St. Joseph and Home Sales
Claim:  Burying a statuette of St. Joseph on the property will help speed the sale of a home.  LEGEND Example:  [Cohen, 1997] Many realtors have their "Believe It or Not" stories.  Such was the case of a woman who moved from Maryland to Arizona.  After eight months of paying the mortgage on her unsold home in Baltimore, she sent her agent a statue and burial instructions.  Within two weeks, the house sold.  Another case involved a couple moving because of a new job. But their house, which was in a very active neighborhood, wasn't doing anything, even with St. Joseph in the ground. But St. Joseph's presumed inattention turned out to be for the better. The husband got a better job offer, and that's when the house sold.  In 1995, Betsy Moyer was determined to sell her house on Lake Avenue in Baltimore at a premium. She listed it for $15,000 more than other sellers in the same neighborhood. After seven quiet months a friend recommended that Moyer plant St. Joseph. The next week a group of nuns arrived to look at the house. Three months later, the house was sold at the highest price ever in that area, according to her agent. Origins:  Those trying to sell a home often feel in need of a miracle when a quick sale fails to materialize. Folklore purports to have the remedy: Bury a plastic statue of St. Joseph in the yard, and a successful closing won't be long in the offing. Realtors across the nation swear by this. The reputed origins of the practice vary. Some say an order of European nuns in the Middle Ages buried a medal of St. Joseph while asking   the saint to intercede in its quest for a convent. Others claim it may be connected to a practice of German carpenters who buried the statues in the foundations of houses they built and said a prayer to St. Joseph. Yet others trace the connection to a chapel building effort in Montreal in the late 1800s. Brother Andre Bessette wanted to buy some land on Mount Royal in Montreal to construct a small chapel called an oratory. When the landowners refused to sell, Bessette began planting medals of St. Joseph on the property. In 1896 the owners suddenly relented and sold, and Bessette was able to build his oratory.  But these theories may well be instances of retrofitting lore to a custom because mentions older than contemporary times have failed to materialize in standard folklore references. That the custom now has an interesting backstory does not mean its backstory is valid or even that old. The practice of burying a plastic St. Joseph to help speed the sale of a home dates at least to 1979 in the U.S.A. In 1990 it seemingly became all the rage, with realtors buying plastic saints' statues by the gross. The standard practice calls for the statue to be dug up once the property has sold and placed on the grateful seller's mantel or in another place of honor. Some, however, who have trouble remembering where they interred their statues prefer to leave the buried saints where they've been placed to help protect the properties for the new owners. (Which may not work all that well  some believe leaving the statue underground will cause the land to continue changing hands.)  But why Joseph, you ask? Why not another saint  say, St. Jude, patron saint of lost causes? Joseph, Jesus' earthly father, is the patron saint of home and family in the Roman Catholic religion. According to one of the hottest new customs, the statues are buried upside down and facing the road in front of a house for sale.1 Actually, different realtors quote different placements of the statue:   Upside down, near the 'For Sale' sign in the front yard. (An upside down St. Joseph is said to work extra hard to get out of the ground and onto someone's mantel.)  Right side up.  In the rear yard, possibly in a flower bed.  Lying on its back and pointing towards the house "like an arrow."  Three feet from the rear of the house.  Facing the house.  Facing away from the house. (One who tried this reported the house across the street sold, and it hadn't even been up for sale.)  Exactly 12 inches deep. The custom of burying St. Joseph has become so widespread that some retailers even offer a Home Sale Kit, which includes a plastic statue, a prayer card, and an introduction to the St. Joseph home sale practice.  Home Sale Kit Prudent realtors also recommend the following advice in addition to burying Joe: "For this practice to be fully effective, the seller must, of course, first do such  practical yet all important chores as completing all necessary fix-ups, properly staging the home and finally, adjusting the price so as to exactly reflect market value."  Many who have experienced difficulty selling their homes have reported seemingly miraculous sales shortly after burying a statue of St. Joseph on their property. Stephen Binz's 2003 book, Saint Joseph, My Real Estate Agent, is replete with many such examples. However, one tale included in the book (which might well be apocryphal)  indicates that everything doesn't always go as planned. One impatient man moved his statue from the front yard to the backyard to the side of the house and finally threw it in the trash. A few days later the frustrated seller opened the newspaper and saw the headline "Local Dump Has Been Sold." Barbara "joe work" Mikkelson Last updated:  11 June 2011    1.  Beard, Betty.  "Answer to Special Prayers."   The Arizona Republic.  16 May 1998  (p. EV1).    Binz, Stephen.  Saint Joseph, My Real Estate Agent.   Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 2003.   ISBN1-569-55361-0.    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Baby Train.   New York: W. W. Norton, 1993.   ISBN 0-393-31208-9   (p. 181-184). The Baby Train   Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Too Good To Be .  New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.   ISBN 0-393-04734-2  (pp. 246-247). Too Good To Be     Cohen, Charles.  "And He Does It All Upside Down."   The [Baltimore] Sun.  30 March 1997  (p. M1).    Galletta, Jan.  "Believing that Faith Not Only Moves Mountains . . ."   Chattanooga Times.  8 April 2000  (p. E1).    Ivey,  James.  "Gregory With Statue of St. Joseph."   Omaha World-Herald.  9 December 1984.    Shea, Jim.  "Home Sellers Tap a Saint as Dealmaker."   The Washington Post.  16 August 1997  (p. E5).    Vigue, Doreen Iudica.  "St. Joseph Sells."   The Boston Globe.  7 December 2003.    Chicago Sun-Times.  "A New Compass Aims to Please."   14 January 1986  (p. 71).    Los Angeles Times.  "Desperate Sellers Dig That Saint."   25 November 1990  (p. K1).    Omaha World-Herald.  "Priest Doesn't Buy Story . . ."   21 November 1985  (p. K1).   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 193). The Big Book of Urban Legends
In late May 2016, Twitter users were circulating a rumor that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump had derisively referred to Canadians as "Snow Mexicans": @ViewFromWise Did you happen to sew his post about Canadians the other day? He called them "Snow Mexicans". No lie, total truth. Wow!!! @ViewFromWise  Stephanie Barrett (@imfrog2) May 31, 2016 May 31, 2016  @GaryRayBetz @ViewFromWise Well he recently called Canadians "Snow Mexicans". I came across that on Twitter about 2 weeks ago. Wow.  Stephanie Barrett (@imfrog2) June 6, 2016 @GaryRayBetz @ViewFromWise June 6, 2016  Documentation for this rumor eventually appeared in the form of a purported screenshot of a tweet from Donald Trump's official Twitter account bearing a 22 February 2016 date stamp:  However, some elements of that screenshot didn't match Twitter's interface, suggesting it had been fabricated.  Indeed, Donald Trump's Twitter account issued a tweet at the very same time shown on the screenshot (6:31 PM Eastern Standard Time on 22 February 2016), but it had nothing to do with Canadians and made no mention of "snow Mexicans": tweet  It is fairly obvious the "snow Mexicans" comment was not an authentic Trump tweet, but rather an altered version of a tweet that referenced sending "illegals" out of the U.S.  And given the news media's intense coverage of Trump's sometimes incendiary remarks (on Twitter and elsewhere), it's exceedingly unlikely the GOP candidate could have issued such a comment without its having generated widespread media interest. In March 2021, a Pepsi.com Facebook page  no affiliation with the official Pepsi Facebook page  posted a message claiming that the company was giving away mini fridges in honor of its 100th anniversary:   This is not a genuine giveaway from Pepsi.  For one, this picture comes from the "Pepsi.com" Facebook page. This page, which was was created in March 2021, is not affiliated with PepsiCo. The company's real Facebook page can be found here. When this scam was brought to Pepsi's attention, a representative wrote on Facebook: "Thanks for bringing this to our attention. This is not a legitimate promotion." March 2021 here wrote It should also be noted that PepsiCo was founded in 1965. In other words, this "100th anniversary" giveaway is about 45 years early. (If we count from the invention of the soft drink Pepsi-Cola, which has been around since 1898, this anniversary scam is 20 years late.) 1965 The above-displayed image represents a common Facebook scam. While users are promised a free gift (such as a vacation, a grocery coupon, or, in the case above, a mini fridge), they often have to provide personal information in order to "claim" the prize. There is, however, no prize to claim.  We've had many occasions to alert readers to this kind of fraud: These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers In the final days before the election, the Obama campaign has put upan adthat is a sort of Cliff Notes for voters before they walk into the voting booth. It lists many of the points Obama has used against Mitt Romney throughout this contest.It warns about the future of Medicare,support for education, tax breaks for the wealthiest, and banking regulation. On that last point, it says, Mitt Romneys plan rolls back regulations on the banks that crashed our economy.This fact-check examines that claim and tries to discern what Romney would do about keeping banks clear of the excesses that contributed to the financial crisis.Romney has not spoken in detail about his financial regulation plans. Sifting through his website, interviews and his public comments, we see these core elements:  He wouldrepeal Dodd-Frank, the wide-ranging law that aims to fix many of the lapses associated with the meltdown. Romney has said he would replace the law but has not gone much beyond that concept. Romney supports the idea of regulations. Extensive regulation is appropriate in an industry that has such an impact on the overall economy, he said in an interviewwithTime. Romney supports rules to ensure that banks have their own money at risk, as this promotes greater caution. You have to have rules for what kind of capital has to stand behind each kind of asset on Wall Street and banks, he said on60 Minutes. This is part of current law. He supports greater transparency for derivatives trading. He told agroup of Americansin London, mainly bankers, that we do need to have greater transparency in the trading of derivatives, so we know whats going on - what kind of exposures various institutions have. Derivatives as investment devices are not inherently bad but they helped hide the weaknesses of the home mortgage market and increased the exposure of many investors when the sector collapsed. Dodd-Frank has a detailed approach to shedding light on derivatives trading. Romney opposes the current plan for orderly liquidations when banks fail. We need to get rid of that provision because it's killing regional and small banks, Romney said in thefirst presidential debate.However, he has not said how he would change the current law. Romney believes regulators should move faster to define the minimum standards for a home mortgage loan. The Obama campaign backs up its claim with aBoston Globearticle from last spring. The article emphasizes that Romney says he would do away with Dodd-Frank without saying what would replace it. Since that time, Romney has said a bit more, captured in that list above, but not much more.In May, one of Romneys top economic advisers,Glenn Hubbard,said the public could expect more detailed proposals on several key fronts, including what to do if one of the biggest banks fails, consumer financial protections, and housing finance. However, those proposals never appeared.The only detail from Hubbard himself targeted the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That agency, created under Dodd-Frank, aims to stand between individuals and the marketing of unfair and deceptive financial services. Hubbard said the bureau might be moved or dismantled, with its functions passed along to existing agencies.The lack of specifics from Romney has left many people reading the tea leaves. Kenneth Scott is professor of law and business at Stanford Law School. I very much doubt that if Romney won there would be a blanket repeal of Dodd-Frank, but there would be an effort at significant amendments, Scott said.Some have looked to Congress for clues. ABloomberg articledescribed the changes Republicans have passed or introduced. High on the list are looser rules governing the trade in derivatives, and especially the financial practice called swaps. Swaps are basically insurance against the risk that a borrower wont repay a loan. It gets more exotic, but thats the central idea, and its very big business. Swaps delivered $7 billion in revenues to banks in the first quarter of 2012. Swaps played a significant role in the 2008 financial crisis.Bloomberg andother news organizationshave listed other areas where Republicans have worked to ease financial regulations, such as reversing the Volker Rule, which limits banks on using customer deposits to invest in trades offered by an arm of the same bank.Bloomberg offered this summary: Dodd-Frank would remain but it would be a revamped Dodd-Frank that would accommodate some of the most profitable and riskiest activities while preserving a patina of protection for investors and consumers.Still, the precise changes Romney would support are unknown. In addition, some would argue that whatever changes emerge would not increase the odds of another financial crisis. For example, Lawrence White, a scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, believes the current law on big banks makes risky behavior more likely.Repealing THAT part of Dodd-Frank would not roll back regulation on the banks that crashed our economy, quite the contrary, White said.We asked the Romney campaign for more specifics in several areas but received no further information.Our rulingThe Obama ad says Mitt Romneys plan rolls back regulations on banks.Romney has provided scant details on his plans, but he has said that he would push for changes. Romney has never suggested that tougher regulations are needed, and he has said many times that government regulates too much. It is reasonable to conclude his plans would be more in line with current Republican initiatives than the present law passed by Democrats. That direction points toward fewer restrictions than are in place under Dodd-Frank. Certainly, Romney has said that the provisions for the largest banks should be replaced.Conservative analysts would say that these changes would not put the financial system at greater risk.However, the ad simply says Romney would roll back regulations on the institutions that contributed to the financial crisis. How much of a rollback is unclear, but Romney does support a lighter regulatory touch on banks, so we rate the statement Mostly True. Georgias economy has been hotly debated in this years governors race. And in a new television ad, Democratic nominee Jason Carter says power brokers at the state Capitol need to do more for the middle class. In the last 10 years, Georgias middle-class income has dropped $6,500, he says. We have to change that. The two-term state senator from Atlanta who is hoping to unseat Republican incumbent Gov. Nathan Deal in the Nov. 4 general election has previously voiced concern about the shrinking income of the middle class. At a press conference in January, when 2012 figures were the most recent available, Carter said the income of an average Georgia family, adjusted for inflation, is about $6,000 less than it was 10 years ago. PolitiFact Georgia rated that statement True, albeit on the conservative side. Carter was relying on historical data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The data showed that the median household income in Georgia fell by an estimated $6,682, from $54,803 in 2002 to $48,121 in 2012, when adjusted for inflation. Nationally, in that same period, the median household income dropped from $54,127 to $51,017, or $3,110, according to the Census Bureaus data. Carters new ad cites a $6,500, 10-year drop in household income. Thats even more on target with the Census Bureau data. Still, we decided to go a little further since, after Carters ad aired, the Census Bureau came out with new data for 2013. The middle-class income number also provides one more measure for trying to assess whats going on with Georgias economy. It can be a cloudy picture. Deal says nearly 300,000 jobs have been created in his tenure. Meanwhile, the Bureau of Labor Statistics says Georgias unemployment rate jumped from 6.9 percent in April to 8.1 percent in August. So whats the latest info on median household income? In the U.S. Census Bureaus just-released 2013 American Community Survey, Georgia had a median household income of $47,829 in 2013, inflation-adjusted dollars. The state ranked 34th out of 50 states and the District of Columbia, with Maryland the highest at $72,483, Mississippi the lowest at $37,963. The survey said the median household income for the nation was $52,250  $4,421 higher than Georgias. The numbers, however, showed metro Atlantas median household income at $55,733. That is above the national average. And more than half of all Georgians live in or near metro Atlanta. Median household income is down for metro Atlanta and Georgia since 2010, the first year after the government says the recession ended and the year Deal was elected governor. Metro Atlantas median household income was $56,850 for 2010, and in inflation-adjusted dollars, Georgias was $49,412, according to the survey. (Note: Some estimates in the American Community Survey differ from prior estimates.) In inflation-adjusted dollars, Georgias median household income was $47,536 in 2011 and $47,811 in 2012. Wesley Tharpe, a policy analyst with the left-leaning Georgia Budget & Policy Institute, said income and wages have been basically stagnant in the state for the past two to three years. What we saw with the Great Recession, starting around 2007, was employment and income just really fell through the floor due to the collapse of the housing market, the collapse of the stock market, Tharpe said. Those really hurt Georgia because of our reliance on the housing industry and construction jobs. Since that crash, the economy has been gradually moving in the right direction, he said. But incomes and the ability for families to make a living and make ends meet is really lagging behind, Tharpe said. We havent really seen that much growth since we hit that floor. In summary, Carters ad says middle-class income has dropped $6,500 in 10 years. He bases this on historical data from the U.S. Census Bureau. That shows Georgias median household income, in inflation-adjusted dollars, fell by $6,682, from $54,803 in 2002 to $48,121 to 2012. We rate Carters ad claim as True. One of the less well knownaspects of the history of slavery is how many and how oftenpeople of color owned and traded slaves in earlyAmerica. Free Black slave holders could be found at one time or another "in each of thethirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery," historian R. Halliburton Jr. observed. That Black people bought and sold other black people raises "vexing questions" for 21st-centuryAmericanslikeAfrican American writerHenry Louis Gates Jr., who writes that it betraysclass divisions that have always existed within the Black community. For others, it's an excuseto deflect the shared blame for the institution of slavery in America away from white people. Henry Louis Gates Jr. In the latter vein, a "9 Facts About Slavery They Don't Want You to Know" meme laysouta mixture of true, false and misleading historical claims. We'll address each one in turn below:   The first legal slave owner in American history was a Black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson. Possibly true. The wording of the statement is important. Anthony Johnson was not the first slave owner in American history, but he was, according to historians, among the first to have his lifetime ownership of a servant legally sanctionedby a court. sanctioned A former indentured servant himself, Anthony Johnson was a so-called "free negro" who owned a 250-acre farm in Virginia during the 1650s, withfive indentured servantsunder contract tohim. One of them, a Black man named John Casor, claimed that his term of servicehad expired years earlier and Johnson was holding himillegally. In 1654, a civil court found that Johnson in fact owned Casor's services for life, an outcome historian R Halliburton Jr. calls "one of the first known legal sanctions of slavery other than as a punishment for crime." John Casor North Carolina's largest slave holder in 1860 was a Black plantation owner named William Ellison. False. William Ellison was a very wealthy Black plantation owner and cotton gin manufacturerwholivedin South Carolina (not North Carolina). According to the 1860 census (in which his surname was listed as "Ellerson"), he owned 63 Black slaves, making him the largest of the 171 Black slaveholders in South Carolina, but far from the largest overall slave holder in the state. William Ellison census American Indians owned thousands of Black slaves. True. Historian Tiya Miles provided this snapshot of the Native American ownership of Black slaves at the turn of the 19th century forSlatemagazine in January 2016: snapshot Miles places the number of enslaved people held by Cherokees at around 600 at the start of the 19th century and around 1,500 at the time of westward removal in 1838-9. (Creeks, Choctaws, and Chickasaws, she said, held around 3,500 slaves, across the three nations, as the 19thcentury began.) "Slavery inched its way slowly into Cherokee life," Miles told me. "When a white man moved into a Native location, usually to work as a trader or as an Indian agent, he would own [African] slaves." If such a person also had a child with a Native woman, as was not uncommon, the half-European, half-Native child would inherit the enslaved people (and their children) under white law, as well as the right to use tribal lands under tribal law. This combination put such people in a position to expand their wealth, eventually operating large farms and plantations. In 1830 there were 3,775 free Black people who owned 12,740 Black slaves. Approximately true, according to historian R. Halliburton Jr.: There were approximately 319,599 free blacks in the United States in 1830. Approximately 13.7 per cent of the total black population was free. A significant number of these free blacks were the owners of slaves. The census of 1830 lists 3,775 free Negroes who owned a total of 12,760 slaves. Many Black slaves were allowed to hold jobs, own businesses, and own real estate. Somewhattrue. There were exceptions, but generally speaking especially after 1750, by which time slave codes had beenentered into the law books in most of the American colonies  Black slaves were not legally permittedto own property or businesses. From theOxford Companion to American Law (2002): Under these early codes, slaves had virtually no legal rights IN most areas they could be executed for crimes that were not capital offenses for whites. Their testimony was restricted in legal cases and could not be used either for or against whites. Trials of slaves were usually by special courts. Slaves could not own property, move about without consent of their owners, or legally marry. Brutal Black-on-Black slavery was common in Africa for thousands of years. True, in the sense that the phenomenonof human beings enslaving other human beings goes back thousands of years, but not just among Blacks, and not just in Africa. Most slaves brought to America from Africa were purchased from Black slave owners. Sort of true. Historian Steven Mintz describes the situation more accurately in the introduction to his bookAfrican-American Voices: ADocumentary Reader, 1619-1877: Apologists for the African slave trade long argued that European traders did not enslave anyone: they simply purchased Africans who had already been enslaved and who otherwise would have been put to death. Thus, apologists claimed, the slave trade actually saved lives. Such claims represent a gross distortion of the facts. Some independent slave merchants did in fact stage raids on unprotected African villages and kidnap and enslave Africans. Most professional slave traders, however, set up bases along the west African coast where they purchased slaves from Africans in exchange for firearms and other goods. Before the end of the seventeenth century, England, France, Denmark, Holland, and Portugal had all established slave trading posts on the west African coast. Yet to simply say that Europeans purchased people who had already been enslaved seriously distorts historical reality. While there had been a slave trade within Africa prior to the arrival of Europeans, the massive European demand for slaves and the introduction of firearms radically transformed west and central African society. A growing number of Africans were enslaved for petty debts or minor criminal or religious offenses or following unprovoked raids on unprotected villages. An increasing number of religious wars broke out with the goal of capturing slaves. European weapons made it easier to capture slaves. Slavery was common for thousands of years. True, as noted above though how "common" slavery has been and what the specific nature of that slavery was has varied according to time and place. White people ended legal chattel slavery. It's rather self-serving to claim that "white people" ended legal chattel slavery in the United States (much less ended chattel slavery, period), given that the overwhelming majority of Blacks in the U.S. could not vote, could not run for political office, and, in every other way conceivable, were excluded from institutional power. Moreover, even as some white people were laboring to put an end to slavery, many other white people were fighting to preserve it. Slavery was eliminated in America via the efforts of people of various ethnicities, including white people, who took up the banner of the abolitionist movement. The names of the white leaders of that movement tend to be better known than those of the Black leaders, among whom were David Walker, Frederick Douglass, Dred Scott, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Nat Turner, and many others. When Congress passed (and the states ratified) the 13th Amendment in 1865, it was the culmination of many years of work by that multi-racial movement. efforts abolitionist 13th Amendment work  Davis, J.B. "Slavery in the Cherokee Nation."   Chronicles of Oklahoma, Vol. 11, No. 4.  December 1993. Gates Jr., Henry Louis.  "Did Black People Own Slaves?"   The Root.  4 March 2013. Gates Jr., Henry Louis.  "How Many Slaves Landed in the U.S.?"   The Root.  6 January 2014. Hall, Kermit L.  The Oxford Companion to American Law.   New York: Oxford University Press USA, 2002. ISBN 0-195-08878-6. Halliburton Jr., R.  "Free Black Owners of Slaves: A Reappraisal of the Woodson Thesis."   The South Carolina Historical Magazine, Vol. 76, No. 3.  July 1975. Johnson, Michael P. and Roark, James L.  Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South.   New York: W. W. Norton, 1986. ISBN 0-393-30314-4. Mintz, Steven.  African-American Voices: A Documentary Reader, 1619-1877.   New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2009.  ISBN 1-444-31077-1. Onion, Rebecca.  "America's Other Original Sin."   em>Slate.  January 2016. Rodriguez, Junius P.  The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery.   Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 1997.  ISBN 0-874-36885-5. Russell, John Henderson.  The Free Negro in Virginia, 1619-1865.   Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1913.  ISBN 1-480-03049-X. Walton, Hanes and Smith, Robert C.  American Politics and the African American Quest for Universal Freedom.   London: Routledge, 2015.  ISBN 1-317-35045-6. Claim:  Paul Ryan has sponsored two Congressional bills that have been passed into law. Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, August 2012] Is it true or false that Paul Ryan managed to get only 2 bills passed during his 13 years in the House of Representatives? If true, what were they? Rumor is one of them was to name a post office after himself.  In his 13 years in Congress, Paul Ryan got only two bills passed. One was to change the name of the post office in his home town. Origins:  In August 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney tapped as his vice presidential running mate Congressman Paul Ryan, who has represented Wisconsin's 1st district in Congress since 1999. That selection focused attention on the legislative record of Ryan, including the number of bills he sponsored that had been passed into law. According to the Library of Congress' THOMAS legislative  THOMAS information source, Rep. Ryan in his Congressional career has been the primary sponsor of two bills that have been passed and enacted as law: a 2000 bill to name a United States Postal Service facility in his hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin, and a 2004 bill to modify the excise taxes on arrows used as archery equipment.  (In the former case, the bill did not name a USPS building after Ryan himself, as mentioned in one of the examples reproduced above, but after Les Aspin, a Democratic Congressman who for twenty-two years represented the same Wisconsin district that Ryan currently does.)  During his tenure in Congress Rep. Ryan has also sponsored 73 bills that were not passed and signed on as co-sponsor of another 975 bills. name arrows In general, several thousand bills are introduced in every Congress, but only about 5% of them  roughly an average of one per Congressmember per term  are eventually passed into law.   introduced Last updated:  16 August 2012 In January 2017, a photograph purportedly showing a group of cows that had been apparently frozen solid was circulated on Facebook along with the claim that 30,000 animals had just died in a winter storm:   Both the photograph displayed here and its accompanying claim are legitimate. However, while this meme appeared again (and was mistaken for current) in January 2017, this graphic actually references a winter storm that occurred at the end of December 2015. Weather.com reported that more than 15,000 cows died during Winter Storm Goliath in Texas, while another 20,000 froze to death in New Mexico: reported Dairy producers in Texas and New Mexico have estimated that the number of animals that died during the recent Winter Storm Goliath will climb to more than 30,000. The winds are believed to be the cause for many of the animals deaths. It created drifts as high as 14 feet and pushed animals into fenced corners where they suffocated, according to The Associated Press. "As Winter Storm Goliath wrapped up over the southern Plains, strong winds were associated with the storm's tightening pressure gradient," said weather.com meteorologist Quincy Vagell. "When combined with snow, the winds were strong enough to create dangerous blizzard conditions." Executive director of the Texas Association of Dairymen Darren Turley said that an estimated 15,000 mature dairy cows died between Lubbock, Muleshoe and Friona, the primary impact area of the storm, AP also reports. This region includes the home of half the states top 10 milk-producing counties, which provide 40 percent of Texas milk. According to an agent with New Mexico State Universitys extension service, the state lost an estimated 20,000 cows. Like all agriculture, dairy producers always operate at the mercy of Mother Nature, said Turley. With Goliath, she dealt a particularly harsh and costly blow to the areas dairy producers, from the death of thousands of livestock they spend so much time caring for to a loss of milk production both over the weekend and in the future. The photograph is also real, although we were not able to determine a definite source. An uncropped version of the image was published by Tri-State Livestock News shortly after the storm, which showed a group of frozen (or near-frozen) cattle on the side of the road: Tri-State Livestock News   The other part of the meme heavily implied that the cows froze to death out of neglect, because nobody "felt the need" to bring them inside in the cold weather. The truth is, of course, more complicated. A January 5, 2016 report from the "Houston Chronicle" detailed efforts farmers undertook to protect their cattle from the freak storm: report More than one foot of snow on December 27 surprised ranchers and dairy farmers in a region accustomed to a few inches of precipitation each winter. Unlike their northern peers, Texas cattle raisers rarely own four-walled barns designed to keep cattle warn, often opting instead for open structures meant to keep Texas cattle cool during the long, hot summers. Forecast warnings of a "historic blizzard" came too late. Voinis said some cattle raisers had tried to build shelters with hay bales and machinery, to little avail. Some cattle were buried in snowdrifts formed by gale force winds. Others froze to death in the open, died of frostbite in later days or just disappeared. Initial loss estimates increased greatly in the days following the storm. A similar story unfolded in New Mexico, which was swept by the same storm: story Meteorologists sounded the first warnings about the storm some eight days before it hit on Dec. 26. Farmers prepared as best they could  putting down extra bedding behind wind breaks, placing extra bales of hay in front of calf bungalows and in places where snow typically accumulates. But as the blizzard raged on, cows that had sought shelter behind windbreakers were buried alive by drifting snow. Others froze to death on open fields. Calves that had been nestled inside hutches went hungry because no one could reach them. Farmers who tried to rescue their animals became disoriented and lost on their own land. We did the best we could for our animals, Ms. Beckerink said. But as the storm worsened, saving them meant risking the lives of her workers  a horrifying decision to make. The deaths of the cattle dramatically affected the livelihoods of farmers in both states. It is extremely unlikely that any farmer (dependent on their animals for money and food) would cavalierly leave their main source of income and food out in the snow to freeze to death, despite what this meme implies. Carr, Ada.  "Dairy Cow Death Toll to Surpass 30,000 in Texas, New Mexico Due to Winter Storm Goliath."   The Weather Channel.  5 January 2016. Maude, Heather.  "Winter storm Goliath affects cattle producers in Texas, New Mexico."   Tri-State Livestock News.  12 January 2016. Does Arizona have a law limiting the number of dildos a person can have in their home? That rumor has been bouncing around blogs, books, and websites for decades. In December 2018, a Twitter user  renewed interest in this suspiciously strange piece of legislation: renewed   This restriction is not actually codified in Arizona law. But it almost was. Arizona State Rep. Leslie Johnson (R-Mesa) attempted to pass an obscenity law in the 1980s aimed at regulating pornography and banning the sale of dildos. House Bill 2613, which was later dubbed the "dildo bill," would have made the commercial sale of "obscene devices," such as dildos, a felony. The first news report we could find covering the bill was published in the Arizona Daily Star in December 1987:   The original proposal focused only on the sale of "obscene devices" and not their ownership. Alan Sears, the lawyer who drafted the bill for Johnson, said that ownership of such devices was less important as women didn't like using them anyway. However, a provision of the proposed bill stated that ownership of six or more dildos would be considered proof of intent to sell them commercially -- which would have made such ownership a felony. dildos While the bill faced some ridicule from members of the public (some Arizonans reportedly sported bumper stickers reading, "When dildos are outlawed, only outlaws will have dildos"), it was eventually passed by both the House and Senate. Ultimately, however, Gov. Rose Mofford vetoed the measure. ridicule passed vetoed Dildo ownership, however, was not at the center of Mofford's decision to veto the bill. The then-Arizona governor's action was based more on the term "obscenity," how it was defined, and how it would be enforced: In her veto message, Mofford said she fully supports the enforcement of tough laws to eliminate obscene material, but "I must regretfully use my veto power, primarily because I believe the bill is unconstitutional." The anti-pornography bill  also known as the "dildo bill" because it would have banned the commercial sale of sexual devices  would have allowed juries to decide what books and movies are obscene by using a standard of community acceptance rather than community tolerance. Moffard said she believes that the acceptance standard could allow higher courts to overturn convictions, so "persons who would otherwise have been convicted under the tolerance standard would go free." She said she also feared that the acceptance standard  a tougher standard than used in several U.S. Supreme Court obscenity decisions  could allow the removal from library shelves and movie theaters of works that are widely recognized as fine literature or works of art. Johnson, who insisted that dildos were used solely to abuse children, filed similar legislation the following year. When the Arizona House amended some of the language in the bill, replacing the word "dildo" with "child molestation devices," Johnson killed the legislation: insisted amended killed The Arizona Legislature disposed of a couple of controversial bills. Rep. Leslie Whiting Johnson, best known for changing hats and hairdos daily, prematurely withdrew her dildo bill after her fellow representatives had amended it to her dissatisfaction. As originally crafted, the bill would have made it a felony to possess more than five sexual devices. That caused Rep. Bobby Raymond, D-Phoenix, to ask: "Which one of my hands will I have to cut off?" The story behind Johnson's obscenity law was eventually boiled down to a factually inaccurate sentence published on the website Dumblaws circa 1999. From there, it spread to a number of listicles concerning "obscure laws" in the United States. Perhaps most famously, photographer Olivia Locher created a visual representation of this rumor in her 2017 book I Fought the Law: Dumblaws listicles obscure laws book   Despite the widespread prevalence of the rumor, no law on the books in Arizona prohibits the number of dildos a person can own. The rumor stemmed from a failed piece of 1989 legislation dubbed the "dildo bill" which, among other things, would have made it a felony to sell sex toys. The "ownership" aspect of the rumor was due to language in the bill stating that owning more than six (not two) dildos would have constituted proof of intent to distribute. The Phoenix New Times reported on the legislation (and several other fabled Arizona statutes) in 2013 and asserted that Arizonans "can have dildos stacked to the rafters" without fear of legal repercussions. reported Carson, Susan.  "Mofford Vetoes Bills on AIDS, Peep Shows, Mountain Bell."
  Arizona Daily Star.  9 July 1988. Nett, Walt.  "House Panel Chairman Kills Anti-Porn Bill Amid Protests."
  Arizona Daily Star.  22 March 1988. Nett, Walt.  "House Approves AIDS, Porn Bills."
  Arizona Daily Star.  25 June 1988. Bass, Jonathan.  "House OKS Bills on Child Abuse, Jail Fires, Insurance Firms' Books."
  Arizona Daily Star.  15 March 1989. Pires, Kevin.  "Arizonas Two-Dildo Policy and Other Photos of Obscure Laws You Might Be Breaking."
  Flavorwire.  11 November 2013. Locher, Olivia.  I Fought the Law: Photographs by Olivia Locher of the Strangest Laws from Each of the 50 States.
  Chronicle Books, 2017.  ISBN 1452156956. Hendley, Matthew.  "10 Arizona 'Dumb Laws' That Are Complete Horse S**t."
  Phoenix New Times.  11 September 2013. 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 November 2019, we received a few emails from readers alerting us that they had received an email from someone purporting to be from Netflix that asked them to update their payment information: I believe there is a scam going around in regards to Netflix. My husband received a notice that something is wrong with our account and the link given doesnt go to an actual Netflix website. They ask for all the profile information including a credit number and info. I checked the actual website and our account is in good standing and all the info is accurate.    This is not a genuine email from Netflix. This email is an attempt to steal credit card information and is known as a phishing scam.  Phishing scams use various forms of bait (hence the name) in an attempt to trick people into giving up personal information, such as passwords or credit card information. These scammers may promise a prize, such as a cash giveaway, in order to entice people to give up their information. Or, as in this case, pose as a trusted company. This Netflix phishing scam has been circulating since at least 2017. In December 2018, so many people had reported they were targeted with a version of this scam that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a statement called "Netflix phishing scam: Dont take the bait": statement Phishing is when someone uses fake emails or texts to get you to share valuable personal information  like account numbers, Social Security numbers, or your login IDs and passwords. Scammers use your information to steal your money, your identity, or both. They also use phishing emails to get access to your computer or network. If you click on a link, they can install ransomware or other programs that can lock you out of your data. Scammers often use familiar company names or pretend to be someone you know. Heres a real world example featuring Netflix. Police in Ohio shared a screenshot of a phishing email designed to steal personal information. The email claims the users account is on hold because Netflix is having some trouble with your current billing information and invites the user to click on a link to update their payment method. Readers can find additional tips on how to spot and respond to this scam here. The FTC has also published a few tips on how to spot similar scams, which we've reproduced below: here How to Recognize PhishingScammers often update their tactics, but there are some signs that will help you recognize a phishing email or text message. Phishing emails and text messages may look like theyre from a company you know or trust. They may look like theyre from a bank, a credit card company, a social networking site, an online payment website or app, or an online store. Phishing emails and text messages often tell a story to trick you into clicking on a link or opening an attachment. They may Netflix has also addressed the phishing scams that have targeted the company's users. The help section of the Netflix website (located at help.Netflix.com) informs readers they can always check the standing of their accounts on the official Netflix website, and that they should never give payment information to third-party outlets: help.Netflix.com Netflix website,  If you suspect you have received a fraudulent email or text message that appears to be from Netflix, follow these tips to keep your information safe and secure, and follow the steps below to report the message: How do I report a suspicious or phishing email or text message (SMS)? If you received a suspicious or phishing email, forward it to phishing@netflix.com and delete the email. Please include the message header information, which can be found using this Google article. phishing@netflix.com Google article If you received a suspicious text message (SMS), forward it to phishing@netflix.com using the steps for your device below. phishing@netflix.com Engadget.  "How to Recognize and Avoid Phishing Scams."
  Retrieved 14 November 2019. Lawler, Richard.  "FTC Issues Warning About a Netflix Phishing Scam."
  Engadget.  26 December 2018. Tressler, Colleen.  "Netflix Phishing Scam: Dont Take the Bait."
  FTC.  26 December 2018.