RIPTA has really some of the fullest buses for its transit agency size around the country.
Public transportation was one of the topics when Abel Collins, program manager for the Rhode Island chapter of the Sierra Club, was a guest on the June 2 edition of 10 News Conference. Collins, an unsuccessful independent candidate for Congress in the 2nd District in 2012, said one goal of his organization is to cut pollution by getting better funding for the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, which operates the states bus system. They're stuck. They have declining revenues and increasing demand. And RIPTA has really some of the fullest buses for its transit agency size around the country, he said. So it's really something that should get more attention and hopefully this is the year that the General Assembly sees fit to give RIPTA sustainable funding for the long term. There's a bill to do that and we've been pushing on it for years. We wondered whether RIPTA does, in fact, have some of the fullest buses around. We called Collins. He said he was told that factoid by Mark Therrien, the authority's assistant general manager for planning. We called Therrien. He said Collins was correct. When we asked for details, he referred us to theIntegrated National Transit Database Analysis System(INTDAS) which has national statistics over many years for transit systems throughout the United States. The database will generate a list of comparable transit systems around the country. We did that for RIPTA and decided to focus on the 30 that were closest based on a variety of measures such as size, according to the federal ranking. We also looked at six other systems -- in Eugene, Ore.; Fort Worth, Texas; Jacksonville, Fla.; Memphis, Tenn.; Louisville, Ky.; and Des Moines, Iowa -- that Therrien said were comparable as well. But what to look at? The database, whose most recent statistics were from 2011, doesn't include a direct measurement of how full the buses are. We discovered there were a lot of indirect ways to estimate capacity that gave different rankings. Therrien said we should look at passengers per hour. By that measure, RIPTA ranked 8th out of 37 systems. We also looked at the number of passenger trips divided by the number of vehicles in operation during peak hours. RIPTA ranked 9th by that measure. Meanwhile, we received an e-mail fromAlbert Gan, a professor with the department of civil and environmental engineering at Florida International University, who developed the INTDAS system. He said the correct method would be to divide the number of passenger miles in a year by the number of miles driven when the buses were picking and dropping off passengers (known as revenue miles). By that measure, RIPTA ranked 13th out of 37. Then we heard back from Therrien's office, which advised us that it was best to look at the number of passenger trips divided by the number of revenue miles. In that instance, RIPTA ranked 10th. Some other systems were pretty crowded using that yardstick. Milwaukee had 24 percent more passengers per bus than Providence; Madison had 34 percent more; Eugene had 39 percent more; and Rochester, N.Y. had 46 percent more. To sum up, Abel Collins said, RIPTA has really some of the fullest buses for its transit agency size around the country. Some of the fullest is a little vague, but it implies that Rhode Island is going to be up there in the rankings. RIPTA, asked about the claim, suggested that we look at 11 transit systems. We ultimately analyzed data on more than three times that many, using a federal rating method that listed bus services comparable to Rhode Island's. RIPTA's rankings ranged from 8th to 13th. They varied a bit because there's no standardized way to calculate who has the fullest buses. Because there's some uncertainty but the different methods show RIPTA ranking high, we rate Collins' statementMostly True. (If you have a claim youd like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, e-mail us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)
In 2015, a Snopes reader emailed us, asking: Did Kanye West actually say: 'Sometimes people write novels and they just be so wordy and soself-absorbed. I am not a fan of books. I would never want a booksautograph. I am a proud non-reader of books.'  OnFeb. 13,2015, the website for the UK version ofMarie Clairemagazine published an article titled 21 Kanye West Quotes That Completely Baffled Us. The collection of Wests comments was curated in response to the rappers behavior on the evening of the57th AnnualGrammy Awards, particularly his rant about musician Beck as the latter received the Album of the Year award. Among Wests collected quotes, one in particular stood out. It concerned Kanyes feelings on the matter of books and reading in general, and many readers questioned whether the quote was genuine: Sometimes people write novels and they just be so wordy and so self-absorbed. I am not a fan of books. I would never want a books autograph. I am a proud non-reader of books. After interest in the comment attributed to West was revived, it appeared on a number of memes that circulated via Facebook. The remarks were indeed correctly attributed (though lacking context) and dated to a 2009Reuters article about the publication of a book penned by West: Reuters article Rapper Kanye West does not read books or respect them but nevertheless he has written one that he would like you to buy and read. Wests derision of books comes despite the fact that his late mother, Donda West, was a university English professor before she retired to manage his music career. She died in 2007 of complications following cosmetic surgery. 'Sometimes people write novels and they just be so wordy and so self-absorbed,' West said. 'I am not a fan of books. I would never want a books autograph. 'I am a proud non-reader of books. I like to get information from doing stuff like actually talking to people and living real life,' he said. Egan, Mark.  Proud Non-Reader Kanye West Turns Author. Reuters. 5 May 2009.  Ramsdale, Susannah.  21 Kanye West Quotes That Completely Baffled Us.Marie Claire. 13 February 2015. Claim:  Colonel Sanders left instructions requiring KFC to donate money to the Ku Klux Klan or feed the homeless for free.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 2000] I heard today that Colonel Sanders' will devotes 10% of KFC's yearly profits to the Ku Klux Klan. Since it's a legal document this is unbreakable!  [Collected via e-mail, 2000] My brother swears that Colonel Sanders of KFC fame, bequested in his will over a million dollars to the KKK.  [Collected via e-mail, 2005] I heard that the name [of Kentucky Fried Chicken] was changed because KFC didn't want to give out a free meal to a hungry person seeking some help. Supposedly, somewhere back in time, the Colonel had put a preposition in his business statement that Kentucky Fried chicken would supply any broke hungry person with a meal free of charge per day if they asked. Someone had read or heard this and demanded it, and sued them. Once word had gotten out, they would be subject to the masses doing the same thing, so they changed their name to KFC  that's the way I heard it ...  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] I heard a rumor that the Colonel from Kentucky Fried Chicken had a policy to serve any homeless person that entered his restaurants who was hungry and had no money. Once he passed away the new executives allegedly changed the name to "KFC" so they could do away with that policy. Origins:  One of the curiosities of urban legendry is that nearly every founder of a fast food chain who is publicly identifiable by virtue of having appeared in his company's advertisements has become the subject of rumors associating him (and his company) with some of the most publicly vilified groups society has to offer, such as satan worshippers and the KKK.  Such rumors have dogged, at   one time or another, Ray Kroc of McDonald's, Carl Karcher of Carl's Jr., Dave Thomas of Wendy's, and Harland Sanders of Kentucky Fried Chicken.    Why this class of legend has been so assiduously linked to the fast food industry is something we haven't yet fathomed: fast food founders don't seem to be, as a group, of any particular religious, geographic, or political affiliation.  And the specific linking of Kentucky Fried Chicken's founder, Harland Sanders, with the Ku Klux Klan doesn't seem to have any basis in fact, other than a vague, naive assumption that a businessman who epitomized the popular image of a 19th century Southern gentleman  a distinguished, elderly man with white hair, moustache, and goatee who wore white suits and black ties, posed with a cane, and affected the honorary  title of "Colonel"  must be a Klan sympathizer. What rumors such as the claim that "Colonel Sanders' will devotes 10% of KFC's yearly profits to the Ku Klux Klan" reflect is the misperception that Harland David Sanders owned KFC until the day he died.  In fact, Sanders sold his interest in Kentucky Fried Chicken long before his death,  agreeing in 1964 to a $2 million buyout of his U.S. operations by a group of investors (who took the company public a few years later) and turning his entire holdings in the company's Canadian franchises over to charity in 1965, so even if Sanders' will had contained a "KKK donation" bequest (which it didn't), it wouldn't have been legally enforceable.  Sanders did continue to serve as KFC's spokesperson and appear in their advertising for many years after the 1964 sale, a participation that undoubtedly led many consumers to believe that he was active in the chain's ownership and management until he finally passed away in 1980. Ditto for the claim that Kentucky Fried Chicken was legally required to provide free meals to the homeless until it cleverly ducked the responsibility by changing its name to "KFC."  Although Sanders did give away a good deal of money during his lifetime and may occasionally have taken pity on some down-and-out types and offered them food at no charge, he neither left any mandate obligating the Kentucky Fried Chicken company to engage in the practice nor had any standing to do so.  And, in any case, the company couldn't have evaded that imperative simply by changing its name.  (Imagine what a shambles the business world would be if people and businesses could discharge debts and other legal obligations merely by filing some change of name documents!)  As we document in another KFC-related article, Kentucky Fried Chicken changed its corporate name to KFC in 1991 for several reasons, foremost among them that increasingly health-conscious consumers were becoming wary of foods advertised as "fried." article Upon his death in 1980, Harland Sanders left behind an estate that was smaller than expected and a will that contained no unusual provisions: The late Col. Harland Sanders, the founder of Kentucky Fried Chicken who donated millions to charity, left an estate of less than $1.5 million, according to his will. Most of the estate will go into a trust, with Citizens Fidelity Bank and Trust Co. as executor and trustee, according to documents filed in Shelby County District Court. Sanders, who died Dec. 16 [1980] at 90, made four individual bequests in addition to the money he put in trust, [Kentucky Fried Chicken spokesman John] Cox said. He left a watch to one grandson and a Masonic ring to another grandson. He left $2,000 to Louis Broadus of Richmond, Ky., a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise holder and friend, Cox said, and $5,000 to Harland Williams of Nashville, the son of a longtime friend. Cox said Sanders' estate may be far less than $1.5 million, since $1,187,557 is an estimate of "property of unknown value" such as notes and accounts receivable. Last updated:  26 December 2010    Darden, Robert.  Secret Recipe: Why KFC Is Still Cookin' After 50 Years.   Irving, TX: Tapestry Press, 2002.  ISBN 1-930819-12-9  (p. 86). Secret Recipe: Why KFC Is Still Cookin' After 50 Years    de Vos, Gail.  Tales, Rumors and Gossip.   Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, 1996.  ISBN 1-56308-190-3  (p. 140). Tales, Rumors and Gossip    Turner, Patricia.  I Heard It Through the Grapevine.   Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California, 1993.   ISBN 0-520-08185-4  (pp. 99-101, 167, 171). I Heard It Through the Grapevine    Associated Press.  "Sanders Will Under $1.5 Million."   Daytona Beach Morning Journal.  31 December 2010  (p. A2). On 23 December 2016, a woman identifying herself as Catherine Elizabeth Clennan created a GoFundMe campaign destined for viral attention, in which she asked donors to supply her with US$5,000,000 in order to fulfill her "lifelong dream" (of having five million dollars). Clennan's bid for money stated that at 27, she dreamed of one day being independent of her family who "pay for everything" for her. Although she said that she hoped to raise $2,000,000 to buy a home in California, the campaign's goal was set at more than twice that amount: My name is Catherine Elizabeth Clennan and my whole life I have been trying to live by other's definitions of who I 'should be'. I have been trying so hard to live this lie that I came face to face with a choice: either live as others definitions of you and die OR strike out on your own and find for yourself who you really are. Well I chose life. I chose to live by my own definition ... With this choice I am in the process of turning my life in a new direction. Currently I live in Laramie, Wyoming. in a property owned by my family. They pay everything for me - and I am 27 years old. I feel that as long as I live by their definition I am 'taken care of', but this definition is leading me to deaths door - it forces me to live a lie - to turn my back to who I really am; a free spirit, an artist, a woman, a lesbian, a civil rights activist, a woman who goes against the grain, a woman who knows that not everything is as it seems. I need $2,000,000 dollars to purchase my dream home in California. I need the money to help me walk out of the lie that I am living, but more importantly I need the money to live my dream - which is to live as much as my life in the spiritual dimension as possible. The money will go towards the purchase of a new home, new transportation, and the various fees and taxes that accumulate with a move across the country. These funds will help me live the life that I feel I am meant to live, the life I want to live - the life defined not by other people - but by me. These funds will help me break free from the tyranny of what other people think is 'right'. The 'right' job, the 'right' education, the 'right' way to earn a living...   Although GoFundMe marked the campaign as "trending" as of 28 December 2016, Clennan had only received $21 of that goal on that date:   Although she has not indicated that her campaign is a hoax or prank (and GoFundMe has not flagged or removed it), Clennan does not appear to have much of an online footprint other than this campaign, aside from a LinkedIn profile and what may be a Huffington Post contribution (which as of April 2016 indicated she was an active student). That single article led some social media users to claim Clennan worked for the Huffington Post, but it looked as if she had submitted only one piece as a contributor. LinkedIn contribution In that article, Clennan expressed a desire to "be a public figure": Exposing my vulnerabilities publicly and confidently gave that girl the strength she needed to participate. Thats when I knew exactly what I wanted to do with my life  I want to use computer science to inspire other women to explore computer science. I want to be a public figure in computer science that is the exact opposite of what you would typically expect to find in the field. I want to be that girl who no one thought she could, who had all the odds against her, that everyone thought was dumb, and yet she becomes incredibly successful in computer science. Then I want to turn that success around and use it as a pedestal to expose every wound, every failure, every painful vulnerability I have, even with my hands trembling, Clennan invited potential donors to visit her Facebook page for more information, but few additional details were available there. It remains possible that her goal is genuine and presented honestly with no expectations that it would go over poorly or go viral, but also within the realm of possibility that the GoFundMe request was a step in her stated aim to become a public figure. Facebook Clennan, Catherine.  "The Benefits Of Being A Dumb Girl In Computer Science."
  Huffington Post.  12 April 2016. On Nov. 15, 2023, a user on X with the handle @PatMaguire10 published a post (archived) that said Fox News had reported former U.S. President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida had received a foreclosure notice from Deutsche Bank. We received reader mail that asked if this was true. post archived The post read, "BREAKING FOX NEWS: Deutsche Bank has filed a notice to foreclose on Mar A Lago. The Trump property is part of a larger estate lien that is 190m$ delinquent. Court documents show a 3.4b$ loan that's in default. Trump hasn't respond to repeated attempts for comment. Developing story."  However, a quick check of @PatMaguire10's X bio showed that the account posts "parody" content. In other words, Fox News didn't report on any such foreclosure notice, nor was there any public record of a foreclosure of Mar-a-Lago taking place or scheduled to happen in the future. For a little more background on the subject that was referenced, on the same day that the post was created, Trump's legal team reportedly asked for a mistrial to be declared in the civil fraud trial brought against him in New York. mistrial Weeks earlier, the same trial featured testimony from retired Deutsche Bank executive Nicholas Haigh. Haigh provided information to the court about the bank's decision to loan Trump roughly $125 million for the purchase of the Trump National Doral property in Miami in 2011, according to ABC News. ABC News As for Mar-a-Lago, Miami Herald reported in August 2022 that Trump had received a loan from Chase Manhattan Bank  not Deutsche Bank  for his 1985 purchase of the property: Miami Herald Mar-a-Lago itself cost Trump $8 million, which he financed with an $8.5 million loan from Chase Manhattan Bank. The other parcel - oceanfront land next to the manor - cost $2 million. Trump was able to use $500,000 from the estate loan and a $1.5 million mortgage from the seller, Jack C. Massey, to cover the bill. For further reading, we previously published a report titled, "Media Literacy: How Can You Tell if a Post Is Satire/Parody?" report Bromwich, Jonah E. Trump Lawyers Call for Mistrial in Civil Fraud Case, Attacking Judge. The New York Times, 15 Nov. 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/15/nyregion/trump-mistrial-fraud-case.html. Charalambous, Peter, et al. Bank Relied on Trumps Financial Statement to Secure Loan. ABC News, 11 Oct. 2023, https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/trump-fraud-trial/bank-relied-on-trumps-financial-statement-to-secure-loan-103895871?id=103642561. ---. Deutsche Bank Executive Set to Take Stand. ABC News, 11 Oct. 2023, https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/trump-fraud-trial/deutsche-bank-executive-set-to-take-stand-103889913?id=103642561. Ibrahim, Nur. Media Literacy: How Can You Tell If a Post Is Satire/Parody? Snopes, 25 Feb. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/articles/464404/media-literacy-satire-parody/. Kleinman, Jeff. How Donald Trump Changed a Palm Beach Mansion. The Story behind His Mar-a-Lago Takeover. Miami Herald, 9 Aug. 2022, https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article264318476.html. Spencer, Terry. Is Mar-a-Lago Worth $1 Billion? Trumps Winter Home Valuations Are at the Core of His Fraud Trial. The Associated Press, 9 Oct. 2023, https://apnews.com/article/trump-maralago-lawsuit-palm-beach-51fea4e520b1901c1c045590b2a7bdc0. In July 2019, an $80 coupon began making the rounds on Facebook for the ALDI grocery store chain. These shared posts were the latest iteration of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media and have also preyed on shoppers of chains such as Kroger and Target: Kroger Target  A different scam coupon offer also circulated with the ALDI logo in December 2015, advertising a "get 40% off all purchases in store" promise. Another displayed what appeared to be a free coupon for "$60 off a minimum $70 purchase", and even one for $75 off:  "Aldi has a coupon for $60 off a minimum $70 purchase. Aldi has verified this is a scam, but people are sharing it all over facebook." These coupons are not legitimate, as ALDI themselves noted on their Facebook page:  These coupon offers are a form of survey scams that direct victims to either a survey on an website not owned by ALDI, or what looks like a Facebook page for ALDI. The survey pages nor the Facebook page have any affiliation with the company, despite being adorned with the ALDI logo. Both instruct people to share the bogus ALDI coupon offer on their Facebook timelines and submit comments about it:  This page instructs shoppers to follow these "two simple steps" in order to get their coupons. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with information explaining how to claim their coupons. Instead, they're asked to take a brief survey that entails providing personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth, and are required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in number of subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards:  A version of the scam also surfaced in May 2016, and another later in 2018. ALDI responded to frustrated consumers on Facebook:  In June 2017, a version of the scam touting discounts in honor of ALDI's purported anniversary also appeared on Facebook: "HEY FRIENDS CHECK THIS OUT!!!!!Aldi is giving Free $75 Coupon to Everyone to celebrate 103rd Anniversary!Each Person (1)- Go & get yours!ALDI-COM.COM" However, attempting to visit the linked domain (ALDI-COM.com) led to a "deceptive site ahead" warning and not to ALDI's official web site:  If you frequently use Facebook, there is a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau lists key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts: article "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 there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions." All in all, trying to claim that "free" deep discount ALDI coupon is likely going to end up costing you a lot more than you'll save. Patterson, Emily.  "Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card." 
  Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014. 10 July 2019: This story has been updated with a scam offer appearing on Facebook that promises $80 off at ALDI. In early 2017 several news outlets reported on a story that owners of Amazon's Alexa digital assistant device owners were "left out of pocket" after a 6-year-old girl named Brooke Neitzel inadvertently triggered one into placing an order for an expensive dollhouse, and a news report on the incident triggered a plague of automated, unwanted dollhouse ordering: reported [In January 2017] it was reported that an Amazon Echo in Dallas, Texas, had ordered a $170 dollhouse after six-year-old Brooke Neitzel asked: 'Can you play dollhouse with me and get me a dollhouse?' Although the little girl apparently meant it as a rhetorical question the device saw it as a command and ordered a KidKraft Sparkle mansion dollhouse, as well as four pounds of sugar cookies. But to make matters worse many Amazon Echoes apparently picked up on TV anchor Jim Patton's words in the report: 'I love the little girl saying "Alexa ordered me a dollhouse".' Viewers at home were then left stunned when their own Amazon Echoes picked up the voice requests in the report and ordered dolls houses too. As voice-command purchasing is enabled as a default on the Alexa devices, viewers found it had mistaken the show for their command and bought the toy. According to that report, a Texas kindergartner's request for Alexa to "play dollhouse" with her and "get [her] a dollhouse" resulted in her family's being charged for an order for a top-dollar toy. And when the family's tale was reported by a San Diego news station, "stunned" viewers also became the recipients of unwanted dollhouses simply because an anchor repeated the same phrase, which their own Amazon Echo/Alexa devices picked up on and transformed into orders.   In one interview, Neitzel's mother Megan provided the Alexa log showing that her daughter had asked the device "Can you play dollhouse with me and get me a dollhouse?" But the embedded video of the log suggested that instead of confirming a dollhouse order, Alexa had responded, "Sorry, I couldn't find the answer to your question": interview  We attempted to replicate the circumstances of the purported inadvertent order and were unable to do so. When asked "can you play dollhouse with me and get me a dollhouse?" our, Alexa responded with "now shuffling songs by Bauhaus." Asking "Alexa, can you get me a dollhouse?" returned "hmm ... Im not sure what you meant by that question." "Alexa, can you play dollhouse with me? returned  ... heres a sample of 'Dollhouse Sounds' by Dollhouse Incorporated. Alexa, can you get me a dollhouse? was answered by I wasnt able to understand the question I heard." No permutation of "[c]an you play dollhouse with me and get me a dollhouse?" we tried resulted in a prompt to confirm a dollhouse order in any of our experiments conducted with two separate Alexa-enabled devices. The only potential purchase-triggering word appeared to be "order," after which it was necessary to confirm or decline the transaction (which we did at least three times and did not accidentally order any dollhouses). An Amazon spokesperson told us in response to our inquiry that ordering items through Alexa is a multi-step process that requires confirmation: You must ask Alexa to order a product and then confirm the purchase with a yes response to purchase via voice. If you asked Alexa to order something on accident, simply say no when asked to confirm. You can also manage your shopping settings in the Alexa app, such as turning off voice purchasing or requiring a confirmation code before every order. Additionally, orders you place for physical products are eligible for free returns. This conforms to our own experience: we couldn't induce Alexa into ordering anything without its first showing us the item, displaying a price, and asking us for verbal confirmation.  We also couldn't get Alexa to order two items at once, as supposedly happened with the dollhouse and cookies  Alexa always processed multiple items separately no matter how we tried to join them, displaying a price and requiring a verbal confirmation for each item. We also could find no confirmation (outside of anecdotal repetition) that a spate of unwanted dollhouse orders followed in the wake of San Diego newscaster Jim Patton's report on the story.  Perhaps the television audio of that newscast might have woken up some viewers' Alexas, but those viewers would still have had to confirm any potential dollhouse purchases by responding 'yes' to Alexa's request for purchase confirmation. We have yet to locate any of the "viewers at home left stunned" as their Alexa devices foisted undesired $165 toys upon them. CBS News.  "6-Year-Old Orders $160 Dollhouse, 4 Pounds of Cookies with Amazon's Echo Dot."
  5 January 2017. Claim:  Photographs show female hunters posing with the bodies of giraffes they've killed. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2015] Facebook has recently been inundated with pictures of women hunters posed with dead giraffes. Are they fake or real?  Origins:  Earlier this year as we were trekking through Africa, we passed through Tanzania to investigate some animal-related legends and visit a place that has loomed large in our imaginations ever since we were children: the Serengeti. It was everything we imagined it to be, and more: endless herds of zebra and buffalo stretching across the plains  as far as the eye could see, prides of lions snoozing under trees, elephants with their calves parading across our path, rhinoceros slowly lumbering along the landscape, huge pools in which hundreds of hippos lazed to escape the midday sun, as well aswarthogs, mongooses, hyenas, impala, gazelles, dik-diks, hyrax, and baboons. Tour operators in that part of the world typically tout that their clients will have an opportunity to view the "Big Five" of African wildlife: the African lion, the African elephant, the Cape buffalo, the African leopard, and the rhinoceros (black or white).  We were fortunate enough to see all of these creatures (and more), and to be able to shoot them from up close  with cameras only  includingthe one animal that's hardest to miss:  We were somewhat surprised to learn during our trip that the term "Big Five" derives not from the world of tourism (which has co-opted it), but from the world of big-game hunting: it is said to encompass the five African animals most difficult to hunt on foot.  We were more surprised to learn that, despite widespread public perception that the "Big Five" (and most other large African wildlife) are all endangered and/or protected by law, there are very few African animals that cannot be legally hunted somewhere on that continent. We were reminded of our experience in April 2015, when comedian Ricky Gervais posted to his Facebook page a photograph purportedly showing a female hunter posing in recline alongside the carcass of a giraffe she had just killed, along with his rumination about why someone would "want to kill a beautiful animal and then lie next to it smiling":  The comedian didn't provide much background information in his Facebook post, which led many viewers to speculate about the authenticity of the photo. Was the scene staged with a giraffe that died from other causes?  Was the giraffe put down for humane reasons? Was the image Photoshopped?  The photograph that Gervais shared has originally appeared on the website RebeccaFrancis.com in August 2010. Although that site did not provide any specific information about that particular image, the site is full of pictures of animals killed in African big game hunts, including lions, zebras, and giraffes. Francis addressed the controversy of being a "big game hunter" in a blog entitled "The True Circle of Hunting": RebeccaFrancis.com pictures As a hunter, I am constantly under fire and constantly being labeled a "trophy hunter". What is a trophy hunter?  I have put a great deal of thought into the meaning of this.  In the dictionary the literal meaning is simply put: "Trophy hunting is the selective hunting of wild game animals".  In that case, I AM A TROPHY HUNTER.   There is no question that I am extremely selective about the animals I hunt.   I feel it is absolutely necessary to hunt older and more mature animals.  In a lot of cases, that puts that animal past it's breeding prime and the animal can actually be kicked out of the herd and replaced with a younger, stronger male to introduce new genetics into the gene pool. Consequently, that animal can not only be bullied by the new male, but also be left all alone to suffer until its inevitable death. I have no desire to shoot an animal, just to shoot it.  I admire, respect, and love watching these beautiful creatures. Ricky Gervais subsequently posted a second photograph on his Facebook page of a female hunter posing with a dead giraffe :  While the specific origins of this photograph are unknown to us, the earliest incarnation we've found appears to have originated with the now-defunct Facebook page of one "Ivy Swanepol":  A similar photograph of a grinning woman posing astride a dead giraffe while holding a high-powered rifle in her hands generated online controversy in March 2014 when it was posted to the Facebook page of Koeshall's World Hunting Adventures taxidermy shop in Wisconsin along with a caption  "We took Shelley out this morning with the thoughts of maybe getting a giraffe. We found this big bull feeding in the trees, and Shelley put 2 good shots in him before he went down. Big mature bull. We have it all here, and we want to share it with YOU": posted  Regardless of who is pictured in these photographs, there is no good reason to believe that they are not genuine or do not represent what they appear to depict, as giraffes are indeed one of the trophy animals frequently targeted in African big game hunts. Big Game Hunting Adventures of South Africa, for instance, offers safaris on which hunters can bag (among other animals)baboons, hyenas, buffalo, elephants, giraffe, hippos, impala, leopards, lions, warthogs, wildebeest, and zebras.   safaris Although many animal lovers and wildlife protection groups may decry African big game hunts, they are perfectly legal in places such as South Africa.  Moreover, some conservationists have argued that this form of tourism actually helps their cause by providing much-needed revenue for the preservation of more endangered species in the region: South Africa has a tourism industry that permits people to hunt big game animals such as the elephant, rhinoceros and lion.  Many people object to this blood sport.  But some argue that hunting big game animals creates income needed to save the country's population of big animals. It is legal in some African countries to hunt big game.  The business brings in a lot of money.  A ten-day 'elephant package' could cost U.S. $36,000.  Hunting a rhinoceros can cost U.S. $100,000. The International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) has strong words against what it calls the "needless killing of endangered species for trophies."  The organization says big game hunting is not sustainable, meaning it cannot be supported over a long period of time.  The group also says it provides only short-term economic gains, hurts the area's environmental balance and is morally wrong. But not all conservationists agree.  Some argue trophy hunting may be helping Africa's wildlife.  Professor John Hanks is the former head of the World Wide Fund for Nature in South Africa.  He says tourism and donations do not provide the billions of dollar needed. "I think trophy hunting in South Africa is really absolutely essential if we are going to look for long-term future for rhinos in the whole of Africa ... there's hardly a single country anywhere that can afford to run its national parks as they should be run ... Here we are in South Africa, one of the richest countries in the continent, Kruger Park has a million visitors a year and they still cannot afford to defend the rhinos." The hunting industry in South Africa brings in more than $744 million each year.  The industry employs about 70,000 people.  And about 9,000 trophy hunters travel to South Africa every year.  Ninety percent of them come from the United States.  In 2012, foreign hunters spent $115 million in South Africa.  Trophy hunting is the most profitable form of commercial land use in the country. Herman Meyeridricks is the president of the Professional Hunters' Association of South Africa.  He argues that legal hunting is important to wildlife protection. "The only way there will be incentive for those landowners to protect and keep on investing in rhino is if they have an economic value. They can only have an economic value if there is an end-user that is willing to pay for that, and that is the trophy hunter." One can find plenty of photographs of male big game hunters posing with taken giraffes online, but those images apparently don't stir up as much widespread outrage as similar pictures showing female hunters. photographs Last updated:  14 April 2015    Parker, Gilliam.  "Trophy Hunting Is Big Business in South Africa."   VOA.  16 August 2014. In early October 2020, Snopes readers asked about the authenticity of an image of a tweet circulating on social media platforms that was mocked up to look like it had been written by Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris:   The post doesn't appear on Harris's Twitter timeline on Sept. 9, 2020 (the date on the tweet above), nor does it appear on Politiwoops, a database of deleted tweets from politicians run by the non-profit news outlet ProPublica.  timeline Politiwoops Furthermore, one would expect that if the vice presidential candidate on a major political party ticket stated she wanted to focus on "defunding the police rather than supporting them," it would be major news. We found no stories from any reputable news organization reporting it.  The idea of defunding the police came from nationwide racial justice protests in the U.S. in the spring and summer of 2020, sparked by high-profile deaths of Black Americans while in police custody, including George Floyd in Minneapolis, and Breonna Taylor, in Kentucky. Activists advocated for taking money from local government budgets allocated to police departments and investing instead in programs like community services and mental health crisis response teams. programs like In a June 2020 interview with The New York Times, Harris stated that, "We do have to reimagine what public safety looks like," but added she didn't want to "get rid" of police departments: interview It is status quo thinking to believe that putting more police on the streets creates more safety. Thats wrong. Its just wrong. You know what creates more safety? Funding public schools, affordable housing, increased homeownership, job skill development, jobs, access to capital for those who want to start small businesses, or who are running small businesses in communities. But, no, were not going to get rid of the police. We all have to be practical. But lets separate out these discussions Her running mate, Joe Biden, also doesn't support defunding the police, although U.S. President Donald Trump has stated otherwise. Biden has stated, "I dont want to defund police departments. I think they need more help, they need more assistance." doesn't support Lee, Jessica."Does Joe Biden Support Defunding Police?"
Snopes.com.29 September 2020. Karma, Roge."Democrats Are Running on the Most Progressive Police Reform Agenda in Modern American History."
Vox.8 September 2020. Lerer, Lisa."Kamala Harris Is Done Explaining Racism."
 The New York Times. 10 June 2020. Claim:  Osama bin Laden owns Snapple. Status:  False. Origins:  Snapple, the popular beverage company begun in 1972, has been a target of spurious "owned by someone evil" rumors since 1992. Those earlier (and entirely baseless) rumors linked the company with the Ku Klux Klan, not an Arab terrorist. (The KKK-Snapple connection was but one of many similar slanders tying a number of innocent businesses to the KKK  that particularrumored association was far from unique to Snapple.) rumored association But   times change, and so do those whom society views as the evildoers of the hour. Though the KKK is as odious as ever, its particular brand of detestability has been eclipsed by that of the terrorists cowering in the mountains of Afghanistan. One of the many rumors born in the aftermath of the September 11 attack on America links Snapple with Osama bin Laden and calls for a grassroots boycott of this company's line of products. Although bombs seem the obvious way to go after those who perpetrated the terrorist attacks on America, the real key to their undoing may well be economic. But that's not nearly as visceral a solution as going into Afghanistan with a war cry and guns blazing, and it's not one which the average person can participate in or support in a tangible way, and so rumors like the one tying Snapple to Osama bin Laden help fill the void.  The typical American wants to experience the sense of vindication that comes from toppling this manifestation of evil, and so calls to boycott companies which are rumored to be filling the war chests of bin Laden and his cronies therefore fall on highly receptive ears  many want to feel they're part of the struggle, but the very nature of the battle denies them that opportunity. Becoming part of an economic boycott would restore at least a part of that yearning for participation. That type of rumor, though highly welcome, often outruns the facts. That is the case with the call to spurn Snapple: In a lengthy Snapple press release, CEO Michael Weinstein wrote: press release Snapple has never had  and does not now  have any direct or indirect relationship of any kind whatsoever with Osama bin Laden or any other terrorist group or supporter. That same press release contains the likely reason behind this particular blossoming of the "allied with evil" rumor: If the source of these rumors is over our terminated relationship with a Saudi Arabian food distributorship, let me clarify this once and for all. Some of our products  along with products from other respected American beverage and food companies  were distributed by a company that had an investment from The Saudi Binladin Group. Snapple has never had any reason to believe, nor do we now, that this company had any relationship of any kind with terrorists. Nonetheless, several weeks ago, we terminated our relationship with this distributorship. Those unfamiliar with the Binladin Group might conclude from its name that it is Osama bin Laden's corporate presence. In truth, the Binladin Group is one of the many corporate entities owned or participated in by any number of Osama bin Laden's relatives, many of whom spell their surnames as Binladin. The infamous terrorist hails from a family that is both very large and incredibly wealthy. Osama has 54 siblings, and untangling the web of the family's finances and business associations is nearly an impossible task. Though it cannot absolutely be ruled out some of the income flowing into any of these entities reaches Osama bin Laden, it is widely understood that he is the family's black sheep and that many members of this wide-reaching and far-flung assembly of relatives have utterly disowned him.  Osama's half-brother, 35-year-old Abdullah Mohammed Binladin, the only member of the family to speak publicly about their notorious relative since September 11, said: "I affirm that the Binladin family and the Saudi Binladin Group have no relationship whatsoever with Osama or any of his activities. He shares no legal or beneficial interests with them or their assets or properties, and he is not directly or indirectly funded by them."  As to who does own Snapple, it's now part of Cadbury Schweppes, a large UK corporation famous primarily for chocolate and carbonated beverages. Cadbury Schweppes is a publicly traded company on the London Exchange. It is therefore not owned by any one person, but by  thousands. Snapple originated as Unadulterated Food Corporation in 1972 and was little more than a hobby enterprise begun by Leonard Marsh, Hyman Golden, and Arnold Greenberg, who at the time were selling juices to health food stores. The first of its famed teas wasn't introduced until 1987, and the success of that line changed the company. The concern was acquired by Quaker [Oats] in 1994, sold to Triarc in 1997, and sold again to Cadbury Schweppes in 2000.  Untangling the web of who owns what will be one of the biggest tasks those charged with fighting terrorism on the economic front will face in the years to come. It is more than likely the effort will prove that at least some of the terrorists or those who provide their funding have holdings in a variety of American companies that are innocently unaware of the details of each of their minor shareholders' private lives. (The international world of finance being what it is, a diversified portfolio is a must, and that holds true for terrorists as well as for the law-abiding.) That will not mean that those companies whose shares turn up in the wrong hands support terrorism; merely that one of the nasties bought a bit of stock without their knowing who he really was. When such holdings come to light, there will be an outcry against those companies as those looking for someone to direct their anger towards will at least momentarily feel they've found someone deserving of their ire. They'll be wrong, but that will probably do little to stem the tide of criticism they'll unleash. Barbara "who let the dogs out?" Mikkelson Last updated:  21 April 2008    Sources:  Dobbs, Michael and John Ward Anderson.  "A Fugitive's Splintered Family Tree."  The Washington Post.  30 September 2001  (p. A1).   Dunley, Ruth.  "Osama's 'The Black Sheep,' Brother Says."  The Ottawa Citizen.  8 October 2001  (p. A6). Kathie Tovo, facing Austin City Council Member Randi Shade in a June 18 runoff, says in aTV adthat debuted in April: Were in a budget crisis, but the council may give $4 million a year to subsidize a race track. Thats the wrong priority.City Hall coughing up for vroom-vroom?First, lets brake to define subsidy. Merriam-Websters Online Dictionarysaysits a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public. Offered examples are expenditures for public transit or to farmers in case of crop failure.To back her claim, Tovos campaign pointed us to an eight-pagefact sheeton her website touching on money that could flow to support Formula One races to be held on a track being built east of Austins airport.According to the sheet, state Comptroller Susan Combs has agreed to provide $25 million a year for 10 years from a state trust fund to cover an annual sanctioning fee that local F1 organizers must pay to the British-based international race organization.The fund reimburses event organizers with some of the extra sales, hotel, alcohol and car rental tax revenue attributable to the event itself  i.e., money that the state theoretically would not have collected if the event had not been held. In the past it has been used to attract NFL Super Bowls and the Major League and NBA All-Star games.Per a 2009 state law, though, the states $25 million a year can only be spent if a local city or county government puts up $1 for every $6.25 in state aid. The law specifies that in order to get the state aid, local organizers need a local city or county to agree to endorse the event.So, $4 million a year is to be ginned up locally with the money would be dedicated to covering costs of staging the event -- police overtime, say, or erecting traffic barriers -- municipal expenses that might otherwise be charged to the promoter.Subsidy case closed?Not by the lights of Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell. A June 8 Austin American-Statesman newsarticlequotes Leffingwell saying during a June 7 City Council work session: The city will never put any money into the Formula One project.During the session, Richard Suttle, the projects Austin lawyer, said the first of the 10 payments will come from a local organizing committee, which in turn expects to get the money from the Formula One promoters. A city employee noted that the subsequent local contributions of $4 million will come from tax revenue the state expects to reap in connection with the races.Next, we asked Tovos camp why the $4 million amounts to a subsidy if the first installment is to come from a non-governmental source and future payments are expected to reflect tax revenue that presumably would not exist without the races.Jim Wick, Tovos deputy campaign manager, replied: What you have happening right now is the mayor and some members of the council are trying to figure out how to structure this so that it doesnt appear the city (is) giving the promoters of this event a subsidy. It looks like fuzzy accounting.Shade campaign spokeswoman Lynda Rife pointed out by email that the trust fund money can be spent on the races -- not construction of the track itself. Also, each race is expected to generate more than $4 million in new tax revenue that wouldn't come to the city without the event taking place.Rifes email continued: If we dont generate that $4 million in new tax revenue from the event, then the city doesnt have to pay the whole $4 million. The city is not on the hook, if the event doesnt meet the performance standard, she said.Notably, the city can use its contribution to the trust fund to pay race-related expenses. According to Rodney Gonzales, deputy director of the city's Economic Growth and Development Services office, any amount not spent to cover hosting expenses would remain in the trust fund the next year and could not be spent for other municipal purposes.Time to wave our checkered flag.Maybe we missed a hairpin turn or two, but its clear the council is gearing up to vote on an agreement committing tax revenue to a trust fund devoted to supporting the F1 races.Subsidy? Sure, though Tovos statement skirts the expectation that the area will draw tax benefits equal to or exceeding the local expenditures. We rate it Mostly True.