Did President Trump Send Letters Lauding Middle Schoolers on Their 'Succuess'?
The Trump administration is not known for accuracy when it comes to spelling; from the names of contemporary world leaders, to historical figures, to innocuous words like "education," the administration has repeatedly made headlines with embarrassing mistakes. So a 7 June 2017 Facebook post claiming that the Department of Education had misspelled the word "success" in a letter to parents seemed plausible. leaders figures education Castro Valley, California parent Kendra Galordi Frautnick shared a copy of a letter on Facebook that the Trump Administration purportedly sent to her daughter, congratulating the eighth grader on her receipt of the President's Education Award: shared copy   blogs We spoke to a representative from the Department of Education's President's Education Awards Program, who told us that the letters of congratulations were not intended to be distributed to individual students, but to be read aloud at an awards ceremony by a school administrator. The representative said 2017 was the first year in which the letter was not physically mailed to participating schools, but made available for download on the PEAP web site. The official version of this year's letter [PDF], does not contain the purported typographical error spelling "success" as "succuess": letter PDF       Although a separate person claims that a friend received the version with an error on the same date Frautnick shared the photograph, that account was secondhand and might have referenced Frautnick's Facebook post. Aside from that copy, we were unable to find any versions containing the spelling error. claims Frautnick sent us additional photographs to show that she had not doctored the image of the letter that she posted to Facebook. She told us: Its the actual letter my daughter received with the presidential award. I took a picture of it when she pointed out the typo. I posted it and it went viral. She received it from the white house through her school. The official published President's Education Award letter for 2017 lacked the "succuess" error present in Facebook shares of the document. We rate this "false" because a copy of the letter with the spelling error exists but was not reproduced across the country. We have so far unable to determine whether the typographical error was only regionally distributed or simply fabricated. Reeves, Chris.  "So Much Success In The Trump White House, They Can't Even Spell The Word."
  Daily Kos.  9 June 2017. National Association of Secondary School Principals: Downloads.  "President's Education Award Letter."
  Accessed 12 June 2017. Wikipedia.  "President's Education Awards Program."
  Accessed 12 June 2017.
Debt is typically a major campaign issue in elections from the municipal level all the way up to the office of the President of the United States.  Candidates tout their accomplishments in balancing budgets or reducing government debt as examples of fiscal prudence while pointing to increased debts during their opponents' administrations as indicators of profligate and wasteful spending of taxpayers' money.    The chart reproduced above, which was posted to the Flickr account of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, attempted to reverse conventional political stereotypes by portraying recent Republican presidents as responsible for huge increases in the national debt, while showing recent Democratic presidents as responsible for much lower increases in the level of debt.   Flickr account As a first step in evaluating this chart, we have to determine the applicable definition of "debt."  In general, the term "public debt" (or "debt held by the public") refers to money borrowed by the government through the issuance and sale of securities, government bonds, and bills.  It includes federal debt held by all investors outside of the federal government, including individuals, corporations, state or local governments, the Federal Reserve banking system, and foreign governments. Another form of debt is "intragovernmental debt" (or "debt held by government accounts"), which refers to money that the government has borrowed from itself, such as when the U.S. government invests money from federal savings programs such as Medicare and the Social Security trust fund by buying up its own treasury securities.  A variety of names have been applied to the total of these two forms of debt, including "gross federal debt," "total public debt," and "national debt." Although this chart is labeled as presenting a "percent increase in public debt," it actually uses figures corresponding to the total described as "gross federal debt" above (i.e., a combination of debt held by the public and debt held by government accounts, rather than just the former).  We checked the numbers in this chart by using (for pre-1993 years) the U.S. Treasury's Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD), noting the total debt reported as of January 31 of each relevant year, and (for 1993 onwards) the Treasury's The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It application, noting the total debt reported as of Inauguration Day of each relevant year. Monthly Statement of the Public Debt The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It From these records, we gleaned the following information: Ronald Reagan:Took office January 1981.  Total debt: $848 billionLeft office January 1989.    Total debt: $2,698 billionPercent change in total debt:  +218%  George H.W. Bush:Took office January 1989.  Total debt: $2,698 billionLeft office 20 January 1993.    Total debt: $4,188 billionPercent change in total debt:  +55% Bill Clinton:Took office 20 January 1993.  Total debt: $4,188 billionLeft office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionPercent change in total debt:  +37% George W. Bush:Took office 20 January 2001.  Total debt: $5,728 billionLeft office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionPercent change in total debt:  +86% Barack Obama:Took office 20 January 2009.  Total debt: $10,627 billionTotal debt (as of the end of April 2011):  $14,288 billionPercent change in total debt:  +34% So, as far as raw numbers go, the chart is reasonably accurate (although our calculations produced a somewhat higher debt increase for Ronald Reagan than reported).  That said, however, we have to consider how valuable these numbers are; whether by themselves they present a reasonable comparative measure of presidential fiscal responsibility.  In that regard, one could find a number of aspects to take issue with:  The chart isn't a true comparison of equals, as it includes three presidents who served two full terms (Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush), a president who served one term (George H.W. Bush), and a president who had served half a term (Obama).  Obviously, the longer a president holds office the greater the opportunity for him to influence the debt, and certainly (barring a radical change in current circumstances)  the increase reported for Barack Obama would be considerably higher by the time he left office.   All presidents come into office with policies and budgets that were put into place by their predecessors in the White House and Congress, and they all pass the same along to their successors when they leave office.  Therefore, determining how much of the change in debt that occurs during a given president's administration is actually the result of his actions (rather than the consequence of factors over which he had little or no influence) would require a much more complex analysis than the one presented here.  Which is the best measure of debt for this purpose: public debt, intragovernmental debt, or a combination of the two?  As noted in the General Accounting Office's FAQ on Federal Debt, they represent rather different concepts: FAQ Debt held by the public approximates current federal demand on credit markets. It represents a burden on today's economy, and the interest paid on this debt represents a burden on current taxpayers. Federal borrowing from the public absorbs resources available for private investment and may put upward pressure on interest rates. Further, debt held by the public is the accumulation of what the federal government borrowed in the past and is reported as a liability on the balance sheet of the government's consolidated financial statements. In contrast, debt held by government accounts (intragovernmental debt) and the interest on it represent a claim on future resources. This debt performs largely an internal accounting function. Special federal securities credited to government accounts (primarily trust funds) represent the cumulative surpluses of these accounts that have been lent to the general fund. These transactions net out on the government's consolidated financial statements. Debt issued to government accounts does not affect today's economy and does not currently compete with the private sector for available funds in the credit market.   Are plain percentage changes in the national debt level a useful figure, or do they need to be placed in context to have relevance?  Some would argue, for example, that the Debt-to-GDP ratio is a better measure of economic health relative to the national debt than raw debt figures alone, and a chart which tracked the change in that ratio over the last several presidencies would paint a significantly different picture of debt levels than the one displayed above. Debt-to-GDP chart All in all, this is a case of relatively accurate information which is of marginal value due to a lack of proper comparative context. For dog owners who have noticed their furry friends regularly following them into the bathroom or pawing beneath the door and wondered why, social media posts offer this answer: Your dog is trying to protect you. The claim has made the internet rounds for decades and again came to the forefront when TikTok user mavandmel posted a video in December 2020 that showed her golden retriever following her into the bathroom. mavandmel   You know when you keep trying to go to the bathroom and [the dog] keeps trying to nose their way in or theyre always standing at the door, said the golden retriever's owner, whose video had been shared more than 48,000 times as of this writing. Wolves and wild dogs, they protect one another while one goes to the bathroom because when youre going to the bathroom, youre vulnerable. So, they stand guard! Snopes readers asked our team to verify whether this TikTok explanation accurately accounts for the affectionate toilet behavior of our furry companions. We found that though there is some level of truth to the claim, generally speaking, this type of behavior is one learned more from nurture than nature. For millennia, humans and dogs have grown alongside one another to form very special evolutionary bonds. In fact, research suggests that the domestication of dogs occurred at least 20,000 years ago, but likely closer to 40,000 years ago. It may come as no surprise, then, that the two species are capable of reading one another  from the dogs ability to understand both the words and tone of human speech to being able to communicate with its owner through facial expressions. research suggests understand both the words and tone of human speech facial expressions But do dogs carefully watch their toilet-seated owners in order to protect them? That remains to be scientifically proven. In the wild, wolves have been shown to mark their territorial boundaries using the scent of their urine  a trait that pet dogs have brought with them into their neighborhood environments. This same behavior suggests that both wild and domesticated canines use olfactory cues to communicate with other members of their species. And when it comes to protection, canines are known to defend members of their pack from predators and perceived threats, contributing to the strong societal and familial bonds that both wolves and pet dogs share with their families. mark their territorial boundaries protection  Members of the Yellowstone Druid wolf pack chase down an elk. NPS/Doug Smith  NPS/Doug Smith That loving connection extends to the human-canine relationship as well. Research published in the journal Science found that shared eye contact between humans and their furry companions increases concentrations of oxytocin  the so-called happy hormone  in much the same way humans may bond emotionally when they gaze into another persons eyes. That loving connection extends to the human-canine relationship as well. Research published in the journal Science found that shared eye contact between humans and their furry companions increases concentrations of oxytocin  the so-called happy hormone  in much the same way humans may bond emotionally when they gaze into another persons eyes. Human-like modes of communication, including mutual gaze, in dogs, may have been acquired during domestication with humans, wrote the study authors at the time, adding that wolves rarely engage in eye contact with their human handlers. We show that gazing behavior from dogs, but not wolves, increased urinary oxytocin concentrations in owners, which consequently facilitated owners affiliation and increased oxytocin concentration in dogs. While the scientific literature has shown strong evidence for communication and bonding through the act of urinating and other bonding behavior in both canine and human-canine relationships, it does not prove that dogs go into the bathroom with their owner to protect them. Rather, it more than likely simply reflects a desire to be closer to their humans.  Snopes spoke with Paul Mundell, executive director of the American Service Dog Access Coalition, who said that although he has not systematically studied the question, he is skeptical of the claim that dogs who look intently at their owners while defecating are seeking assurance that either the owner will protect the dog or vice versa. I think its more plausible to consider the habit established during puppyhood  if the puppy was picked up and moved while defecating in an inappropriate area, or if it was scolded or punished for defecating in a particular area, its reasonable that the puppy got in the habit of watching the owner to ensure all was okay while defecating, Mundell said. Conversely, if the pup was rewarded for defecating in the right areas, it may have set up the expectation that defecating may be followed by a reward  even if the owner hasnt maintained the practice. Mundell remained equally as skeptical when it came to describing the behavior of a pup following a person into the bathroom for protection, particularly as the bathroom is not likely to be considered an unsafe space. During thunderstorms or fireworks, for example, dogs will often turn to the confined, isolated space of a bathroom or bathtub for security. For some dogs, following a person into the bathroom is the same behavior they display whenever their person goes anywhere  they follow them in order to remain near them. This is most pronounced in dogs displaying hyper-attachment to their owners, said Mundell, comparing the bond to that of children with their parents. Going to the bathroom provides an opportunity for our furry friends to interact with their uninterrupted owners, who may otherwise be occupied with chores, the computer, or other things that distract from petting and attention. Finally, dogs live in an olfactory world, and Mundell says that the urine and feces humans produce contain uniquely personal mixtures of volatile organic compounds due to each persons individual metabolisms, diets, and microbiomes  all of which may be interesting and even rewarding information to the dog. In June 2016, several pundits misquoted, paraphrased, or presented incomplete or inaccurate versions of a 2001 speech delivered by Sonia Sotomayor at the University of California in an attempt to defend Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump's recent comments about U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel. In an interview with CNN, Trump said that Curiel should recuse himself from a case he's overseeing against the now-defunct Trump University, since he may not be able to give him a fair trial due to his Mexican heritage: interview The presumptive GOP nominee claims that his plan to build a massive wall along the U.S. border with Mexico has resulted in a conflict of interest for Curiel in the case over Trumps for-profit university.Hes proud of his heritage, OK? Im building a wall, Trump told Tapper. Hes a Mexican. Were building a wall between here and Mexico, he added.Tapper, however, pointed out that Curiel was born in Indiana.We live in a society thats very pro-Mexico, and thats fine. Thats all fine, Trump said at another point in the interview. But I think he should recuse himself.Because hes a Latino? Tapper asked.Im building a wall, Trump maintained. While several Republicans have denounced Trump's statements (House Speaker Paul Ryan called it "textbook racism"), others have used Sotomayor's speech to come to his defense. For instance, television personality Eric Bolling equated Sotomayor's comments with the comments made by Trump: textbook racism equated Justice Sotomayor said, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would often make, often more than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnt lived that life. Better conclusion, not a different conclusion, a better conclusion. She went on to say that our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Shes basically saying her heritage will determine how she will find cases, not the merits of the case, but what her experiences are. Pundit Ann Coulter bashed Paul Ryan on Twitter, questioning why the House Speaker did not call Sotomayor a "textbook racist":   In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor delivered the annual "Olmos Memorial Lecture" at the UC Berkeley School of Law. Sotomayor (who was at that point an appeals court judge) took issue with a quote attributed to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: delivered Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life. While Sotomayor's speech was centered on the idea that her experiences as a Latina woman influenced her thought process, she never said (as insinuated by Bolling) that her heritage  rather than the merits of the case  would determine her decisions. Instead, Sotomayor said that her heritage does not limit her ability to understand the values or needs of people from different backgrounds: I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown. However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage. This is not the first time that Sotomayor's 2001 speech has been scrutinized. In 2009, during Sotomayor's confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court, the soon-to-be justice clarified her comments: scrutinized "I was trying to inspire (students) to believe their experiences would enrich the legal system," Sotomayor said Tuesday. "I was also trying to inspire them to believe they could become anything they wanted to become, just as I have." She said the context of her words created a misunderstanding. "I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging," she said. "I do believe every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge, regardless of their background or life experience." Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor did deliver a speech in 2001 in which she talked about how her experience as a Latina woman could influence her thought process, as everyone has different life experiences to draw from. However, unlike the sentiment expressed by Donald Trump in his comments about Judge Gonzalo Curiel, Sotomayor argued that diversity was essential to the progress of law. On 13 January 2016, the official web site for the Powerball lottery announced that three winning tickets had been sold (one in California, one in Tennessee, and one in Florida) for the $1.6 billion jackpot. Shortly thereafter, rumors started circulating about the identity of the winners. Powerball Several people took advantage of the hype surrounding the record breaking Powerball lottery and posted fake tickets to their social media accounts. Most of these posts followed the familiar "Like Farming" formula, in which people are promised monetary rewards in exchange for liking, sharing, or commenting on a Facebook message. Like Farming The above-displayed Facebook post, for instance, instructed people to share the photo for a chance to win $10,000. Rickstarr Ferragamo, however, did not win the lottery. The biggest giveaway in Ferragamo's post is that his "winning ticket" was purchased in New York, and not in one of the states which sold an actual winning ticket:   Ferragamo wasn't the only hoaxster to post a ticket from a non-winning state. Twitter user @BerenabasG, who promised to give $2000 to anyone who retweeted his image, and @Nerdout, who just wanted people to "hit him up" about his recent windfall of cash, posted fake "winning" fake from Texas and Ohio:     Some internet hoaxsters, however, did manage to produce fake tickets from one of the states that did sell a winning ticket. The most convincing example of thiscame from skateboarder and filmmaker Erik Bragg:OMG I WON $1.5 BILLION!!!!! I'm posting this in case anyone tries to jack me this is proof! Look it up, I bought in chino hills where I grew up! #powerball #powerball   While Bragg's photo has garnered 100,000 likes on Instagram, the above-displayed image also features a fake lottery ticket. The biggest giveaway here is the "ABCDE" displayed onthe left side of the ticket, which indicates that the ticket should feature four additional groups of lotto numbers. These numbers were removed, however, when the image was altered to display the winning lotto numbers of 4, 8, 19, 27, 34, and 10. As of 15 January 2015, $1.6 billion Powerball lottery winners who have been officially identified are John and Lisa Robinson of Mumford, Tennessee. Robinson On Nov. 11, 2020, Bloomberg reported that strategists at Deutsche Bank, one of the largest financial institutions in the world, recommended levying a tax against people who plan to continue working from home, arguing that "remote workers should pay a tax for the privilege. At least on Twitter, this was a poorly received take. One particularly viral response alleged that the bank "funded Auschwitz, Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein and ISIS." reported response     As we show below, the tweet is a largely accurate recounting of history, though the assertion that the bank funded ISIS overstates what is publicly known at this time. In 1999, during negotiations to merge with the New York-based Bankers Trust, the Germany-based Deutsche Bank disclosed that it had helped finance the construction of the Nazi death camp Auschwitz. As reported by Reuters at the time, Deutsche Bank's historian, Manfred Pohl, described the bank's loans to companies involved in multiple aspects of Auschwitz, including loans for construction of the camp and its incineration units, as well as to a company involved in the production of the deadly Zyklon-B gas, which the Nazis used to murder millions: reported Manfred Pohl, head of Deutsche Banks historical institute, said newly uncovered documents showed the bank had links with firms that built the camp in Poland. It also had credit links to one company that made incineration units and funded another whose subsidiary made the Zyklon-B gas used in the camp. On examination of credit records, we determined that branches . . . had credit links to local companies which were active at the construction site . . . in Auschwitz, Pohl said at a media briefing in Frankfurt. Pohl told reporters that the existence of these loans would have been known to high-ranking managers of the bank. "It is clear that this was known as high up at the main office in Katowice. It is not certain whether it was known in Berlin," Pohl said, though he added these loans would have had to be approved in Berlin to go ahead. Deutsche Bank has had a relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump since 1998. As reported in The New York Times, "Over the course of two decades, the bank lent him more than $2 billion  so much that by the time he was elected, Deutsche Bank was by far his biggest creditor." Speaking to Reuters in November 2020, one bank official said that the Trump Organization currently has around $340 million in outstanding debt from the bank: reported Reuters Deutsche Bank has about $340 million in loans outstanding to the Trump Organization, the presidents umbrella group that is currently overseen by his two sons, according to filings made by Trump to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics in July and a senior source within the bank. The three loans, which are against Trump properties and start coming due in two years, are current on payments and personally guaranteed by the president, according to two bank officials. According to that Reuters report, the bank is looking to distance itself from the president moving forward. Their relationship with Trump "cemented Deutsche Banks reputation as a reckless institution willing to do business with clients nobody else would touch," they wrote. "It has made the company a magnet for prosecutors, regulators and lawmakers hoping to penetrate the presidents opaque financial affairs." Regardless, Trump's history with Deutsche Bank is factual and well known. Reuters According to a 2019 report by the New York State Department of Financial Services, "the relationship between Deutsche Bank and Mr. Epstein officially began on August 19, 2013" and eventually involved his opening and funding "more than 40 accounts at the Bank." 2019 report Controversially, they entered into business with Epstein after his 2008 arrest for the solicitation of a minor and after other media revelations about Epstein's alleged trafficking of underage women for sex. Some of these Deutsche Bank accounts were involved in suspicious transactions including, according to The New York Times, "suspiciously large cash withdrawals and 120 wire transfers totaling $2.65 million to women with Eastern European surnames and people who had been publicly identified as Mr. Epsteins co-conspirators." according In July 2020, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $150 million to the New York State Department of Financial Services "to settle allegations that it maintained weak internal controls, including processing hundreds of transactions for Jeffrey Epstein despite the billionaires troubled history." The bank has since apologized for its association with Epstein. apologized In the banking world, Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) are notifications made by financial institutions to the United States government about potentially suspicious or illegal activity. A transaction labeled suspicious in these reports does not necessarily indicate illegal activity, however. SARs issued about transactions involving Deutsche Bank have been used to link them to ISIS in multiple investigations. made In December 2017, BuzzFeed News reported on SARs showing that Deutsche Bank had been engaged in business with a corrupt Cyprus bank named FBME that "served as a major conduit to terrorism, organized crime, and chemical weapons." The SARs revealed that "Deutsche processed hundreds of millions of dollars of suspicious transactions for FBME clients  including a Kremlin-linked network of Russian slush funds funneling money to financiers of the Syrian regime and a businessman trading oil with ISIS." The reports do not indicate, however, that Deutsche Bank knowingly participated in illegal activity. reported In September 2020, the existence of an even larger trove of SARs obtained by BuzzFeed News and shared with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) was announced. The collaboration  a project named the FinCEN files  led to hundreds of stories in newsrooms across the world. One story, published by Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism (ARIJ), identified further transactions that could point to a potential involvement of Deutsche Bank in the movement of funds to, from, and within ISIS held territory. FinCEN files story The files, ARIJ said, "reveal suspicious money transfers of at least $4 billion flagged by Deutsche Banks US branches and Bank of America to a number of Iraqi banks between June 15, 2014 and June 30, 2015." Though the files do not indicate which bank branches were used, they reported, "the transactions were sent and received during the height of the Islamic States reign and its control over several Iraqi bank branches." The report notes that "many of the banks in northern Iraq were in areas of IS [Islamic State] influence, and such transfers could be the proceeds of the illicit oil and gas trade that the organisation largely relied on in its areas of control." said While suggestive of an at least unwitting role for Deutsche Bank in ISIS related finances, these reports are not strong enough evidence to support the statement that Deutsche Bank "funds" ISIS. Because there is some truth to the ISIS claim, and because the other assertions are true, we rank the overall claim made in the viral tweet as "true." To build or to renovate?That is the question Atlanta leaders are grappling with as the Atlanta Falcons have discussed plans with city and state officials to build a $1 billion retractable-roof stadium downtown and demolish the 20-year-old Georgia Dome.The key to any deal is the City Councils approval of a commitment by Atlanta to finance about 20 percent of the total cost using bonds backed by a hotel-motel tax. Thats a bargain when you compare it with other recent stadium deals across the country, some city officials say.Of the 18 stadiums built from 2004 to 2013, 47 percent of the total cost came from public sources, Atlanta Chief Operating Officer Duriya Farooqui said at the first public hearing on the proposed deal.Her boss, Mayor Kasim Reed, is a vocal proponent of a new stadium.The claim was included in a slide presentation Reeds staff prepared on stadium construction costs for the hearing in the City Councils chambers. The Feb. 13 meeting drew so much interest that additional spectators watched the proceedings on television from another room.PolitiFact Georgia wanted to know whether the claim was accurate, or is the public investment in professional sports facilities far less than the mayors staff is letting on?Reeds spokeswoman, Sonji Jacobs, referred us to a report on the sports news website Deadspin.com that had the information the mayors staff used in its presentation. Deadspin was the site that broke the Manti Teo girlfriend hoax story. [P]rivate funding (53 percent) has actually surpassed public funding for the first time in decades, Deadspin wrote.The percentage of public funding for sports facilities has decreased in recent decades, as taxpayers have become less tolerant of their money going to stadiums or arenas with teams owned by enormously wealthy owners.Lawmakers have tried to become more creative in public financing of the construction of sports facilities, using lodging taxes on out-of-towners, a ticket tax, public parking revenue, taxes from car rentals and other sources. There are also the more traditional methods of funding these multimillion-dollar projects, such as collecting the money from sales taxes.In the past decade, eight of the 18 facilities were built for Major League Baseball franchises, four for pro football, four for National Basketball Association teams and two for National Hockey League teams.The cost of the stadiums range from as low as the $250 million to build the FedEx Forum in Memphis, Tenn., home of the NBAs Memphis Grizzlies, to $1.6 billion for MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. The NFLs New York Giants and Jets share use of MetLife Stadium, the site of next years Super Bowl.By our own count, these 18 sports facilities cost a combined $11.7 billion to build. The public contribution toward these projects totaled about $5.6 billion, 48 percent of the total cost.We wanted to look at the public investment in sports facilities that cost $1 billion or more to build since that is the projected cost of the proposed stadium in Atlanta. There were four venues in that category: MetLife Stadium; Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas; the Barclays Center in New York City; and Yankee Stadium, also in New York City. The public investment in those facilities was about 18 percent. Again, the current discussion in Atlanta is a 20 percent public investment in a new football stadium downtown.Jacobs, the mayors spokeswoman, noted that most of the billion-dollar sports venues were built in the New York City area, where land and construction costs are typically higher. She also noted that MetLife Stadium is shared by two teams, and she believes that skews any comparison of the billion-dollar venues.Four of the five teams that play in the billion-dollar venues have a higher net worth than the Falcons, who ranked 28th among the NFLs 32 teams, according to Forbes. Heres the most recent Forbes breakdown:Dallas Cowboys:     $1.85 billion.New York Yankees:    $1.85 billion.New York Giants:    $1.3 billion.New York Jets:    $1.23 billion.Atlanta Falcons:    $814 million.Brooklyn Nets:        $530 million.The Falcons are owned by Arthur Blank (who has a reported net worth of $1.5 billion and whom Forbes lists at the 329th-richest American). Blank sits on the board of directors of Cox Enterprises, which owns The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.But the owners of the teams in the billion-dollar venues are super rich. For example, Nets majority owner Mikhail Prokhorov is reportedly worth $13.2 billion. Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has a net worth of $2.7 billion, Forbes reports. Jets owner Woody Johnson is part of a family that is worth about $13 billion.On the other end of the cost spectrum, the least expensive projects had a higher percentage of public funding. For example, the FedEx Forum was built through an authority created by the city of Memphis and Shelby County. The authority included a $1.15-per-ticket surcharge to help pay construction costs, according to newspaper accounts.Since Farooquis claim included smaller and, typically less-costly arenas, we also decided to break down the public investment in facilities solely used by baseball and football teams, since Atlanta is considering a football stadium. Our examination shows the public investment in those 12 facilities was 44 percent. Thats pretty close to the claim.Jacobs said the best comparison is between the Falcons proposal and other multiuse stadiums. There were three retractable-roof stadiums built in the past decade. The public investment in them were 27 percent (Arlington), 68 percent (Phoenix) and 86 percent (Indianapolis).Our conclusion:Farooqui said in her presentation that 47 percent of the cost of 18 pro sports facilities built in the past decade came from public sources. Our examination of the claim showed the estimate is on target, even if you remove arenas.The public investment, though, in other billion-dollar stadiums is much less than 47 percent. We believe this context is necessary to fully understand Farooquis statement.We rate Farooquis claim as Mostly True. Smaller government. Lower taxes. More freedom. Thats the mantra of the Georgia Libertarian Party, which, this year, is fielding candidates for a handful of state offices, including governor. In Cherokee County, attorney and Libertarian Jeff Amason is running as a write-in candidate for the District 21 House seat. That seat is currently held by Scot Turner, a one-term Republican from Holly Springs. Amason recently appeared on the Monica Perez Show on WSB radio to discuss his candidacy and priorities, including reining in state spending. The state budget has increased almost $800 million a year in each of the last two years. You can only imagine what it might be in five years, Amason said. We need to be funding essential programs. We dont need to be funding every program out there. With the economy making a slow but steady recovery, we decided to fact check Amasons budget claims. We contacted him, and he sent us budget figures for the state fiscal years 2012, 2013 and 2014, as well as for the current fiscal year, which started July 1. That data showed that the total state budget grew from $18.5 billion in 2012 to $19.3 billion in Fiscal 2013 and to $20.2 billion in 2014. Thats a jump of $800 million between 2012 to 2013 and a $900 million increase between 2013 to 2014. We confirmed the accuracy of Amasons numbers using budget documents available at the Governors Office of Planning and Budget website. (We didnt compare the 2014 and 2015 budgets because the General Assembly will amend the 2015 spending plan in the legislative session that starts in January.) Helping to drive up the recent state budgets were increases in enrollment in public schools, Medicaid and the states health insurance program for children, as well as pension costs, according to state documents. Current spending levels are 26.7 percent above 2005 levels, not adjusted for inflation, an OPB report shows. In summary, Amason said the state budget increased nearly $800 million a year in each of the last two years. He was very close, if not conservative in his assessment.. We rate his statement True. In the wake of comedian Robin Williams' death by suicide in August 2014, an item about Williams' supposedly requiring in his work contracts that "the company hiring him also had to hire a certain number of homeless people and put them to work" quickly spread far and wide online: Years ago I learned a very cool thing about Robin Williams, and I couldn't watch a movie of his afterward without thinking of it. I never actually booked Robin Williams for an event, but I came close enough that his office sent over his rider. For those outside of the entertainment industry, a rider lists out an artist's specific personal and technical needs for hosting them for an event- anything from bottled water and their green room to sound and lighting requirements. You can learn a lot about a person from their rider. This is where rocks bands list their requirement for green M&Ms (which is actually a surprisingly smart thing to do). This is also where a famous environmentalist requires a large gas-guzzling private jet to fly to the event city, but then requires an electric or hybrid car to take said environmentalist to the event venue when in view of the public. When I got Robin Williams' rider, I was very surprised by what I found. He actually had a requirement that for every single event or film he did, the company hiring him also had to hire a certain number of homeless people and put them to work. I never watched a Robin Williams movie the same way after that. I'm sure that on his own time and with his own money, he was working with these people in need, but he'd also decided to use his clout as an entertainer to make sure that production companies and event planners also learned the value of giving people a chance to work their way back. I wonder how many production companies continued the practice into their next non-Robin Williams project, as well as how many people got a chance at a job and the pride of earning an income, even temporarily, from his actions. He was a great multiplier of his impact. Let's hope that impact lives on without him. Thanks, Robin Williams -- not just for laughs, but also for a cool example.  This account appears to have originated with an article posted by Brian Lord ("A Little Known Robin Williams Story") on 12 August 2014, recounting the author's experience in attempting to hire Williams for an event: Brian Lord I never actually booked Robin Williams for an event, but I came close enough that his office sent over his rider. When I got Robin Williams' rider, I was very surprised by what I found. He actually had a requirement that for every single event or film he did, the company hiring him also had to hire a certain number of homeless people and put them to work. That bit of information took off virally when it was quoted in a Facebook post made on 25 August by a user named "Perry Marshall," whom many readers confused with Penny Marshall, an actress/comedienne who was friends with Robin Williams throughout his life. Facebook  As of now this story remains unverified: We've seen no mention or confirmation of it by anyone who ever worked with Robin Williams, nor has anyone to our knowledge produced a copy of a Robin Williams contract bearing the clause in question. The Smoking Gun document leak site long ago posted what may have been a backstage rider from a Robin Williams' appearance in 2002, but it included no reference in its text to a requirement for employing the homeless. backstage rider On 8 November 2016, a screenshot purportedly showing a deleted Tweet from Donald Trump's son, Eric, featuring an image of his marked ballot was widely circulated via social media: eric trump deleted his violation of new york state law, so here it is for posterity pic.twitter.com/Y0ss1Ew5Wc pic.twitter.com/Y0ss1Ew5Wc  noah kulwin (@nkulw) November 8, 2016 November 8, 2016  The above-displayed screenshot is real. The tweet was posted by Eric Trump on 8 November 2016 but was deleted shortly afterwards: Although the tweet's URL currently leads to Twitter's "Sorry, that page doesn't exist" page, we managed to archive a cached version of the tweet: page archive cached  Taking a "ballot selfie" or posting a photograph showing the inside of your voting booth may or may not be illegal, depending upon what state you're voting in. Unfortunately, Eric Trump posted his ballot picture from New York, a state where "ballot selfies" are still against the law  as a federal judge had affirmed just a few days earlier: illegal New York affirmed A federal judge says he is not overturning a New York state ban against ballot selfies or the showing of a marked election ballot to others. Manhattan Judge P. Kevin Castel said in a written ruling that people who want to publicize their ballot choices can do so through "other powerful means." The ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought on behalf of voters. The lawsuit contended that voters had a First Amendment right to share a photograph of their ballot with others, even through social media. Lawyers for the state and New York City argued against it. The state argued that a law more than a century old banned people from showing their marked ballot to others. U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel in Manhattan said it would "wreak havoc on election-day logistics" to issue a preliminary injunction against the law, which prohibits the display of "ballot selfies." Under the law, which dates from the 19th century, it is a misdemeanor for voters to share the contents of completed ballots. Violators could face up to one year in prison. Three voters sued on Oct. 26 to block enforcement of the law, saying that sharing ballot selfies was a form of speech protected by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. But the judge said that because of the imminence of the election, the voters needed to show a "clear or substantial likelihood" that their lawsuit would succeed before he could issue an injunction, and that they had not done so. "The public's interest in orderly elections outweighs the plaintiffs' interest in taking and posting ballot selfies," though they remained free to express their political message through "other powerful means," Castel wrote. It should be noted that Eric Trump's ballot photograph does not include his name or his picture. While it is assumed that the tweet pictured the real ballot Trump used to cast his vote, that element has not been verified. Ohlheiser, Abby.  "Yes, Your Ballot Selfie Still Might Be Illegal. Sorry."
  Washington Post.  8 November 2016. Stempel, Jonathan.  "Judge Refuses to Block New York 'Ballot Selfie' Law."
  Reuters.  3 November 2016. In an Aug. 24, 2011,Twitter post, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn said of the Congressional Budget Office: CBO says 8 (percent) unemployment till 2014!Well assume the Texas Republican doesnt consider this fabulous news, though the predicted rate would be about a percentage point lower than the July 2011 national jobless rate of 9.1 percent,as reported bythe U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.A reminder: The unemployment rate is a measure of the number of jobless people who are available for work and are actively seeking jobs, expressed as a percentage of the labor force.Did Cornyn recap accurately?The nonpartisan CBOssummaryof its latest economic projections says that with modest economic growth expected for the next few years, the office expects the jobless rate to fall to 8.9 percent the fourth quarter of this year and to 8.5 percent the fourth quarter of 2012. And indeed, the report says, the rate will remain above 8 percent until 2014.The nations gross domestic product grew 1 percent the second quarter of this year after growing .4 percent in the years first three months, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysisreported in August. According to the CBO forecast, the economy will grow slowly in coming years as the federal deficit shrinks, though the prediction about the deficit assumes, among other things, that Congress will not extend all the tax cuts launched under President George W. Bush and temporarily extended under President Barack Obama.In its full report, the CBO projects the annual unemployment rate to average 8.7 percent in 2012 and 2013, which would be an improvement on the 2010 and 2009 averages of 9.6 percent and 9.3 percent, respectively, but would be worse than the 2008 average of 5.8 percent,according tothe Bureau of Labor Statistics.CBO forecasts the unemployment rate falling to an average of 5.4 percent in 2016 and 5.2 percent in 2017 through 2021, which would be the lowest rate since 2007, when the average was 4.6 percent. The report says the projected 5.2 percent rate in those years would match its expected natural unemployment rate for the period.Economists talk about a natural unemployment rate because even in a strong, healthy economy there is always some degree of employee turnover as businesses adopt new technologies and make other staff changes, and as a certain percentage of workers, for various professional and personal reasons, look for new jobs.Things are unsettled now, the CBO report says, with weakness in the demand for goods and services being the principal restraint on hiring, but structural impediments in the labor market  such as a mismatch between the requirements of existing job openings and the characteristics of job seekers (including their skills and geographic location)  appear to be hindering hiring as well.Other measures also show a great deal of weakness in the labor market, the report says. The number of unemployed workers per job opening averaged about 4 throughout the first half of 2011, down from an average of slightly over 6 in 2009 but still much higher than it was before the recession. In addition, the number of people who are employed part time but want full-time work averaged about 8.5 million in the first half of 2011, slightly below the number in the previous two years but still nearly double the pre-recession figure.The report continues: Likewise, the share of unemployed people who have been out of work for a long time is unusually high. On average, 44 percent of workers who were unemployed in the first half of 2011 had been jobless for more than six months. Moreover, in mid-2011, 31 percent of unemployed workers had been jobless for at least a year. Those rates of long-term unemployment are unprecedented in the post-World War II era.Were not judging here whos responsible for the nations unemployment troubles, but how accurately Cornyn echoed the CBOs projection. His statement rates True.