Wisconsin Bans Poor People from Buying Shellfish, Potatoes and Ketchup?
Claim:   Wisconsin has passed a bill banning poor people from purchasing shellfish, potatoes, and ketchup.   Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2015] Is this true?  Origins:  Recents months have seen efforts by lawmakers in several states to limit what recipients of food stamps and other forms of public assistance may purchase with those benefits.  For example, a member of the Missouri legislature introduced a bill that would bar recipients of supplemental nutrition assistance programs (SNAP) from using their benefits to purchase cookies, chips, energy drinks, seafood or steak. And Kansas passed a law prohibiting recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds from spending those monies on a variety of goods and services: Missouri Kansas   Similarly, in May 2015, the Wisconsin State Assembly passed a bill (Assembly Bill 177) that would require those who receive food stamps to spend at least two-thirds of their benefits on foodstuffs designated by the state as nutritional items. The list of allowed nutritional items includes meat, fish, fresh produce, and white potatoes, but specifically excludes food stamps from being used for purchases of crab, lobster, shrimp, or any other shellfish: bill   The larger list of allowed foodstuffs excludes such items as white potatoes, nuts, cranberry sauce, popsicles, spaghetti sauce, soup, ketchup, pickles, baked beans, flavored peanut butter, flavored milk, and brown eggs. foodstuffs Contrary to various inaccurate headlines, however, the proposed law (if fully passed and enacted as law) would not "ban" food stamp recipients from purchasing these food items; rather, it would restrict them from spending more than one-third of their SNAP benefits on such foodstuffs.  It's also unlikely the bill will be codified as law, as it would require a federal waiver that no state has ever received: headlines  No state has received such a waiver, but Rep. Brooks said he believes his bill is less restrictive than some proposed in other states and has a better chance of being implemented.   Proponents of the bill argue that it would promote healthier eating habits which would benefit both food stamp recipients and taxpayers:  They argue that limiting the purchase of junk food promotes healthy eating, reduces unspecified "abuses" and benefits society in the long run. "There is a direct financial benefit not just to the individual, which of course is obvious to have better health, but also to state taxpayers and society as a whole," said Assembly Speaker Robin Vos.   Oppoents, however, contend that the bill would neither promote healthier eating nor reduce fraud:  "It's a restriction that's designed just to make the lives of those that are already struggling that much harder," said Rep. Lisa Subeck. "And instead, we should be focusing not on the foods people buy but on putting people to work by creating jobs that get people off of FoodShare." To illustrate Democrats' opposition, Rep. Evan Goyke held a platter of four Wisconsin cheeses. All four were cheddar. One was shredded and three were in block form. Three displayed flags that said "GOP Prohibited." One flag said "GOP Approved." The approved cheese was a block of mild cheddar. Two sharp cheddars  one shredded and one block  were not approved. One mild cheddar was not approved because it was too large, Goyke said. "The stated goals of this bill are nutrition and fraud," said Rep. Mark Spreitzer. "When you look at something like this cheese plate, there's no evidence of sharp cheddar fraud. People are not buying sharp cheddar in order to defraud FoodShare, and there's no nutritional difference. So if those are the stated goals, the bill is not accomplishing either."   Last updated:  16 May 2015
Two-and-a-half weeks before the 2016 presidential election, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump trailed behind Democrat Hillary Clinton by an average of 6% in national polls, a statistic that buoyed Clinton supporters, yet failed to rattle diehard supporters of Trump, who had managed, as The Guardian put it, to "confound expectations" all year: polls As smoke clears from weeks of political bombardment, White House watchers are convinced the only questions now are how big Hillary Clintons win will be and whether the Democrats can take Congress, too. Those Republicans still loyal to Trump cling to the hope that all the polls are wrong  that in barely two weeks time, angry voters will again stun the world. Over and over, Donald Trump is saying one word: Brexit. Donald Trump We will win, he told a rally in Pennsylvania on Friday. We will shock the world. This is going to be Brexit-plus. Hubris aside, some of his supporters remained worried about voter defections in the wake of the Trump "groping" scandal, prompting calls for an eleventh-hour get-out-the vote drive, not to mention homebrew efforts to rally people to the polls like the image macro below: groping drive   The Internet meme was accurate insofar as public opinion polls taken in October 1980 showed Democrat Jimmy Carter holding as much as an eight-point lead over Republican Ronald Reagan (a Gallup poll two weeks before the election had Carter at 47% and Reagan at 39%), yet Reagan won a landslide victory in the general election, beating Carter 489 to 49 in electoral votes and by almost 10% in the popular vote. (It should be noted that 6.6% of the popular vote also went to a third-party candidate, John Anderson.) poll victory To conclude from that single example that polls simply ought not to be believed is a stretch, however. The 1980 upset was anomalous, the polling organization Gallup says, and based on factors unique to that year's campaign: says Reagan's late-breaking surge that year is generally attributed to the only presidential debate between Carter and Reagan  held one week before the election, on Oct. 28  which seemed to move voter preferences in Reagan's direction, as well as the ongoing Iran hostage crisis, which reached its one-year anniversary on Election Day. After trailing Carter by 8 points among registered voters (and by 3 points among likely voters) right before their debate, Reagan moved into a 3-point lead among likely voters immediately afterward, and he won the Nov. 4 election by 10 points. By contrast, in 2016 the two major party candidates have already faced off in three head-to-head debates, all held well before Election Day, that have resulted in little or no improvement in Trump's underdog position in the polls.  And among the many issues and challenges facing America, none of them looms in the forefront the way the Iranian hostage crisis (and the Iranian Revolution in general) did throughout the final year of Jimmy Carter's presidency, as Jonathan Chait noted back in 2012 when Republican challenger Mitt Romney found himself in a similar underdog position against incumbent president Barack Obama in that year's campaign home stretch: [In 1980] the economy cratered (nothing remotely comparable has occurred this year) and then the Iranian hostage crisis, after an initial rally-around-the-flag blip, steadily corroded Carters popularity. No equivalent of those factors can be seen yet today, and pinning your hopes on a scenario where your campaign suddenly picks up ten points in the final month seems to be either an act of self-delusion or a ploy to keep anxious conservatives at bay. John Sides similarly observed when commenting on the 2012 presidential race that the notion President Carter held a polling lead over Ronald Reagan in 1980 right up until the very end of the campaign is something of a misconception:  observed ... 1980 is a poor comparison with 2012 for many reasons.  One is simply that the economy is not as bad in 2012 as it was in 1980. But there is another apparent misconception in the Romney campaign, which Nate Silver rightly picked up on: Carter didnt lead Reagan for much of the campaign.  The [poll tracking] plot shows what Chait describes, which is the ebbing of Carters poll standing throughout 1980.  Indeed, Reagan didnt need his convention bump  which he certainly got  to put him in the lead.  The Democratic convention helped erode Reagans lead but it never closed it altogether. At the end of the campaign, Reagan did surge, but this only increased his lead.  His surge appears to have been brought on first by the debate, and then perhaps by several other events in the final week of the campaign: "On Friday of that week the final economic indicator of the campaign showed inflation still seriously on the rise. And on Sunday morning, November 1, the Iranian parliament announced their conditions for freeing the American hostages. Jimmy Carter immediately abandoned campaigning and appeared on national television in the early evening to repeat much of what the public had been hearing all day. It was a week, in effect, with much that could affect the choices made by voters." Carters pollster, Patrick Caddell, believed that Irans rebuff doomed Carter, saying It was all related to the hostages and events overseas. Harry Enten of the statistical analysis web site FiveThirtyEight confirmed that in ordinary circumstances, October public opinion polls are usually reliable and highly predictive of final election results: confirmed In most years, the early-October polls [since 1952] were pretty close to the mark, with a correlation of +0.96 between the polls and the final result. Ten of the 16 elections featured errors of 3 percentage points or less, and in all but three campaigns, the polls were within 5 percentage points of the final outcome. Even in 2012, when Mitt Romney closed his deficit against President Obama after the first debate, the polls at this point still showed Obama leading. At this point in the election cycle, the average error of polls for all elections is just 3.3 percentage points (much lower than the 4.7-point error we found for just after the conventions), and every candidate whos been ahead in the popular vote in mid-October went on to win the election. Given the rarity of last-minute upsets, did Enten think Donald Trump still had a chance to stage a comeback and win the general election despite lagging 6% in the polls?  polls "Its possible," he wrote. "But it would be basically unprecedented." Is that an excuse for anyone, regardless of party affiliation, not to turn out to vote? No, it is not. Blanton, Dana."Fox News Poll: Clinton Tops Trump by 6 Points."
Fox News.18 October 2016. Enten, Harry."Is There Any Precedent for a Trump Comeback?"
FiveThirtyEight.12 October 2016. Harwood, John."History Suggests McCain Faces an Uphill Battle."
The New York Times.12 October 2008. Jones, Daryl."3 Unlikely Ways Donald Trump Could Win."
Forbes.17 October 2016. Roberts, Dan and Chalabi, Mona."Brexit Times Five: Could Trump Really Win Despite Polls Favoring Clinton?"
The Guardian.22 October 2016. Saad, Lydia."Late Upsets Are Rare, But Have Happened."
Gallup.27 October 2008. RealClearPolitics."General Election: Trump vs. Clinton."
22 October 2016. Reuters."Donald Trump Still Trails Hillary Clinton in National Polls.
22 October 2016. On 12 July 2016, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders formally endorsed rival Hillary Clinton at a New Hampshire event, causing consternation among supporters who were confident he still planned to take his candidacy for the nomination to the convention in Philadelphia later that month. A number of interlinked rumors appeared on social media following the Clinton/Sanders event, roughly outlining a larger general claim. According to many social media users, Sanders' pre-convention endorsement was a requirement under Democratic National Committee (DNC) rules as a condition of bringing his delegates to the convention, just as Franklin Delano Roosevelt had similarly been forced to endorse an opponent before going on to win at a contested convention: The afternoon of the endorsement, a Sanders delegate (later identified as Ashley Wolthuis of Utah) made comments suggesting Sanders was forced to publicly endorse Clinton under threat of punitive platform changes: identified I have contacts within both campaigns. Heres what I was told yesterday and today. Clintons campaign threatened to vote down every concession made to Bernie on the platform if he did not endorse her prior to the convention. Knowing that Superdelegates were not going to switch to his side without something major happening, the best he could do was hold on to the progressive concessions he won for US on the platform. He could not, in good consciousness let the GOP and Trump win, especially when we have a potential half of the Supreme Court Justices that will be replaced within the next 4-8 years. He was looking out for the future of our movement and our nation in this very hard decision he made. This post is not to tell you to vote for Hillary, or to not leave the Democratic Party, etc. this was just to throw a little light on why Bernie did what he felt he HAD to do, rather than what he wanted to do. A sign of a great leader is someone who makes the hard decision to sacrifice themselves for the people and movement behind him. He is counting on us to continue the fight. Contacted later in the day by phone, Wolthuis clarified her comments about the use of force and Sanders' endorsement of Clinton: [A]fter reaching out to many of the people who had either posted or tweeted this statement, I tracked down the original source, Ashley Wolthuis, a Sanders delegate from Utah, who was kind enough to return my "cold call" to her cell phone. Here is what she told me. The basic thrust of the post shown above is accurate, she said, but the use of the term that Bernie was "threatened" she explained was overblown. She did indeed have conversations with various delegates associated with both campaigns, and she said it was "common knowledge" among most delegates that the Clinton campaign was insisting on Bernie making an endorsement prior to the convention if the more progressive parts of the platform would be retained. The talk among her the those with whom she associated, both Clinton and Sanders supporters, was that Bernie understood Hillary needed Sanders' supporters and that was the only reason she made any concessions at all regarding the positions on the DNC platform for which the Sanders campaign fought. Wolthuis also referenced a Washington Post article published after Sanders' 12 July 2016 comments, surmising that Sanders in part intended to tack Clinton to promises of a progressive platform: article The speech today was, ostensibly, an endorsement of Clinton's presidential campaign ... But, really, it wasn't. Yes, I know that's how it was billed by the Clinton and Sanders camps. And, yes, he did say this: "I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president." (It was the only time that Sanders used the words "endorse" or "endorsing" in a speech that ran 2,161 words. You can read the whole thing here.) But, surely, Sanders was simply touting his successes as a way of winding up to the big moment when he acknowledged  even subtly  that Clinton's more moderate, cautious and pragmatic definition of "Democrat" had trumped (ahem) his more liberal, populist one? ... Nope! Not really. What followed in the speech was a laundry list of Sanders's talking points and policies supplemented with the phrases "Hillary believes" or "Hillary understands" or "Hillary knows" stuck in front of them ... On and on it went, Sanders touting a much-beloved policy of his and then noting that Clinton agreed with it. We reviewed the oft-cited DNC 2016 rules [PDF] but were unable to locate any specific verbiage mandating that any candidate endorse any other candidate in order to fully participate in the convention. It is possible (but not necessarily likely) that the endorsement was an agreed upon concession made outside formal rules or quietly between the campaigns. Confusion over the meaning of Sanders' endorsement was exacerbated following the release of the contents of a conference call he held with his nearly 1,900 pledged delegates hours after his public appearance alongside Clinton: PDF   During the 38-minute long call, Sanders maintained the campaign won 22 states and lost several more "by a hair," stating that a majority of voters under 45 from all demographics overwhelmingly voted for him in primaries and caucuses. Sanders held that the "superdelegate issue" impeded his campaign, noting that Clinton earned 2,205 pledged delegates to his 1,845 and that she received "a hell of a lot" more superdelegate support:  In a portion of the call regarding his endorsement of Clinton, Sanders did not say that doing so was a condition of bringing his delegates to the convention. He did, however, discuss ongoing negotiations between the campaigns to ensure that planks of Sanders' campaign were adopted and Clinton was "on record" making such agreements. Compromises cited by Sanders included the candidates' differing plans on college tuition and single payer healthcare (including dental and mental health coverage) expansions for millions of Americans. In a significant portion of the call Sanders addressed questions about delegates' traveling to Philadelphia for the convention, asserting the campaign "[needs its delegates] to vote for Bernie Sanders for President, and [his] hope is we can get 1,900 votes on the first ballot." Sanders addressed rumors of challenges to credentials without further detail, presumably referencing concerns that Sanders delegates would face opposition at the convention. The senator stated he didn't believe the rumors had merit, adding that the campaign would arrive with "a bunch of lawyers" in Philadelphia and "make sure every [delegate takes their] seat." Sanders also addressed questions about whether he had been offered a "significant role" in a potential Clinton administration, to which he said "no." Towards the end of the call, Sanders stated that his campaign was not suspended, but that he expected Clinton to emerge as the nominee following the convention. Overall, the conference call represented the most in-depth look regarding Sanders' motivation in endorsing Clinton prior to the convention. No portion of the call hinted or suggested that his endorsement was due to tacit threats or coercion with respect to negotiated agreements between the campaigns. A second portion of the rumor held that Sanders was heading into a contested convention having endorsed his rival, just like FDR before him. Rumors to that effect didn't specify when or under which circumstances Roosevelt made such an endorsement before going on to win the nomination (if a year was cited for this occurrence, it was typically 1932). A 2007 New York Times article about FDR's 1932 convention win did demonstrate many parallels to the contest between Clinton and Sanders: article In 1932, the leadership of the Democratic National Committee was firmly in the hands of Al Smith loyalists. Convention rules required a two-thirds majority for nomination, and the partys last three presidential candidates  James Cox of Ohio, the Wall Street lawyer John W. Davis and Al Smith  in addition to House Speaker John Garner and Senate minority leader Joe Robinson, were on record supporting the stand-aside economic policies of the Hoover administration and the ill-conceived and exorbitant Smoot-Hawley tariffs on imported goods. Roosevelt was an outsider. Serving his second term as governor of New York, he could not even count on the solid support of the Empire States delegation at the convention ... all of F.D.R.s rivals were from the pro-business, hard-money, establishment wing of the Democratic Party and decried the possibility of government intervention to revive the economy. Let natural forces take their course, as free and untrammeled as possible, said Governor Ritchie. Modern society, acting through its government, said F.D.R., owes the definite obligation to prevent the starvation or dire want of any of its fellow men and women who try to maintain themselves but cannot. The conservative wing of the Democratic party was aghast. I will take off my coat and fight to the end against any candidate who persists in any demagogic appeal ... setting class against class and rich against poor, rasped Al Smith. However, a substantial difference existed between Roosevelt in 1932 and Sanders in 2016. In addition to facing a three-way runoff requiring a two-thirds majority, Roosevelt (unlike Sanders) went into the convention with a majority of delegates (but no superdelegates, as that concept was not introduced until 1984): superdelegates 1984 When the convention opened on June 27, Roosevelt held a clear majority of delegates but was still 100 votes shy of the two-thirds required for nomination. If the establishment forces could deny F.D.R. a first-ballot victory, they might deadlock the convention and force a compromise choice. The Democratic partys two-thirds rule was the nemesis of presidential front-runners, and in the eyes of the partys old guard, Roosevelt was ripe for a fall. Nevertheless, F.D.R.s majority gave him control of the convention. His candidate for presiding officer, Sen. Thomas Walsh of Montana, was elected, and the credentials of three pro-Roosevelt delegations (Louisiana, Minnesota and the Virgin Islands) were accepted. No portion of that article mentioned Roosevelt "endorsing" his rival, merely tensions between "establishment" Democrats and an "outsider" candidate. Another article described aspects of the nominating process with which Clinton had more in common with Roosevelt than Sanders did: The vote was split enough to guarantee a brokered convention; FDRs camp arrived in Chicago with a majority of delegates but not enough to guarantee him the nomination. Given FDR's majority of delegates and votes, it was exceedingly unlikely he at any point endorsed either of his rival candidates (of whom there were two). Moreover, journalism and political news operated far differently in 1932 than 2016, making an "endorsement" tendered by FDR for a rival far less relevant than in the era of social media. It was true Sanders in some respects evoked Roosevelt's position at the contested convention of 1932, but the material difference between Sanders in 2016 and FDR in 1932 boiled down to a majority of delegates. (We contacted archivists at the FDR Presidential Library & Museum for confirmation that Roosevelt did or did not endorse a candidate in 1932 prior to winning what was a hotly contested convention. An individual with whom we spoke indicated that detailed information was not to hand, adding that an archivist would look into the claim and respond to our query.) In short, it isn't precisely clear why Sanders opted to endorse Clinton weeks before the convention without suspending his campaign. Many Sanders supporters maintained that the DNC or Clinton campaign threatened to rescind platform promises had Sanders not endorsed, but the senator made no such claim himself in a 12 July 2016 delegate conference call. During that call, Sanders did urge all delegates to appear in Philadelphia and vote for him on the first ballot. As for claims that Sanders (like FDR before him) was heading into a contested convention after endorsing a rival, there was scant truth to that claim. FDR headed into the convention with a majority of pledged delegates, prior to the advent of superdelegates. While FDR needed a hard-won two-thirds majority to seize his nomination, he also started with more delegates than his competitors. And the process of formally endorsing a rival didn't appear to be exceptionally relevant (if at all common) in the 1932 presidential nominating process.  Cillizza, Chris.  "Heres What Bernie Sanderss Hillary Clinton Endorsement Is Really About."
  Washington Post.  12 July 2016. Onion, Rebecca.  "The Art of The New Deal."
  Slate.  31 March 2016. Smith, Jean Edward.  "F.D.R.s Rough Road to Nomination."
  The New York Times.  14 May 2007. Caucus99Percent.  "Last Night I Spoke to Ashley Wolthuis, Bernie Delegate Behind Claim Sanders Was Coerced to Endorse Hillary."
  13 July 2016. 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 Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris recently attacked President Donald Trump over his trade policy, saying it is hurting American workers. The California senator then said as many as 300,000 auto workers were expected to lose their jobs this year, suggesting Trump was to blame. Donald Trump betrayed a lot of people. He came in office, making all kinds of promises to working people, from farmers to auto workers, Harris said in aCNN interviewon Aug. 12. He said he was going to help working people, and it is estimated that as many as 300,000 auto workers may be out of a job before the end of the year. Trumps trade policy, especially the tariffs hes placed on China, have been blamed by economists forhurting farmers. But are as many as 300,000 auto workers really expected to lose their jobs by the end of this year as Harris claimed? Two recent fact-checks called that figure into question. Well review the facts and place a rating on the senators claim. Checking the facts After the interview, Harris campaign told CNN the 300,000 number is from aFebruary study by the Center For Automotive Research, CAR. The research group examined the impact of a 25 percent tariff Trump proposed on all imported cars and auto parts except on Canada, Mexico and South Korea. It estimated that between about 70,000 jobs and 367,000 jobs would be lost across all sectors of the U.S. economy, but not specifically among autoworkers, under a worst-case scenario. In May, Trumpdelayed for six monthshis decision on whether to impose the tariffs. Kristin Dziczek, vice president of industry, labor & economics at the research center, or CAR,told FactCheck.orgin an email: 300,000 auto workers out of a job before the end of the year is NOT what CAR is projecting. FactCheck.org added thatDziczekconfirmed the figure was an estimate for job loss across the economy one year after several proposed and implemented trade policies on the auto industry went into effect. Auto workers produce vehicles at Volkswagen's U.S. plant in Chattanooga, Tenn. in 2017. (AP Photo/Erik Schelzig) The CAR report did not specify how many of the up to 367,000 job losses would come from the auto industry.Dziczektold CNN the (auto) sector is starting to shrink, but she added that a rapid loss of 300,000 autoworker jobs would be orders of magnitude worse than what we're expecting to see. The only industry specific estimate was for 77,000 job losses at car dealerships.Dziczektold PolitiFact California there would an overall net loss in auto assembly and parts sectors. How big of a loss depends on how willing consumers would be to switch brand preference from imports to vehicles made in the United States, she wrote in an email. FactCheck.org described Harris claim as wrong, while CNN said it was false. Harris campaign did not respond to our request for comment, including whether the senator has corrected, or plans to correct, her statement. Our ruling Sen. Kamala Harris claimed that as many as 300,000 auto workers may lose their jobs by the end of this year. She relied on a study that predicted, in a worst-case scenario, that between 70,000 jobs and 367,000 jobs could be lost across all sectors of the U.S. economy, but in no way all from the auto industry. The losses would take place one year after President Trump imposes a proposed 25 percent tariff on imported cars and auto parts. Trump has delayed his decision on those tariffs until later this year, meaning the one-year later impact would not be felt until well into 2020, and not by the end of this year as Harris said. Harris claim far overestimates potential job losses for the auto industry, the timing of them and ignores the fact that no decision has been made on the tariffs. We rated her claim False. FALSEThe statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Claim:  Lou Pritchett penned an "open letter" to President Obama. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2009] AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA Dear President Obama: You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you. You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support. You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American. You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll. You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.. You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others. You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail. You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad. You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector. You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one. You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves. You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world. You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations. You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals. You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people. You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient. You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do. You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view. You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing. Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years. Lou Pritchett Origins:  Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.   Lou Pritchett Mr. Pritchett confirmed to us that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter" quoted above: I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the 'experts' has had over 500,000 hits. In April 2012, the following update was added to the original: In April 2009, I sent President Obama and the New York Times a lettertitled "You Scare Me" because, as a candidate, he promised to"fundamentally transform America." Now, after observing his performancefor over three years, he no longer scares me  he terrifies me for thefollowing reasons: FIRST-- He has done more to damage America's standing in the world, tolower the standard of living in America, to impoverish future generationsand to shake our faith in the country's future than any other Americanpresident in history. SECOND-- With a compliant Democrat congress, a lapdog media and a weak,almost nonexistent Republican opposition, he has shattered the Americandream of job security, home ownership and rugged individualism formillions of Americans and has poisoned and divided our civil society withhis politics of envy, class warfare, race warfare, and religious warfarewhich he is using as fundamental building blocks for his 'socialist'agenda. THIRD-- culturally, he remains totally out of touch with traditionalAmerican values. This has absolutely nothing to do with race or where hewas born, rather it has everything to do with where, how and with whom hewas raised, schooled, educated, trained and associates with still today. FOURTH-- he has surrounded himself with naive academicians, lawyers,politicians, bureaucrats and socialist leaning czars who arrogantly thinkand behave exactly as he does.People who offer no balanced suggestions or devils advocate positions andthink in lock step with him that big government is the answer to all ourproblems. FIFTH-- he not only encourages but aids and abets the unionization of allAmerican industry, the albatross around the neck of the free market. Inturn, they provide the money and muscle to intimidate his opponents. SIXTH-- he has increased the national debt by over 30% in just threeyears. If re-elected and this rate of increase continues, America will beburdened with an unsustainable 20 trillion dollar debt which will resultin the Country's financial death. Recovery will be impossible ---- Americawill be the Greece of 2016. SEVENTH-- given his fanatical beholding to the 'environmental' and'man-caused global warming' fringe, he has deliberately discouraged U.S.fossil fuel exploration and production while wasting millions of tax payerdollars on solar, wind and algae experiments. He refuses to accept thatoil, gas and coal are not America's enemies, they are America's assetswhich, properly managed, could make us energy independent within ageneration. EIGHTH-- He views the U.S. as a power in retreat which abused its Worlddominance. Therefore he systematically apologizes round the world. LastMarch he whispered to Russian President Medvedev "--this is my lastelection. After my election, I have more flexibility". Just what is thesecret that Obama and Putin are concealing from the American people untilafter the election? With what other leaders has he made similar secretagreements? NINTH---and finally, after all his mis-steps, bad decision making, poormanagement, and zero leadership, the fact that he has the audacity to seekre-election should terrify every American.I predict that if re-elected, future historians and political interpreterswill look back at the eight year period 2008-2016, and conclude "the 44thPresident of the U.S. allowed the takers to overpower the payers whichresulted in the greatest economy in history vanishing from the face of theEarth". Lou Pritchett  April 15, 2012Farewell America, the World will really miss you! Last updated:  12 May 2012 Claim:   Two Idaho pastors were threatened with legal action and arrests for refusing to perform gay weddings.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Facebook has a Fox News Radio article about a couple, Don and Evelyn Knapp, that own an Idaho wedding chapel and are supposedly facing arrest if they don't perform same sex marriages. Is this for real?  Are officials in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, forcing Christian ministers to perform same sex marriage against their religious beliefs?  What has happened to "separation of church and state"?  Does it now only apply to churches preaching against  orruption in government?  Has the First Amendment been rewritten so that the state can now dictate religious beliefs and practices? Origins:  On 18 October 2014, the Christian legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) announced in a press release that they were filing a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order on behalf of pastors Donald and Evelyn Knapp of Couer d'Alene, Idaho. According to the announcement, the move was to prevent the city of Couer d'Alene from "forcing [the] two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples." The ADF's release stated that Donald and Evelyn Knapp faced the threat of jail or exorbitant fines if they refused to officiate gay weddings: City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its "non-discrimination" ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho's voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman. "The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. "Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that's what is happening here  and it's happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple's freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended." On 14 October 2014, three days prior to the ADF's press release, the Idaho state government had announced that they would no longer oppose the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, prompting a number of same-sex couples to obtain licenses and marry in the days immediately following the state's announcement:  The marriages came a day after Gov. Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, Republicans who had fought to maintain the state's ban on gay marriage, ended their opposition to a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that ordered the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. The localized battle in Idaho received national attention on 20 October 2014, when Fox News opinion columnist Todd Starnes published an article about the ADF's lawsuit on behalf of the Knapps: According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a "religious corporation" limited to performing "one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible." But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business  not as a church or place of worship  and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance. A Couer dAlene deputy city attorney reportedly said on local television that for-profit wedding chapels could not legally turn away a gay couple without risking a misdemeanor citation, and that the Hitching Post "would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance." The Knapps maintain that the City Attorneys office made the same assertion in telephone conversations with them, while the city claims they never threatened to take any legal action against the couple.  The difference between churches and businesses is at the heart of the Couer d'Alene ministers' legal dispute, and one eagle-eyed blogger made a compelling discovery in respect to that delineation, noticing that a cached version of theKnapp's "Hitching Post" web site described their services as follows: discovery cached The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We also perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths as well as civil weddings. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors.  At some point in time around Idaho's issuance of same-sex wedding licenses on 15 October and the ADF's press release on 18 October 2014, the Knapps altered the copy on their web site. As of 20 October 2014, the "About" description on the site no longer included references to the civil and non-denominational services that it had displayed just a few days earlier: description The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors. The ordinance under which the Knapps maintained their religious freedoms were restricted [PDF], issued by the city of Couer d'Alene on 4 June 2014, exempted "religious corporations" from its provisions: PDF Notwithstanding any other provision herein, nothing in this Chapter is intended to alter or abridge other rights, protections, or privileges secured under state and/or federal law. This ordinance shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion. This chapter does not apply to: Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies. Although the City of Couer d'Alene agreed that the Hitching Post was exempted from the anti-discrimination ordinance, the Knapps nonetheless forged ahead with a lawsuit against the jurisdiction. In March 2015, Couer d'Alene television station KXLY reported that the Knapps were maintaining that the city ordinance had cost them money, despite the fact that they had closed their business' doors by choice: reported The Hitching Post wants the city to pay them for wages lost during the time they thought the city was going to force them to perform weddings. The Hitching Post made their stance on gay marriage very clear last year when the initial ban was overturned. Last May they said they would close their doors if they were forced to perform same sex marriages. The Hitching Post now wants the city to pay them for the days the chapel shut down even though they did so by choice. The business also says it lost customers and received hate mail because of media attention. However, the city said they have made it clear the Hitching Post is classified as a "religious organization" and is exempt, whether it's for profit or not. City spokesperson Keith Erickson wrote in a statement that the city "never threatened any legal action against the Hitching Post, nor does it intend to do so." A  2 April 2015 news article added that the chapel closures cited by the Knapps in their suit against the city included days on which same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized in Idaho:  Boise-based attorney Kirtlan Naylor wrote in the city's legal response, that while the Knapps claim they lost income when they closed the Hitching Post because they would be in violation of the ordinance, they never allege "that they had any weddings scheduled on those dates, or that anybody came to their business requesting a wedding on those dates." "More so, same-sex marriage was not legal in Idaho on Oct. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14," the motion states. "Additionally, on Oct. 15, 2014, when same-sex marriage became legal, Plaintiffs would not have been subject to the ordinance because they were exempt. Therefore, they were under no legitimate threat of prosecution which would require them to close their business on that date." According to the Hitching Post owners' complaint, the Knapps closed their business due to "a constant state of fear that they would be arrested and prosecuted if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony." However, the article referenced above also reiterated a city spokesman's statement that officials "have never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind" against them. Last updated:  7 July 2015    Starnes, Todd.   "City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings."   Fox News.  20 October 2014. In the aftermath of violence at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017 (and in the context of a wider debate over the removal of Confederate statues), a particular quote spread on Facebook and Twitter, appearing to indicate Abraham Lincoln's opposition to racial equality. On 14 August, the remarks formed part of a Dallas Morning News column by former Texas State Senator Jerry Patterson, who wrote: wrote During his famous debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln explained to the crowd: "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races ... I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." Lincoln was no different than most white males, North and South, at the time. He was a white supremacist. The quote as presented by Patterson, and in several Facebook and Twitter posts, is authentic. Lincoln did make those remarks on 18 September 1858. They came at the beginning of his opening speech at the fourth of seven famous debates with Stephen Douglas, during Lincoln's unsuccessful campaign for the U.S. Senate in Illinois. Lincoln had been under attack from Democrats who accused him of supporting racial equality, and his comments were a defense against those allegations.  Facebook Twitter There is no official transcript of those debates, and the accounts published at the time in two Illinois newspapers  the Republican Chicago Press and Tribune and the Democratic Chicago Times  often diverged along partisan lines, according to Rodney Davis and Douglas Wilson's annotated "Lincoln-Douglas Debates" (page vii.) page vii Nonetheless, here are the most relevant remarks, as reported in the pro-Lincoln Chicago Press and Tribune on 21 September 1858. You can read that day's report in full here.  here    Chicago Tribune Archives  Despite the frequent spinning of the speeches by both newspapers, there appears to be consensus on Lincoln's Charleston remarks regarding racial equality. The Chicago Times report, reprinted in Harold Holzer's 1993 Lincoln-Douglas Debates, does not significantly vary from that published by the Press and Tribune: reprinted I will say then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, of having them to marry with white people. I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality, and inasmuch, as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man. Of course, this excerpt from one speech does not represent the totality of Lincoln's views on race and racial equality, but the remarks were far from a complete outlier, and Lincoln's views were more complex and uncomfortable than the prevalent modern impression of him as the racially-enlightened Great Emancipator.  We spoke to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, author of several books on Lincoln, including The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. Eric Foner "There's no question that: one, before the Civil War, Lincoln hated slavery. He always did," Foner told us: Two, he shared many of the prejudices of his society. That was a deeply racist society both north and south before the Civil War. He did insist that black people were entitled to what they call the natural rights of man  life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.... And also that black people were entitled to what they used to call the fruits of their own labor. During the Civil War, Foner says, Lincoln's views evolved radically as he was exposed to black people such as Frederick Douglass, who were far more talented than he had assumed, and as the efforts of freed slaves in the Union army earned them, in Lincoln's view, the right to citizenship. Just before his death, Lincoln gave a speech in which he mentioned the possibility of giving black Union soldiers and wealthy black elites the right to vote, in direct contradiction to his 1858 remarks. And yet, Foner told us, for a long time Lincoln's plan for black people in the United States largely consisted of arranging for them to the leave the country and set up colonies elsewhere. Foner also warned against overemphasizing the importance of ethnicity to Lincoln by isolating specific racist remarks he made: The fact is, Lincoln said almost nothing about race. He was not that interested in race...Race was not a major intellectual construct for Lincoln...And the 1858 speech was purely defensive. That doesn't excuse it, but he was being attacked in those debates as believing in negro equality.  "Whereas abolition was a central aspect of Lincolns moral compass", the Harvard historian Henry Louis Gates wrote in 2009, "racial equality was not": 2009 ...Lincoln despised slavery as an institution, an economic institution that discriminated against white men who couldnt afford to own slaves and, thus, could not profit from the advantage in the marketplace that slaves provided. At the same time, however, he was deeply ambivalent about the status of black people vis--vis white people, having fundamental doubts about their innate intelligence and their capacity to fight nobly with guns against white men in the initial years of the Civil War. Gates concluded: [Lincoln] certainly embraced anti-black attitudes and phobias in his early years and throughout his debates with Douglas in the 1858 Senate race... By the end of the Civil War, Lincoln was on an upward arc, perhaps heading toward becoming the man he has since been mythologized as being: the Great Emancipator, the man who freed  and loved  the slaves. But his journey was certainly not complete on the day that he died. Abraham Lincoln wrestled with race until the end.    Patterson, Jerry.  "If We Mean to Remove Memorials of White Supremacists, that Includes Lincoln."
  Dallas Morning News.  14 August 2017. Davis, Rodney O.; Wilson, Douglas J. [eds].  "The Lincoln-Douglas Debates."
 University of Illinois Press.  2008. Chicago Daily Press and Tribune.  "Mr. Lincoln's Speech."
  Chicago Tribune Archive.  21 September 1858. Holzer, Harold. [Editor].  "The Lincoln-Douglas Debates."
  Fordham University Press.  2004. Gates Jr., Henry Louis. "Was Lincoln a Racist?"
 The Root. 12 February 2009. Claim:  Princess Cruises has ceased making stops in Israel.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2010] Yesterday, 6/2/2010, the Pacific Princess, carrying 700 passengers, canceled a stop at Ashdod, Israel . Instead, they informed the passengers they would stop in Egypt as an alternative. Princess is now bowing to pressure and boycotting Israel . Please pass this on to all Jewish Americans in order to let them know that there are alternatives to Princess.  Origins:  On 31 May 2010, Israeli commandos stormed the six-ship Freedom Flotilla in international waters off the coast of the Gaza Strip as it carried some 10,000 tons of aid and up to 700 human rights activists to the Palestinian enclave. In that melee, nine activists were killed and dozens were injured. Hundreds of those being conveyed on the flotilla were jailed and then deported. The attack on the Gaza-bound humanitarian aid convoy served to heighten tensions in that area of the world. In response to the potential for retaliatory attacks on Israel, Princess Cruises canceled the 2 June 2010 Pacific Princess call on the port of Ashdod, Israel. The 1 June 2010 call upon the Israeli port of Haifa went ahead as scheduled, providing passengers the opportunity for a full day of touring Galilee and Nazareth. Princess Cruises said of their decision that: Based on careful review of the situation and information provided by the US State Department and other sources, we were concerned about potential violence in Ashdod in reaction to the incident.  We made the decision strictly in the best interest of the safety of our passengers and crew, to cancel the call in Ashdod the following day. Azamara Club Cruises also canceled a planned visit to that city, routing its Azamara Quest directly to Haifa rather than making the planned 7 June 2010 call upon Ashdod. Pacific Princess is scheduled to visit the ports of Haifa and Ashdod at the end of June 2010 during its 12-day Mediterranean East cruise (which departs from Venice on 20 June 2010). The line fully expects to maintain the published itinerary. Additional information:     Statement from Princess Cruises   (Princess Cruises)  Last updated:  14 June 2010    Sloan, Gene.  "Princess Cruises Cancels Call in Israel in Wake of Attack on Aid Flotilla."   USA Today.  1 June 2010.    JTA.  "Princess Cruises Boycott Tale Is Debunked."   14 June 2010. Claim:  Starbucks has joined Monsanto in a lawsuit against Vermont to avoid the implementation of GMO labeling regulations. : : Starbucks is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a group challenging Vermont over GMO labeling requirements.      : Starbucks has joined forces with Monsanto to sue the state of Vermont over GMO labeling requirements.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2014] Starbucks doesn't think you have the right to know what's in your coffee.  So it's teamed up with Monsanto to sue the small U.S. state of Vermont to stop you from finding out.    Origins:  In November 2014, a petition claiming coffee  giant Starbucks had "teamed up" with agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation Monsanto to sue the state of Vermont over a GMO (genetically modified organism) labeling law began to circulate heavily on social media sites. Given the massive popularity of Starbucks and broad worry over genetically modified foods, the petition caused concern amid many Starbucks drinkers over whether their daily latte habit was somehow funding big agribusiness bullies. General consumer unease with what are often unclear links between large corporations as well as growing distaste for massive food conglomerates made the claim particularly unsettling to many social media users. Most consumers lack the luxury to make all their own foods and drinks at home, and to some extent, we all place our trust in large companies to do right by their customers in choosing safe ingredients and not abusing their financial strength by bullying less-powerful entities. A quick scan of Twitter reveals widespread belief Starbucks has suddenly decided to abandon its socially and nutritionally conscious consumer base to join forces with Monsanto, but is that really the case? Most of the chatter points back to the petition, initiated by a group called SumOfUs. On its Facebook about page, SumOfUs describes its mission: SumOfUs We are a movement of consumers, investors and workers counterbalancing the power of large corporations to forge a just, sustainable path for the global economy. The relevant petition can be found on the SumOfUs website: SumOfUs Starbucks doesn't think you have the right to know what's in your coffee. So it's teamed up with Monsanto to sue the small U.S. state of Vermont to stop you from finding out. Hiding behind the shadowy Grocery Manufacturers' Association, Starbucks is part of a lawsuit that's aiming to block a landmark law that requires genetically-modified ingredients be labeled. Amazingly, they are claiming it's an assault on their corporate right to free speech. Even a local Vermont company, Green Mountain Coffee, has joined in. The quoted portion makes it clear Starbucks isn't the entity driving the lawsuit at which the petition takes aim. The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a large food industry group of which Starbucks is one of more than 300 members, is the trade organization behind the litigation in question. To call the group "shadowy" is somewhat misleading: GMA has a web site that presents their clear stance on the issue of genetically modified foods and labeling and that included a 2014 membership directory openly listing Starbucks and Monsanto as members.  (The online membership directory link is no longer accessible from GMA's web site, and the organization did not respond to our inquiry about it.) web site membership directory The petition explains (in essence) why Starbucks has been singled out among GMA-affiliated companies as a target of consumer pressure:  SumOfUs members have already chipped in to support Vermont's legal defense fund, and we need to keep it up. Monsanto might not care what we think  but Starbucks does. If we can generate enough attention, we can push Starbucks to withdraw its support for the lawsuit, and then force other companies to do the same. Sign the petition to tell Starbucks and Green Mountain Coffee to withdraw their support for the lawsuit against Vermont, and stop fighting accurate food labeling. Vermont is a small, entirely rural state with just 600,000 people. It's a classic David and Goliath fight  Vermont vs. Monsanto and Starbucks, some of the most powerful corporations in the world. The petition references Vermont's Act 120, voted upon in April 2014 and signed into law on 8 May 2014. Under the provisions of the new law, Vermont is poised to became the first state to require labeling of all foods containing genetically modified ingredients by 1 July 2016. Act 120 On 13 June 2014, the GMA issued a press release stating its intent to challenge the law in Vermont, positing the law was unconstitutional and citing the First Amendment. In its statement, the trade group expressed concern more states would follow Vermont's lead and adversely affect the food industry by imposing labeling standards that serve no health or safety interest: press release Today, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), along with the Snack Food Association, International Dairy Foods Association and the National Association of Manufacturers, filed a complaint in federal district court in Vermont challenging the state's mandatory GMO labeling law.  GMA issued the following statement in conjunction with the legal filing. "Vermont's mandatory GMO labeling law  Act 120  is a costly and misguided measure that will set the nation on a path toward a 50-state patchwork of GMO labeling policies that do nothing to advance the health and safety of consumers. Act 120 exceeds the state's authority under the United States Constitution and in light of this, GMA has filed a complaint in federal district court in Vermont seeking to enjoin this senseless mandate. "Act 120 imposes burdensome new speech requirements  and restrictions  that will affect, by Vermont's count, eight out of every ten foods at the grocery store. Yet Vermont has effectively conceded this law has no basis in health, safety, or science. That is why a number of product categories, including milk, meat, restaurant items and alcohol, are exempt from the law.  This means that many foods containing GMO ingredients will not actually disclose that fact. "The First Amendment dictates that when speech is involved, Vermont policymakers cannot merely act as a pass-through for the fads and controversies of the day. It must point to a truly "governmental" interest, not just a political one. And the Constitution prohibits Vermont from regulating nationwide distribution and labeling practices that facilitate interstate commerce. That is the sole province of the federal government. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency have both the mandate and expertise to incorporate the views of all the stakeholders at each link in the chain from farm to fork." On 9 November 2014, musician Neil Young stated that he was no longer going to patronize Starbucks due to the GMA lawsuit. On 15 November 2014, Starbucks addressed the claims. The coffee chain sent a tweet with a link to a longer statement: Neil Young Starbucks is not a part of Monsanto's GMO lawsuit to stop food labeling https://t.co/mEsQHqukMA Starbucks News (@Starbucksnews) November 16, 2014 Starbucks is not a part of Monsanto's GMO lawsuit to stop food labeling https://t.co/mEsQHqukMA https://t.co/mEsQHqukMA  Starbucks News (@Starbucksnews) November 16, 2014 November 16, 2014  The statement indicated Starbucks asked the petition be edited to reflect their position and lack of involvement in the lawsuit against the state of Vermont: Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law. The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their description of our position.  Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling. As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we prefer a national solution. Grocery Manufacturers Association spokesman Brian Kennedy said that Starbucks is an "affiliate member" of the GMA and is not involved in actions such as the Vermont lawsuit: As an affiliate member, [Starbucks] is not involved in any policy, governance, or legal work with the Association, which includes the lawsuit in Vermont. In summary: Although Starbucks is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the lawsuit targeted by the petition was initiated by that group and not by Starbucks or Monsanto; and direct collusion between Starbucks and Monsanto on the issue is neither evident nor germane to the dispute between the state of Vermont and the GMA.  Last updated:  17 November 2014 Claim:  Photograph shows a kayaker being trailed by a Great White shark.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2006] Hello I received this photo today, supposedly taken off Capetown, can you verify it please??     Origins:  Scarcely a week goes by in which we don't receive yet another photograph of a shark for verification,such is our fascination with these mysterious predators of the deep.  Of especial interest are pictures that show humans in (apparently) imminent danger from threatening  sharks, such as the infamous images of a diver attempting to board a helicopter just ahead of some breaching jaws (fake) and a surfer headed directly towards lurking trouble (misidentified). diver surfer The image above displays, according to its caption, a kayaker "sitting in a 3.8-metre sea kayak and watching a four-metre great white approach."  This photograph is genuine and was taken from a September 2005 Africa Geographic article titled "Shark Detectives," about researchers studying Great White sharks off the coast of South Africa, that described the circumstances under which this picture was snapped: article Sitting in a 3.8-metre sea kayak and watching a four-metre great white approach you is a fairly tense experience. Although we had extensively tested the sharks' reactions to an empty kayak and had observed no signs of aggression, this gave us little comfort as we eyed a great white heading straight for us, albeit slowly. Just a metre or so from the craft it veered off, circled and slowly approached from behind. It did this several times, occasionally lifting its head out of the water to get a better look. Then it lost interest, and as it continued on its way we were able to follow a short distance behind. Once we'd come to terms with having nothing between ourselves and a four-metre shark except a thin layer of plastic, our kayak made an ideal research platform for observing great white behaviour in shallow water. Its advantages are twofold: it is inconspicuous and appears not to cause the sharks to alter their behaviour for long, and it allows us to watch them in a natural situation, as it is not necessary to attract them to us with food. A similar article appearing in the December 2005 issue of the South African publication The Big Issue included another photograph from the same sequence. photograph Last updated:  29 May 2015    Peschak, Thomas P. and Michael C. Scholl.  "Shark Detectives."   Africa Geographic.  September 2005.