Sharon Jasper Section 8 Public Housing
Claim:  Welfare queen decries New Orleans public housing. Status:  Multiple  see below. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, February 2008] Welfare Ain't What It Used To Be Sharon Jasper has been victimized. Sharon Jasper has been rabidly wronged. She has become a Section 8 carcass  the victim of ever changing public housing policies. Sharon Jasper has spent 57 or her 58 years dedicated to one cause and one cause only, and has nothing to show for her dedicated servitude. She has lived in Section 8 housing all but 1 of her 58 years. It was a legacy passed down from her parents who moved into   Section 8 housing in 1949 when she was six months old. She has passed the legacydown to her children, but fears they may have to get jobs to pay for the utilities and deposits. She laments about her one year hiatus from the comfort of her Section 8 nirvana, "I tried it for a year..you know...working and all. It's not anything I would want to go through again, or wish on anyone in my family, but I am damn proud of that year." Sharon was moved out of her St. Bernard housing project after hurricane Katrina and into a new, yet albeit, substandard quarterage. As can be noted from the above photo of her new Section 8 home, it is repugnant and not suitable for someone of Sharon Jasper's seniority status in the system. "Don't be fooled by them hardwood floors," says Sharon. "They told me they were putting in scraped wood floors cause it was more expensive and elegant, but I am not a fool  that was just a way to make me take scratched up wood because I am black. The 60 inch HD TV? It may look nice but it is not a plasma. It's not a plasma because I'm black. Now they want me to pay a deposit and utilities on this dump." "Do you know why?" She has held her tongue in silence through the years of abuse by the system, but it came to a head at the New Orlean's city council meeting where discussions were under way about the tearing down of the St. Bernard projects. When a near riotous exchange between groups opposing the tearing down of St. Bernard, and groups wanting the dilapidated buildings torn down and newer ones built, Sharon unleashed verbal hell with her once silenced tongue. The object of her oratory prowess was an acquiescent poor white boy in attendance. The context of her scathing rebuke was, "Just because you pay for my house, my car, my big screen and my food, I will not be treated like a slave!" and "Back up and Shut up! Shut up, white boy! Shut up, white boy!" Recapping from the mental log of the city council minutes in her head, Sharon repines, "Our families have been displaced all over the United States. They are being forced to commit crimes in cities they areunfamiliar with. It is a very uncomfortable situation for them. Bring them back, then let's talk about redevelopment." Sharon directs the reporter's attention across the street to Duncan Plaza where homeless people are living in tents, and states that, "I might do better out there with one of these tents." She further lamented hersentiments about her situation, "I might be poor, but I don't have to live poor." Origins:  In December 2007, as part of its coverage of the ongoing battle over the City Council of New Orleans' plan to tear down four public housing complexes, a photographer visited the home of Sharon Jasper, a 48-year-old resident of that city and housing activist who lives in an apartment rented for her under the provisions of Section 8. (Federal housing assistance programs began in the U.S. during the Great Depression. The Housing Choice Voucher Program is one such program and is better known as Section 8, a term which refers to the part of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 under which the original subsidy program was authorized. Section 8 tenants pay their landlords about 30 percent of their income for rent, with the difference between what they pay and what is deemed fair rent for the unit provided by the federal  government.) That visit resulted in the photograph shown here of Jasper sitting on a couch in the subsidized private apartment she'd described as a slum. The snapshot captured her big screen TV and the unit's hardwood floors, apartmental accoutrements many had difficulty squaring against their definition of "slum." Jasper also complained about missing window screens, a slow leak in a sink, a warped back door, and a few other details of a residence that otherwise appeared to have been recently renovated.  That photo plus quotes from Sharon Jasper lifted from that article ("I might do better out here with one of these tents") and from others ("I might be poor, but I don't have to live poor") were married to her outbursts at a New Orleans City Council meeting on 20 December 2007 ("I will not be treated like a slave!" and "Back up and Shut up! Shut up, white boy! Shut up, white boy!"), then worked into the satire piece quoted above. It's for this reason that we've given this item a "Multiple" status: While some of the elements portrayed in the spoof are fabricated of whole cloth, others aren't. And while most of the photos associated with the satire were taken from elsewhere, the first one, the one that shows a big screen television, is the real deal. Though we cannot yet definitively identify the satirist who masterminded this piece, we believe it to be the work of a blogger known as jimbyrd on the Word Press site. The item now circulates generally in the shortened version quoted above, but the far longer original contains additional photos of the "substandard" housing given in the satire's version of Sharon Jasper, as well as her assessment of the same, such as her reaction to the contents of the wine cellar: "Look at all these bottles of wine, they are worthless. Just another example of thinking I am stupid. All this wine is at least 10 years old and some of it is 20 years old, you know the white man kept all the fresh stuff for himself. I aint that stupid." original That same blog contains other works of satire, such as "Vermont to Arrest George Bush and Dick Cheney" and "Hillary Clinton Sues Barack Obama." Vermont Sues Last updated:  17 February 2008    Sources:   Bohrer, Becky.  "Public Housing Advocates Seek Halt on Demolitions."   Associated Press.  30 November 2007.    Warner, Coleman.  "Housing Officials Claim Surplus."   [New Orleans] Times-Picayune.  18 December 2007.
On Jan. 9, 2024, a user posted a Twitter screenshot to the r/Facepalm subreddit showing a comment claiming that Jeff Bezos, the chairman and founder of Amazon, could give everyone in the world $1 billion, thus solving world poverty, with plenty of money left over: r/Facepalm subreddit  (OpenlyBasics/Reddit) Bezos is rich, but not that rich. A math error led to the incorrect conclusion that he could end world poverty and give everyone $1 billion each and still have $91.5 billion left. Snopes was able to find the original New York Post article, published on May 14, 2020, which claimed that Bezos was on track to become the world's first trillionaire by the year 2026. The article was indeed posted to the publication's X (known as Twitter at the time) account. However, in the comments of that post, we were not able to find the original reply to the post as shown in the screenshot on Reddit. Therefore we conclude that the user either realized the error in the post and deleted it, or that the reply never existed at all. New York Post article posted These kind of math mishaps are relatively common. Snopes checked the math of a user making a similar claim about Elon Musk in 2022, and in 2020, Politifact checked a tweet that appeared live on MSNBC claiming that Michael Bloomberg, who at that point was in the midst of a presidential campaign, could have done a similar thing with money left over. Elon Musk in 2022 Politifact checked a tweet But the post left us with a few interesting questions: How much money could Bezos distribute equally to everyone in the world? What about, let's say, if the world's 10 richest individuals distributed their money equally to everyone in the world? How much money would it take before you could give everyone $1 million? We used Forbes' Real Time Billionaires page for wealth data and Worldometer's population counter to estimate the current world population, which we rounded to 8.085 billion (and growing!) Forbes' Real Time Billionaires Worldometer's population counter First, the easiest calculation: Forbes lists Bezos's net worth at $176.2 billion. To calculate how much every individual would receive, we divide Bezos's wealth by the number of people on the planet. That calculation, $176,200,000,000 / $8,085,000,000, can be simplified a bit by removing some of the remaining zeroes at the end, bringing it down to $176,200 / 8,085 = 21.79. That's roughly a $20 bill for every person on the planet, with some pocket change thrown in. Alongside Bezos, we found seven technology titans  including Elon Musk (No. 1), Mark Zuckerberg (No. 5) and Bill Gates (No. 7)  the investor Warren Buffet (No. 6), and the owner of the French luxury goods conglomerate LVMH, Bernard Arnault (No. 2). The total wealth of the top 10 individuals adds up to $1.455 trillion. Dividing that wealth by the 8 billion people on the planet gives us a result of $179.93 per person, $45 short of the weekly food cost for a family of four using the USDA's Monthly Cost of Food Report for November 2023. USDA's Monthly Cost of Food Report November 2023 This is a thought experiment, so we're going to ignore the obvious economic and social consequences of such an action. Multiplying 8.085 billion people by $1 million per individual adds an extra six zeroes, giving us a total of 8.085 quadrillion. We're going to have to up our scale factor dramatically. The gross domestic product (GDP) is a number that measures the value of all of the goods and services produced in a certain area over a certain amount of time. According to data from Statista.org, the GDP of the United States is about $25 trillion. Using that comparison, there would have to be over 100 U.S.-level economies in the world just to reach 2 quadrillion. In fact, the GDP of the entire world economy is estimated at only about $100 trillion. $25 trillion $100 trillion Given those totals, if everyone in the world had exactly the same amount of money as everyone else, we would all have $12,368.58 in our bank accounts. It's safe to say that Bezos isn't going to be handing over $1 billion to everyone on the planet any time soon. We all dream of rich relatives kicking the bucket and leaving us their fortunes, which is why this "unexpected inheritance" scam works as well as it does. My name is Becky J. Harding, I am a senior partner in the firm of Midland Consulting Limited: Private Investigators and Security Consultants. We are conducting a standard process investigation on behalf of HSBC, the International Banking Conglomerate. This investigation involves a client who shares the same surname with you and also the circumstances surrounding investments made by this client at HSBC Republic, the Private Banking arm of HSBC. The HSBC Private Banking client died in testate and nominated no successor in title over the investments made with the bank. The essence of this communication with you is to request you provide us information/comments on any or all of the four issues: 1-Are you aware of any relative/relation who shares your same name whose last known contact address was Brussels Belgium?2-Are you aware of any investment of considerable value made by such a person at the Private Banking Division of HSBC Bank PLC?3-Born on the 1st of october 19414-Can you establish beyond reasonable doubt your eligibility to assume status of successor in title to the deceased? It is pertinent that you inform us ASAP whether or not you are familiar with this personality that we may put an end to this communication with you and our inquiries surrounding this personality. You must appreciate that we are constrained from providing you with more detailed information at this point. Please respond to this mail as soon as possible to afford us the opportunity to close this investigation. Thank you for accommodating our enquiry. Becky J. Harding.For: Midland Consulting Limited.09/02/2004 Imagine being transformed overnight from office drudge to a member of the jet set  it's the stuff of daydreams! (or at least the impetus to buy lottery tickets). Because this urge for the big "something for nothing" runs so deep in us, it makes us vulnerable to the machinations of con men, which is what these e-mailed come-ons areabout.This scam has been part of the grifters' bag of tricks for many a year. It was only a matter of time before it began showing up on the Internet, where those who make their livings by defrauding others have an even easier time vending their cons to the unwary. Though the text quoted above as our example is one of the more common forms this sort of come-on takes in the wilds of cyberspace, the scam can be dressed out any number of ways. How it is worded is far less important than its thrust  its "hook" that you might be entitled to an inheritance you had no reason to expect was coming your way. Although the names change from e-mail to e-mail, the scam itself is immutable: potential victims receive notification they share the surname of a recently deceased person who failed to leave a will. This notification purportedly comes from a representative of a firm of "Private Investigators and Security Consultants," with said representative stating he or she is "conducting a standard process investigation on behalf of[name of large financial entity, such as Barclays or HSBC]." Recipients of those e-mails are then asked three or four questions along the lines of the following: How the about-to-be-scammed answer the questions is unimportant  the queries are there merely to lend a patina of legitimacy to the inquiry. Regardless of whether potential victims respond with the news that none of their relatives have been to Brussels or whether they claim great-uncles whom the family subsequently lost track of after they settled there, the game is now afoot. In either case, they will be assured there is a very real chance significant inheritances are about to come their way, provided one small insignificant detail is first taken care of: payment of a fee to advance the matter. Similar to the Nigerian Scam and the foreign lottery fraud, the promise of untold wealth is used to distract the overly trusting away from the sorry fact that they are being asked to send money. In all three cases, the con works the same way: after being mesmerized by the vision of riches to come, those being taken advantage of are required to open their wallets and whip out their checkbooks to bring about the happy event. Nigerian Scam lottery There is no dead Uncle Fred, no rich deceased Reese. It's all a lie told to part you from your cash. So far we've seen versions of this scam emanating from supposed private investigating firms named Cappa Consultants, Midland Consulting Limited, and De Rosenberg Consulting, but the names the fraud artists choose to adopt for the purpose of parting the unwary from their money are unimportant; it's all a con. The names of genuine banking concerns (such as HSBC and Barclays) are dragged into the fray willy-nilly by the ill-intentioned to make the matter look more credible, but these real entities have nothing to do with the con. Indeed, as one official at HSBC responded to a query about these supposed windfall inheritances: It has come to our attention that a variation on an email is being circulated that has no connection to HSBC Republic. The email claims that HSBC Republic has employed investigators to contact the family of a deceased client who died intestate. To our knowledge such claims have no validity and we strongly recommend that recipients of such emails do not respond to the sender. Regards Web AdministrationHSBC Republic In another form of the scam, folks are contacted through regular mail by "estate locators" who say those receiving their notices are named beneficiaries of unclaimed family inheritances. Recipients are lured into mailing fees for estate reports, which will supposedly explain where their inheritances are located and how they can be claimed. These "estate locators" may also offer to process claims against these estates for a fee. It does occasionally happen someone so contacted does eventually find he or she has a right to claim against the estate of a distant relative who died without leaving a will. But in those cases, the amount garnered generally proves not to have been worth going after (indeed, often less than what was paid to the "locator" for the information). Estates do hire actual "heir locators" to find missing beneficiaries, but those so engaged are paid by the estate, not by the folks they find. There are also heir locators who freelance on a contingency basis, entering into agreements with those they connect with their rightful inheritances for percentages of sums so recovered. While this might sound like the scam being described above it's not  these legitimate heir locators receive payment only after estates are settled and heirs so found have received their bequests. Ergo, if a "locator" is asking you to pay up front, it's a scam. Those still clinging to the hope that there might still be something to their pie-in-the-sky e-mail, that hints at a life of luxury are just in the offing, should pause to consider that professionals in the process of contacting legitimate heirs do so through recognizable law firms, with the contact coming in the form of an actual letter (as opposed to an e-mail) on that firm's letterhead. We find it somewhat amusing that "intestate" (meaning to die without leaving a will) is so often mis-rendered in the e-mails distributed by the defrauders: it either comes out as "in testate" or as "interstate" (which we presume means to die between two highways). What You Can Do: Additional information:  Phony Inheritance Scam  (United States Postal Service) Phony Inheritance Scam  (United States Postal Service) Last updated:  27 November 2011   Choney, Suzanne.  "Key Flaws Reveal Truth Behind New E-Mail Hoax."Copley News Service.  7 July 2003. Bangor Daily News.  "Be Wary of Inheritance Notifications."2 February 2004  (p. A5). Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO During the coronavirus pandemic of spring 2020, Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York remained at the top of the news cycle for two reasons: His state saw by far the largest number of COVID-19 cases and deaths, and his daily press briefings were a staple of television news coverage of the crisis. The New York governor was also praised as a model of political leadership during an emergency by those who were highly critical of President Donald Trump and his handling of the U.S. federal response to COVID-19. largest number During that period, a meme circulated via social media stating that Cuomo had recently requested and been granted a $71,000 pay raise that made him the highest-paid governor in the U.S., and that this activity had taken place "while most NYers were sleeping":   It was true that Cuomo had been granted a pay raise that would make him (at least temporarily) the highest-paid governor of any state. But that pay adjustment had been recommended and enacted a year earlier (i.e., in 2019, not 2020), the $71,000 increase was phased in across the span of three years (rather than given all at once), and the matter involved multiple recommendations and approvals from state authorities (largely given because the governor's salary not increased since 1999) which were openly publicized and not hidden from New York residents. On April 1, 2019, both houses of the New York Legislature (Assembly and Senate) approved a pay hike that would increase Cuomo's compensation from $179,500 to $200,000 in 2019, $225,000 in 2020, and $250,000 in 2021. In terms of base salary, that raise created the potential for Cuomo to become the nation's highest-paid governor in 2020, out-earning Gov. Gavin Newsom of California (assuming that no other state raised its chief executive's pay to a higher level before then). Gov. Gavin Newsom The gubernatorial pay hike was one of several salary increases that had been recommended back in December 2018 by the New York State Compensation Committee, which "after months of research and public hearings," advocated substantial pay raises for multiple high-level state officers -- many of whom would, like the governor, would see phased pay increases eventually garnering them well over $200,000 per year: recommended A four-member committee has recommended substantial pay raises for members of the state Legislature, the governor, lieutenant governor, state comptroller and state attorney general. The New York State Compensation Committee  consisting of current and former New York state and New York City comptrollers  unveiled their recommendations Monday, December 10, 2018, after months of research and public hearings. The Compensation Committee recommends that, starting on Jan. 1 of 2019, state legislators will receive an annual salary of $110,000. Beginning on Jan. 1, 2020, lawmakers will receive an annual salary of $120,000 and their outside income would be capped at $18,000, which 15 percent of their legislative pay. Beginning on Jan. 1, 2021, lawmakers would receive $130,000 a year and their outside income would be capped at $19,500, which is 15 percent of their legislative pay. This would be the long-term compensation for state legislators moving forward. The Compensation Committee is also recommending pay increases for the governor, who would receive an annual salary of $250,000 after a three-year phase-in; the lieutenant governor, who would receive $220,000 after a three-year phase-in; and an annual salary of $220,000 for both the state comptroller and state attorney general after a phase-in period. Executive branch commissioners and department heads would also receive pay raises under the plan, with Tier A commissioners making $220,000 after a three-year phase-in. As the New York Post reported, some legislators "grumbled that the [pay raise] measure was thrown in at the last minute" while they were working overtime to pass a state budget, but Cuomo and others defended it by noting that the compensation committee's recommendations had been published and accepted months earlier: reported Because the governor cant sign off on his own pay hike, the raise required legislative action. The state Senate approved the increase at 2:45 a.m. and the Assembly acted a few hours later. Some lawmakers grumbled that the measure was thrown in at the last minute, while they were grappling with the new $175.5 billion state budget. The salary adjustments were done last December by the pay commission which publicized and put out a report, which was accepted by the legislature, Cuomo said. That was published and discussed in December, so theres nothing new on that. Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie (D-Bronx) backed up Cuomo. It has a fiscal component to it, so theres always the realization to do it, Heastie told reporters. We felt that all the statewide officials were able to get raises ... the governor and the lieutenant governors salaries arent fixed by statute, they have to be done by a concurrent resolution between the Assembly and the Senate and thats the reason why they were done. Gormley, James.  "Pay Committee Recommends $50,000 Annual Salary Increase for Lawmakers."
  Legislative Gazette.  11 December 2018. Davis, Dominic-Madori and Marguerite Ward.  "Here's the Salary of Every Governor in All 50 US States."
  Business Insider.  20 April 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  "Coronavirus Disease 2019 -- Cases in the U.S."
  Accessed 20 May 2020. Feis, Aaron.  "Andrew Cuomo to Become the Highest-Paid Governor in the US."
  New York Post.  1 April 2019. Hogan, Bernadette.  "Andrew Cuomo Defends His Huge Pay Raise."
  New York Post.  2 April 2019. One favorite tactic in political debate is to put words in the mouth of a respected elder statesman to make it appear he presciently anticipated some modern issue or political personality (and, naturally, took a stand that supported the viewpoint of whoever put those words in his mouth).  Therefore, given the debates that arose in over President George W. Bush's efforts to alter the Social Security system, one would expect the appearance at that time of a  fifty-year-old quote from a former President (and fellow Republican) labeling as "stupid" certain "Texas oil millionaires" who wanted "to abolish social security" to be a similar fabrication. See this claim we collected got in the Snopes inbox in 2005: President Dwight Eisenhower, Republican, uttered these words on November 8, 1954: "Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things.  Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas.  Their number is negligible and they are stupid."  In addition to being a war hero, a decent fellow, a moderate Republican before they began to go extinct, President Eisenhower apparently was also quite the prophet. Little George W. Bush was about 9 years old at the time ... Save for a few minor details, however, the quote from President Dwight D. Eisenhower cited in this message is in fact an accurate one.  It wasn't something he uttered but rather something he wrote, and the version reproduced above omits Ike's reference to a specific Texas oil tycoon (H.L. Hunt), but it otherwise is taken verbatim from a letter President Eisenhower penned to his brother, Edgar Newton Eisenhower, on 8 November 1954: letter Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this  in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything  even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.  A meme circulated in 2015 elided the reference to "Texas oil millionaires" and presented the quote as something aimed at the modern Tea Party:  Politically, Ike was a classic small-government Republican.  He was of the opinion that the federal government had grown too large at the expense of local and state authority since the advent of FDR's New Deal in the 1930's, a situation exacerbated by the national emergency produced due to America's entry into World War II.  Since the Depression and the war were over by the time Eisenhower took office in 1953, Ike felt it was time to return to a "middle way"  that included pruning federal subsidies to industries such as agriculture and power companies, which he believed no longer needed government assistance.  At the same time, he wanted to sustain and even increase funding for programs he thought had good track records, and Social Security was paramount among those programs.  Cummings, Jeanne.  "Gingrich Out to Save America."   The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  16 January 1994  (p. G1). Austins typically soft-spoken mayor recently popped a big-as-Texas boast. Theres a reason Austin is number one in Texas in startups and venture capital and patents, Steve Adler said. Adler, speaking outside City Hall, went on: Theres a reason that tech and transportation companies come to Austin to roll out their new initiatives. And thats because Austin is where good ideas become real. Claiming that Austin is anti-innovation has no basis in fact. Hear hear! Still, we wondered about the rankings Adler declared whilerevealing his plansto vote against a ballot proposition, later rejected by voters, affecting background checks of drivers for ride-hailing services. Startups Adler's office didn't immediately offer his backup. Meantime, our online search for information on startups led us to a June 2015 report from the Kansas City-based Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation stating that in the last year, the Austin metropolitan area ranked No. 1 nationally for the areas pace launching startups, which the foundation defined as firms less than one-year old employing at least one person besides the owner. Asked what last year means in the report, foundation researcher E.J. Reedy advised by phone the conclusion tied to data from 2012 and 2014. According to the foundation,which saysit focuses on improving lives through education and entrepreneurship, the nations top 10 metropolitan areas for startup activity among the 40 most-populous metropolitan areas were:Austin;Miami, Fla.;San Jose, Calif.;Los Angeles;Denver;San Francisco;New York;Houston;San Diego; andSan Antonio. Per Adlers Texas point, the Austin area had 180.8 startups per 100,000 residents, the foundation says, outpacing theDallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area(142.5 startups per 100,000 residents),Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown(136.9 startups per 100,000 residents) and the San Antonio-New Braunfels area (111.9 startups per 100,000 residents). By email, foundation spokeswoman Lacey Graverson told us the presented concentrations drew on the U.S. Census BureausBusiness Dynamics Statisticsto tally startups matched with population data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Reedy agreed by phone that among the big Texas cities, the Austin area had the greatest concentration of startups. But generally, Reedy indicated, counts of startups can vary, partly because theres no single accepted definition of startups, which inherently come and go at a rapid pace. The government has official measures, Reedy added, but each one captures an aspect -- for instance new employer businesses or newly self-employed individuals. Also, Reedy said, observers differ over what merits counting. Some stress large firms that employ many, he said, others urge a fix on technology firms and others say that any count should recognize small businesses (including one-person endeavors) that grow by an employee or two a year. A foundation chart presenting Austins startup density since the late 1970s indicates the area has had peppier times--including in 2008 (201.7 startups per 100,000 residents), 2006 (214.9), 1999 (217.9) and, the charts high point, 1981 (499.5), which was up a huge measure from 1980 (31.4):        SOURCE:Web page,Startup Activity, Austin Area, 2015,Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, June 4, 2015 (viewed May 5, 2016) Venture capital Next, we turned to exploring Austins ranking for venture capital, which describes money invested in a business or project at considerable risk. A January 2016Austin American-Statesmannews story, citing a survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association,  said Austin entities in 2015 were by far the states largest recipients of venture capital, with $740 million; Dallas firms placed second, fielding $214.4 million, ahead of Houston outfits, at $160 million. The Austin-connected investments added up to the largest annual dollar figure for Austin since 2001, the newspaper said, when 127 companies received $1.14 billion. By email, mayoral spokesman Jason Stanford pointed out another account of the survey results; a Silicon Hills Newsstorysaid the 99 Austin deals in 2015, mostly to develop software, were down from 114 in 2014. Also, the story said, Austins number one deal for the latest year was Civitas Learning, attracting $60 million in venture capital, followed by Aeglea Biotherapeautics with $44 million, Mirna Therapeutics with $41.8 million and SpareFoot with $30 million, the story said. Nationally in 2015, theStatesmanstory said, venture capital investments rose to $58.8 billion, up 22 percent from the year before. Silicon Valley, as usual, took in the most money, with the San Jose area receiving $27.3 billion in 1,333 deals, the story said. Patents Stanford said Adler made his claim about Austin leading Texas in patents based on a May 2010Forbes.com articleby Andy Greenberg stating that Austin and neighboring Round Rock had produced an impressive average 1.7 patents for every thousand residents over the last 12 months, the second-most per-capita of any metro area in the country, he wrote. Greenberg elaborated: Austins culture of innovation may be boosted by well-known tech credentials like the South by Southwest (SXSW) Web startup and music festival held annually in March, as well as the nearby headquarters of hardware industry giants Dell and Freescale Semiconductor. But they also have two secret weapons in the innovation race: the University of Texass Cockrell School of Engineering, and IBMs Austin research lab. IBM produces more patents than any other company in the world, and for the last seven years Austin has produced more of those patents than any other IBM office. In total the lab produced 880 patents in 2009. Thats just 30 less than all of Cisco, and 300 more than Sun Microsystems, Boeing, AT&T or Toyota. We were unable to confirm or duplicate Greenbergs Austin conclusion. To get our own sense of how Texas cities stand in patents originated, we reached out to the Dallas-basedregional officeof the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. By email, spokesman Ryan Elliott pointed outpatent counts posted by the officeindicating that in 2012-13 and from 2000 through 2013, the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area generated more patents than the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos area. However, the regions raw counts were close, according to the agency, while the Austin area was responsible for more patents than any other Texas area from 2009, 2010 and 2011 through 2013, by our reckoning. Snapshot: The Austin area was responsible for 12,387 patents from 2009 through 2013, according to the office, with the Dallas area accounting for 11,546 patents -- which we took to mean that the less populous Austin area ran well ahead of the Dallas area in patents per 1,000 residents. Our search for relevant analyses led to a2013 reportby the Brookings Institution finding that from 1980 to 2012, most U.S. patents--63 percent--had been developed by people living in just 20 metro areas home to 34 percent of the U.S. population. Reflecting the advantages of large metropolitan economies, the report said, 92 percent of U.S. patents are concentrated in just 100 metro areas, with 59 percent of the population. For patents applied for from 2007 to 2011, the metro areas with the highest number per capita are San Jose; Burlington, VT; Rochester, MN; Corvallis, OR; and Boulder, CO. The authors wrote: From 1980 to 2011, a few large metros notably changed their share of U.S patents. At the top, San Jose moved up from ninth to first, and San Francisco moved from seventh to fourth, moving ahead of Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Boston. Seattle and San Diego moved up 15 and nine places, respectively, to become seventh and eighth. Meanwhile, Austin and Raleigh moved up 41 and 55 places, respectively, to become 11th and 20th. Cleveland fell 10 slots from 13th to 23rd, while Philadelphia fell from fourth to 13th. Not only did Austin surge in total patents, it lately achieved a high ranking in per-capita patents. From 2007 through 2011, a chart in the report indicates, the Austin metro area had 1,503 patents per million residents, tops in Texas and placing the area fourth nationally among high-patent areas behind San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, California (5,066 patents per million residents); Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, New York (1,829); and San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont (1,638). In Texas, the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown metro area had 379 patents per million residents and the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area had 310 per million, according to Brookings. Next, we heard back from Mark Muro of Brookings who shared a chart that he said was based on a different data source -- global PCT patents,meaningthe international patent system rather than the U.S. PTO. By that metric, the chart suggests that from 2008 through 2012, the Houston metropolitan area generated more cutting-edge technology patents per 1,000 residents (1,598) than the Austin area (1,294). An excerpt:             SOURCE:Chart ranking 100 U.S. Core Based Statistical Areas in tech patents invented per 1,000 population, 2008-2012 (received by email from Mark Muro, senior fellow and policy director, Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings, May 5, 2016) Regardless of those results, Muro and a Brookings colleague, Nick Marchio, suggested we hew to the U.S. patent office counts as the best general way of assessing the mayors claim. Marchio even volunteered toadjust the patent offices raw counts for the population of each metropolitan area. Result: In 2013, the latest year of tabulated patents, the Austin area ranked No. 11 nationally with 1.55 patents per 1,000 residents, far outpacing the No. 2 Texas metro, Dallas, at 51st with 0.44 patents per 1,000 residents. Also, from 2009 through 2013, the Austin area ranked 10th nationally with 6.95 patents per 1,000 residents, far ahead of the No. 2 Texas metro, in this case the Houston area, which landed 52nd nationally with 1.81 patents per 1,000 residents. Our ruling Adler said: Austin is number one in Texas in startups, venture capital and patents. Houston has been running ahead in international technology patents, it looks to us, but Austin lately leads the state in overall patents, startups and venture capital. We rate the claim True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Elected officials pay can be a sensitive topic with taxpayers, especially in todays economic climate. So its no surprise Ohio Treasurer Kevin Boyce, who is running in November to keep his job, is bragging about cutting his salary.Boyce talked about his six-figure earnings in a YouTube video released by his office. Presented as a preview of the offices forthcoming annual financial report, the production feels more like a tribute to Boyces performance as treasurer aimed directly at voters.Ive even cut my salary -- twice, said Boyce, a Democrat and former Columbus city councilman.Boyce was appointed Treasurer in late 2008. Richard Cordray left a vacancy when he took the state attorney generals job in the wake of Marc Danns resignation.Annual salaries for the states elected officials are set in state law, which lawmakers can amend to increase or decrease pay. The treasurers salary has been set at $109,986 since 2008.In June 2009, Boyce sent a memo to the state Department of Administrative Services saying he was taking a pay cut that would reduce his gross salary that year to $107,874. The pay cut, effective July 1, 2009, was the equivalent of taking five unpaid furlough days, a cost-saving measure that has been forced upon many state employees.In the same memo, Boyce authorized an extension of the reduction for all of 2010. This years pay cut is the equivalent of 10 unpaid furlough days, according to the administrative services department.Boyces gross salary this year will be $105,757.Boyce lumped both cuts -- each about 2 percent -- in the same memo, but he effectively trimmed his salary twice. Had he not extended the cut into 2010, his pay wouldve jumped back up to $109,986, a spokeswoman for the administrative services department said.We find Boyces statement True. Comment on this item. In February 2019, a photograph supposedly showing a billboard in Dallas, Texas, featuring a hijab-wearing woman circulated on social media along with an Islamaphobic comment stating that the "enemy is here":   This is a genuine photograph of a billboard seen in the U.S. While we haven't been able to pinpoint the source of this specific image, billboards featuring an image of a hijab-wearing woman were displayed in several major cities in the United States in 2019, including Dallas, Texas. Dallas The Islamic Circle of North America, a grassroots organization in the American Muslim community, and GainPeace, a non-profit organization whose main goal is to educate the general public about Islam, teamed up in February 2019 to create this billboard campaign with the purpose of supporting women who wear hijabs and dispeling rumors about Islam for the general public: Islamic Circle of North America GainPeace purpose A local Islamic group launched a billboard campaign to educate people about the hijab, the headscarf thats often worn by Muslim women. The billboards are the first of their kind in the country, designed by a group called GainPeace, which encourages non-Muslims to call the organization and ask questions to gain a better understanding of why women wear the hijab. The billboards draw a similarity to the Christian religion where Mary is considered the mother of Jesus. She also wore a hijab ... Wearing the hijab is 100 percent my choice. As contrary to the popular belief, hijab in no way oppresses us. In fact, it indicates the opposite as hijab symbolizes the power to women, and not inferiority, Sara Ahmed, GainPeace volunteer, said. Hijab is a simple yet powerful reminder of strength. I stand here today so that generations tomorrow do not feel deprived or threatened by their choice of dress. So that they may have the courage to stand by their beliefs, and so that this piece of cloth does not label them or categorize them with an unwanted label, Kiran Malik, GainPeace volunteer, said. Ruman Sadiq, an outreach volunteer with the Dallas Chapter of the Islamic Circle of North America, said that the billboards had already generated a conversation in the city, and that while she received at least one call from a woman who was upset about the billboards, the call ended on a positive note: The groups want to show that the hijab is a sign of empowerment and that women of other religions also cover their heads. They point to Mary, the mother of Jesus, who wore a veil, and nuns. It is also a form of liberation from strangers who dictate how women should dress in the society to be successful, Sadiq said. Its to free us ourselves from being judged by our physical beauty, but rather our intellect and our character. Its to preserve our modesty. The billboard is already drawing attention and phone calls. Sadiq talked about an hour-long phone call the group received from an angry caller, who was upset about the billboard. It was a 62-minute dialogue that we had with her and it ended on a very positive note, Sadiq said. She was very happy to clarify the misconceptions she had about the veil. Here's a news report from the Chicago television station WGN about a similar billboard in that area:  While the image of this billboard was frequently circulated on social media with comments about the "enemy is here," the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism pointed out that domestic right-wing extremists had accounted for far more deaths in the United States than Islamic extremists over the previous decade: Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism ADLs Center on Extremism, which has aggregated data going back to 1970, shows that over the last decade, a total of 73.3 percent of all extremist-related fatalities can be linked to domestic right-wing extremists, while 23.4 percent can be attributed to Islamic extremists. The remaining 3.2 percent were carried out by extremists who did not fall into either category. Anti-Defamation League.  "Right-Wing Extremism Linked to Every 2018 Extremist Murder in the U.S., ADL Finds."
  23 January 2019. Chavez, Stella.  "Islamic Group Launches Hijab Billboard Campaign."
  KERA News.  19 February 2019.
 Chavez, Stella.  "Billboard Campaign in Dallas Aims to Dispel Misconceptions About Islam and the Hijab."
  KERA News.  22 February 2019. In May 2018, survivors of the Parkland school shooting massacre, and many others both on and off social media, responded with horror at reports of a video game in which players could assume the role of a school shooter. Jaclyn Corin, a survivor of the Feb. 14, 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, called the game (which is titled Active Shooter) "disgusting" in a tweet and urged others to sign a petition calling for the game not to be released. (The online petition garnered almost 100,000 signatures within four days.) tweet petition Ryan Petty, whose 14-year-old daughter Alaina was killed in the shooting rampage, accused Valve Corporation (the Bellevue, Washington, company that runs the Steam platform on which the game would be distributed and run) of "trying to profit from the glamorization of tragedies affecting our schools across the country" and also called the game "disgusting." accused Steam The game was indeed real: it was published by a Russian company called Acid and developed by Revived Games (featuring games such as Furry, Tyde Pod Challenge, and White Power: Pure Voltage. which carries the following description: "The Underworld is an alternate dimension existing in parallel to the human species world. It contains the same parts of the Universe as humanity does, but much more in a darker, colder and hostile manner.") Acid Revived Games Furry  Tyde Pod Challenge  White Power: Pure Voltage Active Shooter' s descriptive entry on Steam's web site read as follows: entry Pick your role, gear up and fight or destroy! Be the good guy or the bad guy. The choice is yours! Only in "Active Shooter", you will be able to pick the role of an Elite S.W.A.T member or the actual shooter. A video preview of the game showed a shooter armed with a rifle, handgun, and knife stalking the classrooms and corridors of a school, shooting at both police and civilians while a "kill counter" shows the number of "cops" and "civ" (civilians) the player had murdered. Every civilian shown in the preview video appeared to be female:   In a difficult-to-follow post on May 23, 2018, the game's publisher claimed that Active Shooter "does not promote any sort of violence, especially any soft [sic] of a mass shooting." The publisher went on to note that the game will probably not allow players to assume the role of the shooter by the time the game is released: post After receiving such high amount of critics and hate, I will more likely remove the shooters role in this game by the release, unless if it can be kept as it is right now. We asked Valve Corporation whether Active Shooter would still be released on June 6, 2018, and if so, whether it would still feature the shooter mode. We did not receive a response to our query, but shortly afterwards we noticed that Acid's games were no longer listed among Steam's offerings. listed Subsequently, the gaming news web site PC Gamer reported that both the publisher and developer of the game -- Acid and Revived Games -- had been removed from the Steam platform. PC Gamer quoted what it called a "Valve rep" as saying that the publisher and developer were the same person: reported This developer and publisher is, in fact, a person calling himself Ata Berdiyev, who had previously been removed last fall when he was operating as '[bc]Interactive' and 'Elusive Team'. Ata is a troll, with a history of customer abuse, publishing copyrighted material, and user review manipulation. His subsequent return under new business names was a fact that came to light as we investigated the controversy around his upcoming title. We are not going to do business with people who act like this towards our customers or Valve. In mid-June, Acid announced plans to offer Active Shooter for purchase via its own platform. On June 26, they posted a notice to that effect on the Steam community board, noting that Active Shooter had been renamed Standoff. As of September 2019, Active Shooter was still listed among Acid's offerings and a sequel, Standoff: Lockdown, was also available for sale. announced notice listed sequel Collins, Dan. ""Active Shooter" Developer Plans to Continue Selling Video Game Despite Victim Complaints."
 Associated Press. 14 June 2018. Stuart, Keith. "Active Shooter Video Game Condemned by Parents of Parkland Victims."
 The Guardian. 29 May 2018. Updated [30 September 2019]: Added information about the game's developer offering it for purchase on its own platform under a new name ("Standoff"), and a sequel being produced in 2019. Status revised from "Outdated" to Rep. Abigail Spanberger sits in a yard with her parents during aTV ad, talking about the lessons they imparted. Growing up, my parents taught me, Correct whats wrong, maintain whats right, the Virginia Democrat says. Then, Spanberger addresses something shes trying to correct: Corporate donations to political campaigns. When I ran for Congress, I promised to refuse money from corporate PACs, she says. Ive kept that promise. Spanberger is seeking a second term this fall in one of the nations most closely watched House races. Shes opposed by Republican state Del. Nick Freitas in Virginias 7th District which, prior to Spanbergers election in 2018, had a long history of voting Republican. The National Republican Campaign CommitteesaysSpanberger islyingin her ad and accepting backdoor corporate contributions. So we fact-checked Spanbergers claim that shes spurned corporate PAC contributions, and found it needs elaboration. According to herlatest filingswith the Federal Election Commission, Spanberger has raised $4.2 million in contributions since the start of 2019 through the end of June 2020. We found no money that came directly from corporations. But the NRCC has a small point. While Spanberger refuses direct corporate donations, she accepts contributions from PACs that do take corporate contributions. In other words, she receives a small amount of corporate PAC money that has been filtered. A corporate PAC is affiliated with a specific company that gathers donations from its employees and distributes it to politicians and political interest groups. Corporate funds cannot be contributed to the PAC. There are two main conduits that receive corporate PAC money and pass it on. One of the pipelines is formed by leadership PACs, which are set up bymostmembers of Congress to help candidates from their party. For example, Spanberger has received a maximum $10,000 from the Forward Together PAC, associated with Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va. Forward Together hasaccepted contributionsfrom a list of corporations, including Merck, Citigroup, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, General Electric and Altria. We counted 60 leadership PACs that have contributed to Spanbergers campaign. The second conduit is formed by ideological PACs, which are established by groups focusing on special causes, such as regulation, defense or health care. Spanberger hasreceived $651,000from PACs since the start of 2019. About $111,000 of that money filtered down from corporate PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics - a Washington nonprofit that tracks political money. The Center made its estimate by converting the percentage of money each Spanberger PAC donor received from corporations to a fraction of money it gave to her campaign. Perspective As weve said, Spanberger has raised $4.2 million since 2019 began. The $111,000 that trickled in from corporations is 2.6% of all contributions to her campaign. Sixty members of Congress - including three Republicans - have promised not to accept corporate money, according to End Citizens United, a Washington nonprofit seeking to tighten campaign finance laws. Rep. Elaine Luria, D-2nd, is the only other Virginia congress member to make the pledge. Campaign finance advocates told us theyre unaware of any incumbent who is declining both corporate and leadership PAC money. End Citizens United has endorsed Spanberger largely because of her no-corporate-money pledge and is not upset by her acceptance of leadership PAC money, according to Adam Bozzi, spokesman for the organization. Michael Beckel, research director for Issue One, another Washington non-profit seeking campaign finance reform, also told us Spanberger has been consistent. Bozzi and Beckel said direct contributions often give corporations access to politicians. They said office holders are far less likely to feel beholden to a corporation when its money has been filtered through a leadership PAC. If anything, the candidate may feel indebted to the politician whose leadership PAC contributed to his or her campaign, Beckel said. Spanberger has kept her promise to voters, Bozzi said. Sarah Bryner, research director for the Center for Responsive Politics, said its become vogue for Democrats to decline corporate PAC money, but voters should be aware. Candidates trying to remove themselves are putting themselves in an awkward position because to completely shut themselves off from corporate donations right now is impossible, she said. ...If you need money to run a political campaign, unless youre independently wealthy, youre getting money from people. And most people work for corporations. Bettina Weiss, Spanbergers campaign manager, said, Abigail does not take corporate PAC money. Full stop. She accused Republicans of waging a farcical attack on Spanbergers fundraising. Weiss noted that Spanberger cosponsored theFor the People Act of 2019, a comprehensive voting rights, campaign finance and ethics bill aimed at reducing corporate influence on Congress. The measure, with236 cosponsors, passed the House and has stalled in the Senate. A final note:PolitiFact state bureaus have recently fact-checkedtwosimilarclaims by politicians who said they have rejected corporate PAC money, but didnt factor in leadership PAC money. Both claims were rated Mostly True. Our Ruling Spanberger says shes kept her promise to refuse corporate PAC donations. Shes raised $4.2 million - none directly from corporations, although an estimated $111,000 of corporate money has come in indirectly through other PAC contributions. Thats less than 2.6% of her campaigns take, but it counts. Realizing that it may be impossible to block all traces of corporate money from a successful congressional campaign, we rate Spanbergers statement Mostly True. The communications office of theNational Republican Congressional Committeeisnt letting up on Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore. Its recently peppered him with criticism over the sequester and President Barack Obamas health care overhaul. This time, the issue is construction of a controversial pipeline that would carry crude oil from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast for refinement. A May 23, 2013, press release targeted Schrader for voting againstH.R. 3, a bill that would allow TransCanada tostart building the Keystone XL Pipelinewithout approval from President Barack Obama. Specifically, the legislation skips further environmental review and removes barriers to construction. With nearly 75 percent of Americans supportive of the construction of the pipeline, Schrader needs to explain to Oregon families why he voted against this needed project, the release states. Three-quarters of Americans want this project to happen? We know surveys can sometimes use scurrilous, squirrelly language, so we thought wed take a look-see. Plus, while Schrader is a veterinarian who loves animals, the man is no tree-hugging environmentalist. Does he oppose construction? Lets tackle the 75 percent statistic first. The NRCC relies on a survey conducted byNanos Researchthat was the subject of an April 2013 news report in the Wall Street Journal. Heres the survey question: Based on what you have heard about the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline between Canada and the U.S., do you support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or oppose the US/Canadian government approving the project? Of Americans, 52 percent said they support the project and 22 percent said they somewhat support it. Nanos, a respected independent polling firm, isnt the only one to find that a majority of respondents in the United States support construction. An April 2013Pew Research poll found 66 percent in favorwith 23 percent opposed. The poll found broader support among Republicans and independents; Democrats are more divided. We checked with Daniel Kessler, amedia campaigner with 350.org, which opposes Keystone. The Nanos polling question looked sound to him, although he wanted to remind readers thatother surveys show high support for clean energy alternativesand efforts to combat global warming. Now, lets address the second part of the statement. As we stated earlier, H.R. 3 eliminates the need for White House approval to start the project. Its undisputed that Schrader voted against the bill. Nineteen House Democrats joined majority Republicans to send the bill to the Senate, where it sits. No House Democrat from Oregon voted for the legislation. In fact, theNRCC targeted a number of Democrats with the same press release, including Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore.  A spokesman for Schrader said the congressman supports construction in principle, just not the way Republicans are going about it. To say that he does not support the construction on the pipeline is false, wrote spokesman Cody Tucker in an email to PolitiFact Oregon. Annie Clark with the NRCC disagrees. She cited four other times where Schrader voted against construction. Schrader voted against constructing or expediting construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline every chance he had, she wrote to PolitiFact Oregon. We checked his other votes. The legislation sought to force Obama to act or bypassed him altogether in approving Keystone. Loads of House Democrats voted against the bills. Schrader did voteagainst H.R. 3,which eliminates further regulatory hurdles, eliminates presidential input and essentially gives congressional go-ahead for construction. This statement by itself we would rate Half True. It is partially accurate in that Schrader did vote against the legislation, which authorizes the project. But it is missing significant details in that Schrader supports construction in principle, just not this particular way to get there. Had the NRCC said that Schrader voted against the bill -- as opposed to the project -- the statement would be True. The NRCC is accurate in citing that nearly 75 percent of Americans support construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The Nanos survey is solid, as is a Pew Research poll that showed two-thirds support. With the polling part True and the project part Half True, that brings our ruling to Mostly True for this two-part statement. (If you want to leave a comment, go to http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/06/did_kurt_schrader_vote_against.html#incart_m-rpt-2)