Starving Child and Vulture
If a hundred of the most talented members of the advertising industry were tasked with creating an image to illustrate the concepts of poverty and famine, quite possibly none of them would come up with anything nearly as grippingly and devastatingly effective as a 1993 picture snapped by South African freelance photographer Kevin Carter: The PHOTO in the mail is the "Pulitzer prize" winning photo taken in 1994 during the Sudan famine. The picture depicts a famine stricken child crawling towards an United Nations food camp, located a kilometer away. The vulture is waiting for the child to die so that it can eat it. This picture shocked the whole world. No one knows what happened to the child, including the photographer Kevin Carter who left the place as soon as the photograph was taken. Three months later he committed suicide due to depression. This was found in his diary, "Dear God, I promise I will never waste my food no matter how bad it can taste and how full I may be I pray that He will protect this little boy, guide and deliver him away from his misery. I pray that we will be more sensitive towards the world around us and not be blinded be our own selfish nature and interests." I hope this picture will always serve as a reminder to us that how fortunate we are and that we must never ever take things for granted.  His poignant photograph of an emaciated toddler who collapsed from hunger on her way to a feeding center in famine-ravaged Sudan while a vulture ominously loomed in the background was originally published in the New York Times (which later described it as "a metaphor for Africa's despair") and earned Carter the 1994 Pulitzer Prize in the Feature Photography category, and the image has since become widely known as a metaphor for Africa's despair. Pulitzer Prize As described in Time magazine, the scene Carter captured in his now-famous photograph was one he stumbled across during a trip he made on his own in order to cover the civil strife in war-torn Sudan: In 1993 Carter headed north of the border with [friend and fellow journalist] Joo Silva to photograph the rebel movement in famine-stricken Sudan. To make the trip, Carter had taken a leave from the [South Africa] Weekly Mail and borrowed money for the air fare. Immediately after their plane touched down in the village of Ayod, Carter began snapping photos of famine victims. Seeking relief from the sight of masses of people starving to death, he wandered into the open bush. He heard a soft, high-pitched whimpering and saw a tiny girl trying to make her way to the feeding center. As he crouched to photograph her, a vulture landed in view. Careful not to disturb the bird, he positioned himself for the best possible image. He would later say he waited about 20 minutes, hoping the vulture would spread its wings. It did not, and after he took his photographs, he chased the bird away and watched as the little girl resumed her struggle. Afterward he sat under a tree, lit a cigarette, talked to God and cried. "He was depressed afterward," Silva recalls. "He kept saying he wanted to hug his daughter." After another day in Sudan, Carter returned to Johannesburg. Coincidentally, the New York Times, which was looking for pictures of Sudan, bought his photograph and ran it on March 26, 1993. The picture immediately became an icon of Africa's anguish. Hundreds of people wrote and called the Times asking what had happened to the child (the paper reported that it was not known whether she reached the feeding center); and papers around the world reproduced the photo. Friends and colleagues complimented Carter on his feat. His self-confidence climbed. But Kevin Carter was also a troubled soul, struggling with issues such as financial insecurity, drug problems, failed relationships, and the horrors of having witnessed multiple scenes of death  enough of a burden for anyone to struggle with, but in Carter's case a burden made extra-heavy by the critical condemnation heaped upon him for taking the photograph that had made him world-famous: Though the photo helped draw enormous attention to the humanitarian crisis that was engulfing Sudan, it was criticized by others who felt that Carter should have helped the girl and was instead exploiting her suffering for his gain. The real vulture, they said in vitriolic hate mail, was Carter himself. Some photojournalists might have easily dismissed such criticism, but it hit Carter hard and fed his self-doubts. On 27 July 1994, barely two months after having received his Pulitzer Prize, 33-year-old Kevin Carter could shoulder that burden no more and took his own life: The Braamfonteinspruit is a small river that cuts southward through Johannesburg's northern suburbs  and through Parkmore, where the Carters once lived. At around 9 p.m., Kevin Carter backed his red Nissan pickup truck against a blue gum tree at the Field and Study Center. He had played there often as a little boy. The Sandton Bird Club was having its monthly meeting there, but nobody saw Carter as he used silver gaffer tape to attach a garden hose to the exhaust pipe and run it to the passenger-side window. Wearing unwashed Lee jeans and an Esquire T-shirt, he got in and switched on the engine. Then he put music on his Walkman and lay over on his side, using the knapsack as a pillow. The suicide note he left behind is a litany of nightmares and dark visions, a clutching attempt at autobiography, self-analysis, explanation, excuse. After coming home from New York, he wrote, he was "depressed ... without phone ... money for rent ... money for child support ... money for debts ... money!!! ... I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings & corpses & anger & pain ... of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners ... " Although the purported diary entry (beginning "Dear God, I promise I will never waste my food") that has been tacked onto this photograph may sound like something Kevin Carter might have written, those words were not recorded in his diary, nor are they known to have been written or spoken by him.  They were added to the photograph by an unknown hand after the picture had been circulating on the Internet for several years. Kevin Carter's life (and death) was the subject of the 2004 documentary, The Life of Kevin Carter. The Life of Kevin Carter Keller, Bill.  "Kevin Carter, a Pulitzer Winner for Sudan Photo, Is Dead at 33."
  The New York Times.  29 July 1994  (p. B8).

 MacLeod, Scott.  "The Life and Death of Kevin Carter."
  Time.  12 September 1994.

 McMurtrie, John.  "A Photographer's Burden of Seeing the World's Despair."
  San Francisco Chronicle.  2 May 2005.
During the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign, social media postings repeatedly warned readers that Democratic candidate Joe Biden was planning to slap a 3% federal tax on the value of homes, above and beyond any property taxes homeowners were already paying:   However, this warning about a Biden-backed federal property tax was specious. Property taxes in the U.S. are set and collected at the state, county, and city levels, and the announced Biden Tax Plan includes nothing that could be remotely construed as imposing an additional federal property tax on privately-owned homes. announced Biden Tax Plan The Tax Foundation, an independent tax policy nonprofit, summarizes the Biden tax plan as including the following primary elements applicable to individuals (rather than businesses): summarizes Imposes a 12.4 percent Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (Social Security) payroll tax on income earned above $400,000, evenly split between employers and employees. This would create a donut hole in the current Social Security payroll tax, where wages between $137,700, the current wage cap, and $400,000 are not taxed. Reverts the top individual income tax rate for taxable incomes above $400,000 from 37 percent under current law to the pre-Tax Cuts and Jobs Act level of 39.6 percent. Taxes long-term capital gains and qualified dividends at the ordinary income tax rate of 39.6 percent on income above $1 million and eliminates step-up in basis for capital gains taxation. Caps the tax benefit of itemized deductions to 28 percent of value for those earning more than $400,000, which means that taxpayers earning above that income threshold with tax rates higher than 28 percent would face limited itemized deductions. Restores the Pease limitation on itemized deductions for taxable incomes above $400,000. Phases out the qualified business income deduction (Section 199A) for filers with taxable income above $400,000. Expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for childless workers aged 65+; provides renewable-energy-related tax credits to individuals. Expands the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) from a maximum of $3,000 in qualified expenses to $8,000 ($16,000 for multiple dependents) and increases the maximum reimbursement rate from 35 percent to 50 percent. For 2021 and as long as economic conditions require, increases the Child Tax Credit (CTC) from a maximum value of $2,000 to $3,000 for children 17 or younger, while providing a $600 bonus credit for children under 6. The CTC would also be made fully refundable, removing the $2,500 reimbursement threshold and 15 percent phase-in rate. Reestablishes the First-Time Homebuyers Tax Credit, which was originally created during the Great Recession to help the housing market. Bidens homebuyers credit would provide up to $15,000 for first-time homebuyers. Expands the estate and gift tax by restoring the rate and exemption to 2009 levels. Similar analysis of Biden's tax plan by other entities include no mention of a federal property tax. analysis Watson, Garrett et al.  "Details and Analysis of Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Bidens Tax Plan/
  Tax Foundation.  22 October 2020. Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.  "Understanding Joe Biden's 2020 Tax Plan."
  30 July 2020. Newsbrokeon May 27, 2015 that an agreement was close on how to pay for a new $500 million arena for the Milwaukee Bucks, the basketball team that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar once led to glory. Some details of the proposed arrangement between the Bucks and state and local government officials were new. But the overallcost sharing was, more or less, what hadlong beenexpected: The Bucks owners would pay half and taxpayers would pay half. According to Tim Sheehy, president of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce, such a split would be good for taxpayers. Here is whathe saidApril 10, 2015 on Here and Now, a Wisconsin Public Television show: If this comes out close to a 50-50 partnership, it will be much better -- in terms of the portion of the public financing -- than most of the other arena projects done around the country. In other words, Sheehy, who supports the new arena, is saying that taxpayers picking up half the tab for a new Milwaukee arena is relatively low, compared to how much taxpayers have contributed toward arenas for other National Basketball Association teams. The parties set a self-imposeddeadlineof May 29, 2015 to try and finalize the financing deal, which would have to be approved, likely within the next few weeks, as part of the 2015-17 state budget. So, lets take a look. The Bucks and their arenas The Bucksjoined the NBA in the 1968-69 season. Led byAbdul-Jabbarand another future Hall of Famer, Oscar Robertson, they won their only league championship in the 1970-71 season. That,according tothe team, meant the Bucks went further, faster, than any expansion team in the history of major professional sports. In recent years, however, the Bucks have struggled, and that is one reason there has been a drive to build a new arena. The teams current home -- the $90 millionBMO Harris Bradley Center, which was built through a donation by the late Milwaukee philanthropist Jane Bradley Pettit -- opened in 1988. The 18,600-seat arena is thethird-oldestand the third-smallest in the 30-team NBA. Momentum for a new arena picked up in April 2014, when the Bucks longtime owner, former U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl of Milwaukee,announcedhe was selling the team to New York hedge-fund investors Marc Lasry and Wesley Edens. Kohl and the new owners pledged to contribute $250 million toward a new arena. Coming up with the other $250 million has been the sticking point,leading to months of negotiations involvingGov. Scott Walker, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele. There is time pressure in that the NBA has said a new arena must be built by the fall of 2017, or Milwaukee would risk losing the team to another market. Other arena deals To see how other NBA arenas have been financed, we turned to two sources: The 2012 edition of Financing Economic Development in the 21st Century,  a textbook that includesa chapteron financing professional sports facilities. And a database,last updatedin August 2014, that is maintained by Marquette University Law Schools National Sports Law Institute. Weve listed the 15 NBA arenas -- comprising half the arenas in the league -- that have been built since 1999. We went back to 1999 because a wave of NBA arenas -- seven of them -- went up that year. As well see, there is some disagreement between the figures provided by the textbook and by Marquette. Holy Cross College sports economistVictor Matheson, who wrote the sports facilities chapter in the textbook, told us thats not surprising because there are different ways to define a public contribution and because stadium financing deals arent always transparent. Based on the two sources we checked, at least eight of the 15 NBA arenas built since 1999 were financed with more than 50 percent taxpayer support. Indeed, although there is some variation in the figures in the two sources, seven of the eight arenas were built with at least 82 percent public money (the total cost figures are according to the textbook). Arenas built with more than 50% public money NBA city Year arena built Total cost Portion paid by taxpayers per the texbook Portion paid by taxpayers per Marquette Orlando 2010 $480 million 90% 87.5% Charlotte 2005 $265 million 100% 100% Memphis 2004 $250 million 100% 83% Houston 2003 $235 million 82% 100% San Antonio 2002 $186 million 85% 84% Oklahoma City 2002 $89 million 100% 100% Miami 1999 $213 million 100% 59% New Orleans 1999 $114 million 100% 100%  Conversely, the textbook and Marquette agree that only four of the arenas were built with taxpayer contributions of 50 percent or less. Arenas built with 50% or less public money NBA city Year arena built Total cost Portion paid by taxpayers per the textbook Portion paid by taxpayers per Marquette Dallas 2001 $420 million 50% 30% Toronto 1999 $265 million 0% 0% Denver 1999 $160 million 22% 3% Los Angeles 1999 $375 million 16% 19%  There was not agreement between the between the two sources on the public portion paid for arenas in Brooklyn, Indianapolis and Atlanta: NBA city Year arena built Total cost Portion paid by taxpayers per the texbook Portion paid by taxpayers per Marquette Indianapolis 1999 $183 million 100% 43% Atlanta 1999 $214 million 29% 91% Brooklyn 2010 $637 million 24% N/A  Our rating Sheehy said a 50-50 public-private split for paying for a new Milwaukee Bucks arena would be much better in terms of the portion of the public financing than most of the other arena projects done around the country. Of the 15 NBA arenas -- comprising half the cities in the league -- built since 1999, at least eight were built with more than 50 percent of the money coming from taxpayers. Seven of those eight were built with at least 82 percent public money. We rate his statement True. In March 2021, fake email renewals for Norton Internet Security landed in inboxes and spam folders, and warned of devices infected with viruses. An example email had the subject line: "your norton subscription has expired your device has been infected with viruses n020953." A variation said the same thing with a different ending number: "your norton subscription has expired your device has been infected with viruses n915093." The email that appeared to be from "Norton-Support2021" notified users that their supposed subscription to Norton Internet Security had expired.  The Norton renewal offer was a scam.  The headline claimed that recipients' devices had become infected with viruses. However, that seemingly important item didn't appear in the body of the email: EXPIRATION NOTIFICATION Our records indicate that your subscription to Norton Internet Security Expired on: 20 Feb 2021 11:11:22 -0500 Therefore, you are no longer receiving automatic updates that protect you against the latest threats, including viruses, spyware, hackers, and identity thieves. If you are browsing, banking, shopping, checking email or doing anything online, we highly recommend you renew your subscription now and get the new Norton Internet Security. Renew Now You will receive a full year of protection for up to 3 household PCs and peace of mind when you're online. Sincerely,The Norton Team This was not a legitimate email from Norton AntiVirus or Norton Internet Security. In an example email we reviewed, all links in the message pointed to a website hosted on a Brazilian domain. The "unsubscribe" link at the bottom of the message led to the scam as well. If readers receive a suspicious email that claims to be from Norton, desktop users can safely hover over links (but not click on them) in order to see where they lead. If they don't go to an official Norton website, such as "norton.com," do not click the link. Also, the email address the message came from appeared to begin with "Norton-Support2021@" and end with a long string of random letters. The email address did not end in "@norton.com" or anything similar. The company published a page to help keep Norton users safe from these kinds of renewal email virus scams. For example, it listed several email addresses they used to send official correspondence: norton@nortonlifelock.com, norton@secure.norton.com, ems@norton.com, lifelock@secure.norton.com, and information@mail.nortonstore.hk. published a page It's true that Norton may send renewal offers. However, such offers will never arrive with completely lowercase subject lines. Further, there was no indication that Norton notifies customers "your device has been infected with viruses" in renewal email offers. "The URLs in our emails point to the server at: https://secure.norton.com. Make sure that the URLs begin with https:// and has a norton.com or lifelock.com domain." Norton users who run the company's apps will potentially receive official emails from noreply@norton.com, no-reply@nortonlifelock.com, NortonAccount@norton.com, norton@nortonlifelock.com, and management@norton.com. Other email addresses are covered on the Norton Support page. Norton Support page We've covered concerns regarding computer viruses since the 1990s. For example, the purported virus in a Budweiser frogs screensaver first made the rounds in 1997. Thankfully, it was a hoax. made the rounds Twenty-four years later, the Norton emails being received by readers were not a hoax. We recommend proceeding with caution when reviewing potentially harmful messages. Hovering over links to see where they lead is safe, but clicking on them may not be. In sum, fake renewal email offers appeared to be from Norton Internet Security and claimed that devices were infected with viruses. This was not official correspondence from the company. The scams should be avoided. Haiti's relationship with the United States and Europe can most charitably be described as complicated. Haiti's earliest days were characterized by oppression and opposition: the country (once the French colony of St. Domingue) was born from a successful slave insurgency and declared its independence in 1804. This beginning characterized an often-antagonistic relationship between countries that profited handsomely from African slavery (such as the United States) and Haiti. Foremost among fears about Haiti was that slaves would learn successful uprisings were possible. insurgency profited After Haiti formally declared its independence, the United States suspended all diplomatic and trade relationships with the country. While the U.S. eventually re-opened trading routes, America didn't recognize Haiti diplomatically for nearly sixty years after that. Other countries followed the United States' example (and France demanded millions of francs in reparations for its rebellion in exchange for recognizing Haiti as a sovereign nation) plunging Haiti into debt and an economic depression that lasted for years, from which the country never fully recovered. eventually Multiple invasions and economic and political tinkering followed, leaving Haiti in a turmoil of political instability and corruption, economic crisis, and a ravaged infrastructure, historically one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere, despite its fertile land and ability to grow cash crops such as sugar. tinkering poorest Today, child labor and trafficking are endemic in Haiti, particularly in the country's manufacturing sector, which is outsourced to foreign companies (many of them contractors for American companies, such as Hanes, Dockers, and Fruit of the Loom). Even when they are not trafficked, laborers in Haiti's garment industry earn a pittance by the standards of other countries: the minimum wage was $0.24 (USD) an hour for many years. trafficking In June 2009, the Haitian Parliament unanimously passed a law requiring that the minimum wage be raised to $0.61 an hour, or $5 a day. (The average cost of living is estimated to be the equivalent of about $23 a day.) This pay raise was staunchly opposed by foreign manufacturers who had set up shop in the country, and the United States Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development backed those manufacturers. After Haiti's government mandated the raise, the United States aggressively (and successfully) pushed Haiti's president to lower the minimum wage for garment workers to what factory owners were willing to pay: the equivalent of about $0.31 an hour (or $2.50 per eight-hour day). estimated lower In 2011, WikiLeaks released a set of previously-secret diplomatic cables. The American publication The Nation partnered with Haitian news organization Hati Libert to cover them, finding (among other things) how strongly the United States had opposed the minimum wage hike: WikiLeaks partnered Hati Libert cover among other things To resolve the impasse between the factory owners and Parliament, the State Department urged quick intervention by then Haitian President Ren Prval. A more visible and active engagement by Prval may be critical to resolving the issue of the minimum wage and its protest spin-offor risk the political environment spiraling out of control, argued US Ambassador Janet Sanderson in a June 10, 2009, cable back to Washington. Two months later Prval negotiated a deal with Parliament to create a two-tiered minimum wage increaseone for the textile industry at about $3 per day and one for all other industrial and commercial sectors at about $5 per day. Still the US Embassy wasn't pleased. A deputy chief of mission, David E. Lindwall, said the $5 per day minimum did not take economic reality into account but was a populist measure aimed at appealing to the unemployed and underpaid masses. The Obama administration (and the Bush administration before it) had been closely monitoring the situation in the garment manufacturing sector for a long time. In 2006, Congress passed the HOPE bill (which stood for the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement) and provided duty-free entry to garments manufactured in Haiti for U.S. companies. That body also passed an updated version of the bill (HOPE II) in 2008, which mandated a framework for labor reform in factories. According to cables released by WikiLeaks, it was exactly these efforts that the United States claimed would be jeopardized by a higher minimum wage. HOPE HOPE II higher  So it's true that the State Department (then led by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State) strongly opposed a minimum wage increase in Haiti in 2009. However, the State Department's efforts did not occur in a political or economic vacuum, and Clinton wasn't the sole architect of efforts to quash a minimum wage hike (as the meme suggests). It was a concerted effort on the part of Haitian elites, factory owners, free trade proponents, U.S. politicians, economists, and American companies that kept the minimum wage so low, and to lay the blame squarely at the feet of any sitting Secretary of State would be an incomplete assessment, and thus inaccurate. A law establishing a new minimum wage of $5.11 per workday ($0.64 an hour) was finally approved in 2014, which still fell far short of both the demanded raise by workers (to the equivalent of $11.36 per workday, or $1.42 per hour) and the recommended daily wage of 1,006 Haitian gourdes, or USD$22.86. approved recommended gourdes Related rumors of the Clintons' relationship to Haiti appeared in October 2016, this time alleging that after the Haiti's infrastructure was devastated by a major earthquake in 2010, the State Department steered relief contracts to personal friends of the Clintons. However, while Hillary Clinton did recommend specific companies to help with the rebuilding process and e-mails have surfaced indicating that special attention was given to "FoBs" ("Friends of Bill"), there's no evidence that the United States government awarded contracts to any of those contenders. earthquake recommend e-mails evidence Alexander, Leslie.  "A Pact with the Devil? The United States and the Fate of Modern Haiti."
  Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective, Vol. 4, Issue 5.  February 2011. Coughlin, Dan and Kim Ives.  "Let Them Live on $3 a Day."
  The Nation.  1 June 2011. Dubois, Laurent.  "Haiti: The Aftershocks of History."
  Metropolitan Books: Henry Holt and Company, 2012. U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian.  "Milestones: 1784-1800: The United States and the Haitian Revolution."
  Accessed 5 April 2016. Federal Procurement Data System.  "Haiti Earthquake Report."
  Accessed 5 April 2016. Apr. 6, 2016: Statements were added to the What's True and What's False fields of this article to better explicate its rating. Oct. 7, 2016: This article was modified to incorporate a related rumor, to adjust the wording of the subhead and claim, and to add supplementary sources.  Jan. 12, 2018: The rating for this article was adjusted from true to  to better reflect post-publication revisions. Claim:  Most of the $100 million raised from ALS 'Ice Bucket Challenge' donations won't go to ALS-related research and services. Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2014] Origins:  The email quoted above and other versions of it began to circulate on 28 August 2014, with widespread social media concern over the fate of 'Ice Bucket Challenge' funds donated to the ALS following shortly thereafter. On 27 August 2014, The ALS Association posted a press release confirming that the organization had received $94.3 million in donations between 29 July and 27 August 2014 due to the popularity of the Ice Bucket Challenge. In the release, Barbara Newhouse, President and CEO of The ALS Association, addressed the large infusion of funds and the organization's sudden social media fame: press release Given the large amount of cash suddenly flowing in the direction of The ALS Association, it's natural a public questioning of sorts would follow. After all, not every charity is well administrated, and not every cause is free of bad actors who would exploit public interest for financial gain. Services such as Charity Navigator, an independent assessor of charitable organizations, can be helpful in diffusing concerns in a situation such as the Ice Bucket Challenge phenomenon. According to the site, the ALS Association has a record of high transparency and ranks high in other areas, receiving an overall 90.73/100 rating anda four out of four stars ranking from Charity Navigator. Charity Navigator The claim made in the email above, that 73% of donations fund executive salaries and overhead, is demonstrably false. Charity Navigator's breakdown of the ALS Association's finances for the fiscal year ending January 2013 shows that 72.4% of the ALS Association's budget during that period was used for program expenses  that is, the programs and services the ALS Association delivers to the ALS community according to its mission, such as professional and public education, research into ALS treatments and cures, and patient and community services. Of the remaining budget, 11% went to administrative expenses and 16.5% to fundraising expenses. It appears that someone confused the term "program expenses" with "overhead" and mistakenly assumed the former represented money spent on bureaucracy rather than the vital ALS-related services provided by the ALS Association. The ALS Association's most recent fiscal year reporting is available on its website, with more detailed reports linked on the same page. fiscal year Last updated:  29 August 2014 A viral post claiming that the logo for the Levi's brand of jean represents a slave being torn apart by horses likely refers to a speech ostensibly delivered by William Lynch on the bank of the James River in Virginia in 1712 to a group of slave owners: MUST READ!!!!! I'm Done Wearing "Levi Jeans". This was just brought to my attention, Back in slavery days they would "Beat" and "Kill" the strongest Black Man On The Plantation. They would do so in front of his family and every other slaves on the plantation. After He'd been beaten, they would tie two "ROPES" one to each of his "LEGS" and those ropes were tied to "TWO HORSES" they would then proceed to beat the horses making them run in opposite directions. Eventually the horses would rip his legs from his body...... The Logo on "Levi Jeans" shows how this process went. You see the two "Slave" owners whipping the horses and the ropes visibly connected from the horses to the mans legs. It's supposed to be amusing and to show how hard it would be to actually tear a pair of these jeans that's why the words "Quality Clothing" appears over both of the horses. Smh I've been wearing these jeans for years, WELL NOT ANYMORE!  While many historians believe that reports of this speech are a hoax, it is widely shared as an accurate depiction of how slave owners attempted to control their slaves: "Take the meanest and most restless (slave), strip him of his clothes in front of the remaining male (slaves), the female, and the (slave)infant, tar and feather him, tie each leg to a different horse faced in opposite directions, set him a fire and beat both horses to pull him apart in front of the remaining (slaves)." speech While those tactics might possibly have been employed by some slave owners at the time, no evidence suggests the Levi's jeans logo is an homage to this horrible concept. The primary selling point of the pants manufactured by the company Levi Strauss founded in 1853 was that they were not subject to tearing as other manufacturer's pants were due to the company's use of patented copper rivets to reinforce points of strain where pants typically tore, primarily the pocket corners and the base of the button fly.  The Levi's "two horse" logo was created in 1886 in an attempt to illustrate that most important of selling points to 19th century buyers: created Recognize the animals above? They've been part of the Levi's brand since 1886. But what you see here is something new  the freshest version of what we call the Two Horse patch. When you're a company that prides itself on both heritage and innovation, you want to tell that story as vividly and compellingly as possible. And for us, the Two Horse logo does just that. As the company Historian, let me share a bit of history. In 1873, Jacob Davis and company founder Levi Strauss invented the first blue jeans using their patented process of securing clothing at "points of strain" with rivets. The result: strong jeans that could stand up to the hard work thrown at them by miners and other hard-working individuals of the time. Levi Strauss & Co. knew the patent would expire in 1890, so we needed to quickly make sure consumers understood how good  and strong  the company's jeans were. But how do you tell that story in a way that consumers could quickly grasp? Well, one of the answers was the image of two horses  each pulling in the opposite direction on the same pair of jeans, trying in vain to tear them apart. Given that the Levi Strauss clothing company's original location and market base was an area of the United States where slavery was not legal (the company was founded in California, a free state, which was bordered by other non-slave states and territories), it's unlikely Levi Strauss would have depended upon his customer base's recognizing a supposed Southern plantation slavery practice to understand the brand's logo.  All the more so since the logo wasn't even unveiled until more than twenty years after slavery had been abolished all throughout the United States. Also note that in the Levi's logo, the ropes leading from the horses are attached to the hip area of the pants  if the image were supposed to be a literal graphical representation of pulling a man's legs apart, the ropes would be tied much farther down on the legs  (below the knee, close to the ankle).  As noted above, the image is intended to reinforce Levi Strauss' patented rivet solution to one of the most troublesome points of tearing in pants, the pocket corners (which are up near the hips, not down the leg): Levi Strauss took Facebook in an attempt to dispel this rumor: Facebook   The Levi's "two horse" logo symbolizes nothing more sinister than Levi's original rivet patent and the attendant strength of their jeans. In December 2016, several web sites reported that Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, sons of President-elect Donald Trump, were selling access to their father via a fundraising event called "Opening Day 45" scheduled for the day after his inauguration: several reported BREAKING: Donald Trumps Kids Are Selling Access To Their Father For A $1 Million Donation  This Is IMPEACHABLE! [DETAILS] The shamelessness of President-elect Donald Trump and his family is limitless and without boundaries. They do not care about the appearance of impropriety or actual impropriety. That is why Trumps sons, Eric and Donald Jr., founded a non-profit organization to funnel money through when they sell access to Trump once he is inaugurated. Indeed, Fascism has come to America in the form of an orange failed businessman with a penchant for using racial slurs. The non-profit the Trump offspring founded is named the Opening Day Foundation, and they are offering Trumps richest supporters the grand opportunity of private access. However, the access comes with a price tag of a cool one million dollars. Individuals who are rich, but not rich enough to attempt to buy a favor from the president, can also purchase time with either of the Trump boys for as little as $25,000. What does one purchase besides time with Trump? Certain packages include pictures and a private reception with the president. Others include a multi-day hunting trip, or a fishing trip with Eric or Donald Jr. Reports that the Trump sons were selling access to their father began on 16 December 2016 when the gossip web site TMZ published a draft of an invitation for the "Opening Day 45" event. The unofficial invitation featured several packages which donors could buy, such as the $1 million "Bald Eagle" package (which included a photo opportunity with the president-elect) or the $500,000 "Grizzly Bear" package (which included a hunting trip with Donald Jr. and Eric Trump): TMZ published  The Washington Post reported that the Trump sons were temporarily listed as "hosts" of the event on the "Opening Day 45" web site. However, Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks said that the initial invitation was just a draft and had not been approved by Trump's transition team. Furthermore, Hicks added, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump were not involved with the event: reported Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump are avid outdoorsman and supporters of conservation efforts, which align with the goals of this event, however they are not involved in any capacity, she said in a statement. Additionally, the President-elect is not aware of the event or the details pertaining to. While Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump may not be involved with the planning of this particular event, they were listed as members of the Board of Directors on paperwork filed to register the non-profit "Opening Day" foundation on 14 December 2016. Again, however, Trump's transition team asserted that Eric and Donald Jr. were included on the foundation's paperwork without their permission: paperwork But transition officials said the Trump sons were listed on the document without their permission and have asked the Texas secretary of state to remove their names. [Mark Brinkerhoff, a spokesman for the event] confirmed that they should not have been named as directors of the Opening Day Foundation. He said that the paperwork filed last week was not the official filing and that new documents would be submitted shortly. Still, he said the Trump brothers were supportive of the foundation and its goals. Eric and Donald Trump Jr.'s level of involvement with the organization is still unclear. A new version of the invitation for "Opening Day 45" published on the event web site on 20 December 2016 listed them as "honorary chairmen" but not organizers or hosts.  invitation The photo opportunity with President-elect Donald Trump, as well as the hunting trip with his sons, was also absent from the newer invitation. Instead, donors who spent $1 million on the "Bald Eagle" package would get a private reception with unnamed VIPs and celebrities associated with the event:  This version of the invitation is no longer available on the web site, however, which now leads to a "Coming Soon" page. We've reached out to event spokesman Mark Brinkerhoff to clarify some information regarding the event.  TMZ.  "Donald Trump & Family Celebrate Hunters and Fisherman at Inauguration Bash."
  20 December 2016. Gold, Matea.  "Offer of Access to Trump and Family at Fundraiser Is Pulled Back, But Ties Remain."
  The Washington Post.  20 December 2016. The Center for Public Integrity.   "Donald Trump's Sons Behind Nonprofit Selling Access to President-Elect."
  19 December 2016. On 16 March 2019, an image of President Donald Trump bestowing a Purple Heart decoration on a wounded veteran named Clint Trial went viral after a Facebook user shared it along with the claim that the event "didn't make the news": Facebook user shared   The text of the meme reads: "The President Awarding a Purple Heart to Marine MSGT Clint Trial. This Didn't Make the News, Share, Because It Should Have." This is a genuine photograph of President Trump awarding a Purple Heart to a wounded veteran reportedly named Clint Trial. While the majority of "news media blackout" claims that we've encountered  an allegation often levied in an attempt to either spread fake news or to push narratives of biased reporting  have proved false, in this case, it's true that mainstream news outlets provided little (if any) coverage of this event. fake news narratives biased So why didn't this photograph make the news? While many social media users shared this image as "evidence" of the news media's alleged bias against President Trump, that claim wasn't supported by what we found. If this were simply a case of "liberally biased" mainstream media outlets ignoring a positive story about President Trump, we would still expect coverage of this event to turn up in conservative-leaning news outlets. However, we found almost no information about this veteran's receiving a Purple Heart from President Trump in any news outlets, regardless of their perceived political leanings. The only article we could turn up was published in a Pennsylvania newspaper, the Titusville Herald, on 16 February 2019. That paper reported on the event not because of its national importance, but because of the pictured veteran's family ties to Saegertown, Penn. Titusville Herald The report also contained an editor's note explaining that the veteran's surname was omitted due to a request for privacy: "*Editors note: There are two Clints referenced in this story. One, simply referred to as Clint, is Luke McGills uncle, while the second is his father. The last names of Clint and his wife, Casey, have been omitted by request of the family for privacy." The event began with President Trump's visit to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland in February 2019 for his annual physical. While there, the president met with a few of the wounded veterans who were being treated at that facility: Walter Reed National Military Medical Center met   The Titusville Herald also reported that President Trump's visit with Trial was unexpected, and that no members of the press were present at the meeting. In other words, President Trump didn't meet with this wounded veteran for a photo op or with the expectation of garnering positive news coverage. The newspaper also reported that the photographs were taken by a White House photographer (not a press photographer) and were privately provided to the family as keepsakes: A Saegertown boy and his family got an unexpected visit from the President of the United States while meeting with an uncle who was injured in the military. Luke McGill, 11, travelled with his mother, Stacey Gotchy, of Saegertown, and his cousin to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, on Feb. 6 to visit his uncle Clint, a marine who lost both of his legs to a land mine in Afghanistan ... While they were there, Clint was asked if he would be up for seeing a special VIP visitor, according to Gotchy. Little did they know, the special VIP visitor would turn out to be the president of the United States ... According to Gotchy, the meet and greet was not political in any way. There was no press at the meeting, and the only pictures taken were by a White House photographer who provided images as keepsakes for the family. President Trump was very kind and compassionate, Gotchy said. There was nothing political about it. He was very kind, concerned and very respectful and you could tell his sole purpose was to make sure [Lukes uncle] Clint was okay and his family was supported throughout the process. The visit became even more special when the president learned that Clint had not yet received his Purple Heart. Casey reached out to the staff at the office with the request that the president be the one who pinned the medal awarded to soldiers wounded in the line of duty on Clints shirt. President Trump saved Clints visit for last and held an award ceremony with the family present. We haven't been able to track down the initial internet origins of this image, but it seems likely that the photograph was lifted from one of the personal social media pages of Trial (whose Twitter account is now set to private) or those of one of his relatives, and then turned into a meme and shared (against his wishes for privacy) with his full name. This meme does not appear to demonstrate any news media "bias" against President Trump but rather a private interaction that was never meant to receive press attention. President Trump didn't meet with this veteran for a photo opportunity, nor did the news media refuse to cover the event out of a desire to provide nothing but negative stories about the president. If anything, this meme seems to demonstrate that some social media users will exploit even wounded veterans in order to advance their own political viewpoints. A GoFundMe campaign to help Sgt. Trial with his injuries was established in March 2019: GoFundMe In mid-January 2019, Clint Trial was working overseas when an explosion caused serious injuries to his body, resulting in a bilateral leg amputation, traumatic brain injury, and numerous internal injuries. We want to make sure this warrior and his family never have to worry about future costs as he adapts his life to a new normal and learns to get back on his "new feet." When you make a contribution to this fund, you will help ease this transition. Money raised with this fundraiser will be used to cover gaps in coverage for care outside of hospital bills, to include vehicle modifications, traveling costs for family members, moving expenses, and construction costs to ensure their house is properly adapted to ADA standards. CBS News.  "Trump Has His Annual Physical at Walter Reed."
  8 February 2019. Brown, Tyler.  "Local Family Meets President Trump."
  Titusville Herald.  16 February 2019. On 14 February 2017, the web site America's Last Line of Defense published an article reporting that President Donald Trump had ended "Obama's vacation scam." article According to the story, former President Barack Obama had taken funds from the "Office of Presidential Visits and Vacations" to pay for vacations for himself, his family, and two dozen staff members through the year 2036. Once the "scam" was uncovered, the article said, Trump allegedly sent a bill to Obama to repay the money used for those vacations: Before Obama left office he arranged with the State Department for a series of official visits to foreign countries spanning the next 20 years. Using discretionary funds from the Office of Presidential Visits and Vacations, Obama was able to weasel what would have been another $2.1 billion in free vacations for him and up to 24 members of his family plus staff and a dog sitter until the year 2036. He would have, that is, had he not lost his office to Donald Trump. Trump, who is always looking for ways to save money, was having the office used for vacations repainted with 24 karat gold leaf trim and having the shelves lined with leather when he was presented with a ledger that contained all of the travel plans and expenses. The ledger was found by one of the 31 workers Trump hired from outside the typical White House staff to make alterations requiring specialized craftsmen. Our President immediately canceled the plans and recalled all Secret Service agents scheduled to protect the Obamas anywhere outside of the United States. The Obamas, who are still waiting in Kenya for their documents so they can re-enter the country, are also facing another new challenge at the hands of Trump: Theyre going to have to repay the government for all of those vacations that werent official state business. Of course, there is absolutely no truth to this story. President Obama did not steal $2.1 billion to fund family vacations until 2036, nor did President Trump end his "vacation scam" or send Obama a bill to repay the money. TheLastLineOfDefense.orghas a long history of publishing false information, and while the web site also reported that the Obamas were "waiting in Kenya" for their documents, the former President was actually with former First Lady Michelle Obama in the British Virgin Islands. On 14 February 2017, Michelle Obama posted a photograph from the beach, wishing her husband a happy Valentine's Day: history British Virgin Islands photograph An argument could be made here that Kenya also has beaches, which it does; in fact, its beaches are renowned for their beauty. However, before you conclude that the Obama family is lying about where in the world they are (and somehow fooling the press assigned to cover their stay in the islands), consider the following disclaimer, taken directly from TheLastLineOfDefense.org's own "About" page:  beauty About DISCLAIMER: The Resistance may include information from sources that may or may not be reliable and facts that dont necessarily exist. All articles should be considered satirical and any and all quotes attributed to actual people complete and total baloney. Pictures that represent actual people should be considered altered and not in any way real. Horton, Helena.  "Barack Obama Tweets Romantic Valentine's Day Message to His Wife Michelle."
  The Telegraph.  14 February 2017. The Last Line of Defense.  "Trump Just Ended Obamas Vacation Scam and Sent Him a Bill You Have to See to Believe."
  13 February 2017. Claim:  An employer issued a missive to his employees stating that any additional taxes on his business would result in his shutting the company down. LEGEND Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2008] To All My Valued Employees, There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country. Of course, as your employer, I am forbidden to tell you whom to vote for - it is against the law to discriminate based on political affiliation, race, creed, religion, etc. Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best. However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interest. First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life. However, what you don't see is the back story. I started this company 12 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living space was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business  hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the Goodwill store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had. So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, ****, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden  the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... you never realize the back story and the sacrifices I've made. Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for. Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and without wounds. Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why: I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough.  I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch. The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country. The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy. Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now. When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the mud of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep. So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child'sfuture. Frankly, it isn't my problem anymore. Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship. While tax cuts to 95% of America sounds great on paper, don't forget the back story: If there is no job, there is no income to tax. A tax cut on zero dollars is zero. So, when you make decision to vote, ask yourself, who understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of saving your job. While the media wants to tell you "It's the economy stupid" I'm telling you it isn't. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me in South Caribbean sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about. Signed,Your boss  Origins:  In the ramp-up towards the 2008 Presidential election and in its wake, a number of anonymous "Here's how you, the ones who voted for him, will directly suffer from a Barack Obama presidency" missives landed in inboxes everywhere. One such was putatively from a hard-working and generous grandfather telling his beloved liberal granddaughter that her support for Obama meant Grandpa was no longer going to be in a position to help her financially. Another was supposedly penned by CEO to his 140 employees informing them that thanks to the new taxes now surely headed his way, he'd have to lay off a few of them, so he was starting with those whose cars sported Obama bumper stickers." lay off The "To All My Valued Employees" letter quoted above is another of such ilk. In it, a boss threatens to shut down his company (thus wiping out the livelihoods of the 14 people who work there) if any more taxes are levied upon him, an outcome he views a virtual  certainty under an Obama presidency.  The piece is perhaps best viewed as an attempt to put into real-world terms the possible consequences to average folks if business is interfered with to the point of no longer being able to operate rather than as an actual letter sent by a real boss to his employees.  Although our earliest sighting of this item dates to 3 November 2008, textual clues within the missive (such as"Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best" and "So, when you make decision to vote") indicate it was likely penned sooner than just the day before the 2008 presidential election. The original author of this piece is unknown to us. While some versions are merely signed "Your Boss," others are attributed to Michael A. Crowley of Wake Forest, North Carolina, via inclusion of his signature block at the end of the piece. Crowley himself denies authorship, saying: In reference to the "To all my valued employees" letter currently circulating the internet:  This letter was forwarded to me by a colleague. While the letter may indeed be authentic, I was not the author and I do not know the identity of the original author. I forwarded it to the "John McCain Joe the Plumbers" email group prior to the election. Someone moved my contact information into the body of the message making it appear that I was the author of the letter. I would appreciate your removing my contact information prior to forwarding this message.  Michael A. Crowley, PE While sometimes people looking to distance themselves from soapbox pieces they've penned subsequently claim they found such contentious items elsewhere on the Internet and merely forwarded them to others, that is not the case here. More than just Crowley's own words of denial support his claim of non-authorship, with the key to that proof lying in the very signature block that has worked to convince so many of his being the real "boss" behind the letter. That signature block identifies his firm as Crowley, Crisp & Associates, Inc., a now defunct business entity that (according to North Carolina's Secretary of State) was formed in May 2007.  The missive so widely laid at Crowley's feet states "I started this company 12 years ago." Twelve years prior to 2008 was 1996. (His current firm, Crowley & Associates, Inc., was formed in October 2000.) Were Crowley the actual author, that line about when he began his company would have read "last year" or "8 years ago."  The response to the missive falsely attributed to him prompted Michael Crowley to pen his own letter on the plight of the small business owner, which can be read here. here In October 2012, David Siegel, the founder and CEO of Westgate Resorts, sent a modified version of this letter to all of his employees. He based his missive on that much-circulated 2008 piece, saying of his offering: "I did use the letter that had circulated before as a guideline, but I changed it [to fit my circumstances]. It speaks the truth and it gives [employees] something to think about when they go to the polls."  sent Last updated:  9 October 2012