Has the owner of Progressive Insurance contributed millions of dollars to the ACLU?
In 2009, Forbes magazine ranked Peter Lewis at #366 on its list of the richest Americans, pegging his net worth at just over $1 billion. Lewis acquired his wealth primarily through his stewardship of Cleveland-based Progressive Insurance, a company co-founded by his father in 1937. Forbes Progressive Insurance When he assumed the position of CEO of Progressive in 1965, Lewis took over a business with about 100 employees and $6 million in yearly revenue; forty years later, Progressive had become the third largest auto insurer in the United States, employing over 27,000 people with yearly revenues topping $13 billion.   This success spawned chain emails and memes decrying Lewis' supposed political leanings and involvement:  This is a heads up regarding Progressive Auto Insurance. You know who they are. Theyre the ones with the clever television ads featuring the perky brunette actress all dressed in white. What you might not know is that the chairman of Progressive is Peter Lewis, one of the largest funders of the left in America. He's your typical rich spoiled kid who took over the company from his father and apparently feels "guilty" for his success and now dedicates himself to making it impossible for anyone else to become wealthy.Between 2001 and 2003, Lewis funneled $15 million to the ACLU, the group most responsible for destroying what's left of America's Judeo-Christian heritage. Indeed, Lewis is himself an ACLU member. One of the ACLU projects he earmarked his funds for was an effort to sue school districts who have drug testing policies. In other words, this idiot wants teachers to be able to use drugs without fear of exposure. I wonder what he would think if all his own employees came to work drugged out every day. Lewis also gave $12.5 million to MoveOn.org and American Coming Together, two key components of the socialist left. The former group is perhaps the main group used by the Obama forces to organize their activists; the latter group is a 527 political action group that essentially served as a front for the SEIU union thugs who ran ACORN. His funding for these groups was conditional on matching contributions from George Soros, the international socialist who finances much of the Obama political network. It's disturbing that Lewis made a fortune as a result of capitalism but now finances a progressive movement that threatens to destroy the free enterprise system. He reminds me somewhat of Armand Hammer, the former head of Occidental Petroleum who did business with Joseph Stalin and became his good friend, around the same time Stalin was executing businessmen all over the USSR. What angers me further is the way this company is targeting television shows watched by conservatives such as Fox News. Peter Lewis is making a fortune off of conservative Americans so that he can destroy our country. He's banking on no one finding out who he is. I think it's time we expose this clown. Boycott Progressive Insurance Peter Lewis personally donated a good deal a money to various philanthropic efforts over the years, including hundreds of millions of dollars to Princeton and Case Western Reserve universities, and another $50 million to the Guggenheim Museum. He has also given large amounts of money to various political organizations, including donations of $7 million and $8 million to the ACLU in 2001 and 2003. (The former donation went to the Trust for the Bill of Rights, the ACLU's endowment fund; the latter was described by the ACLU as being earmarked "to fight Bush Administration policies that trample on civil liberties." According to the Boston Globe, Lewis stipulated that $5 million of his 2001 donation go "to the ACLU's drug-policy litigation project, which deals with drug-testing in schools and the medicinal use of marijuana.") Case Western Reserve $7 million $8 million Lewis also made donations of $3 million and $2.5 million (both of which were reportedly matched by billionaire activist George Soros) to America Coming Together (a liberal political action group which has since disbanded), and MoveOn.org (a progressive/liberal political action committee and public policy group) in 2004. America Coming Together MoveOn.org Among his other causes, Lewis was an advocate for the removal of criminal penalties for marijuana use, particularly for medicinal purposes (he was himself arrested and charged in New Zealand for possession of marijuana in 2000), adding his name to a 1998 letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan calling for the initiation of a "truly open and honest dialogue regarding the future of global drug control policies," and becoming the largest donor (including $3 million in 2007 alone) to the Marijuana Policy Project. (The Progressive Insurance company, as opposed to Peter Lewis personally, supports multiple non-political charitable causes.) letter Marijuana Policy Project charitable However, the "heads up regarding Progressive Auto Insurance" reproduced above, originally circulated in 2010, is now woefully out of date: Lewis stepped down from his role as Progressive Insurance's CEO in 2000 and after that date was neither an executive of that company nor involved in its day-to-day management. Although after 2000 he continued to hold the position of chairman of the board of the Progressive Corporation and was that entity's single largest individual shareholder, he passed away in November 2013 and therefore obviously no longer has any connection with Progressive Insurance. As well, some of the statements made in the above-quoted call for a boycott of Progressive Insurance were inaccurate and misleading: regulations [A school board] policy required any teacher who suffered an injury on the job to submit to a drug test  even if that "injury" resulted from being punched by a student.The drug test of two-time East Baton Rouge Teacher of the Year Peggy Reno illustrates how the School Board's now defunct drug-testing policy was put into effect. Ms. Reno, a veteran and respected teacher, never in her life used an illegal drug, and her school never suspected otherwise. A student punched Ms. Reno on September 24, 2008. Although there was no suspicion that she was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, Ms. Reno was forced by a School Board official to submit to an invasive drug test. Countless other teachers who have never used drugs  and who have never been suspected of using drugs  have been subjected to similar unconstitutional searches. The Fourth Amendment to the Bill of Rights forbids government searches when there is no reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. defend Clarke, Josie.  "Eccentric Billionaire Has High Profile at Home."
  The New Zealand Herald.  31 August 2000.

 Edsall, Thomas B.  "Soros-Backed Activist Group Disbands as Interest Fades."
  The Washington Post.  3 August 2005.
 Healy, Rita.  "Mellowing Out on Marijuana."
  Time.  8 November 2007.
 Kranish, Michael.  "Rich Activists, Hoping to Sway Voters, Give Vast Sums to 527s."
  Boston Globe.  21 September 2003  (p. A8).
 Leinwand, Donna.  "Super-Rich Trio Put Cash into Marijuana Initiatives."
  USA Today.  5 November 2002  (p. A8).
 ACLU.  "Individual Donor Sets Record with $7 Million Donation."
  18 July 2001.
 ACLU.  "$8 Million Gift Will Boost Campaign to Fight Bush Administration's Assault on Civil Liberties."
  15 January 2003.
 Forbes.  "The Forbes 400 Richest Americans 2009."
  30 September 2009.
 The Nation.  "The Beat-Bush Brigades."
  26 April 2004.
 USA Today.  "Partisan Groups' attack Ads Dodge Disclosure Rules."
  16 March 2004  (p. A12).
In June 2021, as airlines experienced a surge in demand, multiple news outlets reported that American Airlines (AA) was cutting about 1% of its flights in the coming weeks amid bad weather and labor shortages. Reuters reported: "American Airlines said the incredibly quick ramp up of customer demand also came at a time when bad weather caused multi-hour delays over the last few weeks, disrupting flight and crew work hours. The company said some of its vendors were also struggling with labor shortages, impacting the airline's operations." news outlets reported Responding to that latter reason for the cuts, one Twitter user authored the below-displayed tweet that makes several claims about the company's budgeting during the COVID-19 pandemic and allegedly explains why AA was struggling to fill job positions. one Twitter user COVID-19 pandemic   We contacted the tweet's author to learn their process for composing the post, as well as their potential connection to the airline. We have not received a response, but we will update this report when, or if, that changes. Nonetheless, the tweet includes the following claims: Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act Doug Parker But, before we proceed, let us note here: The airline's communication team's statements to news media regarding the upcoming flight cancellations through mid-July (see CNN's story here, CNBC's coverage here, and NBC's article here), including to Snopes, said "labor shortages [among] some of our vendors" (emphasis added) were affecting operations. See the statement we received, for example: here here here   That umbrella term, "vendors," could include companies that operate independently but have a contract with American to provide goods or services for its flights, such as aircraft equipment manufacturers or business that sell blankets or pillows for passengers. Snopes asked a company spokesperson what vendors, specifically, faced employment gaps and impacted flights, and he did not answer the question. While the spokesperson shared other comments (which we included in the sections below), he also did not share a response to critics who believed the company should shift around funds, including those provided by the federal government, so that the CEO received less compensation and rank-and-file staff earned higher paychecks. For that reason and others, this fact check does not address that underlying argument of the tweet. Not quite  but the airline company did take advantage of other federal grants and loans. Let us explain that conclusion. Only companies that qualified as a "small businesses" (criteria here), or had 500 or fewer employees, were eligible for PPP loans. American, on the other hand, documented about 133,700 full-time employees, ranging from pilots to flight attendants to mechanics, federal regulatory documents showed. here regulatory documents showed Rather, AA utilized the government's Payroll Support Program (PSP), a different financial boost established by the CARES Act that provided $25 billion for various airlines' payroll expenses. Payroll Support Program The U.S. Department of the Treasury distributed the money, in part, based on air carriers' payroll expenses from April 2019 through September 2019, and said it "must exclusively be used for the continuation of payment of employee wages, salaries, and benefits." U.S. Department of the Treasury According to that federal agency's database of recipients and AA spokesperson Matt Miller, American was budgeting with $12.7 billion from the program, as of this writing. The majority of that amount (almost double what was described in the viral tweet) was one-time grant money, while about one-third represented loans that the airline carrier needed to pay back. agency's database 12.7 "These funds ensured we could keep our team members on payroll throughout the pandemic despite the significant drop-off in demand for air travel," wrote Miller in an email to Snopes. Yes, Parker, who is paid almost entirely in stock awards, took home $10.66 million in total compensation in 2020, according to Miller and The Dallas Morning News. (The carrier's headquarters is located in Dallas-Fort Worth, making the Dallas newspaper a primary source of news about it.) The Dallas Morning News That compensation was based on the company's profits in 2019 (so it did not factor in the financial struggle of the pandemic), and was his smallest paycheck since taking the helm. The newspaper reported: "Parker's compensation has mostly hovered between $11.1 million and $12.3 million a year during his time as CEO, with the exception of 2013 when he made $17.6 million based largely on bonuses he had for merging his former airline, US Airways, with American Airlines." CEO Parker gave up his cash salary in 2015 to move to the all-stock compensation plan, along with benefits including flights and life insurance premiums. Miller told us: "Being paid in stock ensures his compensation is at-risk, based on the results the company achieves, and aligned with our shareholders interests," he said. "Dougs realizable compensation for 2020 was considerably less  approximately $2.9 million, or 23% of the target." This is false. While the company did cut some supervisor and support staff jobs, and it was true that its workforce overall declined by about 31,000 positions in 2020, it was erroneous to attribute that decrease exclusively to involuntary layoffs. According to annual reports to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission obtained by Snopes, AA's payroll indeed shrunk from about 133,700 full-time employees at the end of 2019 to roughly 102,700 such workers. That was a 23% workforce reduction, totaling about 31,000 positions. However, neither those regulatory documents, nor a news story by the Dallas Business Journal about them, said that decrease was because executives enacted widespread layoffs. news story by the Dallas Business Journal It was true American briefly furloughed 19,000 employees in fall 2020 and then brought them back weeks later, after the company secured more PSP funding from the federal government. furloughed 19,000 employees Then, months later, news reports said the company warned 13,000 employees of possible lay offs, pending the country's rate of vaccinations and interest in traveling. As of this writing, however, those worker remained in their jobs, Miller told Snopes. news reports But, as we noted, there were some permanent job losses during the pandemic. The airline cut about 30% of its management and administrative positions, totaling roughly 5,000 jobs, according to news reports and Miller. Those were the only involuntarily layoffs, based on our research. We found no evidence of widespread layoffs for employees who maintain the company's operations or deal with customers, like the tweet implied. Rather, Miller said, the company documented tens of thousands fewer workers in 2020 compared to 2019 because it had expanded its "early out program." A slew of front-line workers agreed to voluntarily terminate their employment to take advantage of severance benefits, or to leave the company for months on end for partial compensation. "Ultimately our headcount is smaller than it was before the pandemic, but the vast majority of that reduction is from voluntary departures," Miller said. "Any front-line employees who departed the company did so voluntarily via an early out program. The only involuntary departures were on the management side." In sum, we rate this multi-pronged claim a "Mixture" of true and false information. An image comparing changes in the financial status of former and current United States presidents was widely shared on social media at the end of 2017, with minimal text suggesting that the data it presented was particularly revealing of something (without providing any detail about what that "something") might be:  <!-- --> As for the hard data, we won't dwell on precise numbers because net worth figures are typically estimates that are at least partially based on assets with fluctuating valuations, and federal election disclosure laws have only required that candidates list their assets and liabilities in ranges rather than specific amounts. However, in general we can note that the information in the image is at least within the ballpark of reasonable. The Clintons' net worth was as reported as $700,000 in their 1992 statement, the Obamas' net worth was estimated at about $1.3 million in 2007 (mostly derived from book publishing advances and royalties), while the Trumps' net worth was pegged at $3.7 billion in 2016. $700,000 $1.3 million $3.7 billion As of 2017, the Clintons were estimated to have made $240 million since Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the Obamas' combined net worth was reckoned to be about $24 million, while the Trumps' net worth was thought to have dropped to about $3.1 billion. Suffice it to say that the Clinton and Obama families have done very well for themselves since leaving the White House, but the Trumps have realized no similar windfall (and have possibly seen their overall wealth decline a bit). $240 million $3.1 billion The comparison in this image is one of apples and oranges, however, and therefore it reveals nothing remarkable or surprising. It contrasts two men who each served eight years as President and are no longer in office with one man who has only been the U.S. chief executive for a year and still occupies that position. The longer one holds high office, the more opportunity one has to establish connections and build experience that might prove financially lucrative later on, so obviously two men who sat in the White House for eight years each has a considerable advantage over the one who has barely been in Washington for a year. More important, though, is that former Presidents Clinton and Obama are former presidents who have returned to private life, and thus they can avail themselves of many money-making opportunities common to ex-presidents -- writing books, giving speeches, consulting for private companies, holding board seats, advising businessmen and politicians -- that are simply not available to a sitting president. But for the incumbent chief executive, the position of President of the United States affords its holder little time to manage any outside business interests, and conflict of interest laws make it difficult for presidents to engage in profitable business ventures while they're serving as public officials. (Most sitting presidents choose to put their business interests into blind trusts or otherwise delegate their day-to-day management to others during their terms of office.) conflict of interest blind trusts This image also conveniently omits data that demonstrates the money-making proclivities of former presidents to be neither an aberration nor an activity limited to Democrats: George H.W. Bush saw his fortune grow from $4 million in his pre-presidential days to $23 million in 2017, and his son, George W. Bush, began his presidency with $20 million and is now reportedly worth $35 million. Finally, nothing about this subject has anything to do with any presidents, current or former, "stealing" anyone's money. Whatever controversies may have surrounded Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Trump so far, none of them has been accused of enriching themselves by looting the public treasury. Erb, Kelly Phillips.  "What's a Blind Trust, Anyway, And Why Won't It Work for President-Elect Trump?"
  Forbes.  12 January 2017. Forbes.  "The Definitive Net Worth of Donald Trump."
  Accessed 28 December 2017. Alexander, Dan.  "How Bill and Hillary Clinton Made $240 Million in the Last 15 Years."
  Forbes.  8 November 2016. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Is Hillary Clinton Actually Worth?"
  Town & Country.  12 October 2017. Gore, Leada.  "Donald Trump's Net Worth as He Takes Office and Barack Obama's as He Leaves."
  AL.com.  19 January 2017. Wang, Jennifer.  "Donald Trump's Fortune Falls $800 Million to $3.7 Billion."
  Forbes.  28 September 2016. Gerth, Jeff.  "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Personal Finances; Wealthy Investment Family a Big Help to Clinton."
  The New York Times.  5 February 1992. Dangremond, Sam.  "How Much Money Can Ex-Presidents Pull In?"
  Town & Country.  23 March 2017. Claim:  A man listed a wedding gown on eBay via a hilarious offer of sale that included photos of him posing in the dress. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] For Sale: One Slightly Used Size 12 Wedding Gown. Only worn twice: Once at the wedding and once for these pictures. Make: Victoria Style: 611 Size: 12 Divorce forces sale I found my ex-wife's wedding dress in the attic when I moved.  She took the $4000 engagement ring but left the dress.  I was actually going to have a dress burning party when the divorce became final, but my sister talked me out of it.  She said, "Thats such a gorgeous dress.  Some lucky girl would be glad to have it. You should sell it on EBay. At least get something back for it."  So, this is what Im doing.  Im selling it hoping to get enough money for maybe a couple of Mariners tickets and some beer.  This dress cost me $1200 that my drunken sot of an ex-father-in-law swore up and down he would pay for but didnt so I got stuck with the bill.  Luckily I only got stuck with his daughter for 5 years. Thank the Lord we didn't have kids. If they would have turned out like her or her family I would have slit my wrists. Anyway, its a really nice dress as you can see in the pictures.  Personally, I think it looks like a $1200 shower curtain, but what do I know about this.  We tried taking pictures of this lovely white garment but it didnt look right on the hanger as you can see, so my sister says, "You need a model."  Well, quite frankly my sister isnt exactly small, (like a size 12 is?) so she wouldnt pose for the picture. Seeing as I have sworn off women for the time being and I aint friends with any, it left me holding the bag.  I took the liberty of blacking out my face - not to protect the ex-wife but to protect me from my bar buddies and co-workers finding out about it.  I would never live it down.  Actually I didnt think my head would fit in the neck hole, but then I figured she got her Texas cheerleader hair through there I could get my head in it.  Though, after looking at the pictures, I thought it made me look fat.  How do you women wear this crap? I only had to walk 3 feet and I tripped twice. Dont worry ladies - I am wearing clothes on underneath it.  I gotta say it did make me feel very pretty.  So if it can make me feel pretty, it can make you feel pretty, especially on the most important day of your life, right?  Anyway, I was told to say it has a train and a veil and all kinds of shiny beady things.  I think it's funny that one picture makes it look like the chest plate off an Imperial Storm Trooper.  Did I mention that all I want is a ball game and beer?  Cheap at twice the price.  Ladies, you wont regret this.  You may regret the dude you marry but not the dress. Just a little side note - As I was putting this ad in EBay, it asked me for a color.  Is a wedding dress any other freaking color than white or ivory??!!  If it is it wouldn't be a wedding dress, now would it??  I suppose black would work...  On Apr-26-04 at 10:38:31 PDT, seller added the following information: Well, the auction is a little over half over and I am just amazed.  This thing has taken more hits than that pothead that lives in the next building.  Man, oh man, if hits were bucks Id be getting a suite at Safeco.  I also have received TONS of email.  I dont have the time to reply to all of them but I just want to let everyone know that I appreciate the well wishes.  Of the email I received:  Five or so were invitations to ball games in other states.  Two of those were for little league games.  Do they have those cushy executive boxes with the free chicken wings at those?  One email was from Scotland.  Its a good thing he wrote it because I wouldnt be able to understand a word he said.  Never did get through Braveheart.  Most were thanking me for the laugh. Youre entirely welcome.  Five years of misery was well worth the hearty guffaw that was my pleasure to give you. Oh, yeah.  I also got three marriage proposals.  Yes, you read it right - three marriage proposals.  I feel like one of those mass murderers on death row.  I never understood how the hell they got more chicks than I did.  Now I know.  They sold crap on eBay.  On Apr-26-04 at 23:45:56 PDT, seller added the following information: Holy Moly!  The hit counter is starting to look like the odometer in my truck! Not the new shiny black full-size 4-wheel-drive American pick-up that I had to part with, but the somewhat older, multicolored, lumpy, tiny, 2-wheel-drive foreign pick-up that belches smoke. A little something about that vehicle, though: its absolutely amazing! When I get inside it to go to the store, I am all depressed. But when I arrive at the store, Im so freaking loopy from inhaling the fumes, I forget why I went there in the first place. Im saving buckets of money. Of course, I will probably have to spend it all on the tuberculosis I will acquire, but hey, you cant have everything. I felt compelled to update this ad once more due to all of your emails. The first thing I have to say is thank you all for your support in my time of need. It was a truly harrowing experience. Some of you men know exactly what I mean. Seeing as this has turned into my little public forum, I just want to address a few of the emails that kind of left me scratching my head. I now have five marriage proposals. You would think my speaking of the ones I already got yesterday would have put a damper on it, but you women sure are persistent. One woman actually said she doesnt want to marry me, but wouldnt mind being my ex-wife. Hmmm. Let me think about that. Nope. No thanks, already got one. (Pssst. Didnt I mention I had one? Who wants an ex-wife that cant read? Now, I know what you guys are thinking - "If she cant read, then the divorce would be smooth sailing." Well, that would be all well and good but I didnt say her ATTORNEY couldnt read. You following me on this?) Other emails are serious buyers asking about the dress. "How long is the train?" and "Does the gown come with the headdress and veil?" Yes, headdress and veil are included, but the do-rag stays with me. And if the train was long enough for my exs caboose, its long enough for yours. You will have to supply your own baggage, though. I gave mine to Goodwill. There was this one woman who wrote, "You should have covered your tattoos. People will be able to recognize you, like on Americas Most Wanted." HELLO!!! Im a guy selling a dress. Im not wanted for war crimes. Some of your emails made me laugh. Like the bitter woman that wished she had her exs testicles to sell on eBay. Im not too sure theres a market for that, though. Then there was the guy that gave his wifes wedding dress to the Salvation Army by mistake, thinking it was a Christmas tree. Guess he didnt have any Christmas balls that year. This has also been a learning experience for me. I got a lot of messages correcting me about the color of wedding dresses. For Russian Orthodox, they are blue. For Chinese they are red. Mexico has multi-colored ones. All I know is, for my next wedding I will be wearing a hairy, flesh-toned ensemble because I will be buck naked with a toe tag lying on a slab in the morgue because I would have killed myself. A lot of folks were asking me if I wear womens dresses a lot. I can honestly say that this is the first time I have ever donned female attire. Its also the first time Ive been inside something feminine that didnt nag me to take out the garbage. It seems a few people have taken offense to my inferring a size 12 is big. One male even pointed out that Marilyn Monroe was a size 14. Now, I would agree with you that size 12/14 is small if I lived elsewhere. But I live right here in the good old 48 Contiguous, where binging and purging is a way of life. American women do not want to be double digits in size. Just ask any woman what size they want to be. Invariably they will say five or seven. Wealthy will be the person that opens a store for Lane Bryant-sized women but sews size 7 tags on all the clothes.  On the flip side of that, I have taken offense to some of the people that told me Im ugly and a loser. All I have to say is youd be ugly too if you had a huge white blotch on your face. And as far as being a loser, I think you have it all wrong. I am such the winner. It isnt every day an average guy can make 50,000 people laugh. Thanks to each and every one of you from the heart of my bottom. Origins:  The online auction powerhouse eBay has been the setting of many strange come-ons, some seriously meant and some far less so. In addition to a throng of earnest sellers and determined bargain hunters that frequent this popular online bazaar, it is also populated by its share of crazies intent upon sneaking   their hoax listings into the marketplace. Consequently, one can't always tell fish from fowl at first glance. Over the years, our readers have queried us about various eBay auctions because they harbored suspicions about particular listings, either due to the nature of the goods being tendered or because something about the pitch struck them as not quite right (e.g.; an offer of a tea kettle, which displayed additional wares of the seller). Yet few of the auctions so doubted have been asked about as often as the April 2004 proffering of a size 12 Victoria wedding gown, an item that isn't in and of itself all that unusual. But it wasn't the dress that set people to wondering; it was the seller's comments, which appeared to afford a hilarious look into one man's private hell. The seller wasn't so much advertising a dress as he was proclaiming from a public soapbox how awful his wife had been. The auction listing was just as much about getting even as it was about unloading an item he had no particular use for. tea kettle Or was it?  Had a gal with "Texas cheerleader hair" really so turned a man against marriage that he swore that "for my next wedding I will be wearing a hairy, flesh-toned ensemble because I will be buck naked with a toe tag lying on a slab in the morgue because I would have killed myself"? Herein rested the listing's appeal: The story was entertaining, but was it real? The solicitation was on the up and up, at least in regard to the nature of the merchandise being vended  there was such a dress, and the offer of sale was genuine. However, some (if not all) of the gown's backstory was the stuff of fairy tales. The original eBay listing posted by 42-year-old Larry Star wasn't provoking much interest among those shopping for a wedding dress, so he rewrote it to make it amusing  resulting in the posting that has served to make him famous. The tale of marital woe posted by this Brooklyn native both contained invented details and omitted key bits of information. Though he has a sister, she didn't talk him out of the dress burning party he had his heart set upon by suggesting he list the  gown on eBay and so get something out of it. He also had an ex-wife prior to the one whose dress he supposedly was selling. (Star and his first missus were married in 1994, separated in 1996, and were divorced in 1998.) And contrary to his statement, "Thank the Lord we didn't have kids. If they would have turned out like her or her family I would have slit my wrists," he and his second wife did indeed have a son together during their short-lived marriage. The unhappy couple wed in 2000, separated in 2001 after a domestic kafuffle (which reportedly resulted in Star's being charged with domestic violence assault in the fourth degree and interfering with the reporting of domestic violence), and divorced in 2003. Though "five years of misery" might well have been worth the hearty guffaw he says was his pleasure to give the online community, those years weren't spent "stuck" with the "drunken sot's" daughter; his time cohabitating with Wife #2 amounted to just a bit more than a year. It's not known if the gown in question even belonged to his ex-wife, as she hasn't surfaced to speak publicly about the matter. Also, according to the Houston Chronicle, when asked if the dress had really been hers, Mr. Star sidestepped the question, instead replying, "I got the wedding dress, I wanted to get rid of it. I was going to burn it and had the idea of selling it on eBay. I needed to sell it on eBay with all the other dresses on there, and I needed to make it stand out." And stand out it did. The auction of the fabled wedding gown ended 28 April 2004 with a buyer using the online handle of "absolutsth" placing the winning bid of $3,850. Yet all is not coming up roses for the intrepid seller who one would assume to be realizing a profit of $2,650 on the gown he says cost originally $1,200, as the sale has fallen through. According to Star, the buyer has backed out, claiming "I left my computer on and somebody made the bid for me." The folks at eBay have told Star he can either accept the second-highest bid or re-list the dress and hold the sale again. As of 7 May 2004, he had not decided whether he would accept the next highest legitimate bid (if there even was a legitimate bid). By the time the auction ended, Star's listing on eBay had been viewed more than 5.8 million times. Some of those visitors, possibly caught up in the frenzy of it all, placed bids they did not intend to honor. (Officials at eBay had to weed out many phonies  at one point the bidding reached $99 million.) How many of the remaining bids were legitimate is not known. And, even if all those bids were meant seriously at the time they were placed, some of those prospective buyers may now be having second thoughts, particularly those who offered more than $1,000 for a used, stained dress that was only worth $1,200 when it first came off the hanger.  The ultimate fate of the frock may take it in a far different direction than down the aisle on the back of a budget-conscious bride. Its listing (which has now been viewed 11 million times) has brought recognition to its owner and has possibly opened the way to a new career for this software test designer and part-time musician. Thanks to the dress, Larry Star has twice been a guest on both MSNBC's Countdown and NBC's Today Show, each time wearing the unsold gown. Also thanks to the dress, he has made his debut as a stand-up comedian at the Punchline Comedy Club in Atlanta. He has said he would like to pursue a comedy writing career, and all this attention might well work to get that going.  Though there are many stand-up comedians on the circuit, we know of none that perform their schtick outfitted in wedding regalia. Could this gown do for Star what a sledgehammer and a watermelon did for Gallagher? Barbara "smash hit" Mikkelson Additional Information:   Weddingdressguy.com  (Larry Star)  Last updated:  3 July 2007    Sources:   Brodeur, Nicole.  "Fact Is, There's Some Fiction to Man's Pitch to Sell His Ex-wife's Wedding Dress on eBay."   The Seattle Times.  29 April 2004  (p. B1).     Curry, Ann, Matt Lauer and Katie, Couric.  "Today."   NBC.  30 April 2004.     Eldredge, Richard.  "Wedding Dress Guy Jilted by eBay Bidder."   The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  7 May 2004  (p. E2).     Kelso, John.  "Best of eBay: A Wedding Dress Tale."   Cox News Service.  2 May 2004.     Olbermann, Keith.  "Countdown."   MSNBC.  30 April 2004.     Olbermann, Keith.  "Countdown."   MSNBC.  28 April 2004.     Parks, Louis.  "On eBay, Wedding Dress for Success."   The Houston Chronicle.  30 April 2004  (Houston; p. 1).     Weiss, Tara.  "A Star is Born, Selling Wedding Dress on eBay."   Hartford Courant.  30 April 2004  (p. D2).     Associated Press.  "Man Who Sold Ex's Wedding Dress on eBay Earns Instant Fame."   30 April 2004.     The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  "15 Minutes Still Ticking for Wedding Dress Guy."   4 May 2004  (p. E2). On 20 January 2017, the day Donald J. Trump took office as President of the United States, news outlets posted photospurporting to compare the size of the crowd attending Trump's inauguration to that attending Barack Obama's first inaugural ceremony in 2009. Although there was not yet an official count of how many people actually showed up atthe Trump event, so an accurate numerical comparison couldn't be made, the photos did appear to show a significantdisparity between the sizes of the crowds, with far fewer in attendance at Trump's inauguration than Obama's. photos For obvious reasons, the side-by-side images were relished byanti-Trump factions, whoshared and retweeted them all day long. There wasone instance in particular wherein a retweet of the photos caught the attention of incoming Trump officials, who deemed them inappropriate  so inappropriate, in fact, that the Department of Interior promptlydeactivated every oneof its Twitter accounts in response. The offending retweet (since deleted) appeared on the National Park Service (@NatlParkService) Twitter feed:   This was followed by another retweet (since deleted) of a text suggesting that the Trump administration had scrubbed information from the White House web site for ideological reasons: scrubbed   All of which caused a smalluproar on Twitter, where some users jokedthat the National Park Service had "gone rogue," others wondered about the legality of the retweets, and still others defended their content as "factual, not anti-Trump." Later that day, the NPS Twitter account, along with all the other Department of Interior accounts, went silent. According to a report by CNN, the order came down from a "career staffer" at the department: gone rogue report In statements to The Washington Post, a National Park Service spokesperson explained why the action was taken and saidit would only be temporary: Thomas Crosson, a spokesmanfor the National Park Service, the Interior agency whose employee retweeted the offending tweets,said the action was inconsistent with the agencys approach to engaging the public through social media. The Department of Interiors communications team determined that it was important to stand down Twitter activity across the Department temporarily, except in the case of public safety, Crosson said in an email. Now that social media guidance has been clarified, the Department and its bureaus should resume Twitter engagement as normal this weekend. With one exception, Crosson said: No social media posts on the policy priorities of the new Interior secretary, because Trump nominee Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.) has not yet been confirmed. Indeed, by the next morning, U.S.Department of Interior Twitter accounts went online again, commencing with a note of contritiontweeted by @NatlParkService: note We regret the mistaken RTs from our account yesterday and look forward to continuing to share the beauty and history of our parks with you pic.twitter.com/mctNNvlrmv pic.twitter.com/mctNNvlrmv  NationalParkService (@NatlParkService) January 21, 2017 January 21, 2017 There has been no announcement regarding who may have been responsible for the retweets, or whether disciplinary action would be taken. Klein, Betsy. "Comparing Donald Trump and Barack Obama's Inaugural Crowd Sizes."
CNN. 21 January 2017. Merica, Dan."Trump Admin Tells National Park Service to Halt Tweets."
CNN.20 January 2017. Rein, Lisa."Interior Department Reactivates Twitter Accounts Ffter Shutdown Following Inauguration."
The Washington Post.21 January 2017. The next presidential election may still be two and a half years away, but the presumptive Democratic frontrunner, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is all over the news. On May 16, 2014, in a speech at the New America Foundation, a moderate-to-liberal think tank, Clinton compared the United States and Canada on several measures of well-being. Clinton found the United States wanting. Canadian middle class incomes are now higher than in the United States, Clinton said. They are working fewer hours for more pay, enjoying a stronger safety net, living longer on average, and facing less income inequality. Well set aside the claim about the safety net, since thats tricky to measure statistically. But the other claims are ripe for a closer look. So well take them in order. (Clintons camp did not respond to our inquiry.) Canadian middle-class incomes are now higher than in the United States This is the trickiest of the measurements Clinton mentioned, for a couple reasons. First, theres no universally recognized definition of middle class in the available data. Second, theres more than one way to measure the data. Some measurements take a nations economic output as a whole and divide it by the population, whereas others sample individual people or households to find out how much they make, then find the midpoint. Clinton has support fromNew York Timesarticlethat looked at data from the Luxembourg Income Study database, which is based on surveys going back 35 years. The study surveyed people in various countries, asked them what they earned, then used a median to determine the mid-range income level. TheNew York Timesconcluded that median income in Canada pulled into a tie with median United States income in 2010 and has most likely surpassed it since then, due to studies conducted by other groups since 2010 suggest that pay in Canada has risen faster than pay in the United States. On the other hand, if you look at gross domestic product per capita --  the total amount of economic activity divided by population -- the United States tops Canada, and not by a trivial amount. In 2012, GDP per capita in theUnited Stateswas $51,689, compared to $41,559 forCanada, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (These figures, as with all other money figures in this article, have been converted to U.S. dollars, so that they can be compared.) But this method has drawbacks. Because it represents an average across the entire economy, the final results tend to over-represent the income that flows to the wealthy. So its not ideal for measuring the middle class. Munroe Eagles, director of Canadian studies at the State University of New York-Buffalo, and Ross Burkhart, co-director of the Canadian Studies Program at Boise State University, told PolitiFact that using the Luxembourg Income Study is at least as good a measurement for Clintons claim as the other figures, if not better. They are working fewer hours for more pay than Americans OECD data for the average number of hours worked annually per employed person shows that Clinton is correct. In theUnited Statesin 2012, workers spent 1,790 hours per year on the job, compared to 1,710 hours per year inCanada. One could say that Americans are working harder and producing more goods and services, but Clintons point was that Canadians have greater opportunities for leisure, and on that point, the statistics support her point. As for getting more pay, OECD statistics for 2012 show that the average annual wages for workers in Canada were $58,376, compared to $55,048 in the United States. This measures the average wages earned by a full-time, full-year employee. These statistics support Clintons claim. Canadians are living longer OECD data for life expectancy at birth shows that in 2011,Canadianscould expect to live 81 years, while in 2009, the most recent year available,Americanscould expect to live 78.7 years. So Clintons right on this one, too. Theres less income inequality in Canada The primary statistic used for gauging income inequality is the Ginicoefficient. Gini coefficients range from 0, or perfect equality, to 1, or perfect inequality. According to the OECD, the Gini coefficient for Canada in 2010 was .320, compared to .380 in the United States. That means Canada is modestly more equal than the United States is, which is what Clinton had claimed. Overall, the five comparisons Clinton made are reasonable and arent cherry-picked or subject to statistical quirks, Burkhart said. It's fair, in my understanding of the Canadian and U.S. economies, for Ms. Clinton to make the kinds of comparisons that Ms. Clinton has made, Burkhart said. Our ruling Clinton said that Canadian middle class incomes are now higher than in the United States. They are working fewer hours for more pay,  living longer on average, and facing less income inequality. Shes indisputably correct on four of these five measures, and the data is more mixed on the fifth. On balance, we rate her claim Mostly True. On July 10, 2019, we examined a claim holding that Google was "scrubbing" its search results of any pictures showing President Bill Clinton together with convicted sex offender and billionaire/financier Jeffrey Epstein. While this rumor was false (Google's search results were not notably different than those of Yahoo, Duck Duck Go, Yandex, or Bing), we were left with one unanswered question: Are there any photos of Epstein and Clinton? false After all, Clinton flew on the private plane of Epstein, a convicted sex offender who was arrested again in July 2019 on new charges related to child-sex-prostitution. The two were also both present at a "small dinner party" in 1995 hosted by Revlon mogul Ron Perelman to raise funds for the Democratic National Convention. It seems reasonable to believe that someone at some point took a photograph of these two well-known public figures together.  flew child-sex-prostitution On July 22, 2019, Josh Rosner, the managing director of independent research consultancy Graham Fisher & Co, alerted us to his tweet containing a photograph of Epstein and Clinton that was published in a 2003 issue of Vanity Fair: Josh Rosner published Disturbing! The #press wiped all pictures of @BillClinton & #JeffreyEpstein from the #internet. Even @VanityFair who published this image in 03 from their #sex(?) trip to Brunei scrubbed it. #sycophant #power @CJR @theintercept @propublica pic.twitter.com/MmCZZraHai #press @BillClinton #JeffreyEpstein #internet @VanityFair #sex #sycophant #power @CJR @theintercept @propublica pic.twitter.com/MmCZZraHai  joshua rosner (@JoshRosner) July 22, 2019 July 22, 2019  Again, no evidence exists that this image was "wiped" from the Internet. In fact, this image is available online in Vanity Fair's digital archive (subscription required). digital archive This photograph was published in a March 2003 article by Vicky Ward entitled, "The Talented Mr. Epstein." The photograph's caption: "Epstein with President Clinton in Brunei, 2002." published   One possible explanation as to why this photograph doesn't pop up in search engines is that Vanity Fair didn't publish it as a standalone image. Rather, it is embedded in a digital copy of the March 2003 edition of the magazine. While we're not in the business of offering predictions, we'd bet that this image will start finding its way into Google Images and other image-based search engines in the near future (especially if more outlets pick up and publish stories including this image). Clinton is mentioned three other times in the Vanity Fair story; each iteration is reproduced below (emphasis ours): Lately, Jeffrey Epstein's high-flying style has been drawing oohs and aahs: the bachelor financier lives in New York's largest private residence, claims to take only billionaires as clients, and flies celebrities including Bill Clinton and Kevin Spacey on his Boeing 727. But pierce his air of mystery and the picture changes. VICKY WARD explores Epstein's investment career, his ties to retail magnate Leslie Wexner, and his complicated past. In addition to the town house, Epstein lives in what is reputed to be the largest private dwelling in New Mexico, on an $18 million, 7,500-acre ranch which he named "Zorro." "It makes the town house look like a shack," Epstein has said. He also owns Little St. James, a 70-acre island in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where the main house is currently being renovated by Edward Tuttle, a designer of the Aman resorts. There is also a $6.8 million house in Palm Beach, Florida, and a fleet of aircraft: a Gulfstream IV, a helicopter, and a Boeing 727, replete with trading room, on which Epstein recently flew President Clinton, actors Chris Tucker and Kevin Spacey, supermarket magnate Ron Burkle, Lew Wasserman's grandson, Casey Wasserman, and a few others, on a mission to explore the problems of AIDS and economic development in Africa. Epstein is known about town as a man who loves womenlots of them, mostly young. Model types have been heard saying they are full of gratitude to Epstein for flying them around, and he is a familiar face to many of the Victoria's Secret girls. One young woman recalls being summoned by Ghislaine Maxwell to a concert at Epstein's town house, where the women seemed to outnumber the men by far. "These were not women you'd see at Upper East Side dinners," the woman recalls. "Many seemed foreign and dressed a little bizarrely." This same guest also attended a cocktail party thrown by Maxwell that Prince Andrew attended, which was filled, she says, with young Russian models. "Some of the guests were horrified," the woman says. "He's reckless," says a former business associate, "and he's gotten more so. Money does that to you. He's breaking the oath he made to himselfthat he would never do anything that would expose him in the media. Right now, in the wake of the publicity following his trip with Clinton, he must be in a very difficult place." In 2002, around the time that this photograph was taken, Clinton told New York Magazine via a spokesperson that, "Jeffrey is both a highly successful financier and a committed philanthropist with a keen sense of global markets and an in-depth knowledge of twenty-first-century science. I especially appreciated his insights and generosity during the recent trip to Africa to work on democratization, empowering the poor, citizen service and combating H.I.V./AIDS." New York Magazine Clinton once had a relationship with Epstein and even took multiple trips on his private plane. However, the former president said that he hasn't had contact with Epstein for a decade and knows nothing about the crimes the latter has been accused or convicted of: Statement on Jeffrey Epstein. pic.twitter.com/98ha9YYd1l pic.twitter.com/98ha9YYd1l  Angel Urea (@angelurena) July 8, 2019 July 8, 2019  Clinton, of course, isn't the only high-profile politician connected to Epstein. U.S. President Donald Trump has also been photographed with Epstein.  photographed Gold, Michael.  "Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein: How Are They Connected?"
  The New York Times.  9 July 2019. Thomas Jr., Landon.  "Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery."
  NY Magazine.  28 October 2002. Ward, Vicy.  "The Talented Mr. Epstein."
  Vanity Fair.  March 2003. Claim:  Canadian Richard Brunt penned an open letter about America's midterm elections.  On 7 November 2014, shortly after midterm elections in the U.S., the Detroit Free Press published Canadian Richard Brunt's open letter to American voters, a missive that quickly went viral on the Internet: published  A Canadian perspective on the #GOPtakeover. pic.twitter.com/NmBaPjnqju #GOPtakeover pic.twitter.com/NmBaPjnqju  Rick Strandlof (@RickStrandlof) November 9, 2014 November 9, 2014  Brunt wrote in his letter, titled "You Americans have no idea just how good you have it with Obama," that his fellow Canadians were confused about the results of the midterm elections. For Brunt, the Republican gains in those elections did not make sense to him when things were seemingly going so well in the U.S.:  Many of us Canadians are confused by the U.S. midterm elections. Consider, right now in America, corporate profits are at record highs, the country's adding 200,000 jobs per month, unemployment is below 6%, U.S. gross national product growth is the best of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. The dollar is at its strongest levels in years, the stock market is near record highs, gasoline prices are falling, there's no inflation, interest rates are the lowest in 30 years, U.S. oil imports are declining, U.S. oil production is rapidly increasing, the deficit is rapidly declining, and the wealthy are still making astonishing amounts of money. America is leading the world once again and respected internationally  in sharp contrast to the Bush years. Obama brought soldiers home from Iraq and killed Osama bin Laden. So, Americans vote for the party that got you into the mess that Obama just dug you out of? This defies reason. When you are done with Obama, could you send him our way? Richard Brunt Victoria, British Columbia The letter was soon shared thousands of times on Facebook and Twitter by both Republicans and Democrats, although their reasons for sharing the message were very different:  Hey Richard Brunt, of Victoria, British Columbia... if you want our Obama, you can have our Obama.  Frank Miani (@FJM2425) November 11, 2014 November 11, 2014  Richard Brunt from British Columbia, telling it like it is... pic.twitter.com/OKm0Rkfu5x pic.twitter.com/OKm0Rkfu5x  Baumer Kid (@bostonsboy87) November 11, 2014 November 11, 2014  Richard Brunt's letter represented one man's opinion, but it wasn't the first such expression of admiration from fans of President Obama up north. In a 2009 article titled "Canada's Love Affair with Barack Obama," for example, author Charlie Gillis wrote: Charlie Gillis We love him, with an asterisk. The broad-band smile, the Lincolnesque bearing, the sense of the man as an avatar of multiculturalism  it all makes Barack Obama the perfect U.S. president in the eyes of Canadians. Heaven knows we've been waiting. When the motorcade rolls down Wellington Street, or pulls up to Rideau Hall, you can expect dewy-eyed kids to line barricades with paper flags, no matter how foul the Ottawa weather. Eighty-two per cent of us say we approve of Obama, the polls indicate, and the number requires a moment to digest. Never mind American politicians. Who's the last American we can say that about?   Last updated:  11 November 2014 For all the discussion of immigration, foreign policy and social issues in the 2016 campaign, one issue always returns to the fore eventually: jobs. Republican candidate John Kasich emphasizes his record on jobs as Ohio governor in a new ad. Theadbegins with grainy footage of what seems to be an unemployment line. The narrators first words are, Twenty million Americans are out of work, and this assertion is bolstered by being repeated in on-screen text:  This figure sounded high to us, since the official number of unemployed Americans during the most recent month, February, tops out at about 7.8 million. So we asked the Kasich campaign for their evidence, and they proceeded to cite a source that caught us off-guard: Us. Specifically, they pointed to ourfact-check from Augustin which we analyzed a statement by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Trump said that we have 93 million people out of work. They look for jobs, they give up, and all of a sudden, statistically, they're considered employed. We rated this claimFalse, largely because the 93 million number included lots of people who would not be expected to want or be able to work, including full-time students, senior citizens, the disabled, and those who have chosen to take care of their children full-time. However, in the process, we conducted a mathematical experiment in which we played with possible numbers of Americans who are out of work that fit somewhere between the official unemployment rate (on the low end) and Trumps number (on the high end). HELP US RAISE $15,000 TO HIRE AN EXTRA FACT-CHECKER Heres what we wrote, using the statistics that were current at the time: The official number of unemployed Americans is 8.3 million -- less than one-tenth of what Trump says. But to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, its possible to expand this number using more credible economic thinking. Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, says its not unreasonable to include:  The 6.4 million people who havent looked for work recently enough to qualify as being in the labor force, but who say they currently want a job. And the 6.5 million people working part-time who would prefer to have a full-time job. This would mean that upwards of 21 million Americans could be described with some justification as out of work involuntarily, either fully or partially. But thats not even one-quarter of the number that Trump offered. Rob Nichols, a spokesman for Kasich, said the campaign simply updated our math with more recent data in preparing the television ad. The numbers for January 2016, Nichols said, were:  Unemployed: 7.8 million  People who havent looked for work recently enough to qualify as being in the labor force, but who say they currently want a job: 6.2 million  People working part-time who would prefer to have a full-time job: 6 million. That works out to 20 million on the nose. We salute the Kasich campaigns efforts to fact-check-proof their assertion. Still, we should note that we didnt intend our calculation to be the final word on how to determine the number of out of work Americans. Rather, we were trying to provide a benchmark for showing just how wrong Trumps number was. Well note that our wording was that the 21 million figure had some justification  not exactly a clarion call for the Bureau of Labor Statistics to change its longstanding protocol. In subsequent fact-checks, though not the one the Kasich campaign referred to, we have added language that is clearer about our intentions. We did that, for instance, in ourFeb. 11, 2016, fact-checkof a different statement by Trump: Don't believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment. The number's probably 28, 29, as high as 35 (percent). In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent. In that fact-check, which produced a rating ofPants on Fire, we prefaced a similar alternative calculation this way: We are deliberately stretching the numbers here as an intellectual exercise; we are not saying that 15.6 percent is a more accurate unemployment rate than the official one of 4.9 percent. But enough from us. What do the two economists we checked with for the original fact-check think about Kasichs use of the 20 million figure? Given that the image looks like a guy in an unemployment line, I'd say it's a misleading figure, said Tara Sinclair, an economist with George Washington University and the jobs website Indeed.com. Many people have good reasons for not wanting to work now, she said, and that is something distinct from actually being out of work. Burtless agreed, saying, The 5.988 million people working part-time who would prefer to have a full-time job are not out of work. They are employed, but on a work schedule that does not provide them with the weekly hours they desire. At the same time, Burtless said there is still some value in the number cited in Kasichs advertisement. Gov. Kasich has given an upper-bound estimate of the total number of Americans who are unemployed or underemployed, Burtless said. Its just not theonlyestimate. Our ruling Kasichs ad said that 20 million Americans are out of work. The Kasich campaign shrewdly cites a past PolitiFact item as evidence for this larger-than-usual estimate of Americas out of work population. But its worth noting that the calculation we did was not intended to determine the actual number of out-of-work Americans, but rather to suggest the highest figure with any sort of credibility as a way of seeing how far out of line Trumps assertion was. The statement is partially accurate but takes things out of context, so we rate it Half True. At the end of June 2019, a video supposedly showing a large cloud of pollen dropping from a fallen tree went viral on social media, with one iteration posted by the Facebook page BigDawgsTv racking up several million views within a week of its upload date: https://youtu.be/u7JHwplUAnESome viewers were so shocked to see so much pollen emitted by a single tree that they were skeptical of the clip and questioned whether or not it had been doctored. With our sympathies to those who suffer from allergies, we note that this video is authentic. This video was first posted to the Facebook page of the Washington-based company Matts Tree & Landscape in May 2019, along with a message announcing the start of "allergy season":  A small portion of a company sign can be seen at the start of the video displaying the first three digits of a phone number (425, a Seattle area code), a logo, and the first two letters of the company name ("MA"). The same sign can also be seen in a photograph posted to the company's Facebook page: photograph   While this video may have been shocking to some viewers, this wasn't the first time that an online video captured a large pollen cloud falling from a tree. In May 2018, a Kentucky Facebook user posted a similar video showing a machine shaking the pollen off of a tree, and that clip was picked up and shared by several local and national news outlets: posted picked shared local  Sheila McCormick, an adjunct professor of plant and microbial biology at the University of California, Berkeley, talked to Live Science shortly after the latter video went viral in 2018 and explained that while the scene may have been unsettling to some viewers, such pollen clouds aren't unusual: Live Science Pollen is a grainy, plant-produced substance that carries the tools that seed-plants need to create male gametes  aka, sperm. While pollen is not actually sperm itself, pollen grains do contain the cells necessary to transfer the male half of the plant's DNA to a compatible plant's female counterparts (like the pistil and female cones). You could say, as Live Science writer Natalie Wolchover once did, that pollen is plant sperm powder ... "This [scene] is not unusual," Sheila McCormick, an adjunct professor of plant and microbial biology at the University of California, Berkeley, told Live Science. "In general, most plants produce much more pollen than is needed. For example, a single corn plant produces 2 [million] to 5 million pollen grains, and an ear of corn has a few hundred seeds. This is especially true for plants that are wind-pollinated." Pine trees, like the ones in the video above, are no exception. Some species of pine can produce up to 5 lbs. (2.2 kilograms) of pollen in just a few weeks, according to Robert Bardon, associate dean for extension in the department of forestry and environmental resources at North Carolina State University. Why make so much pollen? Call it offspring insurance. Specktor, Brandon.  "Watch a Massive 'Pollen Cloud' Explode from Late-Blooming Tree."
  Live Science.  9 May 2018. Katz, Brigit.  "Watch This Pine Tree Unleash a Huge, Fluffy Pollen Cloud."
  Smithsonian.  10 May 2018. 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