Bernie Sanders: A Loser's Life?
In February 2016, a meme about the lack of business acumen and experience exhibited by Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, began circulating online:  The criticisms offered in meme were a mixture of true, false, irrelevant, and misleading statements. To wit: Never owned a business Right off, this meme begins with a rather nebulous criticism. Although having owned a business is an experience many voters would like to see on the rsum of a potential chief executive, a literal application of that term isn't of much relevance. Technically, a person who once operated a roadside lemonade stand has "owned a business," while a person who has spent his career serving as the CEO of a public multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation has not -- even though everyone would agree the latter has vastly more business experience than the former. And certainly a number of highly-regarded U.S. presidents in the modern era (e.g., Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan) never owned their own businesses. Moreover, one might validly say that Sanders started and operated his own business (whether he "owned" it is somewhat arguable, as it was a non-profit), the American People's Historical Society, which was created in 1978 to produce educational film strips about the history of Vermont. The University of Vermont has archived several of the brochures produced by the American People's Historical Society, one of which includes a statement from Sanders outlining the purpose of his film strips: includes Director Bernard Sanders explained, "It is our belief that state and regional history has too long been neglected by the audio-visual industry, and we are happy to begin the process of rectifying that situation. We believe that students have the right to learn about the state and region in which they are living." While the financials of the American People's Historical Society are not available, Sanders wrote in his memoir Outsider in the House that the business was reasonably successful and "a lot of fun." A friend of Sanders' told Politico that the film strip business "wasn't just a way to make money ... He made filmstrips about people he admired and believed in. He just thought kids should know the truth of how things really were." Never invented anything Once again, this is a rather nebulous criticism. The concept of "inventing" something could range from simply thinking up a novel idea (but doing nothing more about it), to creating and building a device for personal use (but not marketing it), to actually obtaining a patent for a new product. Bernie Sanders is certainly no inventor and holds no patents, but it's hard to see how that fact is of any relevance, as the same is true of nearly every U.S. president. Thomas Jefferson might legitimately be considered an inventor for having conceptualized various devices (including a macaroni machine, a swivel chair, a spherical sundial, a moldboard plow, and a cipher wheel), although he held no patents because he believed them to be a form of monopoly. Abraham Lincoln was the only U.S. president who ever held a patent, having been issued Patent #6,469 for "A Device for Buoying Vessels Over Shoals" on 22 May 1849. Beyond that, "inventing" has historically had nothing to do with the qualifications or success of candidates for the White House. Never had a 9 to 5 job This criticism is too vaguely worded to allow for much cogent analysis. What does holding a "9 to 5 job" mean? That one literally works from 9 AM to 5 PM (and not some other period of the day)? That one holds full-time employment? That one is paid on an hourly basis? That one toils at what is commonly referred to as a "blue collar" job? That one works for someone else rather than being self-employed? If we assume the most seemingly relevant application of the term  that it refers to holding steady, full-time employment  then one might fairly say it applies to Bernie Sanders. After receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from the University of Chicago in 1964, Sanders primarily worked a series of odd jobs while attempting to get his political career off the ground, and a Politico article observed that he "didn't collect his first steady paycheck until he was an elected official pushing 40 years old." However, that same article did list a variety of jobs Sanders held (even if they weren't steady or didn't provide a livable wage) before he finally reached public office upon being elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont, at age 39  working as an aide at a psychiatric hospital, as a Head Start preschool teacher, as a carpenter, and as a freelance writer for local publications: article Sanders rented a small brick duplex at 295 1/2 Maple Street that was filled with not much furniture and not much food in the fridge but stacks of checked-out library books and scribbled-on legal pads. "Pretty sparse," Gene Bergman, an old friend, said about the apartment. "Stark and dark," said Darcy Troville, a fellow Liberty Unionite who lived around the corner and shared with Sanders homemade jellies and jams. "The electricity was turned off a lot," Barnett said. "I remember him running an extension cord down to the basement. He couldn't pay his bills." He worked some as a carpenter, although "he was a shitty carpenter," [Liberty Union party member John] Bloch told me. "His carpentry," [Liberty Union member Danny] Morrisseau said, "was not going to support him, and didn't." He worked as a freelance writer, putting intermittent pieces in the low-budget Vermont Freeman, a Burlington alternative weekly called the Vanguard Press and a glossy, state-supported magazine called Vermont Life. His writing wasn't a living. The Vanguard paid as little as the rest. "It would've been not more than 50 bucks," said Greg Guma, a former editor. Vermont Life? "Our rate was 10 cents a word," said Brian Vachon, a former editor. "He was always poor," Sandy Baird, another old friend, told me in Burlington. "Virtually unemployed," said Nelson, the political science professor at the University of Vermont. "Just one step above hand to mouth," said Terry Bouricius, who was involved with Liberty Union, served at times as a de facto campaign manager for Sanders and at one point crashed for a couple months on his couch. Liberty Union "people found it difficult to support themselves while engaging in full-time political work," Michael Parenti, one of those people, wrote in the Massachusetts Review in the summer of 1975. "Some held jobs that allowed free time for campaign activities, while others lived off unemployment insurance." "His work was to be a politician," Guma said. "He put everything into what he was doing." We would also note by that by the standard used here, holding elective office (as Sanders has done for most of the last 35 years as a mayor, a U.S. representative, and a U.S. senator) is as much a "9 to 5" job as any other. Never proposed a bill that has passed This statement is not literally true, as during his tenure in Congress Sanders has sponsored three bills that were enacted, two of which were rather slight matters involving the naming of USPS facilities, and one of which was the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013 (which provided "for an increase in the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans"). Although that might seem like slight achievement for someone who has spent 25 years as both a U.S. representative and a U.S. senator, we would note that only a scant handful of bills submitted in Congress (about 4 to 6 percent) are ever brought to a vote, and even fewer (about 2 to 4 percent) end up being enacted. We would also note that sponsoring original legislation is but one small part of Congress members' duties: they also co-sponsor legislation submitted by colleagues (which Sanders has done for more than 200 successful bills), muster support (or opposition) among colleagues and the public for proposed legislation, review and vote on proposed bills, serve on various committees (Sanders holds six Senate committee appointments), meet with constituents, participate in oversight and investigation of governmental affairs, etc., as detailed in "The Many Roles of a Member of Congress": handful committee detailed First and foremost, the Member is a decision-maker. Members are faced with hundreds of decisions in both recorded and unrecorded votes on matters major and minor. Many decisions must be made quickly. Each decision, whether spontaneous or studied, balances the conflicting perspectives received from private citizens, public officials, party leaders. Decisions are often second-guessed by constituents, campaign opponents, colleagues, lobbyists, and media critics. Meetings are continual, in committee rooms, in private offices, in corridors, and in gatherings on the floor. Daily, sacks of mail are delivered. Faxes flow in a steady stream. Electronic mail jams congressional computers. Correspondence must be written and press releases issued. Highly visible issues are debated on the House or Senate floor, fully televised, and the absence or presence of a Member is duly noted. Scandals require investigation. Programs require oversight. Requests for information, both basic and complex, are received daily. Journalists seek comment. Constituents seek assistance obtaining federal grants, government jobs, and help in overcoming bureaucratic obstacles. Over time, these daily tasks and the always-changing expectations of the electorate have come together to establish a multi-faceted job. Lived off welfare before elected to public office As noted above, various acquaintances who knew Sanders in the years before he achieved public office have reported that he was "always poor," and he likely received public assistance at some point during that time, although what form of (and how much) assistance he received is difficult to determine at this remove. A contemporaneous newspaper account from the Bennington Banner reported that in 1974, when Sanders ran for the U.S. Senate on the Liberty Union Party ticket, he was collecting unemployment benefits: Sanders, 32, cares little what 'image' he conveys  and that's part of his image of being a bit rumpled and unshorn. He's on unemployment compensation right now, having worked for the Bread & Law Task Force, as a free-lance writer, and as a carpenter in the Burlington area. But the thing he likes best, and excels at, is 'talking the issues,' and he doesn't mind repeating himself sometimes." 74 year old  personal net worth of $300,000 As 247 Wall St. reported, determining the precise net worth of candidates is difficult for a number of reasons: net worth [R]eporting exact values is not required. Instead, candidates may disclose their assets and income in a range. Further, candidates do not necessarily report all their assets. For instance, candidates do not need to disclose their personal real estate and property values. Jeb Bush opted to omit assets generated by several holding companies, for example. In addition, while some candidates choose to include their spouses in their disclosures, some do not. Carly Fiorinas net worth of $59 million, for example, includes that of her husband, Frank. Hillary Clinton's reported net worth, on the other hand, does not include assets jointly owned by her and former president Bill Clinton, who is worth by some estimates more than $50 million. 247 Wall St. attempted to determine each presidential candidate's net worth in an article published on 24 August 2015. They estimated that Sanders was one of the "poorest presidential candidates" running for office in 2016, with a likely net worth somewhere around $330,000: estimated Bernie Sanders> Net worth: $194,026-$741,030 In 2013, Bernie Sanders had an average estimated net worth of $330,507, well below other prospective presidential nominees and among the lowest compared with other members of Congress. As of late 2019, Open Secrets, the website of the Center for Responsive Politics, estimated Sanders' net worth at between $729,000 and $1.8 million, making him neither the richest nor the poorest presidential hopeful in the 2020 field. estimated In any case, the meme's characterization of Sanders as a "loser" based on his net worth evinces a rather skewed perspective. Although many people view financial rewards as a tangible measure of one's success, it is far from the only factor by which accomplishment can be measured. (In fact, highly-regarded President Harry S. Truman had virtually no net worth even after leaving the White House in 1953 and afterwards was largely dependent upon Congress' finally establishing a pension for former presidents.) pension Bernie Sanders might equally be considered a "winner" for persevering at his goal of achieving a political career long after others might have given up, and for succeeding at that effort despite prolonged financial hardship. Unlike many others, Sanders might also be lauded for maintaining a rather plain life and not having enriched himself in public service (especially since candidates at the other end of the financial spectrum are frequently criticized for being "out of touch with the common man"). As 247 Wall St. wrote of Sanders: The Vermont senator, who is the longest-serving independent in U.S. history, is a self-identified socialist. He is seeking the Democratic nomination and is the most popular Democratic candidate after Hillary Clinton. In keeping with Sanders' stated intention of starting a grassroots movement, more than 90% of his campaign contributions have come from individual donors. Sanders' campaign speeches have drawn record numbers of attendants. Most recently, 19,000 people watched Sanders speak at an NBA arena in Portland, Oregon, the largest political event compared with all other candidates so far this election season. All in all, that sounds like quite an impressive career achievement for anyone  regardless of net worth. Kruse, Michael.  "Bernie Sanders Has a Secret."
  Politico.  9 July 2015. Frohlich, Thomas C. et al.  "The Net Worth of Each Presidential Candidate."
  24/7 Wall St.  24 August 2015. Delaney, Arthur.  "Bernie Sanders Ran for Office While on Unemployment."
  The Huffington Post.  29 May 2015. Murphy, Tim.  "How Bernie Sanders Learned to Be a Real Politician."
  Mother Jones.  26 May 2015. OpenSecrets.org.  "Net Worth of 2020 Presidential Candidates."
 Accessed 18 October 2019.
On 16 August 2018, Aretha Franklin, the iconic Grammy Award-winning singer known as the "Queen of Soul," passed away at the age of 76. As fans took to social media to share their memories of the late soul singer, many of them noticed a curious graphic that had been shared by the official Fox News Twitter account: passed away   The news network used the same graphic in their television broadcast about Franklin's death: broadcast This graphic was of particular interest because while the foreground picture is that of Aretha Franklin, the woman in the green jacket seen in the background is not the Queen of Soul. That is actually an image of singer Patti LaBelle performing at the "Women of Soul: In Performance at the White House concert in 2014: performing Yep here's video pic.twitter.com/IIkMDuKB7e pic.twitter.com/IIkMDuKB7e  Zachary Pleat (@zpleat) August 16, 2018 August 16, 2018  Jessica Santostefano, Vice President -- Media Desk at Fox News, issued an apology for the mistake: apology We sincerely apologize to Aretha Franklins family and friends. Our intention was to honor the icon using a secondary image of her performing with Patti LaBelle in the full screen graphic, but the image of Ms. Franklin was obscured in that process, which we deeply regret. LaBelle and Franklin both performed at a 2014 White House concert, but the network's explanation for the error seemed questionable to some viewers because Franklin didn't appear at all in the photograph of LaBelle that formed the basis of the graphic. The original photograph, which was taken during LaBelle's performance of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" by Reuters photograph Jonathan Ernst, can be seen below: Reuters    France, Lisa.  "Aretha Franklin, The Queen of Soul, has Died."
  CNN.  16 August 2018. Hod, Itay.  "Fox News Apologizes for Using Patti LaBelles Photo in Aretha Franklin Tribute."
  The Wrap.  16 August 2018. A story from 1995 resurfaced around Veterans Day 2019, reporting that then-private citizen and real estate mogul Donald Trump had "saved" the Veterans Day parade that year in New York City when organizers ran out of money. On Nov. 6, 2019, for example, the Daily Caller News Foundation website published a story bearing the headline, "The 1995 NYC Veterans Day Parade Had $1.21 In The Bank. Then Donald Trump Stepped In." A meme circulating on Facebook similarly described Trump's intervention:This claim apparently originated with Trump himself, or at least it was touted on his campaign website in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. The website at the time stated: headline  campaign website Mr. Trump has long been a devoted supporter of veteran causes. In 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of World War II, only 100 spectators watched New York Citys Veteran Day Parade. It was an insult to all veterans. Approached by Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the chief of New York Citys FBI office, Mr. Trump agreed to lead as Grand Marshall a second parade later that year. Mr. Trump made a $1 million matching donation to finance the Nations Day Parade. On Saturday, November 11th, over 1.4 million watched as Mr. Trump marched down Fifth Avenue with more than 25,000 veterans, some dressed in their vintage uniforms. A month later, Mr. Trump was honored in the Pentagon during a lunch with the Secretary of Defense and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. First off, Trump's website contained some confusing pieces of misinformation: The Veterans Day parade in New York City went by the name the "Nation's Parade." The poorly attended parade "with only 100 spectators" occurred in 1994, not 1995 (The New York Times reported police did not give a crowd estimate). Only one Veteran's Day parade took place in the city in 1995  the Nation's Parade on Nov. 11. That event was slated by the U.S. Defense Department as representing "the official close of the 50th anniversary of World War II." reported We contacted the United War Veterans of New York (UWNY), which organized the Nation's Parade in 1995, to ask about claims that Trump's intervention saved the event from cancellation, and we were referred by spokesman Pat Smith to a Nov. 10, 1995, New York Times article about the event. Smith told us that Trump did make a financial contribution toward the parade, but also said UWNY is a small, volunteer-staffed group that doesn't keep records that could answer questions in detail about an event that occurred more than two decades ago. article  The 1995 Times article reported that Trump did make a financial contribution, but that he tried to make it in exchange for being named the parade's grand marshal even though he is not a veteran. The Times reported Trump gave $200,000, not $1 million: By mid-August, organizers had a bank account of exactly $1.21. A request to airlines to donate blankets for aging veterans was turned down because logos might not be visible on television. Then Donald Trump, a nonveteran, agreed to throw in $200,000 as well as raise money from his friends, in exchange for being named grand marshal. Since then, money has come in, though not enough to meet the original budget, which was reduced from $2.9 million to $2.4 million. Fireworks were just one of many cuts. In May 2016, CNN spoke to Vincent McGowan, the president emeritus of UWNY who organized the parade in 1995. McGowan said that Trump's contribution was "somewhere between $325,000 and $375,000," but McGowan also said Trump's donation did save the event. McGowan also said Trump was never the grand marshal because that honor was only given to military veterans. CNN In a follow-up story, the Times in 1995 reported that organizers had agreed to make Trump the parade's grand marshal, a move that had angered some veterans, while others expressed appreciation for his "crucial" financial assistance: reported Also in the reviewing stand was the developer Donald Trump, who provided the only note of controversy in an otherwise positive day. Many veterans were angry that organizers had agreed to name Mr. Trump, who is not a veteran, as grand marshal in exchange for his contribution of $200,000 and help in raising additional funds. Another story, dated Nov. 11, 1995, from the news service UPI, reported that Trump contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000 for the parade, which was viewed by parade Director Tom Fox as having been key: UPI Police estimated 500,000 people attended the largest military parade ever held in New York. Organizers, who placed the turnout at closer to a million, said the parade would not have been a success if it hadn't been for real estate developer Donald Trump, who contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000. "Donald Trump saved the parade," said parade director Tom Fox, himself a Vietnam veteran. "We had asked for donations from 200 corporations, and none of them came through," he said. "This donation is the single most important thing I've ever done," said a beaming Trump. "This is more important than all of my buildings and my casinos. This is my way of saying thank you to all the men and women in the armed services who have made it possible for me to become a success. Without them freedom and liberty would be gone." In sum, we are rating this claim "True" because two individuals involved with the planning of the 1995 parade stated on two separate occasions that Trump's efforts and donation did indeed enable the event to take place. Still unclear are the origins of other sources of funding. Martin, Douglas."Veterans Day Parade Tries for a Comeback."
The New York Times.10 November 1995. Fitzpatrick, David and Curt Devine."Trump Will Give $1 Million to Marine Charity, but There Are Other Discrepancies."
CNN.25 May 2016. McFadden, Robert D. "On Parade To the Beat of History."
The New York Times.12 November 1995. UPI."More Than 500,000 Watch Nation's Parade."
11 November 1995. For years, comedian Adam Sandler has been the target of fictional online reports supposedly informing the world of his death. For example, on January 13, 2017, LinkBeef published an item asserting that Sandler had been found dead of an apparent suicide: LinkBeef dead US actor and comedian Adam Sandler has been found dead, aged 49, in an apparent suicide. Marin County Police in California said he was pronounced dead at his home shortly after officials responded to an emergency call around noon local time ... His publicist said he had been battling severe depression. The local Sheriffs office said Sandler was found unconscious and not breathing at his home near Tiburon, north of San Francisco. At this time, the Sheriffs Office Coroner Division suspects the death to be a suicide due to asphyxia, but a comprehensive investigation must be completed before a final determination is made, police said in a statement. In a statement, Adams wife, Jackie Sandler, said she was utterly heartbroken and asked that he be remembered for the joy he brought to the world. That report was nothing more than another celebrity death hoax from fake news purveyor LinkBeef, whose previously published falsehoods include claims that a gang member died after gold plating his genitals, that a "lab-grown" baby had been born, that the pilot of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 was found alive in Taiwan, and that a wealthy man attempted to recruit many women to be the prospective mothers of his children. genitals baby Malaysia Airlines prospective mothers Like many long-running fake news outfits, the page renders first as "LinkBeef" before reloading to display "Interesting Things Daily." Then, in late 2020, a TikTok user revived the false rumor by posting a video with the text, "Adam Sandler has now been pronounced dead after drowning." video   Again, this was not a factual retelling of events. Sandler was alive and in the public's eye at the time, promoting recent projects, such as "Hubie Halloween." Hubie Halloween The rumor surfaced again in January 2022, and tabloids such as The Sun featured the above-mentioned TikTok in articles compiling social media users' reaction to the false rumor. The Sun Meanwhile, the phrase "Adam Sandler dead" filled Twitter, and pieces such as the below-transcribed excerpt from a Nigerian junk news website were circulating: Adam Sandler dead pieces Adam Sandler Death  Obituary: On January 12th, 2022 learned about the death of Adam Sandler through a Social Media post. He was an American-based actor, comedian and producer Billy Madison, Big Daddy, The Longest Yard are some of the best comedic roles throughout his career. The cause of his death is car accident. But they left behind a legacy of lovable memories, and those who knew him will miss him greatly. [...] Im sorry to share this sad news about the passing of Adam Sandler. His family and friends are in a state of shock after the unexpected death of him. This was untrue. Sandler, 55, was not dead and the alleged story about a vehicle crash appeared to be made up out of whole cloth. In fact, Sandler was engaging with fans publicly in January 2022, including via the below-displayed tweet to honor Bob Saget after his death (that was real) on Jan. 9. Jan. 9   This report was updated to include information about the death hoax in early 2022. In July 2021, photographs and videos started circulating on social media that supposedly showed the world's smallest cow, a 51 centimeters (20 inches) tall dwarf cow in Bangladesh named Raani (possibly spelled Rani): photographs   This is a genuine photograph of a very small cow in Bangladesh. It was taken by Munir Us Zaman, and is available via Getty Images with the caption: A dwarf cow named Rani (bottom), whose owners applied to the Guinness Book of Records claiming it to be the smallest cow in the world, walks next to a goat at a cattle farm in Charigram, about 25 km from Savar on July 6, 2021.  While this is a genuine photograph of a dwarf cow, Raani has not yet been officially declared the world's smallest cow. But Raani's owner, Abu Sufian, has already filed paperwork with the Guinness Book of World Records.  Sufian said: "Guinness has acknowledged our entry and will be doing an independent verification, but we are confident that Raani will get the award." Sufian said At the time of this writing, the official record holder for world's smallest cow (or world's shortest cow) belongs to Manikyam, a 61-centimeter-tall cow in India that has held the record since June 2014.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=walK6YEmFUURaani is certainly smaller than Manikyam and it seems likely that this itty-bitty bovine will soon be crowned the world's smallest cow. Raani, a Bhutti or Bhutanese cow, is reportedly 23 months old. France 24 reports that the other Bhuttis on this farm near Charigram in Bangladesh are more than twice Raani's size.  France 24 reports: reports Rani is a Bhutti, or Bhutanese, cow which is prized for its meat in Bangladesh. The other Bhuttis on the farm are twice Rani's size. "We did not expect such huge interest. We did not think people would leave their homes because of the worsening virus situation. But they have come here in droves," the manager said. Sajedul Islam, the government's chief vet for the region, said Rani is a product of "genetic inbreeding" and was unlikely to become any bigger. Raani has become a popular tourist attraction, with thousands of people flocking to this farm to catch a glimpse of potentially the world's smallest cow. Below is a video report from WION, a news outlet covering southern Asia:  See also on Snopes: Are Cow Farts Causing Global Warming? Are Warning Signs About Parachuting Cows Real? Did a K-9 Dog Bite a Cow, Deputy Tase a K-9, Cow Kick a Deputy? Did a Cow Really Sit on the Hood of this Car? A photograph purportedly showing President Trump kissing former U.S. Senator Bob Dole on the forehead was circulated on social media in the days following the funeral of former president George H.W. Bush in December 2018: social media   The internet's interest in this image, and Bob Dole in general, spiked in December 2018 after the 95-year-old politician rose from his wheelchair in order to salute Bush's casket. (Dole was gravely wounded by an artillery shell during World War II that left him with permanent disabilities.) wheelchair wounded Although this photograph is genuine, some viewers may have been left with the inaccurate impression that it was taken during Bush's funeral. The picture of Trump's kissing Dole on the forehead was actually taken in January 2018 during a ceremony held in the Capitol Rotunda, upon which occasion the former senator was bestowed with a Congressional Gold Medal. The original is available via UPI, who display it with the following caption: UPI During a ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda, Dole was presented Congress' highest civilian honor by President Trump, Vice President Pence and Senate and House leaders. President Trump kisses World War II veteran and former Senate majority leader Bob Dole as he received the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest civilian honor, "in recognition of his service to the nation as a soldier, legislator, and statesman.  Przybyla, Heidi.  "Former Senator Bob Dole Receives Congressional Gold Medal in Capitol Ceremony
  USA Today.  17 January 2018.  Cole, Devan.  "Bob Dole Helped Out of His Wheelchair to Salute George H.W. Bush."
  CNN.  4 December 2018.  Uria, Daniel.  "'True American Hero' Bob Dole Receives Congressional Gold Medal."
  UPI.  18 January 2018. Following controversial airstrikes on Syria in April 2018, a 2017 article published by repeat offender YourNewsWire.com with the claim that Hillary Clinton voiced support for destroying Syria in a "leaked" e-mail popped up and began to circulate again: Syria article Lest We Forget  Hillary Clinton: We Must Destroy Syria For israel https://t.co/VxkzUu1IkE pic.twitter.com/Zf4iagpqsv https://t.co/VxkzUu1IkE pic.twitter.com/Zf4iagpqsv  Michael Lee (@MichaelLee2009) April 15, 2018 April 15, 2018  The piece included a screenshot of what were purportedly Clinton's views taken from an e-mail, as well as quotes: Clinton Email: We Must Destroy Syria For Israel [...] The best way to help Israel deal with Irans growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad, Clinton forthrightly starts off by saying. Even though all US intelligence reports had long dismissed Irans atom bomb program as a hoax (a conclusion supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency), Clinton continues to use these lies to justify destroying Syria in the name of Israel. She specifically links Irans mythical atom bomb program to Syria because, she says, Irans atom bomb program threatens Israels monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East.   A nearly identical claim (since deleted) was published by a separate site in March 2016. Both attribute the text of the purported e-mail to Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State, a position she held for approximately four years between 2009 and 2013. published held The text is indeed a part of WikiLeaks' "Hillary Clinton Email Archive," and the title search returns three documents in that data set. The same document was also available via FOIA.state.gov [PDF]. three FOIA.state.gov PDF Although its content was characterized as an e-mail authored by Hillary Clinton, that is misleading. It appears that she actually received and forwarded an attachment from James P. Rubin. In all three documents (two forwards and an attachment) it is clear that Rubin authored and sent the commentary to Clinton, stating in his preface that the then-Secretary of State "may not agree" with his stance on Syria: forwarded attachment James P. Rubin commentary From: James P. RubinSent: Monday, April 30, 2012 11:03 AMTo: H Subject: Best of luck on China trip First, I want to wish you and Kurt best of luck getting out of the pickle Mr Chen has you in as you arrive in China. I wanted to pass on something I intend to publish on Syria and Iran, because I think it is worth trying to urge the President and his political advisers to act. As you can see from today's column by Jackson Diehl, the pundits and many in the media will push the Syria issue very hard for the foreseeable future. It may not be on the front burner every day, but it will be close to or at the top of the media's attention indefinitely. Interestingly, the Republicans have showed their hand on the foreign policy debate, in which inaction on Syria is pretty much the only serious criticism they can offer that will stick. As you will see from the attached piece, I believe that action on Syria will forestall the biggest danger on the horizon, that Israel launches a surprise attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Although the pressure has now eased for a variety of reasons, it will return. Action by Washington on Syria, on the other hand, I believe will eliminate much of the urgency for Israeli action. In other words, a more aggressive policy on Syria will eliminate the best case the republican's have going into the November election, will ease substantially the pressure on Israel to attack Iran and possibly spark a wider war in the Middle East, and finally would be the right stance on Syria going forward. I know you may not agree but I thought it was better to share this with you first as at least a new way to look at the problem. All best, your friend,Jamie James P. Rubin Walsh, Nick Paton.  "What Do The US, UK And French Airstrikes Mean For Syria's War?"
  CNN.  15 April 2018. On March 16, 2020, a Facebook user was watching a local news broadcast when an image graphic supposedly showing results from a 2020 Democratic presidential primary election popped up on the screen. This wouldn't have been very unusual except for one thing: The election hadn't happened yet.  The Facebook user posted a video of the broadcast on Facebook. The image graphic in question, shown below, shows former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden winning the Illinois primary with 50% of the vote and defeating Sen. Bernie Sanders: video   WCIA truly did broadcast the above-displayed graphic the day before the 2020 Illinois primary. However, this is not a story about election rigging or a news station with unusual prognosticating abilities. This is a story about a broadcasting error.  Television news stations do a lot of prep work before live broadcasts, especially for an election. One thing they do is make image graphics similar to the one above. Once the visuals are set, reporters can plug in the results and quickly produce an image ready for television. In the case above, one of these "test" visuals was accidentally aired on television. CNN made a similar mistake in 2013 when they accidentally published pre-written obituaries for people who were still very much alive.  pre-written obituaries WCIA reporter Mark Maxwell reached out to the Facebook user after her post went viral and explained that this was a "test" graphic that was never meant to air: We do routine test rehearsals before every election to make sure the graphics work properly and to give directors some practice. The error was in putting the dry run on air. That shouldnt have happened and were looking into it. Obviously, we never intended to give the wrong information or wrong impression. None of those numbers were based on any real polling returns. Since your post is being widely shared, Id appreciate it if you would consider updating the original post so people dont get the wrong idea. Rich Flesch, the News Director of WCIA, also reached out, writing: WCIA 3 News --- Sorry it was an error by our team. We are currently doing election rehearsals with test data and not intended to go on TV. We apologize for any inconvenience. The user updated her Facebook post to include both of these responses.  The claim that this image shows "tomorrow's results" can also be debunked by looking at the actual results of the primary election in question. On March 17, 2020, the day after WCIA accidentally published the test graphic, the election took place and the real results were made available. While the test graphic showed Biden winning with 986,341 votes (or 50%), Biden actually ended up getting 913,067 votes (or 59.1% of the vote). Sanders fared better in the test graphic with 893,249 votes (for 45%); in the election he took in 556,904 votes (or 36%). real results   The New York Times.  "Live: Illinois State Primary Election Results 2020."
  17 March 2020. In April 2021, American readers may have been intrigued to see a curious article about Denzel Washington and Netflix. The headline from the We Got This Covered website read, "An Underrated Denzel Washington Movie Has Been Dominating Netflix All Week."  Mysterious and sometimes misleading content might be what a lot of Google Discover users are shown these days.  Some readers may have noticed the article in their Google Discover feed. For those unfamiliar with Google Discover, it's a free and personalized news feed that displays content that Google thinks each user might find interesting and relevant. The headline likely led American readers to believe that the "underrated" film was available to stream in the U.S. After all, Netflix's headquarters are located in Los Gatos, California. This was all somewhat misleading. The source referenced by the We Got This Covered article did not show that the movie in question, "The Equalizer 2," was "dominating" Netflix. Instead, FlixPatrol.com indicated that the film barely made the top 10 worldwide movies on Netflix during week 16 of 2021. week 16 of 2021 Further, not included in the Google Discover card for the story was one important tidbit: "The Equalizer 2" was not available to be streamed by Netflix users in the U.S. According to an unofficial website that tracks Netflix availability by country, "The Equalizer 2" was only available on the streaming service in Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Japan, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia. unofficial website This was not the first time that the We Got This Covered website published a misleading article about a famous actor and Netflix. In February 2021, the same website also claimed: "Tom Hanks New Movie Has Been Dominating Netflix All Week." The film in question was the 2020 flick "News of the World." claimed As with "The Equalizer 2," "News of the World" wasn't exactly "dominating Netflix," nor was it available for streaming in the U.S. "The Equalizer 2" was originally released in 2018. It received a 51% critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a score of 50 out of 100 on Metacritic. 51% critic rating a score of 50  The film reunited director Antoine Fuqua with Washington after they had previously worked together on 2001's "Training Day," a film that is available on Netflix in the U.S. The synopsis for "The Equalizer 2" read: "Denzel Washington returns to one of his signature roles in the first sequel of his career. Robert McCall serves an unflinching justice for the exploited and oppressed  but how far will he go when that is someone he loves?" As of April 2021, no plans had been announced by Netflix to bring "The Equalizer 2" to American audiences. However, it's available to rent for $3.99 on YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, and a number of other streaming services. YouTube Amazon Prime Video In sum, a movie starring the actor was not "dominating Netflix," nor was it even available in the U.S. In perhaps one of the worst miscalculations in modern political history, Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany in January 1933 in the hopes that he could successfully form a coalition government amidst a collection of competing minority parties (including his own Nazi Party) and that the worst impulses of Hitler and the Nazis could be "controlled" or "tamed" once they bore responsibility for leading the national government (rather than criticizing others' administration of it).   But shortly after Hitler's swearing-in as chancellor on Jan. 30, 1933, the Nazis began to systematically suspend civil liberties and eliminate political opposition, with the passage of the Enabling Act two months later effectively establishing Hitler's government as a legal dictatorship that could issue decrees without the involvement of the German parliament (Reichstag) or president. Enabling Act One example of the navet that held sway in Germany at that time caught the attention of Americans in February 2020, in the wake of impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump.  That example took the form of a snippet from a purported 1933 Wall Street Journal article which was widely circulated via social media:  This article did in fact appear in the Feb. 2, 1933, edition of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ).  Under the headline "Berlin Views Hitler Calmly," the report from the WSJ's Berlin bureau briefly referenced contemporaneous assessments of Hitler -- that "there is usually wide discrepancy between the speeches of opposition politicians and the actions of the group when it gains power," that Hitler would not "disrupt the nation's affairs," that it was "not believed" Hitler would "accomplish a change in the constitution" -- and that a rise in stock prices indicated public confidence in these assessments:     Rise in Stocks Reflects Confidence He Will Not Disrupt Nation's Affairs Berlin is settling down to pass judgment on political developments. Politicians, economists and bankers declare there is usually wide discrepancy between the speeches of opposition politicians and the actions of the group when it gains power. Consequently, it is not believed that Hitler will accomplish a change in the constitution or that [Reich Minister of Economics Alfred] Hugenberg will bring about a general reduction of interest rates. The government wants to obtain an adjournment of the Reichstag for several months, but it is questionable whether the Centre [Party] will approve of such action. After calmly dismissing the threat that Hitler posed (and which would come to pass in just a few short months) the article provided a short summary of the "considerable gains in stocks" that supposedly indicated good times were ahead under the new government -- including, ironically, a rise in the price of stock in I.G. Farben,  the German chemical company that manufactured the Zyklon B gas later used to kill millions of Jews during the Holocaust: I.G. Farben The Boerse closed with considerable gains in stocks. Rhenish Coal advanced 7, Mannesmann Tube 5, I.G. Farben 4 and Rhine-Westphalia Electric 4. Bonds registered average losses of 2 points. Common stocks were favored as being less susceptible to talk of devaluing the currency or of other inflationary experiments. Furthermore, profits are expected to increase for many industries from expanded public works projects. The Wall Street Journal.  "Berlin Views Hitler Calmly."
  1 February 1933  (p. 12) Claim:  Participating in one-day boycott of gasoline on 15 April will help lower gasoline prices.  Examples:  [Collected on the Internet, March 2012] Don't pump gas on April 15, 2012. KEEP SENDING THIS.  Let's all try this, wonderful if it helps. I'll do it!  If running low, just get your gas the day before on April 14 or the day after on April 16. Every little bit helps. In April 1997, there was a "gas out" conducted nationwide in protest of gas prices. Gasoline prices dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight. On April 15th 2011, all internet users are to not go to a gas station in protest of high gas prices. Gas is now over $1.20 a liter/$3.87 is most places. If all users did not go to the pump on the 15th, it would take $2,292,000,000.00 (that's almost 3 BILLION) out of the oil companies pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on April 15th and let's try to put a dent in the Middle Eastern oil industry for at least one day.  [Collected on the Internet, 2007] DO NOT PUMP GAS ON MAY 15TH... On May 15th all myspace members are to not go to the gas station in protest high gas prices. Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places. There are 72,110,073 members currently on the network, and the average car takes about 20 to 30 dollars to fill up. If all myspace members did not go to the pump on the 15th it would take $2,163,302,190.00 out of the oil companys pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on May 15th and lets try to put a dent in the oil industry for at least one day. If you agree (which I cant see why you wouldnt) repost this bulletin repost it with "Don't pump gas on May 15th, 2007"    [Collected on the Internet, 2006] No Gas on May 15th On May 15th all myspace members are to not go to the gas station in protest high gas prices. Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places. There are 72,110,073 members currently on the network, and the average car takes about 20 to 30 dollars to fill up. If all myspace members did not go to the pump on the 15th it would take $2,163,302,190.00 out of the oil companys pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on May 15th and lets try to put a dent in the oil industry for at least one day..  [Collected on the Internet, 2005] IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT IF EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA DID NOT PURCHASE A DROP OF GASOLINE FOR ONE DAY AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME, THE OIL COMPANIES WOULD CHOKE ON THEIR STOCKPILES. AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HIT THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WITH A NET LOSS OF OVER 4.6 BILLION DOLLARS WHICH AFFECTS THE BOTTOM LINES OF THE OIL COMPANIES. THEREFORE SEPTEMBER 1st  HAS BEEN FORMALLY DECLARED "STICK IT UP THEIR BEHIND " DAY AND THE PEOPLE OF THESE TWO NATIONS SHOULD NOT BUY A SINGLE DROP OF GASOLINE THAT DAY. THE ONLY WAY THIS CAN BE DONE IS IF YOU FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN AND AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN TO GET THE WORD OUT. WAITING ON THE GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN AND CONTROL THE PRICES IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.  WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REDUCTION AND CONTROL IN PRICES THAT THE ARAB NATIONS PROMISED TWO WEEKS AGO? REMEMBER ONE THING, NOT ONLY IS THE PRICE OF GASOLINE GOING UP BUT AT THE SAME TIME AIRLINES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES, TRUCKING COMPANIES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES WHICH EFFECTS PRICES ON EVERYTHING THAT IS SHIPPED.  THINGS LIKE FOOD, CLOTHING, BUILDING MATERIALS, MEDICAL SUPPLIES ETC.  WHO PAYS IN THE END?  WE DO! WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.  IF THEY DON'T GET THE MESSAGE AFTER ONE DAY, WE WILL DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN. SO DO YOUR PART AND SPREAD THE WORD.  FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW.  MARK YOUR CALENDARS AND MAKE SEPTEMBER 1ST A DAY THAT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA  SAY "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH"  [Collected on the Internet, 2004] IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT IF EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES DID NOT PURCHASE A DROP OF GASOLINE FOR ONE DAY AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME, THE OIL COMPANIES WOULD CHOKE ON THEIR STOCKPILES. AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HIT THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WITH A NET LOSS OF OVER 4.6 BILLION DOLLARS WHICH AFFECTS THE BOTTOM LINES OF THE OIL COMPANIES. THEREFORE MAY 19TH HAS BEEN FORMALLY DECLARED "STICK IT UP THEIR BEHINDS DAY" AND THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION SHOULD NOT BUY A SINGLE DROP OF GASOLINE THAT DAY. THE ONLY WAY THIS CAN BE DONE IS IF YOU FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN AND AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN TO GET THE WORD OUT. WAITING ON THIS ADMIINSTRATION TO STEP IN AND CONTROL THE PRICES IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REDUCTION AND CONTROL IN PRICES THAT THE ARAB NATIONS PROMISED TWO WEEKS AGO? REMEMBER ONE THING, NOT ONLY IS THE PRICE OF GASOLINE GOING UP BUT AT THE SAME TIME AIRLINES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES, TRUCKING COMPANIES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES WHICH EFFECTS PRICES ON EVERYTHING THAT IS SHIPPED. THINGS LIKE FOOD, CLOTHING, BUILDING MATERIALS, MEDICAL SUPPLIES ETC. WHO PAYS IN THE END? WE DO! WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IF THEY DON'T GET THE MESSAGE AFTER ONE DAY, WE WILL DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN.  SO DO YOUR PART AND SPREAD THE WORD. FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. MARK YOUR CALENDARS AND MAKE MAY 19TH A DAY THAT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SAY "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH"  [Collected on the Internet, 2000] Last year on April 30, 1999, a gas out was staged across Canada and the U.S. to bring the price of gas down, and it worked. It's time to do something about it again. Only this time lets make it for three days instead of just one. The so-called oil cartel decided to slow production to drive up gasoline prices. Lets see how many CanadianAmerican people we can get to ban together for a three day period in April, NOT TO BUY ANY GASOLINE, during those three days. LET'S HAVE A GAS OUT. Do not buy any gasoline from APRIL 7, 2000, THROUGH APRIL 9, 2000. Buy what you need before the dates listed above, or after, but try not to buy any during the GAS OUT. If you want to help, just send this to everyone you know and ask  them to do the same. We brought the prices down once before, and we can do it again. Come on North America lets stand together. WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Even if you receive this 100 times keep passing it around, this way you know everyone is being informed and no one will forget!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Origins:  The above-quoted pieces advocating one-day gasoline boycotts are proof that some bad ideas never go away; they just keep getting recycled year after year. This year's e-mail (proposing a one-day "gas out" on 15 April) is yet another recasting of similar messages that have been circulating since 1999.  All of them are reminders that "protest" schemes that don't cost the participants any inconvenience, hardship, or money remain the most popular, despite their ineffectiveness.  A one-day "gas out" was proposed in 1999, and a three-day-long event was called for in 2000, but both drew little active participation and had no real effect on retail gasoline prices.   The recycling of the same campaign in subsequent years hasn't drawn enough interest to even be considered newsworthy. The premise behind all these messages is inherently flawed, because consumers' not buying gasoline on one particular day doesn't affect oil companies at all.  The "gas out" scheme doesn't call upon people to use less gasoline, but simply to shift their date of purchase and buy gas a day earlier or later than they usually would  The very same amount of gasoline is sold either way, so oil companies don't lose any money.  By definition, a boycott involves the doing without of something, with the renunciation of the boycotted product held up as tangible proof to those who supply the commodity that consumers are prepared to do without it unless changes are made. What the "gas out" calls for isn't consumers' swearing off using or buying gasoline, even for a short time, but simply shifting their purchases by a couple of days at most. Because the "gas out" doesn't call on consumers to make a sacrifice by actually giving up something, the threat it poses is a hollow one.  Not buying gas on a designated day may make people feel a bit better about things by providing them a chance to vent their anger at higher gasoline prices, but the action won't have any real impact on retail prices. An effective protest would involve something like organizing people to forswear the use of their cars on specified days, an act that could effectively demonstrate the reality of the threat that if gasoline prices stayed high, American consumers were prepared to move to carpooling and public transportation for the long term. Simply changing the day one buys gas, however, imparts no such threat, because nothing is being done without. Moreover, the primary potential effect of the type of boycott proposed in the "gas out" messages is to hurt those at the very end of the oil-to-gasoline chain: the independent service station operators, who have the least say in setting gasoline prices. (Independents are at the mercy of a very volatile oil market and operate on thin profit margins, and even a single day's disruption of supply or demand can wipe out many days' worth of hard-earned profits.)  As such, the "gas out" is a punch on the nose delivered to the wrong person. Either apathy or an outbreak of common sense has made previous "gas outs" non-events with very low levels of participation, as documented by these snippets of news accounts from across North America: Friday's gasoline boycott was an effort that sputtered, coughed, then died.  Motorists continued to fill up gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles and trucks alongside smaller vehicles despite a one-day protest aimed to pressure oil companies to lower gas prices.  Although a gasoline boycott that began as an electronic mail campaign kept some drivers nationwide away from the pump, dealers say they saw little, if any, effect on their traffic.  In Seattle, there were so many cars waiting to get into [a] Texaco station ... yesterday afternoon that it caused a backup five cars deep into [the] right-hand lane.  Reports indicated few motorists paid attention to a nationwide boycott touted initially by Internet e-mail and later by word of mouth.  A planned nationwide boycott protesting the high price of gasoline didn't have much effect on local gas stations.  "We were expecting something substantial," said Mark Johnson, the owner of a Chevron station. "We haven't really noticed much of a difference."  Irving stations in sunny Halifax said the boycott had no effect on business. "It's been busy as a bugger here," said Bruce Riley, manager of one station. "We haven't been busier in the last two weeks," added the manager at another Halifax outlet.  Gas stations [in Ottawa] reported "busier than ever" conditions at the pumps on the day of The Great Internet Gas-Out. Gasoline is a fungible, global commodity, its price subject to the ordinary forces of supply and demand.  No amount of consumer gimmickry and showmanship will lower its price in the long run; only a significant, ongoing reduction in demand will accomplish that goal.  Unfortunately, for many people achieving that goal would mean cutting down on their driving or opting for less desirable economy cars over less fuel-efficient models, solutions they find unappealing. An event like a "gas out" can sometimes do some good by calling attention to a cause and sending a message.  In this case, though, the only message being sent is: "We consumers are so desperate for gasoline that we can't even do without it for a few days to demonstrate our dissatisfaction with its cost." What supplier is going to respond to a message like that by lowering its prices?  Those who really want to send a "message" to oil suppliers should try not buying any gasoline for several months in a row. Other articles about gasoline prices:      Petition to President Bush      Call to Boycott Particular Suppliers to Cut Off Funding of Terrorists     Call to Spurn Gasoline from Particular Suppliers to Bring Price Down  Last updated:  11 March 2013    Deibel, Mary.  "Web-Inspired 'Gas Out' Won't Work, Experts Say."   The [Albany] Times Union.  27 April 1999  (p. A2).     De Marcol, Donna.  "High Prices Fuel Gas Boycott; Locally, Impact Minimal."   The Washington Times.  1 May 1999  (p. C11).     Heaster, Jerry.  "Gasoline Protest Runs on Empty."   The Kansas City Star.  30 April 1999  (p. C1).     Howe, Kenneth.  "Internet-Fueled Gas Boycott Fizzles Around Bay Area."   The San Francisco Chronicle.  1 May 1999  (p. A1).     Sands, Aaron.  "Net-Fuelled Protest Runs Out of Gas."   The Ottawa Sun.  1 May 1999  (p. A4).     Simmons, Cindy.  "For Oregonians, Necessity Takes Precedence Over Protest at the Pump."   Associated Press.  1 May 1999.     Surman, Matt.  "Gas Boycott Runs on Empty; Stations Report No Change."   Los Angeles Times.  1 May 1999  (p. B6).     Associated Press.  "Arizonans Largely Ignore 'Gas Out.'"   1 May 1999.     Calgary Herald.  "Most Motorists Ignore North American Gas Boycott."   1 May 1999  (p. E5).     Indianapolis Business Journal.  "Misguided 'Gas Out' Won't Pay at Pump."   3 May 1999  (p. B9).     Seattle Post-Intelligencer.  "National Boycott Doesn't Slow Gas Flowing at Pumps."   1 May 1999  (p. B3).     The Toronto Star.  "Gas Boycott Sputters."   1 May 1999.