Before I was governor, tuition was skyrocketing and we stopped that. We capped and then we froze college tuition.
U.S. Senate candidate George Allen says he put the brakes on rising college costs when he was governor from 1994 to 1998.Before I was governor, tuition was skyrocketing, and we stopped that, Allen said in a May 25 debate between four candidates seeking the GOP Senate nomination. We capped, and then we froze college tuition.Allen won the Republican primary on June 12 and will face Democrat Tim Kaine this fall. They are seeking to replace Democrat Jim Webb, who is not seeking a second Senate term.We wondered if the Allen administration really did put a lid on tuition. Allen, while making this claim, shared credit with the Democratic-controlled legislature that served with him.Dan Allen, a senior adviser to the campaign, pointed us to aJuly 2011 reportfrom the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia.The study said that during the early 1990s, colleges and universities increased tuitions by double digits annually to compensate for state funding cuts made by the General Assembly and then-Gov. Doug Wilder to help balance the budget during a recession.Wilder, in his final budget proposal made during an improving economy in December 1993, urged the General Assembly to cap tuition and instructional fee increases for in-state students at 5 percent during the 1994-95 school year and 4 percent during 1995-96.Allen, who took office in January 1994, successfully urged the General Assembly go a step further and cap the increases at 3 percent during each of the next two school years.In 1996, as SCHEV notes,  Allen and the General Assembly froze tuition and instructional fees entirely. The action did not apply to a number of other mandatory college costs, such as fees for athletic programs, health services and campus transportation. Lawmakers eased some of the burden on colleges by appropriating an additional $200 million for higher education.The Richmond Times-Dispatch in January 1998 reported that a strong economy during Allens term allowed him to finance the tuition freeze. State tax revenues grew by about 45 percent during his tenure.Allen, in his farewell budget, recommended freezing tuition through 2000. His successor, Republican Jim Gilmore, rolled back tuition and instructional fees by 20 percent for in-state students.When Allen arrived in the governors mansion during the 1993-94 academic year, the average tuition and instructional fees for full time, in-state undergraduate students at four-year colleges was $2,518,according to SCHEVs historical tables.That rose to $2,717 in the 1995-1996 academic year and stayed at that level through 1997-1998, the last academic year of Allens term.Using inflation-adjusted figures based on 1992 dollars, the report shows the amount of tuition and instructional fees went  from $2,383 in the 1993-94  academic year down to $2,320 in 1997-98. Even when other mandatory fees that were not subject freeze are added in, the college costs remained flat after being adjusted for inflation.Costs at two-year colleges showed the same trend: in-state tuition and instructional fees at those institutions were basically flat during Allens term.Our rulingAllen said that, as governor, he stopped soaring tuition costs by implementing a tuition freeze.Allen and the General Assembly did impose a freeze after tuition had risen sharply during the early 1990s recession. Allen had leeway to cap tuitions because a healthy economy during his term allowed lawmakers to increase state appropriations to colleges and universities.We rate Allens claim True.
Claim:  E-mail reports the truth about the environmental impact of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)    OF  AND  INFORMATION Example:  [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] First, do you know what ANWR is? ANWR = Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Now, a comparison:  And some perspective ...  NOTE WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA IS ... (its in the "ANWR Coastal Plain")  THIS IS WHAT THE TV People and others "GREENS" SHOW YOU WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT ANWR ... and they are right ... these ARE photographs of ANWR   Isn't ANWR beautiful? Why should we drill here (and destroy) this beautiful place? Well, thats not exactly the truth. Do you remember the map? The map showed that the proposed drilling area is in the ANWR Coastal Plain. Do those photographs look like a coastal plain to you? What's going on here? The answer is simple. That is NOT where they are wanting to drill! This is what the proposed exploration area ACTUALLY looks like in the winter:  And this is what it ACTUALLY looks like in the summer:    HERE ARE A COUPLE SCREEN SHOTS FROM GOOGLE EARTH   As you can see, the area where they are talking about drilling is a barren wasteland.  Oh, and they say that they are concerned about the effect on the local wildlife. Here is a photo (shot during the summer) of the 'depleted wildlife' situation created by drilling around Prudhoe Bay. Don't you think that the Caribou really hate that drilling?  Here's that same spot during the winter:  Hey, this bear seems to really hate the pipeline near Prudhoe Bay, which accounts for 17% of U.S. domestic oil production.  Now, why do you think that the Democrats are LYING about ANWR? Remember when Al Gore said that the government should work to ARTIFICIALLY raise gas prices to $5 a gallon? Well, Al Gore and his fellow Democrats have almost reached their goal! Now that you know that the Democrats have been lying, what are you going to do about it? You can start by forwarding this to everyone you know, so that they will know the truth. P.S.: Drilling does not "destroy." It creates jobs, resources and strengthens our economy  all while protecting our environment. Everyone benefits, even caribou. Origins:  As the price of oil continues to rise with no predictable end in sight, debates over whether the U.S. can and should be producing more oil from domestic sources have been renewed.  A primary focus of such  debates has been the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), an area which encompasses 19 million acres in the northeast corner of Alaska. The ANWR issue is now a political hot potato batted back and forth between proponents of exploration and development in ANWR's Coastal Plain who assert that the area could become a valuable source of domestic oil production with minimal impact on the environment, and opponents who maintain that the potential advantages to be gained from drilling for oil in ANWR are far too small to offset the despoiling (and potential devastation) of a protected wildlife area.The issue has been complicated by the uncertainty of many factors involved in the opening of ANWR to U.S. oil production, such as the total amount of oil underlying the area, the size of the oil fields that might be found in ANWR, the quality of the oil that might be found in ANWR, the potential production capacity of ANWR drilling operations, how long it would take before ANWR operations began providing significant amounts of oil for the U.S. market, what effects the oil extracted from ANWR would have on world oil supply and prices, and the environmental impacts of oil exploration and development in ANWR.    factors The e-mailed slide show reproduced above might serve a useful function in prompting the public to take a greater interest in all the issues surrounding the potential opening of ANWR to oil exploration, but the information it presents is scant and one-sided.  Since the ANWR issue is far too extensive and complex to cover in detail here, we'll just provide a brief summary of both sides' arguments regarding points mentioned by the e-mailed slide show, with links to sites (on both sides of the issue) that provide greater detail:  Although the ANWR is small in size compared to the entirety of Alaska, at 19 million acres it is larger than ten other states.  (As the third graphic shows, ANWR is about the size of the state of South Carolina.) Proponents point out that the proposed development area within the ANWR Coastal Plain is a relatively small patch of 2,000 acres, an area which constitutes roughly1/10,000 of the total acreage of the ANWR.  Opponents maintain that a similar drilling operation in Alaska at Prudhoe Bay was originally designated to encompass only 2,100 acres but has since expanded to a total drilling footprint of 12,000 acres spread over 640,000 acres of the North Slope. size expanded  Proponents maintain that wildlife continues to flourish amid drilling and other oil production activities in other Arctic regions and would fare just as well near ANWR exploration facilities.  Opponents assert that other North Slope oil development activities have caused an average of 504 spills per year since 1996, including "4,532 spills between 1996 and 2004 totaling more than 1.9 million gallons of toxic substances." flourish spills  Proponents maintain that the proposed ANWR Coastal Plain development area is primarily a featureless, barren expanse that is frozen and windswept for most of the year, and therefore exploration and drilling activities would have minimal impact on wildlife in the immediate area (or in the greater ANWR).  Opponents assert that environmental accidents can have devastating effects far outside the limited areas in which they originally occur.  Last updated:  2 July 2008 On Sept. 21, 2022, we reviewed a misleading Facebook post that claimed multiple users had won a brand new Ninja Foodi MAX 15-in-1 SmartLid Multi-Cooker. The post was made on a page named Blue Light Card, which showed the unrelated category of "Wine/spirits." All of this was nothing more than another scam that led to a seemingly endless number of surveys that promised other prizes.  The post originally read as follows: CONGRATULATIONS for those of you who have received comments from me have been selected as winners???Step 1 = Like and ShareStep 2 = Register here ? https://tinyurl.com/2ej2cd6uStep 3 = Coments "DONE" receive my prize. And the Gift will be sent after you successfully register (this is authentic and official) God bless you Good Luck. #bluelightcardcontest#entertowincontest_bluelightcard#entertowincontestbluelightcard The Facebook page that pushed this scam appeared to have been removed shortly before we published this story. Facebook The product was once featured in an official video from the company, Ninja Kitchen. It retails for around 299 pounds in the U.K., which would make it a pricey item to give out to multiple users for free. official video 299 pounds  In sum, we recommend avoiding any promotions, giveaways, or contests on Facebook that ask users to like, comment, and share. The only exception to this rule would be if the post came from a page that has a verified badge. A page that's verified presumably would mean that a promotion would be trustworthy. Other than that, we generally advise that readers avoid prize offers that seem too good to be true. verified badge In May 2016, syndicated talk radio host Sean Hannity aired an item claiming that Donald Trump had sent a plane to give 200 stranded U.S. marines a much-needed ride home after Operation Desert Storm in 1991: item When Corporal Ryan Stickney and 200 of his fellow Marines prepared to return to their families after Operation Desert Storm in 1991, a logistics error forced them to turn to a surprising source for a ride home: Donald J. Trump. Today, Stickney would like to say "thank you." Stickney (left), was a squad leader in a TOW company of a Marine reserve unit based in Miami, FL and spent approximately six months in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War between 1990 and 1991. Upon his units return to the United States, the former Marine says the group spent several weeks decompressing at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina before heading back to Miami. Stickney recalls being told that a mistake had been made within the logistics unit and that an aircraft wasnt available to take the Marines home on their scheduled departure date. This  according to Stickney  is where Donald Trump comes in. "The way the story was told to us was that Mr. Trump found out about it and sent the airline down to take care of us. And thats all we knew ... I remember asking 'Who is Donald Trump?' I truly didn't know anything about him," the former Marine said. Corporal Stickney snapped a photo to remember the day by:   The story came up several times during the course of the 2016 presidential campaign (Cpl. Stickney even told it in person at a Trump rally), but skeptics questioned its validity despite a statement from the Trump campaign allegedly confirming it: "The Trump campaign has confirmed to Hannity.com that Mr. Trump did indeed send his plane to make two trips from North Carolina to Miami, Florida to transport over 200 Gulf War Marines back home. No further details were provided." told confirming The few details we do have about Trump's alleged participation don't, in fact, add up. We can confirm, based on military records, that the 209-member Anti-Tank (TOW) Company, part of the 8th Tank Battalion for Operation Desert Shield, deployed to Camp LeJeune, North Carolina, from their home base in Miami on 26 November 1990. And we can confirm that the company deployed from Camp LeJeune to Saudi Arabia on 22 December, served throughout the combat phase of Operation Desert Storm (from 17 January to 28 February 1991), and returned to North Carolina in April. A command chronology of the deployment notes that a "Cpl. Stickey" was among those receiving certificates of commendation. deployed command chronology We can also confirm, via a 23 April 1991 article from the Sun-Sentinel, that a series of flight delays stalled the company's homecoming to Miami on 22 April, but that they finally did arrive home after split across two separate flights. Stickney's photograph shows that he arrived on a plane marked "Trump," but it also proves something else: that even if Trump did send the plane, it wasn't his private jet. article That Trump didn't send the pictured plane at all was something noted by a sharp-eyed reader, who wrote to us to note: First, thats not Trumps private 727 jet; its one of the jets in the Trump Shuttle fleet. I wondered if maybe Trumps jet back in those days was painted differently, so I researched his private jet as of April 1991. I found that Trump was deep in the red, financially, and having to liquidate assets, one of which was his personal 727. The sale of that jet was finalized in the first week of May 1991, making it highly unlikely he was also flying reservists around while discussing the sale at the end of April. jet Shuttle The markings of the plane in Stickney's photo match those of the Trump Shuttle fleet, so the question becomes: Did Trump himself send a Trump Shuttle to retrieve the stranded Marines, or was it procured some other way? To arrive at an answer, it's necessary to go into a bit of the history of Trump Shuttle. A July 2015 article in NYC Aviation detailed Trump's short-lived airline industry involvement, beginning with an entirely separate carrier, Eastern Air Shuttle, which he immediately rebranded with his own name: article carrier rebranded CEO Frank Lorenzo ... began selling off assets including the prized Shuttle operation. Donald Trump placed a winning bid for the Shuttle, its aircraft and landing slots at LaGuardia and National for $380 million dollars that was financed through no less than 22 banks. The newly branded Trump Shuttle took the skies on June 7, 1989. Timing is everything in business, and unfortunately for Trump he entered the airline game at the wrong time. The US entered an economic recession in the late-80s leading many corporations to cut back on business travel. In addition, tensions in the Middle East leading up to the first Gulf war caused oil prices to spike. This 1-2 punch was devastating for the airline industry and led to the demise of a number of airlines including Eastern and Pan Am. Given these circumstances, the Trump Shuttle lost money, and with Trump continuing to accumulate debt in his other ventures it was becoming increasingly difficult to pay back the loans taken to purchase the airline. In September of 1990 Trump defaulted on his loan and control of the airline went back to the banks led by Citibank. Given that the bankers, not Donald Trump, owned Trump Shuttle from September 1990 until it was sold to U.S. Air in 1996, Trump wasn't in a position to send the planes anywhere, much less on a spur-of-the-moment Marine transport mission. So who did? As it turns out, the U.S. military itself chartered the flights -- a common practice in the day, according to an 11 August 2016 report by The Washington Post: Lt. Gen. Vernon J. Kondra, now retired, was in charge of all military airlift operations. He said that relying on commercial carriers freed up the military cargo aircraft for equipment transport. Vernon J. Kondra Kondra's notes on the flight are declassified and available online and show a contract for Trump Shuttle to "move troops in [the] continental United States" during the 1990-91 timeframe: online There are several references to a 1990-91 contract for Trump Shuttle to carry personnel across the United States, between the East and West Coasts, on a standard LaGuardia-Dover-Charleston-Travis-Chord-Kelly-Dover-LaGuardia run.   "It worked very well, and the crews loved it, and really thought that we'd done something special for them," Kondra recalled in the oral history. "It was a helluva lot better than using 141s [cargo craft], which we could use for something else." But Kondra said that the notion that Trump personally arranged to help the stranded soldiers made little sense. "I certainly was not aware of that. It does not sound reasonable that it would happen like that. It would not fit in with how we did business. I don't even know of how he would have known there was a need." So the real story underlying the claim that Donald Trump personally sent his jet to pick up stranded soldiers and return them to the U.S. is that the military paid to charter a plane from an airline Trump no longer owned in order to bring those service personnel home. Kessler, Glenn.  "Too Good to Check: Sean Hannitys Tale of a Trump Rescue."
  The Washington Post.  11 August 2016. Reed, Ted.  "Trump: I Ran a Great Airline."
  The Globe and Mail.  26 September 2011. Rodriguez-Florido, Lourdes.  "Grand Homecoming Welcomes War-Weary Marine Reservists Company Looks Forward to Settling Into Life's Regular Routines."
  Sun-Sentinel.  23 April 1991. CNN.  "Inside Donald Trump's Private Jet."
  10 November 2009. GulfLINK.  "8th Tank BN Command Chronology 8th Nov 90 to March 91."
  12 April 1991. In July 2018, the Chipotle Mexican Grill chain of fast casual restaurants ran a promotion in conjunction with National Avocado Day, offering free guacamole to customers with their orders on 31 July: free guacamole  Unfortunately, scammers took advantage of this promotion to post counterfeit offers for free $100 Chipotle gift cards, touting that users need only share a link with five friends to claim their bounty: counterfeit offers   This fake offer was just another variation of a long-running form of scam with a familiar pattern.  First, scammers set up look-alike websites and social media pages that mimic those of legitimate companies in order to promote scams advertising free gift cards or coupons. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a "survey" that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who wish to claim their "free" gift cards eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions (negating the free aspect of the gift card). The Better Business Bureau offers three tips to identify similar scams: Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Claim:  U.S. law specifies that merchants do not have to accept more than 100 pennies in payment.  Origins:  This is one of the pieces of misinformation that makes me wish web sites like this one had been around when I was a kid so I have could pointed my father toward it and told him to shut up already.  I can't recall how many times he solemnly intoned that "Pennies are not legal tender in quantities greater than 100" and therefore merchants were   "legally" allowed to refuse any offer of payment that included more than one hundred one-cent coins (and, presumably,  could not "legally" refuse payment offered in any other form of legal tender).  As with so many other things he was dead wrong (and I knew it even then), but I had no way of proving him wrong.  I can now, though. Title 31 (Money and Finance), Subtitle IV (Money), Chapter 51 (Coins and Currency), Subchapter I (Monetary System), Section 5103 (Legal Tender) of the United States Code states: United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts. What this statute means, in the words of the United States Treasury, is that "[A]ll United States money ...  is a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal law mandating that a person or organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services." In other words, U.S. currency and coins can be used for making payments, but merchants do not necessarily have to accept it for all forms of business transactions. If a shoemaker wants to sell his products for 8000 jelly beans per pair, he's entitled to do so; the buyer cannot demand that he accept the equivalent value in legal tender instead.  However, legal tender is the default method of payment assumed in contractual agreements involving debts and payments for goods or services unless otherwise specified.   So, for example, if an automobile dealer signs a contract agreeing to sell you a car for $8,000, but when you begin making monthly payments he rejects them and insists he wants to be paid in gold instead, you can go to court and have your debt discharged on the grounds that valid payment was offered and refused. Up until the late 19th century, pennies and nickels weren't legal tender at all.  The Coinage Acts of 1873 and 1879 made them legal tender for debts up to 25 cents only, while the other fractional coins (dimes, quarters, and half dollars) were legal tender for amounts up to $10. This remained the law until the Coinage Act of 1965 specified that all U.S. coins are legal tender in any amount. However, even in cases where legal tender has been agreed to as a form of payment, private businesses are still free to specify which forms of legal tender they will accept.  If a shop doesn't want to take any currency larger than $20 bills, or they don't want to take pennies at all, or they want to be paid in nothing but dimes, they're entitled to do so (but, as mentioned earlier, they should specify their payment policies before entering into transactions with buyers).  Businesses are free to accept or reject pennies as they see fit; no law specifies that pennies cease to be considered legal tender when proffered in quantities over a particular amount. Additional information:        Designation of legal tender   (United States Code, Title 31)        What is legal tender?   (United States Treasury FAQ)   Last updated:  16 May 2011   Landers, Ann.   "Ann Landers."  29 January 1996   [syndicated column].   Viets, Elaine.  "A Penny Saved Can Be a Lot of Trouble."  St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  24 April 1994. Claim:  President George W. Bush proclaimed, "The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." Status:  False. Origins:  Yet another   "George W. Bush is dumb" story has been taken up by those who like their caricatures drawn instark, bold lines. According to scuttlebutt that emerged in the British press in July 2002, President Bush, Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, and France's President Jacques Chirac were discussing economics and, in particular, the decline of the French economy. "The problem with the French," Bush afterwards confided in Blair, "is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur." The source was Shirley Williams, also known as the Baroness Williams of Crosby, who claimed "my good friend Tony Blair" had recently regaled her with this anecdote in Brighton.  Lloyd Grove of The Washington Post was unable to reach Baroness Williams to gain her confirmation of the tale, but he did receive a call from Alastair Campbell, Blair's director of communications and strategy. "I can tell you that the prime minister never heard George Bush say that, and he certainly never told Shirley Williams that President Bush did say it," Campbell told The Post. "If she put this in a speech, it must have been a  joke." This is far from the first time Bush has been made the butt of a jibe meant to showcase what some perceive as his less than stellar intellectual abilities. Without straining our memories too hard, we can come up with three other instances we've chronicled on this site. In the summer of 2001, the joke of the moment centered upon a supposed study that had resulted in the ranking of Presidential IQs, with George W. Bush being pegged as the Chief Executive who scraped the bottom of the intelligence barrel. In December 2000 it was a fake Nostradamus quatrain which pontificated that the "village idiot" would win the 2000 Presidential election. And in the spring of 2002, it was the story of Bush's waving at Stevie Wonder that set folks to chortling up their sleeves. Presidential IQs Nostradamus quatrain waving Stories that illustrate this widely believed intellectual shortcoming will always waft after George W. Bush because they seemingly confirm what many already hold as true about this public figure, that he's not the brightest fellow that's ever been. It is human nature to revel in yarns that the hearer at some level agrees with, thus tales of this sort will always fall upon appreciative ears. Barbara "ears of corn" Mikkelson Last updated:  23 September 2007    Sources:   Fitchett, Joseph.  "The Global Class: Word for It."   The International Herald Tribune.  11 July 2002  (p. 18).    Grove, Lloyd.  "The Reliable Source."   The Washington Post.  10 July 2002  (p. C3).    Malvern, Jack.  "Bush and Blair."   The [London] Times.  9 July 2002  (p. 18).    Smith, Liz.  "Stovepipe Dreams."   Newsday.  12 July 2002  (p. A13). On 12 February 1993 two-year-old James Bulger was brutally murdered by Jonathan (Jon) Venables (10) and Robert (Bobbie) Thompson (10) in Liverpool, England.  Example: On February 12, 1993 a small boy who was to turn three in March was taken from a shopping mall in Liverpool by two 10 year old boys. Jamie Bolger walked away from his mother for only a second and Jon Venables took his hand and led him out of the mall with his friend Robert Thompson.  They took Jamie on a walk for over 2 and a half miles, along the way stopping every now and again to torture the poor little boy who was crying constantly for his mommy. Finally they stopped at a railway track where they brutally kicked him and threw stones at him and rubbed paint in his eyes and pushed batteries up his anus. They then left his beaten small body on the tracks so a train could run him over to hide the mess they had created.  These two boys, even being boys, understood what they did was wrong, hence trying to make it look like an accident. This week Lady Justice Butler-Sloss has awarded the two boys anonymity for the rest of their lives when they leave custody with new identities.  We cannot let this happen. They will also leave early this year only serving just over half of their sentence. One paper even stated that Robert may go on to University.   They are getting away with their crime. They need to pay, and we have to do something to make them pay for their horrific crime. They took Jamie's life violently away, and in return they get a new life. Please add your name and location to the list and forward to friends and family. Please copy this email instead of forwarding so we do not get > at the beginning of sentances.  If you are the 200th person to sign please forward this email to st.ser.cs@gtnet.gov.uk attentioning it to Lady Justice Butler-Sloss. Then start the list over again and sent to your friends and family.  The Love-Bug virus took less that 72 hours to reach the world. I hope this does too. We need to protect our family and friends from creatures like Robert and Jon. One day they may be living next to your and your small children without your knowledge. If Robert and Jon could be so evil at 10, imagine what they could do as adults? With only one exception (the batteries in the victim's anus  they went into his mouth) the details of the crime as outlined in the e-mail are accurate. The boy was taken from a shopping mall while there with his mother. (A video surveillance camera captured footage of the two killers leading James away.) The child was brutalized as he was forced to walk along with the boys. (Witnesses later reported seeing the boys dragging, pushing, and carrying the weeping-two-year old during a disjointed journey through the streets of Liverpool.) And they did kill him in the manner described, albeit more brutally than even the text of the e-petition lets on. Two days after the murder, James' remains were found on a lonely stretch of railroad track. He was naked from the waist down  his shoes, socks, trousers, and underpants had been taken off. His penis had been manipulated by his abductors, but he had not been anally penetrated (by batteries or anything else). He'd been beaten to death with rocks, bricks, and an iron bar. As the boys hammered at him, they splattered him with model airplane paint stolen days earlier. Once he was dead, his killers laid him on the tracks, and his body was cut in two by a passing train. (The killers hoped to hide their crime by having it mistaken for an accidental death of a young child who'd foolishly played on the tracks.)  Venables and Thompson were taken into custody a few days later. Each sought to blame the other for the killing, but both eventually confessed. They were tried, found guilty of murder, sentenced, and placed in separate detention homes. The killers have not seen each other since the trial. All this is true. And horrifying. Yet even so, there's no point in signing the petition or urging others to. Beyond all the usual problems with e-petitions, one issue specific to this case rules against the utility of such a plan: the situation being decried is already a done deal. On 8 January 2001, the High Court of England guaranteed both Venables and Thompson lifelong anonymity plus an unprecedented open-ended injunction barring any publicity about them. Each of these young men were released in June 2001 when they were 18. The e-mail states that two killers "will also leave early this year only serving just over half of their sentence." That statement is false. Although there is no theoretical maximum length of sentence imposed, a minimum sentence of 8 years had been set. And that 8-year minimum was satisfied. The boys were detained "at Her Majesty's pleasure" (without a maximum fixed term). Her Majesty's Pleasure (HMP) sentences are imposed only in cases of murder and manslaughter committed by children under 18. In these cases, the judge sets a tariff (minimum term, defined as the period required for retribution and deterrence). Once the tariff has been satisfied, the prisoner is assessed on the basis of the likely risk he will pose to the outside community. Therefore, a killer sentenced to such a term is eligible for release once the tariff has been served, provided he does not impress the court as posing a danger to society. The judge at Venables' and Thompson's November 1993 trial set an 8-year tariff. In early 1994, Lord Taylor, then Lord Chief Justice, recommended increasing this minimum to 10 years. Michael Howard, Home Secretary, imposed a 15-year sentence on Venables and Thompson in July 1994, but his actions were ruled unlawful by the High Court, and the Court of Appeals in 1996, and struck down. Lord Woolf, the current Lord Chief Justice, ruled in 2000 that the killers' tariff was 8 years, a term that was reached on 21 February 2001. Venables' and Thompson's sentences were thus 8 years each, and they have been served. Had the sentences unlawfully imposed by Michael Howard been upheld, then the e-petition's claim about the killers' only having served "half their sentences" would be relevant. The anonymity guarantee and publication ban were set in place by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, president of the High Court's Family Division. She was convinced the pair would be genuinely at risk if their identities and locations were disclosed, hence her ruling. "Although the crime of these two young men was especially heinous, they have the right of all citizens to the protection of the law." She said people other than James Bulger's family "continue to feel such hatred and revulsion at the shocking crime and a desire for revenge that some at least of them might well engage in vigilante or revenge attacks." She may well have been right, especially in light of threats received. Dame Butler-Sloss banned the media from publishing any information leading to the identification or disclosure of whereabouts of Venables or Thompson, including photographs and descriptions of their appearance. She also banned, for 12 months, publication of information about their eight-year stay in local authority secure units. Even after that, confidential information relating to their treatment and therapy cannot be published.  The judge admitted she was aware the injunctions she imposed might not be fully effective outside England and Wales. She banned the domestic media from giving wider circulation to material from the Internet or media elsewhere if it was likely to breach the injunction.  Was it right for Venables and Thompson be protected from the public? Some said yes, that otherwise they'd have been torn limb from limb (and that would render society no better than those it would prosecute for such crimes), or that children (which the defendants were at the time of the Bulger murder) should not be held accountable for a crime  even a heinous one  in the same manner that we hold adults. Others said no, that the public had a right to know where potentially dangerous felons are, and others on that side of the fence laid claim to there being some crimes which cannot fully be expiated by time served. Jon Venables' reprieve from incarceration proved to be temporary when he violated the terms of his release by downloading and distributing indecent images of children and was returned to jail in March 2010. In July 2013 the U.K. parole board confirmed that Venables had been granted parole for a second time, although that body declined to provide details about when he would be released. In June 2006 the following related item began circulating: Hello friends I am just so angry, frustrated and really upset at what has happened at the Livingston Shopping Centre that I needed to let you all know the "truth" behind the mongrel murderer. About 3 yrs ago when I was working at the prison we found out that one of the boys (at the time aged about 12) that abducted James Bulger from a shopping centre in the U.K., then brutally raped and murdered him, had reached the age of 18 and had been sent out to Australia with a new identity for his family, etc. Long story short is that he was given the name of Dante Arthurs, his grandfather's name is Arthur Dante, and his family moved into a house in Canning Vale. When the prison staff got wind of this it was all supposed to be kept hushed up, it was some sort of prisoner exchange deal the Aust Govt set up. Soon after he got here he assaulted a 12 yrd old girl in a park in Canning Vale and consequently came to Hakea prison but for only about 6 weeks as they couldn't get enough evidence on him and the incident was brushed under the mat. His parents used to visit him and their photos were on the computers at work and I clearly recall seeing his mum at the Livingston shops one day. I even had his address and because I've got friends and family in the area, I felt I had a right to tell them, stuff the prisons!! I had even driven past his house in Lakeview Rise estate in Canning Vale! Anyway when this happened yesterday I said to Ron, it'd be interesting to see if it's that Dante Arthurs guy from the U.K. and sure enough today we find out that it is him. I am, along with a lot of others, absolutely furious that the mongrel arsehole was allowed to come here via the Govt in the first place and that he was allowed to appear to live a normal life!! Why haven't the police done something about this - he should not be allowed to breathe air, he is the scum of the earth. And tonight he would be sitting back in a comfortable cell in prison, having just had a reasonable hot dinner and be watching TV! That innocent little girl and her poor family will never ever be the same again - all because the piss weak Justice System and Govt allowed him to live in our country! There is a register for paedophiles so that the community are allowed to know where they're living and yet this piece of shit can live on our back door step with a new identity. People winge about illegal immigrants, what about this? It will be interesting to see what unfolds over the next few days, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's whisked out of the country in the same manner he was bought here, then again knowing our pathetic laws, we'll probably keep him here in our justice system, costing tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars to feed and entertain him PLUS the do-gooders will believe in their minds that they can rehabilitate him! I was just going to type "sorry " but I'm not at all sorry for alerting my friends to something that should be publicly known. Stay safe, talk soon. This message refers to the rape and murder of 8-year-old Sofia Rodrigez-Urrutia-Shu in a suburban shopping center restroom in Canning Vale, Australia, on 26 June 2006.  A 21-year-old man named Dante Wyndham Arthurs was arrested and charged in connection with that case, and the message reproduced above claims Arthurs was also one of Jamie Bulger's killers, renamed and relocated to Australia after having served out his sentence as a juvenile in England (even though both of the principals in the Bulger murder were then at least 23 years old).  The British High Commission and Australian police have denied any link between the Sofia Rodrigez-Urrutia-Shu and Jamie Bulger killings: murder denied The British High Commission has ruled out claims that a man charged over the rape and murder of a Perth schoolgirl was one of two notorious English child killers. Perth police also denied that Dante Wyndham Arthurs, 21, of the Perth suburb of Canning Vale, was one of the killers of British boy James Bulger.  Clive Hunton, of the British High Commission in Canberra, said there was "no connection between the man arrested in Western Australia and the individuals involved in the James Bulger case." Arthurs was remanded in custody after appearing in Perth Magistrates Court charged with wilful murder, sexual penetration of a child and deprivation of liberty. He was charged following the discovery of the body of Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu on the floor of a shopping centre toilet. The fact that Dante Arthurs was born in Australia (and was not an English immigrant using an assumed identity) has been confirmed by both his birth notice and the doctor who delivered him.  Also, his fingerprints do not match up with those of Jonathan (Jon) Venables or Robert (Bobbie) Thompson, the murderers of James Bulger. The e-mailed rumor quoted above was presented as if it were written by a prison officer.  According to the  West Australian, that message is being investigated by Australian authorities: The Department of Corrective Services has confirmed that an investigation was under way into an email claiming to be from a prison officer which was sent to thousands of people across Australia. 'The email appears to have come from outside the department,' a spokeswoman said. Nonetheless, rumors persisted that Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were relocated to Australia, and in May 2008 Australian MP Liz Cunningham raised the issue of investigating whether the pair had been accepted by Queensland authorities.   In March 2010, the BBC reported that Jon Venables (then age 27) was back in prison for after having breached the terms of his release. Image caption: Denise Fergus, the mother of murdered two-year-old James Bulger,  attends a press conference to launch an appeal to raise funds for bullied children on March 14, 2008 in Liverpool, England. The Red Balloon learner Centre bearing James Bulger's name will be a sanctuary for bullied children.  Adshead, Gary and Sean Cowan.  "Birth Doctor Scoffs at Arthurs Rumours."
  The West Australian.  30 June 2006. Burrell, Ian.  "Bulger Killers Are Granted Right to a Life of Anonymity."
  The [London] Independent.  9 January 2001  (p. 1). Dyer, Clare.  "Bulger Killers Close to Release."
  Manchester Guardian Weekly.  8 November 2000  (p. 7). Gartrell, Adam.  "Bulger Link to Killing Denied."
  The Advertiser.  29 June 2006. Giles, Darrell.  "Robert Thompson and Jon Venables Mystery."
  The [Queensland] Courier-Mail.  4 May 2008. Lowrie, Margaret.  "Two Boys Found Guilty in Bulger Murder Trial."
  CNN.  24 November 1993  (News; International; 12:24 pm ET). Rice, Robert.  "Home Secretary 'Acted Unfairly.'"
  [London] Financial Times.  31 July 1996  (UK News Digest; p. 7). Seamark, Michael.  "How Can the Law Give Secret New Lives to My Son's Killers?"
  [London] Daily Mail.  9 January 2001  (p. 1). Sereny, Gitta.  "Re-Examining the Evidence."
  The [London] Independent.  6 February 1994  (Sunday Review; p. 4). Sereny, Gitta.  "Approaching the Truth."
  The [London] Independent.  13 February 1994  (Sunday Review; p. 5). Tibbetts, Graham.  "Evil Child Killers Set for New Identities."
  The Mirror.  22 January 2001  (p. 5). Associated Press.  "Notorious U.K. Child Killer Jon Venables to Be Paroled Again."
  CBSNews.com.  5 July 2013. BBC News.  "James Bulger Murderer Jon Venables Returned to Prison."
  2 March 2010. news.com.au.  "'Sombre' School Mourns Murdered Girl."
  28 June 2006. Seventeen-year-old Alyssa Carson has garnered media attention for her determination to be part of a space mission to Mars. But although her desire has been recognized by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), she is not officially in training with that organization to become an astronaut or to take part the first human mission to Mars.  Carson first began generating media attention when she was 12, at which point she had already attended three different space shuttle launches and taken part in NASA space camps in three different countries. She was also the first person to complete the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex's "Passport to Explore Space" program, which requires visiting each of 14 NASA visitor centers across nine different states in the U.S. The Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex, though, is managed by a NASA contractor and is not funded by the agency itself. attention complete contractor Completing the "Passport to Explore Space" program also led to Carson's being a panelist at an event hosted by NASA and the Smithsonian, marking ten years of exploration by the Mars Exploration Rovers. As well, Carson has her own call sign," Blueberry." panelist Blueberry However, a NASA spokesperson confirmed to us that Carson is not currently training with or being "prepped" by that agency, as some reports have suggested. Also contrary to some reports, NASA's Astronaut Candidate Program has no age requirement for applications, although according to the agency "astronaut candidates selected in the past have ranged between the ages of 26 and 46, with the average age being 34."  prepped reports age requirement In December 2017, President Donald Trump signed White House Space Policy Directive 1, which his administration said would "lay the foundation" for a mission to Mars. Carson's father, Bert, told Teen Vogue magazine that private companies have "considered" sending her on missions into space  although not to Mars. signed told "If we can find a mission for her in the next two years, she will be the first kid in the world to go to space," he said. "If we can get it together before she's 20, she'll be the first teenager." One private group, Mars One, has already selected Carson to be one of their ambassadors. Carson  wrote on that group's website about her interest in visiting the Red Planet: wrote I would love to go to Mars because it is a planet that no one has been before. It's about the same size as the Earth and there are ice caps at the top and bottom of Mars. That means there is water on Mars. This could possibly be our next Earth. Just think about all the things that are in Space. For example: planets we have never explored, galaxies that we have never heard of, stars that are just babies, black holes that are as wide as the Sun to Pluto multiple times and has the mass of a billion suns, parts of the universe that we have never seen. Just think of all that stuff just floating around. It's more than you can imagine. Quinn, Katra.  "The Making of an Astronaut."
  Astronaut.com.  6 February 2014. Astronaut.com.  "First Person to Complete NASA's Passport Program Is Astronaut.Com's Friend Alyssa Carson."
  26 November 2013. NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.  "NASA, Smithsonian Host 10-Year Mars Rover Events."
  6 January 2014. NASA.gov. "New Space Policy Directive Calls for Human Expansion Across Solar System."
  11 December 2017. Krueger, Alyson. "17-Year-Old Alyssa Carson Wants to Be the First Person on Mars."
  Teen Vogue.  21 March 2018. In May 2021, news articles and widely-shared social media posts reported that an Ohio State Senator had been caught driving during an official Zoom video conference, and even used a fake "office" background. Ohio On May 6, Brody Logan, a reporter at the NBC affiliate KSEE in Fresno, California, posted a short video to Twitter, along with the following text: text "This Ohio State Senator thought he was slick, using a Zoom background of his home office while driving... debating a bill for harsher penalties for distracted driving..."      Similarly, Newsweek published an article with the headline "Ohio Senator Uses Zoom Office Background While Driving During Hearing on Distracted Driving Bill." The report went on: Newsweek An Ohio state Republican senator participated in a virtual Zoom meeting regarding distracted driving legislation while using an office background as he drove his vehicle this week. During the 13-minute meeting of the Ohio Controlling Board on Monday, State Senator Andrew Brenner could be seen fiddling with his phone, while also turning his camera on and off as he drove with the office background displayed. Andrew Brenner did drive during the Zoom call, and he did use a fake "office" background. However, the meeting had nothing to do with distracting driving, which was an important component of much of the commentary surrounding the incident, since it provided a significant element of irony. As a result, we're issuing a rating of "Mixture." The incident in question took place during the May 3, 2021 meeting of the Ohio Controlling Board, a body that provides legislative oversight of statewide spending, procurement and investment in Ohio.  body The video can be watched in full on the Ohio Channel website, here.  here When Brenner first appears, he is clearly sitting in a parked car, not wearing a seatbelt:   He disappears from view for a short while, then reappears, this time with his camera zoomed in on his face. Around the 3:30 mark, his background abruptly shifts from his car, to a fake "office":   Brenner then disappears from view again, and when he becomes visible again around one minute later, he can clearly be seen driving the car, with his seatbelt on, and the "office" backdrop still in place:   In an interview with the Columbus Dispatch, Brenner admitted he was driving during the meeting, but denied being distracted: Columbus Dispatch "I wasn't distracted. I was paying attention to the driving and listening to it (the meeting,)" Brenner said. "I had two meetings that were back to back that were in separate locations. And I've actually been on other calls, numerous calls, while driving. Phone calls for the most part but on video calls, I'm not paying attention to the video. To me, it's like a phone call." On the same day as the Ohio Controlling Board meeting took place, May 3, Republicans in the state house introduced House Bill 283, which would enhance and expand Ohio's existing prohibition against distracted driving and using electronic devices while driving. House Bill 283 However, after watching the full Ohio Controlling Board meeting from that day, as well as checking its agenda, it's clear that none of the participants even mentioned House Bill 283, specifically, or distracted driving more broadly. That particular claim, as made by Newsweek and Logan, was inaccurate.  agenda In July 2019, an $80 coupon began making the rounds on Facebook for the ALDI grocery store chain. These shared posts were the latest iteration of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media and have also preyed on shoppers of chains such as Kroger and Target: Kroger Target  A different scam coupon offer also circulated with the ALDI logo in December 2015, advertising a "get 40% off all purchases in store" promise. Another displayed what appeared to be a free coupon for "$60 off a minimum $70 purchase", and even one for $75 off:  "Aldi has a coupon for $60 off a minimum $70 purchase. Aldi has verified this is a scam, but people are sharing it all over facebook." These coupons are not legitimate, as ALDI themselves noted on their Facebook page:  These coupon offers are a form of survey scams that direct victims to either a survey on an website not owned by ALDI, or what looks like a Facebook page for ALDI. The survey pages nor the Facebook page have any affiliation with the company, despite being adorned with the ALDI logo. Both instruct people to share the bogus ALDI coupon offer on their Facebook timelines and submit comments about it:  This page instructs shoppers to follow these "two simple steps" in order to get their coupons. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with information explaining how to claim their coupons. Instead, they're asked to take a brief survey that entails providing personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth, and are required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in number of subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards:  A version of the scam also surfaced in May 2016, and another later in 2018. ALDI responded to frustrated consumers on Facebook:  In June 2017, a version of the scam touting discounts in honor of ALDI's purported anniversary also appeared on Facebook: "HEY FRIENDS CHECK THIS OUT!!!!!Aldi is giving Free $75 Coupon to Everyone to celebrate 103rd Anniversary!Each Person (1)- Go & get yours!ALDI-COM.COM" However, attempting to visit the linked domain (ALDI-COM.com) led to a "deceptive site ahead" warning and not to ALDI's official web site:  If you frequently use Facebook, there is a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau lists key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts: article "Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions." All in all, trying to claim that "free" deep discount ALDI coupon is likely going to end up costing you a lot more than you'll save. Patterson, Emily.  "Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card." 
  Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014. 10 July 2019: This story has been updated with a scam offer appearing on Facebook that promises $80 off at ALDI.