Adlai E. Stevenson High School 'Donations' Letter
Claim:  Letter from high school offers to allow students to make monetary donations to offset inatttendance and poor grades.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, July  2013] There is a picture of a copy of a letter circulating, allegedly from a prominent suburban Chicago high school initiating an "Earned Academic Rewards Network" program whereby students can make monetary donations to offset tardyies, absences, homework assignments and/or test scores:    Origins:  This image of a purported letter from Adlai E. Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire,  Illinois, began circulating on the Internet on 8 July 2013.  The text of the alleged missive announces a new effort by the school's Social Studies department to boost unsatisfactory student achievement by introducing a program which allows freshman to make "charitable contributions" ranging from $10 to $35 in order to receive homework passes, extra credit points, and test exemptions, as well as to offset unexcused tardies.  Such "donated funds" would go towards improving the school's infrastructure, providing new technology for school offices, and relieving "budgetary constraints for teachers." On 10 July 2013, administrators posted a notice on the school's Facebook page advising inquirers that the letter was a hoax: Facebook There is a fake Stevenson letter being circulated via social media, claiming students can pay donations for excusing tardies and homework, receiving extra credit, and test exemptions. This is a hoax, and IS NOT a Stevenson letter, program, or from a Stevenson employee. This is not something the District would ever endorse. Apparently the letter was not intended as a prank, but was something created as a teaching tool for a history class:  [Eric Twadell, superintendent of Stevenson High School District 125, said,] "It turned out a teacher had created [the letter] and used it as a modern-day example of what papal indulgences may look like [today] compared to 500 years ago in the medieval realm. People would pay off the Pope for ridiculous things ... I think (the teacher) used it as an illustrative tool." Stevenson teachers have used the letter for "many, many years" to teach a unit on medieval Rome in world history classes, he said. Last updated:  10 July 2013
Addressing supporters in an airport hangar in Addison, Perry said that on his watch, companies in Texas created almost one third of all new American jobs. And, he said,  in the last seven years of my tenure, Texas created 1.5 million new jobs. As a matter of fact, without Texas, America would have lost 400,000 jobs. Sounded familiar. In May 2013,we found Truea Perry claim about Texas accounting for 33 percent of the countrys net new jobs over the last 10 years. That conclusion was supported by comparing state-by-state job gain estimates and a separate calculation of net job gains nationally, both by the federal government. Later, in January 2015, werated Mostly TruePerrys statement that starting in December 2007, 1.4 million jobs were created in Texas. In that same period, the rest of the country lost 400,000 jobs. His figures mostly held up according to household surveys by the federal government looking into civilian employment including self-employment, though at the time positions not yet recovered outside Texas totaled closer to 350,000, according to the latest available data when Perry spoke to lawmakers Jan. 22, 2015. When we looked at the earlier Texas-nation comparison by Perry, his spokesman encouraged us to consultMark J. Perry, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan campus in Flint. Professor Perry wrote in a November 2014online commentarythat from December 2007, the start of the national recession, through October 2014, Texas saw civilian employment balloon by 1.36 million jobs. In contrast, he wrote, civilian employment in the other 49 states without Texas is still 0.26% and more than 350,000 jobs below the December 2007 level  there were 134.9 million non-Texas jobs in October vs. 135.26 million in December 2007. To our query, the scholar emailed a chart showing that based on what the government calls total employment, covering all jobs including self-employed posts, Texas had 1,410,400 more jobs in November 2014 than it had in December 2007 while the rest of the country had 352,440 fewer jobs. Total employment, he said, serves as a comprehensive indicator and is used to calculate unemployment rates. A little more: The BLSsays the definition of employment in the federal household survey, which the governor relied on for his comparisons, comprises wage and salary workers (including domestics and other private household workers), self-employed persons and unpaid workers who worked 15 hours or more during the reference week in family-operated enterprises. Employment in both agricultural and nonagricultural industries is included. In contrast, the federal government's oft-quoted payroll survey of employers covers only wage and salary employees on the payrolls of nonfarm establishments. By this other metric, Cheryl Abbot, a regional economist for the bureau, told us, Texas netted 1.2 million additional jobs from December 2007 to December 2014. In the period, she said, 24 states had net decreases in total civilian employment. But again, those figures werent total employment, the indicator chosen by Perry. After Perry declared for president, we circled back to Abbot, who emailed us data indicating that from December 2007 to December 2014, Texas saw an increase in total employment of 1,572,694; the nation as a whole had a surge of 1,169,000. Put another way, but for Texas, the nation would have experienced a total employment decrease of 403,694. When we looked into Perrys seven-year contrast before, analystDavid Cooperof the liberal Economic Policy Institute commented that the timeframe singled out by Perry may deliver a more glowing contrast for Texas than other periods. According to the governments payroll surveys, he said, the country had added 9.1 million jobs since June 2009, the acknowledged end of the national recession, with Texas accounting for 1.5 million of the additions. Significantly, he said, the rest of the country as a whole lost jobs from June 2009 until February 2010. Since then, he said, the U.S. had added more than 10 million jobs with Texas (again) accounting for more than 1 million of them. At the time, Professor Perry said that in his view, the best comparison of Texas to the rest of the nation starts in December 2007. His point: Texas never experienced significant job losses during the Great Recession, while the rest of the country did, he emailed. Therefore, comparing job gains since June 2009 or Feb. 2010 really wont make much sense. Of course the non-Texas US gained a lot of jobs since June 2009, and more than Texas, but thats because Texas never lost any (very many) jobs in 2008 and 2009 like the rest of the country. Texas is a great economic success story, and an anomaly vs. the rest of the country regarding job losses/gains, he wrote. Also at the time, Abbot said by email Perrys claim could have been precise by referring to total civilian employment rather than jobs. That said, as of November 2014, Abbot said, 24 other states had yet to reach pre-recession employment levels. On a statewide basis, Texas by far leads all states, with total civilian employment growth of 1,410,440. California is a distant second with civilian (household) employment growth of 452,763, Abbot wrote. Our ruling  Perry said: In the last seven years of my tenure, Texas created 1.5 million new jobs. As a matter of fact, without Texas, America would have lost 400,000 jobs. These figures hold up though Perry cherry-picked a time period arguably giving Texas more of a gloss than it might get with other periods. More generally, no governor determines job gains or losses in a state; outside factors tend to prevail. In Texas, the fracking boom comes to mind. Governors dont create oil and gas fields. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. CORRECTION, 12:40 p.m., June 18, 2015:This fact check was revised to correct our error in quoting an email from Cheryl Abbot of the BLS. This change, clarifying that 24 states had net decreases in civilian employment in the period singled out by Perry, did not affect our rating. In December 2019, U.S. President Donald Trump, beset by a mounting, Democrat-led impeachment process, tried to dismiss allegations of wrongdoing in relation to his July 2019 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and Trump's broader actions and policies toward Ukraine. That phone call has been the focus of intense scrutiny, amid allegations that Trump used U.S. aid to Ukraine (a U.S. ally) as leverage in attempting to force Zelensky to launch an investigation into former U.S. Vice President and leading 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and Biden's son, Hunter. On Dec. 2, Trump tweeted: tweeted "Breaking News: The President of Ukraine has just again announced that President Trump has done nothing wrong with respect to Ukraine and our interactions or calls. If the Radical Left Democrats were sane, which they are not, it would be case over!"   We asked the White House to explain what the president was referring to and how those purported remarks amounted to an announcement by Zelensky that Trump had "done nothing wrong." We did not receive a response of any kind. However, Trump appeared to be alluding to a major interview Zelensky gave to four international news outlets: TIME in the U.S., Le Monde in France, Der Spiegel in Germany and Gazeta Wyborcza in Poland. Those news organizations published their respective transcripts of the interview on or around Dec. 2, with the exception of Der Spiegel, which had not yet released its own transcript at the time this fact check was published.  Zelensky answered one question that was directly and specifically relevant to his July 2019 phone call with Trump. The following is a breakdown of how three of the four outlets reported that section of the interview. TIME TIME Q: When did you first sense that there was a connection between Trumps decision to block military aid to Ukraine this summer and the two investigations that Trump and his allies were asking for? Can you clarify this issue of the quid pro quo? Zelensky: Look, I never talked to the President from the position of a quid pro quo. Thats not my thing...I dont want us to look like beggars. But you have to understand. Were at war. If youre our strategic partner, then you cant go blocking anything for us. I think thats just about fairness. Its not about a quid pro quo. It just goes without saying. Le Monde Le Monde Q: Lors de cette conversation tlphonique, quand avez-vous senti le lien entre laide militaire amricaine et la demande denqute formule par M. Trump sur Hunter Biden, le fils de son rival dmocrate Joe Biden pour llection de 2020 ? Zelensky: Nous navons pas parl dun change du genre  Je te donne ci et tu me donnes a . Ce type de conversation, je lai eu avec le prsident russe lorsque nous avons chang les prisonniers. Et je peux lavoir avec lEurope pour quils nous disent :  Remplissez telle ou telle condition pour rejoindre lUnion europenne [UE].  LUkraine se trouve en Europe et peut faire partie de lUE. Et nous le voulons. L je comprendrais quil puisse y avoir un donnant-donnant... (Translated) Q: During that phone conversation, at what point did you sense the connection between American military aid and Mr. Trump's request for an inquiry into Hunter Biden, the son of his Democrat rival in the 2020 election, Joe Biden? Zelensky: We didn't talk about an exchange in terms of "You give my this and I give you that." I did have that type of conversation with the Russian president, when we conducted a prisoner exchange. And I could have [that type of conversation] with Europe if they say to us "Satisfy this or that condition in order to join the European Union." Ukraine is in Europe and could become part of the EU. And we want that. In that case I could understand having a give-and-take... Gazeta Wyborcza Gazeta Wyborcza Q: Jest wiele spekulacji na temat tego, kiedy pan zrozumia, e jest zwizek midzy amerykask wojenn pomoc i ledztwami, o ktre prosi Trump [w sprawie Huntera Bidena i firmy Burisma]? Zelensky: Ja nie rozmawiaem z Trumpem z pozycji "co za co". W taki sposb rozmawiaem z prezydentem Rosji  oddaj mi tych, a my oddamy tych [winiw]. Czego potrzebujemy od USA? Nie chcemy wyglda dzisiaj jak klient. Ale trzeba rozumie, e u nas toczy si wojna. Jeli jestemy strategicznymi partnerami, to nie mona nam czego blokowa. U nas byy posiedzenia z UE. Powiedziaem im otwarcie: zobaczcie, tak by nie moe, albo nas widzicie w UE, albo nie. My podkrelamy: Ukraina znajduje si w Europie i zakadamy, e moemy by czci UE, podzielamy te same wartoci. Tutaj wymiana co za co jest dla mnie zrozumia... (Translated) Q: There has been a lot of speculation about when you understood that there was a link between American aid and the investigations Trump was asking for [regarding Hunter Biden and Burisma]. Zelensky: I didn't talk to Trump in terms of "this for that." I did talk like that with Putin -- give them [prisoners] to me and I'll give them to you. What do we want from the U.S.? We don't want to look like a client. But you have to understand that we have a war zone going on here. If we're strategic partners, we can't block each other's business.  We had meetings with the EU. I told them explicitly: this is unacceptable. Either you see Ukraine as part of the EU or you don't. We emphasize: Ukraine is in Europe and we believe we can become part of the EU, we have the same core values. In that situation, a quid pro quo makes sense. Clearly, Zelensky did not say, word-for-word, that Trump had "done nothing wrong with respect to Ukraine and [the two men's] interactions or calls." However, Trump's tweet did not attribute that to Zelensky as a direct quotation, so it should not be evaluated as such. Rather, Trump was giving his own description or summary of what Zelensky had said. As we've seen, Zelensky did say that, in their July phone conversation, he and Trump did not discuss a quid pro quo agreement or arrangement in which Trump would release military aid to Ukraine in exchange for Ukrainian authorities opening an investigation into the alleged (and unproven) activities of the Bidens in and with regard to Ukraine.  Without presenting supportive evidence, Trump and others have claimed that Joe Biden acted corruptly while he was vice president, because he pressured Ukrainian authorities to fire the country's top prosecutor in order to end an investigation into the owner of Burisma, a natural gas company whose board of directors included Biden's son, Hunter. However, former U.S. officials have rejected that theory, saying that Joe Biden pushed Ukraine to remove the prosecutor as part of a broader Obama administration drive against corruption in Ukraine. rejected The allegation that Trump used military aid to Ukraine as a bargaining chip, in exchange for an investigation that would prove damaging to one of his likely main rivals in the 2020 election, has so far undeniably been one of the principle allegations against the president. Therefore, when Zelensky said he and Trump did not discuss matters in terms of a "quid pro quo," he was undeniably exculpating Trump to a certain extent (whether or not Zelensky's description of the conversation actually measures up to what the White House call summary shows). As such, there is a measure of truth in Trump's claim that Zelensky said his American counterpart had done nothing wrong, but only as it relates specifically to that phone call.  call summary The allegations of wrongdoing against Trump extend beyond the contents of one particular phone call in July. For example, Gordon Sondland, U.S. ambassador to the EU, has testified before Congress that Trump directed a months-long campaign of lobbying and persuading Ukrainian authorities to investigate the Bidens, as well as discredited claims that Ukraine (rather than Russia) was responsible for online efforts to intervene in the 2016 presidential election.  campaign According to Sondland, that broader policy involved Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, acting at the president's direction, as well as other administration officials, and involved Trump directing his officials to freeze U.S. military aid to Ukraine. In his December 2019 interview, Zelensky did not address those wider allegations about Trump's Ukraine policy  he spoke only about one particular phone call. Therefore, Trump was only partly accurate in summarizing and describing what Zelensky said as "President Trump has done nothing wrong with respect to Ukraine and our interactions or calls." Shuster, Simon. "'I Don't Trust Anyone at All.' Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky Speaks Out on Trump, Putin and a Divided Europe."
 TIME. 2 December 2019. Gatinois, Claire. "Volodymyr Zelensky: 'Nous Voulons un Vritable Cessez-le-Feu.'"
 Le Monde. 2 December 2019. Andrusieczko, Piotr. "Woodymyr Zeenski: Nie pjd na Donbas, zginyby setki tysicy ludzi."
 Gazeta Wyborcza. 2 December 2019. Riechmann, Deb. "Anatomy of the Phone Call Now Imperiling Trump's Presidency."
 The Associated Press. 12 October 2019. Levine, Mike. "Testimony and Texts: How the Trump-Ukraine Allegations Fit Together in a Timeline."
 ABC News. 20 November 2019. In late April 2018, an unsourced Facebook post reporting that U.S. President Donald Trump had been "ordered" not to attend former First Lady Barbara Bush's funeral on 21 April 2018 in Houston, Texas, was circulated on social media, prompting readers to ask if it was true:   Barbara Bush, who was the mother of former president George W. Bush and former Florida governor Jeb Bush, as well as the wife of former President George H.W. Bush, passed away on 17 April 2018 at the age of 92. After a bitter 2016 presidential campaign in which candidate Donald Trump heavily criticized two of Barbara Bush's sons (as well as beating out Jeb Bush for the Republican nomination), the Bush family matriarch made it no secret that she was not a fan of Donald Trump. We uncovered no other reports that anyone from the Bush family "ordered" the sitting president not to attend Barbara Bush's memorial service. Instead, the White House released a statement to reporters saying Trump would not attend out of respect to avoid creating a disruption "due to added security." First Lady Melania Trump, however, will be in attendance, as will former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and former first ladies Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush, and Michelle Obama (along with, of course, Barbara Bush's husband and sons). statement will be During the 2016 campaign, Barbara Bush didn't hold back in her critiques of then-candidate Donald Trump. In the course of a CNN interview, for example, she proclaimed that "[Trump] doesn't give many answers to how he would solve problems. He sort of makes faces and says insulting things ... He's said terrible things about women, terrible things about the military. I don't understand why people are for him, for that reason. I'm a woman ... I'm not crazy about what he says about women." In another interview with CBS, Bush again lambasted Trump for his comments about women and called him a "comedian" or a "showman": Surprised this didn't get shared more at the time. Maybe because back then so many thought he would inevitably lose and disappear. Barbara Bush unfiltered on Trump. "I don't know how women can vote" for him, she says. pic.twitter.com/IWK42SmGo7 pic.twitter.com/IWK42SmGo7  Elad Nehorai (@PopChassid) April 9, 2018 April 9, 2018  Although there was no love lost between President Trump and the Bush family, the BBC noted it's not unusual for sitting presidents to skip the funerals of former first ladies: BBC Of course, then-President Barack Obama didn't attend the funerals of Republican first ladies Nancy Reagan and Betty Ford. Neither did George W Bush attend the 2007 memorial services for Democrat Lady Bird Johnson. But Mr Trump and the Bushes are in the same party  and a presidential gesture here could have soothed some raw wounds for Republicans that remain from the tumultuous 2016 campaign. Instead, Mr Trump will spend the weekend at his resort in Florida. Bush did express that he wanted President Trump to attend his own funeral, however: express Despite antipathy between the Bush family and President Donald Trump, the 41st president made clear he wanted America's current leader to be at the funeral, putting the institution of the presidency above personal animosities. Trump has confirmed he will attend the event, which follows a series of national disasters and tragedies and moments of public mourning that have caused critics to fault his behavior as short of that expected of a president. To his credit, Trump canceled what was certain to be a contentious news conference at the G20 summit in Argentina out of respect for Bush. He also sent one of the iconic blue-and-white 747 jets that serves as Air Force One when a president is aboard to Texas to carry Bush's casket. Associated Press. "Trump Will Skip Barbara Bush Funeral, Sending First Lady."
  19 April 2018. KTRK-TV.  "Some Details Released for Barbara Bush's Funeral."
  20 April 2018. BBC News.  "Barbara Bush Funeral: Donald Trump Not Attending 'Out of Respect.'"
  20 April 2018. Friedmann, Sarah.  "These Barbara Bush Quotes About Trump Are Still So Relevant for American Women."
  Bustle.  17 April 2018. Collected via email, 2013: A Country Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots Attributed to Jeff Foxworthy: If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you have to get your parents permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If, in the nations largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is "cute," but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class ingrade school is perfectly acceptable  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If the governments plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldnt be found  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more "safe" according to the government  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. What a country! How about we give God a reason to continue blessing America! The above-referenced list of entries detailing "A Country Founded by Geniuses But Run by Idiots" was widely circulated via the internet in early 2013 with an "Attributed to Jeff Foxworthy" tag at its head, leading many to believe it was actually the work of that nationally famous comedian. Jeff Foxworthy However, othen than its basic "If you ... you might be ..." pattern that mimics Jeff Foxworthy's popular "You might be a redneck" routines, this item bears little resemblance to anything produced by Foxworthy: his comedic material is typically affectionate and self-deprecating and involves poking fun at his own milieu; his brand of humor is much more apolitical and non-partisan than the list reproduced above. (Nonetheless, Jeff's name has been falsely attached to other similar political pieces that have little in common with the tenor and substance of his comedy material.) attached Jeff's brother, Jay, confirmed for us that this material was not written by his sibling. The original compiler of this list appears to be Fritz Edmunds, who posted it to his "Politically True" blog back on Feb. 3, 2013 (albeit with a disclaimer noting that "some of the ideas were from an email that did not contain any copyright"). Politically True As usual, the list has seen numerous alterations in the process of being passed around the Internet, and several of the entries appearing in earlier versions have since dropped off: If the only school curriculum allowed to explain how we got here is evolution, but your government stops a $15 million construction project to keep a rare spider from evolving to extinction  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If your government believes that using steroids or other drugs will ruin your life, but throwing you in prison for years will not  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested homes  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If your government believes that the way to make a school of unarmed children safe is to pass another law, this time with the illusion that three 10-round magazines in a rifle is safer than a 30-round magazine  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. The phrase "founded by geniuses and run by idiots" appears to be a variant of a similar statement that appeared in Herman Wouk's 1951 novel "The Caine Mutiny": "The Navy is a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots." In the 1954 film of the same name, the line was rendered, "The first thing you've got to learn about this ship is that she was designed by geniuses to be run by idiots." <!-- Sources:    Metz, Ken.  "It's Never Wise to Insult the Police Officer."   The Bath County News-Outlook.  30 August 2007. Update [Aug. 2, 2022]: Updated SEO and title. Claim:  In June 2012, 79% of General Motors' sales were made to the U.S. federal government.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2012] I just received the following & while it seems phony, I sure would liketo know.  "79% of GM's sales last month were government purchased" Remember how obama keeps telling us how he saved GM, and how our economy is getting better, it seems the car company he bought is being saved by Govt employees using our tax money to buy new cars. 79% of GMs sales last month was government purchased.  Origins:  In July 2012 the above-referenced item began circulating (based on information propagated by web sites such as this one), claiming that a whopping 79% of automobile manufacturer General Motors (GM) sales in June 2012 came from purchases of vehicles by the (federal) government and suggesting that the Obama administration had engineered such purchases in order to make GM "appear financially strong" just in time for its upcoming quarterly report  all to justify the President's 2009 decision to provide billions of dollars in federal aid to allow GM and Chrysler to restructure after government-backed bankruptcies. this one However, a closer reading the source material on which the claim was based reveals that it is not true that "79% of GM's sales [in June 2012] were government purchased."  The 79% figure refers to the percentage by which GM's government fleet sales increased for the month, not to the proportion of GM's overall sales that came from government purchases. Moreover, the phrase "government purchases" doesn't refer only to the federal government: state, county, and municipal governments  whose purchasing decisions are not directed by the White House  are also large automotive fleet sales customers. source material fleet sales A General Motors spokesman maintained in a response that the percentage of GM's overall June 2012 sales attributable to government purchases was rather low and the bulk of those purchases were from non-federal government agencies: GM sales spokesman, Jim Cain, points out that total government sales for GM in June were still below 5% of total sales and [the] majority of government sales increases were attributed to state and local governments. Bloomberg news reported that all fleet sales (including purchases by rental car companies, typically the largest fleet customers) made up only 32% of GM's overall sales in June 2012.  This number was comparable to that reported by Ford, who said  fleet sales accounted for 35% of their deliveries that month. Last updated:  10 September 2012    Trudell, Craig.  "Auto Sales in June Provided Bright Spot for U.S. Economy."   Bloomberg.  3 July 2012.    Press Release.  "GM Reports June U.S. Sales Up 16 Percent."   General Motors.  3 July 2012. In mid-December 2018, a graphic design company conducted a survey asking respondents in the U.S. and U.K. how they might change the conceptualization of Santa Claus to "modernize" his image.  Among the various responses were such suggestions as dressing Santa in skinny jeans and giving him an Amazon Prime membership. survey Among the survey questions, the GraphicSprings design company included one about whether Saint Nick should be a man, a woman, or "gender neutral." Many headlines reporting on the survey focused on respondents' expressing their preference for a gender-neutral or female Santa Claus, a scrutiny perhaps not surprising in the age of social media flame wars. What wasn't discussed, however, was an aspect of the story that was key, albeit boring: the survey's methodology.  GraphicSprings described their survey methodology as follows: Respondents ranged from 18 to 65+ and were based in both the UK and US. We used Google surveys and gathered responses during October and November 2018. Suggestions on how to change Santa were gathered from an open survey of 400 respondents from both the UK and US. A selection of these suggestions were then voted on by over 4000 people across the UK and US, with the most popular visualised in our graphic. GraphicSprings didn't explain who made the "selection" of suggestions that were included in the larger survey, or why they were chosen. Furthermore, many of the news stories about the survey didn't review the survey or note that the questions presented to participants were leading ones. survey For example, survey-takers were asked "If you could 'rebrand' Santa for modern society, what gender would he be?" Participants were provided three answers from which they could choose -- male, female or gender-neutral:   Writing for the Australian popular culture and news site Junkee, journalist Joseph Earp described the survey as a savvy but cruel tour de force in marketing that succeeded in raising GraphicSprings' media profile: Junkee The study was designed to generate a controversial result. Participants didnt come up with the idea to make Santa gender neutral: it was offered to them. The question wasnt: What would you do to modernise Santa?, or even What gender should Santa be? The question fed participants gender neutral as an answer. Thats a kind of bias that real studies, conducted by companies that arent just trying to mine some outrage, would have worked on eliminating. And its a kind of bias that GraphicSpring had a vested interest in not eliminating. They wanted an attention-grabbing result that would piss off boomers already convinced of the evils of PC culture, and they got it. In other words, the results of a viral survey designed by a company that specializes in making business cards and flyers probably was not intended to accurately measure public opinion. Claim:  "Poison pill" amendment inserted into Health Care Bill by Senator Reid makes proposed bill unamendable if passed. false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2010] The impudent tyranny of Sen. Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the maxim that darkness hates the light. Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation! Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: ". it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise!! [Rest of article here.] here   Origins:  The gist of this piece, a reproduction of a Washington Examiner editorial, is that Senator Harry Reid of Nevada furtively slipped language into a health care reform bill which would absolutely prevent Congress from ever modifying or repealing the section of the bill to which it applied.  Although the language cited does appear in the bill, it has been quoted out of context and its applicability has been exaggerated. editorial It is true that beginning on page 1,001 of the referenced measure, Section 3403 reads in part:  '... it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.'"  However, that sentence fragment is a misleading, selective excerpt which doesn't provide the full context.  The passage reads, in full: measure (A) IN GENERAL   It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, or amendment, pursuant to this subsection or conference report thereon, that fails to satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2).  (B) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS IN OTHER LEGISLATION  It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report (other than pursuant to this section) that would repeal or otherwise change the recommendations of the Board if that change would fail to satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2). (C) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS SUBSECTION.  It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection. What that means, in effect, is that Congress may not make modifications to the referenced section if such modifications do not meet criteria specified elsewhere  ["subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2)"] in the measure.  Those criteria are: (A) REQUIREMENTS.  Each proposal submitted under this section in a proposal year shall meet each of the following requirements:(i) If the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has made a determination under paragraph (7)(A) in the determination year, the proposal shall include recommendations so that the proposal as a whole (after taking into account recommendations under clause (v)) will result in a net reduction in total Medicare program spending in the implementation year that is at least equal to the applicable savings target established under paragraph (7)(B) for such implementation year. In determining whether a proposal meets the requirement of the preceding sentence, reductions in Medicare program spending during the 3-month period immediately preceding the implementation year shall be counted to the extent that such reductions are a result of the implementation of recommendations contained in the proposal for a change in the payment rate for an item or service that was effective during such period pursuant to subsection (e)(2)(A). (C) NO INCREASE IN TOTAL MEDICARE PROGRAM SPENDING.  Each proposal submitted under this section shall be designed in such a manner that implementation of the recommendations contained in the proposal would not be expected to result, over the 10-year period starting with the implementation year, in any increase in the total amount of net Medicare program spending relative to the total amount of net Medicare program spending that would have occurred absent such implementation. In other words,  these prolix passages do not absolutely bar any changes to the measure; they're simply protections that prohibit Congress from enacting modifications to the referenced section that would create an increase in net Medicare program spending or cause it to go over budget.  Moreover, page 1002 specifically states that such protections may be waived by a three-fifths vote of the Senate: (D) WAIVER.  This paragraph may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. (E) APPEALS.  An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this paragraph. Last updated:  22 March 2010 Claim:  Video shows a suspect in a police shooting committing suicide in an interview room.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2004] Is this video real? GRAPHIC IMAGE WARNING: Video shows a suicide by gunshot.  Origins:   Movies and television have planted sensationalized images of certain phenomena into the public consciousness, to the extent that when most of us see the real thing, we're disappointed that it seems so mundane.  In films and television programs, automobile crashes are always slam-bang affairs that inevitably end with one or more cars bursting into flame and exploding; thunder is always a very loud, sharp, and short report which occurs simultaneously with a bolt of lightning (rather  than a slow, distant, gradually increasing rumbling which arrives well after the lightning flash); and gunshots are usually depicted as producing ear-splitting volumes of sound and, when aimed at another human being, resulting in plenty of gore and splatter. It's no wonder, then, that when the above-displayed video of a detainee shooting himself while in police custody began to circulate, many viewers were skeptical of its authenticity  by Hollywood standards, it's so tame as to be almost surreal.   As depicted in the video, an uncuffed suspect enters an interrogation room and sits down in a chair, followed by an officer who dumps some keys and sunglasses on a table, checks his cell phone, and leaves the room momentarily.  The officer returns several seconds later with a bottle of water and a cup of coffee, then hands the water bottle to the suspect, checks his cell phone again, picks up the coffee, and exits the room a second time  leaving the suspect alone and unrestrained, and the door open.  The suspect takes a couple of swigs of water, then calmly reaches into his pants with his other hand, pulls out a large-caliber handgun, and shoots himself in the left temple. But what we see in the video is nothing like what most of us might expect.  The soon-to-be suicide victim is neither visibly nervous nor distraught as he freely pulls out a gun and places it against his head.  (He even replaces the cap on the water bottle before pulling the trigger.)  The weapon does not produce an ear-shattering concussive   sound in the small room, blood and brain matter don't splatter all over the walls, and the victim's body isn't hurtled out of the chair and onto the floor.  The gun makes a sharp popping sound as the suspect shoots himself, blood streams from the victim's head and mouth, his hands drop the gun and water bottle to the floor, and his body slumps but slightly in the chair. Even more unusual to many viewers is the officer's reaction to this event.  He doesn't respond with any of the emotions most of us might feel, such as fear, panic, terror, or disgust.  Nor does he rush to the victim's aid, check him for signs of life, summon help, or otherwise raise an alarm.  "Oh, fuck," he exclaims as he re-enters the room, puts his coffee down on the table, and surveys the scene for a second or two, then adds "Holy fuck."  When a second (unseen) officer inquires  "What did he do?" he responds with, "Nobody shook him" (i.e., nobody searched the suspect for weapons), then calmly retrieves the keys and sunglasses and leaves the room.  Throughout the short video, the officer's actions seem almost nonchalant: he doesn't act the least bit shocked or horrified that a human being has just died a violent death right in front of him. Instead, the foremost thought on his mind seems to be concern that someone's going to get into big trouble for the oversight of allowing a detainee to retain a weapon. (We realize, of course, that all of this would be viewed quite differently from a police perspective.  Officers undergo thorough instruction in the handling and use of firearms, they generally see far more blood and violence on the job than most of us will experience in our lifetimes, and they're trained to respond to emergency situations by following proper procedure rather than reacting with fear or panic.  We're simply presenting the average person's reaction to this video, as reflected in the e-mail we've received from readers who have viewed it.) The circumstances behind this video took place on 19 December 2003, when 47-year-old Ricardo Alfonso Cerna was stopped for a traffic violation at about 9:30 A.M. in Muscoy (a residential suburb of San Bernardino County, about 60 miles east of Los Angeles).  Cerna fled the scene (in his car and then on foot) before shooting the pursuing officer, sheriff's deputy Michael Parham, twice in the abdomen.  (Deputy Parham survived the shooting.)   Cerna was soon arrested by San Bernardino police and taken to sheriff's headquarters on Third Street, where he was placed in an interview room just before 11 A.M. in preparation for questioning by Bobby Dean, head of the San Bernardino County sheriff's homicide unit.   When Dean stepped out of the room briefly to speak with a detective in the hallway, Cerna pulled the .45-caliber handgun out of his pants and shot himself in the head.  Evidently a chain of mistakes led to Cerna, a shooting suspect, being taken into custody without either the arresting officers or the booking officers discovering he had a large, heavy handgun concealed on his person: [Sheriff Gary] Penrod said deputies failed to adequately search Cerna before he was put in a car, and again when he was transferred to the homicide division office. Each receiving deputy may have wrongly assumed the previous officer adequately searched the man, he said.  Penrod said confusion among the three agencies involved  the Highway Patrol, San Bernardino police and the Sheriff's Department  may have contributed to the oversight. "Obviously there was a mistake made," Penrod said by phone. "It was hectic and it was a guy who was cuffed by somebody other than the transporting officer. (This apparently egregious oversight led to conspiracy-theory speculation in some quarters that Cerna had been "executed" by the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department, or that the sheriff returned the gun to Cerna and urged him to commit suicide with it  the completely implausible scenario of officers' deliberately handing a loaded gun to a suspect who had already shot one policeman notwithstanding.) executed returned As to how the video of Cerna's suicide made it onto the Internet, sheriff's spokesman Chip Patterson said:  [A] ranking official at the department was authorized to show the video during a presentation on officer safety at the FBI's training academy in Quantico, Va., several months ago. Following the presentation, dozens of copies of the video were made at the request of law-enforcement agencies across the country. Officials of those agencies wanted the copies for training purposes. Sheriff's officials do not know who might have leaked the video to the public.  Some of the officers involved in Cerna's arrest and handling were subjected to disciplinary action, but sheriff's officials wouldn't comment on the specifics of that action or identify the officers involved.  Last updated:  19 January 2014    Nelson, Joe.  "Sheriff's Detainee's Suicide Put on Web."   San Bernardino County Sun.  21 December 2004.    Associated Press.  "Arrestee Pulls Hidden Gun, Kills Self."    CNN.com.  20 December 2003. On 4 July 2015, the Facebook page "What the 'F' Facts" shared a photograph along with a claim that a Kentucky man named Larry Rutman had sued himself and won $300,000 (paid by his insurance company) after he hit himself in the head with a boomerang:  The "What the 'F' Facts" post renewed interest in the story of Larry Rutman, which was nothing more than a fictional tale that has been floating around the online world since it was first published in the Weekly World News back in 1996: published "A Kentucky man who threw a boomerang that flew back and clobbered him in the head promptly filed a $300,000 lawsuit against himself  and incredibly, he was awarded the money! But most amazing of all is the fact that the guy will get the money from his insurance company  and he personally won't have to pay a cent. "The accident occurred on my property so my homeowners insurance was liable for it," Rutman said of the April 18 accident. "Some of my neighbors say this is crazy but it's perfectly logical when you think about it. I paid that insurance for a long time just in case something unforseen like this ever happened. And now all those years of paying premiums have turned out to be worthwhile."  The Weekly World News is, of course, a former supermarket tabloid (now operating in online form only) known for its fantastically fictional stories about subjects such as a zookeeper's being killed by elephant feces, a scientist's plot to blow up the sun, and a tree that grows meat. This fake news item received some additional unwarranted credibility when it was reported by the South China Morning Post in August 1996. elephant feces plot tree reported In June 2023, viral social media posts claimed to show Tom Cruise's eerily similar-looking stunt doubles posing in a photograph together. According to the posts, the menallegedly took his place to perform stunts duringthefilming of the latest "Mission Impossible" film. The image was fake. Not only did it show visual clues of being inauthentic  for instance, the "Tom Cruise" double in the middle appeared to be missing fingernails  we tracked down aFacebook user who took credit for makingthe image(as well as others like it) via an artificial-intelligence-powered (AI) software program. Facebook user the image Tom Cruise stunts double Tom is not even in the picture ,he took the picture pic.twitter.com/x43zVYw8KH pic.twitter.com/x43zVYw8KH  Brother G.O (@OyinTGSPE) June 9, 2023 June 9, 2023  100% AI. Look at this. Tom Cruise does his own stunts like the Burj Khalifa and that motor stunt of a cliff, so he does not use stunt double. pic.twitter.com/Wu2ZhopZ0B pic.twitter.com/Wu2ZhopZ0B  DarkKnight (@iamshinerk) June 7, 2023 June 7, 2023  When we looked closely at the three faces in the image, we noted that, while they looked eerilylike Cruise, they appeared to be images modeled off his face but with small differences in facial features. Their complexions also appearedinauthentically smooth, with wax-like skin.For comparison, we looked at2023pictures of Cruisetaken by Getty Images. 2023 pictures taken by Getty Images We also did a reverse-image search on Google and found no credible source saying the in-question image was a real photograph. reverse-image On June 3, 2023, a Facebook account for Midjourney, an AI-powered program that creates digital images based on prompts, shared the images of Cruise and his alleged "stunt doubles" in apostby Singapore-based user Ong Hui Woo. Woo wrote, "If you intend to copy and paste these photos on your website or your FB, please at least mentioned and give credit to the original creator (which is me) or Midjourney, the platform where all these images are created." post (Ong Hui Woo/Facebook) We reached out to Woo, who told us that he created the images on June 3, 2023, and posted them to the Midjourney Facebook page on the same day. Given that the in-question image has visual signs of being fake, that we did not find a reliable media outlet calling it real, and that we identified a Facebook user who took credit for its creation via an AI-image generator, we have rated this claim "Fake." We frequently fact-check AI-generated images and have many tips on how to identify them. AI-generated images many tips Evon, Dan. "Snopes Tips: A Guide To Performing Reverse Image Searches." Snopes, 22 Mar. 2022, https://www.snopes.com/articles/400681/how-to-perform-reverse-image-searches/.Accessed 9 June 2023. Ibrahim, Nur. "Facebook Chat with Ong Hui Woo." 9 June 2023. Lee, David Emery, Jessica. "4 Tips for Spotting AI-Generated Pics." Snopes, 16 Apr. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/articles/464595/artificial-intelligence-media-literacy/.Accessed 9 June 2023. "LIVE! Jimmy Kimmel Live! Airs Every Weeknight at 11:35 p.m. ET And..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/jimmy-kimmel-live-airs-every-weeknight-at-11-35-p-m-et-and-news-photo/1247561509. Accessed 9 June 2023. "Tom Cruise at the 34th Annual Producers Guild Awards Held at The..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/tom-cruise-at-the-34th-annual-producers-guild-awards-held-news-photo/1247493313. Accessed 9 June 2023. "Tom Cruise Walks on the Grid Prior to the Running of the Formula 1..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/tom-cruise-walks-on-the-grid-prior-to-the-running-of-the-news-photo/1253020214. Accessed 9 June 2023.