Only 100 Corporations Responsible For Most of World's Greenhouse Gas Emissions?
In early September 2021, the below-displayed compilation of alleged tweetswere circulating on numerous Reddit threads. CNN supposedly offered several suggestions for how people in their day-to-day life could help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, and then a media analyst respondedwith this critique: compilation of alleged tweets responded "[Reminder] that 100 corporations are responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions and presenting the crisis as a moral failing on the part of individuals without noting this fact is journalistic malpractice."   Both tweets were authentic, though originally posted in October 2018. The underlying claim stemmed from Adam Johnson, a writer and co-host of the podcast "Citations Needed." In short, his post accused CNN of erroneously framing the crisis as the result of individual choice when, allegedly, just dozens of corporations were responsible for the majority of emissions trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere. writer Citations Needed However, the tweet was misleading based on evidence we outline below. After the post went viral, Johnson acknowledged the post's shortcomings on an April 2020 episode of his podcast, saying: "The stat, albeit widely reported that way in the press, is deceiving in its media shorthand." an April 2020 episode of his podcast Before we identify the claim's flaws, let us provide some context to explain CNN's tweet. On Oct. 8, 2018, CNN tweeted several suggestions for people to help curb greenhouse gas emissions(eat less meat, take car rides or plane trips less often, and replace old thermostats) to promote an article published by the news outlet on the same day titled, "What the new report on climate change expects from you." tw eeted (eat less meat an article   The tweet's reference to "that new report on climate change"alludedto a multi-chapter document that theUnited Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had released the same day.In short, that report compared various strategies for slowing (or pausing) the rate at which Earth's average surface temperature was warming, as well as provided recommendations for governments to consider while establishing regulatory laws. multi-chapter document Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Based on our review of the report, the crux of the CNN tweet mostly aligned with the report's ideas  though it's worth noting the social media post editorialized the IPCC's findings with a "second person" point of view (it referred to the speaker's audience) and cherry-picked concepts among numerous strategies to mitigate climate change. Now, let us address the veracity of Johnson's commendatory. Based on a cursory Google search for keywords in his tweet,we uncovered a July 10, 2017, article in The Guardian with the headline: "Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says." July 10, 2017, article   Via Twitter direct messaging, Johnson confirmed with us that he authored the viral social media post based on that headline. We elaborate more on his thinking below. The Guardian article summarized a July 2017 "Carbon Majors"study by an environmental non-profit called CDPand the Climate Accountability Institute, a "tiny think tank" as defined by theScientific American. study CDP Climate Accountability Institute Scientific American However, here was the problem: The study did not assessallsources of global emissions worldwide (which includes agriculture, transportation, buildings' heating and cooling systems) but rather only analyzed the output of fossil-fuel producers, specifically. Its introduction read: "This report looks at industrial carbon dioxide and methane emissions deriving from fossil fuel producers in the past, present, and future [...] [It] isaimed at investors wishing to better understand amount of carbon associated with their fossil fuel holdings." Therefore, The Guardian headline  which did not note the study's strict focus on fossil fuel combustion  was unequivocally misleading. (When contacted by Snopes about the editorial decision, Kerry Eustice, a managing editor, emphasized the article's subhead and several paragraphs within the story's body make clear the referenced companies are fossil-fuel producers, specifically.) The headline appeared to be centered on this finding in the report: The distribution of emissions is concentrated: 25 corporate and state producing entities account for 51% of global industrial [greenhouse gas] emissions. All 100 [fossil fuel] producers account for 71% of global industrial [greenhouse gas] emissions. In other words, almost three fourths of worldwide fossil fuel emissions were indeed linked to just 100 corporations, based on the study. Those companies included Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Aramco), Gazprom OAO, and National Iranian Oil Company. Meanwhile, together, those top-emitting fossil fuel companies produced roughly half of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. Aramco Gazprom OAO National Iranian Oil Company Shaina Sadai, a Ph.D. in geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, elaborated on the researchers' work, as well as explained the consequences of its misinterpretations, in a November 2020 post on Sentient Media. In summary, she said the study focused on "one piece of the puzzle"  the production of oil, gas, coal, and cement  when total global emissions includes cumulative outputs from other sectors, as well. Sadai wrote: Sentient Media wrote The finding that 100 corporations were responsible for the majority of fossil fuel and cement production emissions is substantial, but it does not tell us about total emissions or about emissions from other sectors. [...] In order to get to net-zero emissions, all potential sources need to be considered. Fossil fuels are the largest source, but every sector needs to be scrutinized. Emissions from the agriculture sector have numerous sources. Changes in land use; for instance, when land that served one purpose is then used for another, such as when a rainforest is turned into pasture lead to increased emissions. These changes are not included in the Carbon Majors research, and more importantly, the emission sources they reflect are not either. Put another way, while fossil fuels are the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and the study's identification of the sector's 100 worst-offenders is important, other industries (such as thefood system and waste-management programs) contribute to global emissions, as well. food system See below for a 2020 sector-by-sector breakdown of emissions bythe World Resources Institute: World Resources Institute   In sum, we rate this claim  While the fossil fuel industry accounts for a significant amount of all greenhouse gas emissions, and research analyzing that concept identified dozens of gas or oil companies that pollute the most, no evidence supported the claim as written. "The point I was trying to make is that any media coverage that reduces the issue to personal choices is incomplete, and [structural] issues should always be central to climate reporting," Johnson told us. "Individuals' choices are not unimportant. They just shouldn't be the focus of climate coverage." Needed, Citations. "Episode 108: How Our 'GDP' Obsession Drives Climate Crisis and Inequality." Medium, 29 Apr. 2020, https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-108-how-our-gdp-obsession-drives-climate-crisis-and-inequality-f2824d48a9bc. aCCESSED 8 Sept. 2021. Mackintosh, By Eliza. "What the New Report on Climate Change Expects from You." CNN, 8 Oct. 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/08/world/ipcc-climate-change-consumer-actions-intl/index.html. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Global Warming of 1.5 oC . https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. "Just 100 Companies Responsible for 71% of Global Emissions, Study Says." The Guardian, 10 July 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Horgan, John. "Exposing the World's Biggest Carbon Emitters." Scientific American Blog Network, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/exposing-the-worlds-biggest-carbon-emitters/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. Sadai, Shaina. "No, 100 Companies Are Not Responsible for 71% of Emissions." Sentient Media, https://sentientmedia.org/no-100-companies-are-not-responsible-for-71-of-emissions/. Accessed 8 Sept. 2021. This report was updated with a response from an editor at The Guardian, which published the 2017 article titled, "Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says," on which Johnson said his inaccurate tweet was based.
As so-called undocumented immigrants in the U.S. struggled to avoid deportation and risked their health during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, government agencies created potential new challenges for them. In July, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) department announced they would be offering a six-day Citizens Academy training starting in September in Chicago, which would allow civilians and ICE officers to engage with each other. struggled risked their health announced Snopes readers shared the following letter from ICE, reportedly sent to potential participants across Chicago, and asked us if it meant the agency would be training civilians to assist in the apprehension of undocumented people. The answer is complicated. letter   We found that this was an actual letter sent by ICE. Although they said they were planning to conduct trainings in September and would show civilians how they made arrests, the notion that this would lead to civilians actually apprehending undocumented people was disputed by the agency. Immigration advocates, however, were skeptical.  In order to understand the actual nature and likely outcome of these trainings, we reached out to ICE, as well as immigration advocates, and looked at past examples of such academies.  According to an ICE press release, the interactive program would occur once a week over six weeks. Participants would learn about ICE policies and procedures from ERO officers, while officers would hear participants perspectives and debunk myths about ICE. press release The curriculum will include, but is not limited to, classroom instruction, visiting an immigration detention center, learning more about the health care ICE provides to those in its custody, and examining ICEs role in ensuring dignity, respect and due process of an immigration case from start to finish. Many in Chicago received letters from ICE inviting them to apply. The letter said, attendees will participate in scenario-based training ... including, but not limited to defensive tactics, firearms familiarization, and targeted arrests. received Nicole Alberico, an ICE spokesperson, responded to Snopes' request for more information about the training (emphasis ours): ...the academy is not to train members of the public to do the work of trained, federal law enforcement officers. ICE ERO Citizens Academy is modeled after other law enforcement community outreach programs  including ICEs Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), FBI and local police departments  all with the goal of directly engaging and educating the public. Chicago ERO is looking for a diverse set of influential community leaders  regardless of their stance on ICE  to apply. The spokesperson said that they also had not determined whether media would be permitted to attend the training, as they were considering health precautions because of the pandemic and privacy concerns.  In sum, according to their own descriptions, ICE plans on showing civilians how they as an agency carry out arrests but will not be training civilians to do arrests themselves.  According to one report, such a Citizens Academy has already taken place in Los Angeles for years, with participants simulating drug busts, arrests, and stakeouts. According to one graduate, the course immersed people in what the agents do. While the Chicago program was to be run by ERO, the Los Angeles Academy was being run under ICEs Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) department.  one report simulating The goal of such training appeared to be to get more people to understand ICEs perspective, see how they operate, and eventually construct a positive image of the agency in various communities. There is no available evidence that such trainings led to civilians participating in actual arrests.  Testimony from activists, human rights organizations, and reporting show ample proof of ICEs history of violating detainees rights, inhumane arrests of undocumented immigrants, separating children from their parents, and the lack of accountability surrounding their operations. ICE has also used civilian informants before. violating detainees rights arrests lack of accountability civilian informants The Citizens Academy announcement faced swift backlash from activists and government officials, including Chicago's alderman, Rossana Rodriguez, who labeled it a vigilante academy. In July, Democratic Rep. Mike Quigley put forward an amendment to the Homeland Security spending bill, barring agencies like ICE from using government funds to run Citizens Academy courses. vigilante academy forward Immigration activists said these classes were at best propaganda and at worst would train civilians to "snitch" on undocumented immigrants. Lam Nguyen Ho, executive director of Beyond Legal Aid, an organization that provides legal services to immigrants in Chicago, spoke to Snopes about the dangers of such academies:  said propaganda ... the best case scenario for this training is ICE doing a marketing campaign to justify continuing to deport undocumented immigrants indiscriminately and separating families inhumanely ... We have immigrants afraid of opening their doors and applying for immigration rights to which they are actually eligible due to the fears and violence they see ... I cant imagine the misinformation and fears that will be created when an agency of our government is basically sanctioning and coordinating neighbors surveilling, profiling, or worse against each other. (Update: The Chicago Citizen's Academy was postponed in 2020 due to the pandemic, and a new date had not been announced. According to a statement from an ICE official, it will be tentatively scheduled for the spring of 2021.) In sum, ICE confirmed that the Citizens Academy course will take place, but denied they will train civilians to carry out arrests. Based on ICEs history of abuses against immigrant populations, the fears surrounding this particular training aren't unreasonable, but the exact nature and outcome of the training remains to be seen. Based on all of the above factors, we rate this claim a Mixture. Da Silva, Chantal.  "DHS Spending Bill Amended to Ban Funding for ICE's Citizen's Academy."
 Newsweek. 15 July 2020. Da Silva, Chantal.  "ICE Offering 'Citizens Academy' Course with Training on Arresting Immigrants."
 Newsweek. 9 July 2020. Gonzalez, Christina."ICE Citizen Academy Causing Uproar in Chicago, Has Been Going on in Los Angeles - for Years."
 Fox11 Los Angeles. 11 July 2020. Human Rights Watch.  "US: Stop Using Untrained, Abusive Agencies at Protests."
 5 June 2020. Kaplan, Emily.  "What Isolation Does to Undocumented Immigrants."
  The Atlantic. 27 May 2020. Katz, Ryan. "Play to Stay."
 The Intercept. 24 September 2018. McFarling, Usha Lee. "Fearing Deportation, Many Immigrants at Higher Risk of Covid-19 Are Afraid to Seek Testing or Care."
  StatNews. 15 April 2020. Mejia, Brittny. "At Citizen Academies, Devoted Participants Get Their Law Enforcement Fix."
 Los Angeles Times. 3 December 2018. Tashman, Brian. "Congress Needs To Hold ICE Accountable for Abuses."
 ACLU. 2 February 2018. Torres, Adry. "ICE Is Offering a Six-week Course on How to Arrest Immigrants - Including 'Firearms and Defensive Training' - as Critics Warns They Are Using Private Citizens As Their Eyes and Ears."
 The Daily Mail.8 July 2020. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "ICE Offers First Citizens Academy for Public to Learn More About Agencys Mission in Chicago."
 13 July 2020. Zamudio, Maria Ines. "ICE Citizens Trainings May Be a 'Vigilante Academy,' Chicago Alderman Warns."
 NPR. 10 July 2020. An image purportedly reproducing a CNN graphic comparing Presidents Trump and Obama "by the numbers" -- with the former seemingly recording a significantly higher job approval rating than his predecessor -- received a viral push on 8 August 2018, when Donald Trump, Jr. shared it with his 1.2 million followers on Instagram:   However, the image was a doctored version of a graphic that was originally used during a CNN fact-checking segment regarding a tweet posted by President Trump about his approval numbers: Presidential Approval numbers are very good - strong economy, military and just about everything else. Better numbers than Obama at this point, by far. We are winning on just about every front and for that reason there will not be a Blue Wave, but there might be a Red Wave!  Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 5, 2018 August 5, 2018  CNN's John King fact checked this tweet by comparing Presidents Obama and Trump "by the numbers" from around the same point of times in their presidencies. The image posted by Trump Jr. showed his father with a 50% job approval rating, but the genuine graphic aired by CNN showed President Trump's approval rating at only 40%. Here's the original segment from CNN:  A side-by-side comparison clearly shows how a "50%" was digitally edited (quite poorly) in place of the "40%" number in the original graphic:   The job approval statistics used by CNN for this graphic were taken from Gallup. According to that polling company, which samples presidential approval ratings every week, President Trump had never held a 50% approval writing up to the point of the CNN segment. Gallup. Donald Trump, Jr. later removed the doctored image from his Instagram page. An expanded version of the chart began making the rounds in September 2018 in the form of a meme shared by Turning Point USA, a conservative group whose stated mission is "to identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of freedom, free markets, and limited government." shared stated Apart from repeating the inaccurate "50 percent" approval rating for Trump and substituting year-to-date federal deficit figures with first-year-in-office totals for both Trump and Obama, the Turning Point USA chart faithfully copies the information provided in the August CNN segment.   As CNN correspondent John King pointed out in that segment, the numbers reflect favorably on Trump. In terms of comparing Trump to Obama, however, the meme omits important contextual information. First, the figures cited were snapshots of a particular point in each president's administration. They didn't reflect longer-term fluctuations and trends. Second, unlike Trump, Obama entered office in the midst of a devastating economic collapse. Trump inherited an economy that was already strong and growing. It's meaningless to compare the two without taking these factors into account. Unemployment rate: As stated in the meme, the unemployment rate in July 2018 was 3.9 percent, as compared to 9.4 percent at the same point in Obama's first term in office (July 2010). But that number fell during 2011 as the economy began to recover, and, apart from minor fluctuations, fell steadily every year thereafter. By December 2016 (Obama's last full month in office) the unemployment rate was down to 4.7 percent and still falling, as illustrated in this U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics graph: rate   Jobs added: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, total non-farm employment in the U.S. grew from 145.7 million in January 2017 to almost 149 million in June 2018 -- an increase of approximately 3.2 million jobs. The same source reported that by the exact same point in Obama's first term, the economy had lost some 3.5 million jobs since January 2009 (.6 million more than was claimed by CNN and the Turning Point USA meme). But, again, the recession was underway, and the economy had already shed nearly 3.6 million jobs during the 12 months before Obama took office. The employment rate began to improve in 2011 and did so steadily throughout the rest of Obama's two terms: employment   First year deficit: The Congressional Budget Office reported in March 2018 that the federal deficit stood at $665 billion (equivalent to 3.5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product) at the end of 2017, Trump's first year in office. At the end of Obama's first year, 2009, the deficit was $1.4 trillion (9.9 percent of GDP, the highest deficit as a share of GDP since 1945). It was mostly attributable to spending on the stimulus package meant to rescue the U.S. economy from the recession. Deficit spending didn't remain that high throughout Obama's tenure, however. In fact, the deficit during each of the last three years of his term of office ($485 billion in 2014, $438 billion in 2015, and $585 in 2016) was lower than the 2017 deficit, as well as the projected $833 billion deficit for 2018. reported $1.4 trillion deficit GDP growth: The growth rate of the Gross Domestic Product reflects the health of the economy in terms of the value of all goods and services produced in a given time period. As of the end of the second quarter of 2018, the rate of GDP growth was 4.2 percent (revised upward from 4.1 percent), as compared to a rate of 1.6 percent in the second quarter of 2010, Obama's second year in office. The quarterly GDP growth rate can be volatile, however. It reached or surpassed the 4 percent mark on four separate occasions during the Obama administration, including hitting a high point of 5.2 percent in the third quarter of 2014: 1.6 percent source: tradingeconomics.com tradingeconomics.com Changes in economic indicators are a valid way of evaluating the effectiveness of presidents and their policies, but, as in the examples above, when they are taken out of context and oversimplified they can be more misleading than enlightening. Amadeo, Kimberly.  "U.S. GDP by Year Compared to Recessions and Events: The Strange Ups and Downs of the U.S. Economy Since 1929."
 The Balance.  2 August 2018. Gstalter, Morgan.  "Trump Jr. Falsely Claims That GDP Growth Never Passed 2 Percent Under Obama."
 27 July 2018. Nance-Nash, Sheryl.  "Revision of Second Quarter GDP Shows Slowing Economy."
 ABC News.  27 August 2010. Selk, Avi.  "Trumps Approval Hits 50 Percent  In a Doctored Poll Graphic Shared by His Son."
  The Washington Post.  10 August 2018. Congressional Budget Office.  "The Federal Budget in 2017: An Infographic."
 5 March 2018. Congressional Budget Office.  "Federal Budget Deficit Totals $1.4 Trillion in Fiscal Year 2009."
 6 November 2009. CNN.  "MAGIC WALL: Trump vs. Obama, By the Numbers."
  6 August 2018. NPR.  "GDP Is Up 4.1 Percent: What That Means."
 27 July 2018. Trading Economics.  "United States GDP Growth Rate - 1947-2018."
 Accessed 17 September 2018. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.  "Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey."
 Accessed 17 September 2018. U.S. Department of Treasury.  "Monthly Treasury Statement of Receipts and Outlays of the United States Government."
 12 July 2018. Update [17 September 2018]: Added analysis of expanded Facebook meme circulating on September 2018. Though consumer advocates have long called for changing the payday lending law in Ohio, a criminal investigation has resulted in the resignation of the state House speaker. Republican Cliff Rosenberger resigned in April as the FBI was investigating his foreign travel sponsored by payday-lending lobbyists. He denied wrongdoing. Rosenbergers resignation brought votes on legislation screeching to a halt, including aproposed bill to strengthen consumer protections for payday loans. Consumer advocates are collecting signatures to put similar language before voters on the ballot, likely in 2019. The Ohio Consumer Lenders Association, which represents the industry,opposes the measures. Richard Cordray, the Democrat running for governor against Republican Mike DeWine, has criticized the state law. The current shutdown of the State House has delayed legislation addressing payday lending, where Ohio's laws are now the worst in the nation, CordraytweetedMay 17. Things have gotten so bad that it is legal to charge 594 percent interest on loans that end up ruining peoples lives. Unconscionable. Cordrays statement comparing Ohios payday industry to the nation comes from a 2014 report by Pew Charitable Trusts. Cordray worked on changing rules on payday lending on a national level when he was the first director of the federal Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. The bureaufinalized ruleson payday lending in October 2017, several weeks before he resigned to run for governor.Cordray has attacked his successor, Mick Mulvaney,for attempting to roll back the rules. Payday loans are small, short-term loans that borrowers promise to repay out of their next paycheck at ahigh rateof interest. Aboutthree dozen stateshave their own payday laws, including Ohio. Proponents argue that the working poor need payday loans to cover their bills, while opponents argue that they trap borrowers in a cycle of debt. Aboutone in 10 adults in Ohiohave taken out a payday loan. In 2008, Ohio lawmakers approved the Short Term Loan Act. The law, opposed by the industry, includedprotections for borrowers, such as capping the loan at $500 and the annual interest rates for payday loans at 28 percent. However, payday lenders found a loophole: They registered as mortgage lenders instead. TheOhio Supreme Courtupheld the law in 2014, prompting one concurring judge to ask, Were the lobbyists smarter than the legislators? Did the legislators realize that the bill was smoke and mirrors and would accomplish nothing? Ohio is the only state where lenders operate under such a statute that was not intended for payday loans, said Alex Horowitz, senior research officer for Pew Charitable Trust's consumer finance project, which has researched payday laws in the states for many years. In a2014 analysisof states payday lending laws, Pew didnt flat-out label Ohio as the worst in the nation for payday lending. But it did find that borrowers were charged much more than their peers in many other states. By examining payday loan prices in each state from the four largest lenders, Pew found that over five months a $300 payday loan would cost an Ohio borrower $680 in interest and fees, which equals an average annual percentage rate of 591 percent (which is close to the 594 percent figure cited by Cordray.) No other state had a higher rate, according to the Pew analysis. The interest and fees amount in Ohio was slightly exceeded by Texas, but Texas has more protections for consumers, including a 180-day loan limit that Ohio doesnt have. While the typical loan is technically two weeks, in the majority of cases the borrower ends up in a cycle of loans for several months. While most states that allow payday lending cap loans at $500, Ohio lenders dont operate under the Short Term Loan Act, so they can make loans that are double or even triple the amount of conventional payday loans. The Center for Responsible Lending, an organization that calls for more safeguards for consumers,found in 2015that payday loan storefronts in Ohio advertised rates of more than 600 percent annual percentage rate. Diane Standaert, director of state policy, said that since that time some storefronts now reflect rates between 300 and 400 percent for some loans. But this is basically comparing the differences between (1) a very bad loan, and (2) another very bad loan, she said. The effort to change Ohios payday lending law gained steam in March 2017 whenHouse Bill 123was introduced by State Reps.Kyle Koehler,a Republican of Springfield, and Michael Ashford, a Toledo Democrat. The bill is similar toColorados payday lending lawwhich consumer advocates have upheld as a model example. After languishing for a year, itpassed a House committeein April 2018 about a week after Rosenberger resigned, but a full vote was placed on hold while lawmakers deadlocked over picking a new speaker. On June 7, theHouse passed the bill and it now heads to the Senate. The bill would cap the interest rate at 28 percent and a fee of up to $20 a month, which would mean that a borrower of $300 would pay $96 in interest and fees. Cordray said, Ohio's (payday lending) laws are now the worst in the nation. Things have gotten so bad that it is legal to charge 594 percent interest on loans. Pew Charitable Trusts found in 2014 that over five months a $300 payday loan would cost an Ohio borrower $680 in interest and fees, which equals an average annual percentage rate of 591 percent. While the report didnt call out Ohio as the worst in the nation, no other state had a rate that was higher, according to the report. The difference between the 591 percent cited in the report and the 594 percent tweeted by Cordray is negligible. We rate this statement True. ' In September 2018, Facebook users began seeing posts advertising a "Get $75 off any purchase of $80 or more" coupon offer for the Publix supermarket chain:  Later in July 2019, an $80 version also made the rounds:  These posts were the latest iterations of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media.   Publix has previously taken to social media to warn customers that these coupon offers are not authorized promotions and to advise customers not to visit sites promoting them: social media  These fake coupon offers are a form of survey scam that typically instructs shoppers to follow "three simple steps" in order to get a free gift card. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with a coupon code: Instead, they were asked to fill out a survey and provide personal information such as home address, telephone number, e-mail address, and date of birth. Users are also required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in subscription programs in order to obtain their "free" gift cards. These fraudulent surveys are quite popular on Facebook. If you frequently use Facebook, there is a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau listed key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender.  Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy.  When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information.  Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Patterson, Emily.  "Customer Survey Scam Lures Victims with Gift Card."
  Better Business Bureau.  4 July 2014.
 9 July 2019: Updated to add a new $80 coupon version of the Publix Facebook scam. Many Democrats are eager to debateraising the federal minimum wagebecause its a popular issue to the party base, especially women, says ABC News political commentator Cokie Roberts. When you're talking about the minimum wage, you're talking about women, Roberts said March 31 onNPRsMorning Edition. Two-thirds of the people who receive the minimum wage are female, and this is one of many attempts on the part of Democrats to get out the voters who normally don't vote in an off-year election, to try to get them to the polls this year. Well see whether that works or not. Is her statistic accurate? The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, a hub for data on American workers and the unemployed, had just the report, Characteristics of Minimum Wage Workers, 2013. The BLS collects this data through a national monthly survey of households called the Current Population Survey. It does not account for overtime pay, tips or commissions workers earn above their hourly wage. Of the 75.9 million Americans who earn hourly wages (and make up half of the nations workforce), 1.5 million earn exactly the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, and 1.8 million earn less than that, according to BLS. Here, were focused on the gender composition of those 3.3 million workers who earn at or below the minimum wage. We found its true that women have a disproportionately high place in the minimum-wage workforce than men. In 2013, 62.4 percent of workers, or 2.06 million people, who earned at or below the federal minimum wage were women. This was down slightly from the year before, when it was 64 percent. Its important to know this data only isolates workers who make the federal minimum wage of $7.25 or below. Many states have set a higher minimum wage for their residents. The BLS measure would not account for minimum-wage earners in California, who earn $8 an hour, or their counterparts in Washington, who earn the highest minimum pay in the country of $9.32. Arecent Congressional Budget Office reportpointed out half of all workers live in states where the minimum wage is more than $7.25 an hour. Still, these caveats do not undermine Roberts point, said Heidi Shierholz, a labor economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute, which supports increasing the minimum wage. An increased federal minimum wage to $10.10 would set a new floor for all workers in the country, even those in states that set their own minimum wages. And it wouldnt just lift the pay of workers who earn $7.25 an hour, but also those who make slightly more, such as $8 or $9 an hour. Astudy by the Economic Policy Institutefound women would make up 55 percentpercent of workers who would benefit from raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by the second half of 2016, a congressional proposal backed by the White House. That figure aligns withCBO data, too. If you raise the wage floor, more women will be affected by that, Shierholz said. Thats the bottom line. The discrepancy in pay between men and women known as the gender gap is closer at the bottom of the income distribution than at the top 1 percent of earners, Shierholz said. The gap is closing as a result of more women going to college and stagnated male wages.The White House arguesraising the minimum wage would further tighten the gap because women are overrepresented in low-paying professions. The amount of women in tips-based jobs, such as hairstylists and waitresses, is even higher than the female share of the federal minimum wage workforce, Shierholz said. Employers are allowed to pay workers a minimum of $2.13 an hour as long as their tips or at least $5.12, or the difference between $2.13 and $7.25. The White House also wants an increase in the tipped minimum wage of $2.13 an hour to $4.90 by 2016 under the proposedHarkin-Miller legislation. Efforts to reach Roberts through ABC News were unsuccessful. Our ruling Roberts said, Two-thirds of the people who receive the minimum wage are female. The actual figure is just a little bit lower. Federal data shows62 percent of people who earn the federal minimum wage or below are women. The federal data has limitations, as it does not account for women in states with a higher minimum wage. One study says that if the federal government raises the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, women will benefit more than men by a 55-45 percent spread. Roberts claim is on the right track but needs some additional information. That falls into a rating of Mostly True. This typical female revenge legend, describing a woman's effective (but non-violent) way of striking back at her (former) partner, has been around since at least 1981. Legends such as these (see The $50 Porsche, for example) often feature a clever method of causing financial loss without the destruction of property: The $50 Porsche Examples: [Smith, 1986] A young couple living in the Bristol area had been having marital problems. Most of it was caused by the husband's bad temper and the fighting and constant arguing that had been going on for several months. Things finally came to a head one morning when the husband, just before he left on a three week business trip, told his wife they were finished and she had better get out of his house for good before he returned. When he arrived home his wife had gone, leaving the house in an awful mess. While he was clearing up he noticed that the telephone was off the hook. He replaced it and thought no more about it. Several weeks later the quarterly telephone bill arrived. It was astronomical  running into several thousands of pounds. He immediately queried it, only to be told that the phone had been connected to the speaking weather report in Australia for a three week period.  [Marsano, 1987] In Hollywood a man dumped his live-in girlfriend by telling her that he was off on a business trip and expected her to have cleared out of the house by the time he returned. Pretty cold, guy. The woman left, but when the man returned, he learned that she had found what Paul Simon might call the fifty-first way to leave your lover. The house was in good order, and the only thing was that the phone was off the hook. When he picked it up, he heard incomprehensible babbling, so he hung up. When his next phone bill arrived, it explained a couple of things. The strange language he had heard was Japanese, and it was giving the correct time. It had been giving the correct time enough to run up a bill of $80,000. Variations: Sightings:  An episode of the British sitcom Only Fools and Horses ("The Second Time Around," original air date 29 September 1981) features the evicted woman leaving a note announcing she's dialed the speaking clock in America.   Eskapa, Roy.  Bizarre Sex.  London: Quartet Books, 1987  ISBN 0-7043-2518-7  (pp. 82).   Fiery, Ann.  The Complete and Totally True Book of Urban Legends  Philadelphia: Running Press Books, 2001.  ISBN 0-7624-107404  (pp. 81-86). The Complete and Totally True Book of Urban Legends   Holt, David and Bill Mooney.  Spiders in the Hairdo.  Little Rock: August House, 1999.  ISBN 0-87483-525-9  (p. 97). Spiders in the Hairdo   The Big Book of Urban Legends  New York: Paradox Press, 1994.  ISBN 1-56389-165-4  (p. 183). The Big Book of Urban Legends Barreca, Regina.  Sweet Revenge: The Wicked Delights of Getting Even.
  New York: Harmony Books, 1995.  ISBN 0-517-59757-8  (p. 45). Sweet Revenge: The Wicked Delights of Getting Even Brunvand, Jan Harold. 
Curses! Broiled Again!
  New York: W. W. Norton, 1989.  ISBN 0-393-30711-5; (pp. 216-217). Curses! Broiled Again! Brunvand, Jan Harold.  Too Good To Be True.
  New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.  ISBN 0-393-04734-2  (pp. 79-80). Too Good To Be True Hardy, David.  What a Mistake!
  Secaucus, NJ: Octopus Books, 1983  ISBN 1-55521-164-X  (p. 78). Marsano, William.  Man Suffocated By Potatoes.
  New York: Signet, 1987.  (pp. 149-150). Smith, Paul.  The Book of Nastier Legends.
  London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986.  ISBN 0-7102-0573-2 &nbsp. (p. 85). The Book of Nastier Legends 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 A considerable number of people on the internet appear to believe that a food item known as the club sandwich got its name from the acronym of its most common ingredients: "Chicken and Lettuce Under Bacon."  While there's a modicum of logic and precedent to this notion (after all, "BLT" is an acronym for "Bacon, Lettuce, and Tomato"), history doesn't support it. Quite the opposite.  Club sandwiches have been around for a long, long time. There are references to the popular lunch item and recipes for making it in published sources dating back to the 1890s. Here, for example, is a club sandwich recipe from Janet McKenzie Hill's "Salads, Sandwiches and Chafing-Dish Dainties," published in 1899:  Salads, Sandwiches and Chafing-Dish Dainties  Despite the club sandwich's culinary longevity, however, the theory that it was named for its ingredients appears to be no older than the late 1990s, and may well have originated on the internet. We scoured book and periodical archives and found no references to any version of "chicken and lettuce under bacon" in any text published prior to 2018.  Etymologist Barry Popik reports finding this "Chicken Lettuce Under Bacon" reference posted in a Google Groups discussion dated Dec. 8, 1998:  Barry Popik reports finding posted in a Google Groups discussion  As of this writing, we've not been able to find any published mentions predating this. In another blog post, Popik flatly asserts that "club" sandwich is not, in fact, an acronym, but rather a "backronym" (or "back acronym," meaning the claim was made after the fact). Based on our own research, we agree. another blog post backronym So, where did the name "club sandwich" really come from? Popik writes:  writes The club sandwich probably originated at the Union Club of the City of New York in the 1880s. The World (New York, NY) printed on November 18, 1889: Have you trie[d] a Union Club sandwich yet? Two toasted slices of Graham bread, with a layer of turkey or chicken and ham between them, served warm. Union Club member Ely Goddard (1853-1910) was given credit for the sandwich in articles in the New York (NY) Herald in 1891 and 1893, but a chef at the club also could have originated it. Hill, Janet McKenzie. Salads, Sandwiches and Chafing-Dish Dainties: With Thirty-Two Illustrations of Original Dishes. Little, Brown, 1899. Martin, Gary. Club Sandwich - the Meaning and Origin of This Phrase. Phrasefinder, https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/club-sandwich.html. Accessed 2 Sept. 2022. Popik, Barry. "Club Sandwich (Club House Sandwich; Clubhouse Sandwich)." https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/club_sandwich/. Accessed 2 Sept. 2022. Popik, Barry. "Chicken Lettuce Under Bacon ("club sandwich backronym)."  https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/chicken_lettuce_under_bacon/. Accessed 2 Sept. 2022. A story about two armed "illegal aliens" killed during an attempted home invasion by an 11-year-old shotgun-wielding girl was posted to LibertyPost.org on 25 April 2007:  Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez 23 and Enrico Garza 26, probably believed they would easily overpower a home alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two story home. It seems the two crooks never learned two things, they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine. Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun. Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buck shot from the 11 year olds knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals. When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive. It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. The victim, 50 year old David Burien, was not so lucky as he died from stab wounds to the chest. Although the account was widely cited as a validation of "anti-illegal immigration" and/or pro-gun ownership positions, confirmation of the tale as a real-life incident was lacking. The only documentation for this item was numerous web sites all citing the same information, with no details of time or place (other than a reference to Montana). Searches of news databases (including Montana-based newspapers) failed to turn up any corresponding news stories containing any of the four names provided, and the name of one of the putative criminals ("Ralphel Resendez") just happened to echo an alias (Raphael Resendez-Ramirez) used by Angel Maturino Resendiz (also an undocumented immigrant), the infamous "Railroad Killer." Railroad Killer Although many versions of this item cited the home invasion incident as having taken place in Butte, Montana, that area's sheriff said no such thing had occurred in that city: When asked about the authenticity of the events described in this story, Butte-Silver Bow Sheriff John Walsh told The Montana Standard that his office never investigated such an incident. "This never happened," Walsh said. The story claims the girl shot and killed the two intruders while she was home alone. The story doesn't provide a street address or attribute the information to any official sources. Walsh brushed off the story as an urban myth. "It's amazing how these things get around," he said. The only news story (of recent vintage) we could turn up about a minor using a shotgun to kill two armed intruders attempting a home invasion robbery took place in December 2006 and involved a 17-year-old boy in Texas (rather than an 11-year-old girl in Montana): news story An overnight home invasion robbery attempt in northeast Harris County ended in a hail of gunfire that left two suspects dead. Investigators said a 17-year-old was home with his cousin when four armed men kicked in the door and started shooting. The teen pulled out a shotgun of his own and fired back at the suspects, killing two of them. Going back almost twenty years to 1988, we did find a news story about an 11-year-old shooting and killing two home intruders, but again the details didn't match the example cited above: Switzer, S.C.  An 11-year-old boy who had been left alone after school shot and killed two men as they tried to steal a videocassette recorder from his family's home, police said. William Todd Knight, the son of Billy and Ann Knight, "acted very wisely," said Spartanburg County Coroner Jim Burnett. "His life was in danger, he looked for an escape and could not find one ... he was a very brave young man." Spartanburg County Sheriff's Department Capt. John Blackwood said the boy was watching cartoons in his parents' bedroom Monday afternoon when he heard noises at the front door of the family's brick, ranch-style home. Todd told officers he was scared, so he went to his room for the .22-caliber rifle his father had given him for Christmas and loaded four rounds. He then went to the front door and saw a man he described as "rough" pounding on the door. The man finally left in a white Datsun. Todd said he resumed watching cartoons and about 10 minutes later heard banging, this time at a dining room window. He saw two men climbing through the dining room window. The boy said he went into the bathroom to climb out the window, but saw the white Datsun was parked in the back yard. Todd told police he went back to the hallway, peeked around the corner into the den and was spotted by one of the intruders as they were taking the VCR. Todd then fired three rounds at the men, who dropped the VCR and fled. When police arrived, one of the dead men was found face down next to a woodpile in the back yard, approximately 50 to 75 feet from the house, while the second man was in the driver's seat of the white two-door Datsun. In October 2012, a 12-year-old Oklahoma girl shot (but did not kill) an unarmed burglar who broke into the house while she was home alone: Kendra St. Clair, 12, was at home alone in Oklahoma, when loud banging began on the door to her family's home. Soon, the glass shattered and an intruder had entered. "I was scared and I didn't know what to do next," Kendra [said]. Petrified, she called her mom Debra. "I said Kendra get the gun and go get in my closet now. And call 911." The young 6th grader followed her mom's orders to the tee. Kendra had taken shelter in a closet, clutching her mother's .40 caliber glock gun while she listened to the intruder make his way around her home. Her fear intensified to sheer terror, when she saw the knob of the closet door beginning to turn. At that point, that for the first time in her life, Kendra fired a gun. Police said the bullet traveled straight through the closet door and struck 32-year-old Stacey Jones in the shoulder, scaring him out of the house. They arrested him a few blocks away and charged Jones with first degree burglary. In January 2015, an 11-year-old Michigan girl armed with a shotgun was reported to have scared away (but not fired upon) a home intruder: An 11-year-old girl was able to scare off a suspect  later taken into custody  during a home invasion in Lapeer County's North Branch Township. The girl was home alone when a vehicle pulled into the driveway. One person knocked on all the doors and forced their way inside the home when there was no response. The girl locked herself inside a bathroom and hid in a closet with a shotgun. The suspect eventually opened the bathroom door and closet where the child was hiding with the weapon. The girl aimed the shotgun at the suspect, who then fled from the home. Police said the girl was not harmed during the encounter. "The 12-gauge shotgun is her weapon," said Lapeer County Sheriff Detective Sgt. Jason Parks. "She and her father are into hunting and avid sportsmen. She was familiar with that weapon." Parks praised the girl's responsibility, poise and composure. "She is fully capable of staying there by herself as we can clearly see based on this situation," he said. "She was able to defend herself from an intruder and be able to resolve an event even most adults would be taken aback by." In August 2015, an 11-year-old St. Louis boy left home with his 4-year-old sister reportedly staved off several home invasion attempts before finally shooting and killing a 16-year-old intruder, although accounts differ as to what actually took place: accounts Authorities said an 11-year-old child and his 4-year-old sister were at their home when two men attempted to break in. The suspects attempted to get into the home twice, but failed. They made their way inside through the front door on the third attempt around 2:30 p.m. After the suspects entered the home, police said, the 11-year-old picked up a gun and fatally shot Lamonte Streeter. According to police, Streeter's body was found inside the home and evidence collected at the scene indicate that he was shot while inside. Some neighbors are providing a different version of events. One woman, who said she saw the shooting, [said] the 11-year-old and Streeter were arguing on the home's front porch when the shots were fired. "The little boy's (person shot) jumped up and went towards there and laid down and he lands in the doorway. He was always sitting on the porch, he never went inside the house," said a neighbor. The second alleged intruder, identified by police as a 22-year-old man, was arrested shortly after the incident on suspicion of burglary, police said. Acosta, Roberto. "11-Year-Old Uses Shotgun to Scare Off Suspect Home Invasion."
  The Flint Journal.  1 February 2015. Emeigh, John Grant. "Fake Story Still Circulating on Internet."
  The Montana Standard.  13 December 2007. Greenblatt, Mark. "Oklahoma Girl, 12, Shoots Intruder During Home Burglary."
  ABC News.  20 October 2012. Associated Press. "Boy, 11, Shoots, Kills 2 Intruders."
  The [Elyria, OH] Chronicle Telegram.  15 March 1988 (p. 6). KHOU-TV [Houston]. "Teen Shoots, Kills 2 Would-Be Robbers."
  28 December 2006. On Oct. 22, 2019, a link to an op-ed entitled "Trump's Obama envy is getting even worse" was shared to a number of anti-Trump Facebook groups, such as Anti Donald Trump, original DONALD TRUMP CLOWN UNIVERSITY, and DEFEAT TRUMP 2020!, along with an alleged excerpt from the article in which the president claimed that former President Barack Obama had written the emoluments clause of the U.S.Constitution: Anti Donald Trump original DONALD TRUMP CLOWN UNIVERSITY DEFEAT TRUMP 2020! Trump Accuses Obama Of Writing The US Constitution Because He Knows The Constitution Is Very, Very Bad For Me Appearing on Fox and News, Trump accused Obama of writing the Constitution to make him look bad. I know for certain that he wrote the emoluments clause, because he cant stand to see me make so much illegal money, Trump said. Ive said all along, Obama is obsessed with me, Trump said, adding, He will do anything to make me look bad, but it never works and he cant stand to see me winning. Busy day and so much winning. Time for golf.   The text of this Facebook post does not relay a genuine quote from Trump. Trump did not claim that Obama wrote the emoluments clause of the Constitution during an appearance on Fox News, nor does this quote appear in the linked op-ed story published in The Washington Post. The Washington Post Trump appeared on Fox News on Oct. 21, 2019, for an interview with Sean Hannity. While Trump mentioned Obama a number of times during that interview, he didn't accuse his predecessor of writing the Constitution, which was written more than 200 years ago.  interview 200 years ago Some readers may have been taken in by the fake quote because it was published a day after Trump described the emoluments clause as "phony."  Vox reported:  reported President Donald Trump is still defending the White Houses decision to host next years G7 summit, a gathering of seven world leaders, at a Miami resort owned by Trumps business  even though he abandoned the plan after it was widely criticized. At a Cabinet meeting on Monday, he blamed the backlash against his attempt to profit from the G7 on you people with this phony emoluments clause, referring to a provision of the Constitution which prevents federal officials from being compensated by foreign governments. While Trump may have called the emoluments clause "phony," he did not claim Obama wrote it. We therefore rate this claim  Millhiser, Ian.  "The Emoluments Clause, Explained for Donald Trump."
  Vox.  22 October 2019. Robinson, Eugene.  "Trumps Obama Envy is Getting Even Worse."
  The Washington Post.  26 August 2019.