What is the reason behind the low cost of Charles Shaw wine?
Claim:  Charles Shaw wine was sold cheaply because airlines could no longer use corkscrews after 9/11 and dumped their stocks of wine.  Origins:  We tend to equate quality with cost, so the appearance of an underpriced wine of surprising virtue is bound to spark its share of interesting backstories.  We view wine as a luxury item, and since we reject the intellectual construct that such an item can be both good and inexpensive, we instead seize upon plausible-sounding (but apocryphal) tales to explain the disparity between cheapness and quality.  Good wine must be expensive, and if a good wine is being vended at a bargain price, there must be a calamitous reason for this fortuity. In early 2002, rumors of airlines dumping their Merlot (and the like) were launched from this springboard. As the Los Angeles Times noted in a 2002 article about the burgeoning sales of Charles Shaw label wines: The morning after a friend served Anna McNeal a glass of Charles Shaw Merlot, she made a beeline to the Mid-Wilshire Trader Joe's to stock up on the wine selling at an astonishing $1.99 a bottle. "I had to come and get a case," she said in a checkout line with half a dozen other shoppers who had somehow heard of the mysterious "Napa" wine. Since it was introduced in February, Charles Shaw wine has gained a cult-like following in Southern California, with wine drinkers backing their cars up to the loading dock of the Los Angeles-based discounter to lay in a supply of the Trader Joe's exclusive. "It's selling like crazy," said Jon Fredrikson, a wine consultant based in San Mateo County. "A great story for consumers." Why was such a popular wine (Charles Shaw was one of the top 20 brands in the U.S.) being sold so cheaply?  As usual, consumers  collectively created several inventive urban legend-like explanations for this seemingly inexplicable phenomenon:  Security regulations enacted after the September 11 terrorist attacks prohibited the carrying or use of corkscrews on commercial flights, so several airlines dumped their large stocks of wine on the market, thereby depressing prices.  Financially-distressed United Airlines attempted to raise some quick cash by selling its food service stocks, including an ample supply of Charles Shaw wine.  Charles Shaw himself, engaged in a bitter divorce struggle, attempted to reduce the value of his winery's assets by flooding the market with cheap wine. Also as usual, the real explanation why many wine brands (not just Charles Shaw) could be had so cheaply at the time (2001) was a mundane one: the market was experiencing a wine glut.   The wine boom of the 1990s led vineyards to increase production, but a downturn in the U.S. economy   and the effects of September 11 resulted in a greatly lessened demand (particularly in the restaurant industry), creating such an oversupply that many wines were selling for less than the cost of production. Some vintners in northern California were even allowing their grapes to wither on the vine because the cost of picking them exceeded their market value. The Charles Shaw label (known in local slang as "Two-Buck Chuck") was the focus of those "cheap wine" rumors because it bore a prestigious Napa label, even though it sold for less than $2 per bottle.  The catch was that it's made with cheaper grapes from California's Central Valley rather than more desirable grapes from the Napa Valley, but because the label's parent company does own a winery and bottling facility in Napa, it is allowed to put "Napa" on the Charles Shaw label (which only indicates that the wine is "bottled and cellared" in Napa) even if the grapes used in the wine actually come from some other part of California: Napa Valley [W]ine industry experts say that despite the classy Napa label, there probably isn't a hint of those pricey grapes in a bottle of Charles Shaw Merlot, Chardonnay or Cabernet Sauvignon.  Even with the depressed market, grapes from Napa sell for around $2,000 a ton, said Brian Sudano of Beverage Marketing Corp. To make money on a $2 bottle, he added, a vintner would have to buy grapes for around $200 a ton  the price of less desirable Central Valley grapes. This summer the market price for those grapes hit a low of $60 a ton. Swimming in excess wine, [Bronco Wine Co. head] Franzia revived the Charles Shaw label, believing it would be more cost-effective to dump his wine on the consumer market than to pour it on the ground. Taking advantage of the depressed wine grape market, he also bought up excess stock from other Central Valley vintners, according to several wine industry sources. "Franzia was able to take advantage of distress sales by other vineyards, said [wine consultant Jon] Fredrikson. "And he's got the high-speed production lines to do it and still make money." The Bronco Wine Co. produces a variety of low-cost wines, and its president, Fred Franzia, has earned the enmity of plenty of other Wine Country  citizens: Franzia was forced to step down as Bronco's president for five years after Bronco was fined $3 million in 1993  for misidentifying grape varietals on its labels, and other Napa vintners have long been disputing Bronco's use of "Napa" in the names of wines, such as their "Napa Ridge" variety, made from grapes grown elsewhere (but so far the courts have sided with Bronco).   That enmity was famously (albeit accurately) expressed in 2011 by Chris Knox, a self-described vintner who once caustically asserted on Quora, in a since deleted response to an inquiry about why Trader Joe's wine (and the Charles Shaw blend in particular) was sold so cheaply, that those wines were inexpensive to buy because they were ... well, made cheaply: asserted The basic gist of it all is that Two Buck Chuck is owned by Bronco Wines, which is owned by Fred Franzia, a trash-mouthed, unapologetic downright crude and shrewd business man who sees it as his mission to pretty much remove any shred of pretentiousness (and dare I say integrity and quality along with it) from the wine world.   He started by buying the then failing Charles Shaw label years ago along with massive amounts of bulk wine in the 90's for pennies on the dollar and a staggering 35,000 acres of land in the very cheap San Joaquin Valley which he then planted to vines.  That gives his Bronco Wines the prestige of holding the most acreage of vines of any American winery, even surpassing Mondavi and Gallo. A few things to keep in mind about his vineyards: one is that they are located in what is known as the Central Valley in the California wine world which is notoriously flat and quite hot producing massive yields of overripe grapes.  The other thing is that Fred Franzia is no dummy  he planted those vineyards in such a way as the rows run north-south, giving the vines maximum sun exposure and he made the rows as long as he possibly could, minimizing the number of turns his tractors would need to make.  And third, these aren't hand-picked vineyards ... they are all machine harvested.  And that means these large tractors with huge claws go down the rows of vineyards grabbing the grapes and depositing them in its huge receptacle.  And it not only grabs ripe grapes, but unripe and down right rotten ones as well and throws them all together.  Add to that leaves, stems and any rodents, birds, or insects that may have made those vines their home  they all get thrown into the bin as well.  And guess what?  You think there's going to be any sorting when that truck arrives at the winery (or should I say processing facility)?  Nope.  Everything, and I do mean everything (including all those unripe grapes, rotten grapes, leaves, stems, birds, rodents, and insects) gets tossed into the crusher and transferred to large tanks to ferment.  So think about all the animal blood and parts that may have made their way into your wine next time you crack open that bottle of Two Buck Chuck!  Hardly even seems worth the $2 does it? If you were to taste that wine right after it was made, I guarantee you it would be undrinkable.  They will then manipulate the finished wine in whatever way necessary, including adding sugar or unfermented grape juice if needed to make the wine palatable.  And then the wine goes into bottling, packaging and shipping facilities, all of which Fred Franzia owns himself.  They then get put on trucks (also owned by Fred Franzia) and shipped to Trader Joe's.  The only part of the process Fred doesn't own is Trader Joe's itself and I'm sure if he got his way, he'd include that in his empire as well. So the summary is this  to make $2 wine one must compromise all sense of integrity and quality, own tens of thousands of acres of vineyards in the worst possible wine region possible where land is incredibly cheap and yields are exceptionally high, use machines to execute every part of a homogenized system that substitutes manipulation for hand crafted quality, and own every step of the winemaking process including bottling, packaging and distribution, all while giving the finger to the entire wine industry and plowing down anyone who gets in your way. According to a CNBC report on the controversy engendered when Knox's comments were widely republished three years later: Franzia does use mechanized harvesting, as do an increasing number of grape growers. He insists the machines shake loose everything but the grapes, and there are other methods along the way to filter out leaves, twigs and animal residue. "We're in the grape-picking business," he said. "We're looking for quality wines and quality grapes. We're not looking for animals." Some animal matter does end up in winemaking, as it does in almost all agricultural products. "If you worry about things like that, you shouldn't eat anything, you shouldn't drink anything," Franzia said. "When the wine's fermenting, they're going to eliminate anything that's possibly there." But what about this mysterious "Charles Shaw"?  Was he a real person? Indeed he was.  Shaw, a Stanford Business School graduate, bought a Napa winery with his wife, Lucy, in 1974 and began to produce Charles Shaw Beaujolais.  However, after the Shaws divorced in 1991, they sold the winery. The Charles Shaw label possessed a good reputation, though, and Bronco Wine Co., a mass-market wine conglomerate located in the Central Valley's Stanislaus County, bought it up and revived it in 2002 for sales of a line of inexpensive wines through the Trader Joe's chain of grocery stores. Trader Joe's Additional information:        Charles Shaw   (Interbrand)   Last updated:  15 August 2014    Brown, Corie.  "Hard Times at the Winery? Not for Everyone."   Los Angeles Times.  26 February 2003  (p. F1).    Emert, Carol.  "Wine Drinkers Gaga Over 'Two-Buck Chuck'."   San Francisco Chronicle.  26 December 2002.    Moran, Tim.  "$1.99 Wine Is Hottest Deal in Dodge."   The Modesto Bee.  25 December 2002.    Wells, Jane.  "The Really Big Ruckus Over 'Two Buck Chuck.'"   CNBC.  14 August 2014.
In the aftermath of the 1 October 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, the American public attempted to come to grips with the scale of gun violence in the United States. One oft-cited statistic posted in social media by "The Other 98%" maintained that 1.3 million Americans had been killed in all the wars in U.S. history, while 1.5 million Americans had been killed by firearms (in non-military use) since 1968 alone: The Other 98%   NBC News reported similar figures: NBC News More Americans have died from gunshots in the last 50 years than in all of the wars in American history. Since 1968, more than 1.5 million Americans have died in gun-related incidents, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By comparison, approximately 1.2 million service members have been killed in every war in U.S. history, according to estimates from the Department of Veterans Affairs and iCasualties.org, a website that maintains an ongoing database of casualties from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. iCasualties.org Different versions of this claim have been prominently offered in recent years by sources such as New York Times columnist Nicolas Kristof in 2015, and PBS Newshour contributor and commentator Mark Shields in 2012. All these claims contain casual uses of the qualifier "Americans" in reference to gun deaths, which is somewhat confusing because not everyone who has been killed by firearms in the United States was an American citizen, and official sources for gun death statistics do not offer breakdowns by nationality. Therefore, we assume that "Americans" is used here for rhetorical effect, rather than as a functional statistical category, and deal with the total number of gun deaths occurring in the United States since 1968.  Similarly, according to the historian Don H. Doyle, the U.S. Civil War saw around 543,000 foreign-born (i.e., immigrant) soldiers fighting on the Union side alone, so a significant number of Civil War deaths might have involved non-American citizen combatants, but we'll count them all as "Americans."  (Indeed, non-U.S. citizens have likely served and died fighting for the U.S. side in every American military conflict since the Revolutionary War, but probably in much greater numbers during the Civil War than any other.) Don H. Doyle Support for this claim often uses sources that relate only to combatant deaths in wars and do not include civilian or other non-combatant deaths (the latter being figures which might also include non-U.S. citizens). One could argue that civilian deaths in wars should be included (although estimates of these deaths are much less reliable than for fatalities among military personnel), but we are limiting our analysis to include only combatant deaths in military conflicts. We'll break this analysis into two parts: the total number of deaths in the United States involving firearms since 1968, and the number of deaths in  the U.S. and among American combatants across all wars in American history. Gun deaths The estimated total number of firearms-related deaths from 1968-2016 is 1.58 million. The official number for 1968-2015 is 1.55 million, and we have assumed the number of deaths in 2016 as being the mid-point between the two previous years (2014 and 2015). In most cases, the source of these figures is the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). For figures from 1968 to 1991, we consulted the CDC directly WISQARS Deaths in wars For combatant fatalities, our main source is an April 2017 summary published by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which lists the following figures: summary The Civil War Trust, a non-profit organisation primarily dedicated to preserving American battlefields, estimates that around 6,800 people died in battle during the Revolutionary War, with an additional 17,000 deaths caused by disease, and between 8,000 and 12,000 more deaths occurring among those held as prisoners of war. The upper end of this estimate range, then, would put the total number of deaths associated with the American Revolutionary War at 26,800. estimates Similarly, the Civil War Trust estimates that around 15,000 Americans died during the War of 1812, a significantly higher number than the 2,260 battle deaths estimated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. estimates The Civil War is an interesting case. Based on from the work of two late 19th and early 20th century historians, the widely accepted figure for deaths in this conflict was reckoned as 618,222 for about a century. In 2011, however, J. David Hacker ( then of Binghamton University) published a significant upwards revision of that total, estimating that the likely death toll was between 650,000 and 851,000. Taking the mid-point in this estimate range assumes about 750,000 combatant deaths for the Civil War.  Because of the enhanced statistical sophistication involved in Hacker's research, and what appears to be acceptance and support of his estimate among historians, we are going to use 750,000 as the estimated death toll among combatants in the Civil War. late 19th early 20th century combatant deaths acceptance and support Figures for the Global War on Terror are taken from the Department of Defense's Defense Casualty Analysis System and are valid as of October 2017. Defense Casualty Analysis System Afghanistan war: Iraq war:  If we rely on the Department of Veterans Affairs summary, while accepting J. David Hacker's 750,000 estimate for the Civil War, the total number of deaths among American combatants in all U.S. military conflicts, using high estimates for each, is thus 1,481,862  about 100,000 less than the total number of firearms-related fatalities in the U.S. between 1968 and 2016.   So even using the higher end of available estimates for war deaths throughout American history, the grand total of those deaths is still lower than the total of firearms-related fatalities since 1968, a period of just 49 years. Although this disparity between war deaths and gun deaths is smaller than the gap claimed by the Other 98% (200,000) or NBC News (300,000), the imprecision of casualty estimates (especially for the Civil War era) allows for a considerable margin of error. Bailey, Chelsea.  "More Americans Killed by Guns Since 1968 Than in All U.S. Wars  Combined."
  NBC News.  4 October 2017.
 Doyle, Don H.  "The Civil War Was Won by Immigrant Soldiers."
  Time.  29 June 2015. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.  "America's Wars."
  April 2017. Fox, William F.  "Regimental Losses in the American Civil War, 1861-1865."
  Hathi Trust, 1898. Livermore, Thomas L.  "Numbers and Losses in the Civil War in America, 1861-1865."
  Retrieved from Archive.org, dated 1900. Hacker, J. David.  "Recounting the Dead."
  The New York Times.  20 September 2011. 
 Gugliotta, Guy.  "New Estimate Raises Civil War Death Toll."
  The New York Times.  2 April 2012. McPherson, James.  Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era.
  Oxford University Press, 1988.  ISBN 0-195-03863-0. Scam:  Accounts of check fraud being perpetrated at Walmart stores by employees and customers. SCAM Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2007]    Origins:  The image displayed above supposedly reproduces a 26 July 2007 memo (circulated as a PDF) from an official with Louisiana's Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC) warning employees about a multi-city check theft ring operating out of Walmart stores. According to the memo, Walmart employees had been using cell phones to photograph customer checks, then employing the information obtained from the images to produce fake checks that are used to buy gift cards. PDF As for the question of whether this memo actually was written by a Louisiana official, we note that the Louisiana State Police (LSP) disclaimed the memo's appropriateness without denying that it originated within the DPSC:  LSP On Thursday, July 26, 2007, an unauthorized letter was distributed to employees in the Baton Rouge field office of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Office of Motor Vehicles, concerning an alleged multi-city fraud and theft ring operating at Wal-Mart involving Wal-Mart employees. It was alleged in the letter that the employees of the store would obtain a customer's checking account information, and the information would be used to create fraudulent checks. This letter was not official or sanctioned in any way by the Department of Public Safety; unfortunately this letter was made public. The Department will be conducting an internal investigation and, at the conclusion of the investigation, will take the appropriate corrective and/or disciplinary action. Members of the public should not rely on information contained in the letter. As always, consumers are cautioned to take steps to limit disclosure of their personal information and to be aware of their surroundings. As for the content of the memo, we note that instances of check fraud have been tied to a then-new practice (used in some Walmart stores) of processing checks not by the "traditional" method of retaining them and submitting them to banks for deposit, but by using them as authorizations to initiate electronic funds transfers (EFTs) and immediately returning them to customers.   In some cases, dishonest sales clerks have abused this procedure by deliberately failing to return checks to customers, then re-scanning the checks multiple times and using the ill-gotten proceeds to purchase gift cards and other merchandise. For example, TV station KTRK in Houston reported the following check-theft scam by a Walmart employee in December 2006: A former Wal-Mart employee is behind bars for her role in what authorities are calling a check fraud scheme. When you write a check at Wal-Mart, you hand it to a clerk who then runs the check through an electronic scanner and hands it back to you. Unfortunately some Wal-Mart shoppers did not get their checks handed back to them and it cost them thousands of dollars. Pam Davis never thought writing a $37 check at Wal-Mart would cost her thousands of dollars, but that's exactly what happened. She said, "I had gone to Wal Mart and written a check for $37 and did not realize I did not get that check back, which is the custom with electronic transfer. You are supposed toreceive the check back." Davis says  and authorities confirm  a clerk at Wal-Mart never returned Davis' check at the time of purchase, [so] the clerk was able to re-run the check through the electronic reader again and again.  Five times, they changed the amounts each time," Davis claimed. "It was almost $3,000." Authorities believe the clerk gave the checks to other people who then went on shopping sprees inside the store. Capt. Mark Herman with Precinct 4 said, "In some of the cases they were getting $300 Wal-Mart gift cards, clothing, just all kinds of purchases." Constables say the clerk did the same thing with checks written by other Wal-Mart customers. February 2016 also saw the sentencing of a Walmart customer who (along with his wife) defrauded other customers of hundreds of thousands of dollars through the method of peeking over their shoulders to obtain personal information which the couple used to create counterfeit checks: A man who cashed $300,000 worth of counterfeit checks using personal information stolen by peeking over the shoulders of hundreds of Wal-Mart customers was sentenced to prison. Robert MacVittie and his wife lined up behind customers trying to cash payroll checks at "dozens and dozens" of Wal-Mart stores in 20 states and recorded them providing their Social Security numbers, Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Melucci said at the hearing where MacVittie received a 34-month sentence. The couple would then use the victims' identities to create counterfeit checks, which they cashed at other Wal-Marts. Melucci called MacVittie, 35, and his wife Jennifer, 32, "the Bonnie and Clyde of counterfeit checks." More than 400 people had their identities used on the successfully cashed counterfeit checks, Melucci said. Although it is possible a similar type of fraud could be effected by clerks' surreptitiously using cell phones to photograph customer checks, we have not been able to verify that this specific form of theft is occurring, much less that is taking place on a multi-city level by organized rings of Walmart employees.  photograph A few tips can be helpful to shoppers to avoid falling victim to this sort of fraud:  Be aware of how the stores you patronize process checks.  If they scan checks to use them as EFT authorizations, be sure your check is returned to you before you leave the checkout counter.  Use your bank's web site to monitor your checking account transactions online and notify your bank immediately if you spot any suspect transactions.  Using credit cards (or debit cards) rather than checks generally makes it easier to challenge fraudulent transactions and limit your liability for illegitimate charges.   Last updated:  7 February 2016  Mandak, Joe.  "'Shoulder Surfing' Husband Gets Prison in Walmart Check Scam Targeting Hundreds."    WTAE [Pittsburg].  4 February 2016. FACT CHECK: Has FEMA warned Americans that a catastrophic natural disaster will devastate the Pacific Northwest in 2015?      Claim:  FEMA confirmed that a massive natural disaster will level the Pacific Northwest in 2015.   Example:   [Collected via Twitter and e-mail, July 2015] There is convincing footage that a huge earthquake is set to hit  the Pacific Northwest soon and that FEMA is preparing for it. Many of the  details were supposedly printed in the New Yorker magazine. US emergency agency (FEMA) prepare for mega-quake in Pacific Northwest, estimated to kill at least 13,000 people... https://t.co/xf8VGZ8s6T https://t.co/xf8VGZ8s6T  PacificGuardians (@FatuTauafiafi) July 18, 2015 July 18, 2015   FEMA AttendeeWarnsOfComingEvent Bank Holiday, Social Unrest And Martial Law! Scientist Warn https://t.co/VKoglRrAkJ pic.twitter.com/7RqAJizi17 https://t.co/VKoglRrAkJ pic.twitter.com/7RqAJizi17  Tamra (@emortal_the) July 18, 2015 July 18, 2015   FEMA Meeting Attendee Warns Of Coming "Event" - Bank Scientists Warn Of "Worst Natural Disaster In History Of Nation" https://t.co/Nx0u7zKQPY https://t.co/Nx0u7zKQPY  ICU (@constancevaugh1) July 19, 2015 July 19, 2015   Origins:  During the summer of 2015, doomsday prophecies seemed to become relatively fashionable; in addition to the ongoing conspiracy jambalaya of Jade Helm 15, rumors of a giant comet also captivated the purveyors and viewers of caterwauling YouTube videos. (Martial law and FEMA death camps were rumored to be invariable components of your apocalypse of choice.) Jade Helm 15 giant comet Martial law FEMA death camps invariable Many (ostensibly unrelated) things fueled the multiple, ambient conspiracies; among them was a 20 July 2015 piece in The New Yorker titled "The Really Big One," subtitled "An earthquake will destroy a sizable portion of the coastal Northwest[, the] question is when." That article focused on the Cascadia subduction zone, a convergent plate boundary spanning Vancouver Island to Northern California, and one of its most frequently quoted portions stated: piece Just north of the San Andreas, however, lies another fault line. Known as the Cascadia subduction zone, it runs for seven hundred miles off the coast of the Pacific Northwest, beginning near Cape Mendocino, California, continuing along Oregon and Washington, and terminating around Vancouver Island, Canada. When the next very big earthquake hits, the northwest edge of the continent, from California to Canada and the continental shelf to the Cascades, will drop by as much as six feet and rebound thirty to a hundred feet to the westlosing, within minutes, all the elevation and compression it has gained over centuries. Some of that shift will take place beneath the ocean, displacing a colossal quantity of seawater. The water will surge upward into a huge hill, then promptly collapse. One side will rush west, toward Japan. The other side will rush east, in a seven-hundred-mile liquid wall that will reach the Northwest coast, on average, fifteen minutes after the earthquake begins. By the time the shaking has ceased and the tsunami has receded, the region will be unrecognizable. Kenneth Murphy, who directs FEMAs Region X, the division responsible for Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska, says, Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast. Inarguably, the prognostications were grim and the tone suggested a sooner-rather-than-later timeline: In fact, the science is robust, and one of the chief scientists behind it is Chris Goldfinger. Thanks to work done by him and his colleagues, we now know that the odds of the big Cascadia earthquake happening in the next fifty years are roughly one in three. The odds of the very big one are roughly one in ten. Even those numbers do not fully reflect the dangeror, more to the point, how unprepared the Pacific Northwest is to face it. The truly worrisome figures in this story are these: Thirty years ago, no one knew that the Cascadia subduction zone had ever produced a major earthquake. Forty-five years ago, no one even knew it existed. Naturally, the article's alarming claims moved swiftly across social media sites and blogs (particularly those with a primary interest in apocalyptic scenarios and looming martial law). On 18 July 2015 the unreliable web site All News PipeLine published an article titled "FEMA Meeting Attendee Warns Of Coming 'Event' - Bank Holiday, Social Unrest And Martial Law! Scientists Warn Of 'Worst Natural Disaster In History Of Nation,'" followed by an article (published to the website of Facebook page "Operation Jade Helm and Beyond") titled "FEMA Warns Of Mega Natural Disaster Expected To Hit The U.S. Northwest!!! Martial Law Not Far Behind..." article website Facebook page The latter article primarily rewrote the former, but added that "FEMA has outlined some of what they expect to happen here" and that "[t]his is expected to happen in the next 6 months or so in the Pacific Northwest." All News PipeLine's article linked to the website of conspiracy theorist Steve Quayle. In a 17 July 2015 "alert," Quayle seized upon interest in The New Yorker's predictions and built upon it with a claim that he received additional information from an unknown source linked to FEMA: Steve Quayle I have a long time friend, who is in law enforcement in one of the Jade Helm states. He is totally logical and factual (sheeple) while I think more out of the box. I have tried to help him see whats going on, but he always calls me a nutjob with too much time on my hands. I just got a phone call from him, he has been attending FEMA Training, and he is now having a meltdown after what they learned. The FEMA team revealed: -There is going to be an "Event" within the next 6 months.  -The nature of the "Event" is believed to be a Natural Disaster, such as a Solar Flare, but could be something else.    As the excerpted portion illustrates, Quayle purportedly spoke to a "friend who is in law enforcement" (that we'll presume exists for the purposes of this discussion) and not anyone directly affiliated with FEMA. Moreover, the "event" his friend described is either a natural disaster or not a natural disaster (and in no way necessarily linked to the July 2015 article published in The New Yorker). From there, other websites conflated the article about the Cascadia subduction zone and a vague claim from a fellow who hawks conspiracy and doomsday stories for a living. Quayle's claim didn't even hint at then-ongoing discussion of a possible future earthquake affecting the Pacific Northwest, it simply also referenced a natural disaster (or something else entirely). It's true that the subject of a West Coast faultline was featured in an article in The New Yorker, and it's even true that FEMA Region X Kenneth Murphy surmised that in the event of such a calamity much of the Pacific Northwest "would be toast." However, Murphy's comments were clearly not made on the basis of information pertaining to the certainty of any such looming disaster, and are akin to observing that if a tree fell on your car it would likely sustain serious damage. In the complete context of Murphy's remarks, he clearly referenced a "what if" scenario and not a current situation for which FEMA was actively preparing. FEMA has not issued any warnings about seismic activity or any other natural dangers that line up with the claims in the linked articles. And while geologist Chris Goldfinger discussed the possibility of a "mega-quake" in a July 2015 article, neither Goldfinger nor any other entity stated with certainty that such an event would occur in 2015 or any other point in the near future. In fact, research (on which Goldfinger worked) completed in 2012 determined that there is a "40 percent chance of a major earthquake in the [affected] region during the next 50 years." Chris Goldfinger Last updated:  21July 2015 Originally published: 21July 2015 As Attorney General Chris Koster eyes the 2016 race for Missouri governor, hes pushing to share the ballot with a political twofer: a ballot proposal that would increase Missouris lowest-in-the-nation tobacco tax, which would pay for a boost in the states higher education spending. Speaking Aug. 20 at the Missouri State Fair, Koster, a Democrat, reiterated his support for the increasing the cigarette tax,telling the Columbia Daily Tribune: Since 2001, higher education in the state has been cut or allowed to erode  by 35 or 40 percent. Do those numbers add up? It takes a bit of college-boy math. The top line About three-quarters of the states higher education budget comes from the general revenue fund. The rest of the money mostly comes from the 1 cent education sales tax and other state funds. (The federal government also chips in some money  this year it was a little under $3.7 million, or 0.2 percent, of the total higher education budget.) The average annual inflation rate between 2001 and 2015, according to the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank, was 1.918 percent for Missouri and Illinois. Inflation rates vary across the country, and the Federal Reserve calculates the inflation rate by region rather than by state. In fiscal year 2002, higher education was allotted $1,153,954,522. After adjusting for inflation  which compounds year over year  thats equivalent to $1,505,546,464 today. In the most recent budget, for fiscal year 2016,$1,266,819,566is set for higher education in Missouri. Thats a 15.9 percent decrease, short of what Koster said. The bottom line If you only look at dollars, though, you miss the effect of Missouris surging college enrollment, Koster spokesman Andrew Whalen told PolitiFact Missouri. In fall of 2001, Missouris public colleges and universities enrolled143,656 full-time equivalent students. By 2014, enrollment had risen to 184,305 students. Thats a 28.3 percent increase in students. (This years totals arent in yet, but enrollment peaked in 2013, when Missouri counted 185,514 full-time equivalent students in its public institutions of higher education.) Its hard to say exactly how much money is spent on each student across the state because each school receives money directly from the General Assembly. That money is counted in the appropriations for the Department of Higher Education  but since the department doesnt dictate how that money is used, the department doesnt track how much of it each institution spends, spokeswoman Liz Coleman said. But we can still get a rough per-student funding estimate by dividing the departments budget by the number of full-time-equivalent students. Heres the math: In 2001, Missouri spent $10,480.21 per student, adjusting for inflation. Assuming this years enrollment totals track near 2014s (and theresanecdotal evidencesuggesting its not too far off), that would mean the state now spends closer to $6,873 per student. Thats a 34.4 percent decrease in higher education funding per student. There are a few caveats here: Students arent directly impacted by every dollar spent by the Department of Higher Education. For instance, the department also operates the Missouri State Historical Society, and some money also goes towards operating expenses for the department itself. The department funds scholarships, some of which go to students at private schools. And schools also draw funding from outside the appropriations process, from sources such as tuition, donations and endowments. So, the exact amount of money spent on each college student is a squishy number. But we can still confidently track how much the state contributes  which, in the context of raising the tobacco tax, is the essence of Kosters statement. Our ruling Koster said that since 2001, higher education funding has been cut or eroded by 35 percent to 40 percent. The legislature hasnt technically cut higher education funding over this time; nominally, the state has actually spent $100 million more on it. But thats not enough to keep pace with inflation. And when you factor in skyrocketing enrollment numbers, the amount of money the General Assembly has budgeted to spend on a per student basis has indeed eroded by about as much as Koster says it has. Even though Kosters statement is pretty close, it needs additional information and clarification. We rate it Mostly True. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In April 2020, millions of Americans who lost income due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic were waiting on promised relief payments from the United States government. So when news broke that U.S. President Donald Trump was making the "unprecedented" move of having his name added to these stimulus checks, a decision that could potentially delay the arrival of these checks by several days, many citizens took to social media to voice their displeasure, as in the example below: millions of Americans social media   Trump's name is truly being added to the COVID-19 stimulus checks, otherwise known as Economic Impact Payments. As of this writing, however, officials at the U.S. Treasury Department insist this will not result in any delays.  The Washington Post first reported on Trump's decision on April 14, 2020. According to the news outlet, Trump's name is expected to appear in the memo line of the check, not as the payment's official signatory, and that this will be the "first time that a president's name appears on an IRS disbursement": reported The Treasury Department has ordered President Trumps name printed on stimulus checks the Internal Revenue Service is rushing to send to tens of millions of Americans, a process that could slow their delivery by a few days, senior IRS officials said. The unprecedented decision, finalized late Monday, means that when recipients open the $1,200 paper checks the IRS is scheduled to begin sending to 70 million Americans in coming days, President Donald J. Trump will appear on the left side of the payment. It will be the first time a presidents name appears on an IRS disbursement, whether a routine refund or one of the handful of checks the government has issued to taxpayers in recent decades either to stimulate a down economy or share the dividends of a strong one. Treasury officials disputed that the checks would be delayed. While Trump's name will appear on these stimulus checks, we can't predict whether these payments will be delayed or go out on time. A Treasury Department official said in a statement that "absolutely no delay whatsoever" would occur:  statement "Economic Impact Payment checks are scheduled to go out on time and exactly as planned  there is absolutely no delay whatsoever ... In fact, we expect the first checks to be in the mail early next week which is well in advance of when the first checks went out in 2008 and well in advance of initial estimates." It should also be noted that many Americans will be receiving their stimulus payments via a direct deposit. It's unclear how many people will receive hard paper checks bearing Trump's name and how many will receive a digital payment.  An IRS official told Fox News that the number of people who will receive paper checks was subject to a "number of variables, including how much info the IRS obtains through the Non-Filers Enter Payment Info web portal and the Get My Payment portal launching [April 15] at IRS.gov. Fox News These Economic Impact Payments were included in the $2.2 trillion stimulus package that Trump signed in late March 2020. According to the IRS, direct-deposit payments had already started going out as of the second week in April. Those waiting on a paper check, however, may not see their payments for several weeks. (If you're waiting on a payment, you can check the status of your check on a recently launched web app from the IRS.) several weeks web app To sum up: It is true that in April 2020, the U.S. government made the unprecedented move of adding the president's name to stimulus checks issued by the IRS in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although an IRS official said this could slow the process and delay the delivery of checks, Treasury officials insisted that the checks would still go out on schedule.  Paine, Neil.  "More Than 16 Million Americans Have Lost Their Jobs In The Past Three Weeks."
  Five Thirty Eight.  9 April 2020. Raju, Manu; Fox, Lauren; Klein, Betsy.  "Some Americans Could Wait 20 Weeks to Receive Stimulus Checks, IRS Tells House Democrats."
  CNN.  2 April 2020. Olson, Tyler and John Roberts.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  Fox News.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Acosta, Jim and Caroline Kelly.  "Trump's Name Will be Added to Stimulus Checks."
  CNN.  15 April 2020. Lederman, Josh Phil Helsel.  "Trump's Name Will Appear on Coronavirus Relief Checks."
  NBC News.  14 April 2020. Claim:  "Little History Lesson" article accurately explains origins of many common phrases.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2000] In George Washington's days, there were no cameras. One's image was either sculpted or painted. Some paintings of Washington showed him standing behind a desk with one arm behind his back while others showed both legs and both arms. Prices charged by painters were not based on how many people were to be painted, but by how many limbs were to be painted. Arms and legs are "limbs" therefore painting them would cost the buyer more. Hence the expression, "Okay, but it'll cost you an arm and a leg". As incredible as it sounds, we are informed that men and women took baths only twice a year! (May & October) Women always kept their hair covered while men shaved their heads (because of lice and bugs) and wore wigs.  Wealthy men could afford good wigs. The wigs couldn't be washed so to clean them, they would carve out a loaf of bread, put the wig in the shell and bake it for 30 minutes. The heat would make the wig big and fluffy, hence the term "big wig." Today we often use the term "here comes Mr. Big Wig" because someone appears to be or "is" powerful and wealthy. In the late 1700's many houses consisted of a large room with only one chair. Commonly, a long wide board was folded down from the wall and used for dining.  The "head of the household" always sat in the chair while everyone else ate sitting on the floor. Once in a while an invited guest would be offered to sit in this chair during a meal whom was almost always a man.  To sit in the chair meant you were important and in charge. Sitting in the chair, one was called the "chair man of the board." Today in business we use the expression/title "Chairman of the Board." Needless to say, personal hygiene left much room for improvement.  As a result, many women and men had developed acne scars by adulthood. The women would spread bee's wax over their facial skin to smooth out their complexions. When they were speaking to each other, if a woman began to stare at another woman's face she was told "mind your own bee's wax."   Should thewoman smile, the wax would crack, hence the term "crack a smile?"  Also, when they sat too close to the fire, the wax would melt and therefore the expression "losing face." Ladies wore corsets which would lace up in the front. A tightly tied lace was worn by a proper and dignified lady as in "straight laced." Common entertainment included playing cards. However, there was a tax levied when purchasing playing cards but only applicable to the "ace of spades." To avoid paying the tax, people would purchase 51 card instead. Yet, since most games require 52 cards, these people were thought to be stupid or dumb because they weren't "playing with a full deck." Early politicians required feedback from the public to determine what was considered important to the people. Since there were no telephones, TV's or radios, the politicians sent their assistants to local taverns, pubs and bars who were told to "go sip some ale" and listen to people's conversations and political concerns. Many assistants were dispatched at different times... "you go sip here" and "you go sip there". The two words "go sip" were eventually combined when referring to the local opinion and thus, we have the term "gossip." At local taverns, pubs and bars, people drank from pint and quart sized containers. A bar maid's job was to keep an eye on the customers and keep the drinks coming. She had to pay close attention and remember who was drinking in "pints" and who was drinking in "quarts." Hence the term "minding your "P's" and "Q's." Origins:  In 1999, a spurious missive purporting to explain the origins of a number of common phrases appeared on the Internet. That laughable compilation, titled "Life in the 1500s," was pulled together as someone's idea of a joke. 1500s In 2000, the pranksters went at it again with yet another specious list of purported word and phrase origins, this time dating it to the1700s. Typically titled "Little History Lesson," it offered the set of false etymologies listed in the Example section above. Below we analyze each entry in order: In George Washington's days, there were no cameras. One's image was either sculpted or painted. Some paintings of Washington showed him standing behind a desk with one arm behind his back while others showed both legs and both arms. Prices charged by painters were not based on how many people were to be painted, but by how many limbs were to be painted. Arms and legs are "limbs" therefore painting them would cost the buyer more. Hence the expression, "Okay, but it'll cost you an arm and a leg". While some portrait artists might have charged extra for the inclusion of additional details in commissioned works, we know of none that charged per limb displayed. (Most varied their fee by the size of the canvas requested.) The "costs an arm and a leg" saying instead first surfaced around the 1940s, with a meaning of "An exorbitant amount of money," and it likely developed from much older phrases wherein arms and legs were used as examples of extremely valuable items their possessors might be persuaded to surrender in exchange for things desired even more. "If it takes a leg" (used to express desperate determination) dates to 1872. Similarly, print sightings for "I'd give my right arm" (to be able to do something especially desired) go back as far as 1616. As incredible as it sounds, we are informed that men and women took baths only twice a year! (May & October) Women always kept their hair covered while men shaved their heads (because of lice and bugs) and wore wigs.  Wealthy men could afford good wigs. The wigs couldn't be washed so to clean them, they would carve out a loaf of bread, put the wig in the shell and bake it for 30 minutes. The heat would make the wig big and fluffy, hence the term "big wig." Today we often use the term "here comes Mr. Big Wig" because someone appears to be or "is" powerful and wealthy. Full immersion bathing didn't become the norm for a very long time because it took a fair bit of work to haul the amount of water and wood needed to fill and heat a bath. However, that folks weren't routinely taking what we would consider proper baths doesn't mean that they didn't regularly clean themselves. Cleaning one's body was a matter of taking what we would regard as "sponge baths": wetting oneself down with a damp cloth, followed by scrubbing the body with a soapy cloth,  rinsing with a wet cloth, and finishing off with a toweling dry. Even in the 1700s in locales and social strata where the wearing of wigs was common, these headcoverings were indeed washed (albeit carefully); they were not inserted into loaves of bread and baked. (One has to wonder about an explanation that posits folks who were afraid they'd damage expensive goods by washing them would happily risk incinerating them.) Print sightings of "big wig" and "big wigged" date to 1781 and 1778 respectively, with the term's always having referred to someone regarded as societally prominent by virtue of wealth, position, or power. While the term does find its origin in the rather impressive wigs sported by the upper crust, said wigs were deliberately constructed to be large and imposing; they didn't get that way from having been baked in bread to kill lice. In the late 1700's many houses consisted of a large room with only one chair. Commonly, a long wide board was folded down from the wall and used for dining. The "head of the household" always sat in the chair while everyone else ate sitting on the floor. Once in a while an invited guest would be offered to sit in this chair during a meal whom was almost always a man.  To sit in the chair meant you were important and in charge. Sitting in the chair, one was called the "chair man of the board." Today in business we use the expression/title "Chairman of the Board." People have been eating off tables of various forms for about as long as humans have been recording history. We're wholly unaware of any society wherein a board hinged to the wall was let down at dinnertime so that folks seated on the floor in front of it could eat from it. The "board" in "chairman of the board" refers to a board of directors, generally a group of successful businessmen appointed to oversee the running of a corporation. The word "chairman" dates to 1654 and refers to the occupier of a chair of authority. Needless to say, personal hygiene left much room for improvement.  As a result, many women and men had developed acne scars by adulthood. The women would spread bee's wax over their facial skin to smooth out their complexions. When they were speaking to each other, if a woman began to stare at another woman's face she was told "mind your own bee's wax."  Should thewoman smile, the wax would crack, hence the term "crack a smile?"  Also, when they sat too close to the fire, the wax would melt and therefore the expression "losing face." While throughout history women have used odd (and sometimes dangerous) substances on themselves in pursuit of beauty, we're unaware that at any point they were coating their visages with wax.  "Mind your own beeswax," a phrase first noted in 1934, is no more than a cutesy way of saying "Mind your own business," with "beeswax" used as an ear-pleasing substitute for the more staid "business." The saying it's based upon, "To mind one's business," dates to 1660 and means to tend to one's own concerns in preference of involving oneself in the doings of others. One "cracks a smile" in the same way that one cracks a joke or a boast; there is no physical crevice made in anything, let alone the fictional wax masks women were supposedly parading about in. Sightings of "crack" used in the sense of uttering something loudly and with flair date to 1315, with "crack a boast" to 1386. The linguistic concept of "losing face" (or saving it) didn't enter the English language prior to contact between British traders and the Chinese and was first noted in 1834. The "face" the Chinese were so concerned about wasn't an anatomical one but rather the publicized image of oneself, in the sense of the "face" one displays to the world at large. Two Chinese words, one meaning "moral character," the other "social prestige," were each translated into English as "face," with "to lose face" meaning to have damage done to one's reputation or to be publicly embarrassed.  Ladies wore corsets which would lace up in the front. A tightly tied lace was worn by a proper and dignified lady as in "straight laced." "Strait-laced" does derive from the tying of corsets, but the proposed etymology given in the article has it backwards: The term's origin has to do with the tightness of the lacing and the consequent constriction of such garments, as opposed to the moral character of the persons wearing these underpinnings. (One needs to remember that a multitude of men and women, from the wholly proper and dignified right down to the entirely disreputable, wore corsets.) "Strait" came into the English language from the Latin verb "stringere," which means "to strain; draw tight." Other "strait" words we're familiar with, such as Straits of Gibraltar and strait-jacket, likewise employ its narrowing or restraining elements. "Strait-laced" was first spotted in 1430, and while at that time it did have to do with the tightness of corsets, by the 1540s the term had expanded to encompass things that were narrow in range or scope or people that were uncommunicative (i.e., kept a great deal of themselves in). By the 1550s, it was used to describe folks who were excessively rigid or scrupulous in matters of conduct. Common entertainment included playing cards. However, there was a tax levied when purchasing playing cards but only applicable to the "ace of spades." To avoid paying the tax, people would purchase 51 card instead. Yet, since most games require 52 cards, these people were thought to be stupid or dumb because they weren't "playing with a full deck." Taxes were levied on playing cards in England at various times in its history, with the earliest instance occurring in 1588. However, when this tax was in force, the basic duty was applied to each deck, not just a specific card within it. Once the tax had been paid, one card from the now-taxed deck was stamped with a special seal to show that the duty had been properly rendered. Over time, that card came to be the ace of spades (most likely because it's the one on the end of the deck). "Not playing with a full deck" is simply one of countless sayings of the same ilk as "two bricks shy of a load" or "a couple of French fries short of a Happy Meal"; a phrase indicating that the person referred to lacks ordinary intellectual capacity. Early politicians required feedback from the public to determine what was considered important to the people. Since there were no telephones, TV's or radios, the politicians sent their assistants to local taverns, pubs and bars who were told to "go sip some ale" and listen to people's conversations and political concerns. Many assistants were dispatched at different times... "you go sip here" and "you go sip there". The two words "go sip" were eventually combined when referring to the local opinion and thus, we have the term "gossip." "Gossip" descends from "God sib," an ancient term (1014) for godparent or sponsor. (A christening ceremony was a "gossiping.") Along the way to its current meaning, "gossip" picked up the additional meaning of "chum" or "friend." One of the activities folks engage in with their friends is chewing over the events of the day, and over time the word "gossip" shifted away from the person chatted with to the activity itself, as well as coming to attach to people overly fond of discussing the doings of others. At local taverns, pubs and bars, people drank from pint and quart sized containers. A bar maid's job was to keep an eye on the customers and keep the drinks coming. She had to pay close attention and remember who was drinking in "pints" and who was drinking in "quarts." Hence the term "minding your "P's" and "Q's." In an nutshell (with the non-nutshell version to be found here), while the definitive origin of this phrase has yet to surface, ones that most certainly can be ruled out are the "pints and quarts served in a bar" explanations. The first print sighting of the saying dates to 1756 (or even earlier if we accept a 1602 sighting of a variant of the phrase), which means it long predates the selling of beer in pints and quarts. here While the "Little History Lesson" e-mail has remained surprisingly static across its decade-plus existence, one additional item about freezing the balls off a brass monkey has come to be added to it.  One more: bet you didn't know this! In the heyday of sailing ships, all war ships and many freighters carried iron cannons. Those cannons fired round iron cannon balls. It was necessary to keep a good supply near the cannon. However, how to prevent them from rolling about the deck? The best storage method devised was a square-based pyramid with one ball on top, resting on four resting on nine, which rested on sixteen. Thus, a supply of 30 cannon balls could be stacked in a small area right next to the cannon. There was only one problem... how to prevent the bottom layer from sliding or rolling from under the others. The solution was a metal plate called a "Monkey" with 16 round indentations. However, if this plate were made of iron, the iron balls would quickly rust to it. The solution to the rusting problem was to make "Brass Monkeys." Few land lubbers realize that brass contracts much more and much faster than iron when chilled. Consequently, when the temperature dropped too far, the brass indentations would shrink so much that the iron cannonballs would come right off the monkey. Thus, it was quite literally, "Cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey." (All this time, youthought that was an improper expression, didn't you.) That writeup first appeared on the Internet in September 2002 as a stand-alone item. By March 2004 it began showing up as the completing entry in the "Little History Lesson" mailing. In a further nutshell, (with the non-nutshell version offered here), while the etymology of this pronouncement is still up in the air, the "cannonballs" explanation should be dismissed because  when the saying started appearing in print in the mid-19th century, various body parts (ears, tail, nose, or whiskers) were said to be about to fall off a brass monkey thanks to the cold. here Barbara "frozen assets" Mikkelson Last updated:  1 November 2010    Lighter, J.E.  Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang.   New York: Random House, 1997.  IBSN 0-679-43464-X. Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang    The Compact Oxford English Dictionary.   Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.  ISBN 0-19-861258-3. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary Claim:  After a bank failure, the FDIC has 99 years to pay back insured deposits.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] I heard an "expert" on KFI AM 640 in LA say the FDIC has up to 99 years to repay you in the event of a bank failure. Sounds like a misrepresentation but when asked by the host, she said "it's in the fine print."  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have been hearing of a story of a man entering a bank week after week and making a deposit of a government check in some sort of insignificant amount (the number I heard was $0.35 per check). The teller asks why is he depositing such a small check. His response is that his bank went bust and that the checks are from the F.D.I.C. The gist of this apocryphal tale is that FDIC insurance is not a good thing and that if it does pay out it will take forever to recover your "insured" loss. This tale was repeated yesterday to my sister-in-law by a bank teller trying to dissuade her from moving an UNINSURED money market account to an F.D.I.C. insured CD with another bank. Origins:   Economic turmoil in the United States in recent years has given many Americans pause to consider just how safe their money is, especially in light of some bank failures that have reminded us that even such seemingly secure investments as ordinary savings accounts are not  completely risk-free.   And although most bank customers are aware their deposits are insured, they aren't necessarily familiar with the details of how that insurance works, a circumstance that has fostered the spread of rumors which create additional insecurity. After a wave of bank failures that came in the wake of the stock market crash of 1929 and the prolonged economic depression that followed, the U.S. federal government created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to restore public confidence in (and help stabilize) the U.S. banking system.  The FDIC provided federal government guarantees of deposits up to $100,000 per account holder per bank (and up to $250,000 per account holder for deposit retirement accounts), subject to certain conditions, at insured financial institutions.*    FDIC Bank failures in the U.S. have been a relatively uncommon phenomenon since the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s, so many consumers have had little or no exposure to the process by which FDIC deposit insurance works, a circumstance that has led to the uncertainty reflected in the examples cited above.  Widely-believed rumors hold that FDIC insurance actually covers just a small fraction of the original deposit amount  (e.g., 1.5%), or that the FDIC only reimburses depositors in full over a very long period of time (e.g., 99 years), the net result being the mistaken belief that FDIC insurance isn't really much of a guarantee at all.  In fact, these rumors are so prevalent that they were both included (as numbers #3 and #4) in a list of the top ten misconceptions about the FDIC published in the Spring 2006 edition of the FDIC Consumer News newsletter, where they were addressed thusly: If a bank fails, the FDIC could take up to 99 years to pay depositors for their insured accounts. This is a completely false notion that many bank customers have told us they heard from someone attempting to sell them another kind of financial product. The truth is that federal law requires the FDIC to pay the insured deposits "as soon as possible" after an insured bank fails. Historically, the FDIC pays insured deposits within a few days after a bank closes, usually the next business day. In most cases, the FDIC will provide each depositor with a new account at another insured bank. Or, if arrangements cannot be made with another institution, the FDIC will issue a check to each depositor. The FDIC only pays failed-bank depositors a percentage of their insured funds. All too often we receive questions similar to this one: "Is it true that if my FDIC-insured bank fails, I would only get $1.31 for every $100 in my checking account?" As with misconception number 3, this misinformation appears to be spread by some financial advisors and sales people. Federal law requires the FDIC to pay 100 percent of the insured deposits up to the federal limit  including principal and interest. If your bank fails and you have deposits over the limit, you may be able to recover some or, in rare cases, all of your uninsured funds. However, the overwhelming majority of depositors at failed institutions are within the insurance limit, and insured funds are always paid in full. As noted, this type of misinformation is often passed along by unscrupulous or misinformed financial advisors who are trying to steer customers towards investments or accounts that are not insured, so if you have any doubts about exactly what is or is not covered by FDIC insurance, you may want to undertake some additional verification on your own. *Note: In October 2008 the FDIC insurance limit was temporarily increased to $250,000 per account, with that increase slated to remain in effect through the end of 2009, but subsequently extended through the end of 2013. In July 2010 the FDIC insurance limit was permanently increased to $250,000 per depositor, per insured depository institution for each account ownership category. increased Last updated:  8 April 2014 In early April 2021, Snopes readers asked about social media posts and memes that claimed that former U.S. President Donald Trump "tricked" them into making recurring campaign donations. For instance, one such meme said contributors to the campaign who though they were making a one-time donation "were unaware the fine print stated they would be billed the same amount every single week until election day." Donald Trump   In many cases, these claims are rather exaggerated, mean-spirited takes on a New York Times story, as we will explain below. As we previously reported, it's true that the Trump campaign was soliciting recurring donations with a pre-checked box, even after the Nov. 3, 2020, presidential election. It's also true that many Trump supporters demanded refunds from the Trump campaign, although it seems mathematically impossible that the number of people who requested refunds was in the millions (as was claimed in social media posts). New York Times story previously reported The April 3 Times report details the experience of Trump donor Stacy Blatt, a retiree who was in hospice care, suffering from cancer, when he discovered his bank account depleted from those recurring donations. Stacy Blatt was in hospice care last September listening to Rush Limbaughs dire warnings about how badly Donald J. Trumps campaign needed money when he went online and chipped in everything he could: $500. It was a big sum for a 63-year-old battling cancer and living in Kansas City on less than $1,000 per month. But that single contribution  federal records show it was his first ever  quickly multiplied. Another $500 was withdrawn the next day, then $500 the next week and every week through mid-October, without his knowledge  until Mr. Blatts bank account had been depleted and frozen. When his utility and rent payments bounced, he called his brother, Russell, for help. What the Blatts soon discovered was $3,000 in withdrawals by the Trump campaign in less than 30 days. They called their bank and said they thought they were victims of fraud. Contrary to the takes offered in partisan memes and posts, Blatt and others like him were not "low IQ," but instead, fell victim to the complicated and evolving wording in a pre-checked box on Trump's online donation portal, according to the Times. As a result, the Times reported, the Trump campaign and WinRed, a for-profit company that processed the online donations, were forced to issue $122 million in campaign contribution refunds to people like Blatt. pre-checked box As Election Day neared in November 2020, the Times report described what amounted to a sense of panic that cropped up inside the Trump campaign, as Democrats out-raised and spent them. During that time, the text on the online donation portal for Trump's donation website changed from simply asking donors to make donations a monthly gift, to including a pre-checked box with more complicated text that made donations weekly. asking donors As the election drew closer, text in that bright yellow box went from containing a pre-checked field that in March 2020 simply said, "Make this a monthly recurring donation," to more complicated and emphatic demands by late 2020 that contained fake ultimatums. As of Sept. 30, 2020, the box looked like this: looked like this   As the pre-checked box evolved, the result was an increase in refunds issued to donors who had missed the finer print in the box that allowed the refunds to be weekly recurring. The refunds issued by the Trump campaign outpaced and dwarfed the $21 million in refunds issued by his political rival, now-U.S. President Joe Biden. The effect can be seen in a graph posted by Shane Goldmacher, the Times report's author:  The evolution of the text in the box on Trump's online donation portal can be viewed by clicking on various dates via the Internet Archive. Internet Archive A search for Blatt's name can be found on OpenSecrets.org, a campaign finance transparency tool run by the nonpartisan organization Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics. It confirms the Times reporting that Blatt, who listed himself as retired, was billed $500 multiple times by the Trump campaign between mid-September and October 11, 2020. Sadly, Blatt died of cancer in February 2021, according to the Times. found on OpenSecrets.org We sent emails to WinRed and the Trump campaign seeking comment, but didn't get an answer in time for publication. We will update if we do. But we note that in their public statements responding to the Times story that neither Trump nor WinRed refute the financial figures or facts laid out by the Times. Instead, the stance taken by both WinRed and Trump is that the Times' report was unfairly negative about their approach to fundraising. In a series of tweets, WinRed called the Times report a "hit piece" and said WinRed's practices were comparable to that of ActBlue, the fundraising portal that serves Democratic candidates. "So when Republicans do it to stay competitive, its nefarious, and when Dems - who created the technology - do it, its a 'platform for little experiments that gently squeeze even more money out of donors,'" WinRed tweeted. called tweeted In a statement responding to the report, Trump referenced his pre- and post-election disinformation campaign, namely false claims that the 2020 election was beset by a massive-scale voter fraud conspiracy. Like WinRed, Trump said his own fundraising efforts were based on those of ActBlue, and also like WinRed, he claimed that the percentage of donors who formally disputed the charges with their financial institutions was low: statement We learned from liberal ActBlue  and now were better than they are! In fact, many people were so enthusiastic that they gave over and over, and in certain cases where they would give too much, we would promptly refund their contributions. Our overall dispute rate was less than 1% of total online donations, a very low number. This is done by Dems also The Times story reported that WinRed "typically granted [refunds] to avoid more costly formal disputes." It also pointed out that while WinRed is a for-profit company, ActBlue is a non-profit organization. As such, WinRed "makes its money by taking 30 cents of every donation, plus 3.8 percent of the amount given. WinRed was paid more than $118 million from federal committees the last election cycle; even after paying credit card fees and expenses like payroll and rent, the profits are believed to be significant." We reached out to ActBlue for a response to WinRed and Trump's comments. A spokesperson told us by email that the average contribution amount across the platform in 2019-2020 was $38.08. The spokesperson also referred to this portion of the Times report that included a statement by ActBlue: was $38.08 ActBlue said in a statement that it had begun to phase out prechecked recurring boxes unless groups were explicitly asking for recurring contributions. Some prominent Democratic groups, including both congressional campaign committees, continue to precheck recurring boxes regardless of that guidance. Still, Democratic refund rates were only a small fraction of the Trump campaigns last year. On April 7, 2021, Timothy Miller, a writer for the political news site The Bulwark, tweeted that he received a fundraising text from the National Republican Congressional Committee with a similar, pre-checked fundraising box:  Despite aggressive efforts to pursue claims of widespread voter fraud, no evidence was ever presented by the Trump camp that widespread fraud occurred in the 2020 election. Biden won by 7 million votes and 74 electoral college points. widespread voter fraud won Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelenskyy addressed the U.S. Congress on Dec. 21, 2022, to thank them for their support and to request more aid amidst the ongoing invasion of Russia in Ukraine. Though Zelenskyy received multiple standing ovations and thunderous applause from both parties during his speech, Republicans Rep. Matt Gaetz and Rep. Lauren Boebert did not appear to share in the enthusiasm. addressed One clip from C-SPANeven went viral, in which they appeared to remain seated as others around them stood and clapped: C-SPAN  While this clip is indeed accurate, Gaetz and Boebert did stand at different points in the speech, particularly toward the end, and stood for Zelenskyy's departure. They were seen standing at the very beginning as they waited for Zelenskyy's arrival. Gaetz is in a grey suit, and Boebert is in a white dress. They can be seen standing on the upper half, toward the center of this shot. (Screenshot/C-SPAN) At around 14 minutes, Gaetz and Boebert were seen standing and chatting with other members of the House. As Zelenskyy entered and stood at the podium, the audience stood and clapped to welcome him. Gaetz and Boebert stood along with everyone else, though it was difficult to determine if they were applauding, as well. Gaetz's arms appeared to be by his side as he leaned down to speak to Boebert. 14 minutes stood (Screenshot/C-SPAN) As Zelenskyy began speaking, he received a number of standing ovations in which it was unclear whether Gaetz and Boebert were sitting. At the 32-minute mark they can be seen sitting alongside everyone else, listening to Zelenskyy. At 34 minutes, when almost everyone could be seen giving Zelenskyy a standing ovation, the camera cut to Gaetz and Boebert who were already seated as the people around them took their seats. They both appeared to be looking down at their laps. It is highly likely they never stood for the standing ovation. (Screenshot/C-SPAN) The moment took place right after the 34-minute mark in the video below: 34-minute  Zelenskyy said, "Your money is not charity. It's an investment in the global security and democracy that we handle in the most responsible way." At 35:27 another standing ovation occurred after this statement, and as people sat down, through this wide-camera shot Gaetz and Boebert can be seen seated (marked with the red arrow), having not stood up at all in that moment. (Screenshot/C-SPAN) That moment can be seen in the video, from the 35:25 mark:  The crowd got up again as Zelenskyy said, "Russia" and paused, and Boebert and Gaetz remained seated along with some other legislators. They did however join the standing ovation later on in his speech. At around 42:35, Gaetz can be seen standing up, though Boebert is not visible from this angle. At the 46:43 mark, as Zelenskyy leaves while holding the American flag, they can be seen standing along with everyone else: 46:43 mark  In this Getty Image, they can also be seen standing alongside everyone else (the top right of the frame): Getty Image  But in this one, they are seated as everyone around them gives a standing ovation: this one  They are both vocal opponents of sending Ukraine aid. Gaetz posted on Twitter soon after the speech: vocal opponents  Boebert also expressed sympathy for the people of Ukraine but demanded a "full audit" of where U.S. money for Ukraine had already gone before she would support sending more money, and called on Biden to do more "at home" to secure the "southern border."  Given that the pair did sit for significant standing ovations, but joined other standing ovations later in the speech, we rate this claim a "Mixture." Finally, we should add the pair made news for security related to Zelenskyy's visit, as well. security related to Zelenskyy's visit Baker, Sinad. "Lauren Boebert and Matt Gaetz Stayed Sitting and Looked at Their Phones While Congress Gave Zelenskyy a Standing Ovation." Business Insider, https://www.businessinsider.com/video-boebert-gaetz-ignore-zelenskyy-ovation-in-congress-check-phones-2022-12. Accessed 22 Dec. 2022. "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky Addresses Joint Meeting of Congress." C-SPAN. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPfFYvAFlU8. Accessed 22 Dec. 2022. "Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky Speaks to a Joint Session Of..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/ukrainian-president-volodymyr-zelensky-speaks-to-a-joint-news-photo/1245778448. Accessed 22 Dec. 2022. "US Republican Reperesentative from Colorado Lauren Boebert And..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/republican-reperesentative-from-colorado-lauren-boebert-and-news-photo/1245775412. Accessed 22 Dec. 2022. "Zelenskyy Thanks 'every American,' Sees 'Turning Point.'" AP NEWS, 21 Dec. 2022, https://apnews.com/article/zelenskyy-biden-68c65b3274e552f36f16853f24fedbb9.Accessed 22 Dec. 2022. Claim:  The Red Lobster chain is about to close its doors and go out of business for good.  Example:  [Collected via Facebook, December 2013] Is Red Lobster closing?   Origins:  Red Lobster is the ubiquitous casual dining restaurant chain operated by Darden Restaurants of Orlando, Florida, which boasts over seven hundred outlets worldwide, including (in addition to the United States) operations in Canada, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Japan. In September 2013, the  Darden Restaurants corporation (which also owns the Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse, Bahama Breeze, Capital Grille and Seasons 52 restaurant chains) reported disappointing financial results, including a 37.6% decrease in earnings per share and a $41 million drop in net earnings.  A fair chunk of those disappointing financial results were attributed to the poor performance of the Red Lobster chain, which saw a 5.2% decline in sales relative to the same quarter of the previous year, and a 3.8% decline in same-restaurant traffic.   These results prompted Darden, under pressure from investors, to announce in mid-December 2013 that they planned to separate themselves from the Red Lobster chain by selling it or spinning it off as a separate company: Under pressure from an activist hedge fund, Darden announced that it would dispose of the chain that gave it life  Red Lobster  as one of several steps meant to bolster its stock price. The company plans to shed Red Lobster through a tax-free spinoff to shareholders, but would be interested in a sale if it could raise more money. Darden's plan follows months of questions and pressure from investors and analysts over how it planned to bring back consumers after the recession. Darden is one of the biggest companies in the casual dining industry, with a market value of $6.7 billion, but its core chains have had stagnant growth. Though Red Lobster served as the basis for the Darden empire, it has become less important to the company over time. Members of the management team said that they expected same-restaurant sales for the chain to fall 4 to 5 percent this year. Separating the low-growth brand would let its new management team focus on running the company for its significant cash flows, while letting the rest of the company focus on its other brands' needs, including different marketing and pricing strategies. This announcement about Red Lobster's future was interpreted by some casual news consumers as meaning that the Red Lobster chain would imminently be going out of business, but a Darden spokesman quickly moved to quell such rumors: The Red Lobster restaurant chain brushed aside reports that it will be closing its doors. Rich Jeffers, a spokesman for Darden Restaurants Inc., which owns the chain, said the rumor may have started after the website LA Weekly published a story that the company faced an "uncertain future." A torrent of tweets and other online media followed with reports that the chain was closing. "We are not closing any restaurants," Jeffers [said]. The confusion may also be linked to Darden's announcement that it plans to sell or spin off the Red Lobster chain into a separate company. Several months later, in May 2014, Darden Restaurants announced that they had agreed to sell the Red Lobster chain to Golden Gate Capital for $2.1 billion: Darden Restaurants announced that private equity firm Golden Gate Capital has agreed to buy seafood chain Red Lobster for $2.1 billion in cash. In December [2013] the restaurant group revealed plans to release its oldest but worst performing segment into the wild. The initial plan was to create two independent companies, but after considering a number of structures  ranging from selling to a strategic partner to giving up the real estate assets while holding onto the brand  Darden concluded the Golden Gate deal would create the most value, the company said in a statement. Nonetheless, as The Motley Fool warned back in December 2013, Darden's shedding of Red Lobster could still possibly sound a death knell for the chain: The Motley Fool It's not so much that Red Lobster is a damaged brand, but rather that its results reflect all too closely the trends seen all across the casual-dining sector. Releasing it back into the wild on its own may only cause the restaurant chain to fail. It's clear Red Lobster can't compete on its own yet, and until it can find a way to bring diners back to the restaurant, it would be foolhardy to cast it off. It's possible that economic circumstances may lead to the closure of some Red Lobster outlets in upcoming years, or even the eventual demise of the chain itself. But those possibilities are currently only speculative and uncertain; there's no definitive reason to expect that the entire chain will be closing its doors anytime soon.   Last updated:  16 May 2014    Kim, Susanna.  "Red Lobster Says It's Not Closing Its 705 Restaurants."   ABC News.  27 December 2013.    McGrath, Maggie.  "Red Lobster and Olive Garden Drag Darden Lower."   Forbes.  20 September 2013.    Sharf, Samantha.  "Red Lobster Caught by Golden Gate Capital for $2.1 Billion."   Forbes.  16 May 2014.