from more ailments, was in far greater pain and was taking many more medications than the public knew at the time or biographers have since described. As president, he was famous for having a bad back, and since his death, biographers have pieced together details of other illnesses, including persistent digestive problems and Addison's disease, a life-threatening lack of adrenal function. But newly disclosed medical files covering the last eight years of Kennedy's life, including X-rays and prescription records, show that he took painkillers, antianxiety agents, stimulants and sleeping pills, as well as hormones to keep him alive, with extra doses in times of stress. At times the president took as many as eight medications a day, says the historian, Robert Dallek. A committee of three longtime Kennedy family associates, who for decades refused all requests to look at the records, granted Mr. Dallek's, in part because of his 'tremendous reputation,' said one of them, Theodore C. Sorensen, who was the president's special counsel. Mr. Dallek is writing a biography, 'An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963,' to be published by Little, Brown. He was allowed to examine the records over two days last spring in the company of a physician, Jeffrey A. Kelman, and to make notes but not photocopies. Their findings appear in the December issue of The Atlantic, and they discussed them in interviews with The New York Times. The new information shows how far Kennedy went to conceal his ailments and shatters the image he projected as the most vigorous of men. It is a remarkable example of a phenomenon that has been seen many times, notably in the case of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Yet for all of Kennedy's suffering, the ailments did not incapacitate him, Mr. Dallek concluded. In fact, he said, while Kennedy sometimes complained of grogginess, detailed transcripts of tape-recorded conversations during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 and other times show the president as lucid and in firm command. The most widely referenced account of Kennedy's supposed marijuana use was not primarily linked with his health or with medical treatment. Rather, it was an anecdotal account of JFK's supposedly being introduced to recreational pot use by one of his mistresses that was published in the National Enquirer tabloid in 1976 and referenced in the 1984 book The Kennedys: An American Drama by Peter Collier and David Horowitz. That latter work drew the following criticism in the aforementioned New York Times letter to the editor: The allegation by Mr. Collier and Mr. Horowitz that President John F. Kennedy had an affair with Mary Meyer is not new. But their charge that Mrs. Meyer introduced him to marijuana in the White House bedroom and 'joked with him about being high when it was time to push the nuclear button,' if true, makes President Reagan's remark about bombing the Russians appear an act of diplomacy. Newsweek and New Times are cited as the sources for this quotation. Those periodicals, however, merely repeated the allegation as it originally appeared in an interview in the March 2, 1976, National Enquirer. Moreover, the man making the charge had previously been adjudged mentally ill and a court had appointed a conservator to handle his affairs. The authors responded to that criticism by defending the provenance of their account of Kennedy's marijuana use: One the matter of President Kennedy's relationship wth Mary Meyer ... Newsweek and New Times, cited in our footnotes, did indeed report on their relationship and their use of drugs. The primary source for this information, according to the respected historian Herbert Parmet in his book 'JFK: The Presidency of John F. Kennedy,' was one of Mrs. Meyer's confidants, a former Washington Post editor named James Truitt. Mr. Truitt actually took the subject of the drug use farther than we did in our book. He said that one one occasion after J.F.K. and Mrs. Meyer had smoked marijuana, President Kennedy remarked that its effect was different from that of cocaine, which he had apparently tried and which he offered to bring to a future tryst. According to Mr. Truitt, 'They smoked three of the joints before he (J.F.K.) told her: 'No more. Suppose the Russians did something now.'' Accounts that came to light in 2002 appeared to have merged with the brief and oft-repeated anecdote involving Meyer, which was both anecdotal and did not match the assertion Kennedy had used marijuana as a medicinal purposes in treating back pain or Addison's Disease. We contacted the John F. Kennedy Library to inquire as to whether any firm information in their extensive archives substantiated the long-held rumor that JFK had medicated his largely secret medical problems with marijuana. An archivist noted that documentation supported the use of off-label or possibly illicit medications for his ailments, but that marijuana was not among those treatments: I'm not seeing anything that confirms this assertion. I've never actually seen the medical records from his Personal Papers, but am relying on accounts of biographers, Dallek and O'Brien, who have both viewed the papers with physicians and wrote about their findings. While they list a number of drugs and various treatments used, the use of cannabis is not among them. As you know there is a good deal written about Max Jacobsen's unofficial treatments using amphetamines, but once again, no mention of cannabis being something President Kennedy used on the side, too.

nan

JFK smoked cannabis in the White House during his presidency to treat various medical ailments.

Neutral

A long-circulating image seen often on social media claims that President John F. Kennedy (JFK) habitually smoked cannabis in the White House during his presidency to alleviate back pain and the symptoms of Addison's Disease: References to the rumor appeared in the New York Daily News in 1991 and the New York Times in 1984 (the latter in a letter to the editor about questionable biographical accounts of JFK's life). So prolific has the claim been that a strain of cannabis was informally named in Kennedy's honor. The rumor appeared to originate with information about Kennedy's health uncovered by biographers long after JFK's 1963 assassination. In 2002, a number of outlets reported on newly unveiled information about Kennedy's declining health in the years prior to his assassination: The first thorough examination of President John F. Kennedy's medical records, conducted by an independent presidential historian with a medical consultant, has found that Kennedy suffered from more ailments, was in far greater pain and was taking many more medications than the public knew at the time or biographers have since described. As president, he was famous for having a bad back, and since his death, biographers have pieced together details of other illnesses, including persistent digestive problems and Addison's disease, a life-threatening lack of adrenal function. But newly disclosed medical files covering the last eight years of Kennedy's life, including X-rays and prescription records, show that he took painkillers, antianxiety agents, stimulants and sleeping pills, as well as hormones to keep him alive, with extra doses in times of stress. At times the president took as many as eight medications a day, says the historian, Robert Dallek. A committee of three longtime Kennedy family associates, who for decades refused all requests to look at the records, granted Mr. Dallek's, in part because of his 'tremendous reputation,' said one of them, Theodore C. Sorensen, who was the president's special counsel. Mr. Dallek is writing a biography, 'An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963,' to be published by Little, Brown. He was allowed to examine the records over two days last spring in the company of a physician, Jeffrey A. Kelman, and to make notes but not photocopies. Their findings appear in the December issue of The Atlantic, and they discussed them in interviews with The New York Times. The new information shows how far Kennedy went to conceal his ailments and shatters the image he projected as the most vigorous of men. It is a remarkable example of a phenomenon that has been seen many times, notably in the case of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Yet for all of Kennedy's suffering, the ailments did not incapacitate him, Mr. Dallek concluded. In fact, he said, while Kennedy sometimes complained of grogginess, detailed transcripts of tape-recorded conversations during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 and other times show the president as lucid and in firm command. The most widely referenced account of Kennedy's supposed marijuana use was not primarily linked with his health or with medical treatment. Rather, it was an anecdotal account of JFK's supposedly being introduced to recreational pot use by one of his mistresses that was published in the National Enquirer tabloid in 1976 and referenced in the 1984 book The Kennedys: An American Drama by Peter Collier and David Horowitz. That latter work drew the following criticism in the aforementioned New York Times letter to the editor: The allegation by Mr. Collier and Mr. Horowitz that President John F. Kennedy had an affair with Mary Meyer is not new. But their charge that Mrs. Meyer introduced him to marijuana in the White House bedroom and 'joked with him about being high when it was time to push the nuclear button,' if true, makes President Reagan's remark about bombing the Russians appear an act of diplomacy. Newsweek and New Times are cited as the sources for this quotation. Those periodicals, however, merely repeated the allegation as it originally appeared in an interview in the March 2, 1976, National Enquirer. Moreover, the man making the charge had previously been adjudged mentally ill and a court had appointed a conservator to handle his affairs. The authors responded to that criticism by defending the provenance of their account of Kennedy's marijuana use: One the matter of President Kennedy's relationship wth Mary Meyer ... Newsweek and New Times, cited in our footnotes, did indeed report on their relationship and their use of drugs. The primary source for this information, according to the respected historian Herbert Parmet in his book 'JFK: The Presidency of John F. Kennedy,' was one of Mrs. Meyer's confidants, a former Washington Post editor named James Truitt. Mr. Truitt actually took the subject of the drug use farther than we did in our book. He said that one one occasion after J.F.K. and Mrs. Meyer had smoked marijuana, President Kennedy remarked that its effect was different from that of cocaine, which he had apparently tried and which he offered to bring to a future tryst. According to Mr. Truitt, 'They smoked three of the joints before he (J.F.K.) told her: 'No more. Suppose the Russians did something now.'' Accounts that came to light in 2002 appeared to have merged with the brief and oft-repeated anecdote involving Meyer, which was both anecdotal and did not match the assertion Kennedy had used marijuana as a medicinal purposes in treating back pain or Addison's Disease. We contacted the John F. Kennedy Library to inquire as to whether any firm information in their extensive archives substantiated the long-held rumor that JFK had medicated his largely secret medical problems with marijuana. An archivist noted that documentation supported the use of off-label or possibly illicit medications for his ailments, but that marijuana was not among those treatments: I'm not seeing anything that confirms this assertion. I've never actually seen the medical records from his Personal Papers, but am relying on accounts of biographers, Dallek and O'Brien, who have both viewed the papers with physicians and wrote about their findings. While they list a number of drugs and various treatments used, the use of cannabis is not among them. As you know there is a good deal written about Max Jacobsen's unofficial treatments using amphetamines, but once again, no mention of cannabis being something President Kennedy used on the side, too.

nan

JFK smoked cannabis in the White House during his presidency to treat various medical ailments.

Neutral

A long-circulating image seen often on social media claims that President John F. Kennedy (JFK) habitually smoked cannabis in the White House during his presidency to alleviate back pain and the symptoms of Addison's Disease: References to the rumor appeared in the New York Daily News in 1991 and the New York Times in 1984 (the latter in a letter to the editor about questionable biographical accounts of JFK's life). So prolific has the claim been that a strain of cannabis was informally named in Kennedy's honor. The rumor appeared to originate with information about Kennedy's health uncovered by biographers long after JFK's 1963 assassination. In 2002, a number of outlets reported on newly unveiled information about Kennedy's declining health in the years prior to his assassination: The first thorough examination of President John F. Kennedy's medical records, conducted by an independent presidential historian with a medical consultant, has found that Kennedy suffered from more ailments, was in far greater pain and was taking many more medications than the public knew at the time or biographers have since described. As president, he was famous for having a bad back, and since his death, biographers have pieced together details of other illnesses, including persistent digestive problems and Addison's disease, a life-threatening lack of adrenal function. But newly disclosed medical files covering the last eight years of Kennedy's life, including X-rays and prescription records, show that he took painkillers, antianxiety agents, stimulants and sleeping pills, as well as hormones to keep him alive, with extra doses in times of stress. At times the president took as many as eight medications a day, says the historian, Robert Dallek. A committee of three longtime Kennedy family associates, who for decades refused all requests to look at the records, granted Mr. Dallek's, in part because of his 'tremendous reputation,' said one of them, Theodore C. Sorensen, who was the president's special counsel. Mr. Dallek is writing a biography, 'An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963,' to be published by Little, Brown. He was allowed to examine the records over two days last spring in the company of a physician, Jeffrey A. Kelman, and to make notes but not photocopies. Their findings appear in the December issue of The Atlantic, and they discussed them in interviews with The New York Times. The new information shows how far Kennedy went to conceal his ailments and shatters the image he projected as the most vigorous of men. It is a remarkable example of a phenomenon that has been seen many times, notably in the case of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Yet for all of Kennedy's suffering, the ailments did not incapacitate him, Mr. Dallek concluded. In fact, he said, while Kennedy sometimes complained of grogginess, detailed transcripts of tape-recorded conversations during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 and other times show the president as lucid and in firm command. The most widely referenced account of Kennedy's supposed marijuana use was not primarily linked with his health or with medical treatment. Rather, it was an anecdotal account of JFK's supposedly being introduced to recreational pot use by one of his mistresses that was published in the National Enquirer tabloid in 1976 and referenced in the 1984 book The Kennedys: An American Drama by Peter Collier and David Horowitz. That latter work drew the following criticism in the aforementioned New York Times letter to the editor: The allegation by Mr. Collier and Mr. Horowitz that President John F. Kennedy had an affair with Mary Meyer is not new. But their charge that Mrs. Meyer introduced him to marijuana in the White House bedroom and 'joked with him about being high when it was time to push the nuclear button,' if true, makes President Reagan's remark about bombing the Russians appear an act of diplomacy. Newsweek and New Times are cited as the sources for this quotation. Those periodicals, however, merely repeated the allegation as it originally appeared in an interview in the March 2, 1976, National Enquirer. Moreover, the man making the charge had previously been adjudged mentally ill and a court had appointed a conservator to handle his affairs. The authors responded to that criticism by defending the provenance of their account of Kennedy's marijuana use: One the matter of President Kennedy's relationship wth Mary Meyer ... Newsweek and New Times, cited in our footnotes, did indeed report on their relationship and their use of drugs. The primary source for this information, according to the respected historian Herbert Parmet in his book 'JFK: The Presidency of John F. Kennedy,' was one of Mrs. Meyer's confidants, a former Washington Post editor named James Truitt. Mr. Truitt actually took the subject of the drug use farther than we did in our book. He said that one one occasion after J.F.K. and Mrs. Meyer had smoked marijuana, President Kennedy remarked that its effect was different from that of cocaine, which he had apparently tried and which he offered to bring to a future tryst. According to Mr. Truitt, 'They smoked three of the joints before he (J.F.K.) told her: 'No more. Suppose the Russians did something now.'' Accounts that came to light in 2002 appeared to have merged with the brief and oft-repeated anecdote involving Meyer, which was both anecdotal and did not match the assertion Kennedy had used marijuana as a medicinal purposes in treating back pain or Addison's Disease. We contacted the John F. Kennedy Library to inquire as to whether any firm information in their extensive archives substantiated the long-held rumor that JFK had medicated his largely secret medical problems with marijuana. An archivist noted that documentation supported the use of off-label or possibly illicit medications for his ailments, but that marijuana was not among those treatments: I'm not seeing anything that confirms this assertion. I've never actually seen the medical records from his Personal Papers, but am relying on accounts of biographers, Dallek and O'Brien, who have both viewed the papers with physicians and wrote about their findings. While they list a number of drugs and various treatments used, the use of cannabis is not among them. As you know there is a good deal written about Max Jacobsen's unofficial treatments using amphetamines, but once again, no mention of cannabis being something President Kennedy used on the side, too.

nan

A photograph depicts a young woman's revealing (and highly inappropriate) high school prom dress.

Neutral

On 12 April 2016, the online publication Mic covered a social media controversy over a purported photograph of young woman's very revealing (and inappropriate) high school prom dress. However, that site noted that despite the popularity of the image (and the mountain of shame heaped upon it), no one was sure the photograph actually captured a high school age 'girl' attending a school prom: Two radio stations - 105.9 Kiss FM in Detroit and Old School Cincy in Cincinnati - posted onto their respected Facebook pages the same photo of what they claimed to be a high school student on her way to prom in a 'revealing' black dress ... Mic called both stations to verify that the person in the photo is in fact a high school student, but has yet to hear back. The radio station that shared the image included no details or other information about the woman pictured, the date of the photograph, the location of the purported prom, or how they determined that the picture depicted a prom attendee and not a grown woman dressed for a night out: One potential hole in the story was that a reverse image search performed before the 'prom' angle started to catch on returned 'fashion model' as a descriptor of the image, not 'prom dress': The photograph also lacked all other stock-standard elements of prom pictures: a date in a tuxedo, fellow attendees, a corsage, a limousine, a pleasantly-planned background (such as a garden or gazebo), or anything other than a revealing dress. The image seemed to be more of a paparazzi-style photograph than a prom portrait, and some commenters pointed out that the woman did not appear to be of high school age. Not all social media shares of the photograph claimed the woman was a prom attendee, either, querying as to whether a guy would 'allow' his partner to wear such attire out on the town for a girls' night out: Guys, would you let your girl go out with her girls like this? pic.twitter.com/o4svmtR8K7 - Cataleiah (@CataleiahGrace) April 12, 2016 The earliest appearance of the photograph we were able to locate was posted to Tumblr and dated 9 April 2016. The user who posted it speculated that the pictured dress was for a prom but did not offer any information substantiating that statement. Although social media users were quick to condemn the pictured woman here and her parents based solely on captions, no solid proof or even circumstantial information suggested the photograph was one of a high school student in a risqué prom dress.

nan

A photograph depicts a young woman's revealing (and highly inappropriate) high school prom dress.

Neutral

On 12 April 2016, the online publication Mic covered a social media controversy over a purported photograph of young woman's very revealing (and inappropriate) high school prom dress. However, that site noted that despite the popularity of the image (and the mountain of shame heaped upon it), no one was sure the photograph actually captured a high school age 'girl' attending a school prom: Two radio stations - 105.9 Kiss FM in Detroit and Old School Cincy in Cincinnati - posted onto their respected Facebook pages the same photo of what they claimed to be a high school student on her way to prom in a 'revealing' black dress ... Mic called both stations to verify that the person in the photo is in fact a high school student, but has yet to hear back. The radio station that shared the image included no details or other information about the woman pictured, the date of the photograph, the location of the purported prom, or how they determined that the picture depicted a prom attendee and not a grown woman dressed for a night out: One potential hole in the story was that a reverse image search performed before the 'prom' angle started to catch on returned 'fashion model' as a descriptor of the image, not 'prom dress': The photograph also lacked all other stock-standard elements of prom pictures: a date in a tuxedo, fellow attendees, a corsage, a limousine, a pleasantly-planned background (such as a garden or gazebo), or anything other than a revealing dress. The image seemed to be more of a paparazzi-style photograph than a prom portrait, and some commenters pointed out that the woman did not appear to be of high school age. Not all social media shares of the photograph claimed the woman was a prom attendee, either, querying as to whether a guy would 'allow' his partner to wear such attire out on the town for a girls' night out: Guys, would you let your girl go out with her girls like this? pic.twitter.com/o4svmtR8K7 - Cataleiah (@CataleiahGrace) April 12, 2016 The earliest appearance of the photograph we were able to locate was posted to Tumblr and dated 9 April 2016. The user who posted it speculated that the pictured dress was for a prom but did not offer any information substantiating that statement. Although social media users were quick to condemn the pictured woman here and her parents based solely on captions, no solid proof or even circumstantial information suggested the photograph was one of a high school student in a risqué prom dress.

nan

President Trump has ordered the construction of concentration camps in the U.S.

Neutral

The web site Learn Progress published an article in January 2017 reporting that President Trump was building 'concentration camps' in the United States: BREAKING: Donald Trump is Having Feds Build 'Concentration Camp' Detention Centers. Why? We've all been outraged over the fact that Donald Trump is moving full-steam ahead on his Muslim immigration ban. If you thought that was bad, then wait 'til you hear what the Orange Tyrant is doing next. Donald Trump is now setting his sights on punishing undocumented immigrants in America. Shockingly, Trump just signed a directive to create new camps - concentration camps - where such immigrants will be held for deportation. This article was based on an executive order signed by President Trump on 25 January 2017. That order did include a provision regarding the construction of more detention centers along the U.S.-Mexican border, but the headline of Learn Progress' article placed the term 'Concentration Camps' in quotes, making it seemed as if the detention centers were to be something new and (onerously) different on the American landscape. President Trump's executive order would not create the United States' first detention centers for immigrants. As of this writing, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operate 111 detention facilities in the United States, many of which are situated along the U.S.-Mexican border: Sec. 5. Detention Facilities. (a) The Secretary shall take all appropriate action and allocate all legally available resources to immediately construct, operate, control, or establish contracts to construct, operate, or control facilities to detain aliens at or near the land border with Mexico. (b) The Secretary shall take all appropriate action and allocate all legally available resources to immediately assign asylum officers to immigration detention facilities for the purpose of accepting asylum referrals and conducting credible fear determinations pursuant to section 235(b)(1) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1)) and applicable regulations and reasonable fear determinations pursuant to applicable regulations. (c) The Attorney General shall take all appropriate action and allocate all legally available resources to immediately assign immigration judges to immigration detention facilities operated or controlled by the Secretary, or operated or controlled pursuant to contract by the Secretary, for the purpose of conducting proceedings authorized under title 8, chapter 12, subchapter II, United States Code. Sec. 6. Detention for Illegal Entry. The Secretary shall immediately take all appropriate actions to ensure the detention of aliens apprehended for violations of immigration law pending the outcome of their removal proceedings or their removal from the country to the extent permitted by law. The Secretary shall issue new policy guidance to all Department of Homeland Security personnel regarding the appropriate and consistent use of lawful detention authority under the INA, including the termination of the practice commonly known as 'catch and release,' whereby aliens are routinely released in the United States shortly after their apprehension for violations of immigration law. Although labeling such detention facilities as 'concentration camps' is problematic (for many the term conjures up images of the inhumane treatment, torture, and murder that took place in such camps established by Nazi-era Germany), the United States has been criticized for the reported treatment of detainees in American facilities: The U.S. government has the largest immigration detention system in the world, and that is nothing to be proud of. The underlying problem with immigration detention is that most detainees are only guilty of being in the U.S. without authorization, which is a civil offense, not a crime. Yet detainees are treated like criminals, held behind bars and barbed wire, often in remote locations. In fact, in at least one respect, immigration detainees are treated worse than criminals: Criminal defendants have the right to a speedy adjudication and to court-appointed legal counsel. Immigration detainees do not. Detention punishes people in disproportionate relation to their alleged infractions, and contributes to the misconception that undocumented immigrants are criminals.

nan