Do abortion rates decrease under Democratic administrations and increase under Republican administrations?
In 1969, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began collecting nationwide data on the numbers of abortions, the abortion ratio (abortions versus live births), and the abortion rate (abortions versus the US population of women aged 15-44 years old). collecting While these data are not perfect due to inconsistent (and sometimes non-existent) reporting from different states, they can be used to analyze relative changes in abortion rates during the presidencies of different presidential parties, as we will do here using numbers from the CDCs annual abortion surveillance study. Red portions of the lines show the ratio and rates of abortions occurring under Republican administrations, and blue under Democratic administrations: not perfect numbers  Before delving into the specific relationship between abortions and the political party affiliation of the President, the complete data set should be analyzed as a whole to provide context. This is how the CDC describes the overall trend in their data: describes Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace. However, the incidence of abortion has varied considerably across demographic subpopulations. Moreover, during 20062008, a break occurred in the previously sustained pattern of decrease, but in all subsequent years has been followed by even greater decreases. The large uptick in legal abortions though the 70s is related to the the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a womans right to an abortion is protected under the right to privacy of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. Roe v. Wade It is plain to see that abortion rates have risen (prior to their peaking in the mid-1980s) and fallen under both Democratic and Republican administration, suggesting little to no correlation with whichever political party controls the White House. The overall trend since the 1980s has been a fairly consistent decline across through administrations of both parties. It would be easy to demonstrate that abortion rates have not risen under Democratic administrations in the last several decades, but it would be false to argue that declines in abortion rates are an exclusive feature of Democratic presidencies. The claim that abortion rates fall under Democrats, while true, ignores the fact that rates have also continued to decline through Republican administrations as well. The claim, then, that abortion rates (at least since their mid-1980s peak) have risen when Republicans have held the White House is therefore equally false. At most, one can argue that the rate of decline appeared to slow during the presidency of George W. Bush before increasing under President Barack Obama's administration, but such an observation would be based on a comparison between only two administrations and would do nothing to demonstrate causation. In fact, causation between the presidency and abortion rates would be difficult to demonstrate in any case because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement. Nearly all challenges to open access to abortion have come at the state, and not the federal, level. According to a 2013 report by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute: report Twenty-two states enacted 70 abortion restrictions during 2013. This makes 2013 second only to 2011 in the number of new abortion restrictions enacted in a single year. To put recent trends in even sharper relief, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted over the past three years (20112013), but just 189 were enacted during the entire previous decade (20012010). At the federal level, legislators have had more trouble passing abortion restrictions into law, making it difficult to argue that any presidential policy, specifically, has had an effect on abortion rates. The only relevant federal legislation that has been signed into law are the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal money from funding (most) abortions, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which criminalized abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy and was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2007. 1976 Hyde Amendment Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 What one can say, though, is that federal or myriad state-level regulations put in place do not appear to produce much of a change in abortion rates, according to a 2014 study by the Guttmacher Institute: study Forty-four laws intended to restrict access to abortion were implemented in 18 states between 2008 and 2010; an additional 62 were implemented in 2011 in 21 states. Some of these laws, such as those that added information to existing counseling requirements, would not necessarily be expected to have a measurable impact. In turn, we found no indication that they affected state-specific trends in abortion incidence. [...] Finally, a number of states that did not enact any new abortion restrictions and that are generally supportive of abortion rightsfor example, by allowing state Medicaid funds to pay for abortions for eligible womenexperienced declines in their abortion rates comparable to, and sometimes greater than, the national decline (e.g., California, New Jersey and New York). That these states also experienced a slight drop in the number of clinics offering abortion services may reflect a decline in demand as opposed to the imposition of legal barriers. According to the CDC, multiple factors can affect abortion rates, including those such as contraception and demographic changes that have an effect on the demand for (as opposed to availability of) abortions: CDC Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception.
Every flu season sees an increase in viral web stories making largely unsubstantiated allegations about the health risks of the flu shot that include claims about their scary-sounding ingredients, connections to a variety of diseases (including Alzheimer's), and their supposed lack of efficacy in general: The pharmaceutical industry, medical experts and the mainstream media are candid in telling us that flu vaccines contain strains of the flu virus. What they are less likely to reveal though is the long list of other ingredients that come with the vaccine. It is now a known fact that flu vaccines contain mercury, a heavy metal known to be hazardous for human health. Mercury toxicity can cause depression, memory loss, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory problems, ADD, oral health problems, digestive imbalances and other serious health issues. The article quoted above, which is representative of the text and claims that appear nearly identically in hundreds of Facebook posts, makes a number of claims that need to be investigated on their own merits: identically  Claim: The flu shot makes you sick to begin with.  Flu shots work by introducing dead (inactivated) strains of influenza virus, which trigger your immune system to create antibodies to fight those strains. These antibodies make your body more prepared to fight if should it be exposed to an active strain in the future. Because the strains are inactive, any sickness you develop after the shot is not caused by influenza, according to the Harvard Medical School: according The vaccine is made from an inactivated virus that can't transmit infection. So people who get sick after receiving a flu vaccination were going to get sick anyway. It takes a week or two to get protection from the vaccine. But people assume that because they got sick after getting the vaccine, the shot caused their illness. It is, of course, possible that feelings of sickness come from some of the side effects of the injection, but the vaccine itself is not infecting you in any way. side effects Claim: Flu vaccines contain other dangerous ingredients such as mercury. false Flu shots administered from multi-use vials may contain a preservative called thimerosal, which breaks down into ethylmercury in the body. Mercury is an element and as such it can be found in many different chemical forms. But when people are concerned about mercury toxicity, they are concerned about methylmercury, which is indeed toxic at high levels and could cause some of the problems listed above. may contain methylmercury Ethylmercury, on the other hand, passes through your body quickly, and numerous studies have found it safe for use in vaccines (though there is some evidence that its use could be problematic for infants  a population that CDC does not  recommend for flu shots anyway). Saying ethylmercury is dangerous because is contains mercury is like saying that your table salt is at risk of spontaneous combustion because it contains sodium. passes for infants  recommend spontaneous combustion Thimerosal, additionally, has been used for decades by the anti-vaccine movement to stoke vaccination fear by suggesting it causes by suggesting it causes autism. This link has been discredited over, and over, and over, and over, and over again and is further compromised by the fact that autism rates are still climbing despite the fact that childhood vaccines no longer contain this ingredient. over over over over over climbing contain  Claim: The flu shot can give you Alzheimer's disease. false The leading immunogeneticist Dr. Hugh Fudenberg, whom the article cites as the authority on this claim, had his medical license revoked in 1995 for ethical misconduct and was an outspoken proponent of the widely discredited MMR-autism link. His claim of the link between Alzheimer's and vaccines, though hard to trace, may or may not come from a talk he gave at the 1997 NVIC International Vaccine Conference. The statement has not been backed up by any published peer-reviewed research since then. In fact, a 2001 study found that adults exposed to vaccines were at a lower risk of Alzheimers. revoked in 1995 may or may not study Claim: The very people pushing flu vaccinations are making billions of dollars each year.  Pharmaceutical companies (sometimes) profit from vaccines, but the fact that a company makes a profit is an appeal to emotion and is not evidence to support the claim of a faulty product or of nefarious intent. It also may not be accurate. A recent Atlantic article covered this question extensively, stating: article Not only do pediatricians and doctors often lose money on vaccine administration, it wasn't too long ago that the vaccine industry was struggling with slim profit margins and shortages. The Economist wrote that "for decades vaccines were a neglected corner of the drugs business, with old technology, little investment and abysmal profit margins. Many firms sold their vaccine divisions to concentrate on more profitable drugs." The suggestion of massive profits from flu shots ignores the fact that profits margins are generally much higher for other drugs than for flu vaccines, as well. The same Atlantic article cites one estimate that puts the vaccine market at around $24 billion. This sounds like a large number, but it would, in fact, account for only two to three percent of the pharmaceutical market worldwide. article Claim: There is a lack of real evidence that young children even benefit fromflu shots.  Many anti-vaccine articles parrot the claim that "51 studies involving 260,000 children showed no benefit compared to a placebo for children under the age of two". This stems from a 2008 meta-analysis that did indeed conclude that there is less efficacy for children under the age of two, something the CDC already recognizes on their website. However, of the 51 studies analyzed and the 260,000 observations those studies included, only one study (at the time) was performed on children below the age of two using inactive strains (the kind found in flu shots). A later study in 2011 that reviewed over 5,000 research articles concluded that flu shots consistently show highest efficacy in young children (aged 6 months to 7 years), categorically rejecting the claim that there is a lack of real evidence that young children benefit from the shot. 2008 meta-analysis recognizes study Claim: The flu shot makes you more susceptible to pneumonia and other contagious diseases. false People with compromised immune systems are at higher risk of complications from vaccines when those vaccines contain live strains (which, again, the flu shot does not), and some skin reactions are possible immediately following an injection. risk possible However, the notion that the flu shot weakens the immune system is false. According to a review paper in the journal Pediatrics: paper Vaccines may cause temporary suppression of delayed-type hypersensitivity skin reactions or alter certain lymphocyte function tests in vitro. However, the short-lived immunosuppression caused by certain vaccines does not result in an increased risk of infections with other pathogens soon after vaccination. Claim: The flu shot causes vascular disorders such as fever, jaw pain, muscle aches, pain and stiffness in the neck, upper arms, shoulder and hips and headache. MISLEADING While the term vascular disorder is fear-inducing, it merely describes anything having to do with veins and arteries. The flu shot does not, de facto, cause any of these problems, but all the complications listed above are listed by the CDC as possible side effects. It is worth noting, however, that the flu will almost certainly give you some or all of these symptomsand with a much greater intensity than the symptoms resulting from a flu shot. CDC almost certainly give you some or all Claim: Children under the age of 1 are at risk of a neurotoxic breach of the blood-brain barrier.  The blood-brain barrier is the medical term for the chemical and physical adaptations humans and other animals have that prevent pathogens and other chemicals in the body from entering the central nervous system. For this claim about neurotoxic breach be true, an infant would have to have a relatively weaker blood-brain barrier than an adult. The idea that the barrier is weaker in young infants, however, is a long-held but unsubstantiated myth. Numerous studies have refuted the claim, showing that the blood-brain barrier is fully developed in the womb, long before a child is born. blood-brain barrier myth fully developed  Claim: Flu shots carry an increased risk of narcolepsy. false There is a well-documented, though statistically minor, connection between a specific H1N1 flu vaccine (Pandemrix) and narcolepsy. But such reports concerned only that one vaccine, which was produced for a specific flu strain, and have limited relevance to the seasonal flu shot. Pandemrix is available in Europe but not the United States or Canada. well-documented connection not Claim: The flu shot weakens immunological responses.  This claim, from a scientific standpoint, is a repeat of the earlier false claim (above) that suggests your body is more susceptible to infection or disease after a flu shot. Harmful immunological responses is a broad and unhelpful term that, while it may have aided in turning up literally thousands of responses in an academic search, is not really all that surprising as the term would includes the already documented risk of a skin and allergic reactions that come with pretty much any injection. already documented Claim: The flu shot can cause serious neurological disorders. false The neurological disorder specifically associated with flu vaccines is the Guillain-Barr Syndromea terrifying disease that causes nerve damage and sometimes paralysis. A widely cited study on a population of individuals who received the H1N1 vaccine in 1976 showed an increased risk of contracting this disease  whose cause is unknown  compared to those who did not receive the vaccine: Guillain-Barr Syndrome The Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a scientific review of this issue in 2003 and found that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS. The increased risk was approximately one additional case of GBS for every 100,000 people who got the swine flu vaccine. Scientists have several theories about the cause, but the exact reason for this link remains unknown. The link between GBS and flu vaccination in other years is unclear, and if there is any risk for GBS after seasonal flu vaccines it is very small, about one in a million. Studies suggest that it is more likely that a person will get GBS after getting the flu than after vaccination. It is important to keep in mind that severe illness and death are associated with flu, and getting vaccinated is the best way to prevent flu infection and its complications. This topic has been heavily researched for decades, and no specific consensus regarding the link or mechanism behind the flu virus and the disease has been established. What has been established, however, is how small the risk is relative to the risks of contracting complications from flu itself. A 2013 study in The Lancet stated that: study The relative and attributable risks of Guillain-Barr syndrome after seasonal influenza vaccination are lower than those after influenza illness. Patients considering immunisation should be fully informed of the risks of Guillain-Barr syndrome from both influenza vaccines and influenza illness. Current iterations of the seasonal flu shot do not have any live strains in them (though the nasal spray includes weakened strains), nor do they have any mercury (in the United States), detergent, antifreeze, or aluminum. They contain, at most, 50 times less formaldehyde than a pear. nasal spray nor aluminum pear  We, of course, are not healthcare providers and cannot make any medical decisions for you. The purpose of this post is to correct misinformation on the Internet, and there are few topics that lend themselves to as much misinformation as vaccines. All healthcare decisions, however, should be made between you and your doctor. Harvard Medical School.  "10 Flu Myths."
  November 2009. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Possible Side-Effects from Vaccines."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Vaccine Excipient & Media Summary."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Thimerosal in Vaccines."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. World Health Organization.  "Statement on Thimerosal."
  July 2006. Dorea, J.G.  "Low-Dose Mercury Exposure in Early Life: Relevance of Thimerosal to Fetuses, Newborns and Infants."
  Current Medical Chemistry.  2013. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Key Facts About Seasonal Flu Vaccine."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Verreault, Rene et al.  "Past Exposure to Vaccines and Subsequent Risk of Alzheimer's Disease."
  CMAJ.  27 November 2001. Gorski, David.  "Oh, Come On, Superman!: Bill Maher Versus 'Western Medicine.'"
  Science Based Medicine.  7 September 2009. Casewatch.  "Disciplinary Actions Against Herman Hugh Fudenberg, M.D."
  20 April 2005. Pediatrics.  "Joint Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS)."
  September 1999. Taylor. Luke E. et al.  Vaccines Are Not Associated with Autism: An Evidence-Based Meta-Analysis of Case-Control and Cohort Studies."
  Vaccine.  17 June 2014. Ball, L.K. et al.  An Assessment of Thimerosal Use in Childhood Vaccines."
  Pediatrics.  May 2001. Madsen, Kreesten, M. et al.  A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism."
  New England Journal of Medicine.  7 November 2002. Hviid, Anders et al.  Association Between Thimerosal-Containing
Vaccine and Autism."
  New England Journal of Medicine.  October 2003. The National Academies.  "Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism."
  2004. Vaccine Knowledge Project.  "Vaccine Ingredients."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Vaccines Adjuvants."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Flublok Seasonal Influenza (Flu) Vaccine."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Guillain-Barre Syndrome."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Narcolepsy Following Pandemrix Influenza Vaccination in Europe."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Miller, Elizabeth et al.  Risk of Narcolepsy in Children and Young People Receiving As03 Adjuvanted Pandemic A/h1n1 2009 Influenza Vaccine: Retrospective Analysis."
  BMJ.  26 February 2013. Moretti, Raffella et al.  Blood-Brain Barrier Dysfunction in Disorders of the Developing Brain."
  Frontiers in Neuroscience.  17 February 2015. Volodin, N.N. et al.  Status of the Blood-brain Barrier in Newborn Infants of Various Gestational Ages in the Normal State and in Pathology."
  Pediatriia.  1989. Saunders, Norman R. et al.  The Rights and Wrongs of Blood-brain Barrier Permeability Studies: S Walk Through 100 Years of History."
  Frontiers in Neuroscience.  16 December 2014. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Flu Symptoms & Complications."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Key Facts About Seasonal Flu Vaccine."
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Osterholm, Michael T. et al.  Efficacy and Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis."
  The Lancet.  January 2012. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Vaccine Effectiveness  How Well Does the Flu Vaccine Work?"
  Accessed 8 October 2016. Jefferson, T. et al.  Vaccines for Preventing Influenza in Healthy Children."
  Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.  16 April 2008. Lam, Bourree.  Vaccines Are Profitable, So What?"
  The Atlantic.  10 February 2015. For years, liberal social media users have shared photographs or videos supposedly depicting former U.S. President Jimmy Carter doing woodworking with what appears to be an eye injury, apparently to emphasize that his alleged age and medical history hadn't stopped him from volunteering. One Twitter user, for example, posted the below-displayed meme about the 39th president in April 2022: videos posted   A reverse-image search of the meme revealed numerous instances in which internet users promoted this underlying claim: that Carter, at age 95, fell, received stitches and then the following day helped build houses for Habitat for Humanity  a Christian nonprofit that helps low-income families build homes and pay their mortgages. revealed numerous instances Christian nonprofit [See also: Why Do the Bidens Look Giant in Photo With Carters?] Why Do the Bidens Look Giant in Photo With Carters? The claim was true  though the incident had occurred more than two years ago, as of this writing. On Oct. 7, 2019, The Associated Press published the photographs featured in the meme, writing: writing NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP)  With a bandage above his left eye and a large, red welt below it, former President Jimmy Carter was greeted by a cheering crowd Monday morning as he prepared to help build a home with Habitat for Humanity in Nashville. Habitat for Humanity Carter fell at home on Sunday, requiring 14 stiches, but he did not let his injuries keep him from participating in his 36th building project with the nonprofit Christian housing organization. He turned 95 last Tuesday, becoming the first U.S. president to reach that milestone. The newspaper reported that he and his wife, former First Lady Rosalyn Carter, worked that day on building corbels, a type of support bracket, for a home. CNN also reported on the public appearance, including the following quote from the former president in its Oct. 8, 2019, story: I fell down and hit my forehead on a sharp edge and had to go to the hospital. And they took 14 stitches in my forehead and my eye is black, as youve noticed, he said. But I had a No. 1 priority and that was to come to Nashville and build houses. CNN also reported According to the nonprofit's website, the couple formed a partnership with Habitat for Humanity in the 1980s, and they have rallied "thousands of volunteers and even celebrities" to join the organization's cause since then. However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021, Habitat for Humanity paused its so-called "Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter Work Project," a reoccurring event during which the couple fundraises to build a grouping of homes somewhere. nonprofit's website 1980s Interested in presidential trivia? We recently combed our archives to compile exclusive stories regarding presidents pets, drinking, alleged extramarital affairs, purported after-death hauntings of the White House  and more. They are listed in order of presidential term here, and include the following nuggets of information about Carter: presidents pets drinking extramarital affairs purported after-death hauntings here Yes, Carter once helped contain a potentially dangerous accident at a nuclear reactor in Canada. He and his wife, Rosalynn, are the longest-married couple in presidential history. Carter indeed published an open letter entitled Losing My Religion for Equality. Carter Work Project. Habitat for Humanity, https://www.habitat.org/volunteer/build-events/carter-work-project. Accessed 14 Apr. 2022. Despite Fall, Former President Carter Helps Build Home. AP NEWS, 7 Oct. 2019, https://apnews.com/article/9ef214c0b3c748b6b32fa40a70ff6624. Ahmed, Elizabeth Wolfe, Saeed. Despite 14 Stitches and a Black Eye, Jimmy Carter Is Back Building Homes. CNN, 8 Oct. 2019, https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/us/carter-building-houses-after-stitches-falling-trnd/index.html. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In early March 2020, amid the COVID-19 coronavirus disease outbreak that would later grow into a pandemic, the massive retail and delivery company Amazon launched the Amazon Relief Fund, which among other things, offers grants to contract and seasonal workers so they can receive sick pay if they contract the coronavirus. The $25 million fund established by Amazon sparked an online backlash after a liberal newsletter pointed out that seasonal and contract workers would have to file an application to receive the funds, and that Amazon, a behemoth corporation whose founder and CEO Jeff Bezos is the richest person in the world, solicited public donations for the program. Anger over the idea that a famously profitable corporation was soliciting donations from the public to fund sick leave for some of its workforce during a pandemic was initiated by reporting from Popular Information, described as a "newsletter about politics and power." The letter's founder, Judd Legum, posted this Twitter thread on March 24, 2020:We reached out to Amazon for comment and received the following statement: reporting Twitter thread  We are not and have not asked for donations and the Amazon Relief Fund has been funded by Amazon with an initial donation of $25 million. The structure to operate a fund like this, which hundreds of companies do through the same third-party, requires the program to be open to public contributions but we are not soliciting those contributions in any way. Amazon truly did launch a $25 million fund to provide sick leave for contract workers and seasonal employees through a grant program to which those workers must file applications before receiving benefits. Although the wording on the page has since been updated to indicate that donations are not expected, initially the language did indicate that Amazon was seeking  or at the very least suggesting  donations. An archived version of the page from March 19, 2020, included this statement (shown in the screen capture below): "The Fund relies primarily on individual donations from individuals and support from Amazon.com Services LLC to fund this program."The page has since been updated. The highlighted sentence above was removed and the page now explicitly states that donations from the public are not expected, as follows:We reached out to Legum, who told us via email that he believed Amazon changed the wording on the relief fund page "because the optics were clearly bad and the company is trying to cover up its actions." Legum added that in his view, "Amazon has ample resources to simply pay their contractors while they are out sick during this pandemic." updated archived version  updated  According to Amazon's announcement, the Amazon Relief Fund will provide their delivery partners and drivers "the ability to apply for grants approximately equal to up to two-weeks of pay if diagnosed with COVID-19 or placed into quarantine by the government or Amazon." announcement Additionally, the statement reads, "this fund will support our employees and contractors around the world who face financial hardships from other qualifying events, such as a natural disaster, federally declared emergency, or unforeseen personal hardship. Applicants can apply and receive a personal grant from the fund ranging from $400 to $5,000 USD per person." The company also announced it is offering unlimited unpaid time off for hourly staff during the month of March. announced Whether or not Amazon actively solicited donations, the original wording on its Amazon Relief Fund page did call for individuals to donate to the fund. Even though the wording has been updated to state explicitly that no donations from the public are expected, a "Donate" button still exists on the page, which could be interpreted as an invitation to do so. We therefore rate this claim  Legum, Judd.  "Amazon Soliciting Public Donations to Pay Workers' Sick Leave."
  Popular Information.24 March 2020. Galetti, Beth.  "COVID-19 Update: More Ways Amazon Is Supporting Employees and Contractors."
  DayOne, the Amazon blog.11 March 2020. Palmer, Annie.  "Amazon Launches $25 Million Relief Fund for Delivery Drivers and Seasonal Employees Amid Coronavirus Outbreak."
  CNBC.  11 March 2020. Greene, Jaye.  "Amazon Workers Test Positive for Covid-19 at 10 U.S. Warehouses."
  Washington Post.25 March 2020. [CORRECTION 03/25/20]: A previous version of this article erroneously stated that Amazon was offering "unlimited paid time off" to hourly staff during the month of March; that has been corrected to "unlimited unpaid time off." Claim:  Map shows states in which employees can be "fired for being gay." PARTLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2013] I saw a map of states where you can be fired for being gay. Is this true?  Origins:  The map displayed above identifies twenty-nine states (shown in red) where, according to the accompanying title, "you can be fired for being gay." This map is "true" in the broad sense that it identifies states which do not currently have statewide laws prohibiting all employers from engaging in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but it is not the case that those states are all completely devoid protections against that form of discrimination.  Anti-discrimination laws typically address not just discrimination in the termination of employees but also in other job-related aspects, such as hiring, promotion, job assignment,  and compensation. In general, employees who work on an at-will basis may (with some narrow exceptions) be terminated without cause  at-will and without their employers incurring legal liability.  However, members of certain protected classes may not be discriminated against in employment for reasons related to the characteristics that make them members of those classes (e.g., sex, race, religion, national origin, age).   Since the U.S. has not yet enacted national regulations establishing sexual orientation as a protected class, most employees who have such protection are afforded it on the basis of state laws.  protected classes While the twenty-nine states shown in red above may currently lack statewide laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it is not true that all employers in all of those states may freely fire employees "for being gay."  Some of those red states have laws which protect public (i.e., government) employees from sexual orientation discrimination (but not those who work in the private sector), some of those states have laws passed at county or city levels which protect employees in those local areas from such discrimination, and some of those states protect public employees from employment discrimination through means other than laws (e.g., executive orders, administrative orders, personnel regulations).     Maps like the ones displayed below present more detailed representations (at both the statewide and local levels) of the status of laws banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation in the United States:   Last updated:  10 April 2013 For years Facebook users have been seeing posts advertising giveaways for the Kroger grocery store chain such as "Get $55 in Free Groceries" coupon offers.  However, such posts are just versions of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media. On more than one occasion the Kroger Company has taken to Facebook to warn customers that these coupon offers are not an authorized promotion and to advise them not to visit sites promoting them: Facebook  These fake coupon and gift card offers are typically scams that promise rewards to anyone who follows a simple three-step process: Share the message on Facebook, leave a comment, and like the message. These three steps ensure the scam message circulates to thousands of people on Facebook. @SocialNewsDaily That offer is a scam -- we are not affiliated w/ that website. Our Digital Coupons can be found at https://t.co/rvO3m1IXTf. @SocialNewsDaily https://t.co/rvO3m1IXTf  Kroger Support (@KrogerSupport) October 15, 2014 October 15, 2014  Previous versions of the scam, for example, featured a similar message that invaded Facebook promising a $250 gift card. The message redirected to a web page that was not affiliated with Kroger despite the fact that it was adorned with the company's logo:  This page instructed shoppers to follow "three simple steps" in order to get a free gift card. Once the steps were completed, however, users were not greeted with a coupon code. Instead, they were asked to fill out a brief survey and provide personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth. Users were also required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards. Kroger has repeatedly warned their customers not to fall victims to this form of scam:   These fraudulent surveys are quite popular on Facebook, and if you frequently use that social network there is a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau lists key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Patterson, Emily.  "Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card."
  Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014. Claim:  After the implementation of "Check 21" on 28 October 2004, consumers will no longer be able to "float" checks. Status:  Multiple  see below. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] "Check 21" starting in late October You've probably bought something in a store with a check even though you don't have the money in your account at the time. You figure you have a few days for the check to clear, and by then the money will be there. It's called the "float." Well, the float is slowly becoming a thing of the past. Because of a new law going into effect in October, money will be drafted from your account immediately when you write a check. It's called "Check 21," and it allows retailers to scan your check through a machine that deducts the cash within minutes. It's essentially the end of the paper check system, as well, because the check will eventually be destroyed. There will be an image of the check online and that will serve as proof if you need it. But everything is becoming electronic, and a bank will know if a check is good right away. So, be prepared to move to an electronic bill pay system. It's the smart way to go. What about checks that you deposit? Well, the float is no longer available to you, the customer. But the bank still will hold a deposit for a few days to make sure it clears. It's not fair, but it's the way it's happening. What are the main effects of "Check 21" on consumers? You won't be able to get your original paper checks back, because your bank will no longer have them. Checks you write will clear sooner, increasing the risk that a check will bounce if funds are not in the account when you write the check. Don't write a check unless the funds are already in the account to cover it.  You may not get access to the funds from checks you deposit any sooner, because the new law does not shorten check hold times. After 30 months, there must be a study on whether banks are making funds available to consumers earlier than the allowable hold periods. Banks will save money on processing checks, but banks are not required to share these savings with consumers. Different kinds of copies of a check will have different rights attached. Check 21 creates a new kind of paper copy of an electronic image of a check. This special kind of copy is called a "substitute check." Only a substitute check can be the legal equivalent of the original check, and only a substitute check triggers your right to recredit of disputed funds. A regular copy of a check does not carry these same protections. If you ask for a copy of a check, your bank may send you an ordinary copy insteadof this special kind of copy which triggers legal rights and protections unless you ask for a substitute check. A bank other than your bank will have your original check, and will decide whether to destroy it. Neither Check 21 nor other law requires a bank to keep your original check for any period of time. Before Check 21, your own bank decided how long to keep your original checks, if you didn't get them returned with your statement. Under Check 21, the bank of the person you wrote the check to may decide when to destroy your check. Consumers will get new rights for some electronically processed checks, but not for others. When a so-called "substitute check" is provided to a consumer, Check 21 gives the consumer a right to have funds of up to $2,500 recredited to the consumer's account in 10 business days if the check is paid twice, paid for the wrong amount, or otherwise paid in error. The statute is ambiguous about whether this new right applies when a paper substitute check is used in the processing of the check but is not returned to the consumer. The regulations restrict the right of recredit only to checks where the consumer was provided with a substitute check. If a check is processed electronically by all the banks it is routed through without the use of a substitute check and the consumer is not providedwith a substitute check, then the check remains under state check law. In that case, the consumer does not receive a 10 day right of recredit even if the electronic image of the check is paid twice, paid for the wrong amount, or if both the electronic image and the paper check are paid. Consumers who want to maximize their consumer rights should ask for return of "substitute checks" with their checking account statements. Watch out for fees associated with a substitute check-returning account. Look for another bank if your bank charges a high fee to get copies of all your checks as substitute checks.  Only the special "substitute check" can be legally equivalent to the original check to prove payment. The copies that a bank sends to consumers under a so-called "voluntary truncation" agreement, where the consumer agrees not to get the checks back, do not prove that a payment has beenmade, and do not trigger your Check 21 recredit right. When do these changes go into effect? Check 21 becomes effective October 28, 2004. Origins:  On 28 October 2004, the provisions of the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (commonly known as   "Check 21") will go into effect.  The intent of the act is to eliminate check-clearing delays, primarily by removing the requirement that checks must be physically transported to the banks that issued them in order to be cleared for payment.  After 28 October 2004, banks will be allowed to transmit and clear checks by electronic facsimile, a practice that should avoid any clearing delays caused by circumstances that make the physical transportation of checks difficult or impossible (e.g., severe weather, power failures, terrorism). Check 21 Of course, one result of faster check processing will be a much shorter gap between the time consumers issue checks for payment and the time the covering funds are withdrawn from their accounts (usually referred to as the "float" time).  After Check 21 goes into effect checks may be processed in a matter of hours or even minutes, so consumers can no longer safely assume they have a grace period after writing checks before the funds are actually tapped from their accounts.  Check 21 does not, however, change the rules affecting how long banks can hold for clearance checks deposited by their customers.  Generally, banks can hold local checks for up to two days, out-of-town checks for up to five days, and other types of checks (e.g., checks over $5,000, checks drawn on new accounts, checks written against consistently overdrawn accounts) for up to thirty days.  The bottom line is that consumers will have to be more careful than ever to ensure that adequate funds are always available to cover the checks they  write. Also, under Check 21 banks will no longer be required to return canceled checks to their customers; they may return photographic images of the checks instead.  Banks will be able to issue certified photocopies of checks known as "substitute checks," and these copies will have the same evidentiary standing in courts of law as the originals.  (Although banks may allow customers to view and print out images of their checks over the Internet, those self-printed copies will not technically be considered substitute checks even though most courts will likely still accept them as evidence of payment.)  Check 21 will not explicitly require banks to provide substitute checks, so consumers may want to check with their banks to ensure they receive substitute checks with their statements.  Another provision of Check 21 will speed up resolution of customer claims regarding fraud and error.  Currently banks do not need to credit the accounts of customers who complain of error or fraud until their investigations are complete. After Check 21 banks must prove within ten days that disputed transactions were not their fault; if they do not provide such proof, they must credit their customers' accounts for the disputed amounts even if they have not completed their investigations. Although the Check 21 act goes into effect on 28 October 2004, banks do not have to begin electronically clearing checks on that date  Check 21 merely authorizes banks to begin use of electronic check clearing.  Most major banks already have imaging technology in place, but not all banks do, and some banks may therefore continue to process checks the "old" way until they upgrade their processing systems. Additonal information:       Frequently Asked Questions About "Check 21"   (Federal Reserve Board)     Questions and Answers About "Check 21"   (Consumers Union)   Last updated:  28 October 2004    Sources:   Kristof, Kathy M.  "Checks About to Be Put on Fast Track."   Los Angeles Times.  5 September 2004.    Associated Press.  "Banks Implement Check 21 Starting Thursday."    28 October 2004. Claim:  E-mail compares proposed changes in taxes after the 2008 presidential election. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] This is something you should be aware of so you don't get blind-sided. This is really going to catch a lot of families off guard. It should make you worry. Proposed changes in taxes after 2008 General election: CAPITAL GAINS TAX MCCAIN: 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax. OBAMA: 28% on profit from ALL home sales How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain on taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to down-size your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income. DIVIDEND TAX MCCAIN: 15% (no change) OBAMA: 39.6% How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned on taxes if Obama become president. The experts predict that 'higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit. INCOME TAX MCCAIN (no changes) Single making 30K - tax $4,500Single making 50K - tax $12,500Single making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 60K - tax $9,000Married making 75K - tax $18,750Married making 125K - tax $31,250 OBAMA: (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) Single making 30K - tax $8,400Single making 50K - tax $14,000Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Married making 60K - tax $16,800Married making 75K - tax $21,000Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Under Obama your taxes will more than double! How does this affect you? No explanation needed. This is pretty straight forward. INHERITANCE TAX MCCAIN: 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax) OBAMA: Restore the inheritance tax How does this affect you? Many families have lost businesses, farms and ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will not only lose them to these taxes. NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA * New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet * New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) * New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) * New taxes on retirement accounts and last but not least.... * New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!! Origins:   Every  recent presidential election cycle has brought e-mailed forwards that paint the Democratic candidate as a proponent of a "tax and spend" philosophy (who will inevitably implement significant tax increases on taxpayers across all income levels) and present the Republican candidate as a model of fiscal conservatism, and the example quoted above fits this pattern.    However, this example is off the mark both in its broad strokes and in its particulars.  According to the Tax Policy Center's analysis of the candidates' proposed tax changes, the primary difference between them would be distributional, with Senator Obama's proposals favoring lower-income taxpayers and Senator McCain's favoring higher-income taxpayers: analysis McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else.  Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most  in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income  are in the lowest income groups. The statements made about the candidates' proposals for changes in specific taxes (or implementation of new taxes) are also all erroneous or grossly misleading. as we note below: CAPITAL GAINS TAX MCCAIN: 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax. OBAMA: 28% on profit from ALL home sales The statement that Senator Obama proposes instituting a 28% tax "on profit from ALL home sales" is false.  Both candidates' proposals would leave intact an existing capital gains exemption for the first $500,000 per household of profit from the sale of a primary residence.  Homeowners who realize a profit higher than the current exemption amount from the sale of their primary residences might pay more capital gains tax under an Obama presidency than they would now, but those instances currently constitute a very small minority of all home sales.  (For the purposes of this article, the term "per household" refers to married couples who file taxes jointly.) The mention of Obama's imposing a 28% capital gains tax as president is also misleading.   Senator Obama has indicated he would likely raise the capital gains tax rate, but he has not specified by how much  the 28% figure is a previous (i.e., pre-Bush) capital gains tax rate which Obama stated he would certainly not exceed while noting that his capital gains tax rate would likely be "significantly lower": Q: How do you plan to change the tax code when it comes to capital gains? How high will that 15 percent rate go? A: Well, you know, I haven't given a firm number. Here's my belief, that we can't go back to some of the, you know, confiscatory rates that existed in the past that distorted sound economics. And I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was the 28 percent. I would  and my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that. I think that we can have a capital gains rate that is higher than 15 percent. The  Tax Plan Fact Sheet posted on Obama's web site says that he will "create a new top capital gains rate of 20 percent."  Tax Plan DIVIDEND TAX MCCAIN: 15% (no change) OBAMA: 39.6% The notion that Senator Obama is proposing raising the tax rate on dividend income from its current 15% level to a 39.6% is unfounded.  Obama has proposed taxing dividends at the same rate as capital gains, and although he hasn't yet specified a figure for the latter, he has already stated (as noted above) that he "certainly would not go above" 28%.  Also, the proposed increase would only affect households with income of more than $250,000 per year (a figure that encompasses about 2% of U.S. households.)  INCOME TAX MCCAIN: (no changes) Single making 30K - tax $4,500Single making 50K - tax $12,500Single making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 60K - tax $9,000Married making 75K - tax $18,750Married making 125K - tax $31,250 OBAMA: (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) Single making 30K - tax $8,400Single making 50K - tax $14,000Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Married making 60K - tax $16,800Married making 75K - tax $21,000Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Under Obama your taxes will more than double! This is an erroneous interpretation of federal income tax rates based on the premise that Senator McCain favors extending the temporary tax cuts instituted by the Bush administration in 2001 and 2003, while Senator Obama does not.  However, both senators said they would favor extending those tax cuts; the difference is that Senator Obama said he would not favor extending the tax cuts for households with incomes of $250,000 or more per year.  Since none of the tax tables listed above applies to that income level, their inclusion is irrelevant and misleading.  As noted at the head of this article, taxpayers in the brackets covered by these tables would likely see a greater reduction in taxes under Senator Obama's proposals than under Senator McCain's, an outcome reflected in the Tax Policy Center'sestimate of how the average tax bill could change in 2009 under each candidate's proposals: estimate         INHERITANCE TAX MCCAIN: 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax) OBAMA: Restore the inheritance tax Pretty much everything asserted about the inheritance tax (also referred to as "death tax" or "estate tax")  in these few short statements  that President Bush repealed it, that Senator McCain would maintain it at 0%, and that Senator Obama would "restore" it  is wrong. In general, estate tax currently applies only to estates valued at more than $2 million and tops out at a 45% rate.  The exclusion amount is already set to rise to $3.5 million in 2009, followed by a repeal of the estate tax in 2010, and then a reinstatement of the estate tax in 2011 with the exclusion amount reverting back to $1 million and the tax rate topping out at 55%.  repeal Senator McCain has proposed raising the estate tax exclusion amount to $5 million and setting a maximum estate tax rate of 15%, while Senator Obama has proposed raising the estate tax exclusion amount to $3.5 million and maintaining the maximum estate tax rate at its current 45% level. NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA * New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2400 square feet * New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) * New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) * New taxes on retirement accounts and last but not least.... * New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!! Three of these five statements are completely erroneous: Senator Obama has not proposed a tax on "homes that are more than 2,400 square feet," any "new gasoline taxes," or "new taxes on retirement accounts." The phrase "taxes on natural resources consumption" presumably refers to Senator Obama's "cap and trade" proposal for reducing carbon emissions, a proposal which would likely impose additional costs on polluters but isn't technically a "tax": cap and trade Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition. As for "new taxes to pay for socialized medicine," Senator Obama has proposed funding his health care plan through additional revenues generated by not extending the Bush administration's temporary tax cuts for persons making more than $250,000 per year.  Whether allowing a portion of already-scheduled expiration of temporary tax cuts to take place really constitutes "new taxes" is a matter of semantics. health care Last updated:  16 July 2008    Sources:   Sahadi, Jeanne.  "What They'll Do to Your Tax Bill."   CNNMoney.com.  11 June 2008.    Sahadi, Jeanne.  "What Obama Means by Tax the Wealthy."   CNNMoney.com.  28 June 2008.    Closing Bell.  "Maria Bartiromo Speaks with Senator Barack Obama."   CNBC.  27 March 2008. The one thing an already gaffe-prone politician running for high office most wants to avoid is saying something impolitic about race. But that's exactly what happened to former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden on the presidential campaign trail, according to one quote meme: gaffe-prone  In this case the meme is accurate. While speaking at a town hall event in Des Moines, Iowa, hosted by the Asian & Latino Coalition on Aug. 8, 2019, Biden let slip with a statement that poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids, thereby implying that economically disadvantaged persons are all non-white. The unfortunate remark by Biden was reported on by The New York Times and captured on video: reported Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. raised eyebrows during a speech in Iowa when he said that poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids, an apparent gaffe for a Democratic presidential candidate whose record on race has come under intense scrutiny during the primary. Mr. Biden was speaking on education and the need to challenge students at a town hall hosted by the Asian & Latino Coalition in Des Moines when he made the remark, and then quickly sought to recover from it. We should challenge students in these schools, Mr. Biden said. We have this notion that somehow if youre poor, you cannot do it. Poor kids are just as bright and just as talented as white kids. He paused, then added: Wealthy kids, black kids, Asian kids  no I really mean it, but think how we think about it.  Kate Bedingfield, Bidens deputy campaign manager, later issued a statement asserting that the candidate "misspoke": Vice President Biden misspoke and immediately corrected himself during a refrain he often uses to make the point that all children deserve a fair shot, and children born into lower-income circumstances are just as smart as those born to wealthy parents, Ms. Bedingfield said. Joe Biden has spent his life fighting for civil rights and the dignity of all people. Stevens, Matt.  "Joe Biden Says Poor Kids Are Just as Bright as White Kids."
  The New York Times.  9 August 2019. In February 2021, Pat Sajak's net worth was the subject of a misleading online advertisement. Sajak is, of course, well known as the host of the game show "Wheel of Fortune" since the early 1980s. The ad claimed "Pat Sajak's Net Worth Left His Family in Tears," and the accompanying picture was one of Sajak captured at a Los Angeles Lakers basketball game in 2018. Another ad display on the same page reported the same about former "Family Matters" actor Jaleel White, who portrayed nosy neighbor Steve Urkel on the sitcom: captured Family Matters Jaleel White,   A second, similar ad stated, "At Age 73, Pat Sajak Leaves Behind a Net Worth That Will Boggle Your Mind," with an accompanying picture that was taken in 2007: taken   However, there's no indication that Pat Sajak's net worth has left anyone in tears or with a "boggled" mind. Furthermore, the "Wheel of Fortune" game show host was still alive at the time these advertisements appeared.   Pat Sajak was not the first celebrity to be the subject of a misleading net worth advertisement. In fact, he wasn't even the first game show host to be featured in one of the "net worth left his family in tears" ads. We previously reported on a similar story for the late "Jeopardy" game show host Alex Trebek. Alex Trebek Other celebrities whose names and likenesses have been used in such misleading ads include Pierce Brosnan, Chuck Norris, Richard Gere, Clint Eastwood, and Sean Connery. Trebek and Connery both died in 2020, but the claims about their net worths leaving their families "in tears" was nothing more than a ploy by advertisers. Pierce Brosnan Chuck Norris Richard Gere Clint Eastwood Sean Connery Readers who clicked the net worth ads for Pat Sajak were led to a 233-page slideshow article in which Sajak didn't appear until page 94: page 94 PAT SAJAK  EST. $65 MILLION Television personality and talk show host Pat Sajak was born on October 26, 1946, in Chicago. When serving in the U.S. Army, he also hosted a musical show on American Forces Radio during the Vietnam War. After the war, Sajak anchored the five-minute newscast and a substitute weatherman at NBC. Many know him now as the host of the longtime running television game show "Wheel of Fortune." Pat Sajak is reportedly worth $65 million. Interestingly enough, Sajak shared that he grew up practically dirt poor with his parents, who eventually separated when he was young, being unable to afford even the most trivial items. He started as a DJ, and soon enough, ended up as a weatherman for KNBC-TV. In 1981, he was invited to host the television game show "Wheel of Fortune," and Sajak, to his credit, has been hosting it ever since. There has been no shortage of these strange net worth advertisements online. It's likely the misleading ads will continue to be displayed for other celebrities in the future  dead or alive. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us In the wake of the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004, just about any unusual or remarkable photographs connected with oceanic phenomena were being attributed to that disaster, and the following collection of pictures was a prime example: Phuket Deep Sea Creatures - Found At Seaside After TSUNAMI As everyone knows, the tsunami in Southeast Asia was devastating both in the loss of life and economically to the region. However now that the clean up is underway in the region, deep sea creatures that live too deep to be studied are being found scattered throughout the wreckage.  These creatures were washed up on shore when the waves hit. Amazing what lives so far below the surface isn't it? It is ironic how terrible human tragedy and natural disaster can lead to unprecedented expansion of scientific knowledge.  The theory is the tsunami created enough vertical currents to sweep these deep living creatures to the surface quickly. The gases in their blood expanded rapidly causing death (like divers ascending too quickly).     The same set of pictures was dusted off in April 2011 and attributed to the tsunami that hit Japan the previous month: Creatures Found At Seaside After JAPAN TSUNAMI Everyone knows, the tsunami in Japan was devastating, both in the loss of life and economically to the region. However, now that the cleanup is underway in the region, deep sea creatures that live too deep to be studied are being found scattered throughout the wreckage. These creatures were washed up on shore when the waves hit. Although these pictures are genuine images of some rather strange deep-sea creatures, the photographs had nothing to do with a tsunami in the Indian Ocean or Japan.  They date from mid-2003 and were taken as part of the NORFANZ voyage, a joint Australian-New Zealand research expedition conducted in May-June 2003 to explore deep sea habitats and biodiversity in the Tasman Sea.   These photographs can be viewed on Australia's National Oceans Office web site. NORFANZ National Oceans Office