We had bipartisan legislation that got through the Senate that would have prevented bonuses like AIG's and then somehow mysteriously disappeared.
As public outrage builds over bonuses issued by bailout recipient AIG, two senators are claiming they tried to outlaw such bonuses but were thwarted by the White House and fellow lawmakers. Sen. Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, and Sen. Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine, say they proposed an amendment to the stimulus bill in February that would have imposed heavy penalties on bailout recipients that refused to pay back bonuses over $100,000. Wyden made the claim during an appearance onThe Rachel Maddow Showon MSNBC, and in other interviews. Back in early February, you and Senator Snowe added an amendment to the stimulus bill that, I think, would have prevented AIG from giving out these millions of dollars worth of bonuses, Maddow said to Wyden. That amendment was taken out of the bill. Am I right that your amendment would have stopped what we are experiencing right now? You are right, Wyden said. And that's what's so sad about this situation. It simply didn't need to happen. Wyden went on to predict that a similar measure would pass now that the issue has gained so much public attention. I think finally, we'll get it done, he said. The tragedy is it should have been done a month ago when we had bipartisan legislation that got through the Senate and then somehow mysteriously disappeared. In a separate interview with the Huffington Post, Wyden blamed both the White House and fellow legislators, suggesting they caved to lobbyists for Wall Street who opposed the measure. Wyden and Snowe announced the amendment Feb. 4, proposing it be tacked onto another amendment to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, otherwise known as the stimulus bill. Last year's financial rescue package, commonly known as the bailout, had left open the escape hatch of golden parachutes for top executives on Wall Street, Snowe, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, said at the time. This amendment insists on strong taxpayer protections and guarantees that no tax dollars be used to prop up Wall Street executives. The amendment required companies that received government rescue funds in 2008 to repay within four months any bonuses above $100,000 or face an excise tax of 35 percent on the portion of the bonus over $100,000. It reportedlywould have raisedas much as $3.2 billion, a substantial chunk of the $18.4 billion in employee bonuses paid out in 2008 by companies that received more than $274 billion of bailout funds. Wyden pressed Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the amendment at a Senate Budget Committee hearing on Feb. 11. Given the fact that the president, to his credit, called these bonuses shameful, and time is short, where do you stand on getting a solution to the problem of these just-paid excessive bonuses in the economic stimulus legislation? Wyden asked. We've talked about that privately, Geithner said, in part, in a lengthy response. Our staffs are working together. We'd like to work with you on how to achieve that objective. American Banker, a trade publication, reported on Feb. 12 that the banking industry strongly opposes the provision, which the banking industry hopes to scale back when the House and Senate hash out differences between the stimulus bills. They appear to have succeeded. On Feb. 12, the Associated Press reported: The provision was removed as House and Senate negotiators hammered out final details of the $789 billion economic stimulus legislation this week. There is no documentation in the public record of exactly who removed the provision. Wyden overstated the case a bit when he responded in the affirmative to Maddow's suggestion that the amendment would have stopped what we are experiencing right now. It would not have eliminated the bonuses entirely  only that portion over $100,000 per person. And the tax that would have been imposed on companies that did not comply would have recovered just 35 percent of the excessive amount. But Wyden can legitimately claim to have taken on the issue with gusto  well before the current outrage over AIG's bonuses. We find his claim to be Mostly True.
In early February 2024, Apple released the long-awaited Vision Pro headset. As Reuters reported, the headset "blends three-dimensional digital content with a view of the outside world." While some commentators claimed the device represented a "new tech dystopia," others suggested that it was predicted by the TV series "The Simpsons." released reported claimed On Feb. 5, 2024, a video went viral on Reddit, with the caption "The Simpsons predicted the Apple Vision Pro." The same claim was also spread on other social media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, and TikTok. video X YouTube TikTok The Simpsons predicted the Apple Vision Pro. byu/adityapixel inBeAmazed The Simpsons predicted the Apple Vision Pro.  u/adityapixel BeAmazed  The topic was also covered in the Daily Mail, New York Post, and The Independent. "The Simpsons predicted revolutionary $3,500 Apple Vision EIGHT years before fans flocked to buy newest tech and show them off in everyday life," Daily Mail headline read. Daily Mail New York Post The Independent In short, although the clip really is from the series, the claim that "The Simpsons" predicted the Apple Vision Pro is false. The clip originated from "The Simpsons" Episode 2 of Season 28, Friends and Family, aired in October 2016 (the in-question scene starts about 20:00 in the episode). originated First of all, virtual reality (VR) is not a new concept. By 2016, when the Friends and Family episode aired, companies such as Oculus VR had introduced their VR headsets to the market, so the concept of people using such devices was not a novel prediction by "The Simpsons." The show, known for its satirical take on societal trends and technological advancements, was merely reflecting the growing interest in VR technology that was already present at the time. Thus, attributing the anticipation of Apple's Vision Pro to "The Simpsons" series overlooks the fact that the technology was already known to the public and evolving rapidly at the time. virtual reality Oculus VR   (Olaf Carlson looks up during a press demonstration at The Village event space in San Francisco, California, on March 15, 2016. Getty Images) We have covered similar dubious "Simpsons" Predictions in the past. For instance, we investigated whether an episode predicted the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In September 2023, we also debunked a claim that the series predicted the Tesla Cybertruck. "Simpsons" Predictions investigated debunked Friends and Family. The Simpsons, directed by Mike B. Anderson and Lance Kramer, 2 Oct. 2016. Friends and Family - The Simpsons (Series 28, Episode 2) - Apple TV (OM). AppleTV, 2 Oct. 2016, https://tv.apple.com/om/episode/friends-and-family/umc.cmc.5gyk9l73m6w6rqb32aji5hue3?showId=umc.cmc.1kfo3z1jtaj8ff6wsh9cvxbwu.
Heres When You Can Buy Oculuss Long-Awaited Virtual Reality Headset. TIME, 11 June 2015, https://time.com/3918081/oculus-rift-release-date-microsoft/. Kasprak, Alex. The Simpsons Predicted Teslas Cybertruck? Snopes, 8 Sept. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/simpsons-predicted-cybertruck/.
 Nellis, Stephen, and Dawn Chmielewski. Vision Pro Headset Is Apples next Mac and TV Combined. Reuters, 3 Feb. 2024. www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/technology/vision-pro-headset-is-apples-next-mac-tv-combined-2024-02-03/.
 Virtual Reality (VR) | Definition, Development, Technology, Examples, & Facts | Britannica. 1 Feb. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/technology/virtual-reality. Wrona, Aleksandra. The Simpsons Predicted 9/11 Attack on World Trade Center? Snopes, 11 Sept. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/simpsons-predicted-wtc/. In June 2016, a message reporting that GOP candidate Donald Trump was planning on shutting down the Library of Congress as a cost-saving measure if elected president began circulating via Facebook:  Such messages linked to a story that was originally posted on The Retroset web site: As reported early this morning by CNN and HuffPost, Donald Trump, in a phone interview with Fox News Steve Doocy, claimed as President of the United States, he would seek to cut-out all unnecessary spending. When pressed for specifics, the GOP frontrunner dismissively quipped, Well, I think we spend way too much on organizations and departments that just save stuff. For instance, Id make a move to get rid of the Library of Congress. Trump continued, Yknow what? Old books, decomposing newspapers, pansy artwork and a bunch of black and white movies about women and illegal immigrants have no business being protected with our hard-earned tax dollars. My first act as President would be to dissolve wasteful branches of government like the Library and that Kennedy Center for Peforming Arts stuff, and sell the material to China for huge profits. The publication date of the Retroset article wasn't obvious to those who encountered it via Facebook, but readers who clicked through to the original discovered that it appeared on 1 April 2016, otherwise known as April Fool's Day. original The Retroset didn't specifically state that the article was a springtime ruse, but the text incorporated several clues to its fictional nature. For instance, while The Retroset reported that CNN and the Huffington Post had both reported on Trump's plan to shutter the Library of Congress, the embedded links they provided led to irrelevant articles on those sites. A story from 1995 resurfaced around Veterans Day 2019, reporting that then-private citizen and real estate mogul Donald Trump had "saved" the Veterans Day parade that year in New York City when organizers ran out of money. On Nov. 6, 2019, for example, the Daily Caller News Foundation website published a story bearing the headline, "The 1995 NYC Veterans Day Parade Had $1.21 In The Bank. Then Donald Trump Stepped In." A meme circulating on Facebook similarly described Trump's intervention:This claim apparently originated with Trump himself, or at least it was touted on his campaign website in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. The website at the time stated: headline  campaign website Mr. Trump has long been a devoted supporter of veteran causes. In 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of World War II, only 100 spectators watched New York Citys Veteran Day Parade. It was an insult to all veterans. Approached by Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the chief of New York Citys FBI office, Mr. Trump agreed to lead as Grand Marshall a second parade later that year. Mr. Trump made a $1 million matching donation to finance the Nations Day Parade. On Saturday, November 11th, over 1.4 million watched as Mr. Trump marched down Fifth Avenue with more than 25,000 veterans, some dressed in their vintage uniforms. A month later, Mr. Trump was honored in the Pentagon during a lunch with the Secretary of Defense and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. First off, Trump's website contained some confusing pieces of misinformation: The Veterans Day parade in New York City went by the name the "Nation's Parade." The poorly attended parade "with only 100 spectators" occurred in 1994, not 1995 (The New York Times reported police did not give a crowd estimate). Only one Veteran's Day parade took place in the city in 1995  the Nation's Parade on Nov. 11. That event was slated by the U.S. Defense Department as representing "the official close of the 50th anniversary of World War II." reported We contacted the United War Veterans of New York (UWNY), which organized the Nation's Parade in 1995, to ask about claims that Trump's intervention saved the event from cancellation, and we were referred by spokesman Pat Smith to a Nov. 10, 1995, New York Times article about the event. Smith told us that Trump did make a financial contribution toward the parade, but also said UWNY is a small, volunteer-staffed group that doesn't keep records that could answer questions in detail about an event that occurred more than two decades ago. article  The 1995 Times article reported that Trump did make a financial contribution, but that he tried to make it in exchange for being named the parade's grand marshal even though he is not a veteran. The Times reported Trump gave $200,000, not $1 million: By mid-August, organizers had a bank account of exactly $1.21. A request to airlines to donate blankets for aging veterans was turned down because logos might not be visible on television. Then Donald Trump, a nonveteran, agreed to throw in $200,000 as well as raise money from his friends, in exchange for being named grand marshal. Since then, money has come in, though not enough to meet the original budget, which was reduced from $2.9 million to $2.4 million. Fireworks were just one of many cuts. In May 2016, CNN spoke to Vincent McGowan, the president emeritus of UWNY who organized the parade in 1995. McGowan said that Trump's contribution was "somewhere between $325,000 and $375,000," but McGowan also said Trump's donation did save the event. McGowan also said Trump was never the grand marshal because that honor was only given to military veterans. CNN In a follow-up story, the Times in 1995 reported that organizers had agreed to make Trump the parade's grand marshal, a move that had angered some veterans, while others expressed appreciation for his "crucial" financial assistance: reported Also in the reviewing stand was the developer Donald Trump, who provided the only note of controversy in an otherwise positive day. Many veterans were angry that organizers had agreed to name Mr. Trump, who is not a veteran, as grand marshal in exchange for his contribution of $200,000 and help in raising additional funds. Another story, dated Nov. 11, 1995, from the news service UPI, reported that Trump contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000 for the parade, which was viewed by parade Director Tom Fox as having been key: UPI Police estimated 500,000 people attended the largest military parade ever held in New York. Organizers, who placed the turnout at closer to a million, said the parade would not have been a success if it hadn't been for real estate developer Donald Trump, who contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000. "Donald Trump saved the parade," said parade director Tom Fox, himself a Vietnam veteran. "We had asked for donations from 200 corporations, and none of them came through," he said. "This donation is the single most important thing I've ever done," said a beaming Trump. "This is more important than all of my buildings and my casinos. This is my way of saying thank you to all the men and women in the armed services who have made it possible for me to become a success. Without them freedom and liberty would be gone." In sum, we are rating this claim "True" because two individuals involved with the planning of the 1995 parade stated on two separate occasions that Trump's efforts and donation did indeed enable the event to take place. Still unclear are the origins of other sources of funding. Martin, Douglas."Veterans Day Parade Tries for a Comeback."
The New York Times.10 November 1995. Fitzpatrick, David and Curt Devine."Trump Will Give $1 Million to Marine Charity, but There Are Other Discrepancies."
CNN.25 May 2016. McFadden, Robert D. "On Parade To the Beat of History."
The New York Times.12 November 1995. UPI."More Than 500,000 Watch Nation's Parade."
11 November 1995. Gov. Jerry Brown frequently touts Californias overall job growth when telling what hes called the states comeback story. He claimed recently on NBCsMeet the Pressthat California has added 2.1 million jobs in the last six or seven years. We checked the numbers and rated that claimTrue. Later in the same interview, the shows host Chuck Todd asked Brown about inland Californias struggles, leading to another claim that caught our attention: Chuck Todd:But there are parts of your state that are struggling. You have rural counties, ones that dont touch the ocean, struggling. Housing prices are up there, while jobs dont go there. Gov. Brown:The Inland Empire, the Central Valley, they have a harder time. But they, too, are experiencing tremendous job growth. Brown makes his jobs claim at about the 2:05 minute mark in the video above. Californias job growth is normally associated with coastal hubs like Silicon Valley and San Francisco. So, we wondered whether Brown had his facts right when he said these inland regions had really experienced tremendous job growth, too. We set out on a fact-check. Inland Empire Home to about 4.5 million people, Riverside and San Bernardino counties make up whats known as the Inland Empire, a sprawling set of communities east of Los Angeles. The economists we spoke with say Browns case for tremendous job growth here is a strong one. The regions 3.2 percent job growth rate was the fastest among the states large metro areas from February 2016 through February 2017, saidJohnHusing, chief economist for the InlandEmpire EconomicPartnership. During that year, it added 47,500 jobs, which was more than the 35,700 created in the Santa Clara metro area, considered the heart of Silicon Valley, Husing said. This area is a real growth engine, he added, listing construction, logistics and transportation among the growing sectors. Over the past five years, as the region has recovered from the Great Recession, it added jobs at a rate of 22.3 percent. That trailed only the San Francisco-Redwood City-South San Francisco metro areas 22.7 percent rate among large metros. A spokesman for the Brown Administration cited the same statistics backing up the governors claim. Colin Strange of the San Bernardino Area Chamber of Commerce said San Bernardino is seeing job growth, but mainly in blue-collar jobs that pay about $15 per hour including fork-lift operators and truck drivers. Husing, who has studied the regions wages, said the Inland Empire has a lower share of high-paying administrative jobs compared with the state as a whole. He said, however, that the region is outperforming the state in its share of middle-class jobs that pay between $45,000 and $60,000. Central Valley The Central Valley stretches about 450 miles from Bakersfield north to Redding. It includes urban cities like Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto and Fresno, vast farmland and a diverse economy, making job growth trends for the overall region more complex. Areport by Stanislaus State Universityin the Central Valley city of Turlock offers some help. That report shows the 8-county San Joaquin Valley, which makes up the central and southern portions of the Central Valley, experienced a 1.56 percent job growth rate in 2016; a 1.86 percent rate in 2015 and 1.80 percent in 2014. Those averages trailed the states overall job growth average, which measured 3 percent in 2015 and about 2 percent last year. But it beat the 8-county regions 1.23 percent historical average job growth rate. SOURCE: Stanislaus State University, College of Business Administration,2016 Business Forecast Report,Volume VI, Issue 1 Within its own limits, the Valley has consistently grown. But it hasnt been a home run, Gokce Soydemir, an economics professor at Stanislaus State, said of job growth in that portion of the Central Valley. Jeffrey Michael, director of the University of Pacifics Center for Business and Policy Research in Stockton, added by email: Central Valley areas have also done very well in recent years with the exception of Bakersfield, where recent economic fluctuations are tightly connected to the oil industry. Bakersfields job growth rate was flat, at 0.1 percent, over the past year. Meanwhile, Sacramento, the biggest metro area in northern portion of the Central Valley, saw 1.8 percent growth over the past year, close to the statewide average. Our ruling Gov. Jerry Brown recently claimed Californias Central Valley and Inland Empire are experiencing tremendous job growth. Economists say Brown is right about the Inland Empire. That region experienced the fastest job growth rate among the states large metro areas over the past year, and added more jobs than the Santa Clara metro area, the heart of Silicon Valley, during that period. Job growth in the Central Valley, while its outperformed its historical benchmark in much of the diverse region, hasnt kept up with the overall state average. The governors argument here needs this key clarification. In the end, we rate his overall claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. For several years, social media users have shared tweets and memes claiming that funds from the sale of Girl Scout Cookies are distributed to Planned Parenthood, often posting such items with hashtags such as "#cookiecott" to promote the rumor: How did we end up with a crooked eyed snake salesman Leader, selling nothing but snake oil to Americans?  Tiffiny Bond (@RedHatGeek) April 8, 2015 April 8, 2015  @KazmierskiR don't even get me started on Girl Scout cookies where portion goes to PP don't buy cookies write a check to the troop @KazmierskiR  QThePatriots+++ (@patriotswanted) December 23, 2015 December 23, 2015  An opinion piece dated March 22, 2018 on LifeNews.com encouraged readers to "say no" to Girl Scout cookies over "ties" to Planned Parenthood (although it did not repeat the claim that proceeds of cookie sales go to fund that organization).  LifeNews.com The claim that Girl Scout Cookie sales fund Planned Parenthood became popular in mid-2015 and early 2016, likely due in part to a series of questionable viral videos targeting the latter organizationcirculated in the summer of 2015.  However, the rumor had previously spread widely in 2012, after Fox News reprinted a (since-deleted) opinion piece from LifeSiteNews that stated (in part): videos opinion piece When our sweet little neighbor in her brown camp uniform came knocking on our door this year, we had to say no. I told her mother that I didnt want to hurt Katies feelings, but I couldnt support the Girl Scout cookie sale anymore because Id learned too much about the organizers agenda, primarily their support for abortion and partnership with Planned Parenthood ... Several years ago. a quarter of the Girl Scout councils nationwide admitted to partnering with Planned Parenthood, the nations abortion giant. When questioned about the affiliation on NBCs Today Show, Girl Scout CEO Kathy Cloninger had no compunction in confirming it. In fact, what then-Girl Scout CEO Kathy Cloninger said on NBC's Today show back in 2012 was that Planned Parenthood was one of several organizations (including church communities and YMCAs) that the Girl Scouts worked with "to bring information-based sex education programs to girls.  Cloninger did not state (or imply) that any financial support relationship existed between the two organizations.  We contacted the Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA) to determine whether any portion of the rumor was true. They responded to say thatno proceeds have ever been donatedfrom the sale of Girl Scout Cookies toPlanned Parenthood. The Girl Scout Cookies section of the Girl Scouts website's FAQ declares that all revenue raised from cookie sales goes to the local Girl Scout councils and troops, not outside organizations: Girl Scout Cookies Q: Does any part of Girl Scout Cookie Program revenue support organizations other than the local Girl Scout council? A: One hundred percent of the net proceeds from Girl Scout Cookie sales is retained by the originating council and troop to power amazing experiences for girls and influential girl-led community projects. Girl Scout troops set goals for how to spend their proceeds on program-related activities, such as paying their own way to a community event or museum or funding other program outings. Girl Scout troops may also choose to use proceeds to purchase materials for a Take Action or service project to benefit the community. The Social Issues portion of the FAQ also states that GSUSA "does not have a relationship or partnership with Planned Parenthood": Social Issues  A 12 March 2015New York Times compendium piece addressed the rumor and found it lacking: piece In recent years, conservative groups have challenged the organization  even held cookiecotts  over critics claims that it supports abortion. One Indiana lawmaker in 2012 went so far as to say the Girl Scouts were quickly becoming a tactical arm of Planned Parenthood. cookiecotts One Indiana lawmaker in 2012 The Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. does have a legislative agenda. Reducing bullying and increasing girls involvement in science, technology, engineering and math are among issues on its website. issues Not on the list: abortion, or any social issues. abortion, or any social issues Anna Maria Chvez, the chief executive of the national group, responded to critics last year, denying any relationship with Planned Parenthood. responded to critics A box of Girl Scout cookies is not a political statement, she said. As Girl Scouts of the United States of America is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, their financial statements are by law made freely available to the public, along with their annual report. financial statements annual report Hassan, Adeel.  "Your Thursday Briefing."
  The New York Times.  12 March 2015.

 Ruse, Cathy Cleaver.  "Say No to Girl Scout Cookies."
  LifeSiteNews.  17 January 2012.
 Harrington, Elizabeth.  "Pelosi: Girl Scouts' Relationship with Planned Parenthood Very Valuable."
  CNSNews.com   1 February 2012.
 Updated with information about a more recent example of the claim. As if Americans hadn't accumulated enough dark suspicions about their government over the past 50-odd years, along comes an Internet factoid holding that the United States government intentionally (and fatally) poisoned more than 10,000 of its own citizens between 1926 and 1933:   The alarming claim is that the U.S. government added poison to alcohol to discourage people from drinking it during Prohibition, the period from 1920 to 1933 in which it was illegal to produce, transport, or sell alcoholic beverages anywhere in the United States. That didn't mean people stopped making, buying, and drinking booze  they just did it illegally. As noted in virtually every U.S. history textbook ever written, one of the many negative unintended consequences of Prohibition was a booming black market in alcohol that law enforcement was never able to subdue. Prohibition To the question at hand: Did the federal government really add poison to alcohol to discourage people from drinking it? It did, in fact. The government did purposely add poisonous substances to alcohol, and this did result in thousands of deaths during Prohibition. The story of how that came to pass is longer and more nuanced than the Internet meme suggests, however. And it began well before the passage of the 18th Amendment, which made Prohibition the law of the land. According to Deborah Blum, author of The Poisoner's Handbook: Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York (Penguin Press, 2010), the practice was called "denaturing". It consisted of adding noxious chemicals to alcohol sold for industrial purposes to make it unfit for human consumption. The process, long used in Europe, was introduced in the United States in 1906 as a means of exempting producers of alcohol used in paints, solvents, and the like from having to pay the taxes levied on potable spirits. 2010 Mainly, this was done by adding some methyl alcohol ("wood alcohol") to grain alcohol, rendering it poisonous. Some formulas also contained substances that made the product taste too awful to drink. One of the ways crime syndicates tried to flout Prohibition, Blum explained in a 2010 Slate article, was stealing industrial alcohol and finding ways to make it potable. The government, in turn, resorted to making it more poisonous: article To sell the stolen industrial alcohol, the liquor syndicates employed chemists to "renature" the products, returning them to a drinkable state. The bootleggers paid their chemists a lot more than the government did, and they excelled at their job. Stolen and redistilled alcohol became the primary source of liquor in the country. So federal officials ordered manufacturers to make their products far more deadly. By mid-1927, the new denaturing formulas included some notable poisonskerosene and brucine (a plant alkaloid closely related to strychnine), gasoline, benzene, cadmium, iodine, zinc, mercury salts, nicotine, ether, formaldehyde, chloroform, camphor, carbolic acid, quinine, and acetone. The Treasury Department also demanded more methyl alcohol be addedup to 10 percent of total product. It was the last that proved most deadly. TIME magazine's 2008 Prohibition retrospective described the horrendous consequences of an unregulated  and, in many instances, purposely adulterated  black-market liquor supply: retrospective It wasn't just the violent Prohibition-era gang wars that were dangerous to Americans drinking homemade moonshine and bathtub gin. According to the Dec. 26, 1922 edition of the New York Times, five people were killed in the city on Christmas Day from drinking "poisoned rum." That was only the beginning. By 1926, according to Prohibition, by Edward Behr, 750 New Yorkers perished from such poisoning and hundreds of thousands more suffered irreversible injuries including blindness and paralysis. On New Year's Day 1927, 41 people died at New York's Bellevue Hospital from alcohol-related poisonings. Oftentimes, they were drinking industrial methanol, otherwise known as wood alcohol, which was a legal but extremely dangerous poison. One government report said that of 480,000 gallons of liquor confiscated in New York in 1927, nearly all contained poisons. Although it is inaccurate in the sense that none of this deadly business began in 1926, the factoid we set out to investigate wasn't entirely wrong in citing that year as a pivotal one. Blum points out that the spate of alcohol-related poisonings that culminated in so many fatalities on New Year's Day 1927 actually commenced a week earlier, on Christmas: It was Christmas Eve 1926, the streets aglitter with snow and lights, when the man afraid of Santa Claus stumbled into the emergency room at New York City's Bellevue Hospital. He was flushed, gasping with fear: Santa Claus, he kept telling the nurses, was just behind him, wielding a baseball bat. Before hospital staff realized how sick he wasthe alcohol-induced hallucination was just a symptomthe man died. So did another holiday partygoer. And another. As dusk fell on Christmas, the hospital staff tallied up more than 60 people made desperately ill by alcohol and eight dead from it. Within the next two days, yet another 23 people died in the city from celebrating the season. As for the claim that some 10,000 people died of alcohol poisoning during the course of Prohibition through its repeal in 1933, that, too, is a figure we can source to Blum (who did not, in the Slate article, specify where this estimate came from): Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people. In sum, federal attempts to reduce the palatability of industrial alcohol came well before Prohibition, and efforts to intensify the risks of consuming it were both well-known and controversial at the time. Such evidence as we've seen does not support the the implication that the government set out to purposely kill drinkers of alcohol, although Prohibition-era lawmakers and public health experts decried what they described as a callous disregard for those who died as result of drinking denatured alcohol. before known Andrews, Evan.  "10 Things You Should Know About Prohibition."
  History.  16 January 2015. Blum, Deborah.  "The Chemist's War."
  Slate.  19 February 2010. Damrau, Frederic, M.D.  "The Truth About Poison Liquor."
  Popular Science Monthly.  April 1927. Norris, Charles, M.D.  "Our Essay In Extermination."
  The North American Review.  December 1928. Rothman, Lily.  "The History of Poisoned Alcohol Includes an Unlikely Culprit: The U.S. Government."
  TIME.  14 January 2015. TIME.  "Top 10 Prohibition Tales: Mortal Moonshine."
  2008. Chicago Tribune.  "Alcohol Gets Double Poison Ration Jan. 1."
  30 December 1926. Wikipedia.  "Prohibition In The United States."
  Accessed 11 May 2017. Wikipedia.  "Prohibition In The United States."
  Accessed 11 May 2017. Claim:   Two Idaho pastors were threatened with legal action and arrests for refusing to perform gay weddings.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Facebook has a Fox News Radio article about a couple, Don and Evelyn Knapp, that own an Idaho wedding chapel and are supposedly facing arrest if they don't perform same sex marriages. Is this for real?  Are officials in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, forcing Christian ministers to perform same sex marriage against their religious beliefs?  What has happened to "separation of church and state"?  Does it now only apply to churches preaching against  orruption in government?  Has the First Amendment been rewritten so that the state can now dictate religious beliefs and practices? Origins:  On 18 October 2014, the Christian legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) announced in a press release that they were filing a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order on behalf of pastors Donald and Evelyn Knapp of Couer d'Alene, Idaho. According to the announcement, the move was to prevent the city of Couer d'Alene from "forcing [the] two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples." The ADF's release stated that Donald and Evelyn Knapp faced the threat of jail or exorbitant fines if they refused to officiate gay weddings: City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its "non-discrimination" ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho's voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman. "The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. "Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that's what is happening here  and it's happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple's freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended." On 14 October 2014, three days prior to the ADF's press release, the Idaho state government had announced that they would no longer oppose the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, prompting a number of same-sex couples to obtain licenses and marry in the days immediately following the state's announcement:  The marriages came a day after Gov. Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, Republicans who had fought to maintain the state's ban on gay marriage, ended their opposition to a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that ordered the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. The localized battle in Idaho received national attention on 20 October 2014, when Fox News opinion columnist Todd Starnes published an article about the ADF's lawsuit on behalf of the Knapps: According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a "religious corporation" limited to performing "one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible." But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit A Couer dAlene deputy city attorney reportedly said on local television that for-profit wedding chapels could not legally turn away a gay couple without risking a misdemeanor citation, and that the Hitching Post "would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance." The Knapps maintain that the City Attorneys office made the same assertion in telephone conversations with them, while the city claims they never threatened to take any legal action against the couple.  The difference between churches and businesses is at the heart of the Couer d'Alene ministers' legal dispute, and one eagle-eyed blogger made a compelling discovery in respect to that delineation, noticing that a cached version of theKnapp's "Hitching Post" web site described their services as follows: discovery cached The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We also perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths as well as civil weddings. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors.  At some point in time around Idaho's issuance of same-sex wedding licenses on 15 October and the ADF's press release on 18 October 2014, the Knapps altered the copy on their web site. As of 20 October 2014, the "About" description on the site no longer included references to the civil and non-denominational services that it had displayed just a few days earlier: description The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors. The ordinance under which the Knapps maintained their religious freedoms were restricted [PDF], issued by the city of Couer d'Alene on 4 June 2014, exempted "religious corporations" from its provisions: PDF Notwithstanding any other provision herein, nothing in this Chapter is intended to alter or abridge other rights, protections, or privileges secured under state and/or federal law. This ordinance shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion. This chapter does not apply to: Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies. Although the City of Couer d'Alene agreed that the Hitching Post was exempted from the anti-discrimination ordinance, the Knapps nonetheless forged ahead with a lawsuit against the jurisdiction. In March 2015, Couer d'Alene television station KXLY reported that the Knapps were maintaining that the city ordinance had cost them money, despite the fact that they had closed their business' doors by choice: reported The Hitching Post wants the city to pay them for wages lost during the time they thought the city was going to force them to perform weddings. The Hitching Post made their stance on gay marriage very clear last year when the initial ban was overturned. Last May they said they would close their doors if they were forced to perform same sex marriages. The Hitching Post now wants the city to pay them for the days the chapel shut down even though they did so by choice. The business also says it lost customers and received hate mail because of media attention. However, the city said they have made it clear the Hitching Post is classified as a "religious organization" and is exempt, whether it's for profit or not. City spokesperson Keith Erickson wrote in a statement that the city "never threatened any legal action against the Hitching Post, nor does it intend to do so." A  2 April 2015 news article added that the chapel closures cited by the Knapps in their suit against the city included days on which same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized in Idaho:  Boise-based attorney Kirtlan Naylor wrote in the city's legal response, that while the Knapps claim they lost income when they closed the Hitching Post because they would be in violation of the ordinance, they never allege "that they had any weddings scheduled on those dates, or that anybody came to their business requesting a wedding on those dates." "More so, same-sex marriage was not legal in Idaho on Oct. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14," the motion states. "Additionally, on Oct. 15, 2014, when same-sex marriage became legal, Plaintiffs would not have been subject to the ordinance because they were exempt. Therefore, they were under no legitimate threat of prosecution which would require them to close their business on that date." According to the Hitching Post owners' complaint, the Knapps closed their business due to "a constant state of fear that they would be arrested and prosecuted if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony." However, the article referenced above also reiterated a city spokesman's statement that officials "have never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind" against them. Last updated:  7 July 2015    Starnes, Todd.   "City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings."   Fox News.  20 October 2014. In October 2019 it came to our attention that an aging platitude about aging, already credited to multiple sources, found a new voice:   The meme appeared on Get Old, a lifestyle blog published by a pharmaceutical company. The same quote has been attributed to Landers on several sites, including Psychology Today. Psychology Today However, the quote does not surface in searches at AnnLanders.com, an advice column launched in 2019 by Landers daughter, Margo Howard. The site is also advertised as an archive of Landers columns. Thats not the only reason to doubt the credit. A similar quote has been attributed to Bob Hope, Anonymous, a wise old man, and Winston Churchill. Snopes investigated that last one in December 2018: Bob Hope a wise old man December 2018 Not so long ago, this particular quote about aging existed on the Internet primarily as a wise saying attributed to Anonymous or Unknown. For example, motivational speaker Bill Benjamin included it as such on his list of Favorite Quotes & Thoughts as far back as 2008. This quote appears in myriad other lists of anonymous sayings as well and was memed into a Churchill quote only fairly recently. 2008 We rate the newer variation of this claim as "Misattributed" because, although Landers could have given some version of this advice during the 47 years she was publishing columns, there is no available evidence to prove that the exact quote originated with her. Unfortunately, Landers (Esther Pauline "Eppie" Lederer) died in 2002 at the age of 83, so we cannot ask her to confirm directly. died Here is advice on aging Landers did recommend for everyone over 60. Again, however, not her words. The list was written by one of her readers. Here is advice Have you seen other variations of this claim? Let us know. Let us know. Claim:  Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber said Obamacare only passed due to the "stupidity" of the American voter and a lack of "transparency," and video footage of his remarks was deleted from the Internet in an attempt to hide it. :   : Jonathan Gruber said Obamacare only passed due to the "stupidity" of the American voter and a lack of "transparency.     UNDETERMINED: Video footage of his remarks was deleted from the Internet in an attempt to hide it.  Example:  [Collected via Twitter, November 2014] Hey Media, is UPenn pulling the Gruber video where he says ObamaCare passed by Democrats lying to the public a newsworthy event? Just askin'  Jonathan Gruber, an Obamacare's architect admitted that lack of transparency/stupidity of electorate helped pass the bill   Origins:  In November 2014, a 52-second long excerpt from a video of a 2013 conferenceinvolving Jonathan Gruber, a consultant who served as a technical consultant to the Obama administration and Congress during the creation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as the ACA or "Obamacare"), began to circulate on the internet. Gruber made the remarks captured in that excerpt during the 24th Annual Health Economics Conference at the University of Pennsylvania's Leonard Davis Institute (LDI) of Health Economics in October 2013. Gruber's remarks became controversial when video of the conference was posted online thirteen months after the LDI panel on health economics took place. panel Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor of economics, was speaking at a panel titled "The Role of Economics in Shaping the ACA and How Economics Can Inform Inevitable Mid-Course Corrections." The footage from which the comments originated ran for nearly an hour and covered issues tangential to Obamacare, such as its classification as a tax, subsidies, and how the bill came into law. Gruber's controversial remarks come at around the 18-minute mark in the video shown below:  During the portion of the video in question, Gruber said: This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK? So it's written to do that. In terms of risk-rated  subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in  you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money  it would not have passed. OK? Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass. Look, I wish ... we could make it all transparent, but I'd rather have this law than not. After video of the conference was put online, Gruber elaborated on what he meant by his attention-garnering remarks and apologized for them, saying that he "spoke inappropriately": elaborated Gruber's comments were part of a broader public conversation between him and economist Mark Pauly on the economics of health care reform. Gruber was responding to a remark by Pauly about financing transparency in the law and the politics surrounding the ACA's individual mandate. The political process, he said, striking a critical tone, resulted in inefficiencies in the law which should be corrected. "In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which explicitly said that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed," he said. "You can't  do it politically, you just literally cannot do it. It's not only transparent financing but also transparent spending." In the video, Gruber appeared to be speaking specifically about the political environment in 2010 and its impact on the law's funding mechanisms. Gruber takes a critical stance on some of those outcomes, calling them "irrational." "I wish Mark was right and we could make it all transparent but I'd rather have this law than not," Gruber said. "That involves tradeoffs that we don't prefer as economists but are realistic." Gruber apologized for his comments during an on-air interview with MSNBC's Ronan Farrow. "The comments in the video were made at an academic conference," Gruber said. "I was speaking off the cuff and I basically spoke inappropriately and I regret having made those comments." Although Gruber apologized for the language he used, Gruber said that the larger point he was trying to make centered on the political pressures that shaped the law. He added that those pressures "led to an incomplete law with some typos." "It would have made more sense to do Obamacare the way we did in Massachusetts, which would be to just give people money to offset the cost of their health insurance," Gruber said. "That was politically infeasible and so instead it was done through the tax code." The full video of the 2013 Health Economics Conference was published by PennLDI on YouTube, and when the excerpt video of Gruber's remarks began to circulate online, many viewers assumed the comments to be recent (they were not), and others maintained PennLDI then removed the clip from the Internet due to the political controversy. On the latter point, several Twitter users posted screenshots of a YouTube error page that indicated the source video had been (at least briefly) removed by the University after Gruber's remarks became a focus of attention: recent  However, it isn't yet clear whether the PennLDI video was deliberately pulled from the Internet due to the political controversy it created, or whether it was made unavailable at some point after it was initially posted for unrelated reasons (e.g.,  error, copyright issues, technical problems).   It appears the comments made by Gruber entered the stream of social media hot topics when they were spotted and excerpted from the longer PennLDI video by Philadelphia investment adviser Rich Weinstein, then posted to the YouTube channel of the American Commitment 501(c)(4) (i.e., a politically active nonprofit organization), whose Phil Kerpen tweeted: Rich Weinstein American Commitment My wife texts to say the latest Gruber video we posted is lighting up her Facebook feed... excellent... Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 10, 2014 My wife texts to say the latest Gruber video we posted is lighting up her Facebook feed... excellent...  Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 10, 2014 November 10, 2014  The claim that the University of Pennsylvania deliberately tried to scrub the clip from the Internet may also have stemmed from Kerpen or the PAC: Um, hey, University of Pennsylvania: Pulling the Gruber video now really doesn't help your cause. https://t.co/KoW7Kx2WLb Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 10, 2014 Um, hey, University of Pennsylvania: Pulling the Gruber video now really doesn't help your cause. https://t.co/KoW7Kx2WLb https://t.co/KoW7Kx2WLb  Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 10, 2014 November 10, 2014  Last updated:  12 November 2014 Thanks to 150 years of fictionalization in dime novels, Hollywood films, and television shows, that hallowed time and place in American history known as the Old West is as much a figment of the national imagination as it was a historical reality. So deep a wellspring of myth and legend is it, in fact, that people are still making up stories about the Old West today on that most modern of misinformation sources, the Internet.  novels films shows Consider the origin of the expression "a shot of whiskey." In 2016, a social media meme shared via Facebook popularized a long-established folk etymology holding that the phrase originated in frontier saloons with cowboys trading bullets for drinks: meme Although the meme is of recent origin, Internet mentions of this alleged historical fact date to at least 2003. Significantly, however, we were unable to trace it back any further than that, nor could we find any credible support for the general claim that it was common to use ammunition as a substitute for hard currency in frontier drinking establishments. 2003 Was the price of a single .45 six-gun cartridge equivalent to that of a shot of whiskey in the Old West, as claimed? It doesn't appear so. The 1891 edition of Chicago hardware dealer Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co.'s General Catalog lists Smith & Wesson .45 cartridges at a price of $25 per thousand, or 2-1/2 cents per cartridge. For the price of a shot of whiskey, we consulted Kelly J. Dixon's 2005 book Boomtown Saloons: Archaeology and History in Virginia City, which notes that the average cost of a measure of any drink was around two bits, or 25 cents (although the cost later dropped as competition increased when more Americans moved west). Using those figures as our base prices, one shot of whiskey would have cost the equivalent of 10 cartridges. Even allowing for price variations according to time and place, it appears highly doubtful a one-to-one correspondence between the price of a cartridge and the cost of a drink ever existed in the Old West. lists We also looked into the etymology of the noun shot, which has a long and interesting history as well as many shades of meaning. It derives from the Old English verb scotan (later scot), meaning "to shoot," or "let loose a projectile." etymology shot The earliest known usage of "shot" in the sense of "a measure of liquor" appeared in the autobiography of the Rev. Oliver Heywood (1630-1702), in which we find the phrase "their vain way of drinking shots." Unfortunately for the trading-cartridges-for-shots theory, the usage predates the time period of the Old West (which, by convention, was roughly 1850 to 1900) by some 150 years.  autobiography Interestingly enough, the term "shot" was also at one time synonymous with "a charge to be paid" (and, in a more specific usage, "a bill or one's share of it, especially in a pub or bar"), according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Again, however, those meanings predate the Old West era, in this case going all the way back to 15th-century England, hundreds of years before saloons and cowpokes dotted the western frontier of the United States. according Despite their sharing the same derivation, it's unclear precisely how these three disparate senses of the word came to be associated with one another. A theory advanced on the Etymology Online web site suggests that the expression "throw down" (as in "throw down one's money") may link them: Meaning "discharge of a bow, missile," also is from related Old English gesceot. Extended to other projectiles in Middle English, and to sports (hockey, basketball, etc.) 1868. Another original meaning, "payment" (perhaps literally "money thrown down") is preserved in scot-free. "Throwing down" might also have led to the meaning "a drink," first attested 1670s, the more precise meaning "small drink of straight liquor" by 1928 (shot glass by 1955). scot-free Finally, when we used Google's Ngram Viewer to chart how frequently the exact phrase "shot of whiskey" appeared in published sources from the year 1800 on, we found that it didn't actually become common until the mid-20th century, by which time all that was left of the Old West were fading memories, rusting artifacts, and folklore. chart Martin, Katherine Connor.  "What Is the Origin of the Term 'Scot-Free.'"
  Oxford Dictionaries.  15 April 2015. Simmons, Brian M.  "Dime Novels: The Rise of the American Hero."
  Baylor University.  13 August 2013. Smith, Gavin D.  A-Z of Whisky.
  Castle Douglas, Scotland: Neil Wilson Publishing, 2011.  ISBN 9781906476199  p. 250. Etymology Online.  "Shot."
  Accessed 13 October 2017. World Wide Words.  "Shot."
Accessed 13 October 2017.