Is This 'Keke Challenge Gone Wrong' Video Real?
A new internet craze flared up in the summer of 2018, which featured musicians, actors, celebrities and social media users filming themselves dancing to the Drake song "In My Feelings." These videos were often shared with tags such as #InMyFeelingsChallenge, #dotheshiggy (after Instagram comedian Shiggy, who started the challenge) and #kekechallenge (named after the romantic interest in the song). While many of these videos were entertaining (check out Will Smith dancing on top of a bridge), in at least one of them, according to the Internet, a Keke Challenger experienced a tragic and potentially fatal turn as she was struck by an automobile in the act: Instagram dancing  Fortunately, this video does not capture a woman actually being hit by a car while performing the Keke challenge. This video was originally posted to Instagram by user @lofi3D on 21 July 2018. However, many viewers encountered this video on YouTube or other social media platforms, where it was presented without that post's disclaimer stating that the video was "NOT REAL" and that the footage had been edited. posted The woman in the video is Instagram user Kari Miller, who also shared the video to her page along with a disclaimer noting that it had been edited by @lofi3D and reassuring everyone that "I'll be ok": shared   Here's the original version of the "Keke Challenge gone wrong" video:   A post shared by lofi3d (@lofi3d) on Jul 20, 2018 at 5:09pm PDT A post shared by lofi3d (@lofi3d)  Mamo, Heran.  "Drake's 'In My Feelings' Challenge Has Spawned More Than 2.3 Million Tweets."
  Billboard.  12 July 2018.
Claim:  E-mail criticizes U.S. environmental regulations on the oil industry.  OF AND  INFORMATION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] Bill Phillips spent nearly 50 years in the US oil and gas industry; most of his career was with the Phillips Petroleum Company. Bill is a descendant of Frank Phillips. Frank Phillips, along with his brother Lee Eldas (L.E.) Phillips, Sr., founded the original Phillips Petroleum Company in 1917 in Bartlesville, OK. Do you remember Phillips 66 gas stations? Phillips Petroleum Company merged with Conoco, Inc. in 2002 to form the current ConocoPhillips oil company. So, when Bill talks about oil and gas issues, I tend to listen - very closely. I think that you will find Bill's thoughts and facts very revealing, very compelling and very difficult to argue with. As you prepare to cast your crucial ballots this Fall, please think long and hard about the far-reaching, cumulative effects of the US political philosophies, policies and legislation that have contributed to the current and future US oil supply situation.  Did you know that the United States does NOT have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies  all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies  that dominate the world's oil supply. With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, ExxonMobil, a "small" oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e., mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge ExxonMobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up as the value of the American dollar goes down. They will eventually bleed this country into printing even more money and we will go into runway inflation once again as we did under the Carter Democratic reign. This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States  unlike, say, France  actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endlessbillions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela to be used in propping up their economies. So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democrat Party  aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans  deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, off Cuba but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous oil-shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them. In short, all Americans are paying a terrible price for the Democratic Party's perverse energy policies. I own some small interests in tiny, 4 barrel-per-day oil wells in Wyoming. We have 14 agencies that have iron-hand jurisdiction over us. If we drop any oil on the ground when the refinery truck comes to pick up oil from our holding tanks, we are fined. Yet down the road the state will spray thousands of gallons of used oil on a dirt road to control dirt. When it rains that oil runs into rivers and creeks. Yet a cup of oil on the ground at our wellhead is a $50,000 EPA fine plus additional fines from state regulating agencies. They treat oil as if it were plutonium that has the potential to leak into the environment. We are fined if our dirt burms are not high enough around a holding tank, yet the truck that picks up our oil runs down the road at 60 mph with no burm around it. People wonder why there is no more exploration in this country. It's because of the regulators; people who have lived their whole lives doing nothing but imposing fines on small operators like us for doing mostly nothing. So, America enjoy your $4.00 per gallon gasoline. Your dollar is now worth 0.62 Euro-Cents. The lack of American production of GNP, the massive trade deficit (as labor markets have moved overseas to fight insanely high union imposed labor costs in America) and the run away printing of money (backed by nothing of value here in America) has caused the dollar to become more worthless on the international market. And that's where our oil comes from. It's paid for with dollars that become more worthless everyday. If we had just kept par with the Euro we'd be paying $62 dollars per barrel for oil (42 gallons) or about $1.50 instead of $2.50 a gallon for crude oil. What the US government also does not tell you is that it is the leaseholder and royalty recipient of most oil production and receives 25% of the gross oil sales before we pay for electricity to lift the oil, propane to keep the oil-water separators from freezing in the winters. We pay a pumper to visit each well everyday plus we have equipment failures all the time. We pay for that out of our 75% of gross sales. The government does not share in any expenses to run any production well. So, if the Big Oil Companies are making record profits, then so is the federal government from it's 25% tax on every molecule of oil sold to a refinery in this country. Why isn't the government on the stand for "Record" profits? What you don't see is this 25% of the sales price of crude oil being siphoned away by the government. That money plus the road taxes, state taxes, etc. amounts to over $1 per gallon of gasoline you are buying while the governments only admit to about 50 cents per gallon. To all you Democrats, when you go vote for your candidate, a blazing liberal like Barrack Hussein Obama just keep in mind that their liberal spending habits will further decrease the value of the American dollar on the world market and your gasoline costs will hike even higher. As they introduce more give-away programs, raise taxes on everyone to pay people not to produce or work, your dollar will continue to dwindle on the world market and you will be paying $10.00 per gallon at the next election. Cheap hydrocarbon fuel is all over. Enjoy! Enjoy the fruits of your decision to elect these folks when you are there in that voting booth and you stab your pin through a Democrat's name. William "Bill" Phillips Origins:  Several readers (including members of the Phillips family) have maintained to us that there is no descendant of Frank Phillips matching the description of the putative author of this piece, which itself appears to be a rewritten/expanded version of an earlier article (one not originally attributed to William "Bill" Phillips).  Given the uncertain provenance of the "Phillips" authorship version, we'll address our analysis primarily to the wording of the (presumed) original: article I hadn't realized, until the hearings on energy that were held this week in House and Senate committees, that the United States doesn't have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies  all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies  that dominate the world's oil supply. With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, Exxon Mobil, a small oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e., mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge Exxon Mobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up. Ranking businesses according to "bigness" can be based on a variety of different metrics: geographic reach, scale of operations, market value, gross revenues, net profits, etc. Exxon Mobil is certainly one of the world's largest (in terms of gross revenues) and most profitable public companies.  (Many of the world's largest non-public companies are also in the oil business.)  The statement here about Exxon Mobil's being "only the 14th largest [oil company] in the world" refers to the amount of oil and gas reserves that company controls, and it is generally true that the major (public) oil companies have much less access to oil and gas resources than they did a few decades ago, most of which are now controlled by national oil companies: largest profitable non-public reserves Despite record crude prices, the major oil companies are struggling to access resources that are being jealously guarded by national companies with whom they are forced to establish partnerships. As paradoxical as it may seem, high oil prices do not mean a golden age for the likes of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Totalor BP. Of course, with a barrel of oil at more than 140 dollars, they are seeing major profits, but the future has never seemed so uncertain. The problem is access to reserves. The oil majors now control less than 10 percent of world resources of gas and oil, against 70 percent in the 1970s, according to figures released by the office of Ernst and Young at the World Petroleum Congress in Madrid. As a result they are being forced to explore in increasingly extreme conditions. The statement that "94% of the world's oil supply [is] locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States" might be a considered a bit misleading since many of those "hostile" countries have relatively small oil reserves, while the country with the second-largest oil reserves, Canada, is U.S.-friendly (and both Mexico and the United States are also among the countries with the largest oil reserves). reserves This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States  unlike, say, France   actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endless billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela. So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democratic Party  aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans  deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous shale oil deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them. Drilling for oil off of most of the Pacific and Atlantic coasts has largely been barred due to a moratorium imposed by Congress in the early 1980s and by an executive order signed by President George H.W. Bush (a Republican) in 1990.  The congressional moratorium has to be renewed every year, and it has remained in place for nearly three decades through a succession of administrations and Congresses, both Democratic and Republican alike.  (On 14 July 2008, President George W. Bush lifted the executive order barring offshore drilling that had been signed by his father eighteen years earlier.)  The congressional moratorium is due to expire on 1 October 2008 unless Congress votes to extend it. Some analysts have claimed that if the oil industry could extract oil and gas from oil shale in a cost-effective manner, oil shale deposits in the U.S. (particularly on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains, site of the world's largest such deposit) could produce viable oil reserves of about 800 billion barrels (three times the current proven reserves of Saudi Arabia).  However, the cost and effectiveness of oil shale development (and the resource use and environmental effects attendant to accomplishing it) remain a subject of considerable debate, and oil companies remain barred from undertaking commercial oil shale projects on federal land: At best production is years away, while unpredictable oil markets, growing water demand, sizable electricity needs and climate change all pose potentially huge hurdles. Democrats have barred the Bureau of Land Management from leasing any federal land for commercial-scale oil shale projects. Skeptic Randy Udall of nearby Carbondale, Colo., argues that oil shale is but a poor cousin to other fossil fuels, with an energy content per ton less than one-third that of cattle manure and only slightly better than the potato. Any oil shale project in this region would mean new water demands on the Colorado River and its tributaries, vital waterways for much of the western U.S. and northern Mexico. That potential demand for water worries rancher David Smith of nearby Meeker, Colo., who relies on water from the White River that he fears will be diverted to the oil shale operations. The oil companies, Smith said, could help ease concerns by sharing in the cost of a water storage project. "They have not offered to do that," Smith said. Besides water, Shell's oil shale project would require far more electricity than the existing power grid could supply. That likely means construction of a new power plant. In this part of the country, the most economical way to fire a power plant would be with coal. But in the next Congress, lawmakers are likely to pass legislation to limit greenhouse emissions, and coal-fired plants are huge emitters of carbon dioxide. That would add to cost, ever oil shale's nemesis. The subject of opening the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and development is another issue that has been pursued across the years through a succession of administrations and Congresses, both Democratic and Republican alike. The issue has been complicated by the uncertainty of many factors involved in the opening of ANWR to U.S. oil production, such as the total amount of oil underlying the area, the size of the oil fields that might be found in ANWR, the quality of the oil that might be found in ANWR, the potential production capacity of ANWR drilling operations, how long it would take before ANWR operations began providing significant amounts of oil for the U.S. market, what effects the oil extracted from ANWR would have on world oil supply and prices, and the environmental impacts of oil exploration and development in ANWR.  As of now, both major-party presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, are opposed to opening ANWR to oil exploration. pursued factors Last updated:  14 July 2008    Dechaux, Delphine.   "Despite Rocketing Prices, Outlook Is Bleak for Oil Majors."   Agence France Presse.  6 July 2008.     Feller Ben.   "Bush Trumps Congress; Moves First on Drilling."   Associated Press.  14 July 2008.     Forbes, Steve.   "Will We Rid Ourselves of This Pollution?"   Forbes.  16 April 2007.     Guerrera, Francesco and Carola Hoyos.   "Hidden Value: How Unlisted Companies Are Eclipsing the Public Equity Market."   Financial Times.  15 December 2006.     Ivanovich, David.   "Despite 800 Billion Barrel Potential, Oil Shale a Hard Sell."   The Houston Chronicle.  12 July 2008.     Simon, Richard.   "Bush Lifts Presidential Ban on Offshore Drilling."   Los Angeles Times.  14 July 2008. In early March, the price of oil shot up rapidly in response to Russias invasion of Ukraine and the United States decision to ban imports of Russian energy. Coupled with inflation, increased labor costs and other factors that had already raised the price of gasoline, drivers in the U.S. quickly saw much higher prices at the pump. By March 14, the price of oil started todrop, but gasoline prices have been slow to follow, prompting some social media users to make comparisons to 2008 and accuse oil and gas companies of price gouging. Thetermis generally used when businesses take advantage of rising demand during a crisis and charge exorbitant prices for necessities. One Facebook post claimed that the price of oil was $141.71 per barrel in June 2008 while gas cost $4.10 per gallon on average. In March 2022, the post said oil cost $99.76 per barrel, while the average price of gas was $4.32 per gallon. If youre blaming anyone but greedy oil companies for their price gouging, youve bought into propaganda that hurts you more than anyone else, theMarch 14 postsaid. The post was flagged as part of Facebooks efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more aboutour partnership with Facebook.) Other posts similarly claimed that because oil prices fell and gas prices didnt, companies must be exploiting consumers. Posts with misleading claims about the relationship between the price of oil and the price of gasoline. Experts who study the price of oil and gas told PolitiFact that it takes more time for gas prices to respond to changes in crude oil costs  and noted that there are factors in 2022 that werent at play in 2008, which make direct comparisons misleading. The numbers are also cherry-picked, and the difference in pricing between 2008 and 2022 isnt as large as the post suggests. Crude oil prices are set in the global market. And the price of crude oil has the biggest impact on the price of gasoline  thats been the case for nearly all changes in retail gasoline prices in the past 35 years, said Mark Finley, afellowin energy and global oil at Rice Universitys Baker Institute for Public Policy. When Russia  the worldsthird-largestoil producer  attacked Ukraine at the end of February, the uncertainty, fear of further conflict and international efforts to reduce reliance on Russian oil drove upcrude oil prices. High oil prices can quickly drive up prices at gas stations nationwide, experts said. After oil prices fall, it typically takes a while for gas prices to decrease and consumers often assume foul play even when there isnt any, said Nicole Petersen, a GasBuddy spokesperson. Gas stations lose profit when oil prices increase sharply because they cannot drastically lift gas prices due to local competition, Petersen said. Then, when oil prices fall, gas stations try to recoup any losses before lowering their prices, she said. Unique factors in each states gasoline market also affect gas prices, said Devin Gladden, a AAA spokesperson. Locally, gas stations might have contracts with gasoline dealers that lock in prices at a certain rate for set periods of time  sometimes weeks or months, he said. The March 14 Facebook postcorrectlycited the average priceof a gallon of gas that day: $4.32. But it cherry-picked its $99.76 figure for the price of crude oil. West Texas Intermediate crude oil is traditionally used as a U.S. benchmark when discussing and comparing oil prices. On March 14, WTI crude oil hit a low of $99.76, but the closing price was$103.01. Gas rose to $4.32 per gallon on March 14 as a result of oil prices being around $130 per barrel at times in the first half of March, Gladden said. The Facebook post was wrong about prices in June 2008. Themonthly averageprice of a gallon of gasoline was $4.05, and the average price ofWTI crude oilwas $133.88 per barrel, less than what the post claimed. The data set in this posting is misleading because it gives people this impression that crude prices are more stationary than they are, Gladden said. In all actuality, they are highly volatile. Posts comparing June 2008 prices to current prices also mislead because they compare a full month of data to half a month in 2022, experts said. Different global conditions are also at play. In 2008, the spike in oil and gas prices was tied to the financial crisis. The recession caused a drop in demand for gasoline, and as the economic recovery began, there was an immediate ramp-up in production to meet growing supply needs. That supply crunch, caused prices to spike, Gladden said. In March, the Russia-Ukraine conflict caused panic and speculation that contributed to the rapid price rises, Gladden said. But its also normal for prices to rise this time of year due to the demand from the spring and summer driving season, he said. In part, that will keep prices elevated even though oil prices have declined, Gladden said. Also, an ongoing truck driver shortage, increased labor costs and high inflation in the U.S. have caused gas prices to rise. On top of that, Gladden said the oil industry is still recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, which decreased gas prices due to decreased demand. State-level taxes on gasoline are also about 7 centshigherper gallon now than they were in2008, Finley said. A Facebook post claimed that comparing the price of oil and gas in June 2008 to March 2022 shows that oil companies are price gouging. Experts said it takes time for gas prices to respond to drops in crude oil costs, and thats not necessarily indicative of price gouging. The posts numbers are cherry-picked; the difference in prices isnt as great as it suggests. The current situation differs from 2008 because increased labor costs, the pandemic, additional taxes and inflation were all already contributing to rising gasoline prices before Russia invaded Ukraine in February. Direct comparisons lack important context, experts said. We rate these posts False. RELATED:Ask PolitiFact: Why are gas prices going up? RELATED:How much blame does Putin deserve for high gasoline prices? The name New York has been borne by at least seven different U.S. military ships, most recently the nuclear submarine USS New York City, commissioned in 1979 and retired in 1997.  Construction on another ship bearing that name, the 684-foot amphibious transport dock ship USS New York, began at a shipyard in Avondale, Louisiana. On 1 March 2008 the new vessel was christened there, and it was commissioned in November 2009: commissioned  Artist's Rendering of the USS New York  With a year to go before it even touches the water, the Navy's amphibious assault ship, USS New York, has already made history. It was built with 24 tons of scrap steel from the World Trade Center. It is the fifth in a new class of warship  designed for missions that include special operations against terrorists. It will carry a crew of 360 sailors and 700 combat-ready Marines to be   delivered ashore by helicopters and assault craft. Steel from the World Trade Center was melted down in a foundry in Amite, La., to cast the ship's bow section.  When it was poured into the molds on Sept. 9, 2003, "those big rough steelworkers treated it with total reverence," recalled Navy Capt. Kevin Wensing, who was there.  "It was a spiritual moment for everybody there." Junior Chavers, foundry operations manager, said that when the trade center steel first arrived, he touched it with his hand and the "hair on my neck stood up." "It had a big meaning to it for all of us," he said. "They knocked us down. They can't keep us down. We're going to be back."  The ship's motto?  'Never Forget' The vessel was of interest because its bow stem was said to incorporate 7.5 tons of scrap steel from the World Trade Center which was melted down at a foundry in Amite, Louisiana. (A photograph of employees pouring the molten scrap steel at the Amite Foundry can be viewed here.) The name New York was reportedly revived for the warship (which was already under construction) at the request of New York governor George Pataki to commemorate the September 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., creating an exception to current U.S. Navy policy of using state names only for nuclear submarines. here According to the Associated Press, the USS New York would be the fifth ship of its class, at least two more of which will also be named for locations associated with the 9/11 attacks: USS New York USS New York is the fifth in a new class of warship designed for missions that include special operations against terrorists. It will carry a crew of 360 sailors and 700 combat-ready Marines to be delivered ashore by helicopters and assault craft. Later ships in the class will include USS Arlington, the location of the Pentagon, also struck by a hijacked jetliner on Sept. 11, and USS Somerset, named for the Pennsylvania county where United Flight 93 crashed after its passengers fought off hijackers apparently planning to attack another Washington target. The quotes from Navy personnel and shipyard workers included in the e-mailed version reproduced above were taken from an Associated Press article about the ship. article In December 2006, the following image began to circulate with this e-mail in place of the artist's rendition displayed above, although it is not a photograph of the USS New York but rather the then-recently commissioned USS San Antonio: USS San Antonio  The following set of photographs was taken at the christening of LPD 21 with the name USS New York at Northrop Grumman's Avondale, Louisiana, shipyard on 1 March 2008: christening     On 13 October 2009. the USS New York left the Louisiana shipyard for New York, where it was scheduled to be formally commissioned on 7 November 2009: A Navy assault ship built with tons of steel salvaged from the World Trade Center towers began its journey to New York [on October 13], sailing down the Mississippi River in a pea-soup fog as watchers along the levee strained for a glimpse. The USS New York, named to commemorate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, left the Northrop Grumman shipyard where it was built for the trip to its namesake city. The $1 billion ship will be formally commissioned in New York in early November. The New York is 684 feet long and can carry up to 800 Marines. It has a flight deck that can handle helicopters and the MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. Four tugboats performed an intricate set of maneuvers to pull the warship from the dock at the New Orleans-area shipyard and turn it 180 degrees toward the waters of Gulf of Mexico. An armed Coast Guard speedboat and a helicopter flying overhead guarded the vessel. The ship will sail through the Gulf and around Florida before turning north and continuing to New York. Bohrer, Becky.  "Ship Built with WTC Steel Christened."
  Associated Press.  1 March 2008. Sayre, Alan.  "Ship Built with WTC Steel Sails for Namesake City."
  Associated Press.  13 October 2009. Associated Press.  "New Navy Ship Being Built with WTC Steel."
  ABC News.  3 April 2006. Phishing bait:  Notice from the IRS indicating the recipient's electronic tax return or payment has been rejected or that the recipient has a refund coming. Examples:   [Collected via e-mail, October 2010] Subject: Your Federal Tax Payment ID 010357109 is rejected.  Urgent Report. Your Federal Tax Payment ID: 01037524 has been rejected. Return Reason Code R21 - The identification number used in the Company Identification Field is not valid. Please, check the information and refer to Code R21 to get details about your company payment in transaction contacts section: EFTPS: The Electronic Federal Tax Payment System PLEASE NOTE: Your tax payment is due regardless of EFTPS online availability. In case of an emergency, you can always make your tax payment by calling the EFTPS.  [Collected via e-mail, January 2008] After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a Stimulus Payment. Please submit the Stimulus Payment Online Form in order to process it. A Stimulus Payment can be delayed for a variety of reasons.For example submitting invalid records or applying after the deadline. To submit your Stimulus Payment form, please download the document attached to your email. Note: If filing or preparation fees were deducted from your 2007 Refund or you received a refund anticipation loan, you will be receiving a check instead of a direct deposit. Regards,Internal Revenue Servicestimulus.payment@irs.gov  [Collected via e-mail, August 2007] From: "Internal Revenue Service" Subject: IRS Notification - Fiscal ActivityDate: Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:57:35 +0300 After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity we have determined that you are eligible to receive a tax refund of $268.32. Please submit the tax refund request and allow us 6-9 days in order to process it. A refund can be delayed for a variety of reasons. For example submitting invalid records or applying after the deadline. To access the form for your tax refund, please click here Regards,Internal Revenue Service Copyright 2007, Internal Revenue Service U.S.A. All rights reserved.  [Collected via e-mail, February 2009] Re: US Stimulus Check Information--------------------------------------------------------------------If you're one of the millions of Americans struggling in today's economy, help is available. You've been chosen for the chance to get a US Stimulus Check based on your annual income level. (Participation required. See below for details.) Refer to the chart below to determine the amount of money you can receive: --------------------------------------------------------------------$0 - $35,000........................$709 US Stimulus Check--------------------------------------------------------------------$35,000 - $70,000.................$615 US Stimulus Check--------------------------------------------------------------------$70,000+.............................$504 US Stimulus Check--------------------------------------------------------------------  Make your selection here, then follow the instructions on our website before this offer expires.  [Collected via e-mail, July 2009] Tax Refund Notification After the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity, we have determined that you are eligible to receive tax refund of 488.50 GBP. You are require to submit the tax refund request using the tax refund reference below and allow up 6-9 working days in order to process it [link elided] Note : A refund can be delayed for different reasons, for example submitting invalid records or applying after deadline. we apologise for any inconveniences and thank you for your co-operation. Yours Sincerely HM Revenue & Customs  [Collected via e-mail, June 2011] Department of Treasury Internal Revenue Source Important information about your tax return We are unable to process your tax return We recived your tax return. However, we are unable to process the return as field. Our records indicate that the person identified as the primary taxpayer or spouse on the tax return did not provided all the required documents shown on the tax form. Our records are based on information received from the Social Security Administration. Based on this information, the tax account for the individual has been locked  What you need to do Print out the attached notification and list of missing documents, fill it in, add the documents and send the following information to the adress shown in the attached notification. List of required documents: 1. A copy of this letter 2. Notification letter 3. A photocopy of valid U.S. Federal or State Government issued identification. Keep this notice for your records. If you need assistance, please don'thesitate to contact us  [Collected via e-mail, January 2012] IRS notice, The analysis of the last annual calculations of your fiscal activity has indicated that you are entitled to receive a tax refund of $115.25 Please submit a request of the tax refund and a processing of the request will take 7-14 days. A tax refund can be delayed by different reasons. For instance submission of invalid records or sending after the deadline. Please find the form of your tax refund attached and fill out it and send a report. Regards,Internal Revenue Service. Origins:  Notices purporting to come from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) make good  phishing bait for a number of reasons: phishing  Notices from institutions of the federal government (especially an agency with the ominous reputation of the IRS) grab people's attention.  Unlike other phishing schemes that emulate mailings from various private financial institutions (e.g., Bank of America) and are therefore easily recognized as phony by many recipients (because they do no business with those companies), a forged IRS notice has the potential to take in a much larger pool of victims, as most adult U.S. residents have dealings with that agency.  Many people find the federal income tax filing process complicated and confusing, so the idea that they might have unclaimed refunds or payments waiting for them to claim seems plausible. An August 2007 mass phish e-mailing (reprised in January 2012) took advantage of those points, spamming millions of Internet users with phony notices that advised recipients they were eligible to receive tax refunds (of amounts such as $109.30 or $268.32) and invited them to click on a link that took them to a form  through which they could claim those refunds.  Of course, the link included in the messages didn't actually send users to the genuine IRS web site; it redirected claimants to an imposter site that instructed them to enter sensitive personal information (e.g., Social Security number and debit card number) in order to "deposit" their refunds.   Similarly, January 2009 versions redirected claimants to an imposter site with a form for them to fill out in order to claim stimulus payments, and an October 2010 version used the lure of claiming that the recipients' Electronic Federal Tax Payments (EFTPS) had been rejected due to invalid information and sent them to a phony imitation of the real EFTPS site to enter new information. The IRS never offers refunds through e-mail or sends out unsolicited e-mails to taxpayers.   When the IRS needs to contact a taxpayer, it sends notice via U.S. Mail, and every such notice includes a telephone number that the recipient can call for confirmation.  Should you need to visit the IRS web site for any reason, go there directly (by entering the www.irs.gov URL into your web browser) rather than following links in e-mail messages. The IRS says about such e-mails that: IRS The IRS does not initiate taxpayer communications through e-mail. In addition, the IRS does not request detailed personal information through e-mail or ask taxpayers for the PIN numbers, passwords or similar secret access information for their credit card, bank or other financial accounts.  Do not open any attachments to questionable e-mails, which may contain malicious code that will infect your computer. Please be advised that the IRS does not initiate contact with taxpayers via e-mails. The EFTPS web site also states that: EFTPS EFTPS values your privacy and security and will never attempt to contact you via e-mail. If you ever receive an e-mail that claims to be from EFTPS or from a sender you do not recognize that mentions a payment made through EFTPS, forward the e-mail to phishing@irs.gov or call the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration at 1.800.366.4484. Last updated:  9 January 2012 A popular meme in March 2019 questioned why Bill Clinton had "paid Paula Jones $850K to go away" yet the FBI hadn't raided his lawyer's office. The meme was an obvious reference to two completely unrelated issues separated by decades: a 1994 lawsuit involving Clinton and a search warrant executed by the FBI in April 2018 at the office of President Donald Trump's attorney, Michael Cohen.  In short, the major differences in the cases referenced by the meme  one of which involved an FBI raid on a lawyer's office and the other not  were as follows: Clinton openly paid Jones $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit well after he became president and well after Jones had had a chance to air her allegations to the public, press, and court system, while Trump secretly used an intermediary to pay hush money to porn actress Stormy Daniels just ahead of a presidential election in order to keep her allegations that she had an affair with him from reaching the public and influencing the election results against him. Nothing Clinton did in settling Jones' civil lawsuit was illegal (or even potentially illegal), but Trump's payment of hush money to Daniels through his lawyer was possibly an illegal act on the part of Trump and/or Cohen, hence the raid on the latter's office but not the office of Clinton's lawyer. On 6 May 1994, Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton just days before the statute of limitations would have expired. In her lawsuit, she maintained that on 8 May 1991, she was working the registration desk at Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas, where the Third Annual Governor's Quality Management Conference was being held, an event Bill Clinton (then governor of Arkansas) attended to deliver a speech. Jones alleged that an Arkansas state trooper, Danny Ferguson, approached her at the registration desk, told her that Clinton would like to meet with her, and escorted her to a business suite in the hotel where Clinton was staying. lawsuit According to Jones, once she entered Clinton's hotel suite he complimented her on her physical appearance, put his hand on her leg, attempted to kiss her on the neck, asked her if she was married, and finally lowered his trousers to expose his erect penis and asked Jones to "kiss it." When Jones rebuffed Clinton's advances, she said, he told her to "keep this between ourselves" and suggested that, in her words, he "could damage her in her job and even jeopardize her employment." Jones did not publicly discuss the incident until The American Spectator referenced it in a January 1994 article, apparently based on information provided by Trooper Ferguson: The American Spectator account asserts that a woman by the name of "Paula" told an unnamed trooper (obviously Defendant Ferguson), who had escorted "Paula" to Clinton's hotel room, that "she was available to be Clinton's regular girlfriend if he so desired," thus implying a consummated and satisfying sexual encounter with Clinton, as well as a willingness to continue a sexual relationship with him. These assertions are untrue. The American Spectator account also asserted that the troopers' 'official' duties included facilitating Clinton's cheating on his wife ... Since Jones ("Paula") was one of the women preyed upon by Clinton and his troopers, including by Defendant Ferguson, in the manner described above, those who read this magazine account could conclude falsely that Jones ("Paula") had a sexual relationship and affair with Clinton. Jones' reputation within her community was thus seriously damaged. Several months later, Jones filed her lawsuit against Clinton and Ferguson, seeking a total of $750,000 in compensation for damages and attorneys' fees on counts of sexual harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. The issue of whether Jones could sue a sitting president went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, who upheld an appellate court decision that "the President, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all other members of our society," and allowed Jones' case to proceed. However, Judge Susan Webber Wright of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the lawsuit on 1 April 1998, holding that "the governor's alleged conduct does not constitute sexual assault," that "plaintiff's allegations fall far short of the rigorous standards for establishing a claim of outrage under Arkansas law," that "plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury," and that "there are no genuine issues for trial in this case." dismissed When it came to light a few months later that Clinton had lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky during proceedings in Jones' lawsuit, Jones filed an appeal to reverse the dismissal and have her claims reinstated. On 13 November 1998, Clinton settled the matter by offering to pay Jones $850,000 in exchange for her agreement to drop her appeal, without admitting to or apologizing for the conduct alleged by Jones. appeal Porn actress Daniels (the stage name of Stephanie Clifford) said she first met Trump at a celebrity golf tournament in Nevada in July 2006. The two engaged in sex in Trump's hotel room, she claimed, and continued an "intimate relationship" into the following year. Daniels discussed her relationship with Trump in a 2011 interview for In Touch magazine, but the interview was not published at that time, reportedly because Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, threatened to sue over it when the magazine reached out to ask for comment. threatened In January 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump's personal attorney, Cohen, had arranged to pay Daniels $130,000 just weeks before the 2016 U.S. presidential election in exchange for her signing a nondisclosure agreement related to her alleged 2006 affair with Trump. reported The following month, Cohen confirmed that $130,000 had been paid to Daniels, but he maintained that he had used his personal funds for the payment, and that "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly." On 5 April 2018, Trump denied to reporters that he knew about the payment to Daniels. When pressed about why the payment had been made, Trump replied, "You'll have to ask Michael Cohen" and asserted he didn't know where the $130,000 had come from. Four days later, acting on a warrant from federal prosecutors in New York's Southern District obtained in part on a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller's office, FBI agents seized a variety of material from Cohen's New York City office, home, and hotel room, including documents related to Cohen's payment to Daniels and to Karen McDougal, another woman who had alleged an affair with Trump. denied A month later, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, now a member of Trump's legal team, said that Trump had personally repaid Cohen for the $130,000 payment to Daniels, and that the reimbursement had been "funneled through a law firm." The following day, Trump contradicted his earlier claim that he didn't know about the payment by acknowledging that he had repaid Cohen, but he asserted the money "had nothing to do with the campaign." Rudy Giuliani contradicted In August 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to eight charges, including five counts of tax evasion, one count of making a false statement to a financial institution, one count of being a "willful cause" of an unlawful corporate contribution, and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution, the latter two stemming from the "hush money" payments made to Daniels and McDougal. Prosecutors held that the payments made by Cohen violated federal campaign finance laws because they were meant to benefit the campaign but did not come from campaign contributions and were not reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The payments therefore constituted illegal in-kind contributions to the Trump campaign that violated laws limiting such donations to $2,700 and requiring their disclosure to the FEC. Whether Trump himself could be charged with engaging in a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws for his involvement in the hush money payments is still a matter of legal debate, but the issue took a dramatic turn in February 2019 when Cohen revealed before Congress that he was paid reimbursement for the hush money directly from Trump's personal bank account after Trump became president. legal debate revealed "Cohen's public testimony directly implicates Trump in serious campaign finance violations," former FECGeneral Counsel Lawrence Noble told the Washington Post. "Assuming Cohen is telling the truth about the purpose of the checks, the checks are documentary evidence supporting the allegation that Trump had Cohen pay Daniels $135,000 in hush money and then reimbursed Cohen." Washington Post All in all, events proved the FBI had good reason to raid Cohen's office, as they gathered evidence of multiple federal crimes (beyond just campaign finance violations) to which Cohen pleaded guilty. Bill Clinton's payment to Paula Jones was a settlement of a civil lawsuit that did not involve any criminal matter or criminal wrongdoing, and thus it was of no legitimate interest to law enforcement. The only commonality between the two cases was that they involved payments by politicians to women, but for very different reasons and circumstances. federal crimes Dowd, Katie.  "Are These the Checks Donald Trump Gave Michael Cohen for the Stormy Daniels Payment?"   San Francisco Chronicle.  27 February 2019. Goodman, Ryan and Andy Wright.  "Mueller's Roadmap: Major Takeaways from Cohen and Manafort Filings."   Just Security.  December 8, 2018 Rupar, Aaron.  "What's illegal About Trump's Hush Payments to Women, Briefly Explained."   Vox.  12 December 2018. Kelly, Matthew.  "In-Kind Contributions Are Boring ... Until Stormy Daniels Gets Involved."   OpenSecrets.org.  3 April 2018. Lord, Debbie.  "Michael Cohen Plea Deal: How Were Campaign Finance Laws Broken?"   The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  22 August 2018. Associated Press.  "A Timeline of Key Moments in Trump-Stormy Daniels Saga."   4 May 2018. Kirby, Jen.  "A Timeline of Trumpworld's Changing Story on Stormy Daniels."   Vox.  4 May 2018. Samuels, Brett.  "Timeline: Trump, Cohen, Stormy Daniels and $130,000."   The Hill.  4 May 2018. Theobald, Bill.  "Why Hush Money Michael Cohen Paid Stormy Daniels Was an Illegal Campaign Donation."   USA Today.  14 December 2018. Kirby, Jen and Andrew Prokop.  "Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty to 8 Federal Crimes."   Vox.  21 August 2018. Stewart, Emily and Dylan Matthews.  "The Michael Cohen-Stormy Daniels Subplot, Explained."   Vox.  27 February 2019. Chalfant, Morgan.  "Prosecutors Submit Redacted Cohen Raid Documents Under Seal, Teeing Up Public Release."   The Hill.  28 February 2019. Reuters.  "Trump Says He Did Not Know About $130,000 Payment to Stormy Daniels."   5 April 2018. The notion of counting the number of green jobs in America made us think, oddly enough, of a middle-age guy trying for cool by pairing a sport coat with blue jeans. Not easy. Yet quite matter-of-factly, while touting a clean energy jobs bill she introduced, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin made the following statement Jan. 22, 2014: Over 3 million Americans are employed in the growing green-collar workforce, including in clean energy and sustainability, which is more than the amount of people working in the fossil fuel industry. When we put the Wisconsin Democrats claim to Daniel Kish at the Institute for Energy Research, he told us that both green and fossil fuel industry job numbers are sometimes thrown around with abandon. This gets really dicey real quick, he said. Everybodys got their dueling banjos. Thats PolitiFact Wisconsins kind of music. Baldwins evidence To back his boss claim, Baldwin spokesman John Kraus cited two reports. Both are from solid sources, though they mix sports coats and -- er, apples and oranges -- a bit. 1.Federal report In 2012, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics embarked on an annual tally of green jobs. The agency had the advantage of considering a definition of green jobs proffered a year earlier by the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C. think tank, which produced its own green jobs count. The Bureau of Labor Statistics surveyed 120,000 business and government establishments within 325 industries that were identified as potentially producing green goods or providing green services. Those surveyed said whether they produced green goods and services and the percentage of their revenue or employment associated with that output. Green goods and services were defined as those that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources. They fall into one or more of the following five groups: 1) Production   of  energy  from  renewable  sources; 2) energy efficiency; 3) pollution reduction and removal, greenhouse  gas reduction,  and  recycling  and  reuse;  4) natural   resources conservation;  and  5) environmental compliance,  education  and training, and public awareness. So, the list of green jobs is quite varied, including jobs in areas such as farming; home construction; electric, solar and other types of power generation; petroleum and coal products manufacturing; urban mass transit; newspaper publishing; advertising and public relations services; waste treatment and disposal; museums and zoos; and social advocacy organizations.The Bureau of Labor Statistics produced its second -- and, it turns out, final -- green jobs report in March 2013. It estimated that employment associated with the production of green goods and services -- full- and part-time jobs -- exceeded 3.4 million in 2011. Manufacturing, with 507,000 green jobs, was the largest sector. Goods produced by those jobs included air conditioning and refrigeration equipment meeting selected standards, hybrid cars and parts, and pollution mitigation equipment. Kish, who is senior vice president for policy at the industry-backed Institute for Energy Research, pointed out that 886,000 of the 3.4 million were government jobs -- not jobs, he said, in which people are making or installing windmills and solar panels. Green, Kish said, is a political word, used by politicians and advocates, that is truly elusive. Nevertheless, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is well-established as the official jobs counter for the federal government. The 2013 report, for the number of green jobs in 2011, remains the latest available. That report said that because of budget cuts, no more green counts would be done. 2.Think tank study The Brookings Institution report we noted above was produced in 2011, so its a little dated. Brookings estimated that in 2010, there were 2.7 million green jobs -- that is, jobs that directly contributed to the production of goods and services that had an environmental benet. Brookings didnt do a count of fossil fuel industry jobs, but it did make a comparison using federal government tallies. Its report said that in 2010, there were 1.3 million jobs that directly supported the production of fossil fuel-based energy, derivative manufactured products and machinery. If all wholesale and retail distributors, transporters and other workers -- such as gas station employees -- were included, the fossil fuel tally would be 2.4 million jobs, Brookings said. Brookings scholar Jonathan Rothwell told us some critics view the think tanks definition of green jobs as too expansive. For example, some 350,000 public transportation jobs in the green tally include not only bus drivers but secretaries, janitors, executives and all other employees who work for bus companies, he said. Brookings' definition of green jobs was very broad and included any economic activity that has an environmental benefit -- from public transportation to waste management, Rothwell acknowledged, adding that because only a small portion of energy comes from green sources, fossil fuel employees are a much larger share of the energy sector's workforce. But Rothwell noted that the Bureau of Labor Statistics adopted a similar definition when it did green jobs counts. And we note that BLS arrived at a roughly similar green jobs estimate. So, the most recent federal report backs the first part of Baldwins statement, that there are more than 3 million green jobs. The older think tank report she cites doesnt say there were more than 3 million green jobs, but does say that green jobs outnumbered fossil fuel industry jobs as of 2010. Otherviews One thing to underline here is that counting green jobs is a different sort of animal. As CNN/Money observed when the first Bureau of Labor Statistics green jobs report came out in 2012, comparing green jobs to another singular sector isn't really fair. The green jobs survey took into account a wide variety of jobs in over 300 different industries. As for the oil and gas industry itself, a July 2013 report was done by PricewaterhouseCoopers for the American Petroleum Institute, a trade association for the oil and natural gas industry, that was an update of a report done two years earlier. The later report said there were 2.59 million jobs in the oil and natural gas industry in 2011. PricewaterhouseCoopers said it utilized data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and the U.S. Census Bureau for its study. The study noted that the oil and natural gas industry encompasses a number of activities that span separate industry classifications in government economic data. For example, oil and natural gas exploration and production is included in the mining sector; and oil refining is part of the manufacturing sector. The study defined the oil and gas industry to include all such activities. The petroleum institute noted to us criticism of how the federal government defines green jobs, including an editorial in Investors Business Daily that called the annual count phony. A final note: In November 2012, U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, made a claim similar to but more broad than Baldwins, saying there were more people working in clean and green energy than in oil and gas in this country. That was before the latest reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and American Petroleum Institute that estimated green and fossil fuel jobs for 2011. PolitiFact Rhode Island rated the statement True. Our colleagues noted that at the time, the number of green jobs as estimated by BLS exceeded the number of oil and gas jobs estimated by the petroleum institute. Our rating Baldwin said: Over 3 million Americans are employed in the growing green-collar workforce, which is more than the number of people working in the fossil fuel industry. The latest estimates are for 2011. The federal government says there were 3.4 million green jobs, while a national oil and gas trade group says there were 2.59 million oil and gas jobs. We rate Baldwins statement True. Follow us onTwitterandFacebook. It sounds like something from a horror flick. A small, parasitic creature swims into the mouth of a fish and attaches itself to the organisms tongue  yes, fish have tongues  causing it to slowly degrade before latching onto the stub leftover, thus becoming a parasitic pseudo tongue. Over time, the host loses its ability to eat and slowly succumbs to starvation.   So claims a now-viral Instagram post that was shared in March 2021 by the Smithsonian Institute in appreciation of #ParasiteWeek2021. And if the photo was enough to give you the heebie-jeebies, then you may not want to continue reading. Because both the photograph in question and the supposed parasite featured in it are, in fact, real. The picture featured an organism known as a cymothoid isopod and was originally shared on Aug. 3, 2020, by marine biologist Jimmy Bernot, a post-doctoral scholar with the National Science Foundation and Smithsonians National Museum of Natural History specializing in crustacean phylogeny and parasite evolution. In an email to Snopes, Bernot said that he captured the photo during a 2016 survey of fish parasites of Moreton Bay, Australia.   The host fish is known scientifically as Mugil cephalus or the Flathead mullet.  "Not to be confused with the business in the front, party in the back haircut," said Bernot.  And the parasite seen inside the mullet's mouth is what is known as a cymothoid isopod that measured about an inch long. According to the scientist, it appeared that the fish did use the creepy-crawly as a "pseudo tongue."  The fact that you can see imprints of the fish's teeth on the back of the isopod indicates the fish is crushing items against the isopod similar to how the fish would use its tongue, he said.  Jimmy Bernot  Isopods are marine invertebrates, or animals without backbones, that belong to a greater group of animals called crustaceans. Only a handful of the at least 95 known families of isopods are parasitic, one of which being cymothoid, according to research published in a 2014 issue of the International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife. The cymothoidae family in particular is made up of 350 species of aquatic parasitic isopods. Widely distributed around the world in both oceanic and freshwater habitats, cymothoids are on the larger side of parasites and can reach lengths upwards of a quarter of an inch, with the largest reaching lengths of up to 3 inches. International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife "Cymothoids superficially look like free-living isopods, such as terrestrial rolly-pollies or pillbugs that people may be familiar with, except for their powerful hooked legs that they use to attach to their host," explained Bernot. "As adults, they are not good swimmers and typically stay permanently attached to their host." Equipped with a long, slender body that tapers at the end and sharply curved hooks at the end of its limbs, the cymothoid can attach to its host fish at the gills or mouth as well as externally or inside the host flesh, depending on the species. Cymothoids are generally host-specific, meaning each cymothoid typically attaches to a single host species or a small group of related fish. On a parasitized fish, Bernot said that there will often be a single large female and a few small males attached nearby on the same fish.  Various types of parasitic attachment strategies of cymothoid isopods. International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife  International Journal for Parasitology: Parasites and Wildlife   Only a few species attach specifically to the tongue, and these are commonly called "tongue-biters." Other species attach to the skin or gills, but all have detrimental effects on their hosts including blood loss due to the parasite feeding, skin and tissue damage, deformities, and overall stunted growth and reproductive issues.  And when it comes to the cymothoid featured on social media posts, the Smithsonian Institute wrote that the crustaceans sever the host fishs tongue"  a claim that is only partly true. wrote "The cymothoids feed on blood and perhaps some of the tongue and surrounding tissue in the host's mouth, but the loss and degradation of the tongue are at least partially, if not mostly, due to atrophy of the tongue from mechanical damage caused by the strong, hooked legs that the isopod uses to attach to the base of the tongue," said Bernot. In short, cymothoids do not snip straight through the tongue of the fish, but rather cause such damage that a portion of the tongue can eventually fall off.  And according to the research institution, Bernot's photograph is the only known instance in the animal kingdom where a parasite has been observed as fully replacing its hosts organ. In a reply to his original post, Bernot said that the pictured cymothoid isopod holding caused its host to atrophy  a fancy word for wasting away. Studying parasites like cymothoids helps researchers to better understand evolutionary biology and the unique adaptations that individual species obtain in order to survive.  "It appears different groups of parasitic isopods have independently evolved strongly clawed legs through a process called convergent evolution," said Bernot. "Convergent evolution is of interest to evolutionary biologists and developmental biologists since it gives us insights into how evolution can shape the morphology of animals."  And cymothoids also impact human health and economies because of their effect on fish, which Bernot said could sometimes infect more than 90% of fish on a single farm, including commercially farmed sea bass, bream, and salmon. As gross as it may sound, eating a fish with a parasite is "definitely still safe for humans," but the fish might be smaller or have scars, and Bernot said that means it can't be sold at its highest market value. On 13 January 2016, the official web site for the Powerball lottery announced that three winning tickets had been sold (one in California, one in Tennessee, and one in Florida) for the $1.6 billion jackpot. Shortly thereafter, rumors started circulating about the identity of the winners. Powerball Several people took advantage of the hype surrounding the record breaking Powerball lottery and posted fake tickets to their social media accounts. Most of these posts followed the familiar "Like Farming" formula, in which people are promised monetary rewards in exchange for liking, sharing, or commenting on a Facebook message. Like Farming The above-displayed Facebook post, for instance, instructed people to share the photo for a chance to win $10,000. Rickstarr Ferragamo, however, did not win the lottery. The biggest giveaway in Ferragamo's post is that his "winning ticket" was purchased in New York, and not in one of the states which sold an actual winning ticket:   Ferragamo wasn't the only hoaxster to post a ticket from a non-winning state. Twitter user @BerenabasG, who promised to give $2000 to anyone who retweeted his image, and @Nerdout, who just wanted people to "hit him up" about his recent windfall of cash, posted fake "winning" fake from Texas and Ohio:     Some internet hoaxsters, however, did manage to produce fake tickets from one of the states that did sell a winning ticket. The most convincing example of thiscame from skateboarder and filmmaker Erik Bragg:OMG I WON $1.5 BILLION!!!!! I'm posting this in case anyone tries to jack me this is proof! Look it up, I bought in chino hills where I grew up! #powerball #powerball   While Bragg's photo has garnered 100,000 likes on Instagram, the above-displayed image also features a fake lottery ticket. The biggest giveaway here is the "ABCDE" displayed onthe left side of the ticket, which indicates that the ticket should feature four additional groups of lotto numbers. These numbers were removed, however, when the image was altered to display the winning lotto numbers of 4, 8, 19, 27, 34, and 10. As of 15 January 2015, $1.6 billion Powerball lottery winners who have been officially identified are John and Lisa Robinson of Mumford, Tennessee. Robinson In 2015, a Snopes reader emailed us, asking: Did Kanye West actually say: 'Sometimes people write novels and they just be so wordy and soself-absorbed. I am not a fan of books. I would never want a booksautograph. I am a proud non-reader of books.'  OnFeb. 13,2015, the website for the UK version ofMarie Clairemagazine published an article titled 21 Kanye West Quotes That Completely Baffled Us. The collection of Wests comments was curated in response to the rappers behavior on the evening of the57th AnnualGrammy Awards, particularly his rant about musician Beck as the latter received the Album of the Year award. Among Wests collected quotes, one in particular stood out. It concerned Kanyes feelings on the matter of books and reading in general, and many readers questioned whether the quote was genuine: Sometimes people write novels and they just be so wordy and so self-absorbed. I am not a fan of books. I would never want a books autograph. I am a proud non-reader of books. After interest in the comment attributed to West was revived, it appeared on a number of memes that circulated via Facebook. The remarks were indeed correctly attributed (though lacking context) and dated to a 2009Reuters article about the publication of a book penned by West: Reuters article Rapper Kanye West does not read books or respect them but nevertheless he has written one that he would like you to buy and read. Wests derision of books comes despite the fact that his late mother, Donda West, was a university English professor before she retired to manage his music career. She died in 2007 of complications following cosmetic surgery. 'Sometimes people write novels and they just be so wordy and so self-absorbed,' West said. 'I am not a fan of books. I would never want a books autograph. 'I am a proud non-reader of books. I like to get information from doing stuff like actually talking to people and living real life,' he said. Egan, Mark.  Proud Non-Reader Kanye West Turns Author. Reuters. 5 May 2009.  Ramsdale, Susannah.  21 Kanye West Quotes That Completely Baffled Us.Marie Claire. 13 February 2015. Ball-Point Pens for the Astronauts When NASA started sending astronauts into space, they quicklyDiscovered that ball-point pens would not work in zeroGravity. To combat this problem, NASA scientists spent aDecade and $12 billion developing a pen that writes in zeroGravity, upside-down, on almost any surface including glassAnd at temperatures ranging from below freezing to over 300 C. The Russians used a pencil. Your taxes are due again  enjoy paying them. [The Moscow Times, 2000] There is a charming anecdote that roams from e-mail box to e-mail box around the world about how, at the height of the space race, the Americans and Soviets approached the same problem: how an astronaut (or cosmonaut) could use a pen to write in zero gravity. As the story goes, the Americans spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on an ambitious, gravity-immune ballpoint pen; they successfully developed such a pen; and this pen went on to become a massive commercial success in the private sector. The Soviets  with the simple elegance their scientists are so rightly famed for  opted instead to use a pencil. Thelesson of the infamous "space pen" anecdote related above, about NASA's spending a small fortune to develop a ballpoint pen that astronauts could use in outer space while completely overlooking the simple and elegant solution adopted by the Soviet space program (give cosmonauts pencils instead), is a valid one: sometimes we expend a great deal of time, effort, and money to create a "high-tech" solution to a problem, when a perfectly good, cheap, and simple answer is right before our eyes. As good a story and moral as that may be, however, this anecdote doesn't offer a real-life example of that syndrome. Both U.S. astronauts and Soviet cosmonauts initially used pencils on space flights, but those writing instruments were not ideal: pencil tips can flake and break off, and having such objects floating around space capsules in near-zero gravity posed a potential harm to astronauts and equipment. (As well, after the fatal Apollo 1 fire in 1967, NASA was anxious to avoid having astronauts carry flammable objects such as pencils onboard with them.) When the solution of providing astronauts with a ballpoint pen that would work under weightless conditions and extreme temperatures came about, though, it wasn't because NASA had thrown hundreds of thousands of dollars (inflated to $12 billion in the latest iterations of this tale) in research and development money at the problem. The "space pen" that has since become famous through its use by astronauts was developed independently by Paul C. Fisher of the Fisher Pen Co., who spent his own money on the project and, once he perfected his AG-7 "Anti-Gravity" Space Pen, offered it to NASA. After that agency tested and approved the pen's suitability for use in space flights, they purchased a number of the instruments from Fisher for a modest price. This is how Fisher themselves described the development of their Space Pen: NASA never asked Paul C. Fisher to produce a pen. When the astronauts began to fly, like the Russians, they used pencils, but the leads sometimes broke and became a hazard by floating in the [capsule's] atmosphere where there was no gravity. They could float into an eye or nose or cause a short in an electrical device. In addition, both the lead and the wood of the pencil could burn rapidly in the pure oxygen atmosphere. Paul Fisher realized the astronauts needed asafer and more dependable writing instrument, so in July 1965 he developed the pressurized ball pen, with its ink enclosed in a sealed, pressurized ink cartridge. Fisher sent the first samples to Dr. Robert Gilruth, Director of the Houston Space Center. The pens were all metal except for the ink, which had a flash point above 200C. The sample Space Pens were thoroughly tested by NASA. They passed all the tests and have been used ever since on all manned space flights, American and Russian. All research and development costs were paid by Paul Fisher. No development costs have ever been charged to the government. Because of the fire in Apollo 1, in which three Astronauts died, NASA required a writing instrument that would not burn in a 100% oxygen atmosphere. It also had to work in the extreme conditions of outer space: (NASA tested the pressurized Space Pens at -50C, but because of the residential [sic] heat in the pen it also writes for many minutes in the cold shadows.) Fisher spent over one million dollars in trying to perfect the ball point pen before he made his first successful pressurized pens in 1965. Samples were immediately sent to Dr. Robert Gilruth, Manager of the Houston Space Center, where they were thoroughly tested and approved for use in Space in September 1965. In December 1967 he sold 400 Fisher Space Pens to NASA for $2.95 each. Lead pencils were used on all Mercury and Gemini space flights and all Russian space flights prior to 1968. Fisher Space Pens are more dependable than lead pencils and cannot create the hazard of a broken piece of lead floating through the gravity-less atmosphere. Paul Fisher continues to market his space pens as the writing instrument that went to the moon and has spun off this effort into a separate corporation, the Fisher Space Pen Co.: Space Pen   Sightings:  This legend was referenced in an episode of NBC's The West Wing TV series ("We Killed Yamamoto"; original air date 15 May 2002): https://youtu.be/LQy1DH38E5g Curtin, Ciara.   "NASA Spent Millions to Develop a Pen That Would Write in Space."  
 Scientific American.   20 December 2008. Garber, Steve.  "The Fisher Space Pen."  
 NASA.gov. The Moscow Times.  "Pencil Us in for the Next Y2K Disaster." 
 14 January 2000.