Clunker Math
Claim:  Analysis demonstrates the "Cash for Clunkers" program's gasoline savings to be an inefficient economic trade-off. false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2009]     I guess I must be on the wrong page... A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline. A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year. So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year. They claim 700,000 vehicles  so that's 224 million gallons / year. That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil. 5 million barrels of oil is about  of one day's US consumption. And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl. So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million. How good a deal was that ??? They'll probably do a great job with health care though!! Origins:  In 2009, the federal government's Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), commonly known as "Cash for Clunkers," provided consumers with $3,500 or $4,500 discounts for trading in older model automobiles and purchasing new, more fuel-efficient vehicles.  The analysis presented above maintains that the CARS program essentially spent $3 billion in federal (i.e., taxpayer) funds in order to save $350 million in (foreign) oil purchases, an inefficient economic trade-off.   The premise that the sole purpose or benefit of the CARS program is to save money on U.S. expenditures is a rather specious one to begin with.  And even within that framework,the analysis is flawed in key aspects. According to the latest CARS statistics,  auto dealers conducted 690,114 transactions through the program, and cars traded in through the program averaged 15.8 MPG, while new vehicles purchased through the program averaged 24.9 MPG.  Assuming, as stated above, that the average motorist drives 12,000 miles per year, we arrive at the following calculations: statistics A vehicle averaging 15.8 MPG driven 12,000 miles per year uses 759.5 gallons of gasoline per year. A vehicle averaging 24.9 MPG driven 12,000 miles per year uses 482 gallons of gasoline per year. The average CARS transaction will reduce U.S. gasoline consumption by 277.5 gallons of gasoline per car per year. The 690,114 vehicles sold through the CARS program will therefore save a total of 191.5 million gallons of gasoline per year. So far, so good  our figures make the CARS program look even less economically efficient than the original analysis does.  The fatal flaw comes in the next step, however. The example presented above claims that 224 million gallons of gasoline are the equivalent of 5 million barrels of oil (i.e., one barrel of oil produces about 45 gallons of gasoline), which is an erroneous assumption.  One barrel of crude oil holds 42 gallons of crude oil, not 42 gallons of gasoline  the crude has to be put through a refining process before it becomes gasoline. How much gasoline is produced from one barrel of crude varies according to the refining process used and the type of crude oil involved, but according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a branch of the U.S. Department of Energy, "U.S. refineries produce between 19 and 20 gallons of motor gasoline from one barrel (42 gallons) of crude oil." (Crude oil contains many different types of hydrocarbons, not all of which can easily be converted to gasoline, so other petroleum products such as kerosene and lubricating oil are also produced during the refining process.) EIA hydrocarbons If we take the mid-point of that range (i.e., 19.5 gallons of gasoline per barrel of oil) and multiply it by the $75 per barrel price quoted in the example, we find: 191.5 million gallons of gasoline / 19.5 gallons of gasoline per barrel of oil = 9.8 million barrels of oil 9.8 million * $75 per barrel  = $735 million This savings of $735 million per year is over twice the $350 million figure posited in the original analysis.  (The latter figure should actually be $375 million; the original contains a mathematical error in stating that 5 million multiplied by 75 equals 350.)  Moreover, the gasoline-saving benefits produced by the CARS program won't simply dissipate after the passage of a single year, as suggested above.  According to the  CARS stats, the total dollar value of transactions conducted under the "Cash for Clunkers" program was about $2.9 billion. Therefore (if all other factors remained the same), the full cost of the CARS program would be offset by gasoline savings in about four years  not a spectacular trade-off, perhaps, but not nearly as bad a one as claimed in the original analysis.  (All of these figures assume the price of gasoline to be a constant, a dubious proposition since the cost of oil can fluctuate quite widely, especially in the short term.) The original analysis also focuses solely on savings in gasoline costs and doesn't take into account other intended or residual effects of the CARS program, such as the economic benefits of boosting auto sales, reducing pollution by replacing older cars with more fuel-efficient vehicles, increasing safety by replacing older cars with vehicles offering advanced safety features, and providing additional parts and raw materials for the market: [The clunkers'] components and frames ... have begun flooding the used parts and scrap-recycling markets with more than 100 million tons of steel, batteries, and tires, among other things. "This is like a second wave of stimulus to our economy," said Bill Goodale, general manager of Millis Industries, which has picked up about 200 clunkers from local dealers and expects to take possession of hundreds more in the next few weeks. "As it trickles down, it helps junkyards. It helps the guy looking for cheap parts to keep his car going. It adds a lot of steel to a market that hasn't produced much of it in the last year." Last updated:  13 September 2009
When the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued its latest job numbers, the Jan. 8, 2021, release brought a jaw-dropping number to light  from November to December the U.S. economy lost 140,000 jobs. Then came another jaw-dropper: As a group, only women lost jobs. Then came this claim, from Wisconsin Treasurer Sarah Godlewski. On Jan. 9, 2021, she tweeted a link to a CNN article about the job losses among women with this comment: This headline is hiding something from you. It wasnt all women that lost jobs, it was mostly Black and Latina women. In fact, white women gained employment. Any response we have to this pandemic and economy has to also address structural inequality. Did Black and Latina women carry the brunt of job loss nationally, while white women gained employment? When asked for a source, Godlewskis office pointed tothe CNN article, dated Jan. 8, that she retweeted. That article noted the U.S. economy lost 140,000 jobs overall, with women losing 156,000 jobs, while men gained 16,000 jobs. Her office also pointed to this paragraph in the article: Black and Latina women disproportionately work in some of the hardest-hit sectors in the pandemic, often in roles thatlack paid sick leaveand the ability to work from home. As schools and day cares closed, many were forced to make hard trade-offs between work and parenting. Those sectors are less likely to have flexibility, so when employers are inflexible or women can't come to work because of caregiving responsibilities  they have to exit the workforce, said Nicole C. Mason, president and CEO of the Institute for Womens Policy Research. We did our own check of the BLS numbers, and the preliminary November and December numbers reflect what was in the CNN article. But Godlewskis claim was specifically on the difference in outcomes for Black and Latina women, as groups, when compared to white women. The BLS conducted a separate survey known as the Current Population Survey, which  measures employment for Black, Hispanic or Latina, and white women ages 20 and older. This data was part of the Jan. 8 release of the December jobs numbers. Participating households respond to the survey in the week of Dec. 6. That data, which is not seasonally adjusted, indicates the number of employed Black women decreased by 82,000 from November to December, and the number of Hispanic or Latina women employed decreased by 31,000. Meanwhile, the number of employed white women increased by 106,000 in the same time span. The overall number of women in the labor force has been fluctuating since the March-to-April numbers, which marked the first full hit of the pandemic. There was a decrease from July to September. Laura Dresser, an economist with the Center on Wisconsin Strategy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said prior economic declines were led by male-dominated fields, such as construction and manufacturing. The pandemic-driven decline, she said, has strongly affected areas  such as the restaurant and education industries  with a high number of women workers. And those jobs are low-wage jobs, Dresser said. They're held disproportionately by women. They're held disproportionately by people of color. With a link to a news article, Godlewski claimed: It wasnt all women that lost jobs, it was mostly Black and Latina women. In fact, white women gained employment. Federal statistics show that, as a group, women accounted for all of the job loss from November to December. Whats more, the number of employed white women increased during that time frame, while the numbers for Black and Hispanic or Latina women fell. We rate this claim True. Shortly after Donald Trump asked his supporters on to raise their hands and pledge that they would vote for him in the 2016 Presidential election(drawing comparisons to Nazi Germany), an image purportedly showing President Obama making a similar requestfrom a crowd began circulating online. While the image is real, it does not show President Obama asking his supporters to pledge allegiance to him. This photograph was takenin Columbus, Ohio in November 2008, and shows a crowd raising their hands after Obama asked how many people in the audience made less than $250,000 per year: taken People raise their hands as Democratic presidential nominee U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Il) asks the audience how many of them make less then $250,000 dollars a year, as he speaks during a campaign rally at Ohio State House November 2, 2008 in Columbus, Ohio. Obama continues to campaign against Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as Election Day draws near. A video on PBS showed President Obama asking the audience to raise their hands if they made less than $250,000:   Let me just see a show of hands. How many people make less than $250,000 a year? Raise your hands. All right, now, I want you to be very clear here. Here are the facts. There was another report in the New York Times this morning that laid out the fact that I give much more relief to middle-income people and also that I will not raise taxes for anybody making under $250,000 a year, not your capital gains tax, not your payroll tax, not your income tax, no taxes. The middle class doesn't need a tax hike. I want to give you a tax cut. So don't be confused by what John McCain says. My tax rates will be lower than they were under Ronald Reagan. Claim:  Man battles $0.00 charge that won't go away. LEGEND Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 1998] In March 1992 a man living in Newtown near Boston Massachusetts received a bill for his as yet unused credit card stating that he owed $0.00. He ignored it and threw it away. In April he received another and threw that one away too. The following month the credit card company sent him a very nasty note stating they were going to cancel his card if he didn't send them $0.00 by return of post. He called them, talked to them, they said it was a computer error and told him they'd take care of it. The following month our hero decided that it was about time that he tried out the troublesome credit card figuring that if there were purchases on his account it would put an end to his ridiculous predicament. However, in the first store that he produced his credit card in payment for his purchases he found that his card had been cancelled.  He called the credit card company who apologized for the computer error once again and said that they would take care of it. The next day he got a bill for $0.00 stating that payment was now overdue. Assuming that having spoken to the credit card company only the previous day the latest bill was yet another mistake he ignored it, trusting that the company would be as good as their word and sort the problem out. The next month he got a bill for $0.00 stating that he had 10 days to pay his account or the company would have to take steps to recover the debt. Finally giving in he thought he would play the company at their own game and mailed them a check for $0.00. The computer duly processed his account and returned a statement to the effect that he now owed the credit card company nothing at all. A week later, the man's bank called him asking him what he was doing writing a check for $0.00. After a lengthy explanation the bank replied that the $0.00 check had caused their check processing software to fail. The bank could not now process ANY checks from ANY of their customers that day because the check for $0.00 was causing the computer to crash. The following month the man received a letter from the credit card company claiming that his check had bounced and that he now owed them $0.00 and unless he sent a check by return of post they would be taking steps to recover the debt. The man, who had been considering buying his wife a computer for her birthday, bought her a typewriter instead. What a world? (country NSW... (New South Wales.. Australia))... On Thursday, 24 January 2002,  Derek Guille broadcast this story on his afternoon program on ABC  radio. In March, 1999, a man living in Kandos (near Mudgee in NSW received a bill for his as yet unused gas line stating that he owed $0.00. He ignored it and threw it away. In April he received another bill and threw that one away too. The following month the gas company sent him a very nasty note stating they were going to cancel his gas line if he didn't send them $0.00 by return mail. He called them, talked to them, and they said it was a computer error and they would take care of it. The following month he decided that it was about time that he tried out the troublesome gas line figuring that if there was usage on the account it would put an end to this ridiculous predicament. However, when he went to use the gas, it had been cut off. He called the gas company who apologised for the computer error once again and said that they would take care of it. The next day he got  a bill for $0.00 stating that payment was now overdue. Assuming that having spoken to them the previous day the latest bill was yet another mistake, so  he ignored it, trusting that the company would be as good as their word and sort the problem out. The next month he got a bill for $0.00. This bill also stated that he had 10 days to pay his account or the company would have to take steps to recover the debt. Finally, giving in, he thought he would beat the company at their own game and mailed them a cheque [check] for $0.00. The computer duly processed his account and returned a statement to the effect that he now owed the gas company nothing at all. A week later, the manager of the Mudgee branch of the Westpac Banking Corporation called our hapless friend and asked him what he was doing writing cheque for $0.00. After a lengthy explanation the bank manager replied that the $0.00 cheque had caused their cheque processing software to fail. The bank could therefore not process ANY cheques they had received from ANY of their customers that day because the cheque for $0.00 had caused the computer to crash. The following month the man received a letter from the gas company claiming that his cheque has bounced and that he now owed them $0.00 and unless he sent a cheque by return mail they would take immediate steps to recover the debt. At this point, the man decided to file a debt harassment claim against the gas company. It took him nearly 2 hours to convince the clerks at the local courthouse that he was not joking. They subsequently assisted him in the drafting of statements which were considered substantive evidence of the aggravation and difficulties he had been forced to endure during this debacle. The matter was heard in the Magistrate's Court in Mudgee and the outcome was this: The gas company was ordered to: [1] Immediately rectify their computerised accounts system or show cause, within 10 days, why the matter should not be referred to a higher court for consideration under Company Law. [2] Pay the bank dishonour fees incurred by the man. [3] Pay the bank dishonour fees incurred by all the Westpac clients whose cheques had been bounced on the day our friend's had  been. [4] Pay the claimant's court costs; and [5] Pay the claimant a total of $1500 per month for the 5 month period March to July inclusive as compensation for the aggravation they had caused their client to suffer. And all this over $0.00. This story can also be viewed on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) website. Who employed these idiots?? Origins:  This wacky tale of billing technology gone horribly wrong first appeared on the Internet in July 1997. It's pointless to ask if this e-mailed tale is a true story because not enough details were provided in the text to give anyone much hope of tracking this specific version to a source. We're told this happened in 1992 to a man in Newtown, Massachussetts, but there is no such town. (There is a Newton, however, in that area.) Neither the man nor the credit card company are named, adding to the difficulties of finding out if the particulars of this story are  real. Later versions of the same e-mail omitted the name of the town and altered the text to "A man living near Boston ..." Even later versions re-inserted the name of the town, this time changing it to Newton. In 2003 it reappeared as a tale about a man living in Australia. It's best we forget about trying to find this mystery man and instead look at the story. There's nothing implausible about receiving a zero-sum statement; people get them all the time. What elevates this particular cyber-version into the realm of legend are the additional details tacked on after that event. This story works as an engaging piece of fiction because of the mounting sense of frustration the victim endures as the people he turns to for help prove incapable of undoing what a machine has done. He finally (he thinks) figures a way to beat the machine at its own game by sending a $0.00 check to pay the $0.00 bill, but in doing so causes his bank's computer to hit the bricks and his check to bounce, prompting yet another dunning notice from the credit card company. It's great tale, but it's probably not a real one: It's unlikely that a zero-dollar check could or did cause a financial institution's computers to crash. If that were all it took, people looking for a few extra days before checks they'd written cleared their accounts (or pranksters merely seeking to wreak industrial havoc) would have routinely deposited zero-dollar checks in order to bring banking systems to their knees.   Variations on this story have been around for years. This one comes from a 1970 joke book: Winning a battle with a computer system is getting to be more fun than sneaking into the subway through an exit gate used to be when we were kids. Let's give a great big hand to latest winner Jerome T. Parker. Mr. Parker, for reasons unknown to him, received a bill from an oil company for several consecutive months for $0.00. He laughingly showed the bills to friends and waited for the bills to stop coming. When he got one marked "Final Notice," however, plus a threat to turn the account over to a notoriously tough collection agency, he wrote out a check for no dollars and no cents, signed his name thereto, and mailed it to the oil company with a note saying, "This pays my account in full." Damned if he didn't get a form letter in return thanking him for his patronage. The reason for this tale's growing popularity of late may well have been captured in the first line of that 1970 example: "Winning a battle with a computer system." As computers come to play ever-increasing roles in our lives, so grows our resentment of them. We fear the thought of someday falling at their mercy, and the $0.00 story expresses this anxiety. In this Kafka-esque tale, the hero is unable to get any of the humans he speaks with to unravel the mess and ultimately has to resort to playing the computer's game to beat it. Chilling thought, that, and we fear that is indeed the way our world is going. In August 1999, Ann Landers ran the following letter from a reader: DEAR ANN LANDERS: When I read your column about outrageous billing statements, I decided to send you my story. When I was in college, I took out guaranteed student loans. After graduation, while still repaying the loans, I was informed that they had defaulted and had been turned over to the state collection agency. I had no idea why.  It took seven years of letter writing, hiring a lawyer and appealing to my congressperson to straighten out the mess. It turned out that my file at the bank had fallen behind a filing cabinet. Can you believe it? It actually happened. I am not making this up. The U.S. Department of Education dropped all penalty charges, and I paid off the balance in full. End of story, right? Wrong. Keep reading.  After the loan was cleared up, I began to receive billing letters from the Department of Education. What was so funny, was that the bills reported no balance due  no principal, penalties or interest. But the letters began none too cordially with, "Warning-Warning-Warning! Your scheduled payment is seriously overdue!" The letters contained several threats about the consequences if I didn't pay off my zero balance immediately. Go figure. I received no fewer than 11 of these threatening letters, and wouldn't be surprised if there are more in the pipeline. In October 1999 another of Ann's reader's came forward to tell her $0.00 tale: Dear Ann: I just read the letter from C.M. in Milpitas, Calif., who said the Department of Education lost her file and kept billing her for her student loan. After the mess was finally straightened out, she received bills demanding she pay a balance of $0. That's right  zero dollars.  This happened to me as well. A financial-aid adviser told me that the quickest way to solve the problem was to ''pay'' the bill, so I wrote a cheque for $0. This is the only to stop the computer from sending statement letters. Calling customer services is useless because they don't always communicate with the billing departments. Since I sent that cheque, I have not been bothered. But get this  the billing department actually tried to cash it. Can $0.00 billings occur? Ask a bookkeeper who has dealt with a computerized receivables system that generates finance charges but does not round off the amounts. In a situation where an overdue account has attracted a finance charge, such bills can occur when the customer pays his bill. As far as the computer is concerned, a debt of < 1 still exists, so the program sends this information to the printer at statement printing time. However, because the program has also been coded not to print fractional cent amounts, it spits out a $0.00 statement.  (The same reasoning applies to one person's online explanation of why Yahoo! sent him a payment check for $0.00.) explanation In the now-vanished world where competent bookkeepers oversaw the receivables process, such oddities were caught before they were mailed out, and a reversing entry to cancel the fractional finance charge was entered to soothe the electronic beast. In the modern world, statements are all too often automatically stuffed into window envelopes (by yet more machines!), franked, and mailed, and accounting personnel think a reversing entry is something one performs to back into a parking space. One would hope that when matters reach the "telephone for help" stage they get straightened out, but then I still believe in the myth of the competent bookkeeper. Barbara "debit taunt of 1977" Mikkelson Last updated:  27 June 2014    Landers, Ann.  "Ann Landers."   13 October 1999  [syndicated column].    Landers, Ann.  "Ann Landers."   18 August 1999  [syndicated column]. In early 2022, the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, many were debating the effects of masks and lockdowns on early childhood development.  Internet rumors abounded, including one claiming that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) actually lowered the standard milestones for measuring childhood development largely because of the allegedly deleterious effects of pandemic safety measures, particularly wearing masks.  standard milestones for measuring childhood development One post claimed: The CDC just quietly lowered the standards for speech in early childhood development. Now children should know [about] 50 words at 30 [months] rather than 24 [months]. Instead of highlighting the harmful effects masks and lockdowns have had on children, the CDC just lowered the bar for milestones.     In February 2022, the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) did release a statement describing updates to their developmental milestone checklists. The updates included Adding checklists for ages 15 and 30 months; now there is a checklist for every well-child visit from 2 months to 5 years. February 2022, Before this, in addition to checklists for older age groups, there was already a checklist for children 2 years old (24 months). That checklist is on the CDC's website. The checklist for 24-month-olds never stipulated the number of words a child should be able to speak at that age, only that a 2-year-old says sentences with 2 to 4 words. (See archived versions of that same checklist from 2020 and 2017, for example.)  checklist 2020 2017 The CDC specified the following in its Language/Communication Milestones for a 30-month-old child: following Says about 50 wordsSays two or more words, with one action word, like Doggie runNames things in a book when you point and ask, What is this?Says words like I, me, or we The point about knowing 50 words was new (for any age group), and had not been part of the 2-year milestones on the CDC website prior to this addition. According to Dr. Paul H. Lipkin who assisted with the revisions, the goal of the checklist was to identify developmental delays early. The earlier a child is identified with a developmental delay the better, as treatment as well as learning interventions can begin, he said. At the same time, we dont want to cause unnecessary confusion for families or professionals. Revising the guidelines with expertise and data from clinicians in the field accomplishes these goals. Review of a childs development with these milestones also opens up a continuous dialogue between a parent and the health care provider about their childs present and future development. Dr. Paul H. Lipkin said It should be noted that according to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), a child saying fewer than 50 words at 2 years old is a sign of a language disorder. ASHA released a statement about the updated milestones, expressing concern: according statement ASHA has reached out to CDC, expressing its concern about inconsistencies and urging the agency to utilize the expertise of SLPs when making changes to developmental milestones in speech, language, feeding, and social communication. In general, ASHA is supportive of efforts to help identify children earlier, but the milestones presented to parents must be evidence-based in order for families to make well-informed decisions about their children's care. That said, the CDCs milestone revisions were already in development before the pandemic began, with a broad literature search underway in 2019. According to a research article detailing the process and philosophy behind the revisions, the new milestones aim to capture the 75th percentile, or what 3/4 of children are expected to achieve at a particular age, instead of the previously used 50th percentile, which was found to be less helpful for families and clinicians.  2019 research article The CDCs milestones are intended to help parents identify autism and developmental delays in their children, and not act as a screening tool for medical professionals. "The revised developmental milestones are written in family-friendly language and identify the behaviors that 75% or more of children can be expected to exhibit at a certain age based on data, developmental resources and clinician experience," their news release stated.   intended stated As of this writing, no evidence has emerged that shows masking negatively affects childhood development, so the claim that the CDC intentionally obscured masking harm is incorrect. The AAP website states: AAP website A key part of learning to communicate for a child is watching the faces, mouths, and expressions of the people closest to them. Babies and young children study faces intently, so the concern about solid masks covering the face is understandable. However, there are no known studies that use of a face mask negatively impacts a child's speech and language development. And consider this: visually impaired children develop speech and language skills at the same rate as their peers. In fact, when one sense is taken away, the others may be heightened. Young children will use other clues provided to them to understand and learn language. They will watch gestures, hear changes in tone of voice, see eyes convey emotions, and listen to words. A 2021 University of Miami study also found, Wearing a mask in school does not hinder a young childs ability to learn language, even if they have hearing loss.  University of Miami study Meanwhile, studies of the effects of a range of pandemic lockdowns on childhood development have shown mixed results. A study conducted by the Early Intervention Foundation (EIF) in the U.K. showed that the pandemic had a significant adverse impact on mostly vulnerable, low-income older children, and those who were from minority ethnic backgrounds. But the study emphasized that more research was needed on the effects of the pandemic on childhood development for children aged 05 years.  study A number of studies by an international consortium of researchers from 13 countries, including from the University of Oslo, the University of Gttingen, and University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, looked at the effects of COVID-19 lockdown on early development. Shortly after isolation began in March 2020, parents were asked to fill out questionnaires, and then contacted at the end of the lockdown. The studies found that "despite having increased exposure to screen time during lockdown, children learned more words during the lockdown period in March 2020, relative to before the pandemic. This is potentially due to other activities that parents undertook with their children during lockdown."  studies Another report on behalf of the International Society for Social Pediatrics & Child Health (ISSOP) included studies conducted across 22 countries, and a wide age range (0-18 years) and concluded that "pandemic school closure and lockdown have adverse effects on child health and well-being in the short and probably long term."  report A January 2022 report in Nature detailed how varied the data could be: report Some babies born during the past two years might be experiencing developmental delays, whereas others might have thrived, if carers were at home for extended periods and there were more opportunities for siblings to interact. As with many aspects of health during the pandemic, social and economic disparities have a clear role in who is affected the most. Early data suggest that the use of masks has not negatively affected childrens emotional development. But prenatal stress might contribute to some changes in brain connectivity. The picture is evolving and many studies have not yet been peer reviewed. And one particular study by Brown Universitys Advanced Baby Imaging Lab found that the pandemic-born babies they tested scored lower during early learning tests including for language, puzzle-solving, and motor skills. But other researchers argued that these tests were not necessarily indicative of longer term problems, and the findings are currently under revision.  study While the CDC did update its checklist to include development milestones for 30-month-old children, those changes were already in process before the pandemic began. The 50-word expectation was new and did not exist in older versions of the milestones. Furthermore, there is no evidence to date that masks cause developmental delays in children, and the evidence regarding the effects of lockdowns on childhood development has been mixed, so it's illogical to claim that the CDC obscured such information or revised the milestones due to the effects of masking and lockdowns. Given all of the above, we rate this claim as false. ASHA Statement on CDCs Updated Developmental Milestones. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, https://www.asha.org/about/statements/ASHA-Statement-on-CDC-Developmental-Milestones/. Accessed 4 Mar. 2022. "Do Masks Delay Speech and Language Development?" HealthyChildren.Org. https://perma.cc/CS22-HG2P. Accessed 4 Mar. 2022. Early Identification of Speech, Language, and Hearing Disorders. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, https://www.asha.org/public/early-identification-of-speech-language-and-hearing-disorders/. Accessed 4 Mar. 2022. Growing up in Lockdown: The Impacts of Pandemic Life on Childrens Early Physical Development. Early Intervention Foundation, 26 Nov. 2021, https://www.eif.org.uk/blog/growing-up-in-lockdown-the-impacts-of-pandemic-life-on-childrens-early-physical-development. Accessed 4 March 2022.  "Psychologists: Masks Do Not Impede Preschoolers Language Development." University of Miami, 13 Sept. 2022. https://perma.cc/AY3A-EBR2. Accessed 4 Mar. 2022. Rajmil, Louis, and Anders Hjern, Perran Boran, and on behalf of International Society for Social Pediatrics & Child Health (ISSOP) and International Network for Research on Inequalities in Child Health (INRICH) COVID-19 Working Group, et al. "Impact of lockdown and school closure on childrens health and well-being during the first wave of COVID-19: a narrative review." BMJ Paediatrics Open, 2021. https://bmjpaedsopen.bmj.com/content/5/1/e001043. Accessed 4 March 2022.  Schering, Steve. "CDC, AAP Update Developmental Milestones for Surveillance Program." Feb. 2022. publications.aap.org, https://publications.aap.org/aapnews/news/19554/CDC-AAP-update-developmental-milestones-for. Accessed 4 March 2022.  University of Gttingen. "Impact of COVID-19 social isolation measures on early development: Researchers investigate impact of lockdown measures on 8- to 36-month-old infants across 13 countries." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 7 February 2022. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220207083421.htm>. Accessed 4 March 2022.  Wenner Moyer, Melinda. The COVID Generation: How Is the Pandemic Affecting Kids Brains? Nature, vol. 601, no. 7892, Jan. 2022, pp. 18083. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00027-4. Accessed 4 March 2022.  What Developmental Milestones Is Your 30-Month-Old Reaching? Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 17 Feb. 2022, https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/actearly/milestones/milestones-30mo.html. Accessed 4 March 2022.  Your Child at 2 Years. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/actearly/pdf/checklists/checklists_2yr.pdf. Accessed 4 March 2022.  Zubler, Jennifer M. and Lisa D. Wiggins, Michelle M. Macias, Toni M. Whitaker, Judith S. Shaw, Jane K. Squires, Julie A. Pajek, Rebecca B. Wolf, Karnesha S. Slaughter, Amber S. Broughton, Krysta L. Gerndt, Bethany J. Mlodoch, Paul H. Lipkin. "Evidence-Informed Milestones for Developmental Surveillance Tools." Pediatrics March 2022; 149 (3): e2021052138. 10.1542/peds.2021-052138. Accessed on 3 March 2022. Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Sept. 27, 2020, The New York Times published a report after obtaining several years of U.S. President Donald Trump's tax returns. published a report As news broke that Trump had paid just $750 in federal income tax in 2016 and 2017  no federal income taxes in 10 of the past 15 years  in addition to the fact that he took an approximate $70,000 deduction for hairstyling during "The Apprentice," and that he has more than $300 million worth of loans coming due, a rumor started to circulate on social media that White House senior adviser Jared Kushner had quietly deleted all of his tweets from his Twitter account: no federal income taxes   This rumor is false. Kushner didn't delete all of his tweets following the NYT article about Trump's taxes.  The above-displayed tweet contains a genuine screenshot of the @JaredKushner Twitter account. This account has been online since 2009, but it has been used sparingly by its owner. Archived pages show that this account posted three messages back in March 2011  none of which was related to taxes  but was then inactive for at least three years. The few messages that were posted to this account were deleted sometime between 2014 and 2016, and no new messages have been posted since then.  JaredKushner March 2011 at least three years In other words, Kushner didn't wipe his Twitter account clean on the evening of Sept. 27 after the NYT published a story about his father-in-law's taxes. This account rarely posts tweets, and the three tweets that were shared to the account in 2011 (again, none of which were related to taxes) were deleted years ago.  This isn't the first time that someone has stumbled across Kushner's Twitter account in the aftermath of a controversy, noticed that it was barren, and then incorrectly assumed that Kushner had recently scrubbed it clean. In October 2017, shortly after Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III revealed charges against former Trump presidential campaign chair Paul Manafort and two other campaign officials, social media users noted then that Kushner's Twitter account was suspiciously void of content, and falsely claimed that he had recently deleted all of his tweets. falsely claimed A few months later, when it was reported that Mueller may have interviewed Kushner in the course of his investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election, this false rumor again was circulated on social media:  reported   The @JaredKushner account has been devoid of content since at least 2016. Claims that he recently deleted his tweets in the wake of breaking news stories are false.  Apuzzo, Matt.  "Muellers Prosecutors Are Said to Have Interviewed Jared Kushner on Russia Meeting."
  The New York Times.  29 November 2017. Buettner, Russ; Craig, Susanne; McIntire, Mike.  "Long-Concealed Records Show Trump's Chronic Losses and Years of Tax Avoidance."
  The New York Times.  27 September 2020. In December 2015, we looked into a bit of text being shared on social media which was said to represent the final words of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs. We hoped our article helped to put the kibosh on that false rumor, but in January 2019 a nearly identical speech was circulated anew, only this time attributed to a different billionaire with an eerily similar name: Steve Gouves. final words The "Steve Gouves death bed speech" was shared by many social media users in January 2019, with one of the most popular postings being that of Joshua Feurstein, an evangelical internet personality who has previously spread misinformation and is perhaps most famously known for railing about Starbucks' Christmas cups.  postings previously misinformation Fuerstein's posting included a photograph of a bearded man, presumably Mr. Steve Gouves, and the following text: posting   From my friend David Norrie Steve Gouves dies a billionaire, with a fortune of $ 7 billion, at the age of 56 from pancreatic cancer, and here are some of his last words: In other eyes, my life is the essence of success, but aside from work, I have a little joy, and in the end wealth is just a fact of life to which I am accustomed. At this moment, lying on the bed, sick and remembering all my life, I realize that all my recognition and wealth that I have is meaningless in the face of imminent death. You can hire someone to drive a car for you, make money for you - but you can not rent someone to carry the disease for you. One can find material things, but there is one thing that can not be found when it is lost - "life". Treat yourself well, and cherish others. As we get older we are smarter, and we slowly realize that the watch is worth $ 30 or $ 300 - both of which show the same time. Whether we carry a purse worth $ 30 or $ 300 - the amount of money in the wallets are the same. Whether we drive a car worth $ 150,000, or a car worth $ 30,000 - the road and distance are the same, we reach the same destination.If we drink a bottle worth $ 300 or wine worth $ 10 - the "stroller" will be the same. If the house we live in is 300 square meters, or 3000 square meters - the loneliness is the same.Your true inner happiness does not come from the material things of this world. Whether you're flying first class, or economy class - if the plane crashes, you crash with it. So, I hope you understand that when you have friends or someone to talk to - this is true happiness! Five Undeniable Facts- 1. Do not educate your children to be rich. Educate them to be happy. - So when they grow up they will know the value of things, not the price. 2. Eat your food as medicine, otherwise you will need to eat your medicine as food. 3. Whoever loves you will never leave you, even if he has 100 reasons to give up. He will always find one reason to hold on. 4. There is a big difference between being human and human being. 5. If you want to go fast - go alone! But if you want to go far - go together! And in conclusion,The six best doctors in the world.1. Sunlight2. Rest3. Exercise4. Diet5. Self-confidence6. Friends Keep them in all stages of life and enjoy a healthy life. "Love the people God sent you, one day he'll need them back." ??Something worth sharing!?? The man in this photograph is not "Steve Gouves" but rather James R. Kirouac, a "Level 2 Quantum Healing Hypnosis Technique Practitioner" with the company "Leading Edge Thought," who, as best we can tell at the time of this writing, is still very much alive: James R. Kirouac Leading Edge Thought   The first half of this text (everything preceding "Treat yourself well and cherish others) is a nearly verbatim copy of the fake deathbed speech falsely attributed to Steve Jobs back in 2015. That speech appears to have originated on a random blog and was never connected to Jobs in any real way. (You can read more about the actual last words of Steve Jobs here.) here The second half of this text has been circulating independently from the first since at least September 2015, when it was posted to a Chinese language blog at xuite.net. That posting was not attributed to Jobs, Guoves, or any other billionaire, and it was not shared as if it were a deathbed speech. September 2015 The fake Steve Jobs deathbed speech started making its way around the web in November 2015 and readers, apparently, have revised and expanded it over the years. At some point the text posted to xuite.net was tacked  onto the end of the original fake speech, Jobs' name was changed to Guoves, and an image of an unrelated bald man was employed to depict the fictional billionaire. tacked In short: Steve Guoves did not make this speech on his death bed because Steve Guoves does not exist. Much of this text was previously attributed to Steve Jobs, but the Apple co-founder did not utter those words on his death bed either. A graphic featuring an image of former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg next to a quote ostensibly uttered by him about Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, referring to the GOP candidate as "con artist" and a "cheat," has been widely circulated on social media:  I have known Trump for decades. We have traveled in the same business circles. He is known among other millionaires as a con artist and among business owners as a cheat out to stiff everyone. The text of this image first started circulating in July 2016, shortly after Bloomberg made an appearance at the Democratic National Convention to endorse Hillary Clinton. Bloomberg issued several remarks critical of Donald Trump during his DNC speech, including referring to his candidacy as a "con" and mocking his business acumen, but he did not say the words attributed to him above. circulating A full transcript of Bloomberg's speech can be found here, while the relevant portion has been reproduced below: here  I'm a New Yorker, and New Yorkers know a con when we see one! Trump says he'll punish manufacturers that move to Mexico or China, but the clothes he sells are made overseas in low-wage factories. He says he wants to put Americans back to work, but he games the US visa system so he can hire temporary foreign workers at low wages. He says he wants to deport 11 million undocumented people, but he seems to have no problem in hiring them. What'd I miss here?! Truth be told, the richest thing about Donald Trump is his hypocrisy. He wants you to believe that we can solve our biggest problems by deporting Mexicans and shutting out Muslims. He wants you to believe that erecting trade barriers will bring back good jobs. He's wrong on both counts. We can only solve our biggest problems if we come together and embrace the freedoms that our Founding Fathers established right here in Philadelphia, which permitted our ancestors to create the great American exceptionalism that all of us now enjoy. Donald Trump doesn't understand that. Hillary Clinton does. And we can only create good jobs if we make smarter investments in infrastructure and do more to support small businesses. Not stiff them. Donald Trump doesn't understand that. Hillary Clinton does. I understand the appeal of a businessman president. But Trump's business plan is a disaster in the making. He would make it harder for small businesses to compete, do great damage to our economy, threaten the retirement savings of millions of Americans, lead to greater debt and more unemployment, erode our influence in the world, and make our communities less safe. The bottom line is: Trump is a risky, reckless, and radical choice. And we can't afford to make that choice. Nonetheless, some newspapers misquoted Bloomberg and reported that he had referred to Trump as a "con artist": misquoted As Michael Bloomberg said perfectly about Trump during his speech at the Democratic convention in July: Im a New Yorker  and I know a con artist when I see one. It was Florida senator Marco Rubio who referred to Trump (more than once) as a "con artist" during the campaign for the Republican nomination: referred We are so excited about what lies ahead for our campaign, Rubio said. You see, just five days ago, we began to unmask the true nature of the front-runner so far in this race. Five days ago, we began to explain to the American people that Donald Trump is a con artist. Two weeks from tonight right here in Florida we are going to send a message loud and clear, Rubio said. We are going to send the message that the party of Lincoln and Reagan and the presidency of the United States will never be held by a con artist. 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. Since at least January 2021, actor Anthony Hopkins was featured in an online advertisement about the height of Hollywood celebrity men. The ad read: "Some of the Shortest Men in Hollywood Today."   Readers who clicked the online ad were led to a 95-page story on Cleverst.com. Its headline read: "These Short Male Celebrities Remind Us That Height Doesn't Matter In Hollywood." The lengthy article began with a picture of actor Dave Franco, who is purported to be 5 feet 7. We clicked "next page" 95 times until we realized we had clicked "next article" at the end. Hopkins didn't even show up in the story. Anthony Hopkins' height is listed at 5 feet 9 on various sources, including on his IMDb page. The actor is anything but "short." his IMDb page Hopkins is perhaps best known for his work in the 1991 classic, "The Silence of the Lambs." He won the best actor Oscar for playing the role of the terrifying cannibal, Hannibal Lecter. The long story of "short male celebrities" also featured a 6-feet-tall Vin Diesel, a 5 feet 10 Jason Statham, and 5 feet 9 actors Robert Downey Jr. and Tom Hardy. This was hardly a list of "some of the shortest men in Hollywood today." The Cleverst.com story appeared to be a strategy known as advertising "arbitrage." The goal was to make more money on ads that were displayed on all 95 pages than it cost to display the original Hopkins clickbait picture. The Hopkins photograph lured the readers. Readers then clicked "next page" in a search for Hopkins, who never appeared. The business and technology blog Margins defined "arbitrage" as "leveraging an inefficient set of systems to make a riskless profit, usually by buying and selling the same asset." They also called it "the mythical free lunch that economics tells us does not exist." Margins The same strategy employed for Hopkins' height was used by other advertisers in the past who placed an ad about Pierce Brosnan's net worth. The ad claimed that "Pierce Brosnan's final net worth left his family in tears." Not only was Pierce Brosnan still alive, but he also did not appear in the lengthy slideshow story that resulted. Pierce Brosnan's net worth Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us On 14 June 2015, a number of Florida news outlets published a seemingly remarkable photograph, sent to them by a man named Richard Jones, showing a raccoon riding the back of an alligator like a surfboard: published  The peculiar sight may have been endearing, but it also left many viewers questioning the image's authenticity. Photographer Richard Jones's explanation of how he snapped the image was that he was walking with his son along the Oaklawaha River in the Ocala National Forest when they came across a raccoon. Their appearance startled the creature, he said, which sought the safety of the water, where it hopped onto the back of an alligator. The raccoon was only "riding" the alligator for a short while, Jones said, as the gator quickly slipped underwater and the raccoon scurried back onto land:  Had a wonderful morning with the family in Ocala National forest and took an equally wonderful photo! We were walking along the Oaklawaha river watching some gators warm up in the morning. My son went through some palm fronds to catch a different angle and frightened a raccoon. It must have been asleep because it stumbled toward the water and hoped on top of the gator we were watching. I snapped a lucky picture right when the gator slipped into the water and before the raccoon jumped off and scurried away. Without the context you'd think the raccoon was hitching a ride across the river. Pretty amazing. Definitely the photo of a lifetime. Included a second one my wife took or the area. You have my permission to share the photo and use the photo in any way. I don't want anything in return. Just thought other people might enjoy it. However, not everyone took the photograph at face value. The Florida Times-Union published it but included a disclaimer stating that they hadn't confirmed its authenticity:   published The photo of the gator with raccoon in tow seems to have gone viral on social media, and the story has been picked up by several other media outlets. And although we haven't been able to confirm the authenticity of these images, this was too good of a story to leave our viewers out of the loop. DISCLAIMER: Mr. Jones did not leave a phone number in his email so that we could confirm the authenticity of the image. We did try to contact him via his email address and we also requested he phone us. At the time this story was posted, we still have not received a call or email from Mr. Jones.   The Ocala Star Banner was more skeptical, opting not to publish the photograph due to questions about its authenticity and a lack of response from the submitter:Until now, the Star-Banner has declined to publish the photo because we still have questions about its authenticity. We have reached out to the photographer, a man named Rich Jones, but [have] not heard back from him. Heres a summary of our concerns: +Scope: The raccoon seems out of proportion -- too big -- compared with the alligator. +Feet: Even zooming in, you cant tell whether the raccoon has feet. +Tail: Dont raccoons usually have longer, fluffier tails? +Posture: That is an unusual pose for a raccoon. It almost looks like a taxidermy piece. +Gator: The alligators eye has an odd color, shape and placement. Its body seems rubber-like. +Mask: The raccoons mask seems like an add-on. When a photographer in London captured a somewhat comparable image of an animal "riding" another animal in February 2015  a rather amazing picture of a weasel hitchhiking on the back of a woodpecker in flight  a small army of photoshop experts also declared that picture to be fake for similar reasons. But in that case the photographer made himself available for interviews, and the consensus remains that that photograph was real. captured consensus While Jones didn't come forward with more information about the image, a performance artist who goes by the name "Zardulu" did. In December 2016, Zardulu told the Washington Post that she was responsible for a number of social media hoaxes, including this photograph of the raccoon riding an alligator: Washington Post In 2015, there was an incredible viral photograph, a lucky shot, that showed a raccoon perched on the back of a swimming alligator. A man named Richard Jones told the local news that hed snapped the picture himself, and a lot of Florida news outlets ran with it. The story spread to larger publications. It went viral. There were plenty of doubters, of course. But also many believers, people who would prefer to live in a world where a raccoon could use a predator as a ferry. And that preference is exactly what Zardulu understands so well. I staged the raccoon and the alligator, Zardulu said. The animals are taxidermied; she sprayed each with a commercial product used to waterproof leather to protect them from the water. Zardulu showed us photographs of the setup, and some of herself, in costume, clutching the animals:   Weber, Greta.  "Raccoon Rides Alligator in Florida  Is It for Real?"
  National Geographic.  16 June 2015.


 Ohlheiser, Abby.  "She Staged a Viral Story. You Fell for Her Hoax. She Thinks Thats Beautiful."
  The Washington Post.  14 December 2016. WFTV.  "Man Snaps Picture of Raccoon on Top of Gator in Ocala National Forest."
  14 June 2015.