Did White Supremacists Shoot at Rep. Cori Bush and Ferguson Protesters?
In November 2021, Democratic Congresswoman Cori Bush raised eyebrows when she made the startling claim that, during protests in Ferguson, Missouri, back in 2015, white supremacists shot at her and her fellow anti-racism demonstrators, with impunity. Bush came to prominence as a pastor and community leader during the 2014-2015 unrest in St. Louis and Ferguson, following the fatal police shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old Black man. She went on to be elected as the first Black congresswoman from Missouri in 2020.  On Nov. 15, she tweeted out her reflections on the ongoing trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, an 18-year-old Illinois man charged with several counts, including murder, for his role in the shooting deaths of two men during civil unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020. tweeted out ongoing trial of Kyle Rittenhouse Bush wrote: When we marched in Ferguson, white supremacists would hide behind a hill near where Michael Brown Jr. was murdered and shoot at us. They never faced consequences. If Kyle Rittenhouse gets acquitted, it tells them that even 7 years later they still can get away with it.   Bush's claim was a remarkable one, and suggested that white supremacists were effectively given license to shoot at Black protesters in Ferguson, and never brought to justice for what would be very serious violent crimes. It was also one that could not be quickly or readily corroborated, which prompted significant skepticism about its veracity. Ferguson Police Chief Frank McCall no doubt added to that skepticism when he told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch he was not aware of any such incident having taken place.  significant skepticism told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch The congresswoman's claim was not fabricated out of thin air, but rather related to a specific alleged incident in January 2015. However, we have not yet been able to obtain evidence that supports her core claim, namely that known white supremacists did indeed shoot at protesters, in their capacity as protesters. Moreover, a key figure in the alleged events of that day told Snopes she never saw any individual responsible for the shooting (and therefore could not corroborate the claim that they were white supremacists), and also did not recall having seen Bush at the time.  In the absence of concrete evidence which clearly establishes the accuracy or inaccuracy of Bush's claims, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven." If solid evidence becomes available, we will update this fact check accordingly.  Snopes sent a list of detailed questions to Bush's congressional staff: requesting evidence in support of her claims; asking whether she or others had reported any purported incidents to law enforcement or non-profit organizations; and seeking clarification on the number of incidents in question. In her tweet, Bush used the past continuous tense "white supremacists would hide behind," which suggested a series of events. Similarly, in a Congressional speech in February 2021, when reflecting upon her experience of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Bush said "I feel like I'm back. I feel like this was one of the days out there on the streets, when the white supremacists would show up and start shooting at us..." [Emphasis is added] Bush said In response, we received an email from Anna Bahr, a progressive political consultant from the firm Left Flank. Bahr directed us to social media posts about an alleged shooting incident at an apartment complex in Ferguson, on Jan. 19, 2015, as well as the following statement: social media posts While on the frontlines of the Ferguson Uprising, Congresswoman Bush and other activists were shot at by white supremacist vigilantes. The question we need to ask is why white supremacists feel empowered to open-carry rifles, incite violence, and put Black lives at risk across our country. The following is a summary of the claims that have been made about that supposed shooting incident, which allegedly took place at or outside Canfield Green  now known as Pleasant View Gardens  an apartment complex located just feet from where Brown was shot dead in August 2014.  now known as Pleasant View Gardens short news article on a hill Ayanna Delaine Barney, claimed went to hospital In the face of vocal online skepticism about Bush's account, in November 2021, St. Louis activist Ohun Ashe defended the congresswoman's claims, writing on Twitter: "This is TRUE! I vividly remember hiding under porches in Canfield as shots were fired at us. No one came to help us. Ferguson police would be nearby. We would come from under porches using cars as shields in between gun shots to make it out." writing on Twitter Ashe's use of the past continuous tense  "We would come from under porches"  again suggested a series of events, rather than just one. Snopes emailed her a list of detailed questions, in an effort to clarify this and other issues, but we did not receive a response. We also contacted the woman with the Facebook username Meechie Jordan, in an effort to obtain additional relevant evidence connected to the Canfield Green incident, her own hospitalization, the bullet she purportedly handed over to Ferguson police as evidence, the potential role of white supremacists in the incident, and the purported presence of Bush. We did not receive a response.  One significant figure in the alleged events of Jan. 19, 2015, who did speak with Snopes was Ayanna Delaine Barney  the woman who owns the car that was damaged during the incident, allegedly as a result of shots fired in the direction of a group of protestors.  damaged during the incident Barney told Snopes she had never reported the incident to any law enforcement agency, and did not believe anyone else had either. Asked whether she could discern the race or possible white supremacist affiliations of the alleged shooters, Barney told Snopes she never saw any shooter, in part because it was dark out at the time of the incident. She also said she had no recollection of Bush's having been present during the events in question.  Barney added that she was still at a loss as to why the alleged shooting incident took place, but she noted that some who were present at the time have since speculated that it may have resulted from a feud between protesters that spiraled out of control. We have found no evidence to support that hypothesis, but it does indicate that Bush's white supremacists claim was not universally accepted among those present at the incident on Jan. 19, 2015. We sent follow-up questions to Bush's acting spokesperson Bahr, noting the absence of evidence to support the Congresswoman's claim that white supremacists were behind the shooting, and that she was present for it, and requesting such evidence. We did not receive a response to those follow-up questions, in time for publication. Armed right-wing groups such as the Oath Keepers, were conspicuously present during the protests and unrest in Ferguson during 2014 and 2015. Indeed, Bush herself made a contemporaneous note of their presence, describing an uneasy encounter she had with heavily-armed, white Oath Keepers, during an interview in August 2015 (begins around 51 minutes). However, we have not yet been able to obtain concrete evidence about the race or ideological affiliation of the alleged shooters from the Jan. 19, 2015 incident, and Bush did not provide any such evidence.  Oath Keepers begins around 51 minutes Snopes sent Ferguson police a list of detailed questions about their investigation into the purported Jan. 19, 2015 incident at Canfield Green apartments. A spokesperson for Chief Frank McCall told Snopes the department was conducting internal research on foot of our request. However, after we made repeated attempts to obtain a substantive response from police, Ferguson City Manager Eric Osterberg told Snopes both the city and its police department was declining to comment on Bush's claims. Several individuals posted online about an alleged shooting incident at the Canfield Green apartments in Ferguson, on Jan. 19, 2015. A small number of photographs suggest, but don't definitively demonstrate, that a shooting incident of some kind did take place on that date, and may have caused damage to a car, as well as grazing a bystander. However, we could find no evidence that a police investigation ever took place, and therefore no sense of what the conclusions of any such investigation were. Bush very prominently claimed that the incident consisted of white supremacists shooting at anti-racist protesters, but has so far provided no evidence to support that characterization, and such evidence was not available from other public sources. Bush may or may not have accurately described and characterized an incident on Jan. 19, 2015. As of now, the evidence available does not allow us to make a determination either way. Until or unless that changes, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven." Bogan, Jesse. New Owners of Canfield Green Apartments in Ferguson Say a Pleasant View Is Coming. STLtoday.Com, https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/new-owners-of-canfield-green-apartments-in-ferguson-say-a-pleasant-view-is-coming/article_0a1b5c3d-40d1-56de-8e37-1228d9faf8ef.html. Accessed 18 Nov. 2021.
It's been more than three decades since the original "Home Alone" film was released. However, fans of the 1990 movie were still noticing details they may have missed in past viewings, like the fate of Kevin's airline ticket. details We previously reported that the black-and-white gangster films depicted in "Home Alone" and "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York" were not real classics. We also published a story about the fact that Catherine O'Hara was the same actress who played both Kate McCallister (Kevin's mother in "Home Alone") as well as Moira Rose on the TV series "Schitt's Creek." The news may not have shocked some of O'Hara's fans, but the number of likes, comments, and shares on various TikTok videos showed that not everyone realized she played both characters. were not real classics story Speaking of the McCallisters, we decided to take another closer look at "Home Alone" after a TikTok video purported to shine a light on an obscure detail: the fate of Kevin's airline ticket. TikTok video In the plot for "Home Alone," the young Kevin McCallister is accidentally left at home while the rest of his family flies to Paris for a Christmas vacation. A series of events allows the mishap to occur, and one of those was the loss of his airplane ticket:   The TikTok video was posted by @scouseblu on Dec. 17, 2020. The Twitter account @FilmEasterEggs considered the moment to be an Easter egg: posted @FilmEasterEggs  Some responded saying they already knew about the ticket being thrown into the garbage, while others expressed surprise:     One Twitter user claimed that the airplane ticket going into the trash was an "integral plot point," which was potentially questionable:  In "Home Alone," the McCallister family runs through the airport and hands their stack of tickets to a gate agent. However, the gate agent did not appear to look at the tickets, but she did conduct a headcount as they walked to the airplane. While the videos from TikTok and Twitter showed the ticket going in the trash, preceding shots showed a row of cups in front of the tickets and passports:  Courtesy: 20th Century Fox  After Kevin attacks his older brother Buzz for eating all of the cheese pizza, the stack of tickets and passports are briefly visible for a split second before several cups of milk all come crashing down:  Courtesy: 20th Century Fox  Milk was mentioned in the scene by Kate and was likely chosen by writers because of its ability for the white color to obscure the ticket during cleanup. The stack of tickets and passports all got soaked, but only Kevin's ticket made it in the trash. Freeform aired double features of "Home Alone" and "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York" multiple times in December 2020. Some of the showings included interesting tidbits about the films, in what the Disney-owned channel called its "Pop'n Knowledge Edition." One of those tidbits popped onscreen the moment that Kevin's ticket was thrown in the trash. Freeform also partially edited a sceneout of the sequel "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York." partially edited a scene Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In December 2021, a number of social media users expressed confusion and skepticism over a series of books that had been published on Amazon about the new COVID-19 omicron variant. How was it possible, these people wondered, for someone to research, write, and publish a book about a strain of COVID-19 that had been discovered just days or weeks earlier.  social media users expressed confusion   Other social media users commented: How can there be so many books knowing all about the #Omicron variant when we only found out about it 2 weeks ago? Amazing how there are 30 books available on Amazon on the Omicron variant when it was just named Nov 26,this one in particular was published on that date..almost like it was planned Go to Amazon and search "Understanding Omicron Variant" How can scientists do any kind of reputable work, write a book, have it peer reviewed, have it proofed, published AND printed in a couple WEEKS? Can you say scam? There are truly a number of books on Amazon about the omicron variant that were published within days of the announcement by the World Health Organization (WHO) that the new strain had been identified. This isn't proof that the pandemic was "planned," or that it is a "scam." Rather, it's proof of just how quick and easy it is to self-publish a book on Amazon.  Self-publishing authors can submit their books to Amazon in as little as 5 minutes and can see their books up for sale the following day.  Amazon in as little as 5 minutes The social media users quoted above all expressed skepticism that a book about something as complicated as the omicron variant could be researched, written, and edited in a span of just a few days. This skepticism is rightfully placed. The omicron variant books on Amazon that were published in December 2021 likely did not go through rigorous research, writing, or editing phases. Unlike a scholarly journal where material has to go though peer review, anybody can self-publish just about anything on Amazon. The material can contain an infinite amount of typos (no editing), the content doesn't have to be factual (no research), and in some cases the text can be artificially generated or plagiarized (no writing). In other words, just because a book exists on Amazon doesn't mean its content is worth reading.  In March 2020, near the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Amazon was flooded with self-published books about the illness. These books were shoddily put together and often contained plagiarized content. The Guardian reported: Guardian reported As the coronavirus spreads around the world, it is not only health professionals and politicians who are being kept busy. Amazon has been flooded with badly put together, often plagiarised guides to combatting the virus. The retailing giant has already been removing tens of thousands of listings from bad actors attempting to artificially raise prices on items such as face masks and hand sanitiser. Now it is fighting a losing battle against the writers rushing out self-published books to profit from coronavirus fears. Generally shorter than 100 pages, dozens have been published in the last few weeks, promising worried readers ways to prevent or avoid the virus. On Amazon.co.uk on Thursday morning, the top results returned for books about coronavirus included Corbi Yangs Coronavirus, which promised to answer how this virus was identified and what measures have been taken up till now. Running to 44 pages, much of the writing was lifted directly from web pages. While social media users were skeptical of the rash of books published on Amazon about the omicron variant, there was one title that drew special attention. According to social media posts, a book by "Dr. Teresa Bishop" titled "UNDERSTANDING OMICRON VARIANT: All You Need To Know About Omicron Variant, Where It Comes From, Answers To Questions You Have, And Lots More Update To Keep You Well Informed" was copyrighted in 2020, nearly a year before the omicron variant emerged.    How was this possible? How was a book about the omicron variant copyrighted before the emergence of the omicron variant? We reached out to Amazon for some specifics about this title and we will update this article if more information becomes available. For the moment, here's what we know: announced by WHO nonsensical sentences International Standard Book Number database Copyright Public Records Portal   This title is no longer available on Amazon. A few days after this book was removed, Bishop published a similarly titled book "UNDERSTANDING OMICRON VARIANT: Everything You Need To Know About Omicron Variant, Where It Comes From, Answers To Questions You Have, And Lots More Update To Keep You Well Informed Kindle Edition." That book claims a copyright date of 2021.  As Coronavirus Spreads, Hastily Produced Books Capitalize on Fear. Undark Magazine, 6 Mar. 2020, https://undark.org/2020/03/06/coronavirus-books-amazon-outbreak/. Flood, Alison. Amazon Flooded with Self-Published Coronavirus Books. The Guardian, 12 Mar. 2020. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/mar/12/amazon-flooded-with-self-published-coronavirus-books. Matsakis, Louise. Amazon Quietly Removes Some Dubious Coronavirus Books. Wired. www.wired.com, https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-quietly-removes-coronavirus-books/. Accessed 21 Dec. 2021. Self-Published Book on Omicron Was Not Copyrighted before Variant Was Discovered. Politifact, https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/dec/20/facebook-posts/self-published-book-omicron-was-not-copyrighted-va/. Accessed 21 Dec. 2021. Update on Omicron. https://www.who.int/news/item/28-11-2021-update-on-omicron. Accessed 21 Dec. 2021. One of the many elements of the contentious U.S. Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh in the autumn of 2018 was the disclosure that the woman who had accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her back in 1982, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, had taken and passed a polygraph examination.  This facet of the confirmation brouhaha prompted debates about whether Judge Kavanaugh should similarly subject himself to polygraph examination, and about the reliability of such tests in general. (Kavanaugh responded to a question about whether he would take such a test by saying that he would do whatever the Judiciary Committee asked him to do, while pointing out that polygraph examinations are inadmissible in federal court because they are "unreliable.") polygraph One of the pieces of evidence enlisted in support of one side of those debates was a claim that Judge Kavanaugh had once supposedly ruled in a case that "polygraphs can be accepted as gospel by employers in making hiring decisions":  The case referred to here was Sack v. Department of Defense Sack v. Department of Defense The underlying lawsuit was filed by Kathryn Sack, a Ph.D. student at the University of Virginia, who was appealing the Department of Defense's (DOD) denial of her Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for various DOD reports about the government's use of polygraph examinations and related documents, which she wanted to use for her dissertation on polygraph bias. In order to justify their denial of Sack's requests, the DOD had to show that the records and information sought by her were "compiled for law enforcement purposes" and that their production would "disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations" and reasonably "risk circumvention of the law" -- thereby meeting the standards of FOIA Exemption 7E.   Exemption 7E The court sided with the DOD in denying Sack's FOIA requests, holding that FOIA Exemption 7E should apply.  In Kavanaugh's opinion for the court, he noted that "the reports about polygraph use were compiled for law enforcement purposes," because law enforcement agencies use them for functions such as "test[ing] the credibility of witnesses and criminal defendants" and "screen[ing] applicants for security clearances," and therefore "the reports help ensure that law enforcement officers optimally use an important law enforcement tool."  Kavanaugh also noted that the reports requested by Sack identify deficiencies in law enforcement agencies polygraph programs, and therefore releasing those reports could allow criminal suspects and others to subvert polygraph examinations.   Nothing in Judge Kavanaugh's opinion addressed whether "polygraphs can be accepted as gospel by employers in making hiring decisions."  He merely observed, for the purposes of a very specific legal ruling, that the federal government sometimes uses polygraph tests for the purposes of screening applicants; he offered no judgment or opinion about their reliability or how they should or could be regarded by employers.   U.S. Department of Justice.  "Exemption 7(E)."
  Department of Justice Guide to the Freedom of Information Act.  Accessed 2 October 2018.  Justia.  "Sack v. DOD, No. 14-5039 (D.C. Cir. 2016)."
    20 May 2016. Hayes, Christal.  "Here's the Polygraph Test Christine Blasey Ford Took on Her Allegations Against Kavanaugh."
  USA Today.  26 September 2018.
 Kupfer, Theodore.  "A False Charge on Polygraphs."
  National Review.  28 September 2018. In October 2015, links began circulating on Facebook promising users a free carton of Marlboro cigarettes as a celebration of the brand's 100th anniversary:   The embedded links involved a variety of URLs (like the one above), some of which included entirely unrelated scam-bait terms like "iTunes" and "Apple." Users who clicked through to claim their purported free carton of Marlboros were routed to a page reading "Marlboro is Giving FREE Carton of Cigarettes to celebrate 100th Anniversary (150 Cartons Remaining)," which cloned the style of Facebook-based content (but was hosted on a non-Facebook URL):   As noted, URLs visible in the posts didn't point to any credible domains (or any sites linked to Altria, the brand's parent company). Marlboro didn't appear to even maintain any social media accounts, and the brand's official web site was locked to registered users only. So while no official refutations were issued, it seemed safe to assume cigarette brands largely refrained from participating on Facebook (or creating promotions that could land them afoul of strict tobacco advertising laws). By now, most social media users are familiar with survey scams; Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's, Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among retailers used as bait by scammers (seeking personal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users).  Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau illustrated how folks might spot and avoid bad actors utilizing the reputations of brands on social media: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. While Marlboro occasionally sends coupons to registered customers, tobacco advertising and promotion is heavily restricted (including a prohibition on free samples) and is highly unlikely to ever occur on social media in the manner posited above. restricted [05/05/20] CORRECTION: A previous version of this article incorrectly identified the date of Marlboro's 50th anniversary. That reference has been removed. During Russia's invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, American social media users enthusiastically shared posts that called for a boycott of Lukoil gas stations on the East Coast, on the basis that they were Russian owned. As one very widely shared tweet summarized: social media users enthusiastically shared posts called boycott Russian summarized "#BoycottRussia. Lukoil gas is Russian owned."   wrote "Fill your tank elsewhere. Lukoil is a Russian multinational corporation headquartered in Moscow. Their CEO, Vagit Alekperov, is a Russian oligarch worth an estimated $19.6 billion. Lukoil gas stations are all over PA, NJ and NY." These posts undoubtedly contained a significant element of truth. Lukoil is indeed a large Russian-headquartered multinational petroleum and natural gas producer, with a U.S. subsidiary that oversees a network of gas stations, primarily in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York. Moreover, the company's billionaire president, Vagit Alekperov, has ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. has ties However, Lukoil typically does not operate those U.S. gas stations itself. Rather, it operates on a franchise basis, meaning any successful boycott of Lukoil-branded gas stations would likely have a negligible effect on the parent company or its billionaire president, but could prove financially devastating for dozens of U.S. franchise owners and their hundreds of local employees. In brief, Lukoil itself might be "Russian owned," but its U.S. gas stations are U.S.-operated and locally staffed. As such, we're issuing a rating of "Mixture." Lukoil emerged from the dissolving Soviet Union in the early 1990s, and entered the American market a decade later. According to the company's website, Lukoil acquired the American company Getty Oil in 2000, taking over and rebranding its existing network of gas stations. the company's website The first Lukoil-branded gas station was opened in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan in September, 2003. Notably, the grand opening was attended by Putin himself  who was in the U.S. at that time for talks with then-President George W. Bush. In the photograph below, Putin can be seen outside the Manhattan Lukoil, with Alekperov to his right, and U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to his left: attended by Putin himself  Russian President Vladimir Putin (C) and Lukoil President Vagit Alekperov (L) listen as U.S. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) (R) gestures as he speaks about U.S.-Russian relations during the opening of Lukoil's gasoline station September 26, 2003 in the Chelsea neighborhood of New York City. Lukoil, a Russian oil company, acquired Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc. and its 1,300 stations in November 2000. (Photo by Stephen Chernin/Getty Images)  At the time, Lukoil was reported to have taken over Getty's existing network of 1,300 gas stations, but by 2022, the number of Lukoil-branded gas stations in the United States had declined to around 230  most, if not all, located in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York.  Importantly, most  if not all  of those gas stations are operated as franchises. Franchising is a popular business model in the United States, with the best-known examples being fast food restaurants such as McDonald's and convenience stores like 7-Eleven.  popular business model in the United States Roughly speaking, the franchisee (local entrepreneur) pays the franchisor (main company) some fees: typically an up-front franchise fee, and regular royalties  usually a percentage cut of their income from sales. In return, the franchisor gives the franchisee the right to operate a business using their well-known brand, for a defined period of time, usually several years. The company might also provide advice or assistance with logistics, advertising, marketing, and so on. The local entrepreneur is also contractually obliged to operate the business in accordance with certain prescribed methods, customer service models, and so on. Lukoil  or more specifically, Lukoil North America, a Delaware-registered LLC with an address in Moorestown, New Jersey offers three-year leases to franchisees in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York. In fact, as of March 2, the company's website listed for lease 13 different gas station sites in those states: Lukoil North America, a Delaware-registered LLC 13 different gas station sites   offer to lease" document The aforementioned Bidder is submitting the below rental offer to lease the LUKOIL branded service station listed above, and is prepared to enter into an Agreement with LNA for the lease of the same, subject to the conditions specified below. The lease term is generally three (3) years, however a longer term can be approved, at LNA's discretion, provided a sufficient site improvement or supply commitment is made to justify a longer term.   Google post "LUKOIL gas stations in the United States are independently owned and operated by local business owners who are members of the communities they serve, and 100% of the gasoline and diesel fuel sold is sourced from American oil refiners." Snopes asked Lukoil for details on the exact number of Lukoil-branded gas stations in the United States, and the number of those operated on a franchise basis, if not all. We also asked for precise details about the company's revenue from franchise fees, royalties and/or rent paid by U.S. franchisees, but we did not receive a response in time for publication.  However, Lukoil's 2021 financial results, which were published on March 2, gave an indication of the relatively small role of U.S. gas station revenue in the company's overall income, most of which stems from oil and gas exploration and production inside Russia. Lukoil's 2021 financial results In 2021, according to Lukoil, the company had total sales of 9.4 trillion rubles ($88 billion), and its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) were 1.4 trillion rubles ($13 billion). Of that $13 billion, just 8.3% ($1 billion) was made up of "refining, marketing and distribution" outside Russia. Although a more detailed breakdown is not available, it is reasonable to suppose that income related specifically to U.S. gas stations made up an even smaller fraction of that $1 billion, given that Lukoil refines, markets, and distributes petroleum in several other countries throughout the world.  It's also not clear whether, in the event of an effective widespread boycott of U.S. Lukoil-branded gas stations, franchisees would still be obliged to continue paying fees and rent to Lukoil North America even if they had no income from gas or convenience store sales. Therefore, a successful boycott could require financial devastation  if not ruination  among many dozens of local entrepreneurs in the United States, as well as sudden unemployment for their hundreds of workers, in order to achieve what would be only a very small financial impact on the Russian parent company, or its bosses in Moscow.  On March 3, Lukoil's board of directors issued a statement in which they expressed their "deepest concerns about the tragic events in Ukraine," and called for an immediate end to the conflict and a "lasting ceasefire." issued a statement Maass, Peter. The Triumph of the Quiet Tycoon. The New York Times, 1 Aug. 2004. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/magazine/the-triumph-of-the-quiet-tycoon.html. PRESS RELEASE MARCH 02, 2022 LUKOIL RELEASES FINANCIAL RESULTS UNDER IFRS FOR 2021 PJSC LUKOIL Today Released Its Audited Consol. https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3AnFU75r0Wkh4J%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.lukoil.com%2Fapi%2Fpresscenter%2Fexportpressrelease%3Fid%3D577486+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us. Accessed 3 Mar. 2022. Updated [March 4, 2022]: Added reference to the Lukoil board of directors March 3 statement about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. On 24 October 2016, health insurance broker Tyler McClosky created a phenomenon on Facebook when he posted a screen shot of what it would cost for a family of four with a total household income of $98,000 in Lee County, Florida, to buy insurance on the Affordable Care Act's marketplace: We were able to recreate McClosky's viral post using the shopping tool at healthcare.gov and the same data he entered (two non-smoking parents with a combined income of $98,000 and two 8-year-old children in Lee County, Florida): tool   But data sent by a Department of Health and Human Services official pointed out that 81 percent of families of that size on an Obamacare plan have household incomes of less than $48,000. So the average family currently subscribing to Obamacare would not be paying nearly as much as the image above depicts in their out-of-pocket premium costs. We entered the same data but changed the income to $48,000 here:   McClosky created the post on 24 October 2016, the same day a report by the Department of Health and Human Services was released detailing an average 25 percent increase in costs to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) customers: customers Across states using the HealthCare.gov platform, the median increase in the second-lowest cost silver plan premium is 16 percent, while the average increase is 25 percent. This figure varies based on locale. For instance, a table compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that people in Phoenix, Arizona will have a 145 percent premium increase, but a tax subsidy will mean a 40-year-old, non-smoking Phoenix resident with a $30,000 annual income will not have to pay any more than last year (which is roughly $207 a month, depending on the plan selected). table According to data sent by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a majority of consumers covered by the ACA (85 percent) qualify for tax credits that keep pace with premium increases, so many won't see much of an impact on their out-of-pocket costs. data But McClosky was addressing people whose income disqualifies them from that assistance. He told us he used the $98,000 annual income as an example because that is the threshold at which households of four with two children do not qualify for tax credit assistance (you qualify if you make up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line). He said he created the post because he wanted to raise awareness about what it costs to insure a family in which each adult is making an annual salary of $44,000, and neither has access to employer-based health care  a fairly common situation in the United States. His concern, he said, is that only consumers who qualify for a tax subsidy can afford insurance under ACA. If their incomes are too high to qualify for assistance, they may simply go without. While the number of uninsured Americans dropped under ACA, as of 2015, 28.5 million people still lack coverage. Per the Kaiser Family Foundation: Even under the ACA, many uninsured people cite the high cost of insurance as the main reason they lack coverage. In 2015, 46% of uninsured adults said that they tried to get coverage but did not because it was too expensive. Many people do not have access to coverage through a job, and some people, particularly poor adults in states that did not expand Medicaid, remain ineligible for financial assistance for coverage. Some people who are eligible for financial assistance under the ACA may not know they can get help, and others may still find the cost of coverage prohibitive. In addition, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for Medicaid or Marketplace coverage. Eric Seiber, associate professor of health services management and policy at Ohio State, said that the health care system in the United States is the most expensive in the world, and costs have steadily increased over the years. Despite its name, the Affordable Care Act doesn't actually address the cost of health care itself: The ACA is not health care reform. Its health insurance reform. It really doesnt do that much about affordable care or patient protection beyond the subsidies and Medicaid. People's perception that their wages have been flat is an effect of compensation increases going to cover rising healthcare costs instead of into their paychecks, Seiber said. McClosky, who sells health and life insurance plans in Florida, said that the Affordable Care Act has had the effect of diminishing competition among carriers. For instance, Lee County residents can only purchase Blue Cross Blue Shield. Prices in Miami-Dade are lower than in Lee County, because there are more carriers competing with each other. McClosky says insurance carriers have been squeezed by part of the mandate which requires them to spend 80 to 85 percent on claim payouts and health care quality improvement. He pointed to Assurant, a 123-yea-old insurer that specialized in individual and small business plans. They could not survive under the ACA and filed for bankruptcy in 2015. Health care is a source of roiling political debate for years. While the cost of health plans under Obamacare will go up an average 25 percent as of 1 November 2016, the majority of consumers won't experience much change in their out-of-pocket costs when open enrollment starts for 2017, because the tax credits will buffer that increase. Further, as the New York Times pointed out, many Americans are shielded from the immediate costs of health care by employer-based insurance or the public programs: pointed out These increases really matter only for those who buy their own insurance. Most people are unaffected by the rate increases because they get their insurance through an employer or are covered through government programs like Medicare, Medicaid or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Only a small fraction of Americans who have insurance buy individual policies. There are about 10 million people in the Obamacare markets and around an additional seven million who buy health plans outside the marketplace, according to Obama administration estimates. The published rate increases apply only to people who shop in the markets, but premiums are expected to go up sharply for the other plans as well. However, as McClosky's post makes clear, whether people notice it or not, American health care costs are high  and not everyone can qualify for available assistance. Kaiser Family Foundation. "2017 Premium Changes and Insurer Participation in the Affordable Care Acts Health Insurance Marketplaces."
25 October 2016. ASPE Research Brief. "Health plan choice and premiums in the 2017 health insurance marketplace."
24 October 2016. Abelson, Reed, and Sanger-Katz, Margaret. "A Quick Guide to Rising Obamacare Rates."
The New York Times. 25 October 2016. Boulton, Guy. "Milwaukee-based Assurant Health to be sold off or shut down."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 28 April 2015. Claim:  Destructive act is conveniently blamed on household pet. LEGEND Examples:  [Brunvand, 1993] Their mother had baked a Dutch apple pie for a special event. She left it on the kitchen table to cool while she ran an errand, warning the boys not to touch it. But the pie smelled wonderful, and the boys couldn't resist a tiny bite. One bite became several, until a major chunk of the pie had been eaten. They then heard their mother's car pull into the garage, and they knew they were trapped unless they could quickly cover up their crime. The future lawyer got a brilliant idea. He grabbed the family cat and shoved its face into the pie, smearing its whiskers with gooey filling and crumbs. His mother walked in, looked at the cat, and saw what she interpreted as guilt written all over its face. She immediately grabbed the cat and threw it out the back door into a stream that ran behind the house.  [Brunvand, 1989] I recently heard about a friend of a friend  what you call a  FOAF  who is an interior decorator with a thriving business on Chicago's wealthy North Shore.  He had just finished painting an elegant home in Wilmette, and was going around with a can of touch-up paint, making sure everything was perfect. He finished the last brush stroke, stepped back to admire his work, and kicked the paint can over onto the priceless Oriental rug.  What to do? At that moment, the client's yappy, snappy, obnoxious toy poodle, Fifi, trotted into the room.  Thinking quickly, the decorator scooped her up and dropped her into the puddle of paint, at the same time exclaiming loudly, "Fifi! Bad Dog! What have you done?"  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] A husband breaks a purple vase that belongs to his wife. she thinks the dog did it and she hates the dog. In her husband's absence she kills the dog and buries it in the back yard. the story ends with the husband confessing that in fact he and not the dog broke the vase, and the wife, who is contemplating the mound behind the rose bushes in the garden doesn't know what to say. Origins:  Shoving    a hapless pet into the incriminating mess is a traditional way of shifting blame. One of Brunvand's readers recalls hearing the spilled paint story in 1929, so this one has been with us for a while. Although pets can (and have!) spilled cans of paint, it's not reasonable to assume any self-respecting cat would have an interest in Dutch apple pie. A more believable way of presenting the story would be to change the food item into a tortire, a renowned French-Canadian meat pie. (Though tortire is good eating any time, it's a traditional Christmas Eve food in Quebecois households, often served at "Le Reveillion," the meal following Midnight Mass.) Another legend, one about kinky teen sex, employs the scapegoated pet theme. In "Stain Feign," teenagers who've decided to engage in anal sex on the family's brand new white sofa afterwards rush out to buy a puppy to have something to blame the mess on. Stain Feign Barbara "canine one one" Mikkelson Sightings:  Our "blamed pet" legend shows up in a 1972 Toni Morrison novel, Bluest Eye, in a scene involving two children, a cat, and a berry cobbler. Last updated:  1 August 2011 The Baby Train    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Curses! Broiled Again!   New York: W. W. Norton, 1989.   ISBN 0-393-30711-5   (pp. 132-134). Curses! Broiled Again!    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Too Good to Be .  New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.   ISBN 0-393-04734-2  (pp. 61-63). Too Good to Be  The Big Book of Urban Legends Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland seems determined to be regarded as your energy governor. In his race for re-election this November, the governor touts his efforts toward energy reform at almost every opportunity.He was at it again during a campaign address on July 6 when he said, The energy reform bill I proposed gave Ohio one of the nations most aggressive renewable energy policies and has pushed our utilities to innovate.And while other states that failed to act saw electricity rates jump 70 percent, Strickland said, Ohios electricity rates are 10 percent below the national average.Stricklands spokeswoman, Allison Kolodziej, acknowledges that Ohios electricity rates were already well below the national average before Strickland took office in January 2007. But she said the governors push for Senate Bill 221  which became law in 2008 and placed tighter reins on utility companies seeking to set market-based pricing  prevented Ohios rates from skyrocketing as rates did in other states where wholesale market pricing was unchecked.The question: Are Ohios rates today a full 10 percent below the national average as the governor claimed? The governors campaign staff said it relied on information from the U.S. Department of Energys Energy Information Administration, or EIA, for its figures.According to EIAs most recent average retail price report, released June 16 and updated through March, Ohios average electricity price for all sectors this year was 8.72 cents per kilowatt hour. The national average was 9.5 cents. That means Ohios rate thus for 2010 for all sectors is about 8 percent below the national average  not 10 percent.In 2009, however  the last full year of available figures  Ohios average was 8.63 cents per kilowatt hour and the national average 9.75 cents, meaning a year ago the state was 11 percent below the national average. That means Stricklands statement is not accurate today but was a year ago.Kolodziej said the campaign is relying on 2009 figures because the full 2010 year figures are not yet complete.The premise of Stricklands statement is that Ohio is still trending below the national average when it comes to electricity rates, and thus is better off than many other states in terms of utility costs. The context of his point was accurate.But while the full 2010 figures are not yet available, there were more up to date figures the governor could have relied on during his speech that, while not as flattering as 2009, could have still effectively made his point  just more accurately.We rate this statement as Mostly True. Comment on this item. In April 2018, social media posts claiming "Donald Trump and U.S. Congress voted yesterday on a bill" to end all child support in the U.S. by 11 June 2018 were widely shared. posts  These posts were just variants of a similar hoax from September 2017 created using the prank generator React365 which suggested that President Trump and Congress had effectively ended all child support payments as of 2018, blaring "No more child support after 2017!" and "CHILD SUPPORT SAID TO END BY BEGINNING OF 2018": React365 child support The word salad "news" content originated with React365, a prank generator whose sole purpose is to enable users to generate fake news and share it on social media:   React365   On the footer of each page, a poorly-worded disclaimer explains that its headlines are "created by users" and are not a "source of information":   Fake news about child support typically spreads with alacrity. However, there have been no legitimate news reports of either the President or Congress ending (or even intending to end) child support. It is simply false information generated by a prank web site. child support Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO As the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic spread across the globe in March 2020, conspiracy buffs shared memes and videos featuring variations on a common theme  the SARS-CoV-2 virus was a human-made creation developed in a Chinese lab owned by all-purpose boogeyman George Soros for the purpose of causing economic disruption that would unseat Donald Trump from the U.S. presidency:    We've extensively covered the false notion that the SARS-CoV-2 virus was bioengineered in a lab in Wuhan, China, in a separate article and concluded that: separate article The theory that SARS-CoV-2 was manufactured in, and escaped from, a lab in Wuhan is based solely on the proximity of infectious-disease labs near a potential source of the COVID-19 outbreak. Several scientific claims have been made or manufactured to further bolster the notion that something nefarious is going on with COVID-19 and these labs, but this information comes from non-peer-reviewed papers misconstrued to be actual additions to the scientific record, or from disreputable websites such as Mercola.com. The actual scientific facts known about the novel coronavirus leave little room for it to be a virus of human creation, however. Regardless, the idea of a Soros connection to the COVID-19 pandemic stems from the fact that Wuhan, China, was the apparent origin point of the novel coronavirus, and WuXi AppTec, a Shanghai-based pharmaceutical, biopharmaceutical, and medical device company, operates a "small molecule drug discovery and research services" facility there. And according to the conspiracy theory, Soros "owns WuXi AppTec." QED. origin point WuXi AppTec facility However, Soros holds no executive position at WuXi AppTec, and a list of the company's major shareholders shows that none owns more than 10% of the shares, and all of the largest shareholders are Chinese entities with no discernible connection to Soros himself. shareholders A May 2011 quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) shows that Soros Fund Management, a private American investment management firm, does (or did) have a holding in a related company (Wuxi PharmaTech (Cayman)). However, such institutional investment is common in the business world and does not make the head of any given investment firm the "owner" of all the businesses in which the firm holds a stake. Wuxi PharmaTech (Cayman) When pulled, the thread of Soros to Soros Fund Management, to Wuxi PharmaTech (Cayman), to WuXi AppTec, to a biotech research facility in Wuhan, leads to nothing. All credible scientific evidence indicates the SARS-CoV-2 virus evolved or mutated and was not bioengineered, and the addition of Soros to any far-fetched conspiracy theory indicates nothing so much as a lack of imagination. Marriage, Madison.  "Hedge Funds Move to Become Family Offices Is Not Entirely Popular."
  Financial Times.  22 October 2015. Kasprak, Alex.  "The Origins and Scientific Failings of the COVID-19 Bioweapon Conspiracy Theory."
  Snopes.com.  1 April 2020. Secon, Holly et al.  "A Comprehensive Timeline of the New Coronavirus Pandemic, From China's First COVID-19 Case to the Present."
  Business Insider.  1 April 2020.