Obama mandated that banks provide loans to individuals with low income.
Claim:  Barack Obama filed a lawsuit to require banks to "make loans to poor people." false Example:  [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] In 1994, a class-action lawsuit was filed against CitiBank, demanding that loans be made to poor people, and others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back. The basis of the lawsuit was the 14th Amendment, which requires 'fair and equal' treatment for all citizens. The legal theory was that failing to loan money to poor/indigent/unemployed people was, on it's face, a discriminatory act by lending institutions. Thousands of loans were processed, and of course many went into default, in part explaining why we're in the financial mess we're in. Now, it's easy for some people to point the finger of blame at Pres. Geo. Bush for this crisis, because he's sitting in the hot seat. What many people don't know is the suit was filed during the Clinton Administration. The lawyer filing the suit was none other than: Barak Hussein Obama. Origins:  This item seeks to dump much of the blame for America's current economic woes on Barack Obama by claiming that as a young lawyer, Obama filed a lawsuit requiring financial institutions to lend money to"poor people" and "others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back."  Although there is a (very) vague element of fact underneath this politicking, the piece quoted above is woefully wrong in all its particulars. The 1994 case of Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank had nothing to do with requiring lenders to do business with people "who could not show proof that they could pay the money  Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank back."  The case was a class-action lawsuit against Citibank Federal Savings initiated by a black Chicago woman, Selma Buycks-Roberson, who claimed she was unfairly denied a mortgage based on her race.  The lawsuit sought to end the practice of redlining, a discriminatory practice by which banks, insurance companies, and other business institutions refuse or limit loans, mortgages, insurance, etc., based solely on the geographic area in which the applicant lives (a practice that commonly excludes minorities in inner-city neighborhoods, regardless of their income or ability to pay).  Specifically, the lawsuit charged that Citibank "rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories."  The case was eventually settled out of court, with some class members receiving cash payments and Citibank agreeing to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages. redlining Although Barack Obama was involved with the Buycks-Roberson case, he did not file the lawsuit, nor was he the lead attorney in the matter.  He was a junior member of an eight-lawyer team that worked on the case: Obama admits he played a mostly behind-the-scenes role at his law firm, Miner Barnhill & Galland. He researched the law, drafted motions, prepared for depositions and did other less glamorous work during his three years full-time and eight years "of counsel" to the firm.  "He wrote lots of substantial memos, but he didn't try any cases," said Judson Miner, a partner in the firm who was Obama's boss. Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods. "I don't recall him ever standing up and giving an impassioned speech  it was a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff," said Fay Clayton, the lead lawyer on the case. "He was the very junior lawyer in that case," said attorney Robert Kriss. "He had just graduated from law school. I don't recall him being in court at any time I was there. I was the lead lawyer for Citibank and he was not very visible to me." Kriss, Clayton and every other co-counsel and opposing counsel interviewed for this story praised Obama's legal ability, temperament and everything about his courtroom demeanor, even though, they agree, he didn't say much in the courtroom.  On Feb. 23, 1995, Obama billed 2 hours and 50 minutes for an appearance before Judge Ruben Castillo on behalf of his client, and also for reviewing some documents in advance of a deposition. That cost Citibank  which ultimately had to pay the winning side's fees  $467 at Obama's hourly rate of $165. Miner commanded the higher rate of $285 an hour. During his appearance before the judge, Obama said he would need more time to file a response to a motion, and the judge agreed. That was all Obama said during the half-hour hearing. His final bill on the case was 138 hours, or $23,000. Last updated:  5 September 2012    Associated Press.  "Some Cases Obama Worked on in His Career as an Attorney."   20 February 2007.
Scammers and malware purveyors are always looking for ways to entice online users into following web links that will lead those victims into the traps set for them, and offers of free products are prime bait in that pursuit of prey. One common method such predators use is establishing fake Facebook accounts mimicking those of well-known vendors of consumer products (typically of the edible variety, such as Starbucks, Taco Bell, McDonald's, KFC, Wendy's, Burger King, Whole Foods, Safeway, Food Lion, and Little Caesars) and posting bogus offers for "lifetime passes" or other dispensations of free product as part of a supposed company anniversary or birthday celebration (e.g., "Starbucks is giving away free lifetimes in celebration of the brand's 44th anniversary"). The primary type of free product fraud is the "sweepstakes scam," which is intended to lure victims into completing numerous surveys, disclosing a good deal of personal information, and then agreeing to sign up for costly, difficult-to-cancel "Reward Offers" hidden in the fine print. The scammers spread links via e-mail and Facebook that purport to offer free product to those who follow those links. These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the companies they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook "share" buttons and post comments to the scammer's site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two "Reward Offers" (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards): Pursuant to the Terms & Conditions, you are required to complete 2 of the Reward Offers from the above. You will need to meet all of the terms and conditions to qualify for the shipment of the reward. For credit card offers, you must activate your card by making a purchase, transferring a balance, or making a cash advance. For loan offers you must close and fund the loan. For home security and satellite tv offers you must have the product installed. You may not cancel your participation in more than a total of 2 Reward Offers within 30 days of any Reward Offer Sign-Up Date as outlined in the Terms & Conditions (the Cancellation Limit). Not only that, but the fine print on the "free" product offers typically states that by accepting its terms, the user agrees to receive telemarketing phone calls and text messages from a variety of different companies:   Similar phony free product lures are used to spread malware. In those versions of the scam, those who attempt to reach the URL provided for the purpose of claiming the free products are instead victimized by a Facebook "lifejacking" attack, a malicious script that takes over a user's Facebook profile without their knowledge and propagates itself to their friends' accounts as well. lifejacking In short, those who seek "free" merchandise generally end up paying a dear cost for it. In September 2021, British health officials announced the launch of the worlds largest trial of a blood test capable of detecting more than 50 types of cancer before symptoms appear.  50 types of cancer Headed by The Cancer Research UK, the National Health Service (NHS) in England, and Kings College London, the so-named Galleri trial aims to recruit 140,000 volunteers across eight areas of England. Galleri checks for the earliest signs of cancer. If it's successful, its ability to catch cancer during its earliest stages could be a game-changer in the fight against the disease.  NHS Kings College London This quick and simple blood test could mark the beginning of a revolution in cancer detection and treatment here and around the world, said NHS Chief Executive Amanda Pritchard in a news release. By finding cancer before signs and symptoms even appear, we have the best chance of treating it and we can give people the best possible chance of survival. news release While its early cancer detection ability holds promise, Galleri does not diagnose cancer and does not detect all forms of the disease. Blood drawn from a participant is tested for chemical changes in fragments of the bloods genetic code known as cell-free DNA (cfDNA), which leaks from tumors into the bloodstream. Previous research conducted by Galleri founding company Grail showed that the test was effective at finding cancers that are difficult to identify early on, like head and neck, bowel, lung, pancreatic, and throat cancers.  As of this writing, Galleri is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) but was granted a breakthrough device designation in 2019 under a government-led voluntary program for certain medical devices "that provide for more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating diseases or conditions." The test joins two other similar tumor-testing tests that were approved in the U.S., according to the consumer publication Evaluate. Galleri is available in the U.S. for $949, and is available for prescription only. Because it is new to the market and does not have FDA approval, the test is not covered by health insurance.  Galleri granted breakthrough device Evaluate prescription only  Galleri is designed to detect more than 50 types of cancer. Grail  Grail   Galleri doesnt rule out cancer, but instead helps providers to evaluate and confirm whether and where cancer may exist. It is intended to be used in coordination with other screening practices and is not a replacement but rather a method to inform the next steps of diagnosis.  For the British trial, tens of thousands of recruitments between the ages of 50 and 77  those most at risk for cancer  will be asked to give blood samples at mobile testing clinics across the country. Regardless of their results, the test is designed to detect cancer signals such as cfDNA and predict where in the body those signals exist. Half of the participants in the randomized control trial will have blood samples screened with the test right away, while the other half will have their sample stored and tested in the future. This will allow researchers to compare the stage at which cancer is detected between the two groups. Regardless, study participants will be notified if their test signals potential cancer.  Early cancer detection during stage one or two allows for more treatment options, some of which can be less aggressive and harmful. Patients whose cancer is identified at the earliest stage may see up to ten times the survival rate compared to a person who learned of cancer at stage four.  Those who give blood as part of the British trial will be invited to participate in later stages of the trial one and two years later. Initial results are expected by 2021 and if successful, researchers plan to extend the rollout to 1 million people by 2025.  Sources GRAIL Announces Significant Progress with Multi-Cancer Early Detection Test Including FDA Breakthrough Device Designation. GRAIL, https://grail.com/press-releases/grail-announces-significant-progress-with-multi-cancer-early-detection-test-including-fda-breakthrough-device-designation/. Accessed 13 Sept. 2021. Grail Launches Pan-Cancer Screen  for Those Who Can Pay out of Pocket. Evaluate.Com, 4 June 2021, https://www.evaluate.com/vantage/articles/news/snippets/grail-launches-pan-cancer-screen-those-who-can-pay-out-pocket. Health, Center for Devices and Radiological. Breakthrough Devices Program. FDA, Jan. 2021. www.fda.gov, https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/how-study-and-market-your-device/breakthrough-devices-program. Kings Leads the Worlds Largest Trial of Cancer Blood Test. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/kings-leads-the-worlds-largest-trial-of-cancer-blood-test. Accessed 13 Sept. 2021. NHS England NHS Launches World First Trial for New Cancer Test. https://www.england.nhs.uk/2021/09/nhs-launches-world-first-trial-for-new-cancer-test/. Accessed 13 Sept. 2021. https://www.england.nhs.uk/2021/09/nhs-launches-world-first-trial-for-new-cancer-test/. Accessed 13 Sept. 2021. Our Products. GRAIL, https://grail.com/our-products/. Accessed 13 Sept. 2021. 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. 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. Claim:  Some dollar stores sell expired and foreign, non-ADA-standard formulations of toothpaste. Status:  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, 2004]       I don't know if any of you watched Channel 5 News last night, but they did an investigation on dollar stores (including Dollar Tree, Greenbacks & 99 Cents). They discovered the Crest, Colgate and other brand name toothpastes weren't the same as from Wal-mart, grocery stores etc. The toothpastes were manufactured in many other countries and are not approved by the American Dental Association (ADA). There was even some from South Africa and the fluoride is ten times stronger than what we're allowed in the U.S. (prescription strength). They're allowed stronger because they don't have fluoridated water (like we do). So if we (or our kids) use it often and occasionally swallow it, we could be poisoning ourselves. The dollar stores declined to comment and a full investigation has begun. So stick to paying full-price at the grocery store and send this e-mail to anyone who shops at dollar stores.   Origins:  The last several years have seen the strong growth of dollar stores, outlets in which shoppers can find a wide variety of household items  everything from canned goods to motor oil  in one convenient location, with everything priced at $1.00 or $0.99 per unit. (No more sales clerks holding up check-out lines waiting for price checks!) Sometimes the merchandise found in dollar stores is just the same as what one might purchase elsewhere for a considerably higher price, but dollar stores sell it more cheaply because they've obtained supplies from manufacturers and wholesalers who are disposing of overstock or older merchandise for a fraction of the usual price. Often the items sold in dollar stores are inexpensive because they're produced and marketed by smaller brands, made from lesser-quality materials, of foreign manufacture, or were just cheaper merchandise to begin with. One of the items more commonly purchased through dollar stores by budget-conscious shoppers is toothpaste. Everyone uses toothpaste  why pay $2 or $3 per tube in a grocery or drug store when you can stock up on it for $1 per tube somewhere else? In our household we've often purchased name-brand toothpaste in dollar stores, although we've noticed that our local dollar stores also stock name-brand toothpaste manufactured for foreign markets (usually Canada or Mexico) and off-brand toothpaste sold in "knock-off" packaging that mimics the packaging of more well-known brands. As television station in KXAS, a Dallas-based NBC affiliate, discovered in a report broadcast in May 2004 (and summarized in the message quoted above), consumers might want to be cautious when buying dollar-store toothpaste. One major concern is that one can often find toothpaste intended for foreign markets for sale in dollar stores, product that may not meet the same governmental regulations required of American manufacturers or that may have been made by foreign companies with lower quality-control standards than American firms. report Of course, where the toothpaste comes from can make a big difference. We have no issue with purchasing Canadian toothpaste for our household from our nearby dollar store, because it's manufactured by a major American corporation (Procter & Gamble), and it's approved by the Canadian Dental Association (CDA), whose standards are similar to the American Dental Association's (ADA): CDA ADA    But, as KXAS reporters found, consumers may have good reason to be concerned about discount stores that carry toothpaste from other parts of the world:     Dr. Charles Wakefield, a professor at the Baylor College of Dentistry, said fluoride levels in the foreign versions of toothpaste represent the biggest hazard. The fluoride in the South African version was 10 times that commonly sold in the United States. "You just don't want kids to swallow it," Wakefield said. "I really don't know how these are legally in stores."     (We note that even brands of fluoride toothpaste manufactured in the U.S. to American Dental Association standards generally carry warning notices on their labels advising consumers not to swallow it, so parents should be cautious about their children swallowing any fluoride toothpaste, regardless of its country of origin.) Another potential issue of concern with cheap toothpaste can be the age of the product:     The store owner declined to be interviewed. He did say, however, he buys the products from wholesalers, who failed to inform him of the expiration dates.     In general, expired toothpaste doesn't pose a significant health risk (most brands don't even carry expiration dates on their packaging), but older toothpaste may be undesirable because it may be less effective or less pleasant to use due to changes in taste and consistency. In May 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning about toothpaste products from China that were found to be contaminated with diethylene glycol: warning         As always, the operative concept is caveat emptor: something that looks like a bargain may really be less than it appears, so shop wisely. Last updated:  29 February 2016 Since as early as 2013, a photo of Joan Baez and Jimi Hendrix apparently smoking marijuana and sharing a bong repeatedly goes viral on various social media platforms: as 2013 repeatedly viral  This picture has been manipulated. The original photo, taken in August 1968, contains no bong: original photo  The caption provided by Getty Images explains the context behind the photograph, which occurred during a relief concert for refugees of the Biafra-Nigeria Civil War: caption Folk singer Joan Baez and rock singer Jimi Hendrix chat between acts at a Biafran Relief Benefit show at a place in Manhattan called Steve Paul's Scene. Both Miss Baez and Hendrix performed free of charge and Hendrix contributed $500 cash to the fund. The benefit was to raise food and money for refugees of the Biafra-Nigeria Civil War. It is unlikely that Baez would be photographed smoking marijuana, as she has publicly stated her distaste for drugs. In discussing her short-lived relationship with Bob Dylan with Rolling Stone Magazine, for example, Baez referenced her lack of interest in drugs: discussing By 1965, though, Dylan's desire to move toward rock and his waning interest in protest songs helped drive them apart. Baez thinks her distaste for drugs distanced her from Dylan in the Sixties and later, during their reunion on the 197576 Rolling Thunder Revue. "I was the only one who didn't do drugs," she says of those shows. "It was the same as that trip to England," she adds, referring to the 1965 Dylan tour documented in Don't Look Back. "I couldn't connect with what their brains were doing." In a 2021 interview with CBS, Baez said that she did "zero" drugs during her heyday as a musician in the 60s, though she has, periodically, tried marijuana more recently. "I try periodically because people say it's a great way to relax or whatever," she said. "It doesn't work for me." 2021 interview Because the image is photoshopped to add a bong and marijuana smoke that were not there in the original photo, we rate it Fake.  alihamzah23023. "Joan Baez & Jimi Hendrix Sharing a Bong before a Performance, Early 1970." R/OldSchoolCool, 7 Apr. 2016, www.reddit.com/r/OldSchoolCool/comments/4dpoo4/joan_baez_jimi_hendrix_sharing_a_bong_before_a/. Browne, David. "Joan Baez's Fighting Side: The Life and Times of a Secret Badass." Rolling Stone, 5 Apr. 2017, https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/joan-baezs-fighting-side-the-life-and-times-of-a-secret-badass-129051/. "CBS Mornings on TikTok." TikTok, https://www.tiktok.com/@cbsmornings/video/6969232037899275526?lang=en. Accessed 31 Aug. 2023. "Folk Singer Joan Baez and Rock Singer Jimi Hendrix Chat between Acts..." Getty Images, https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/folk-singer-joan-baez-and-rock-singer-jimi-hendrix-chat-news-photo/515448732. Accessed 31 Aug. 2023. insanepuma. "Hits from the Bong with Jimi Hendrix and Joan Baez." R/OldCoolSchool, 24 Feb. 2017, www.reddit.com/r/OldCoolSchool/comments/5vxope/hits_from_the_bong_with_jimi_hendrix_and_joan_baez/. https://www.instagram.com/p/iMxB20P_RD/?hl=af. Accessed 31 Aug. 2023. On Aug. 2, Cook County became the largest government in the United States to charge a tax on sweetened drinks. The debut of the penny-an-ounce charge for drinks sweetened with sugar or non-caloric sweetenerswasnt exactly smooth, nor was it particularly well received with the soft drink-consuming public. Customers who examined their receipts at some stores found they had been charged extra for flavored seltzer water -- which is not subject to the new tax -- while restaurant patrons discovered those free refills now cost one cent per ounce. Cook County sweetened beverage tax applies to free refills of lemonade.pic.twitter.com/PDztyTDIBl As soft drink consumers and sellers came to grips with the new charges, the libertarian Illinois Policy Institute  never a fan of any tax, and a particularly harsh critic of the tax habits of Cook County and Chicago  framed the drink tax in a consumer unfriendly light. The new tax will make soda sold in Chicago among the most expensive in the country, the institute said in a tweet and in theheadline of an articleon its website. That is a little like proclaiming the sun rises in the east, but given intense public interest in the soda tax we thought it was a worth a look anyway. Accompanying the institutes tweets were graphics illustrating the various taxes that now will be paid by those purchasing sweetened drinks in Chicago. The new soda tax makes soda sold in#Chicagoamong the most expensive in the countryhttps://t.co/2JYANKDrcspic.twitter.com/KiUS5vzIYT The new soda tax makes soda sold in#Chicagoamong the most expensive in the countryhttps://t.co/2JYANKDrcspic.twitter.com/KiUS5vzIYT Chicago already charged a 3 percent soft drink sales tax, and that was on top of a10.25 percent sales taxthat includes state and local portions and is thehighest of any major city in the United States. For a 12-pack of 12-ounce cans or bottles of any sweetened soft drink, regular or diet, the sweetened beverage tax adds another $1.44. Thus, a 12-pack priced at $4 costs $5.97 at the register. The new tax adds 67 cents to a two-liter bottle. If marked on the shelf at $2.49, the new tax means youll pay 40 percent more at checkout. Thats how it works in Chicago, where the total price figures to be slightly higher than in the rest of Cook County even though the soda tax applies in the suburbs as well. Does that make Chicago-bought soda among the most expensive in the country? The institute grants its statement a lot of leeway by using the word among. Wherever the thirsty buy it, a Big Gulp is a Big Gulp is a Big Gulp. So the add-on cost of taxes is likely the prime factor behind any significant price differences. To date, the list of places embracing a soda tax is an extremely short one, hence Chicagos (and Cook Countys) emergence as among the most expensive places to pop for a pop. As it stands today, Cook County is one of only eight U.S. locations to impose or plan to impose a per-ounce tax on sweetened drinks. The other seven are cities and, with a population of 5.2 million, Cook County is by far the largest jurisdiction to adopt such a tax. Issue-wise, this is right in the Illinois Policy Institutes wheelhouse. It not only piles expense onto an extremely popular category of consumer products, but it also comes swathed in nanny state good intentions for the health of Cook County residents. By strange coincidence, this health concern arrives just as Cook County finds itself in desperate financial straits. (Inanother article,the institute claims Cook County cant even get its nanny state act right, as federal rules prohibit applying the new tax to sweetened drinks purchased with food stamps. It notes that polling shows people with lower incomes are more likely to drink soda.) At one cent per ounce, Cook County is on the lower end of the soda tax scale. In Boulder, Colo., that two-liter soda will cost an extra $1.35 and a 12-pack will be $2.88 more. Cook County is also one of the three jurisdictions in which voters did not voluntarily adopt the tax by referendum. (Illinois has no provision for such referenda.) There have been many complaints that Cook Countys soda tax was sold to voters as an anti-obesity measure but also includes drinks containing non-caloric sweeteners. But theordinance itselfcontains extensive language citing studies that link even diet drink consumption to kidney disease, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes and obesity. Cook County and the city of Philadelphia are the only places where drinks sweetened with non-caloric sweeteners also are subject to the tax. Thus, even among the eight places in the nation taxing or preparing to tax consumers by the ounce for sweetened soft drinks, Cook Countys measure reaches an especially broad swath of consumers. The Illinois Policy Institute cites Cook Countys new sweetened drink tax as making soda sold in the city of Chicago among the most expensive in the country. With Chicago already charging the nations highest sales tax of any major city plus a 3-percent soft drink tax, its almost certain that consumers in the city paid among the highest prices for soft drinks in the country even before the Aug. 2 arrival of the sweetened drink tax. But Chicago truly moved into a select group when its home county joined the seven other cities that have enacted or are poised to enact by-the-ounce taxes on sweetened soft drinks. With a nod toCaptain Obvious, we raise a glass of flattened, left-out-in-the-open Coke in the direction of the Illinois Policy Institute as we rate this statement True. In May 2016, syndicated talk radio host Sean Hannity aired an item claiming that Donald Trump had sent a plane to give 200 stranded U.S. marines a much-needed ride home after Operation Desert Storm in 1991: item When Corporal Ryan Stickney and 200 of his fellow Marines prepared to return to their families after Operation Desert Storm in 1991, a logistics error forced them to turn to a surprising source for a ride home: Donald J. Trump. Today, Stickney would like to say "thank you." Stickney (left), was a squad leader in a TOW company of a Marine reserve unit based in Miami, FL and spent approximately six months in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War between 1990 and 1991. Upon his units return to the United States, the former Marine says the group spent several weeks decompressing at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina before heading back to Miami. Stickney recalls being told that a mistake had been made within the logistics unit and that an aircraft wasnt available to take the Marines home on their scheduled departure date. This  according to Stickney  is where Donald Trump comes in. "The way the story was told to us was that Mr. Trump found out about it and sent the airline down to take care of us. And thats all we knew ... I remember asking 'Who is Donald Trump?' I truly didn't know anything about him," the former Marine said. Corporal Stickney snapped a photo to remember the day by:   The story came up several times during the course of the 2016 presidential campaign (Cpl. Stickney even told it in person at a Trump rally), but skeptics questioned its validity despite a statement from the Trump campaign allegedly confirming it: "The Trump campaign has confirmed to Hannity.com that Mr. Trump did indeed send his plane to make two trips from North Carolina to Miami, Florida to transport over 200 Gulf War Marines back home. No further details were provided." told confirming The few details we do have about Trump's alleged participation don't, in fact, add up. We can confirm, based on military records, that the 209-member Anti-Tank (TOW) Company, part of the 8th Tank Battalion for Operation Desert Shield, deployed to Camp LeJeune, North Carolina, from their home base in Miami on 26 November 1990. And we can confirm that the company deployed from Camp LeJeune to Saudi Arabia on 22 December, served throughout the combat phase of Operation Desert Storm (from 17 January to 28 February 1991), and returned to North Carolina in April. A command chronology of the deployment notes that a "Cpl. Stickey" was among those receiving certificates of commendation. deployed command chronology We can also confirm, via a 23 April 1991 article from the Sun-Sentinel, that a series of flight delays stalled the company's homecoming to Miami on 22 April, but that they finally did arrive home after split across two separate flights. Stickney's photograph shows that he arrived on a plane marked "Trump," but it also proves something else: that even if Trump did send the plane, it wasn't his private jet. article That Trump didn't send the pictured plane at all was something noted by a sharp-eyed reader, who wrote to us to note: First, thats not Trumps private 727 jet; its one of the jets in the Trump Shuttle fleet. I wondered if maybe Trumps jet back in those days was painted differently, so I researched his private jet as of April 1991. I found that Trump was deep in the red, financially, and having to liquidate assets, one of which was his personal 727. The sale of that jet was finalized in the first week of May 1991, making it highly unlikely he was also flying reservists around while discussing the sale at the end of April. jet Shuttle The markings of the plane in Stickney's photo match those of the Trump Shuttle fleet, so the question becomes: Did Trump himself send a Trump Shuttle to retrieve the stranded Marines, or was it procured some other way? To arrive at an answer, it's necessary to go into a bit of the history of Trump Shuttle. A July 2015 article in NYC Aviation detailed Trump's short-lived airline industry involvement, beginning with an entirely separate carrier, Eastern Air Shuttle, which he immediately rebranded with his own name: article carrier rebranded CEO Frank Lorenzo ... began selling off assets including the prized Shuttle operation. Donald Trump placed a winning bid for the Shuttle, its aircraft and landing slots at LaGuardia and National for $380 million dollars that was financed through no less than 22 banks. The newly branded Trump Shuttle took the skies on June 7, 1989. Timing is everything in business, and unfortunately for Trump he entered the airline game at the wrong time. The US entered an economic recession in the late-80s leading many corporations to cut back on business travel. In addition, tensions in the Middle East leading up to the first Gulf war caused oil prices to spike. This 1-2 punch was devastating for the airline industry and led to the demise of a number of airlines including Eastern and Pan Am. Given these circumstances, the Trump Shuttle lost money, and with Trump continuing to accumulate debt in his other ventures it was becoming increasingly difficult to pay back the loans taken to purchase the airline. In September of 1990 Trump defaulted on his loan and control of the airline went back to the banks led by Citibank. Given that the bankers, not Donald Trump, owned Trump Shuttle from September 1990 until it was sold to U.S. Air in 1996, Trump wasn't in a position to send the planes anywhere, much less on a spur-of-the-moment Marine transport mission. So who did? As it turns out, the U.S. military itself chartered the flights -- a common practice in the day, according to an 11 August 2016 report by The Washington Post: Lt. Gen. Vernon J. Kondra, now retired, was in charge of all military airlift operations. He said that relying on commercial carriers freed up the military cargo aircraft for equipment transport. Vernon J. Kondra Kondra's notes on the flight are declassified and available online and show a contract for Trump Shuttle to "move troops in [the] continental United States" during the 1990-91 timeframe: online There are several references to a 1990-91 contract for Trump Shuttle to carry personnel across the United States, between the East and West Coasts, on a standard LaGuardia-Dover-Charleston-Travis-Chord-Kelly-Dover-LaGuardia run.   "It worked very well, and the crews loved it, and really thought that we'd done something special for them," Kondra recalled in the oral history. "It was a helluva lot better than using 141s [cargo craft], which we could use for something else." But Kondra said that the notion that Trump personally arranged to help the stranded soldiers made little sense. "I certainly was not aware of that. It does not sound reasonable that it would happen like that. It would not fit in with how we did business. I don't even know of how he would have known there was a need." So the real story underlying the claim that Donald Trump personally sent his jet to pick up stranded soldiers and return them to the U.S. is that the military paid to charter a plane from an airline Trump no longer owned in order to bring those service personnel home. Kessler, Glenn.  "Too Good to Check: Sean Hannitys Tale of a Trump Rescue."
  The Washington Post.  11 August 2016. Reed, Ted.  "Trump: I Ran a Great Airline."
  The Globe and Mail.  26 September 2011. Rodriguez-Florido, Lourdes.  "Grand Homecoming Welcomes War-Weary Marine Reservists Company Looks Forward to Settling Into Life's Regular Routines."
  Sun-Sentinel.  23 April 1991. CNN.  "Inside Donald Trump's Private Jet."
  10 November 2009. GulfLINK.  "8th Tank BN Command Chronology 8th Nov 90 to March 91."
  12 April 1991. Claim:  The Obama administration is proposing a 1% tax on debit card usage and/or banking transactions.  Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, July 2010] The Transaction Tax!  WHAT THE HELL IS THIS??President Obama's finance team and Nancy Pelosi are recommending a 1% transaction tax on all financial transactions.The bill is HR-4646 introduced by US Rep Peter deFazio D-Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa.Their plan is to sneak it in after the November election to keep it under the radar.See what Nancy has to say about this wonderful idea!https://tinyurl.com/24dn5udIt's only 1%! This is a 1% tax  on all transactions to or from any financial institution i.e. Banks, Credit  Unions, Mutual funds,  Brokers, etc.Any deposit you make will have a 1% tax charged.Any withdrawal you make, 1% tax.Any transfer within your account, a transfer to or from savings and checking, will have a 1% tax charged.Any ATM transaction, withdrawal or deposit, 1% tax.If your pay check or your Social Security is direct deposited, 1% tax.If you carry a check to your bank to deposit, 1% tax.If you take cash in to deposit, 1% tax.If you receive any income from a bond or a dividend from stock, 1% tax.Any Real Estate Transaction, 1% tax.This is from the man who promised that if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax! Remember, he is completely honest and trustworthy.Keep your eyes and ears open.   https://tinyurl.com/24dn5ud Folks, Nancy says this would be a minimal tax on the people, but 1 percent every time you pay a bill or make a deposit is not minimal. This would no doubt tax investment  transactions as well as bank account transactions.This woman is nuts!!!If you know someone in California get this to them!  While at the checkout of Wal-mart in Greeneville, TN I heard that in the future the government may be planning to place a 1% tax on people using debit cards at the check out.  I have heard discussion and seen on emails the fear that the Obama administration is going to pass a 'banking tax' that will take 1% of each deposit and 1% of every transaction out of a bank account. Summary:  The Obama administration has not proposed or recommended placing a 1% tax on all financial transactions.  The idea of the 1% transaction tax stemmed from a bill repeatedly introduced by a single congressman which had no support from any other member of Congress and no chance of passing. Origins:  Some members of Congress have what might be termed "hobby horse" issues: concepts about which they introduce legislation in Congress after Congress although their bills not only never come close to passing, but never even clear committee to be put to  votes in the first place.  The hobby horse of Representative Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania is the notion of eliminating all federal taxes on individuals and corporations and replacing them with a revenue-generating system based on transaction fees (a concept he originally called the "Transform America Transaction Fee" and later referred to as the "Debt Free America Act"). Chaka Fattah Transform America Transaction Fee In 2004 Rep. Fattah presented a bill calling on Congress to fund a study regarding the replacement of the federal tax code with a transaction fee-basedsystem (H.R. 3759), he introduced a similar bill in 2005 (H.R. 1601), again in 2007 (H.R. 2130), and again in 2009 (H.R. 1703).  None of these bills was ever put to a vote, and only one of them had so much as a single co-sponsor. H.R. 3759 H.R. 1601 (H.R. 2130), (H.R. 1703) In 2010, Rep. Fattah moved beyond proposing studies and submitted the Debt Free America Act (H.R. 4646), a bill calling for the implementation of  a scheme to pay down the national debt and eliminate federal income tax on individuals by imposing a 1% fee on specified financial transactions: H.R. 4646 pay down One idea for raising taxes to pay down the debt is the bill introduced this February [2010] by Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.). His "Debt Free America Act" (H.R. 4646) would impose a 1 percent "transaction tax" on every financial transaction  whether paid by cash, credit card or any form of financial transfer, the only exception being transactions involving the purchase or sale of stock. Theoretically, everyone would pay one cent on the dollar for every such transaction in America every day  whether $3 million on a $300 million business acquisition, $300 on the purchase of a $30,000 car, or $5 on a $500 ATM withdrawal. Specifically, the text of the bill stated that: The purpose of [the transaction fee] is to establish a fee on most transactions. Such [a] fee:  is different than a sales tax in that a sales tax is charged only on sales to the final consumer, [while] the transaction fee would apply to intermediate users as well as end users   is different than a value added tax (VAT), commonly used in European and other countries, in that a VAT is imposed only on a portion of a transaction's value (roughly the difference between an item's selling price and its cost), [while] the transaction fee would apply to the entire amount of the transaction  is intended to raise sufficient revenue to eliminate the national debt, which was $10.6 trillion in January 2009, during a period of 7 years, and to phase out the income tax on individuals. [This bill would] impose on every specified transaction a fee in an amount equal to 1 percent of the amount of such transaction. The term 'specified transaction' means any transaction that uses a payment instrument, including any check, cash, credit card, transfer of stock, bonds, or other financial instrument. The term 'transaction' includes retail and wholesale sales, purchases of intermediate goods, and financial and intangible transactions. Persons become liable for the fee at the moment the person exercises control over a piece of property or service, regardless of the payment method. (The bill provided for individuals earning $125,000 or less to receive a credit equal to 1% of their income against the tax, and it gave the Treasury Department discretion to exempt certain transactions on which lower-income people disproportionately relied.) Like Rep. Fattah's other Congressional efforts along these lines, his Debt Free America Act had no sponsors other than himself,  languished in committee after being introduced, had no realistic chance of being passed. Thus, although e-mailed warnings about a "1% transaction tax" do reference a once-real piece of proposed legislation, the amount of attention those warnings garnered vastly, vastly outstripped any real possibility that such legislation would actually be enacted. Moreover, some of the additional details contained with such e-mailed warnings were erroneous:  Neither "President Obama's finance team" nor Nancy Pelosi is "recommending a 1% transaction tax."  The proposal for the  Debt Free America Act was purely the effort of a single congressman, with no outside support.  Neither Representative Peter DeFazio of Oregon nor Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa introduced the Debt Free America Act, co-sponsored it, or publicly supported it.  The included link that supposedly showed Nancy Pelosi endorsing the Debt Free America Act antedated the introduction of that bill to Congress; her comments actually referred to a different, earlier transaction tax proposed in December 2009 by Rep. Peter DeFazio.  That bill, known as the "Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street Act" (H.R. 4191), called for the funding of investment in middle class jobs by levying small percentage value taxes on the buying and selling of stocks, futures, swaps, options and other securities. (Although Rep. DeFazio's bill had 31 co-sponsors, it too languished in committee without being brought to a vote.) proposed H.R. 4191  Later versions of this item opened with the statement that "ON JANUARY 1ST 2012, THE GOVERNMENT IS REQUIRING EVERYONE TO HAVE DIRECT DEPOSIT FOR SS CHECKS. WONDER WHY?"  The Social Security program did switch over to an electronic payments system as of 1 March 2013 that provided recipients with the options of receiving their benefits payments either through direct deposit to a bank account or via the reloading of a debit card, but that change had nothing to do with the Congressional bill discussed above. Rep. Fattah reintroduced his Debt Free America Act (as H.R. 1125) to the 112th Congress on 16 March 2011. Like Rep. Fattah's previous efforts along these lines, Govtrack.us tagged it with the prognosis "This bill has a 0% chance of being enacted." H.R. 1125 Govtrack.us Last updated:  22 October 2013 Typhoid Mary was a cook. Working at that job made her single-handedly responsible for multiple outbreaks of typhoid fever, in and around New York City, about a century ago.PolitiFact Ohio couldn't help recalling that bit of history recently after reading advice for the flu season from the Centers for Disease Control, which urged sick people to stay home from work and school to avoid the spread of illness.The history was freshened by last week's news that a college cafeteria worker in Indiana had been diagnosed with typhoid fever, and it came to mind when we saw a release from Sen. Sherrod Brown saying that he is co-sponsoring the Healthy Families Act, which is being reintroduced in Congress.Also called the earned sick time initiative, the legislation would allow workers at businesses with 15 or more employees to earn paid sick days. Workers could earn up to one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked, up to a total of seven days.For far too many Americans, a day home from work means a day without pay, Brown said. Some 40 percent of private-sector workers in the U.S. dont have any paid sick days at all. Its worse for low-income workers  three in four dont have any paid sick days available.We wondered about the numbers. Brown's staff said the source was last year's National Compensation Survey from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.Its chart for paid leave benefits shows that 61 percent of all workers in the private sector have paid sick days -- meaning about 40 percent don't have them.Among the lowest-paid 25 percent of workers, the chart shows that 29 percent have paid sick days, meaning more than 70 percent don't have them.Among the lowest-paid 10 percent of workers, 18 percent have sick days, so 82 percent do not. (Three in four, the figure used by Brown, is 75 percent. )We found other figures as well:. More than three in four food service and hotel workers (78 percent) dont have any paid sick days, according to an analysis by the Institute for Women's Policy Research. Workers without sick days are more likely to go to work with a contagious illness, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center. And a 2011 study in the American Journal of Public Health estimated that a lack of sick leave helped spread 5 million cases of flu-like illness during the outbreak of 2009.Critics of the sick leave initiative, including the National Association of Independent Businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, say paid sick days add costs to low-margin businesses, are burdensome to business and result in lost jobs.In a recent survey of businesses by the Employment Policies Institute, Roughly 70 percent of respondents said that Connecticuts sick leave law was not good for business, the group said.PolitiFact Ohio is not rating the legislation, however -- only Browns statement on the numbers of workers who dont have access to paid sick days. We rate it True.