Has a school walkout been scheduled in reaction to the Parkland mass shooting?
Following the 14 February 2018 school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas in Parkland Florida, people began posting information about planned school walkouts and protests, frequently with the hashtags #schoolwalkout or #nationalschoolwalkout. Readers wrote in confused about the various dates promoted by different groups. Below is a breakdown of planned events. On 20 and 21 February 2018, students from at least 50 high schools in South Florida participated in a walkout in one of at least two regional demonstrations staged by students in response to the shooting in Parkland. The Sun Sentinel reported: participated Perhaps the largest crowd came Wednesday [21 February 2018] afternoon when teens from various schools all converged on Marjory Stoneman Douglas High, where authorities say Nikolas Cruz shot and killed 17 people. The demonstrators long lines snaked for several city blocks, visible through the aerial images captured by news helicopters. Drivers passing by honked their horns in support ... U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., was outside Marjory Stoneman praising students. You all are so strong and you are so articulate, Nelson told the students as they nodded. Keep that message going on, because if you dont, itll get swallowed up into the same ol same ol, just like its been. 14 March 2018 Women's March Youth EMPOWER, an organization sponsored by the Women's March Network  which planned large-scale protests the day after Donald Trump's inauguration and a year afterwards  is planning a walkout for 14 March. It would be for 17 minutes, one minute for each of the people killed in the Parkland shooting:  sponsored     24 March 2018 Survivors of the 14 February shooting at Margery Stoneman Douglas High School and other students are planning a protest in Washington, D.C., called "March for Our Lives." The event has caught the interest of celebrities, including Oprah Winfrey and George and Amal Clooney, who have donated large amounts of money to the event. "Sister marches" will take place in cities around the world.  students event world 20 April 2018 The most highly publicized walkout appears to be planned for 20 April 2018, the 19th anniversary of the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado. Details about the event vary across social media from a full-day absence to signing children out (or having students walk out) at the time the Columbine massacre occurred. At least one high school has threatened disciplinary action against any student participating in a school walkout. threatened On Facebook, a "No Kids Left" event was scheduled for 20 April 2018, which urged parents to keep their children out of school for the entire day: event Parents and Caregivers, please keep your children out of the classroom on Friday, April 20, 2018, the 19th anniversary of the Columbine HS massacre. This will be a simulation of the extreme outcome if we continue to only offer thoughts & prayers when our children are murdered at school. #nokidsleft Together lets send a message to our representatives & the current administration in Washington to take action. I'm a mom who doesn't know what else to do, but we must do something. Please share this event & RSVP to show your solidarity. Please help families who cannot afford to stay home from work by offering your service of child care. NOTE: We are working with www.noshootings.com to make the 19th anniversary of the Columbine shooting a day when no kids get shot because no kids will be at school. The Twitter account @schoolwalkoutUS, created in February 2018 provided a date of 20 April and clarified that the event was separate from the 24 March demonstrations: @schoolwalkoutUS On Friday, April 20th we want students to attend school and then promptly WALK-OUT at 10:00 am. Sit outside your schools and peacefully protest. Make some noise. Voice your thoughts. "We are students, we are victims, we are change."  National School Walkout (@schoolwalkoutUS) February 17, 2018 February 17, 2018  We contacted event organizers for clarification, and National School Walkout responded: Hello, The Walkout is real. It will take place at 10:00 a.m. on the anniversary of the Columbine killings, April 20th, and will be an opportunity for young people to send a clear message that we will not tolerate inaction on gun violence. Other organizations are planning similar events and protests. We fully endorse those events as well, and we hope that together we can end the violence that terrorizes our country. Chokey, Aric, Juan Ortega and Brett Clarkson.  "'Enough Is Enough,' Students Chant As Thousands Stage Walkouts Across South Florida."
  Sun Sentinel.  21 February 2018. Williams, David.  "Schools Threaten To Punish Students Who Join Walkouts Over Gun Control."
  CNN.  21 February 2018. Women's March.  "ENOUGH: National School Walkout."
  Accessed 22 February 2018.
Claim:  Barack Obama filed a lawsuit to require banks to "make loans to poor people." false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] In 1994, a class-action lawsuit was filed against CitiBank, demanding that loans be made to poor people, and others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back. The basis of the lawsuit was the 14th Amendment, which requires 'fair and equal' treatment for all citizens. The legal theory was that failing to loan money to poor/indigent/unemployed people was, on it's face, a discriminatory act by lending institutions. Thousands of loans were processed, and of course many went into default, in part explaining why we're in the financial mess we're in. Now, it's easy for some people to point the finger of blame at Pres. Geo. Bush for this crisis, because he's sitting in the hot seat. What many people don't know is the suit was filed during the Clinton Administration. The lawyer filing the suit was none other than: Barak Hussein Obama. Origins:  This item seeks to dump much of the blame for America's current economic woes on Barack Obama by claiming that as a young lawyer, Obama filed a lawsuit requiring financial institutions to lend money to"poor people" and "others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back."  Although there is a (very) vague element of fact underneath this politicking, the piece quoted above is woefully wrong in all its particulars. The 1994 case of Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank had nothing to do with requiring lenders to do business with people "who could not show proof that they could pay the money  Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank back."  The case was a class-action lawsuit against Citibank Federal Savings initiated by a black Chicago woman, Selma Buycks-Roberson, who claimed she was unfairly denied a mortgage based on her race.  The lawsuit sought to end the practice of redlining, a discriminatory practice by which banks, insurance companies, and other business institutions refuse or limit loans, mortgages, insurance, etc., based solely on the geographic area in which the applicant lives (a practice that commonly excludes minorities in inner-city neighborhoods, regardless of their income or ability to pay).  Specifically, the lawsuit charged that Citibank "rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories."  The case was eventually settled out of court, with some class members receiving cash payments and Citibank agreeing to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages. redlining Although Barack Obama was involved with the Buycks-Roberson case, he did not file the lawsuit, nor was he the lead attorney in the matter.  He was a junior member of an eight-lawyer team that worked on the case: Obama admits he played a mostly behind-the-scenes role at his law firm, Miner Barnhill & Galland. He researched the law, drafted motions, prepared for depositions and did other less glamorous work during his three years full-time and eight years "of counsel" to the firm.  "He wrote lots of substantial memos, but he didn't try any cases," said Judson Miner, a partner in the firm who was Obama's boss. Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods. "I don't recall him ever standing up and giving an impassioned speech  it was a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff," said Fay Clayton, the lead lawyer on the case. "He was the very junior lawyer in that case," said attorney Robert Kriss. "He had just graduated from law school. I don't recall him being in court at any time I was there. I was the lead lawyer for Citibank and he was not very visible to me." Kriss, Clayton and every other co-counsel and opposing counsel interviewed for this story praised Obama's legal ability, temperament and everything about his courtroom demeanor, even though, they agree, he didn't say much in the courtroom.  On Feb. 23, 1995, Obama billed 2 hours and 50 minutes for an appearance before Judge Ruben Castillo on behalf of his client, and also for reviewing some documents in advance of a deposition. That cost Citibank  which ultimately had to pay the winning side's fees  $467 at Obama's hourly rate of $165. Miner commanded the higher rate of $285 an hour. During his appearance before the judge, Obama said he would need more time to file a response to a motion, and the judge agreed. That was all Obama said during the half-hour hearing. His final bill on the case was 138 hours, or $23,000. Last updated:  5 September 2012    Associated Press.  "Some Cases Obama Worked on in His Career as an Attorney."   20 February 2007. In December 2020, readers asked Snopes to check the authenticity and accuracy of a diatribe against outgoing U.S. President Donald Trump, widely attributed to actor and director George Clooney. The speech has been shared many thousands of times over the past three years, in social media posts, and in the form of memes. For unknown reasons, it enjoyed something of a resurgence in October and December 2020. shared thousands October December 2020 A typical post read: George Clooney's response after Trump accused him of being a "Hollywood elite". "Here's the thing: I grew up in Kentucky. I sold insurance door-to-door. I sold ladies' shoes. I worked at an all-night liquor store. I would buy suits that were too big and too long and cut the bottom of the pants off to make ties so I'd have a tie to go on job interviews. I grew up understanding what it was like to not have health insurance for eight years. So this idea that I'm somehow the 'Hollywood elite' and this guy who takes a shit in a gold toilet is somehow the man of the people is laughable. "People in Hollywood, for the most part, are people from the Midwest who moved to Hollywood to have a career. So this idea of 'coastal elites' living in a bubble is ridiculous. Who lives in a bigger bubble? He lives in a gold tower and has twelve people in his company. He doesn't run a corporation of hundreds of thousands of people he employs and takes care of. He ran a company of twelve people! "When you direct a film you have seven different unions all wanting different things, you have to find consensus with all of them, and you have to get them moving in the same direction. He's never had to do any of that kind of stuff. I just look at it and I laugh when I see him say 'Hollywood elite.' Hollywood elite? I don't have a star on Hollywood Boulevard, Donald Trump has a star on Hollywood Boulevard! Fuck you!"   Some of those posts and memes contained a small number of very minor tweaks in wording, but overall, they accurately and fairly attributed the diatribe to Clooney, who did indeed hammer Trump as a "guy who takes a shit in a gold toilet" and "lives in a gold tower," and did indeed finish his speech by telling Trump "Fuck you!" Clooney's remarks came in the context of an interview with the Daily Beast, published on Sept. 22, 2017. Many of the viral social media posts claimed Clooney was speaking in response to Trump's accusation that Clooney was part of a "Hollywood elite." interview But that's not quite right. The question (or prompt) to which Clooney was responding was, "Trump has been stoking this culture war between "coastal elites" and Middle America  the irony of course being that Trump himself is a "coastal elite." Below is the exchange as it appeared in its original context: In late February 2019, a misleading meme was circulated on Facebook that led viewers to ask whether U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky had mysteriously amassed vast wealth in yearly increments to the tune of $2.4 million while in office:   As Senate Majority Leader, McConnell received an annual salary of $193,400, but the Kentucky Republican reported an influx of family wealth between $5 million and $25 million in 2008, according to his financial disclosures. That influx was the result of an inheritance his wife received upon the death of her mother, and that  information has been part of public discourse since 2014, when it became campaign fodder for McConnell's Democratic opponent, Allison Lundergan Grimes: salary  Although the meme and the campaign ad upon which it was likely based were set up to make it seem as if McConnell's wealth increase were the result of his role in the Senate and thus involved unethical or illegal activities, most of his net worth actually derives from his wife, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, who hails from a wealthy business family and married McConnell in 1993. Chao is the daughter of James S.C. and Ruth Mulan Chu Chao. Her father is the founder of the New York-based international shipping and trading company Foremost Group, an organization her sister, Angela, chairs. How wealthy is the Chao family? Wealthy enough to have bestowed Harvard Business School with a $40 million gift in 2012. chairs gift According to the non-profit government transparency organization Center for Responsive Politics, McConnell's net worth jumped from an estimated $7.8 million in 2007 to $17 million in 2008, owing entirely to a tax-exempt, money market fund in an account he held jointly with his wife: 2008   As the Washington Post reported in 2014, McConnell's increase in wealth reflected inheritance mone Chao received when her mother passed away in 2007: reported Thats almost a sevenfold increase in 10 years. McConnell has quadrupled his net worth since 2007, when it was $7.8 million. So what happened in 2008? His financial disclosure form tells the storysuddenly there appeared a tax-exempt money market fund, valued at between $5 million and $25 million, listed as a gift from a filers relative. (Look at Line 2 and then Line 3.)   Indeed, a McConnell spokesman confirms that this was an inheritance for McConnells wife, former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, after her mother died in 2007. Chao, who married McConnell in 1993, earns significant income on her own, serving on corporate boards, and has at least $1 million in a Vanguard 500 Index Fund. (Since these shares are in her name, McConnell only needs to report they have a minimum value of $1 million.) The Center for Responsive Politics estimated McConnell's net worth in 2015, the most recent figure available, to be nearly $27 million. 2015 Kessler, Glenn.  "How Did Mitch McConnells Net Worth Soar?"
  The Washington Post.  22 May 2014. Newmyer, Tory.  "The Secret to Mitch McConnell's Millions."
  Fortune.  20 March 2014. In July 2016 an image featuring quotes attributed to Barack Obama, uttered in 2008 about his then political opponent Hillary Clinton, was circulated on social media just as Clinton was claiming the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination:  The first half of the quote reproduced in the image, at least, can be loosely attributed to Barack Obama. Although he didn't actually say those words, the phrase "she will say anything and change nothing" was part of a voiceover narration used in a radio spot approved by Obama during the 2008 Democratic primaries:  Obama: "Im Barack Obama, running for president and I approve this message." Announcer: "Its whats wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected. Now shes making false attacks on Barack Obama. "The Washington Post says Clinton isnt telling the truth. Obama 'did not say that he liked the ideas of Republicans.' In fact, Obamas led the fight to raise the minimum wage, close corporate tax loopholes and cut taxes for the middle class. "But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote 'paid tribute' to Ronald Reagans economic and foreign policy. She championed NAFTA  even though it has cost South Carolina thousands of jobs. And worst of all, it was Hillary Clinton who voted for George Bushs war in Iraq. "Hillary Clinton. Shell say anything, and change nothing. Its time to turn the page. Paid for by Obama for America." Although this radio attack ad focused on Clinton's trustworthiness, the phrase "Hillary can't be trusted and isn't qualified to be president" did not appear in it, and we found no record of Barack Obama's having otherwise uttered or used this phrase during the 2008 campaign. Such a charge would also have been problematic for the young Illinois senator to have made during the  2008 election, as back then Obama was seen as the more unqualified and inexperienced candidate compared to Hillary Clinton. unqualified Interestingly, when ABC News covered this ad in 2008, they presciently wrote that it was "so harsh" that they wouldn't be surprised if the GOP eventually used it against Hillary Clinton: covered The ad is so harsh, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see whomever the GOP nominee ends up being using it in his ads against Clinton, should she become the Democratic nominee.  James, Michael.  "Obama: Hillary Will 'Say Anything and Change Nothing'."
  ABC News.  25 January 2008. In April 2017, a Bed Bath & Beyond coupon offer (purportedly good for $75 off any purchase) began circulating on Facebook under the guise of a Mother's Day promotion:   The "coupon" displays a domain name not part of the chain's legitimate web site, and the link takes Facebook users to a fraudulent web site posing as part of Bed Bath & Beyond, and instructs them to follow a simple set of instructions:Bed Bath & Beyond warned customers about the circulating phony discount in responses on their Facebook page:  page   This scam is almost exactly the same as earlier schemes targeting Home Depot, Costco, Amazon, and Kroger shoppers. Although the scams exhibited minor variations, they all feature three main identifiers. Home Depot Costco Amazon Kroger All require Facebook users to forward the phony coupon on to their Facebook friends, increasing the number of potential victims. They also instruct targets to complete out a simple survey and promise an outsized reward for a minor effort, a seemingly harmless task that often mines sensitive information such as e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth and credit card details. Finally, the completion of the "survey" never results in the receipt of a coupon for Bed Bath & Beyond (or any other known brand appropriated by scammers). Often, the ruse results in a subscription for difficult-to-cancel Reward Offers, or simply the disclosure of personal details to social media grifters. In a best-case scenario such efforts are a simple but effective like-farming scam, which can lead to embarrassment if the "liked" page is converted into an unpalatable one with risqu or rude content. scam The Better Business Bureau gave these three tips to identify these particular scams on Facebook: Facebook 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. In recent years, internet users and fans of historical curiosities have marveled at a bizarre, even sinister-looking costume covered head to toe in spikes, which is most commonly described as being a "Siberian bear-hunting suit from the 1800s." Enthusiasts have repeatedly posted largely the same, distinctive black-and-white photograph of the outfit, to the popular online forum Reddit: in 2019; 2018; and 2014. The posts always refer to the object as a "Siberian bear-hunting suit" and largely date it to the 19th century, as shown in the example below: 2019 2018 2014   The remarkable photograph, and its description as a Siberian bear-hunting suit from the 19th century, enjoyed a boost online in 2012, after it was featured on the popular, and now defunct, website Retronaut: boost Retronaut   It has even inspired a song, entitled "Bear Hunting Armor," which was released by the Prague-based indie band Ending, in 2018. The music video, whose imagery clearly borrows heavily from the now-famous photograph, can be watched below. The band itself described the song as having been "Inspired by a Siberian bear hunting armor from the 1800s." music video  In reality, conclusive evidence is not available as to the precise origins of the costume  its purpose, creation date, or the geographical and cultural milieu from which it emerged  although it is a real historical artifact and the widely shared photograph of it is authentic. Moreover, good reasons exist to doubt the accuracy of the "Siberian bear-hunting" explanation that has become popular. As such, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven." If decisive evidence emerges, we will update this fact check accordingly. The picture in question appears to have been taken by Malcolm Kirk, a renowned New York-based photographer. In 2012, the Victorian Adventure Enthusiast blog wrote about the artifact, claiming to have confirmed with Kirk's representatives that he did indeed take the photograph. Malcolm Kirk wrote As of July 2021, the suit itself was housed at the Menil Collection in Houston, Texas  a museum that contains the private art and artifact collection of the French-American de Menil family. The museum's website features various photographs of the costume, which is on display as part of the "Witnesses to a Surrealist Vision" exhibit: museum various photographs   The Menil Collection describes the exhibit, which first opened in 1999, as follows: This unique installation presents a culturally heterogeneous collection of more than 150 objects from the Menils permanent collection or on long-term loan from members of the de Menil family. Ritual and everyday objects, primarily from the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Islands and the Americaswhich the Surrealists believed to be witnesses to the universality of their own visual and literary artistic practicesare exhibited with 19th-century European astrolabes, anamorphoscopes, and other devices that offer alternative ways to perceive and understand reality.  So we know the suit is real, who owns it, and where it has been on display for the past 20 years, and we know that the widely shared photograph of it is authentic, as well as the name of the photographer who captured it. However, the precise origins of the costume remain elusive.  In her 2014 master's thesis, available in full here, Kristen Strange at Arizona State University wrote at length, and in considerable detail, about "Witnesses to a Surrealist Vision." here As part of her research, she examined records relating to the acquisition of the costume, which was also frequently referred to as "Wildman," as well as correspondence involving Dominique de Menil, a co-founder of the museum along with her husband, John; their daughter, Adelaide de Menil; and Edmund Carpenter, Adelaide's husband and an American anthropologist who initially curated the exhibit. Despite her extensive examination of those documents and records, Strange found no evidence to definitively pin down the exact origins of the suit, but did discover some interesting background information, and clues that the outfit might actually have originated in 18th or 19th century Germany or Switzerland, rather than 19th century Russia. She wrote: The Wildman, an essential object in the early planning stages of the exhibition, was referred to as the porcupine man in correspondence between Dominique de Menil and Edmund Carpenter. ... Carpenter was likely drawn to the uncanny appearance and narrative of the Wildman, and displayed this costume in his office for many years before its inclusion in Witnesses. There has been some uncertainty over this objects culture of origin and its originally intended purpose. While it is now thought to have originated in eighteenth- or nineteenth-century Germany or Switzerland, this costume presumably represents a folk figure seen in the Vogel Gryff Festival in Basel, but it has also been considered a bear hunting costume. ... Its provenance dates backwards from a December 6, 1974 auction at the Palais Galliera [in Paris], where it was purchased by Adelaide de Menil and Carpenter. The file provides further documentation and explains that this costume came with a handwritten note stating that it formerly belonged to the collection of Adamson (naturalists) who gave their name to surreal seashells. While the true origins of The Wildman remain uncertain, it appears that it was being described as a bear-hunting suit as early as 1998, and possibly before that. In November of that year, the renowned conservator Barbara Appelbaum wrote an email to her colleagues at the Global Conservation Forum, looking for advice on the use of Beva, a specialist adhesive popular among conservators.  specialist adhesive In her email, she described the artifact she was working on at that time in terms that strongly suggest it was The Wildman, especially since her email came just months before the "Witnesses to a Surrealist Vision" exhibit first opened at the Menil Collection. However, it should be noted that in her email, Appelbaum cast doubt on the "bear-hunting" description of the item: her email The object is being called a Siberian bear-hunting suit, but I suspect it is more likely to be for bear bating than hunting, since I can't imagine anyone could run around the woods in it. It consists of leather pants and jacket (and an iron helmet) studded all over with 1-inch iron nails about 3/4 in. apart. The nails are held in place by a second layer of leather lining the whole thing and quilted into place between the nails. In areas of wear and flexing, like around the ankles and the crotch, the inside layer of leather is worn through, so the nails are falling out. In December 2021, a video was circulated on social media that supposedly showed a "human sleeve," an artificial replacement body that would allow a person to "live" for eternity by using their stored consciousness. The conspiratorial website "Before Its News," for example, shared this video claiming that it showed a "whistleblowers" video of clones in Hollywood:   The video, which can be viewed below, does not show a "human sleeve" or a clone. This video features a marketing display for the show "Altered Carbon." A posting of the "human sleeve" video went viral after it was posted to TikTok in October.    This video shows a booth at the 2018 Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas. While the presenters at this booth acted as if they were showcasing new cloning technology, this was really just a marketing ploy by Netflix for their new show "Altered Carbon." The Wrap reported at the time: Wrap reported Wandering through the seemingly never-ending Las Vegas Convention Center on Tuesday, it was hard to miss the crowd gathered around around the PsychaSec display. Hosts draped in all-white were showing off two artificial bodies that, in a few years, humans could pay to trade their own crappy body for. At the same time, the host touted the companys ability to plant chips into a persons head and download every experience and memory theyve had. Sounds pretty trippy, right? Unfortunately, PsychaSec isnt real. But even the CIA wouldve had a hard time getting the booth hosts to admit it ...  I pulled aside another tall, attractive young host and told her just give me the truth: this is just a cool ad for Netflix. She kept smiling and towed the itll be out in a few years line. I then pointed out gullible people, like me, were walking away confused because they were displayed next to real products and wouldnt acknowledge Netflix at all. Finally, I got her to give me a wink, confirming its all a put-on. Thank you. Here's another video of this "Altered Carbon" advertisement that features the same two "human sleeves."  In Engadget's write-up of the event, they also noted that Netflix's "Psychasec" booth may have been a little too convincing: also noted Venture beyond tech whales like Samsung and Sony, beyond the rows of smart speakers and giant TVs, and you'll discover that there are weirder things to be found at CES. That might be why Netflix's trojan horse public relations move, establishing a fictional vendor booth deep within the Las Vegas Convention Center, worked a little too well. Well, I cheated. I was already briefed (through a press release) that "Psychasec" wasn't a genuine CES exhibitor, despite this full-fledged stall you see here. Nope, this is a fictional company from Altered Carbon, the next big-budget sci-fi series from Netflix, which seems to borrow heavily from Blade Runner, at least in visual delivery. The video of "human sleeves" does not show any real cloning technology. This video actually features a marketing stunt by Netflix for the series "Altered Carbon" that was put on display at CES in 2018.    Burch, Sean. Netflix Really Wants You To Believe #PsychaSec Is Real. https://www.thewrap.com/ces2018-netflix-really-wants-you-to-believe-psychasec-is-real/. Accessed 10 Dec. 2021. Johnson, Lauren and 2018. The Most Disturbing Booth at CES Is Actually an Ad for Netflixs New Sci-Fi Show. https://www.adweek.com/performance-marketing/the-most-disturbing-booth-at-ces-is-actually-an-ad-for-netflixs-new-sci-fi-show/. Accessed 10 Dec. 2021. Netflix Hid a Fake Biotech Booth in the Middle of CES. Engadget, https://www.engadget.com/2018-01-10-netflix-fake-ces-2018-altered-carbon.html. Accessed 10 Dec. 2021. A persistent rumor in the summer of 2021 was that somewhere buried in United States President Joe Biden's Build Back Better plan was a hidden tax that was about to make driving much more expensive. In September, for example, the following messages were posted on social media claiming that Biden was implementing a new mileage tax:   A screenshot from a broadcast on the conservative news channel Newsmax was also circulated on social media:   Biden's Build Back Better plan does not impose a new mileage tax. These rumors appear to be based on a misinterpretation of a section of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that is currently (as of October 1, 2021) making its way through Congress. The infrastructure bill does not impose a mileage tax. Rather, this bill proposes a "national motor vehicle per-mile user fee" pilot program to study the impacts of a mileage tax.  Build Back Better plan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act In other words, this bill will does not implement a new mileage tax. This bill provides funding to study the impact of such a tax. A mileage tax may or may not be implemented after this voluntary pilot program concludes in 2026. Andy Winkler, director of infrastructure projects at the Bipartisan Policy Center, told The Associated Press: It is not a tax, it is not on everybody and it is voluntary." The Associated Press One of the purposes of this pilot program to explore alternative revenue streams to fund surface transportation programs. At the moment, the Highway Trust Fund is largely funded by taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel purchases. With the rise of electric vehicles, cars with better miles per gallon, and decreased personal travel during the COVID-19 pandemic, revenue from the gas tax has declined.  Highway Trust Fund revenue gas tax has declined One solution to this funding problem is to raise taxes on gasoline purchases. The state of Missouri, for example, just increased the state's gas tax for the first time since the 1990s. Another option would be to shift the burden of funds from the amount of gas a person uses to a person's actual mileage. Back in March 2021, Transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg said:  for the first time since the 1990s Transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg said: If we believe in that user-pays principlethe idea that how we pay for roads is based on how much you drivethe gas tax used to be the obvious way to do it. Its not anymore. A so-called VMT tax or mileage tax, whatever you want to call it, could be a way to do it. While proponents of a mileage tax argue that it's a fair tax, as it will tax people based on how much they use the roads, opponents have argued that this tax could impact people in rural areas more as they typically have to drive longer distances. Others have also raised privacy concerns, questioning how a person's mileage use would be calculated. opponents have argued For the moment, the Biden administration is not implementing a new mileage tax. However, the infrastructure bill does include a pilot program to study the impacts of a mileage tax.  Boesen, Ulrik. Gas Tax Revenue to Decline as Traffic Drops 38 Percent. Tax Foundation, 31 Mar. 2020, https://taxfoundation.org/gas-tax-revenue-decline-as-traffic-drops/. Fact Check: Infrastructure Bill Wouldnt Impose driving Tax of 8 Cents per Mile. Usatoday, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/30/fact-check-no-driving-tax-8-cents-mile-infrastructure-bill/5928257001/. Accessed 1 Oct. 2021. Franck, Thomas. Vehicle Mileage Tax Could Be on the Table in Infrastructure Talks, Buttigieg Says. CNBC, 26 Mar. 2021, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/26/buttigieg-says-white-house-is-weighing-mileage-levy-to-fund-infrastructure.html. Friedman, Zack. Infrastructure Package Includes Vehicle Mileage Tax Program. Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackfriedman/2021/08/11/infrastructure-package-includes-vehicle-mileage-tax-program/. Accessed 1 Oct. 2021. Its Been 28 Years Since We Last Raised the Gas Tax, and Its Purchasing Power Has Eroded. https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2021/03/its-been-28-years-since-we-last-raised-the-gas-tax-and-its-purchasing-power-has-eroded. Accessed 1 Oct. 2021. Mileage Tax Study, Not Actual Mileage Tax, Proposed in Infrastructure Bill. AP NEWS, 29 Sept. 2021, https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-907285011746. Missouris First Gas Tax Increase since the 1990s Goes into Effect Friday. FOX 2, 30 Sept. 2021, https://fox2now.com/news/missouri/missouris-first-gas-tax-increase-since-the-1990s-goes-into-effect-friday/. Status of the Highway Trust Fund | Federal Highway Administration. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwaytrustfund/. Accessed 1 Oct. 2021. The Build Back Better Agenda. The White House, https://www.whitehouse.gov/build-back-better/. Accessed 1 Oct. 2021. The Gas Tax Was Already Broken. The Pandemic Could End It. Smart Cities Dive, https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/the-gas-tax-was-already-broken-the-pandemic-could-end-it/587653/. Accessed 1 Oct. 2021. In February 2016, a meme about the lack of business acumen and experience exhibited by Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, began circulating online:  The criticisms offered in meme were a mixture of true, false, irrelevant, and misleading statements. To wit: Never owned a business Right off, this meme begins with a rather nebulous criticism. Although having owned a business is an experience many voters would like to see on the rsum of a potential chief executive, a literal application of that term isn't of much relevance. Technically, a person who once operated a roadside lemonade stand has "owned a business," while a person who has spent his career serving as the CEO of a public multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation has not -- even though everyone would agree the latter has vastly more business experience than the former. And certainly a number of highly-regarded U.S. presidents in the modern era (e.g., Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan) never owned their own businesses. Moreover, one might validly say that Sanders started and operated his own business (whether he "owned" it is somewhat arguable, as it was a non-profit), the American People's Historical Society, which was created in 1978 to produce educational film strips about the history of Vermont. The University of Vermont has archived several of the brochures produced by the American People's Historical Society, one of which includes a statement from Sanders outlining the purpose of his film strips: includes Director Bernard Sanders explained, "It is our belief that state and regional history has too long been neglected by the audio-visual industry, and we are happy to begin the process of rectifying that situation. We believe that students have the right to learn about the state and region in which they are living." While the financials of the American People's Historical Society are not available, Sanders wrote in his memoir Outsider in the House that the business was reasonably successful and "a lot of fun." A friend of Sanders' told Politico that the film strip business "wasn't just a way to make money ... He made filmstrips about people he admired and believed in. He just thought kids should know the truth of how things really were." Never invented anything Once again, this is a rather nebulous criticism. The concept of "inventing" something could range from simply thinking up a novel idea (but doing nothing more about it), to creating and building a device for personal use (but not marketing it), to actually obtaining a patent for a new product. Bernie Sanders is certainly no inventor and holds no patents, but it's hard to see how that fact is of any relevance, as the same is true of nearly every U.S. president. Thomas Jefferson might legitimately be considered an inventor for having conceptualized various devices (including a macaroni machine, a swivel chair, a spherical sundial, a moldboard plow, and a cipher wheel), although he held no patents because he believed them to be a form of monopoly. Abraham Lincoln was the only U.S. president who ever held a patent, having been issued Patent #6,469 for "A Device for Buoying Vessels Over Shoals" on 22 May 1849. Beyond that, "inventing" has historically had nothing to do with the qualifications or success of candidates for the White House. Never had a 9 to 5 job This criticism is too vaguely worded to allow for much cogent analysis. What does holding a "9 to 5 job" mean? That one literally works from 9 AM to 5 PM (and not some other period of the day)? That one holds full-time employment? That one is paid on an hourly basis? That one toils at what is commonly referred to as a "blue collar" job? That one works for someone else rather than being self-employed? If we assume the most seemingly relevant application of the term  that it refers to holding steady, full-time employment  then one might fairly say it applies to Bernie Sanders. After receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from the University of Chicago in 1964, Sanders primarily worked a series of odd jobs while attempting to get his political career off the ground, and a Politico article observed that he "didn't collect his first steady paycheck until he was an elected official pushing 40 years old." However, that same article did list a variety of jobs Sanders held (even if they weren't steady or didn't provide a livable wage) before he finally reached public office upon being elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont, at age 39  working as an aide at a psychiatric hospital, as a Head Start preschool teacher, as a carpenter, and as a freelance writer for local publications: article Sanders rented a small brick duplex at 295 1/2 Maple Street that was filled with not much furniture and not much food in the fridge but stacks of checked-out library books and scribbled-on legal pads. "Pretty sparse," Gene Bergman, an old friend, said about the apartment. "Stark and dark," said Darcy Troville, a fellow Liberty Unionite who lived around the corner and shared with Sanders homemade jellies and jams. "The electricity was turned off a lot," Barnett said. "I remember him running an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn't pay his bills." He worked some as a carpenter, although "he was a shitty carpenter," [Liberty Union party member John] Bloch told me. "His carpentry," [Liberty Union member Danny] Morrisseau said, "was not going to support him, and didn't." He worked as a freelance writer, putting intermittent pieces in the low-budget Vermont Freeman, a Burlington alternative weekly called the Vanguard Press and a glossy, state-supported magazine called Vermont Life. His writing wasn't a living. The Vanguard paid as little as the rest. "It would've been not more than 50 bucks," said Greg Guma, a former editor. Vermont Life? "Our rate was 10 cents a word," said Brian Vachon, a former editor. "He was always poor," Sandy Baird, another old friend, told me in Burlington. "Virtually unemployed," said Nelson, the political science professor at the University of Vermont. "Just one step above hand to mouth," said Terry Bouricius, who was involved with Liberty Union, served at times as a de facto campaign manager for Sanders and at one point crashed for a couple months on his couch. Liberty Union "people found it difficult to support themselves while engaging in full-time political work," Michael Parenti, one of those people, wrote in the Massachusetts Review in the summer of 1975. "Some held jobs that allowed free time for campaign activities, while others lived off unemployment insurance." "His work was to be a politician," Guma said. "He put everything into what he was doing." We would also note by that by the standard used here, holding elective office (as Sanders has done for most of the last 35 years as a mayor, a U.S. representative, and a U.S. senator) is as much a "9 to 5" job as any other. Never proposed a bill that has passed This statement is not literally true, as during his tenure in Congress Sanders has sponsored three bills that were enacted, two of which were rather slight matters involving the naming of USPS facilities, and one of which was the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013 (which provided "for an increase in the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans"). Although that might seem like slight achievement for someone who has spent 25 years as both a U.S. representative and a U.S. senator, we would note that only a scant handful of bills submitted in Congress (about 4 to 6 percent) are ever brought to a vote, and even fewer (about 2 to 4 percent) end up being enacted. We would also note that sponsoring original legislation is but one small part of Congress members' duties: they also co-sponsor legislation submitted by colleagues (which Sanders has done for more than 200 successful bills), muster support (or opposition) among colleagues and the public for proposed legislation, review and vote on proposed bills, serve on various committees (Sanders holds six Senate committee appointments), meet with constituents, participate in oversight and investigation of governmental affairs, etc., as detailed in "The Many Roles of a Member of Congress": handful committee detailed First and foremost, the Member is a decision-maker. Members are faced with hundreds of decisions in both recorded and unrecorded votes on matters major and minor. Many decisions must be made quickly. Each decision, whether spontaneous or studied, balances the conflicting perspectives received from private citizens, public officials, party leaders. Decisions are often second-guessed by constituents, campaign opponents, colleagues, lobbyists, and media critics. Meetings are continual, in committee rooms, in private offices, in corridors, and in gatherings on the floor. Daily, sacks of mail are delivered. Faxes flow in a steady stream. Electronic mail jams congressional computers. Correspondence must be written and press releases issued. Highly visible issues are debated on the House or Senate floor, fully televised, and the absence or presence of a Member is duly noted. Scandals require investigation. Programs require oversight. Requests for information, both basic and complex, are received daily. Journalists seek comment. Constituents seek assistance obtaining federal grants, government jobs, and help in overcoming bureaucratic obstacles. Over time, these daily tasks and the always-changing expectations of the electorate have come together to establish a multi-faceted job. Lived off welfare before elected to public office As noted above, various acquaintances who knew Sanders in the years before he achieved public office have reported that he was "always poor," and he likely received public assistance at some point during that time, although what form of (and how much) assistance he received is difficult to determine at this remove. A contemporaneous newspaper account from the Bennington Banner reported that in 1974, when Sanders ran for the U.S. Senate on the Liberty Union Party ticket, he was collecting unemployment benefits: Sanders, 32, cares little what 'image' he conveys  and that's part of his image of being a bit rumpled and unshorn. He's on unemployment compensation right now, having worked for the Bread & Law Task Force, as a free-lance writer, and as a carpenter in the Burlington area. But the thing he likes best, and excels at, is 'talking the issues,' and he doesn't mind repeating himself sometimes." 74 year old  personal net worth of $300,000 As 247 Wall St. reported, determining the precise net worth of candidates is difficult for a number of reasons: net worth [R]eporting exact values is not required. Instead, candidates may disclose their assets and income in a range. Further, candidates do not necessarily report all their assets. For instance, candidates do not need to disclose their personal real estate and property values. Jeb Bush opted to omit assets generated by several holding companies, for example. In addition, while some candidates choose to include their spouses in their disclosures, some do not. Carly Fiorinas net worth of $59 million, for example, includes that of her husband, Frank. Hillary Clinton's reported net worth, on the other hand, does not include assets jointly owned by her and former president Bill Clinton, who is worth by some estimates more than $50 million. 247 Wall St. attempted to determine each presidential candidate's net worth in an article published on 24 August 2015. They estimated that Sanders was one of the "poorest presidential candidates" running for office in 2016, with a likely net worth somewhere around $330,000: estimated Bernie Sanders> Net worth: $194,026-$741,030 In 2013, Bernie Sanders had an average estimated net worth of $330,507, well below other prospective presidential nominees and among the lowest compared with other members of Congress. As of late 2019, Open Secrets, the website of the Center for Responsive Politics, estimated Sanders' net worth at between $729,000 and $1.8 million, making him neither the richest nor the poorest presidential hopeful in the 2020 field. estimated In any case, the meme's characterization of Sanders as a "loser" based on his net worth evinces a rather skewed perspective. Although many people view financial rewards as a tangible measure of one's success, it is far from the only factor by which accomplishment can be measured. (In fact, highly-regarded President Harry S. Truman had virtually no net worth even after leaving the White House in 1953 and afterwards was largely dependent upon Congress' finally establishing a pension for former presidents.) pension Bernie Sanders might equally be considered a "winner" for persevering at his goal of achieving a political career long after others might have given up, and for succeeding at that effort despite prolonged financial hardship. Unlike many others, Sanders might also be lauded for maintaining a rather plain life and not having enriched himself in public service (especially since candidates at the other end of the financial spectrum are frequently criticized for being "out of touch with the common man"). As 247 Wall St. wrote of Sanders: The Vermont senator, who is the longest-serving independent in U.S. history, is a self-identified socialist. He is seeking the Democratic nomination and is the most popular Democratic candidate after Hillary Clinton. In keeping with Sanders' stated intention of starting a grassroots movement, more than 90% of his campaign contributions have come from individual donors. Sanders' campaign speeches have drawn record numbers of attendants. Most recently, 19,000 people watched Sanders speak at an NBA arena in Portland, Oregon, the largest political event compared with all other candidates so far this election season. All in all, that sounds like quite an impressive career achievement for anyone  regardless of net worth. Kruse, Michael.  "Bernie Sanders Has a Secret."
  Politico.  9 July 2015. Frohlich, Thomas C. et al.  "The Net Worth of Each Presidential Candidate."
  24/7 Wall St.  24 August 2015. Delaney, Arthur.  "Bernie Sanders Ran for Office While on Unemployment."
  The Huffington Post.  29 May 2015. Murphy, Tim.  "How Bernie Sanders Learned to Be a Real Politician."
  Mother Jones.  26 May 2015. OpenSecrets.org.  "Net Worth of 2020 Presidential Candidates."
 Accessed 18 October 2019. Donald Trump thepolitician was a relatively newpersonality in 2016, as many people had already known him for years asa real estate mogul and reality televisionstar. His longtime presence in American pop culture made him an especially rich source of urban legends, misinformation, and memes. In February 2016, the above-reproduced an image-based rumor claimed that Trump's Las Vegas hotel lacked a casino because the Nevada Gaming Commission had deemed Trump not "trustworthy" enough to qualify for one:  We located one possible source for the claim in a 23 February 1987New York Timesarticle.According to piece, which was nearly 30 years old, Trump had difficulty in the 1980s withattempts to expand his empire west: article Last September Mr. Trump bought a 4.9 percent stake in the Holiday Corporation, which operates casinos in Atlantic City and Nevada. He sold the stake at a $35 million profit in November and bought into Bally. Mr. Trump recently applied for a Nevada casino license, but Paul Bible, chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission at the time, said that Nevada regulators would look askance at any ''greenmailer'' who hurts casino companies operating in Nevada by acquiring large quantities of stock in order to sell the stake back to the company at a premium. Mr. Trump's sale of the Holiday shares was on the open market, after takeover rumors boosted the market price. In court papers filed for the Camden hearing, Mr. Trump's lawyers denied that their client had invested in Bally for the purpose of selling to the company at a premium. ''Mr. Trump has never been, and is not presently, a greenmailer or corporate raider,'' his counterclaim said. Seventeen years later, Trump's activity in Vegas again made headlines. A February2004Las Vegas Review-Journalarticleincluded information about the Nevada Gaming Commission's view of Trump at the time: article Trump and his companies, Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Inc. and the THCR Holding Corp., were required to be licensed by gaming regulators in Nevada after he purchased 358,000 shares of Riviera parent Riviera Holdings Corp. The purchase, made [in or around early 2003], put [Trump]over a threshold requiring investigation and licensure by Nevada gaming regulators. Trump and the other officers of his companies will appear at the Gaming Commission meeting in the capital on Feb. 19 for final approval. Gaming Control Board Chairman Dennis Neilander said the investigations of Trump and his executive team gave the board no need to ask any personal questions at the hearing. He called the applications "very clean" and said he was impressed with the backgrounds of some of Trump's personnel. Members of the control board asked Trump and his executives about problems with minors gaining entry to his New Jersey properties, but Chief Operating Officer Mark Brown said the company is making every effort to control the problem. Trump has talked for years about moving into the Las Vegas casino industry, but his expected licensing by the end of the month will make it much easier to put deals together. Laterthat month,the Associated Press reported that Trump was approved by Nevada state regulators to hold a stake in the Riviera hotel and casino: reported The Gaming Commission approved Trump and companies that he controls as part of a registration and suitability-finding process that would speed up any actual casino licensing in the future. Repeating his Feb. 4 comments to the commission's investigative arm, the Gaming Control Board, Trump said "it's an honor to be here." He said he had lost many deals in previous years because of a state licensing process that can take more than a year. Trump paid about $2 million for shares in Riviera Holdings Corp. That put him barely over a 10 percent threshold subjecting investors to investigation and licensure by casino regulators ...The move was designed to start the state licensing process, Trump said, adding that he has little contact with Riviera executives and doesn't intend to expand on his involvement with the property. Asked about his building plans, Trump said he favors a project such as his Trump towers in Manhattan, Chicago and elsewhere. There's "not a great chance" that it would include New Frontier owner Phil Ruffin of Las Vegas, he added. Trump's television career and presidential bid probablydisrupted any potential ventures in Nevada between 2004 and 2016, but on 25 February 2016, anarticlein theWall Street Journalspeculated thatTrumpwasrevisitingpossibilities in Vegas: article Las Vegas casino owner Phil Ruffin said in an interview this week that he is hoping to build a casino with Mr. Trump next to the luxury high-rise Trump Hotel, which the two co-own on the Strip. He said the plans are still very preliminary, but he expects to accelerate them this year, and the Trump Organization would be a 50% owner. There are still no architectural renderings, land surveys or other concrete proposals, he added... [Son Eric]Trump said in an interview that various possible expansion plans have been discussed, including the casino and a new convention space. Nothing has been solidified, he said, adding that the family is focused on other matters including the elder Mr. Trumps presidential campaign and developing hotels elsewhere. The proposed casino would be on a four-acre parcel next to the Trump Hotel, which Mr. Ruffin and Donald Trump opened in 2008 on land that Mr. Ruffin owned. The site is currently a parking lot for the hotel; Mr. Ruffin said the casino would be connected to the existing hotel ...Mr. Ruffin said that he is now contemplating a $100 million casino, with the Trumps as 50% partners. ...Mr. Ruffin said it is unclear if Mr. Trump or his family members would need to undergo the rigorous process of securing a license from the Nevada Gaming Control Board ...Mr. Trump owned casinos in Atlantic City for decades but never had any gambling interests in Nevada. We were unable to locate any information to substantiate the claim that Trump was ever denied a gaming license or that his Las Vegas hotel was originally planned as a casino. It was true Trump engaged in legal battles in the 1980s aroundbuying casino stock. But in 2004, Trump was approved for the initial stages of casino-based development, and there was no indication he was everdeclined a Nevada Gaming Commission license based on whether he was "trustworthy." On 2 March 2016, the Nevada Gaming Commission replied to our inquiry, stating that "Donald Trump was licensed by the Nevada Gaming Commission in February 2004."