Obama Accomplishments
Viral recitations of politicians' achievements and failures have become standard election-year fare on social media, and, like the campaign talking points on which they appear to be based, are long on declarative statements and short on nuance.  One of many such lists devoted to President Barack Obama touts his economic accomplishments in office. While the statements it contains are basically true, it behooves the reader to bear in mind that 1.) it's a short list, and 2.) most of the items benefit, accuracy-wise, from a little added context. "Biggest job growth in manufacturing since the '90s" It's accurate, as far as it goes, to say that Obama presided over the largest spurt of manufacturing job growth since the 1990s, but how remarkable is that, really? As illustrated in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics graph below, the six-year period from 2010 to 2016 saw the largest sustained increase in manufacturing jobs since 1998 (more than 800,000 added), but what it also shows is how deep a trough manufacturing labor had fallen into over the previous decade, and how depressed it remains to this day, despite a modicum of improvement.  "Auto industry breaking sales records"  Nothing to quibble with here. According to statistics compiled by Autodata, U.S. car sales have increased steadily every year since 2009, and in 2015 set an all-time record of 17.47 million vehicles sold. statistics "Clean energy production doubled" Partly true. Certain kinds of "clean energy" production have doubled during Obama's tenure in office, but others haven't -- hydroelectric power, for example, which is our largest single source of renewable energy. U.S. Energy Information Agency statistics show that the production of hydroelectricity has actually decreased somewhat since 2010, though we do, in fact, produce twice as much clean energy from other sources such as solar, wind and biomass today (300 million megawatthours) as we did in 2009 (150 million megawatthours). statistics "Unemployment cut in half" True. Between 2010 and 2016 the unemployment rate dropped from about 10 percent to about 5 percent, as illustrated in this Bureau of Labor graph:   Which is indeed a 50 percent drop, although, once again, our starting point for comparison is the peak of the Great Recession, when the unemployment rate was at a 20-year high. Perhaps the more impressive statistic is that at 5 percent, the current unemployment rate is below the historical median since 1948 of of 5.5 percent. "Deficit cut by three-quarters" True, provided that the starting point for comparison is fiscal year 2009, when Obama's stimulus program pushed the deficit to $1.4 trillion. Given that the 2015 deficit was $439 billion, a drop of about three-quarters from what it was in 2009, the claim holds water. If, however, one compares 2015 to 2008, when the deficit was about $459 billion, the reduction is relatively inconsequential. "Stock market tripled" True, and then some. As of August 2015, the S&P 500 was up 220 percent over 2009, Nasdaq was up 313 percent and the Dow was up 185 percent from its 2009 low. up 220 percent "And he did it all with Republicans obstructing" What's in question here is not so much whether the Republicans did or did not obstruct  whether you call it "obstructing" or "opposing Obama's liberal agenda," they've done so throughout his administration  but to what extent Obama "did it all." It's standard political practice for the incumbent to claim credit for economic good news (and blame opponents for the bad), but how much credit does Obama actually deserve for this list of "accomplishments"? On balance, the answer is probably some, but not all. "After all," writes Ben Smith in Politico.com, "the $18 trillion U.S. economy is a massive beast that rises and falls on tectonic forces well beyond the reach of short-term Washington policy changes." writes Some of the early moves by the Obama administration clearly helped get us to where we are right now, especially the government being the spender of last resort after the crisis, said Beth Ann Bovino, chief U.S. economist at Standard & Poors. But the Federal Reserve also played a very big role. And this is also the natural shape of a slow recovery from a deep financial crisis and recession that is finally getting some traction.  Burden, Melissa and Wayland, Michael.  "Auto Industry Sets All-Time Sales Record in 2015."
 The Detroit News.  5 January 2016. Long, Heather. "Alarmed by Stocks? 5 Charts Break it Down."
 CNNMoney.  25 August 2015. Smith, Ben. "An Obama Boom?"
  Politico.com.  9 January 2015. "Energy in Brief."
 U.S. Energy Information Administration. 5 May 2016.
When U.S. House SpeakerPaul Ryanmet with Milwaukee Journal Sentinel staff on Sept. 1, 2017, an editor mentionedmajor tax cutsadopted under Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1981. At first, Ryan joked around. The music was bad in those days, and the tax laws were as well, he replied, chuckling. So, I think -- Im not a big 80s music guy; Im more of a 70s guy. But the 47-year-old Janesville Republican quickly got serious. Arguing that U.S. taxes are stopping U.S.-based multinational corporations from bringing giant sums of money to America,he stated: We've got about $3 trillion in trapped cash overseas that basically can't come back in this country because of our tax laws. Ryan has made essentially the same claim a number of times, including onMilwaukee television,on CNBC,on Twitterand to theNew York Times. So, do U.S. tax laws essentially prevent $3 trillion being held overseas from being brought to this country? Keep the wordrepatriatein mind. Taxing foreign earnings The object of Ryans criticism is the U.S. corporate tax rate. At 35 percent, as we reported in aDonald Trumpfact check during the 2016 presidential campaign, it isamong the highestin the world -- though its worth noting that, after deductions, companies typically pay an effective rate that can be much lower. (Trump, by the way, pledged during the presidential campaign to reduce the rate to 15 percent. That promise has been rated asIn the Workson PolitiFact NationalsTrump-O-Meter.) As for the focus of Ryans claim, hes talking about U.S.-based multinational corporations. More specifically, the foreign-earned profits of those companies.Heres an exampleof how the taxation works: If the company earns income in a country with a 20 percent corporate tax rate, it would pay that 20 percent tax immediately to that country. If that money is then repatriated -- that is, brought back to the companys U.S. headquarters -- the company would pay an additional 15 percent to the U.S. government. (In other words, the U.S. tax rate of 35 percent minus the 20 percent already paid to the foreign country.) So, as long as the profits stay parked overseas, there is no U.S. tax on it. Now to the specifics of Ryans claim. The $3 trillion figure To back up Ryans statement, his office cited an April 2017CNBC news articlethat said American companies are holding about $2.6 trillion in overseas earnings, and the figure has been growing. Thats thelatest estimateby Congress nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, for 2015, although an estimate done in July 2017 for PolitiFact National put the figureat $2.8 trillion. So, Ryans claim of about $3 trillion is reasonable. Its worth noting that the figure has been rising. In fact, considering only the Russell 1000 index of large companies, the amount of parked cash overseas has more than doubled since 2008, as shown in a July 2017 report by the Massachusetts research firm Audit Analytics: Year Amount of foreign-earned profits by U.S.-based companies kept overseas 2008 $1.09 trillion 2009 $1.19 trillion 2010 $1.36 trillion 2011 $1.63 trillion 2012 $1.89 trillion 2013 $2.12 trillion 2014 $2.3 trillion 2015 $2.43 trillion 2016 $2.62 trillion Trapped and basically cant come back Ryan asserts that the money is trapped overseas and basically cant come back because of U.S. tax laws To be sure, a substantial amount of foreign profitsare repatriated each year. But Ryan didnt invent the term trapped cash. In fact, academicsfor yearshavereferred to itas a commonly used term to describe the growing amount of cash held by U.S. multinationals overseas to avoid, or at least defer, paying the 35 percent U.S. tax rate. Ryans claim is also backed bySeptember 2017 paperpublished by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan organization in Massachusetts. The paper found a dramatic increase in U.S. corporations holding onto cash; that the cash is concentrated in foreign subsidiaries of multinational corporations; and that it is explained by low foreign tax rates. News articlesalso havereported on the phenomenon. In August 2016,Apple CEO Tim Cook saidof his companys profits parked offshore: Were not going to bring it back until theres a fair rate. Theres no debate about it. Apple is second to Microsoft in the amount of cash parked overseas, according to Audit Analytics. And as the San Jose Mercury Newsreported in May 2017, the tax is such a deterrent that even though Apple was sitting on $240 billion in overseas cash, it has continued to borrow money. The reason: The borrowing cost Apple 4 percent or less, far below the 35 percent tax that would be paid for repatriating the overseas cash. One more point before we close: The companies would like to repatriate the money because bringing it back to the parent company enables them to do things such as paying dividends, doing stock buybacks and investing in U.S. operations. Several academic experts told us that some of the overseas money, while not repatriated directly back to the companies U.S. headquarters, is invested in U.S. securities. That doesnt trigger the 35 percent tax. Our rating Ryan says: We've got about $3 trillion in trapped cash overseas that basically can't come back in this country because of our tax laws. To avoid a 35 percent U.S. tax, U.S.-based multinational companies have opted not to repatriate roughly $3 trillion of their foreign profits, a figure that is growing. That is, they dont bring the money back to their U.S. headquarters, where it can be used for things such as dividend payments or investments in their domestic operations. But the overseas profits arent literally trapped and indeed some foreign-earned profits are repatriated, though they are subject to the 35 percent tax. Ryans statement is accurate but needs additional information, our definition of Mostly True. Income inequality is the core issue of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, and he said it may also be why hes behind Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. Meet the Presshost Chuck Todd asked Sanders why he thought 16 of 17 states with large wealth gaps were won by Clinton. Well, because poor people dont vote. I mean, thats just a fact,Sanders said. Thats a sad reality of American society. And thats why we have to transform one, as you know, one of thelowest voter turnouts of any major society of Earth. We have done a good job of bringing young people. But in America today, the last election in 2014, 80 percent of poor people did not vote. Is turnout among the poor really that low? The data shows that weve done slightly better at getting out the vote among low-income people than what Sanders suggests, but not by much. Sanders policy director Warren Gunnels pointed us to areportby the left-leaning policy and advocacy group Demos, which useddatafrom the Census Bureau. According to Demos, only one in four of those earning less than $10,000 voted in 2014, Gunnels said. Even worse, the turnout was just 12 percent among 18- to 24-year-olds earning less than $30,000. In other words, roughly 75 percent of people in the lowest income bracket didnt vote in the last midterm elections. However, theres one catch to this figure. While an annual income of less than $10,000 is undoubtedly poor, thepoverty threshold in 2014also includes family incomes above $10,000. Sean McElwee, a policy analyst with Demos who authored the report, told us to look at annual incomes under $30,000 instead. The turnout rate for that group was31.5 percent, which means 68.5 percent of poor people didnt vote in 2014, about 10 percentage points less than what Sanders said. Sanders is indeed correct to highlight low turnout among the poor as an important factor that biases policy in favor of the wealthy, McElwee said. As PolitiFact hasreported, census data may overstate the turnout rates, as its based on self-reporting. So its possible that Sanders 80 percent figure is closer to actual rates than what the survey shows, but this is speculative. Sanders is more on target if we look at a definition of poor that is not based on income. A 2015 Pew Centersurveylooked at the politics of financial security, which analysts defined as having a credit card, a savings or checking account, and a retirement or investment plan; not needing to borrow money; not falling behind on bills, rent or mortgage payments; and not receiving food assistance or Medicaid benefits. The survey found that just 20 percent of the least financially secure were likely voters in 2014 compared to 69 percent of the most financially secure. Turnout always drops in midterm elections, when the White House isnt at stake, and overall turnout in 2014 was the worst it had been in72 years. Nonetheless, census data shows turnout is consistently lower among the poor than other income groups:  So why are the poor less likely to vote? The reasons are interconnected, if not unsurprising. For one, the political process sets hurdles for the poor. Registration barriers are key, said McElwee of Demos, pointing to census data that shows that low-income people are far less likely to be registered voters. Voter ID laws, for example, impose costs that people struggling to make ends meet cant really afford. The Government Accountability Officereportedin 2014 that a drivers license can cost between $5 to $58.50 in states with voter ID laws. And nearly 500,000 eligible voters dont have convenient access to an ID-issuing office, according to a2012 studyby New York University. The poor also make up 55 percent of people who cant vote (which include felons and immigrants as well as residents of Washington D.C., and U.S. territories), according to a 2013 Harvard Universityworking paper. This means that they can't vote but also they won't be mobilized by parties, who base their mobilization off of voter files, McElwee said. Being poor also means you cannot afford to devote time to the political process. The Pew study found that just 26 percent of the least financially secure knew which party controlled Congress compared to 62 percent of the most affluent. Similarly, compared to affluent non-voters, low-income non-voters were more likely to list disinterest, forgetting to vote, health and issues of access as reasons why they didnt vote, according tocensus data. They often have inflexible jobs, have limited transportation options to get to the polls, and/or insufficient knowledge about democracy and the choices they face, said Zoltan Hajnal, a political science professor at the University of California, San Diego. The poor also often lack efficacy and dont feel like their votes count as much. Our ruling Sanders said, In 2014, 80 percent of poor people did not vote. The figure is a bit high if we look at turnout by income. In 2014, about 75 percent of people who made under $10,000 and about 69 percent of those who made under $30,000 didnt vote. If we look at financial insecurity, however, Sanders is right on the money. We rate his claim Mostly True. In 2020, the Pinterest post displayed below alleged Ruby Tuesday was going out of business before the end of the year. The post linked to a 50-page article on the website Money Pop with the headline, "These Restaurant Chains Are Turning Off Their Burners And Closing Up Shop." 50-page article   The social media post and article headline were misleading. The COVID-19 pandemic had indeed forced Ruby Tuesday to file for bankruptcy protection and close 185 branches nationwide as of fall 2020, according to court records obtained by Snopes and news reports. file 185 branches court records news reports This announcement does not mean Goodbye, Ruby Tuesday," CEO Shawn Lederman said in an Oct. 7 statement at the time. an Oct. 7 statement Another statement from the business at the time of the bankruptcy filing said it was "pursuing a comprehensive financial and operational restructuring" to reduce debt and that it intended to overcome bankruptcy status "as quickly as possible." statement Despite the site closures, more than 230 company-owned locations remained open in addition to an undisclosed amount of branches run by 10 franchise groups, according to USA Today. No evidence showed a significant change in those numbers between the date of Ruby Tuesday's filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and the publication of this report. USA Today In addition to Ruby Tuesday, the Money Pop listicle erroneously made it seem as if Taco Bell was closing in 2020 (see our fact check here), along with numerous other food businesses that were still serving customers as of this report. see our fact check here other food businesses We should note here that, although the headline on the Money Pop was false, the text on the article appeared rooted in truth, reading: Like Friendlys, Ruby Tuesday is an East Coast chain, but this restaurant has some branches on the Pacific Coast, too. The restaurant was founded in 1972 in Knoxville, Tennessee, and has seen some major dips in revenue over the past few years. Which, unfortunately, has resulted in many of the restaurants closing. At last count, the chain has around 491 stores around the world. But according to Restaurant Business, that number is due to nearly 50% of the stores closing over the past ten years. They said it was because customers were enjoying the convenience of take-out instead of actually sitting down in a restaurant. In sum, while the pandemic had negatively impacted Ruby Tuesday, and it was true that the chain had closed numerous sites in 2020, the Money Pop headline was inaccurate to claim all locations were "turning off their burners and closing up shop" or that the restaurant chain was going out of business. Claim:  Macy's removed SodaStream products from its stores because the products are made in disputed territory in Israel. PROBABLY  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Bowing to pressure from leftwing pro-Palestinian activists, Macy's has decided to scrub Israeli-made SodaStream products from their shelves  Origins:  In October 2014, a rumor began to circulate that retailer Macy's had "caved" to activist pressure and removed SodaStream products from its retail outlets and online storefront. Claims stated the removal of Sodastream products from Macy's stores came under pressure from activist groups who objected to the manufacture of the products in disputed territory in Israel. The rumor's first major appearance came on 7 October 2014 in a larger Wall Street Journal article about SodaStream's declining revenue. In the article, an analyst stated Macy's had stopped carrying SodaStream but did not cite a specific reason for the retailer's decision:  SodaStream released only its revenue expectations of $125 million and its projected operating income of $8.5 million. Those numbers shocked even the more bearish investors and analysts. Jim Charnier, an analyst at Monness Crespi Hardt, said he had been expecting a poor quarter because he learned early in September that Macy's Inc. had stopped carrying SodaStream and saw other negative figures from the market. Yet he said that the company's estimated revenue of $125 million and operating income of $8.5 million are still far below his expectations, as it shows that revenue in the U.S. could have dropped by more than 50%. Macy's did not immediately return requests for comment. While the quote in context seems to imply poor sales influenced Macy's decision to sever its relationship with SodaStream, it was not backed by any comment from Macy's or SodaStream about why products made by the latter company were being discontinued by the retailer. SodaStream's CEO commented on tepid earnings reports and suggested in May 2014 a weak holiday sales season and excess inventory (not political sentiment) had adversely impacted the brand's revenues: CEO Daniel Birnbaum blamed the 28% drop in U.S. sales on a weak holiday season, creating excess retailer inventory. SodaStream's guidance for the year wasn't as bad as the company sees revenue growth of 15% for the year, but just a 3% improvement in net income. Both projections were better than analyst estimates but are reflective of SodaStream's growing pains. As of 24 October 2014, Macy's website still displays an active product page for SodaStream, but none of the categories are populated with products available for sale. However, skincare company Ahava has also been the target of boycotts and calls for action for similar reasons, and Macy's has not discontinued sale of that brand. SodaStream Ahava If Macy's dropped SodaStream to placate pro-Palestinian interests in a public relations move, it's highly unlikely the retailer would choose not to confirm its action. It is far more likely the overall weak market for home soda-making equipment influenced Macy's decision to temporarily or permanently discontinue sales of SodaStream products. Neither company has yet officially commented on the status of Macy's business relationship with SodaStream.  Last updated:  24 October 2014    Farrell, Maureen.  "SodaStream Losing a Lot of Its Pop."   The Wall Street Journal.  7 October 2014. In December 2023, one of the most common examples of the Mandela Effect saw renewed online attention thanks in part to a TikTok video on the topic: that the Fruit of the Loom company logo once contained a cornucopia. The Mandela Effect is generally defined as a "collective misremembering" in which large numbers of people share the same false belief.  video generally defined @dimelifting #mandelaeffect #storytime #fypppp #greenscreen  original sound - Nicole  The TikTok video in question concludes that there has been a massive coverup at the corporate level. The video's creator decries the effect the alleged obfuscation has had on the general public. The cornucopia removal and coverup is "one of the greatest marketing ploys in history," she argued, "but at what cost?" Fervent belief in a Fruit of the Loom cornucopia is not uncommon. A post on Quora captures this viewpoint: post I have a strong opinion about the Fruit of the Loom logo and whether it had a cornucopia or not. I remember seeing a cornucopia in the logo when I was a kid, and I learned what it was from my school. A cornucopia is a horn-shaped basket that is filled with fruits and vegetables, and it symbolizes abundance and prosperity. I think the cornucopia made sense for the Fruit of the Loom brand because it showed that they had a variety of quality products. An image of the purported logo is often shared in defense of this claim: purported logo  However, that is a fabrication, not the actual Fruit of the Loom logo. The perception of a cornucopia goes back decades. For example, a 1994 piece in a local Florida paper about the actor, Samuel Wright, who played Sebastian the Crab in "The Little Mermaid" and who also appeared in Fruit of the Loom commercials, repeated the assertion that the logo contained a cornucopia in print: 1994 piece For 19 years, Wright made anywhere from 120-140 television commercials for Fruit of the Loom underwear. And he didn't even wear Fruit of the Looms. He wore skimpy bikini briefs. "My wife is European," he says from a hotel room in Tampa. "She said (cotton underwear) made me look like an old man." Anyhow, Fruit of the Loom's logo was initially a cornucopia swollen with an apple, green grapes, purple grapes, and their green leaves. Wright was the purple grape cluster. And he had to pretend Fruit of the Looms never found them that were great. While the existence of these commercials is factual, one cannot help but note that nobody played a cornucopia in the actual commercial series referenced in this article: these commercials  The company has, as well, officially weighed in on the claim. On June 26, 2023, the company tweeted an image from a USA Today crossword puzzle that included the clue "Fruit of the ____ (company that does not, in fact, have a cornucopia in its logo)." It noted that the "Mandela Effect is real," but that the cornucopia claims were false: tweeted The Mandela Effect is real, the cornucopia in our logo is not ? pic.twitter.com/qoiuvemsIy pic.twitter.com/qoiuvemsIy  Fruit of the Loom (@FruitOfTheLoom) June 26, 2023 June 26, 2023  The Fruit of the Loom logo has always contained an apple, green grapes, purple grapes, and leaves. Snopes searched archived newspaper advertisements from every decade from the 1910s to the 2020s and could not locate a single one with a cornucopia: Snopes searched newspaper advertisements every decade from the 1910s to the 2020s   (Snopes.com) In rebuttal to these facts, at least two major lines of purported evidence have been proffered. In broad terms, these arguments boil down to the claim that there are photographs that show Fruit of the Loom shirts with a logo that includes a cornucopia, and that legal filings related to its trademark describe that company's logo as including a cornucopia. The December TikTok video focused on the former claim. The legal argument is popular on Reddit.  video on Reddit While Snopes has no definitive explanation for the purported photographic evidence, we find its use as proof for an official cornucopia logo weak. Of the hundreds of emails received by Snopes, only two discrete images showing shirts with a cornucopia logo have been produced. Both images are allegedly taken from shirts found in thrift stores.  Most examples sent to Snopes appear to have their origins in a June 2023 post (above) that went viral in the r/funny subreddit, among other places. The only other example (below) stems from the aforementioned TikTok video: June 2023 post TikTok video  The provenance of these photos is unknown, and as a result their utility as evidence is limited. Two shirts on their own do not disprove the mountain of evidence attesting to the lack of cornucopia in the company's official logo. The legal argument presented to Snopes, also proffered on Reddit, is that, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Fruit of the Loom itself described its trademark as containing a cornucopia. on Reddit This misconception stems from the fact that at least one trademark registration document apparently filed by Fruit of the Loom used what is known as design search code 05.09.14 to describe the trademark  indicating an image with "Baskets of fruit; Containers of fruit; [or] Cornucopia (horn of plenty)." Reddit posts posit that this document has some legal bearing in the world of intellectual property law. registration document First, this is not the case. The primary goal of these search codes, according to the USPTO, is to identify the most "significant" visual design elements as an aid for prospective applications to search for similar trademarks. While Snopes has no insight into the legal decisions made by Fruit of the Loom in the 1970s, the 05.09.14 example contained in the USPTO database classification manual does share some visual similarity with the Fruit of the Loom logo at issue: significant  Second, and more to the point, this document is irrelevant. Filed in 1973, the corporate contact was listed as an office in Manhattan. The application itself was rejected by the USPTO. Whatever this document is, it does not represent the active Fruit of the Loom trademark application. The USPTO challenged the cornucopia-containing application in 1980, apparently rejecting it on clerical grounds. The application was officially canceled in 1988.  an office apparently rejecting canceled The active trademark registration, filed in 1981, lists Fruit of the Loom's Kentucky office as its contact and, crucially, does not use database search code 05.09.14. Instead, codes for several other non-cornucopia visual elements are included: active trademark Kentucky office 05.03.08 - More than one leaf, including scattered leaves, bunches of leaves not attached to branches 05.03.25 - Leaf, single; Other leaves 05.09.02 - Grapes 05.09.05 - Apples 05.09.06 - Avocados; Fruits with pits (apricots, peaches, plums, olives and the like) 26.03.02 - Ovals, plain single line; Plain single line ovals Because the document cited in support of the legal argument that Fruit of the Loom's logo once contained a cornucopia is a failed application that was replaced, or superseded, by an application that contained no descriptors of a cornucopia or cornucopia-related images, it also fails as evidence in support of a cornu-cover-up. Because no verified image of a Fruit of the Loom containing a cornucopia exists in print, and because the company has officially stated that its logo has never contained a cornucopia, we rate the claim as  1987 Fruit of the Loom "The Unbustables" TV Commercial. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5fH3ebtFtI. Accessed 5 July 2023. "Did One of the Old Fruit of the Loom Logos Include a Cornucopia?" Quora, https://www.quora.com/Did-one-of-the-old-Fruit-of-the-Loom-logos-include-a-cornucopia. Accessed 5 July 2023. "Fruit of the Loom Detergent Logo 1979." Newspapers.Com, 25 Apr. 1979, https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-kokomo-tribune-fruit-of-the-loom-det/127691447/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo, 1926." Newspapers.Com, 3 Aug. 1926, https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-bridgeport-telegram-fruit-of-the-loo/127688561/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo 1940." Newspapers.Com, 25 Apr. 1940, https://www.newspapers.com/article/intelligencer-journal-fruit-of-the-loom/127688834/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo 1951." Newspapers.Com, 23 Apr. 1951, https://www.newspapers.com/article/lancaster-new-era-fruit-of-the-loom-logo/127689672/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo 1966." Newspapers.Com, 5 June 1966, https://www.newspapers.com/article/chicago-tribune-fruit-of-the-loom-logo-1/127690881/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo 1987." Newspapers.Com, 2 Aug. 1987, https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-marion-star-fruit-of-the-loom-logo-1/127691698/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo, 1996." Newspapers.Com, 15 Sept. 1996, https://www.newspapers.com/article/springfield-news-sun-fruit-of-the-loom-l/127692161/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo 2008." Newspapers.Com, 10 Aug. 2008, https://www.newspapers.com/article/green-bay-press-gazette-fruit-of-the-loo/127692306/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo 2011." Newspapers.Com, 16 Jan. 2011, https://www.newspapers.com/article/palladium-item-fruit-of-the-loom-logo-20/127692582/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo 2020." Newspapers.Com, 10 Mar. 2020, https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-park-city-daily-news-fruit-of-the-lo/127692838/. "Fruit of the Loom Logo in 1917." Newspapers.Com, 26 Aug. 1917, https://www.newspapers.com/article/detroit-free-press-fruit-of-the-loom-log/127688395/. "Underwear Character Is Still A-Peeling." Newspapers.Com, 14 Oct. 1994, https://www.newspapers.com/article/florida-today-underwear-character-is-sti/127697411/. 15 U.S. Code  1052 - Trademarks Registrable on Principal Register; Concurrent Registration. LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1052. Accessed 3 Jan. 2024. 15 U.S. Code  1068 - Action of Director in Interference, Opposition, and Proceedings for Concurrent Use Registration or for Cancellation. LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1068. Accessed 3 Jan. 2024. Design Search Codes. https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/search/design-search-codes. Accessed 3 Jan. 2024. FAQs. Fruit of the Loom, Inc., https://www.fotlinc.com/our-company/faqs/. Accessed 3 Jan. 2024. Trademark Status & Document Retrieval. https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=73006089&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch. Accessed 3 Jan. 2024. ---. https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=73317339&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch. Accessed 3 Jan. 2024. USPTO. FRUIT OF THE LOOM - Fruit Of The Loom, Inc. Trademark Registration. USPTO.Report, https://uspto.report/TM/73006089. Accessed 3 Jan. 2024. Claim:  "Little History Lesson" article accurately explains origins of many common phrases.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2000] In George Washington's days, there were no cameras. One's image was either sculpted or painted. Some paintings of Washington showed him standing behind a desk with one arm behind his back while others showed both legs and both arms. Prices charged by painters were not based on how many people were to be painted, but by how many limbs were to be painted. Arms and legs are "limbs" therefore painting them would cost the buyer more. Hence the expression, "Okay, but it'll cost you an arm and a leg". As incredible as it sounds, we are informed that men and women took baths only twice a year! (May & October) Women always kept their hair covered while men shaved their heads (because of lice and bugs) and wore wigs.  Wealthy men could afford good wigs. The wigs couldn't be washed so to clean them, they would carve out a loaf of bread, put the wig in the shell and bake it for 30 minutes. The heat would make the wig big and fluffy, hence the term "big wig." Today we often use the term "here comes Mr. Big Wig" because someone appears to be or "is" powerful and wealthy. In the late 1700's many houses consisted of a large room with only one chair. Commonly, a long wide board was folded down from the wall and used for dining.  The "head of the household" always sat in the chair while everyone else ate sitting on the floor. Once in a while an invited guest would be offered to sit in this chair during a meal whom was almost always a man.  To sit in the chair meant you were important and in charge. Sitting in the chair, one was called the "chair man of the board." Today in business we use the expression/title "Chairman of the Board." Needless to say, personal hygiene left much room for improvement.  As a result, many women and men had developed acne scars by adulthood. The women would spread bee's wax over their facial skin to smooth out their complexions. When they were speaking to each other, if a woman began to stare at another woman's face she was told "mind your own bee's wax."   Should thewoman smile, the wax would crack, hence the term "crack a smile?"  Also, when they sat too close to the fire, the wax would melt and therefore the expression "losing face." Ladies wore corsets which would lace up in the front. A tightly tied lace was worn by a proper and dignified lady as in "straight laced." Common entertainment included playing cards. However, there was a tax levied when purchasing playing cards but only applicable to the "ace of spades." To avoid paying the tax, people would purchase 51 card instead. Yet, since most games require 52 cards, these people were thought to be stupid or dumb because they weren't "playing with a full deck." Early politicians required feedback from the public to determine what was considered important to the people. Since there were no telephones, TV's or radios, the politicians sent their assistants to local taverns, pubs and bars who were told to "go sip some ale" and listen to people's conversations and political concerns. Many assistants were dispatched at different times... "you go sip here" and "you go sip there". The two words "go sip" were eventually combined when referring to the local opinion and thus, we have the term "gossip." At local taverns, pubs and bars, people drank from pint and quart sized containers. A bar maid's job was to keep an eye on the customers and keep the drinks coming. She had to pay close attention and remember who was drinking in "pints" and who was drinking in "quarts." Hence the term "minding your "P's" and "Q's." Origins:  In 1999, a spurious missive purporting to explain the origins of a number of common phrases appeared on the Internet. That laughable compilation, titled "Life in the 1500s," was pulled together as someone's idea of a joke. 1500s In 2000, the pranksters went at it again with yet another specious list of purported word and phrase origins, this time dating it to the1700s. Typically titled "Little History Lesson," it offered the set of false etymologies listed in the Example section above. Below we analyze each entry in order: In George Washington's days, there were no cameras. One's image was either sculpted or painted. Some paintings of Washington showed him standing behind a desk with one arm behind his back while others showed both legs and both arms. Prices charged by painters were not based on how many people were to be painted, but by how many limbs were to be painted. Arms and legs are "limbs" therefore painting them would cost the buyer more. Hence the expression, "Okay, but it'll cost you an arm and a leg". While some portrait artists might have charged extra for the inclusion of additional details in commissioned works, we know of none that charged per limb displayed. (Most varied their fee by the size of the canvas requested.) The "costs an arm and a leg" saying instead first surfaced around the 1940s, with a meaning of "An exorbitant amount of money," and it likely developed from much older phrases wherein arms and legs were used as examples of extremely valuable items their possessors might be persuaded to surrender in exchange for things desired even more. "If it takes a leg" (used to express desperate determination) dates to 1872. Similarly, print sightings for "I'd give my right arm" (to be able to do something especially desired) go back as far as 1616. As incredible as it sounds, we are informed that men and women took baths only twice a year! (May & October) Women always kept their hair covered while men shaved their heads (because of lice and bugs) and wore wigs.  Wealthy men could afford good wigs. The wigs couldn't be washed so to clean them, they would carve out a loaf of bread, put the wig in the shell and bake it for 30 minutes. The heat would make the wig big and fluffy, hence the term "big wig." Today we often use the term "here comes Mr. Big Wig" because someone appears to be or "is" powerful and wealthy. Full immersion bathing didn't become the norm for a very long time because it took a fair bit of work to haul the amount of water and wood needed to fill and heat a bath. However, that folks weren't routinely taking what we would consider proper baths doesn't mean that they didn't regularly clean themselves. Cleaning one's body was a matter of taking what we would regard as "sponge baths": wetting oneself down with a damp cloth, followed by scrubbing the body with a soapy cloth,  rinsing with a wet cloth, and finishing off with a toweling dry. Even in the 1700s in locales and social strata where the wearing of wigs was common, these headcoverings were indeed washed (albeit carefully); they were not inserted into loaves of bread and baked. (One has to wonder about an explanation that posits folks who were afraid they'd damage expensive goods by washing them would happily risk incinerating them.) Print sightings of "big wig" and "big wigged" date to 1781 and 1778 respectively, with the term's always having referred to someone regarded as societally prominent by virtue of wealth, position, or power. While the term does find its origin in the rather impressive wigs sported by the upper crust, said wigs were deliberately constructed to be large and imposing; they didn't get that way from having been baked in bread to kill lice. In the late 1700's many houses consisted of a large room with only one chair. Commonly, a long wide board was folded down from the wall and used for dining. The "head of the household" always sat in the chair while everyone else ate sitting on the floor. Once in a while an invited guest would be offered to sit in this chair during a meal whom was almost always a man.  To sit in the chair meant you were important and in charge. Sitting in the chair, one was called the "chair man of the board." Today in business we use the expression/title "Chairman of the Board." People have been eating off tables of various forms for about as long as humans have been recording history. We're wholly unaware of any society wherein a board hinged to the wall was let down at dinnertime so that folks seated on the floor in front of it could eat from it. The "board" in "chairman of the board" refers to a board of directors, generally a group of successful businessmen appointed to oversee the running of a corporation. The word "chairman" dates to 1654 and refers to the occupier of a chair of authority. Needless to say, personal hygiene left much room for improvement.  As a result, many women and men had developed acne scars by adulthood. The women would spread bee's wax over their facial skin to smooth out their complexions. When they were speaking to each other, if a woman began to stare at another woman's face she was told "mind your own bee's wax."  Should thewoman smile, the wax would crack, hence the term "crack a smile?"  Also, when they sat too close to the fire, the wax would melt and therefore the expression "losing face." While throughout history women have used odd (and sometimes dangerous) substances on themselves in pursuit of beauty, we're unaware that at any point they were coating their visages with wax.  "Mind your own beeswax," a phrase first noted in 1934, is no more than a cutesy way of saying "Mind your own business," with "beeswax" used as an ear-pleasing substitute for the more staid "business." The saying it's based upon, "To mind one's business," dates to 1660 and means to tend to one's own concerns in preference of involving oneself in the doings of others. One "cracks a smile" in the same way that one cracks a joke or a boast; there is no physical crevice made in anything, let alone the fictional wax masks women were supposedly parading about in. Sightings of "crack" used in the sense of uttering something loudly and with flair date to 1315, with "crack a boast" to 1386. The linguistic concept of "losing face" (or saving it) didn't enter the English language prior to contact between British traders and the Chinese and was first noted in 1834. The "face" the Chinese were so concerned about wasn't an anatomical one but rather the publicized image of oneself, in the sense of the "face" one displays to the world at large. Two Chinese words, one meaning "moral character," the other "social prestige," were each translated into English as "face," with "to lose face" meaning to have damage done to one's reputation or to be publicly embarrassed.  Ladies wore corsets which would lace up in the front. A tightly tied lace was worn by a proper and dignified lady as in "straight laced." "Strait-laced" does derive from the tying of corsets, but the proposed etymology given in the article has it backwards: The term's origin has to do with the tightness of the lacing and the consequent constriction of such garments, as opposed to the moral character of the persons wearing these underpinnings. (One needs to remember that a multitude of men and women, from the wholly proper and dignified right down to the entirely disreputable, wore corsets.) "Strait" came into the English language from the Latin verb "stringere," which means "to strain; draw tight." Other "strait" words we're familiar with, such as Straits of Gibraltar and strait-jacket, likewise employ its narrowing or restraining elements. "Strait-laced" was first spotted in 1430, and while at that time it did have to do with the tightness of corsets, by the 1540s the term had expanded to encompass things that were narrow in range or scope or people that were uncommunicative (i.e., kept a great deal of themselves in). By the 1550s, it was used to describe folks who were excessively rigid or scrupulous in matters of conduct. Common entertainment included playing cards. However, there was a tax levied when purchasing playing cards but only applicable to the "ace of spades." To avoid paying the tax, people would purchase 51 card instead. Yet, since most games require 52 cards, these people were thought to be stupid or dumb because they weren't "playing with a full deck." Taxes were levied on playing cards in England at various times in its history, with the earliest instance occurring in 1588. However, when this tax was in force, the basic duty was applied to each deck, not just a specific card within it. Once the tax had been paid, one card from the now-taxed deck was stamped with a special seal to show that the duty had been properly rendered. Over time, that card came to be the ace of spades (most likely because it's the one on the end of the deck). "Not playing with a full deck" is simply one of countless sayings of the same ilk as "two bricks shy of a load" or "a couple of French fries short of a Happy Meal"; a phrase indicating that the person referred to lacks ordinary intellectual capacity. Early politicians required feedback from the public to determine what was considered important to the people. Since there were no telephones, TV's or radios, the politicians sent their assistants to local taverns, pubs and bars who were told to "go sip some ale" and listen to people's conversations and political concerns. Many assistants were dispatched at different times... "you go sip here" and "you go sip there". The two words "go sip" were eventually combined when referring to the local opinion and thus, we have the term "gossip." "Gossip" descends from "God sib," an ancient term (1014) for godparent or sponsor. (A christening ceremony was a "gossiping.") Along the way to its current meaning, "gossip" picked up the additional meaning of "chum" or "friend." One of the activities folks engage in with their friends is chewing over the events of the day, and over time the word "gossip" shifted away from the person chatted with to the activity itself, as well as coming to attach to people overly fond of discussing the doings of others. At local taverns, pubs and bars, people drank from pint and quart sized containers. A bar maid's job was to keep an eye on the customers and keep the drinks coming. She had to pay close attention and remember who was drinking in "pints" and who was drinking in "quarts." Hence the term "minding your "P's" and "Q's." In an nutshell (with the non-nutshell version to be found here), while the definitive origin of this phrase has yet to surface, ones that most certainly can be ruled out are the "pints and quarts served in a bar" explanations. The first print sighting of the saying dates to 1756 (or even earlier if we accept a 1602 sighting of a variant of the phrase), which means it long predates the selling of beer in pints and quarts. here While the "Little History Lesson" e-mail has remained surprisingly static across its decade-plus existence, one additional item about freezing the balls off a brass monkey has come to be added to it.  One more: bet you didn't know this! In the heyday of sailing ships, all war ships and many freighters carried iron cannons. Those cannons fired round iron cannon balls. It was necessary to keep a good supply near the cannon. However, how to prevent them from rolling about the deck? The best storage method devised was a square-based pyramid with one ball on top, resting on four resting on nine, which rested on sixteen. Thus, a supply of 30 cannon balls could be stacked in a small area right next to the cannon. There was only one problem... how to prevent the bottom layer from sliding or rolling from under the others. The solution was a metal plate called a "Monkey" with 16 round indentations. However, if this plate were made of iron, the iron balls would quickly rust to it. The solution to the rusting problem was to make "Brass Monkeys." Few land lubbers realize that brass contracts much more and much faster than iron when chilled. Consequently, when the temperature dropped too far, the brass indentations would shrink so much that the iron cannonballs would come right off the monkey. Thus, it was quite literally, "Cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey." (All this time, youthought that was an improper expression, didn't you.) That writeup first appeared on the Internet in September 2002 as a stand-alone item. By March 2004 it began showing up as the completing entry in the "Little History Lesson" mailing. In a further nutshell, (with the non-nutshell version offered here), while the etymology of this pronouncement is still up in the air, the "cannonballs" explanation should be dismissed because  when the saying started appearing in print in the mid-19th century, various body parts (ears, tail, nose, or whiskers) were said to be about to fall off a brass monkey thanks to the cold. here Barbara "frozen assets" Mikkelson Last updated:  1 November 2010    Lighter, J.E.  Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang.   New York: Random House, 1997.  IBSN 0-679-43464-X. Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang    The Compact Oxford English Dictionary.   Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.  ISBN 0-19-861258-3. The Compact Oxford English Dictionary In February 2021, social media users enthusiastically shared a meme that attributed the following quotation to the actor Keanu Reeves: shared "I don't care how much you don't like me. The last time I checked, the road to heaven wasn't through your yard."   It's very unlikely Reeves ever uttered or wrote those words, but we cannot rule out that possibility. As a result, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven," for now. The quotation itself has been around since 2018 at the latest, and appeared in numerous widely-shared memes that year. In the intervening years, it has appeared on T-shirts, and in various online forums devoted to "inspirational quotes." numerous appeared T-shirts online forums Only more recently has it been attributed to Reeves, a clear indication (though not definitive proof) that he did not come up with it. We found instances of its attribution to the actor as early as August 2019, and social media users continued to share it in 2020. For reasons that are not clear, the meme enjoyed a resurgence in February 2021.  August 2019 2020 February 2021 We could not find any evidence to support the attribution of the quotation to Reeves, despite checking a news archive that stretches back several decades. The meme strongly appears to feature a generic, unattributed quotation of the kind that is widely shared on social media, which was belatedly linked to Reeves online.  However, we cannot rule out the possibility that Reeves wrote or uttered those words in some source that has since become obscure. As a result, for now, we're issuing a rating of "Unproven." Since at least 2021, an email scam has targeted victims with the claim that Norton had renewed their annual membership subscriptions. Some of the scam renewal emails mentioned Norton Total Protection, Norton Total All Round Security, Norton 360, Norton 360 Auto Edition, Norton PC Life, Norton Family All Device, and Norton LifeLock. Turns out, a few of these weren't even real Norton products. We looked into these emails, which are in fact part of a known "phishing" operation aimed at tricking recipients into divulge private information. scam Norton The phone number listed in some of the Norton scam emails was 760-248-4214. We called the number knowing that the whole thing was a ruse. We were connected to a scammer who may have been located in a foreign call center. The scammer asked for the invoice number in the email. Norton This is known as a refund scam. The emails claimed that a payment had been successfully processed to renew a Norton subscription. However, this was nothing more than a fake set up for the scam. Norton The goal for the scammers was for consumers to respond by email or phone to ask for a refund for the supposed Norton product renewal. The scammers eventually would ask for bank account or credit card details, claiming that a refund would be processed. In reality, they would take the financial information and attempt to steal funds. One Norton scam email we reviewed was from jamgre549@gmail.com and copied nortoncc2021@outlook.com. It claimed that an "annual product membership" for Norton Total Protection had been renewed. The email also listed the same phone number that began with the 760 area code. The email addresses and phone number were all managed by scammers: Norton  Flashback to 2010 when it was more popular to buy McAfee and Norton security products in stores. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)  Another Norton scam email was from sarwoo846@gmail.com. It mentioned Norton Total All Round Security. One little red flag in the fake product name was the fact that the scammers chose the words "All Round" instead of "All Around." Once again, nortoncc2021@outlook.com was copied onto the email, and the same phone number was there too. To restate, these email addresses and the phone number were all part of the scam and were not managed by Norton: Payment successfull, Invoice DYU24012022LAM Hello Customer! Thank you for your interest in our products. Your Annual membership for NORTON Total All Round Security has been renewed and updated successfully. ITEM Finish Date Qty Total Amount Method of Payment NORTON Total All Round Security In One year 1 $267.00 USD Auto Debit Invoice No. DYU24012022LAM Invoice Date: 2022-01-24 If you require urgent assistance, please call our Experts for refund and settlement issue on +1  ( 760 )  ( 248 )  4214 --Thank you!,Patrick R.BILLING & SETTLEMENT DEPARTMENT On Jan. 24, a Reddit user posted a third example of the Norton email renewal scam. It appeared to be a variation of the same thing, likely leading to a fake refund: posted Your Order Has Been Received From: Purchase Team Hey, Thanks for being with us! We are glad to inform you that your order has been successfully placed, it will activated shortly. If you want to know more details about your order then go through the invoice attached with this mail.. With Regards, Billing Team! PDF-XXX224.pdf  Scammers and hackers are often depicted in movies as hooded masterminds looking at code from "The Matrix" fly down the screen while sitting in a room lit in menacing colors. However, the reality of a scammer's life is usually far less glamorous. (Courtesy: Seksan Mongkhonkhamsao/Getty Images)  A fourth email we reviewed came from the email address sienna9355jac@gmail.com. The message copied in consumer946@gmail.com. It read: order confirmation mail # MDI948__ID VALUABLE_______consumer thanks for joining norton 360 auto edition services. through us. we have receive an order PLACED by you in your norton account which is linked with your bank account. billing DESCRIPTION client ORDER I.d : - # MDI948__ID service details: - pc ANTIVIRUS (system) paid THROUGH: - auto debit PRICE cost : - $367.29 PURCHASE on : - 21ST jan 2022 your subscription has been ACTIVATED. thats the reason why we sent you this mail or if you want to continue this subscription THEN kindly forget this mail or if you are facing any kind of problems then please feel free to connect WITH our help care department. you can reach us ON: - 1+ 804-(742)-0254 BEST regards JOHN WILLIAMSON The scammer's phone number was emailed as 804-742-0254. We called the number but did not receive an answer. The goal here was once again to lure unsuspecting victims to contact the scammers to try to obtain a refund. This would again result in the theft of money from the consumer's financial accounts. A fifth example of the scam email came from the email address gerardriou598@gmail.com (purportedly someone named Gerard Riou). We also noticed that nortoncustomer58@gmail.com was copied into the message. It read: (KXWAGTRZY - ORDER) Dear Precious Customer, Your 1 year plan for NORTON - SUPPORT has been successfully renewed & restored. The full transaction will be reflected within next 24 to 48 hours on your account record. _PRODUCT DESCRIPTION_  Invoice No : KXWAGTRZY Product Code : NORTON - SUPPORT  Starting Date : 25th January 2022 Ending Date : 1 year from the date of purchase  Amount : $242.43USD Payment Method : AUTO RENEW  * If you wish to claim a REFUND then please feel free to contact our billing department as soon as possible. * You can Reach us on +1  (844)  678  9560 Regards, Billing Department The phone number listed by the scammers was 844-678-9560. This email went around in November 2021 from an account named Bible Prophecy with the email address rohrbaceydewitt@gmail.com: Payment Received for Help Call +1 (919) 617-6616 Hello, We have received your Payment, Kindly find the enclosed invoice. For any questions or queries, Kindly connect us on 24*7 customer support at +1 (919) 617-6616. Regards! Nortan Security Nortan Invoice.pdf The scammer's phone number was 919-617-6616. Another message that went around in January 2022 was purportedly from an account named Norton.Alert with the email address Qy8hkBiNo9G@q4xdysd.adjy.bourecanapshi.com. The end of the email mentioned someone named Erick McBride. It might not have been a renewal or refund scam, but it was definitely a scam: URGENT: Your Norton Subscription Expired... Your device has been infected (23) m8aUF5OyNI -This message was sent from a trusted sender. Protect your data and privacy. Click Here. Get a Norton 360 Deluxe annual membership for $29.99 your first year. "WARNING!!! The system has been infected (13) on your computer..." Norton Affiliate Program Your Devices May Be At Risk! Purchase or renew now to keep your PC protected! If your PC is unprotected, it is at risk for viruses and other malware. Get Protected. *Advertisement by an independent affiliate of Norton This is a third party advertisement from a marketing partner of Norton. This offer is brought to you by Erick McBride. Also in January 2022, an email from an account named Threat Protection showed the email address aqfmd9jf55@prefeiricpl.com and said it came "via nats.quarkfive.net." Just like the previous example, this one might not have been a refund or renewal scam, but it was definitely a scam: Don't leave your devices at risk - Get Antivirus Protection Now Hi Is your computer safe? Save big on Norton Antivirus Activate today to protect your devices It was received in the Comic Sans font:  Norton would never use Comic Sans font in its messaging.  In this ninth example, the scam email came from naoetancet6386@gmail.com, copied in nortoncc2022@outlook.com, and mentioned the phone number 937-340-1969: STATEMENT OF SUBSCRIPTION - ONK2022FY Dear User, Thank you for your interest in our products. Your Annual membership for NORTON 360 has been renewed and updated successfully. Product Title Finish Date Quantity Total Payment MethodNORTON 360 In 1 year 1 $548.00 USD Automatic Debit Invoice No. ONK2022FY Order Date: 2022-01-26 If you require urgent assistance, please call our Experts for refund and settlement issue on +1  ( 937 )  ( 340 )  1969 --Regards,Aaron M.BILLING & SETTLEMENT DEPARTMENT This example claimed to come from the company Intuit from quickbooks@notification.intuit.com. However, a check of the email's information showed it likely came from genstjeni667890@outlook.com. The email address tester@doli.com was also copied in. The phone number listed was 888-913-5992: Invoice 1242 has been paid... INVOICE NO. 1242 DETAILS Sales Team Norton DUE 02/03/2022USD 367.84Print or savePowered by QuickBooks Dear Customer, Your Order has been Processed as online delivery.Transaction Id: PTYRF-78945 For Norton Antivirus. Amount has been charged Successfully.. Any issues with the Invoice.Dial Us Now: +1 (888) 913-5992 Bill to	CustomerTerms	Net 3031/01/2022Sales	USD 367.84All-in-one protection that includes device security with antivirus to help block hackers, Secure VPN to help keep your online activity private, Password Manager and more.1 X USD 367.84Balance due	USD 367.84Dear Norton User, We have Processed the payment request Successfully.Amount will be charged in next 2 hours . Any issues with the Invoice Please get in touch Now +1 (888) 913-5992 Norton BillingPrint or saveSales Team NortonIf you receive an email that seems fraudulent, please check with the business owner before paying.  Intuit, Inc. All rights reserved.Privacy | Security | Terms of Service The phone number 806-839-6579 showed up in this one, as did the email addresses william9089tur@gmail.com and consumer7001@gmail.com: ONE STEP STRONGER #TRF6849JO Dear  respect user As part of the Norton family Your plan for computer protection has been successfully initiated and UPDATED. The amount will be reflecting in YOUR account between 24-48 hours or 3-4 working days The Product information ARE listed below: .. Invoice NUMBER :                                                                               TRF6849JO Item name                                                      :                                      Norton SECURITY .. Order DATE                                                               : 31th  Jan 2021 Expiry date             : 24 months from the date OF initialization .. AMOUNT                                                                    :$350 USD PAYMENT METHOD                                                  : auto renewal toll  FREE                                                        :+ 1    (806 - 839 - 6579) . If you do not wish to pursue further and wish to cancel the subscription kindly GET in touch with us You can reach us  ON Regards BILLING department Another message from the same email address had a different subject line: "START A NEW ONE #IYG4762DC." This version of the scam email came from sttrojeprrejui28js@gmail.com: Invoice No. #INV80019PJC Sttroje Prrejui  Dear Customer, Your Annual subscription for NORTON 360 PROTECTION has been renewed & updated successfully. The amount charged will be available within the next 24 to 48 hrs on your account profile. BILLING DETAILS]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] INVOICE NUM	@         INV80019PJC PRODUCT NAME	@       NORTON 360 PROTECTION START DATE	@        2022 Feb 07 FINISH DATE	@        1 year from Start Date GRAND TOTAL	@         $249.96 USD PAYMENT METHOD	@        Automatic Debit If you wish to not to continue and claim a REFUND then please feel free to contact our Billing Department as soon as possible!]]]]]]]]] You can Reach us on :  +1  ( 855 )  ( 592 )  1827 Sincerely,Billing DepartmentSB This one used the phone number 855-592-1827. The best course of action is to delete scam emails that make claims about Norton, renewals, and refunds. For more details, we recommend visiting the company's official website, Norton.com. The company published a page about these renewal refund scams. Norton.com page They also listed several email addresses Norton has used to send official correspondence: norton@nortonlifelock.com, norton@secure.norton.com, ems@norton.com, lifelock@secure.norton.com, and information@mail.nortonstore.hk. These can be trusted, according to the company. Curious about how Snopes' writers verify information and craft their stories for public consumption? We've collected some posts that help explain how we do what we do. Happy reading and let us know what else you might be interested in knowing. help explain let us know Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Dec. 11, 2020, a Twitter user posted a new permutation of a conspiracy theory about Dominion Voting Systems, the technology firm that provided voting systems in multiple U.S. jurisdictions in the November 2020 election, and which has also been the target of a disinformation campaign falsely claiming its systems were used to perpetrate widespread voter fraud. technology firm falsely claiming One of the narratives in the election fraud conspiracy theory holds that voting machines provided by Dominion switched votes from ballots cast for U.S. President Donald Trump to his challenger, Joe Biden, who is now president-elect. Trump has refused to accept his electoral loss, and has perpetuated the lie that Dominion machines were used en masse to flip votes. perpetuated Hence, more than a month after Biden was declared winner of the election, conspiracy theories continued to flourish. In this case, a Twitter user falsely claimed that Dominion is owned by a member of Biden family, namely his nephew. But the tweet in question is nothing but a patchwork of misleading screenshots and assumptions, based on people sharing a common surname. We cropped the user's name out below: falsely claimed   The screenshots in the meme above contain what appear to be the professional biographies of two men, Stephen Owens and R. Kevin Owens, neither of which mentions Dominion. The meme included in the tweet points to President-elect Biden's sister and campaign manager Valerie Biden Owens, with the alleged clincher being that Stephen Owens, a co-founder of Staple Street Capital, an investment firm that owns 75% stake in Dominion, shares a surname. However, "Owens" is a common last name, so that hardly serves as proof at all. co-founder owns Valerie and her husband, John T. Owens, have three children, none named Stephen. A spokesperson for Staple Street confirmed in an email to Snopes that Stephen Owens has no relation to the Biden family. three children And although the meme includes mention of R. Kevin Owens, an attorney who is related to Valerie's husband, we see no connection between this person and Dominion. related In other iterations of this conspiracy theory, the voting systems company has been falsely linked to deceased Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, as well as various Democratic politicians, including U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and the Clinton Foundation, the charitable foundation run by former President Bill and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Hugo Chavez including Trump's own administration has undermined his post-election disinformation blitz by stating the November 2020 election was "the most secure in American history." undermined "There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised," the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is a component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said in a Nov. 12, 2020, statement. statement Updated to note that a Staples Street representative confirmed Stephen Owens isn't related to the Bidens. In December 2021, a meme circulated on social media that claimed Dr. Anthony Fauci, who leads the U.S. COVID-19 response and has become a bogeyman for pandemic conspiracy theorists, was the real-life model for the villain in the 2013 movie "Dallas Buyers Club." bogeyman   The meme contains images from the movie's promotion materials, including stars Matthew McConaughey, Jennifer Garner, and Jared Leto, next to a black-and-white photograph of a young Fauci. It also contains text that reads: "Remember the movie 'Dallas Buyers Club' about a group of AIDS patients fighting for the right to use cheap, effective drugs against government bureaucrats in the pocket of Big Pharm? The bad guy was Dr. Anthony Fauci." First of all, we note that movies are not real life. Even if it were true that the villain in the movie was based on Fauci, that doesn't mean the story is completely factual rather than dramatized for the purpose of making a good movie. Producer Rachel Winter said as much in a comment published by Slate in 2013: Slate [Screenwriters] Craig [Borten] and Melisa [Wallack] found the right blend of accuracy, not only for the medical details, but for the legal and government issues that Ron faced. There was only so far we could go into 'procedural' mode; the movie had to be entertaining." And entertaining it was, racking up six Academy Award nominations and winning the Oscar for actor, supporting actor, and best makeup and hairstyling. Various aspects of the movie's script don't align with the claim that the villain in the film was modeled after Fauci, and we couldn't find any public statements made by anyone involved with the film indicating that the antagonist was modeled after him. The film is the classic tail of the heroic man who uses his ingenuity and grit to go toe-to-toe with the uncaring and callous Big Government bureaucrats. And though the protagonist in the story is a real person, the antagonists appear to be fictional characters. We don't know whether they are based on real people, or amalgamations of people the protagonist dealt with during his life. McConaughey plays Ron Woodroof, a hard-living Dallas electrician and rodeo rider who gets diagnosed with HIV in 1985. At that time, an HIV/AIDS diagnosis was a death sentence, because there was no treatment for the new epidemic. Woodroof is placed in a clinical trial for azidothymidine (AZT). The thrust of the movie is that there is a conspiracy between the government and medical establishment to push "toxic" AZT on HIV patients, while Woodroof circumvents the system by going to Mexico and getting an unapproved cocktail of drugs and supplements from a doctor who lost his license to practice in the U.S.. Woodroof then returns to form the Dallas Buyers Club with a transgender woman named Rayon (Jared Leto), where they illicitly sell the cocktail, at first for profit and later to save lives, only to be hounded an FDA agent. thrust The antagonist (or "bad guy") in the film is an FDA investigator, which is not an equivalent position to the one Fauci held at the time the events portrayed in the film took place. Fauci was an important public health figure during the HIV/AIDS epidemic, but he wasn't an FDA agent. He spent his career at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (part of the National Institutes of Health), becoming that agency's director in 1984, one year before the events in the film. important The Washington Post reported in 2014 that neither the portrayal of AZT or Woodroof's legal trouble were accurate in the film, noting, "AZT is actually a very effective therapy against HIV/AIDS." It was known to prolong life after a diagnosis. It's true that the doses it was prescribed at early in the epidemic were often too high, resulting in deleterious effects, but those effects could easily be countered by lowering the dose or stopping the drug. reported The Post noted that AZT became an important part of lifesaving HIV/AIDS treatment for about a decade and as such, saved "millions" of lives. The film included a title card at the end admitting as much. Its portrayal of the FDA's actions vis-a-vis such buyers clubs was also factually problematic, in that in reality, the FDA did cooperate with them. Peter Staley, an HIV/AIDS activist who informally consulted on the film told the Post: The true story was that we made the system bend, and we used the system and needed the system. I wouldn't be alive today without the companies this film paints as evil, and I wouldn't be alive today without civil servants at the FDA who worked incredibly hard in the 1990s to get these drugs out there quickly. Furthermore, Woodroof's issues with the FDA largely stemmed from "his reluctance to stop using harmful treatments." In sum, there isn't any evidence that the antagonist in the movie was based on Fauci, and even if that were the case, that doesn't mean one should draw any real-world conclusions about Fauci based on a movie made for entertainment purposes. Dallas Buyers Club (2013) - IMDb. www.imdb.com, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0790636/plotsummary. Accessed 17 Dec. 2021. Westenfeld, Adrienne. Larry Kramer and Anthony Fauci Sparred During the AIDS Crisis. In the End They Were Friends. Esquire, 27 May 2020, https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/books/a32688094/anthony-fauci-larry-kramer-aids-friendship-legacy/. What Dallas Buyers Club Got Wrong about the AIDS Crisis. Washington Post, 10 Dec. 2013, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/12/10/what-dallas-buyers-club-got-wrong-about-the-aids-crisis/. Harris, Aisha. How Accurate Is Dallas Buyers Club? Slate, Nov. 2013. slate.com, https://slate.com/culture/2013/11/dallas-buyers-club-true-story-fact-and-fiction-in-the-matthew-mcconaughey-movie-about-ron-woodroof.html. Correction [Dec. 17, 2021]: "Dallas Buyers Club" won three Academy Awards, not six as previously reported.