The Origins of Princess Leia's Hairstyle
Following the death of Carrie Fisher, the resurgent interest in her most famous role (that of Princess Leia in Star Wars) prompted renewed attention to the subject of the inspiration behind the most distinctive aspect of her character's appearance: Princess Leia's iconic look was inspired by real-life Mexican Revolutionaries pic.twitter.com/hJFhQgm60K pic.twitter.com/hJFhQgm60K  NowThis (@nowthisnews) December 29, 2016 December 29, 2016 The debate regarding Princess (later General) Leia Organa's hair, and specifically her hair buns, began in 2002 when Star Wars creator George Lucas offered this explanation about it to Time magazine: offered In the 1977 film, I was working very hard to create something different that wasnt fashion, so I went with a kind of Southwestern Pancho Villa woman revolutionary look, which is what that is. The buns are basically from the turn-of-the-century Mexico. Then it took such hits and became such a thing. But as Remezcla reported, the claim came under question when the character's hair was compared to pictures of adelitas, as women who fought in the Mexican revolution were called, that exhibited no such hairstyle: reported, adelitas Lucas revelation of the hairstyles origins only seemed to cause confusion across the internet. Some found it difficult to find photographic evidence for Lucas claims. Perhaps, they only saw images of soldaderas wearing hats. (All Star Wars historian Michael Heilemann could find were these bun-less images of adelitas.) As a result, some began to look elsewhere to find other possible explanations. bun-less images In fact, some critics argued, Leia's hair more closely resembled a traditional hairstyle worn by women of the Hopi Native American tribe. But Eric Tang, an associate professor of African and African Diaspora Studies at the University of Texas-Austin, added to the discussion when he posted a picture (that post being no longer publicly available on Facebook) taken from a Star Wars exhibition currently on display at the Denver Art Museum that seemingly supported the "Mexican revolutionary" claim. worn exhibition The museum confirmed to Snopes on 30 December 2016 that the referenced photograph was part of their exhibition, and sent us full-length pictures of the display, as well as a transcription of the audio accompanying it:   Princess Leias side cinnamon-bun hairdo was one of the most iconic looks from the original "Star Wars" films. Some twenty years later, actress Natalie Portman wore these fake hair rolls to reprise the hairstyle as Padm Amidala in the film "Attack of the Clones." Clearly, George Lucas and his team had learned a thing or two in the intervening years. While it took actress Carrie Fisher two hours to have her hair done as Leia, Portman could just pop on her side buns in a matter of minutes. But where did this unusual hairstyle originate in the first place? Look for some of the reference photos nearby. For Princess Leia in the original "Star Wars," George Lucas was inspired by a traditional Hopi Native American hairstyle. For Leias mother, Padm, Lucas prequel team looked at Hopi and Mexican Revolution imagery for inspiration, and sketched even more dramatically shaped variations of the coiffure  as you can see in the drawing in this display. The response to Leias hair had been so overwhelming in the 1970s and beyond, that Lucas encouraged the prequel designers to be even more outlandish, drawing everything from space mohawks to snakelike coils, hair nautilus shells, and everything in between. A museum spokesperson could not directly confirm the origin of the picture other than to say it was "sourced from the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art archives at Skywalker Ranch." (We contacted Lucasfilm seeking additional information, but the film company did not respond.) However, we were able to track it down fairly easily, as it is a famous photograph of Mexican soldadera and guerrilla fighter Clara de la Rocha, as seen below (alongide her father, General Herculano de la Rocha): photograph General  Clara de la Rocha is described in the book Las Soldaderas: Women of the Mexican Revolution as a guerilla commander who played an important role in the seizing of the city of Culiacn, Sinaloa in 1911, alongside her father. She eventually earned the rank of coronela, or colonel, in the fight against Porfirio Diaz's regime. described regime One of her descendants, Alexandra de la Rocha, told Public Radio International that she saw Tang's post about the exhibit and recounted some of the soldadera's exploits: told She actually crossed a river on horseback ... and was able to take out a power station in order to allow the rebel forces to attack during night without being seen. he was a grizzled woman, as her father was. They were mountain people, and were actually miners and owned a lot of land. They were business people. Clara de la Rocha died in 1970 in Culiacn, the site of her most famous battle. While she was certainly not the only inspiration for the Leia Organa character's hairstyle, she was by all accounts a major one. Cagle, Jess.  "So, What's the Deal with Leia's Hair?" 
  Time.  21 April 2002. Simn, Yara.  "Princess Leias Iconic Buns Were Inspired by These Revolutionary-Era Mexican Women." 
  Remezcla.  28 December 2016.  El Informador.  "Las 'Adelitas', Las Otras Revolucionarias."     Informador.   19 November 2010. Denver Art Museum.   "Star Wars and the Power of Costume."  
   denverartmuseum.org The de la Rocha History Project.  "Herculan y Coronela Clara de la Rocha." 
  delarochahistory.com

 Public Radio International.  "The Little-Known Link Between Princess Leias Iconic Hairstyle and the Mexican Revolution." 
  30 December 2016. [01/23/2020]: Removed broken Facebook embed.
In early June 2021, social media users shared a photograph that purportedly showed a billboard displaying a black-and-white image of billionaire Tesla CEO Elon Musk along with the message, "Defend billionaires. We're just like you."   We were unable to find any evidence that this billboard exists in the real world. There are no news reports about it, which would be surprising given that single tweets penned by Musk often spark headlines. Also, none of the posts containing the photo included any specific information, such as where this alleged billboard is located. headlines The image appears to be a joke poking fun at Musk and others among the mega-wealthy, a class of people who have been in the news lately for stories critical of wealth inequality and the fact that billionaires are able to avoid paying income taxes. avoid Another red flag: The image contains what appears to be an image of Musk that can be easily found on the internet and a black background, which other social media users have used to create their own billboards. Here are some examples.      While we're very skeptical this billboard exists anywhere, without definitive proof we're rating this as "Unproven" for now. This would not be the first time, however, that Musk has been trolled via billboard. trolled Claim:  A miraculous car that gets 200 miles to the gallon is sold by mistake then reclaimed by the factory and is never seen again.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, 1999] A retiring General Motors employee, after many years of service, receives a car as a retirement gift. (as well as a nice pension, etc.). So he is given permission to select a car from the lot there at the factory. He selects a Chevrolet Caprice, a big, luxury car. After receiving it, he is satisfied with his choice. After all, who wouldn't enjoy driving around in a roomy, comfortable car. After driving it for a while, he noticed something quite odd ... a car like this usually consumes a substantial amount of fuel, but the gas gauge hardly moves at all.  After a few weeks, he gets suspicious. Things like this don't happen. Being the company man he is, he returns it to the factory. Explaining this to the service tech must've caused some strange looks, but they took it in anyway. After he got his car back, he noticed it got the typical gas mileage of a comparable car. Could've this car had some secret "modifications" that allowed him to drive for weeks, on the same tank of gas? Detroit's automakers have purportedly seized, er.. bought out patents of items that improve gasoline mileage like the 100 mpg carburetor, etc. Maybe the R&D department at GM put this theory to practice, and this was an example.  [Collected via e-mail, 1997] A couple journeys from Western Canada to Detroit to buy a new car and presumably save shipping costs while having a vacation in the States at the same time.  Driving back to the prairies, they find to their astonishment that the gas gauge is not moving down to "empty" even though they've been driving for hours.  Arriving home some thousands of miles away from Detroit, they have only refilled the tank once or twice. A few days after returning, the husband looks out at his driveway in the morning to find two mysterious men tinkering with his car (the hood is up).  Running out, they race off; he checks under the hood, finds nothing amiss, and concludes it's just vandals or would-be thieves whom he was fortunate to apprehend before any damage was done.  BUT, when they drive the car, they find their gas mileage is now normal. Variations:  The miraculous car legend ends one of four ways:    Mysterious men appear and tinker with the engine, rendering the car no different than any other.   The car is reclaimed by the factory. If the owner afterwards gets the same car back (sometimes it's replaced outright with another vehicle), it now gets ordinary gas mileage. No-nonsense business types show up to make a fabulous offer for the car, which is accepted. The owner wakes up one morning to find the car vanished without a trace. Origins:  The legend of the miracle high-mileage automobile has been around longer than most of our readers, with a version set it Philadelphia having appeared in a 1948 newspaper. (Even at that time, the story proved unverifiable, with the article's writer identifying it as such and passing it along only as an example of a current rumor   sweeping through the community.) Since that early sighting of more than half a century ago, the legend has gone on to enthrall audience after audience as each couple of years sees it pop up anew. Its origins are as strange as the story itself. Between 1928 and 1935, Charles Nelson Pogue, an inventor from Canada, applied for numerous patents for what he claimed was a new type of carburetor that supposedly completely vaporized gasoline before introducing it to the cylinders, thereby extracting a great deal more energy from the fuel. According to the Pogue patent description, fuel was introduced into the engine in this vaporous "dry" state rather than in the normal droplet-laden "wet" state, thus combining more readily with air, making it burn with far greater efficiency. Better combustion combined with the raising of the engine's operating temperature from 160F to 180F were said to be responsible for vastly improved fuel economy.  So much for the techno-talk. The Pogue carburetor was touted as getting 200+ miles to the gallon. Glowing reports about this miracle of ingenuity's making a 1,879 mile trip on 14.5 gallons appeared in the May 1936 issue of Canadian AutomotiveTrade magazine, reports which Pogue later denied.  A manager of a Winnipeg auto dealership claimed he had driven a Pogue-equipped car 217 miles on a gallon of gasoline. A different dealer principal claimed to have driven 26 miles on a pint of fuel.  The story snowballed onward from those breathless testimonials as one rumor quickly followed on the heels of another. Thieves were reputed to have broken into Pogue's shop and made off with three of his carburetors. There was talk of armed guards and wolfhounds guarding the shop and the now-famous inventor. Wealthy backers (from Winnipeg or Toronto, depending on whom you heard the story from) were rumored  to be bankrolling Pogue, but the arrangements mysteriously fell through. Ford of Canada was said to have bought the invention outright. All in all it was a very exciting time. Alas, one can get by on mere smoke and mirrors for only so long. Those with sense enough to not be deafened by the hyperbole were not long kept at bay with tales of wolfhounds, thieves, and mysterious briefcase-toting moneymen. They wanted to see the carburetor. That, of course, was never permitted. No one reputable was allowed to see the mechanical miracle in action, let alone have a chance to measure its results. After the initial excitement over Pogue's 1936 announcement had faded, more serious types began to openly doubt that the carburetor would work as described.  In the December 1936 issue of Automotive Industries magazine, its engineering editor, P.M. Heldt, said of a sketch of the Pogue carburetor: "The sketch fails to show any features hitherto unknown in carburetor practice, and absolutely gives no warrant for crediting the remarkable results claimed." Other journalists were beginning to voice similar opinions. In response to calls to put up or shut up, Pogue's miracle carburetor was heard of no more. Faced with the choice of believing someone had made claims his invention couldn't later live up to or that a monied bad guy had bought up a technology to forever keep it off the market, at least some chose to believe the suppression theory. That the carburetor never made it to the public, they said, was proof enough of its existence. Those 1930s news stories breathlessly trumpeting Pogue's miracle of technology form the basis of the economical carburetor legend now before us.  As gas prices  fluctuate, our dependence on fossil fuels is driven home time and again. Who wouldn't long for a miracle of engineering that would free us from the tyranny of the gas pump? And thus the groundwork for belief is laid. As sometimes happens in the world of urban legends, desire for something to be true transforms a rumor into certainty that this very thing is fact. Over the years, our legend about a 200 mpg car has bobbed to the surface in community after community, been debunked in numerous respected publications, and bobbed right back up in the wake of those debunkings. The need to believe in this wondrous technology and the evil car manufacturers who are deliberately withholding it from the market appears too strong to combat. A bit of rational thought should be all that's needed to lay this legend to rest. Why would the car manufacturers at all care about keeping such a technological advance away from consumers? Unlike the petroleum companies, they've no vested interest in how much fuel a car uses. An automaker's self interest is best served by getting the newest irresistible technology to the consumer before his competitors do. If any one of them possessed the secret of the 200 mpg car, he'd have rushed it into production, hoping to beat his competitors to the punch. Those who are tempted to believe the Evil Government is responsible for keeping this miracle out of our hands should reflect for a moment on the current state of world politics. The government of the United States would like nothing better than to throw off the yoke of dependence upon foreign oil. A miraculous carburetor would grant that freedom, allowing Americans to continue to enjoy current levels of use without the need to go hat in hand to OPEC or even those dastardly Canadians. The domestic supply would be more than enough. Though rarely is this tale told about anything other than a gas-miserly carburetor, this version describes a miraculous lightbulb: It was around 1920, shortly after he had married, when the old man originally purchased the light bulb from a small store in town. It appeared to be a normal light bulb. However, when after sixty years it was still going strong, he decided to write to the manufacturers and tell them of this remarkable phenomenon. By return a reply came from the company indicating that they were very interested in the bulb and would like to send someone to see it. Eventually, one of the directors of the firm called and, instead of just showing interest, offered to buy it for 1,000. The old man, of course, refused, as the light bulb had given him good service. However, his curiousity was certainly aroused  why so much money for his light bulb? The director could provide no plausible explanation as to why they were willing to offer so much for the bulb, so the old man decided to explore this mystery further. With the help of a solicitor friend he did a little investigating and discovered that in the 1920s this particular light-bulb manufacturer had bought and tested the patent for an everlasting bulb. Only a few of these bulbs were made and the company, finding the invention worked, destroyed the bulbs and suppressed the idea  after all, it would have put them out of business. Unknown to the company one of the lights had accidentally become mixed up with a batch of ordinary bulbs and this was the light bulb which had lit the old man's kitchen for the past sixty years. (Sometimes lore collides with reality: A long-lived light bulb has been burning since 1901 and currently lights a fire station in Livermore, California.) light bulb Barbara "gasoline allied" Mikkelson Origins:  The legend about the need to suppress the steam-driven carburetor that can produce 200 mpg to protect the oil industry surfaces in an episode of the TV series Spoils of Babylon ("The Foundling: The War Within; original air date 9 January 2014). Last updated:  26 June 2014 The Mexican Pet    Brunvand, Jan Harold.  The Vanishing Hitchhiker.   New York: W. W. Norton, 1981.  ISBN 0-393-95169-3  (pp. 175-178). The Vanishing Hitchhiker    Dale, Rodney.  The Tumour in the Whale.   London: Duckworth, 1978.  ISBN 0-7156-1314-6  (pp. 114-115). The Tumour in the Whale    Dorson, Richard.  American Folklore.   Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1959  (p. 253). American Folklore    Ellis, William and Alan E. Mays.  "Art Linkletter and the Contemporary Legend."   FOAFTale News.  June 1994  (pp. 1-10).     Morgan, Hal and Kerry Tucker.  Rumor!   New York: Penguin Books, 1984.  ISBN 0-14-007036-2  (pp. 123-125).  Rumor!    Smith, Paul.  The Book of Nasty Legends.  London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983.  ISBN 0-00-636856-5  (pp. 9, 67).  The Book of Nasty Legends    Vance, Bill.  "Was Winnipeg Inventor Victim of Oil Barons?"   The Toronto Star.  17 April 1993  (p. H2). The Complete and Totally  Book of Urban Legends    Holt, David and Bill Mooney.  Spiders in the Hairdo.  Little Rock: August House, 1999.  ISBN 0-87483-525-9  (pp. 85, 106). Spiders in the Hairdo   The Big Book of Urban Legends.  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 22). The Big Book of Urban Legends The gloves are off. Chris Christie may be more popular than ever, but the Republican isnt taking any chances with seeking re-election in a majority Democrat state. Witness a new TV ad released Monday by his re-election campaign, Christie for Governor. The ad starts off with pictures of Christies Democratic challenger, state Sen. Barbara Buono, as a narrator introduces her as former Gov. Jon Corzines budget chair. Buono chaired the Senates Budget and Appropriations Committee for two years during Corzines tenure. Buono voted 154 times to raise our taxes -- like the sales tax, the income tax, health care taxes, even small business taxes, the narrator states as text in the commercial states she voted to raise taxes and fees. This ad is a variation on a theme mentioned previously by Christie, and its also right on target. First, some background about tax increases. During his State of the State address earlier this year Christie noted that New Jersey saw more than 100 increases in taxes and fees in the eight years before he became governor, which is similar to the new TV ad about Buono, the Democratic challenger in the November gubernatorial race. In addition, state Sen. Tom Kean Jr. (R-Westfield) made a similar claim in an Oct. 7, 2011 news release when he tied 115 votes for tax increases to jobs leaving New Jersey. Keans claim was rated Half True. For both previous fact-checks, Republicans provided us with a list that included tax and fee hikes as well as tax policy changes that occurred between fiscal years 2003 and 2010. Now lets review the 154 increases. The Christie for Governor camp provided us with a list of the 154 increases they claim Buono supported both in the Senate and when she served in the Assembly. We reviewed each vote and found that the list given us mirrors the previous Republican-provided lists, plus additional votes. Although Democrats sponsored most of the bills in question, a few had Republican support. Democrats held legislative majorities in the eight years before Christie became governor. His predecessors during that time were Jim McGreevey, Richard Codey and Corzine. Among the increases were raising the sales tax from 6 percent to 7 percent and applying the tax to services such as tanning and limousine rides; increases in the cigarette tax; and allowing towns to impose parking taxes and surcharges. Also, the state twice increased the gross income tax on New Jerseyans with six-figure incomes: in 2004 for those with income exceeding $500,000 and again in 2009 for those incomes above $400,000. In addition to tax increases were hikes in dozens of fees, such as a new $1.50 fee on the sale of new vehicle tires; imposing fees on certain realty transfers; on hotel/motel occupancies; increases in the minimum casino hotel parking charge; and raising the fee to file for divorce. Overall, the lists provided by Republicans showed that there were dozens of increases in taxes or fees or other tax policy changes that could result in individuals or businesses paying higher taxes. We calculated the votes and confirmed that Buono did vote 154 times in favor of higher taxes and fees. After we shared the list with Buono for Governor spokesman David Turner, we received a list back pointing out cuts that Christie has made to various tax credit rebates and programs; legislation the governor signed resulting in assessments on ambulatory care facilities and insurers; and other legislation signed by Christie allowing government authorities to charge fees. Barbara Buono has spent her life in public service fighting for New Jersey's middle class and working people, Turner said in an e-mail. Throughout her career she has pushed to make large corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share and reduce the tax burden on New Jersey's working families. And she has consistently voted to hold lawbreakers accountableif Governor Christie believes it was wrong to stiffen penalties for deadbeat dads, impose tougher fines on tax cheats and force polluters to help pay for damaging our environment and threatening public health, he should say so. Christie for Governor spokesman Kevin Roberts declined comment. Our ruling A Christie for Governor TV ad claims, Buono voted 154 times to raise our taxes -- like the sales tax, the income tax, health care taxes, even small business taxes. Although a narrator only mentions tax increases, scrolling text in the ad also mentions fee increases. And in this case, the ad is accurate: Buono did vote on 154 bills that would increase fees and taxes on things ranging from the purchase of new vehicle tires to those New Jerseyans earning six-figure incomes exceeding $400,000. We rate the claim True. To comment on this story, go toNJ.com. Fox News host Bill O'Reilly andDaily Showhost Jon Stewart traded wisecracks -- and a few insults -- in O'Reilly'sNo Spin Zoneon Feb. 3, 2010.O'Reilly told Stewart that it was frightening that theDaily Showhost had been called an important cultural arbiter. O'Reilly said that his audience is primarily stoner slackers who love Obama, but that a lot of people don't think you're smart.Stewart shot back that O'Reilly was now the voice of sanity at Fox, which he likened to being the thinnest kid at fat camp.At times, they got serious. One topic was Stewart's belief that Republicans seem intent on opposing everything President Barack Obama puts on the table -- even if he presents an opportunity to compromise.But the president won't give the GOP anything, O'Reilly said.Stewart pointed to Obama's stimulus plan as an example. The bill was opposed by Republicans even though it included tax cuts, which typically appeal to their small government sensibilities. [Obama] has given [Republicans] many different angles, Stewart said. For instance, even in the stimulus plan, a full third of that was tax cuts. ... Just like at the State of the Union when he said we cut taxes for 95 percent of middle-class Americans, and everybody clapped, and the Republicans just sat there like this. Tax cuts, that sounds vaguely familiar. Is Stewart right that tax cuts account for a third of the stimulus plan? The stimulus bill, formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is meant to create jobs and boost the economy. It cost $787 billion, including $499 billion to fund new roads, hire teachers and generally keep people employed, and about $288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses. Among other things, the mix of tax cuts includes a refundable credit of up to $400 per individual and $800 for married couples; a temporary increase of the earned income tax credit for disadvantaged families; and an extension of a program that allows businesses to recover the costs of capital expenditures faster than usual.Simple math shows that Stewart is in the ballpark with his claim: $288 billion is a little more than 36 percent of the bill's overall cost. So, tax cuts -- at least the way they've been defined by the Obama administration -- make up for slightly more than one-third of the bill.But calculating the cost of the true tax cuts in the stimulus is a bit more complicated. In July 2009, we checked Obama's claim that, at the time,the stimulus had delivered $43 billion in tax breaks. According to the Treasury Department, about $8 billion of that figure came from extending a fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax. Originally, the AMT was targeted at very wealthy people, but over the years it spread to include some middle-income taxpayers as well. Congress passes yearly fixes to prevent those middle income taxpayers from having to pay the AMT.All told, the AMT fix in the stimulus will cost about $70 billion over 10 years, according to a bill summary published by the Senate Finance Committee. But many tax experts say the AMT fix should not be considered a tax cut. They say that, by extending the AMT fix every year, the government is basically maintaining the status quo.Back in July, we spoke with a number of tax experts about the issue who all agreed that including the fix as part of the stimulus tax cuts is a stretch.Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow at the free-market Cato Institute, explained it this way:AMT is something those people never expect to pay, he said. It's kind of like saying that, if I didn't rob you on the way home from work today, I gave you money.The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture between the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, gave the AMT extension a D-minus in its Tax Stimulus Report Card because the provision would provide virtually no economic stimulus. Because the patch is perennially extended, it would have no effect on behavior in 2009. Almost 80 percent of the benefits would go to the richest 20 percent of households, who would be least likely to spend the additional funds and stimulate demand.So, our tax experts are skeptical that the $70 billion AMT fix should be included in the stimulus bill's tax relief. That would bring down the cost of the tax cuts to about $218 billion. That means about 28 percent of the bill could be described as tax cuts, a little less than the one-third cited by Stewart.So we find Stewart's claim to be Mostly True. Item:  Texas doctor pens opinion piece about the treatment of prisoners captured in Afghanistan. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] I was just reading Yahoo news and the San Antonio Express newspaper. You know what upsets me?  People with absolutely nothing to do with their lives, so they complain on how the U.S.  is treating the prisoners or "Detainees" from Afghanistan. Do you know why they are complaining?  They see a picture on the news or the Internet and they see someone who is shackled and blindfolded and walking with two armed guards behind razor wire.  This picture tells them they are treated unfairly. Here is what I see . . . I see a thin, sickly looking person who under severe mental duress from being bombed, was cleaned up, given a haircut to prevent infestation of parasites, and given new clothes and shoes to wear.  I see a person who is given three nutritious meals per day and a bed to sleep in a tropical climate, not the cold desert floor of Afghanistan, eating worms, bugs, and goat.  I see a person who will be able to get relief from their pains and illnesses without paying a dime for medical expenses.  They will get rest, educated, and their mental stress levels will have dropped tremendously because they were taken out of a combat area and will not be shot at again. I see these people blindfolded and shackled behind razor wire.  I have the intellectual ability to understand why they are this way.  For those that do not have this ability, let me explain it to you.  They are blindfolded to protect OUR U.S. SOLDIERS from further harm.  These people can not plan to destroy something if they can not see it.  They are shackled because these same people have proven they will easily give up their lives to kill just ONE AMERICAN.  We are protecting their life as well as our own.  The razor wire is a mental deterrent, just like the little alarm company warning signs most of you out there have on your home, but don't have the actual alarm system.  You would think many times over before actually trying to cross that razor wire.  For all of you people out there thinking how bad these poor detainees have it under such strict guard, you need to do a lot more thinking about other things in your life. I was born on September 11th, 1966, and every birthday I have from now on will never be a happy one.  Why, do you ask?  Because as I am out somewhere trying to have a nice dinner, someone will have a candle or a ribbon or something, crying about the anniversary of a national tragedy. And then I will think, about how insignificant my one little birthday actually is compared to everything else that had happened on that one day. It boggles my mind that there are actually people out there in this world, in leadership positions, head of companies that actually think that we are doing something wrong when it comes to protecting our nation and our people.  These same people will be the first ones to complain about something that happens to them when they are vacationing outside this country.  They will ask why the U.S.  does not do anything about their misfortune. These are the same people that complain about taxes and how bad their lives actually are. If you receive this email, please pass it on to everyone in your address book.  I am not afraid or ashamed to speak my peace.  I am an American, my father fought for this country, and was willing to die for it. Dr.  Steven TomaselliUvalde, TexasUnited States of America Origins:  This item is another entry difficult to categorize with a simple "true" or "false," as it's merely an opinion piece, not an article asserting any factual claims.  Even though this item was not written by an established journalist or published as an editorial in any newspaper (even as a letter to the editor), it has been circulated widely because a great many people seem to give anything authored by someone identified by the title of "Dr." a good deal of unwarranted credibility.   If the good Dr. Steven Tomaselli holds that title because he has earned a doctorate in a field such as political science, his opinions might be expected to offer informative insights; if he's a dentist or a mathematics professor, there's no real reason to expect his opinions to be more noteworthy than those of millions of other citizens.  (For the record, "Dr." Tomaselli is a chiropractor.) chiropractor As of mid-February 2002, the Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners (or "detainees") held in Camp X-ray at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, numbered 220.  The U.S. drew criticism from representatives of European nations and human rights organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross for maintaining that captured Taliban and al-Qaeda soldiers did not qualify for prisoner of war status under the Geneva Convention, and for asserting that the captives were being treated humanely while nonetheless denying the Red Cross permission to visit the  camp.   The issue at the heart of the dispute has been the application of Geneva Convention treaties, which provide international safeguards for the humane treatment of battlefield captives.  The United States asserted that under the terms of the 1949 agreement, to which the U.S. was a signatory, Taliban soldiers did not qualify as prisoners of war because they wore no uniforms or insignia, nor did they have an organized command structure established according to the "laws and customs" of war.  Al-Qaeda combatants were even further removed from this classification, the U.S.stated, because they operated in different countries and targeted civilians as well as military forces, and lumping all these captives into one "prisoner of war" category would blur important distinctions between legitimate national military forces and armed terrorist groups.   (Granting captives POW status entitles them to additional legal rights, such as the right to legal representation; the right to respond to interrogation by providing no more than name, rank, and serial number, and the right to be sent home when military hostilities have ceased.) The International Committee of the Red Cross in Switzerland said it considered both the Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters held by U.S. forces to be prisoners of war under  revisions made to the Geneva Convention treaties in 1977, although those revisions were never ratified by either the United States or Afghanistan. The Geneva Convention treaties also state that "should any doubt arise" about the status of captives, "such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal," and human rights organizations and European nations criticized the U.S. government for refusing to hold such a tribunal.  They were also critical of the treatment some of the captives were reportedly receiving, including being blindfolded, sedated, and held in metal cages.  revisions On Thursday, 7 February 2002, the Bush administration modified its position and announced that it would apply Geneva Convention rules to Taliban detainees, although it refused to offer the same treatment to al-Qaeda fighters and continued to decline categorizing either group as prisoners of war.  It also allowed Red Cross representatives to visit at Camp X-ray to review the conditions there and interview some of the detainees held there, and it implemented some of the recommendations (allowed prisoners to talk more freely among themselves, changing meal times to allow for earlier prayers, allowing prisoners more exercise) made by those representatives.  (The relaxation of some of the stricter rules regarding prisoners might also have been a by-product of the fact that newer arrivals were generally less dangerous than those who had been captured earlier.) Last updated:  15 April 2008    Sources:   Aurora, Chris.  "Hicks Allowed to Talk with Fellow Prisoners."   The [Sydney] Daily Telegraph.  12 February 2002  (p. 21).     Becker, Elizabeth.  "Red Cross Man in Guantanamo: A 'Busybody,' but Not Unwelcome."   The New York Times.   20 February 2002  (p. A10).     Bender, Bryan.  "Red Cross Disputes U.S. Stance on Detainees."   The Boston Globe.   9 February 2002  (p. A1). Claim:  Russian forces will be providing security at large events in the U.S.   Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2013] I have been told that some sort of deal between the Obama administration and the Russian govt. would allow Russian military forces to act as security, on American soil, during large, special events (such as Super Bowl) or in the case of national emergencies.  Any truth here?  I already know how the Constitution treats such things.  Now days, it doesn't seem to matter tho.  Has FEMA struck an agreement with Russia that will provide for the Russian Military to provide crowd control at U.S. events on American Soil?  This was reported as true in a post I saw on FB and reported that these soldiers would be able to fire on and kill Americans on U.S. soil. Origins:  On 26 June 2013, Russia announced an agreement between the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry  to share information and observation opportunities with first responders and emergency managers from each other's countries during joint rescue operations: announced The Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and the USA Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are going to exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters. This is provided by a protocol of the fourth meeting of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential  Commission Working Group on Emergency Situations and seventeenth meeting of Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations, which took place in Washington on 25 June. The document provides for expert cooperation in disaster response operations and to study the latest practices. In addition, the parties approved of U.S.-Russian cooperation in this field in 2013-2014, which envisages exchange of experience including in monitoring and forecasting emergency situations, training of rescuers, development of mine-rescuing and provision of security at mass events. At the end of the meeting the parties expressed their satisfaction with the level of cooperation between the Russian Federation and the United States in the area of emergency prevention and response and agreed to develop it in order to respond efficiently to all kinds of disasters. The conspiracy site Infowars then spun this announcement into a claim that Russian military forces would be providing security for large events in the United States such as the Super Bowl and presidential inaugurations: Infowars As part of a deal signed last week in Washington DC between the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and FEMA, Russian officials will provide "security at mass events" in the United States, a scenario that wont sit well with Americans wary of foreign assets operating on US soil. According to a press release by the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense and Emergencies, US and Russian officials met on June 25 at the 17th Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations. In addition to agreeing with FEMA to "exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters," the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry will also be providing "security at mass events" in the United States. This suggests that events designated as "National Special Security Events" by the Department of Homeland Security, which include the Super Bowl, international summits such as the G8 and presidential inaugurations, will now rely partly on Russian authorities to provide security. However, the Infowars article was an alarmist, far-fetched interpretation of the original announcement, which said nothing about Russia's providing security for events taking place within the U.S.  The Russian Emergency Situations Ministry announcement merely noted that "provision of security at mass events" was one of the areas of interest which the two countries hoped to study and learn about from each other as part of their joint agreement. FEMA and the Russian news agency RIA Novosti quickly debunked Infowars' unsupported assumption, stating plainly that the U.S. and Russia would not be deploying security guards or military forces in each other's countries: The top US emergency response agency moved to quell a flurry of Internet-driven speculation that Russian security teams could be deployed at large public events in the United States, saying the two countries will not swap security guards or soldiers under a long-running partnership agreement. There will be "no exchange of security or military personnel" under a recently renewed partnership between the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Russias Emergency Situations Ministry, a FEMA spokesman told RIA Novosti. "The agreement continues information-sharing meetings and observation opportunities with first responders and emergency managers," the spokesman said. Picking up on an Emergency Situations Ministry statement declaring that partnership agreement "envisages the exchange of experience" in "the provision of security at mass events," numerous websites suspicious of the US governments encroachment on its citizens' rights suggested the deal means Russian security guards could be deployed at major public gatherings. The libertarian website Infowars.com, run by radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, proposed these events could include US presidential inaugurations and the Super Bowl. The FEMA spokesman said that while the US agency will not exchange security or military personnel with its Russian counterpart, the two sides "agreed to an exchange of emergency management experts to share best practices  a continuation of a 17 year partnership." Last updated:   2 July 2013 Cinco de Mayo and St. Patrick's Day share many common elements from an American perspective: Although neither is a legal holiday in the United States, they are both nonetheless widely observed as celebrations of another nation's culture, both occasions are marked with parties featuring national music and cuisine (and involving a good deal of drinking), both events have become heavily commercialized, and most Americans have little idea what either holiday is actually about. St. Patrick's Day little idea either holiday Many Americans mistakenly believe that Cinco de Mayo ("May 5th") is the Mexican equivalent of the United States' Fourth of July holiday  a date marking the official casting off of colonial rule via the announcement of a new independent country. However, the Mexican version of Independence Day is celebrated on September 16, for it was on that date in 1810 that the commencement of the war for Mexican independence from Spanish rule was pronounced in the small town of Dolores by Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla -- an event now referred to as the "Grito de Dolores" ("Cry of Dolores") or "El Grito de la Independencia". Grito What Cinco de Mayo really commemorates is the Mexican victory against French forces led by Emperor Napoleon III in the Battle of Puebla, which took place on 5 May 1862. The French had invaded Mexico at Veracruz in 1861 (while the United States was preoccupied with its own Civil War) with the intent of establishing a dominance in Mexico that would favor French interests.  After beating President Benito Jurez and his government into retreat, the French army moved on from Veracruz toward Mexico City, where they encountered heavy resistance from Mexican forces just outside the city of Puebla. Despite possessing an overpowering superiority in weaponry and numbers (6,000 well-armed French troops battled 2,000 poorly-equipped Mexican troops), the French were forced to retreat after a full day of fighting. Although the French later overran Puebla, conquered Mexico City, and installed Emperor Maximilian I as ruler of Mexico, the Mexican victory at the Battle of Puebla was celebrated for its importance in symbolizing Mexican unity, pride, and determination in the face of overwhelming odds. (The event is roughly equivalent in national lore to the American celebration of the Battle of the Alamo: although the Texan defenders of the Alamo Mission near San Antonio de Bxar were decisively defeated by Mexican forces in 1836, the tenacity and courage of the 200 or so combatants who fought to their deaths against about 1,800 Mexican troops served as inspiration for the Texan defeat of the Mexican Army at the Battle of San Jacinto a few months later.) The other common misconception about Cinco de Mayo among Americans is that if the holiday is so well known here in the U.S., it must be a really big deal in Mexico itself. But Cinco de Mayo is not a national holiday in Mexico: It is celebrated in Mexico, but it's only an official holiday in the Mexican states of Puebla and Veracruz, and the biggest Cinco de Mayo celebrations typically occur not in Mexico but in U.S. cities with large Hispanic populations such as Los Angeles. And just as St. Patrick's Day has long been observed throughout America in areas without significant Irish populations, Cinco de Mayo is now also commonly celebrated in towns across the U.S. that are predominantly non-Hispanic. On 7 April 2017 multiple web sites reported that President Trump owned stock in defense contractor Raytheon (RTN), thereby standing to personally profit from a U.S. military action strike he ordered that had launched some 59 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian air base the previous day. (Those missiles have an estimated replacement cost of $60 million.) profit replacement cost The headline in one of the more prominent articles of that nature held that "Trump owns stock in the Tomahawk missiles he used in Syria," although the body of the article only averred that Trump had once owned stock in Raytheon: headline In other words Trump just set a bunch of Tomahawk missiles on fire which, according to a recent Defense Department report, may have been worth as much as $93.8 million in total. Why would he do this? Well, he does own shares of stock in the company that makes the Tomahawks. Tomahawk missiles are manufactured by Raytheon Inc., and according to [a] report from Business Insider, Donald Trump owned stock in Raytheon up through at least the start of the presidential election cycle. There is no record that he subsequently sold that stock. Cited at least two links away from that article was a 15 July 2015 Federal Election Committee (FEC) document disclosing then-candidate Donald Trump's financial holdings prior to his election. Page 37 of that 2015 disclosure report listed Raytheon as one of Trump's assorted smaller holdings in 2015: two document  Line 23 of that July 2015 form also disclosed that that portion of Donald Trump's portfolio had a value of between $1,001 and $15,000 and brought him $201 or less in income:   Newer FEC disclosure forms for President Trump are available, including a similar May 2016 report: The 2016 Raytheon holding was reported as being within the same value range previously stated (i.e., between $1,001 and $15,000), but the listed income derived from it was slightly higher ($1,001 to $2,500):   If the stated holdings are accurate, it doesn't appear that President Trump stood to directly gain much, in anything (especially relative to his extant wealth), from Raytheon's market gain following the Syrian attack. According to MarketWatch, several other defense stocks also experienced modest bumps in their value immediately after the event: value Raytheon RTN, +0.25% the maker of the Tomahawk missiles that were used in the attack, was last up 0.8%, after jumping more than 3% in the premarket to lead S&P 500 gainers. Another defense stock, Lockheed Martin Corp. LMT, +0.28% rose 0.9%. L3 Technologies Inc. LLL, +1.78% gained 1.4% and Harris Corp. HRS, +0.62% was up 0.9%. General Dynamics Corp. was up 0.8% and Northrop Grumman Corp. NOC, +0.90% was up 0.7%.  A critical long-form piece published by the Atlantic examined President Trump's putative financial conflicts of interest in depth but did not mention Raytheon. examined Rumors that Donald Trump stood to profit off Raytheon stock due to the Syrian missile strike of 7 April 2017 were not the first of their kind. In November 2016, then-President Elect Trump was rumored to be profiting off Energy Transfer Partners's (ETP) Dakota Access Pipeline (completion of which he green-lighted as president), and in December 2016 he was said to hold stock in Carrier (with whom he had just negotiated a pre-inaugural deal). Trump spokesperson Hope Hicks asserted the President Elect sold off his minor stakes in ETP in mid-2016, and Trump's 2016 Personal Financial Disclosure did not include a listing for stock in United Technologies (Carrier's parent corporation). Dakota Access Pipeline Carrier asserted The White House has not responded to our request for comment on President Trump's defense stock holdings. Linnane, Ciara.  "Tomahawk Maker Raytheon, Defense Stocks Retreat from Highs Fueled by Syrian Strike."
  MarketWatch.  7 April 2017. Mufson, Steven.  "Trump Dumped His Stock in the Dakota Access Pipeline Owner Over the Summer."
  The Washington Post.  23 November 2016. Murphy, Olive.  "Trump Caught Profiting from Missiles Used in Syria  Stock Price Skyrockets."
  Bipartisan Report.  7 April 2017. Palmer, Bill.  "Donald Trump Owns Stock in the Tomahawk Missiles He Used in Syria."
  Palmer Report.  7 April 2017. Terrarosa, Tom.  "How Raytheon Really Stands to Gain from U.S. Missile Attack."
  TheStreet.  7 April 2017. Venook, Jeremy.  "Donald Trumps Conflicts of Interest: A Crib Sheet."
  The Atlantic.  7 April 2017. Walker, Hunter and Myles Udland.  "Here's What's In Donald Trump's Stock Portfolio."
  Business Insider.  22 July 2015. Walker, Hunter.  "Donald Trump Personal Financial Disclosure Report."
  Scribd.  22 July 2015  (page 37). The Dallas Morning News.  "Donald Trump Form 278E Disclosure 2016."
  14 June 2016  (page 37). For over a year, unscrupulous financial sites (primarily the Oxford Club) have been trying to peddle costly memberships and newsletter subscriptions to consumers by deceptively touting that Congress recently passed a $42.4 billion "consumer rebate program" entitling taxpaying Americans to a "cash rebate on every single purchase"  a program that you, too, could cash in on ... if you paid $49 for a subscription to find out how:  Such come-ons typically referenced a "new" or "secret" law that had been "quietly" enacted at the end of 2015: Late on Friday, December 18, 2015, President Obama quietly signed a new 233-page Congressional act into law. There was little fanfare. After all, it was the weekend before Christmas. And most of the White House reporters had already gone home for the holidays. But buried deep inside the act, in Section 106, is a hidden bombshell ... one that I believe deserves your immediate attention. In short, it contains a program that Gives Every Taxpaying American the Right to Collect a Cash Rebate on Nearly EVERY Single Purchase Made in 2016 This is not a joke. Were talking about an opportunity to collect a cash rebate on virtually anything you pay for during this year. All of this was highly misleading.  The referenced "cash rebate" program was actually a decade-old tax deduction provision that applied to a small minority of taxpayers and could not fairly be described as a program to provide consumers with "cash rebates on nearly every purchase" (at least not without stretching the definition of the word "rebate" to the breaking point. In general, the U.S. income tax code has long allowed taxpayers who itemize their federal income tax returns to deduct any state and local income taxes they pay during the year.  However, some state and local governments don't impose income taxes on residents and instead fund their operations in other ways (such as higher sales or property taxes), so those who live in such states were disadvantaged by not having a federal tax deduction to offset what they paid to keep their local government services running. To make things a little more equitable, for ten years running Congress voted in an exception every year that allowed taxpayers to choose to deduct either state and local income taxes or state and local sales taxes on their federal returns.  Finally, at the end of 2015, a bill was passed by Congress and signed by President Obama making this temporary yearly provision a permanent part of the law.  signed So, the minority of taxpayers who live in one of the nine no-income tax states (Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee, Washington and Wyoming) and itemize their federal tax returns may see some benefit to this not-new-but-recently-permanent law, as may a few others (such as taxpayers who have relatively low incomes but made large taxable purchases during the course of a given year).  But it's a tax deduction rather than a "cash rebate" program, and it affects only a small percentage of taxpayers and not "every taxpaying American." As the Stock Gumshoe site summarized the issue: Stock Gumshoe I expect lots of you were already fully aware of this, or blissfully unaware because it will never impact on your lives or your tax obligations, but [the "permanentization" of this tax break] is real and it has certainly made a difference for folks in no-income-tax states and a few other folks in non-typical circumstances. And its also been the law of the land for about ten years, and has recently been made permanent so you wont have to be on pins and needles each Winter as you watch to see if Congress extends the break another year. And no, it is not a rebate to 119 million Americans ... but for at least the 24 million or so households in no income tax states (or the ~8 million of them who itemize deductions, anyway) it could certainly make (and in all cases where theyve been paying attention since 2004, probably already has made) a difference on their tax returns. Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease.  fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO In December 2020, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first COVID-19 vaccine for emergency use, the FBI and other federal agencies began to warn of fraudsters exploiting interest in the newly released vaccine. INTERPOL, as well, issued an Orange Notice alerting law enforcement to "potential criminal activity in relation to the falsification, theft and illegal advertising of COVID-19 and flu vaccines." approved warn Orange Notice One area where these scams have reportedly proliferated is the so-called dark web. Broadly speaking, the dark web refers to unindexed content on the internet that can not be searched for and that, among other things, contains several anonymous marketplaces and forums that purport to sell a wide range of illicit material. On Feb. 8, 2021, CBS News reported that "in just the last six weeks, the number of vaccine ads on the dark web has exploded," adding that "the asking prices have doubled or even quadrupled." reportedly refers reported For a Dec. 25, 2020, segment on PlanetMoney, NPR spoke to Chad Anderson, a senior security researcher at the cyberthreat intelligence agency Domain Tools. "We're a cyberthreat intelligence data company," he explained, "so we scan the entire Internet as many times as we can every single day and give insights to customers based upon what we see." Back then, he argued the vaccine ads popping up on the dark web were clearly scams. NPR Chad Anderson "For one thing," NPR correspondent Stacey Vanek Smith explained, "the Pfizer vaccine requires a very intense cold storage chain. The vaccines have to be kept at negative 70 degrees Fahrenheit." And also, she added, "the COVID vaccine ads are mixed in with ads for all kinds of other things, and Chad says that tends to be a red flag." At the time of this reporting, the only two FDA-approved vaccines are the Pfizer vaccine and the Moderna vaccine. Both shots are mRNA vaccines, and as such they both require this high level of refrigeration for transport. explained Snopes reached out to Anderson to ask if ads for vaccines on dark web marketplaces still appeared to be scams, as of February 2021. "Just went and took a look at the last of the 'reputable' markets [on the dark web] and I still don't see any COVID vaccines for sale on there," he wrote to us by email, adding that he did see some ads for the largely discredited treatment hydroxychloroquine, but not much else on the COVID-19 front. One problem with the dark web, however, is that there is no requirement for "reputable behavior" and few safeguards against predatory behavior. Several media reports have cited a dark web market named Agartha as having ads for COVID-19 vaccines. Indeed it does  several hundred of them, according to a recent analysis by Snopes  but these ads are all comically obvious frauds. One ad listed under "opiates," for instance, asked for "mutual trust" in its effort to sell some "Moderona" vaccine: media reports   Other ads claim to be able to ship the Pfizer vaccine, which as a reminder requires extreme refrigeration for storage, by FedEx at no additional cost. Many ads, like the one below, don't even specify what vaccine product they purport to sell. Instead, the ad appears to be a bait-and-switch for a seller peddling other drugs ranging from marijuana to fentanyl:   According to DomainTools' Anderson, "Agartha is considered an entire scam market." He added that "I've never thrown money into my user wallet on there, but I have heard from others that the moment you do it's immediately siphoned off to another wallet that I would assume is the wallet of those running the site." CBS News, in its reporting, cited the work of cybersecurity company Check Point. That firm attempted to purchase COVID-19 vaccines from various dark web sellers, even sending a Bitcoin payment to one. "A few days after the Bitcoin transaction, Check Point received a message from the vendor saying the vaccine had been shipped, CBS reported. "Then a few days later, that vendor's account completely disappeared from the site." They never received any product in return, and the firm concluded that none of the sellers they found actually had any vaccine to sell.  reported Overt fraud aside, a possibility remains that as more easily transportable vaccines are approved and produced, a dark web black market for vaccines could develop. "As time goes by, and more people get access to legitimate doses, there's always the possibility that some of that real product could make its way onto the dark web," CBS reported. "More providers will lead to looser shipping restrictions," Anderson agreed. reported The risks from engaging in these transactions are multifaceted. Outside of a potential loss of money, there are risks of receiving unknown and dangerous drugs instead of a vaccine or having identifying information stolen. "In addition to the dangers of ordering potentially life-threatening products," a December 2020 Interpol news release stated, "an analysis by the INTERPOLs Cybercrime Unit revealed that of 3,000 websites associated with online pharmacies suspected of selling illicit medicines and medical devices, around 1,700 contained cyber threats, especially phishing and spamming malware." In other words, even if these listings were not overt scams, it's not worth the risk. stated Because at this time there are several ads for COVID-19 vaccines on various dark web markets of low repute, but that none of them appear to be legitimate, we rate the claim that the vaccines are for sale as "false."