Wal-Mart Milk and rBST
Claim:  Milk sold at Wal-Mart contains rBST, a dangerous growth hormone.  Status:  Multiple:  Some milk vended by retailers comes from rBST-treated cows:  True.  As of March 2008, Wal-Mart's "Great Value" milk no longer contains rBST:  True.  Milk produced by rBST-treated cows has been proved dangerous for ordinary human consumption:  False. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, March 2007] Health Warning - rBST in Great Value[Walmart] Milk I just received this from my sister-in-law in Gainesville and I wanted to let you all know, especially if you have daughters or granddaughters. Please read this and pass along to as many people.... Mitzi Lyons, her husband is Kyle, live here in Gainesville, TX. Their daughter, for THREE years has incurred menstrual problems (bleeding every day) for three years and within the last year she started producing milk. They have performed every test, every surgery, put her on birth control and the last straw was fixing to be a hysterectomy in January. BUT, Mitzi's dad started research on the internet of his granddaughter's problem and found out about rBST in milk (injecting cows with hormones so they will produce more milk). Walmart Great Value milk is the kind that the Lyons family has always drunk. 3 months ago, they pulled Marissa off of Great Value Milk and she quit bleeding and lactating. Borden milk does not have rBST in it. Her doctor's in Houston are going to write a medical journal discovery on her, because FDA says that rBST is safe. Mitzi asked me to please share this with everyone I could think of to hopefully save someone the pain and suffering that Marissa has endured. Mitzi knows this was an answered prayer. I have pulled my family from Walmart Great Value Milk and bought Borden and Borden has a label on their milk that says rBST not used on their cows. Please pass this on...... Origins:  rBST, or recombinant bovine somatotropin, is an artificial growth hormone injected into dairy cows approximately every two weeks to boost milk production. It is the synthetic  version of BST (bovine somatotropin), a naturally-occurring hormone in cattle. Cows treated with rBST go from producing over 70 pounds of milk per day to somewhat less than 90, a significant increase in output. The use of rBST is controversial. On the plus side, it elevates milk production and boosts farm income. On the downside, it can increase udder infections in cows (thereby necessitating greater use of antibiotics), and some say it may increase cancer risk in milk drinkers.  The cancer claims have not been proved. Those who say there is a risk point to a connection between rBST injections and elevation of another hormone in cows, IGF-1. In humans, too much IGF-1 is linked with increased rates of colon, breast, and prostate cancer. Use of rBST is banned in Canada, but not because of any potential ill effect it might have on humans; its use was proscribed because of its harmful effects on cows (udder irritation). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says rBST is safe for consumers and that milk from rBST-treated cows is no different from milk from non-treated cows: FDA Before the 1993 approval of rbST, FDA determined that the recombinant, or genetically engineered form of bST is virtually identical to a cow's natural somatotropin, a hormone produced in the pituitary gland that stimulates the production of milk. During that rbST approval process, FDA concluded that there is no significant difference between milk from treated and untreated cows. For that reason, FDA also concluded it does not have the authority to require special labeling for milk and dairy products from rbST-treated cows, and that producers have no basis for claiming that milk from cows not treated with rbST is safer than milk from rbST-treated cows. Assurances notwithstanding, recent years have seen a grassroots consumers movement away from products reliant upon antibiotics or growth hormones. Shoppers are increasingly seeking out "rBST- (or rBGH-)free" milk in lieu of the hormone-assisted sort. But it comes at a price  this type of milk is far more expensive. While a half-gallon of 2% milk (Lucerne) goes for $1.99, its non-rBST equivalent (Sunmilk) goes for $3.89, and organic 2% milk (Horizon and Stremicks Heritage) for $4.19.  We encountered this e-mail purporting to detail a teen's reaction to the rBST in the milk she drank in March 2007. While there is reason to believe the young woman depicted in the tale exists and that the description of her travails is at least somewhat accurate, that's a far cry from saying her drinking of rBST-enhanced milk caused her medical woes. There have been rumors that rBST causes premature puberty in children, but as yet there's nothing credible to hang them upon.  Indeed, arguing against such an outcome is the type of hormone itself: Somatotropins (growth hormones) are not the same as gonadotropins (sexual development hormones), and they don't cross functions, especially when applied to different species. The e-mailed alert includes an exhortation to swear off milk from Wal-Mart in favor of that from Borden. That advice is a bit simplistic, because just about any large retailer that vends milk will generally offer both rBST and non-rBST kinds for sale. Those concerned about avoiding rBST should read labels, looking for words like "organic," "hormone free," and "rBST free." (Consumers should also assume if that they don't see one of those phrases, the product they're considering buying does contain rBST.) On 21 March 2008, Wal-Mart announced that its "Great Value" milk would no longer be sourced from rBST-enhanced cows. Barbara "milk dud" Mikkelson Additional information:       bST Fact Sheet   (Cornell University)   Last updated:  23 March 2008    Sources:   Pollack, Andrew.  "Which Cows Do You Trust?"   The New York Times.  7 October 2006  (p. C1).     Raine, George.  "Got rbST in Your Milk?"   The San Francisco Chronicle.  25 March 2007  (p. D1).     Reuters.  "Hormone-Free Milk Sales Stir Heated Debate."   Los Angeles Times.  19 January 2007  (p. C6).
On 3 August 2016, CNN reporter Jeremy Diamond shared a screenshot via Twitter of an e-mail sent by a frustrated former Trump supporter, claiming that it was impossible for backers to cancel recurring donations to the Trump campaign: Jeremy Diamond INBOX: Help, I set up a recurring contribution to Trump's campaign & want to cancel it: (cc: @realDonaldTrump) pic.twitter.com/TFOHhdZDlJ @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/TFOHhdZDlJ  Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) August 4, 2016 August 4, 2016  Diamond's tweet sparked a number of articles and blog posts stating it was "impossible" to cancel recurring Trump campaign donations, based solely or primarily on the anecdotal, secondhand claim made  in that tweet. Among the comments prompted by original tweet sent by Diamond were those left by other purported donors asserting that the claim wasn't exactly accurate:  @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump Spreading bogus info. When you contribute, you get receipt with an email + tel number to call if you need help. @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump  M G (@MadaGasp) August 4, 2016 August 4, 2016  @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump now please stop spreading false information, its all in the email you receive when you contribute @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump  Brian (@Brian_with_a_B) August 6, 2016 August 6, 2016   A large number of commenters expressed skepticism about the report, given that the claim was anonymously  sourced from a single individual: @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump Cheap shot: we all know you can contact your bank or other form of payment you use, to cancel right away. @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump  Viktor Staudt (@ViktorStaudt) August 4, 2016 August 4, 2016  @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump so exactly who was this unknown mystery person that went straight to a journalist? pic.twitter.com/R4h78829CP @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/R4h78829CP  Patti Hannah (@b6sangel) August 7, 2016 August 7, 2016  We were unable to turn up any reports about the issue that antedated Diamond's tweet. If any Trump donors had previously encountered difficulties canceling their recurring donations, they didn't seem to chatter very much about it on social media prior to 3 August 2016 (and ceasing to support Trump as a candidate is only one reason someone might seek to cancel a recurring payment). Diamond appeared to pass the baton on the story overall, updating followers later with a link to an article published by Mic: The folks at @mic took this ball and ran with it. Here's what they found: https://t.co/eTODFa4f3O https://t.co/cktSrf88Z2 @mic https://t.co/eTODFa4f3O https://t.co/cktSrf88Z2  Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) August 5, 2016 August 5, 2016  Diamond did not provide any further information about the claim, the claimant, or how he verified it before sharing it to Twitter. But Mic attempted to reproduce the problem on 4 August 2016 and gathered more information on the difficulty level of canceling recurring Trump donations. In a series of screenshots the site illustrated their findings, stating it was not possible to delete a stored credit card without replacing it with a separate valid credit card:  After investigating, Mic can confirm that there is no easy option to stop recurring donations on Trump's donation site: We set up a recurring donation of $1 and found no button or other obvious way to cancel payments or remove a credit card from the system  either on the homepage, the "update card" page, or in your contribution confirmation email. Once you're registered, if you try to change your payment information on Trump's site, you will see no option to remove your credit card  only "update" it. Then, when you click on "update card," you see a page that allows you to alter your payment information  but you cannot completely delete your credit card. You are forced to replace it with another valid card: Invalid numbers are rejected. One responder to the original tweet then objected to that claim, stating it was impossible to set up a recurring $1 donation:  .@JDiamond1 You can't set up a $1.00 recurring amt.What else about this story is BS?@realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/kB4TalWOSE @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/kB4TalWOSE  ValerieNoFux (@OPFergVal) August 7, 2016 August 7, 2016  However, it appears that it is possible to enter any amount as a recurring donation: enter  Mic confirmed that if a putative donor set up an account, then it would be possible for that person to cancel a recurring donation made via Trump's web site: It turns out that there is a way to delete your card from the Trump campaign's system, but it seems you must have first registered an account and created a password: If you did not do so, there is no clear way to cancel your payment. Assuming you did create an account and have logged in, to stop your payment you must click the small gray question mark icon in the upper right corner of the donations page. Then you will see [a separate] screen. In order to delete your card, you must click "manage." Then will you be redirected to the website of the Trump campaign's vendor. There you must click "recurring plans," and only then can you cancel your monthly payment; notably, even after you cancel, there is still no obvious way to delete your card number without replacing it with another valid number. Per Mic's screenshots, that vendor was Revv, and we sent an e-mail inquiry to them to clarify whether it was possible to cancel the recurring payments some other way.  Revv However, even if the web site interface didn't allow for such a cancellation, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) notes that the the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) provides for consumers to cancel unwanted recurring payments: notes If you have regular, automatic deductions from your checking account (to pay for expenses such as insurance premiums or utility bills), the EFTA allows you to stop those payments. First, notify the vendor. Next, tell your bank about your request at least three business days before the money is scheduled to be transferred. Your notice to the bank may be oral, but the institution may require you to provide a written follow-up within 14 days to ensure that no additional payments are made. If you fail to provide a written follow-up, the bank is no longer responsible for stopping future payments. Stopping an automatic, recurring payment on a credit card is different. Start by putting in your request with the vendor. But if the vendor continues to charge your credit card, contact your card issuer. You'll have 60 days to dispute the charge, starting when the card issuer sends you the statement with the charges. While it appears to be atypically difficult to cancel a recurring donation to the Trump campaign, it is certainly not impossible, as individuals who create an account can do so via the web interface. Overall, it seemed the problem related more to the interface of a third-party vendor (Revv) to whom the Trump campaign had outsourced donations and not to the campaign itself.  Dennin, James.  "Donald Trump's Campaign Website Won't Let Some Cancel Recurring Donations."
  Mic.  4 August 2016. Antonio Villaraigosa, the former mayor of Los Angeles and 2018 Democratic candidate for California governor, recently called for the state to unite with like-minded cities and states on the West Coast to oppose dangerous policies advanced by a Trump administration. Californias large economy, Villaraigosa said in aDec. 8, 2016 op-edin theSacramento Bee, gives it leverage in any possible showdown. In making this call, Villaraigosa repeated a favorite claim by California politicians that the states economy ranks as the sixth largest in the world -- a claim PolitiFact Californiarated Mostly Truein July. He then took the economic comparison further -- all the way to the Pacific Northwest. California is once again the sixth-largest economy in the world, Villaraigosa said. If you add the GDPs of Washington and Oregon, California would surpass the United Kingdom to become the fifth-largest economy in the world. Thats power  power we must use to protect our people against any dangerous policies advanced by a Trump administration, he added. We decided to fact-check the part of Villaraigosas claim that if the GDPs of California, Washington and Oregon were somehow combined, theyd represent the fifth largest economy on the planet, ahead of the United Kingdom. Gross domestic product, or GDP, is used to measure the health of a countrys or states economy. Its the total value of all goods and services. Our research A campaign spokeswoman for Villaraigosa pointed us to 2015 GDP figures from the International Monetary Fund. We used the same data in July to verify that California, with a GDP of nearly $2.5 trillion, had the sixth-largest economy behind the United States, China, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom. California Gov. Jerry Browns administrationreleased GDP figuresin June showing the state had jumped two spots in these unique world rankings ahead of France and Brazil and into sixth place behind the United Kingdom. In our July fact check, we noted that when adjusted for Californias very high cost of living, the states GDP drops several places. This led us to our Mostly True rating for the claim, which we define as accurate but needs clarification or additional information. To come up with a combined GDP for three West Coast states, we added Californias nearly $2.5 trillion to Oregons $217 billion and Washingtons $445 billion, using 2015 figures from theU.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Together, their GDPs add up to $3.1 trillion. This hypothetical West Coast powerhouse economy would be larger than the United Kingdoms $2.8 trillion GDP. Villaraigosas claim, however, needs the same disclaimer about high cost of living. California, Oregon and Washington are all expensive places to live. We realize Villaraigosas comparison is hypothetical -- and it looks like he got his numbers right. But to do this, he creates a fictional California economy that magically annexes the GDPs of two nearby states. Our ruling Antonio Villaraigosa recently said: California is once again the sixth-largest economy in the world. If you add the GDPs of Washington and Oregon, California would surpass the United Kingdom to become the fifth-largest economy in the world. We rated the first portion of this claim Mostly True in a separate fact check in July. We crunched the numbers on the second part of Villaraigosas claim, about a combined and hypothetical California-Oregon-Washington economy. At $3.1 trillion, it would surpass the United Kingdoms $2.8 trillion GDP and would rank fifth in the world. Its important to note that some economists factor in cost-of-living when assessing a states or countrys GDP. Expenses are high in all three states, which means this mega-economy could be knocked down a few spots in the rankings. The former mayors statement needs this clarification. Overall, we rate Villaraigosas claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/5b83a74d-fde6-48d9-9c72-c93824f92b4e In June 2022, internet users, especially those opposed to former Pres. Donald Trump, enthusiastically shared what appeared to be a statement in which he marked the occasion of his 76th birthday by attacking Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney, making a lewd remark about his wife, Melania, and soliciting donations from his supporters. In reality, the statement was fabricated by a left-wing political action committee which routinely produces what it describes as political satire. We are issuing a rating of "Misattributed." On Twitter, @StandForBetter posted the statement on June 14, Trump's birthday, along with the caption: posted Happy #FlagDay everyone! Looks like Donald J. Trump is looking for people to send money. Instead, maybe we can say Happy Birthday President Trump by sending an arrest warrant instead. The 100 GOP that support his big lie can bail him out of this spoof. From #UKR    The bogus statement was re-shared elsewhere on social media, without the name of its original source. This is important because Stand For Better is a left-wing political action committee that regularly publishes what its creators describe as "political films and satire supporting Dems."  re-shared elsewhere social media political action committee publishes describe Without that contextual information, social media users were more likely to share the statement as authentic.  When Trump does issue authentic statements, they appear on one or more of the following platforms: his website; his TruthSocial account; the Twitter feed of spokesperson Liz Harrington; or the Twitter feed of spokesperson Taylor Budowich.   website TruthSocial account Liz Harrington Taylor Budowich The "birthday" statement never appeared on any of those platforms on or around June 14, and we could therefore conclude it was not authentic, even if we weren't aware of the overtly political and "satirical" motivations of Stand for Better.  Did Trump Call Pence a Dog That Belongs on the Street? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-pence-dog-pet/. Accessed 16 June 2022.  Save America. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/news. Accessed 16 June 2022.  STAND FOR BETTER PAC - Committee Overview. FEC.Gov, https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00758672/. Accessed 16 June 2022.  Truth Social. https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/. Accessed 16 June 2022. The target in one of themostcompetitiveof Wisconsins nine Senaterecallracesis state Sen.Alberta Darling, R-River Hills, an architect of a 2011-2013 state budget that reduces aid to public schools by nearly $800 million.But one of the states major political players, the conservativeClub for Growth Wisconsin, is turning the tables. It claims Darlings challenger, state Rep.Sandy Pasch, D-Whitefish Bay, also backed a sizable school funding cut.The attack is part of aradioadthat began airing about a week before Pasch won the Democratic primary.Club for Growth, whichadvocatesfor limited government and minimal taxation, mostly branded Pasch as a tax-and-spender in the ad. But at one point, the female narrator says Pasch voted to to cut school aid by nearly $300 million.Club for Growth also makes the school aid claim in similar ads that have targeted two other Assembly Democrats who are challenging incumbent Republicans in recall races,accordingto theLa Crosse Tribune.They are Rep. Jennifer Shilling of La Crosse, running against Sen. Dan Kapanke of La Crosse; and Rep. Fred Clark of Baraboo, challenging Luther Olsen of Ripon. Those elections, and the Pasch-Darling contest, are on Aug. 9, 2011.When we asked for evidence to back the claim against Pasch, Club for Growth spokesman R. J. Johnson cited a May 2009Milwaukee Journal Sentinelarticle.It referred to the 2009-2011 budget submitted by then-Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, which proposed cutting state aid for schools by $290 million. That was before the Legislature, then controlled by Democrats, voted on the budget.But a month later, Pasch joined all but two Assembly Democrats inapprovingthe spending plan. The final budget cut general school aid by$294 million-- to $9.3 billion -- over two years, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.So, Club for Growth Wisconsin is correct in saying Pasch voted to cut school aid nearly $300 million. But is that whole story?In the same article cited by Club for Growth, Doyle said total spending on public schools would actually rise by about 5 percent because schools would get an additional $877 million in federal stimulus funds. That seemed to indicate that stimulus money would more than offset the state aid reduction. Gillian Morris, Paschs campaign spokeswoman, said that was also her understanding of what happened.But that was not the case.According to the fiscal bureau and the state Department of Public Instruction, the $294 million aid reduction took into account both the cut in state funds and the federal stimulus money that was added in.In other words, the stimulus money was not enough to offset the state funding cut. The net result for schools was a reduction in funding of $294 million.In sum, Club for Growth Wisconsin claimed that Pasch voted to cut nearly $300 million in aid to schools. The record shows the claim was on the mark.We rate the statement True. Some coal country voters see Hillary Clinton as a threat, someone who would install regulations that would hurt rather than help the struggling coal industry. But Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner, told CNNs Anderson Cooper that she thinks it's necessary to move away from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy, and she wants to do what she can to help current coal mine workers make that transition. But the market is making this decision, she said May 4. The market has driven down the cost of coal, so you have companies going bankrupt. So what I'm offering is a $30 billion plan to really revitalize coal country, to provide support for coal miners and their families, and I think that is the least the country owes these brave people. Coal has historically been the countrys primary electricity generator. But several major coal companies have gone bankrupt in recent years, including Arch Coal, Alpha Natural Resources and Peabody Energy. We decided to dig into the question of how much of that change is due solely to market forces, rather than environmental regulation. We talked to coal industry experts who told us that the primary forces working against coal are market-based, notably the growth of natural gas as a cleaner, cheaper alternative. But now that coal is vulnerable, environmental regulations may seal coals demise. Coal has always been able to absorb new regulations, said Robert Godby, a professor and expert in energy economics at the University of Wyoming. But the impact natural gas has had since the fracking boom has been amazing to watch. He added: This would all still be happening regardless of regulations. Natural gas is eating coals lunch, and the coal companies made a bad bet on Chinese demand. Coalused to generateabout 50 percent of electricity in the United States, but now its down to about 30 percent. Just in the past couple years, natural gas has begun todisplacecoal. (In this Energy Information Administration chart, the grey line represents coal, and the orange line represents natural gas.) A recent boom inhydraulic fracturing(fracking) in the United States has dramatically increased the availability of natural gas. Natural gasprices are low, and it produces abouthalf as much carbon. Consequently, demand for natural gas is going up, and demand for coal is going down, and fast. While natural gas is the main threat, a growing demand and diminishing costs for renewable energy, like wind and solar power, also takes away from coal demand, said West Virginia University law professor Patrick McGinley. He added that on top of all this, its getting harder to produce cheap coal in the Appalachia region because a century of mining has depleted supply, and so the costs of mining new coal are going up. This is all a huge problem for coal, because electricity is about 90 percent of the coal market, said Andy Roberts, research director for global thermal coal markets at the consulting firm Wood Mackenzie. He said the trend is unlikely to reverse. But it was a big, failed bet on the international coal market that ultimately pushed companies to a point where they couldnt pay off their debts, forcing them to file for bankruptcy reorganization. About five years ago, the big coal companies   Arch, Alpha and Peabody  took out massive loans to invest in metallurgical coal, a type found in the Appalachia region. They thought fast-growing Asian countries, particularly China, would want the coal to facilitate economic development. But Chinas growth slowed, and the demand never materialized. The companies have been unable to pay back their debts on this project, and thats what sent them into bankruptcy, Godby said. Regulations may make electricity companies apprehensive about investing in coal down the line. This is the best way to think about how environmental regulations affect coal: If youre an electricity company considering building a new coal-powered plant or rehabilitating an outdated one, youre already on the fence about whether thats a good investment, because of the threat of natural gas. But then you remember you might have to face strict carbon emission limitations down the line, which convinces you to go with a natural gas plant instead of a coal plant. Take President Barack Obamas Clean Power Plan, a major initiative that would affect coal-powered plants by reducing carbon emissions. It isnt in effect yet, and it faces court hurdles. Even so, the uncertainty of what kinds of carbon limitations coal plants will face, and the possibility that they could be significant, has already reduced coal plant investment, Roberts said. So, investment in coal plants is now basically nil, Roberts said. And when the CPP begins in earnest in 2022, coal demand, already suffering, will more rapidly and inexorably decline. Similarly, the2015 Mercury and Air Toxics Standardsis a federal regulation that has had a significant impact on the coal industry and contributed to coal-powered plant closures. But its impossible to tell how much of the changes in the coal market can be attributed solely to the regulations, rather than the regulations plus the market forces. Multiple experts we asked said that so far, its primarily been the market putting pressure on coal. But looking toward the future, as coal becomes more vulnerable and environmental rules get bigger, regulations may play a larger role. Yes, as Secretary Clinton notes, the market is sorting this out, Roberts said. Competitive natural gas, the market, does indeed have something to do with that. But so do the CPP and federal subsidies for renewable generation. The combination of all these elements has been toxic for coal companies and lethal for those with too much debt. In reality, the market for coal is partially economic but increasingly regulatory. In October,Appalachian Power President Charles Patton saidcoal power wont be able to rebound with or without the Clean Power Plan  the economics just dont make sense. Our ruling Clinton said, The market is making this decision. The market has driven down the cost of coal, so you have companies going bankrupt. Economic forces on both the national and international markets are the main reason coals prominence in the American energy sector is now vulnerable, forcing coal-burning plant closures and several high-profile bankruptcies. For a long time, coal has been impervious to government regulation. But more recently, regulations  a non-economic force  might be the straw that breaks the camels back, especially going forward now that coal is on shaky ground. Clintons claim is missing this important context, so we rate it Mostly True. Collected via email, 2013: A Country Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots Attributed to Jeff Foxworthy: If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you have to get your parents permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If, in the nations largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is "cute," but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class ingrade school is perfectly acceptable  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If the governments plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldnt be found  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more "safe" according to the government  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. What a country! How about we give God a reason to continue blessing America! The above-referenced list of entries detailing "A Country Founded by Geniuses But Run by Idiots" was widely circulated via the internet in early 2013 with an "Attributed to Jeff Foxworthy" tag at its head, leading many to believe it was actually the work of that nationally famous comedian. Jeff Foxworthy However, othen than its basic "If you ... you might be ..." pattern that mimics Jeff Foxworthy's popular "You might be a redneck" routines, this item bears little resemblance to anything produced by Foxworthy: his comedic material is typically affectionate and self-deprecating and involves poking fun at his own milieu; his brand of humor is much more apolitical and non-partisan than the list reproduced above. (Nonetheless, Jeff's name has been falsely attached to other similar political pieces that have little in common with the tenor and substance of his comedy material.) attached Jeff's brother, Jay, confirmed for us that this material was not written by his sibling. The original compiler of this list appears to be Fritz Edmunds, who posted it to his "Politically True" blog back on Feb. 3, 2013 (albeit with a disclaimer noting that "some of the ideas were from an email that did not contain any copyright"). Politically True As usual, the list has seen numerous alterations in the process of being passed around the Internet, and several of the entries appearing in earlier versions have since dropped off: If the only school curriculum allowed to explain how we got here is evolution, but your government stops a $15 million construction project to keep a rare spider from evolving to extinction  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If your government believes that using steroids or other drugs will ruin your life, but throwing you in prison for years will not  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested homes  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If your government believes that the way to make a school of unarmed children safe is to pass another law, this time with the illusion that three 10-round magazines in a rifle is safer than a 30-round magazine  you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. The phrase "founded by geniuses and run by idiots" appears to be a variant of a similar statement that appeared in Herman Wouk's 1951 novel "The Caine Mutiny": "The Navy is a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots." In the 1954 film of the same name, the line was rendered, "The first thing you've got to learn about this ship is that she was designed by geniuses to be run by idiots." <!-- Sources:    Metz, Ken.  "It's Never Wise to Insult the Police Officer."   The Bath County News-Outlook.  30 August 2007. Update [Aug. 2, 2022]: Updated SEO and title. In July 2018, the Chipotle Mexican Grill chain of fast casual restaurants ran a promotion in conjunction with National Avocado Day, offering free guacamole to customers with their orders on 31 July: free guacamole  Unfortunately, scammers took advantage of this promotion to post counterfeit offers for free $100 Chipotle gift cards, touting that users need only share a link with five friends to claim their bounty: counterfeit offers   This fake offer was just another variation of a long-running form of scam with a familiar pattern.  First, scammers set up look-alike websites and social media pages that mimic those of legitimate companies in order to promote scams advertising free gift cards or coupons. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a "survey" that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who wish to claim their "free" gift cards eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions (negating the free aspect of the gift card). The Better Business Bureau offers three tips to identify similar scams: Dont believe what you see. Its 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 theres a link to their privacy policy. Watch out for a reward thats 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. Stoking their long-running feud, California Gov. Jerry Brown recently jabbed at former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, saying Golden State is growing a hell of a lot faster than Texas. Brown made this claim in the middle of an impassioned defense of climate change science at the American Geophysical Union conference on Dec. 14, 2016, in San Francisco. Weve proved in California that the economy grows. And it grows in part because of the climate rules that weve adopted, Brown said. Perry, a climate change skeptic, was recently selected U.S. energy secretary by President-elect Trump. While Texas governor, he repeatedly visited California in an attempt to lure jobs to the Lone Star State, with the promise of less regulation and lower costs. In his speech, Brown said Perrys critiques about Californias job-killing red tape dont hold up. Now remember our new secretary of energy, he was coming to California to say: Come to Texas because we have all the jobs in Texas. Well, Rick: I got some news for you, California is growing a hell of a lot faster than Texas, and we have more sun than you have oil! Gov. Jerry Brown makes his claim about California growing a hell of a lot faster than Texas at about the 13:00 minute mark in the video above. With Browns reference of Perry, we took his faster than Texas claim to mean faster economic growth with a focus on jobs. We decided to zero-in on job growth rates in California and Texas, while also weighing GDP and unemployment trends in the states. Well leave the fun comparison of sunshine to oil for Brown and Perry to wrestle with another day. Our research We concede theres no definition for what a hell of a lot faster growth looks like. Still, well do our best to sort out the governors claim. Browns spokeswoman pointed us to several news articles detailing Californias recent economic improvements. Looking solely at 2015 job growth rates, Browns claim appears to hold up. In that year, California added 483,000 jobs, posting a jobs growth rate of 3 percent, based ondatawe crunched from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That pace was twice as fast as Texas 1.5 percent job growth rate. Californias rapid employment gains have slowed somewhat to about 2 percent this year through November. That may not qualify as a hell of a lot faster, but its still greater than Texas roughly 1.6 percent job growth rate so far this year. The business website Kiplinger.com forecast California would rank10th in the nationamong states for fastest job growth in 2016. It noted that Texas was not on its Top 10 list. It wasnt long ago, however, that Texas outpaced California. In 2014, Texas recorded a 3.7 percent job growth rate, ahead of Californias 2.9 percent pace. Looking to the future, Californias job gains may slow. The closely watchedUCLA Anderson Forecastpredicts jobs to grow by only 1.5 percent in the state during 2017 and just 0.8 percent in 2018. Because Brown used the phrase is growing, well judge him on the most recent figures, not future forecasts. Overall economy While the pace of job growth is important, its not the only measurement of a states economic health. And Browns claim could be interpreted as Californias overall economy, not just jobs, is growing much faster than the economy in Texas. In August, PolitiFact Texas took adeep lookat the economies of both California and Texas to evaluate a June claim by Julin Castro, the U.S. secretary of Housing and Urban Development, that Today, California is kicking our butt, creating more jobs and more economic growth than Texas. It rated the claim True, citing greater jobs, per capita income and GDP growth rates in California. It noted Texas had a lower jobless rate. Building on that fact check, we looked at the most recent economic figures for both states to see if the assessment still holds. We found that Californias GDP grew faster than Texas in the first two quarters of this year, at rates of 2 percent and most recently 2.2 percent compared with Texas 1.3 percent and its most recent quarter, a negative 0.8 percent, according toa news release in Decemberby the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. It was a different story in 2015 when Texas GDP expanded by 4.8 percent (a figure that was recently revised upward) compared with Californias 3.8 percent GDP expansion. Comparingunemployment rates, Texas, at 4.6 percent in November, has consistently fared better than California, where the rate was 5.3 percent in November, and has hovered well above 5 percent this year. California had one more economic bright spot in 2015: Per capita personal income grew at twice the rate as in Texas,5.4 percentto2.6 percent, according to federal data. Our ruling Gov. Jerry Brown recently claimed California is growing a hell of a lot faster than Texas. We took this to mean economic growth with a focus on the pace of job creation. Californias 3 percent job growth rate in 2015, which doubled Texas pace, definitely fits into Brown's colorful claim. But Californias rate has slowed to about 2 percent so far this year, closer to Texas 1.6 job growth rate. Other economic metrics show California faring better than Texas in several, though not all, categories: Californias GDP expanded faster than Texas GDP in the first two quarters of this year, though Texas had a faster GDP growth rate in 2015. Also, per capita income grew twice as fast in California as Texas in 2015, also backing Browns statement. Texas, however, has consistently held a lower jobless rate than California in recent years. Brown, like the states economy in recent years, is on the right track. Although California has expanded jobs and its economy faster than Texas in many cases, there are a few cases where that growth has been strong but not necessarily a hell of a lot faster. We rate Browns statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/158c502a-4b3e-463d-906f-529da13e2451 The day before Gov.Scott Walkermade his re-election run official, Matt Flynn issued a pre-emptive strike, comparing the two-term Republican unfavorably to another two-term Wisconsin governor, DemocratJim Doyle. Scott Walkers time is up, was how Flynn, a Democrat running in the 2018 race for governor, began his Nov. 4, 2017news release. Average wages, when adjusted for inflation, are lower today than they were under Jim Doyle. Walker, who has been governor since 2011, hasusedanumberof economicstatisticsto argue that things are better than they were underDoyle, who served from 2003 through 2010. So, lets see how the claim from Flynn, a lawyer and former chairman of the state Democratic Party, stands up. Under Walker, are average wages lower in Wisconsin than they were under Doyle? The claim alludes to Walker bearing some responsibility, but doesnt directly blame him. And governors play an important but limited role in wages. Flynns evidence To back Flynns claim, his campaign cited two sets of statistics, both adjusted for inflation. 1.Under Walker in 2016, the median hourly wage was$17.43-- 5 cents lower than in 2009 under Doyle, before the full effects of the Great Recession set in. The figures are from the latest U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics, which are estimates based on data collected from employers in all industry sectors in Wisconsin. But Doyle served another full year. The figure for 2010 was $17.37 -- 6 cents lower than in 2016 under Walker. More importantly, the Bureau of Labor Statisticswarns againstusing this particular set of data to make comparisons over time. So, were discounting this point. 2.The median hourly wageeclipsed $18in 2003, 2005 and 2010 under Doyle -- but through 2016, had not reached that level under Walker. The figure in 2010, Doyles last full year in office, was $18.10, higher than the latest inflation-adjusted figure for Walker, $17.96 in 2016. Thats according to a 2017 report by COWS, formerly known as the Center on Wisconsin Strategy, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The report cites statistics produced by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. The Washington, D.C.-based institute says it usedCurrent Population Surveydata, produced jointly by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau, that are good for comparisons over time. So, the second statistic tends to support Flynns claim -- although both statistics he cites are formedianwages, rather thanaverage. While average is the term Flynn used, many people use that word even when referring to median. Some economists recommend using the median, since it is a midpoint -- half of people earned wages below that point and half were above. In contrast, the average can be greatly influenced by extremes; for example, it will be pulled higher if there are many people earning very high incomes. Our numbers We produced our own inflation-adjusted numbers foraveragewages, the term Flynn used, with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that can be used for comparisons over time. The average weekly wage in Wisconsin in 2016 was $885 -- higher than every year under Doyle -- according to the latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. The QCEW figurescome from quarterly countsof employment and wages reported by employers covering more than 95 percent of U.S. jobs. By another measure, for only the private sector, the average weekly wage in August 2017 was $827 -- higher than the August figure for every year under Doyle dating back to 2007 -- according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Employment Statistics figures. (Figures before 2007 are not available). So, the average wage under Walker is higher than when Doyle left office in 2010. Our rating Flynn says that under Walker, average wages, when adjusted for inflation, are lower today than they were under Jim Doyle. Adjusting for inflation, theaveragewage is higher under Walker than it was when Doyle left office in 2010. But sometimes people use the more common term average when theyre actually referring to themedian-- which some economists say is a better measure for wages because an average can be distorted by people who earn very high wages. The median wage was higher when Doyle left office than it is under Walker. Flynns statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details -- our definition of Half True. On 30 September 2016, the official-looking Tribunist.com web site published an article reporting that a backlogged Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital morgue in Chicago had left the remains of deceased veterans scandalously "stacked to capacity at times": article The latest scandal to break paints another bleak picture. A whistle-blower at an Illinois VA hospital has leaked news that bodies of dead veterans have been left unclaimed in the morgue for up to two months ... The level of decay was so pronounced that at least one of the bodies had liquefied. When the staff tried to remove it, the body-bag burst. Complaints were lodged with the VAs inspector general last month about the Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospitals handling of cadavers. In some cases, veterans families had not claimed the bodies. The complaint names Christopher Wirtjes, chief of Patient Administrative Services. The Chief of PAS has the funds available, the complaint reads, yet has no sense of urgency to lay the veteran to rest. ... Some veterans remains have been left in our hospital morgue for 45 days or more until they are stacked to capacity at times, reads the complaint. Kirk has taken his concerns to VA Secretary Bob McDonald. Wirtjes has been under scrutiny before. The Office of Special Counsel found Wirtjes had devised a secret wait list that was exposed in 2014. The Tribunist site is not (as implied) tied to a major newspaper such as the Chicago Tribune, and the image appended to their article was an unrelated photograph from 2010 that had nothing to do with VA burial backlogs and misleadingly suggested that claims about dozens of rotting veterans' corpses stacked on shelves awaiting burial or release in the Chicago VA morgue had been photographically documented: 2010  The claim wasn't entirely fabricated, however. On 26 September 2016 WBBM-TV reported on allegations that the burial of two unclaimed bodies at a VA morgue in Chicago had been delayed: reported The Department of Veterans Affairs investigated the claims echoed by WBBM and the Tribunist and maintained that although some isolated veteran burial issues may have occurred in Chicago, "allegations related to consistent problems with dignified and timely burials [are] unsubstantiated": Internal emails reveal at least two unclaimed vets sat inside the morgue for at least 30 days this summer, allowing the bodies to badly decompose. The VA said an investigation continues but signaled it has not uncovered any widespread problem. We take whistleblower allegations very seriously and absolutely agree that all of our veterans deserve dignity and respect, in life and in death. While our investigation into this matter is still ongoing, we have found allegations related to consistent problems with dignified and timely burials to be unsubstantiated. However, we have taken this opportunity to review our policies and procedures and are currently working to improve them, a spokesperson said. Claims about the VA morgue in Chicago so far remain localized and have to do with the burial of two veterans whose bodies were left unclaimed by relatives. We contacted the Department of Veterans Affairs, and a spokesperson told us that the morgue had a capacity of nine and currently held two decedents (neither of whom had been there for more than eight days):  Honoring the men and women who nobly served our nation  in both life and death  is a solemn obligation the Department of Veterans Affairs takes seriously. Consequently, when allegations surfaced that some Veterans who succumbed to illness under the care of Edward Hines Jr VA Hospital may not have been buried in a timely manner, an immediate investigation was launched. While that investigation is ongoing, preliminary results reveal no evidence of lack of timely final care. Staff at Hines VA Hospital conducted a fact-finding investigation that shows over the last two years, the vast majority  more than 95 percent  of Veterans remains are being respectfully handled within seven days, and more than 99 percent within 30 days. Additionally, VAs Office of Medical Inspector (OMI) spent significant time at the facility interviewing employees and reviewing related materials. And while we are awaiting OMIs final report, we remain confident that our Veterans have been receiving dignified and timely burials. While rare, there have been exceptions in which decisions and requests by next of kin created delays. It is in this area where Hines has already begun improving its policies and procedures to determine when to declare a Veterans remains as unclaimed and how to ensure more timely burials for these exceptions. Once a final report from OMI is complete, the VA will take additional actions as appropriate. WBBM-TV.  "Bodies of Unclaimed Veterans Languish At Hines VA Hospital, Whistleblower Claims."
  26 September 2016.