Sean Penn Letter to Washington Post
Claim:  Actor Sean Penn published a letter to President George W. Bush in The Washington Post. Status:  True. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] An Open Letter to the President of the United States of America Mr. Bush: Good morning sir. Like you, I am a father and an American. Like you, I consider myself a patriot. Like you, I was horrified by the events of this past year, concerned for my family and my country. However,I do not believe in a simplistic and inflammatory view of good and evil. I believe this is a big world full of men, women, and children who struggle  to eat, to love, to work, to protect their families, their beliefs, and their dreams. My father, like yours, was decorated for service in World War II. He raised me with a deep belief in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as they should apply to all Americans who would sacrifice to maintain them and to all human beings as a matter of principle.  Many of your actions to date and those proposed seem to violate every defining principle of this country over which you preside: intolerance of debate ("with us or against us"), marginalization of your critics, the promoting of fear through unsubstantiated rhetoric, manipulation of a quick comfort media, and position of your administration's deconstruction of civil liberties all contradict the very core of the patriotism you claim. You lead, it seems, through a blood-lined sense of entitlement. Take a close look at your mostvehement media supporters. See the fear in their eyes as their loud voices of support ring out with that historically disastrous undercurrent of rage and panic masked as "straight tough talk." How far have we come from understanding what it is to kill one man, one woman, or one child, much less the "collateral damage" of many hundreds of thousands. Your use of the words, "this is a new kind of war" is often accompanied by an odd smile. It concerns me that what you are asking of us is to abandon all previous lessons of history in favor of following you blindly into the future. It worries me because with all your best intentions, an enormous economic surplus has been squandered. Your administration has virtually dismissed the most fundamental environmental concerns and therefore, by implication, one gets the message that, as you seem to be willing to sacrifice the children of the world, would you also be willing to sacrifice ours. I know this cannot be your aim so, I beg you Mr. President, listen toGershwin, read chapters of Stegner, of Saroyan, the speeches of Martin Luther King. Remind yourself of America. Remember the Iraqi children, our children, and your own.  There can be no justification for the actions of Al Qaeda. Nor acceptance of the criminal viciousness of the tyrant, Saddam Hussein. Yet, that bombing is answered by bombing, mutilation by mutilation, killing by killing, is a pattern that only a great country like ours can stop. However, principles cannot be recklessly or greedily abandoned in the guise of preserving them.  Avoiding war while accomplishing national security is no simple task. But you will recall that we Americans had a little missile problem down in Cuba once. Mr. Kennedy's restraint (and that of the nuclear submarine captain, Arkhipov) is to be aspired to. Weapons of mass destruction areclearly a threat to the entire world in any hands. But as Americans, we must ask ourselves, since the potential for Mr. Hussein to possess them threatens not only our country, (and in fact, his technology to launch is likely not yet at that high a level of sophistication) therefore, many in his own region would have the greatest cause for concern. Why then, is the United States, as led by your administration, in the small minority of the world nations predisposed toward a preemptive military assault on Iraq?  Simply put, sir, let us re-introduce inspection teams, inhibiting offensive capability. We buy time, maintain our principles here and abroad and demand of ourselves the ingenuity to be the strongest diplomatic muscle on the planet, perhaps in the history of the planet. The answers will come. You are a man of faith, but your saber is rattling the faith of many Americans in you.  I do understand what a tremendously daunting task it must be to stand in your shoes at this moment. As a father of two young children who will live their lives in the world as it will be affected by critical choices today, I have no choice but to believe that you can ultimately stand as a great president. History has offered you such a destiny. So again, sir, I beg you, help save America before yours is a legacy of shame and horror. Don't destroy our children's future. We will support you. You must support us, your fellow Americans, and indeed, mankind.  Defend us from fundamentalism abroad but don't turn a blind eye to the fundamentalism of a diminished citizenry through loss of civil liberties, of dangerously heightened presidential autonomy through acts of Congress, and of this country's mistaken and pervasive belief that its "manifest destiny" is to police the world. We know that Americans are frightened and angry. However, sacrificing American soldiers or innocent civilians in an unprecedented preemptive attack on a separate sovereign nation, may well prove itself a most temporary medicine. On the other hand, should you mine and have faith in the best of this country to support your leadership in representing a strong, thoughtful, and educated United States, you may well triumph for the long haul. Lead us there, Mr. President, and we will standwith you. Sincerely,Sean PennSan Francisco, California  Origins:  The letter quoted above did indeed appear in the pages of The Washington Post as a paid advertisement.  Numerous news stories have reported that it cost actor Sean Penn $56,000 to run the ad, which took up most of a page in the first section of the 18 October 2002 edition of The Washington Post. Is Sean Penn right? It doesn't matter  the point is every American always has opinions about the government, and this condition exists no matter who is in the White House or what he's doing. There are going to be people on both sides of any issue, and at times some of them will be famous and/or wealthy. There's a larger question here: Should the opinions of celebrities or the well-to-do be accorded higher degrees of respect simply because the folks they issue from have the power or money to publicize them? Most folks don't have the requisite $56,000 to ensure their views get printed in The Washington Post and instead have to make do with a 37 stamp and their faith in the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail to the White House. This method, by the way, works well when the sole object of the activity is to relay one citizen's deeply-felt concerns to the President of his country  a stamp places that power to be heard into every person's hands, no matter how humble. Buying space in a newspaper, however, is far less about securing the attention of a President deemed urgently in need of guidance than it is about pontificating to the masses, even if the piece is putatively "addressed" to just one person. It's a soapbox grab and an especially arrogant, self-entitled one in that the podium is gained not by virtue of stunning displays of eloquence or irrefutable logic but by way of its having been rented for the day. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 1999 the median income for American households was $41,994. In other words, the wage earners in a statistically typical American family  would have to work at least 16 months just to gross what this Sean Penn paid for a turn on the soapbox.  For many of them, including the millions of families living far below the poverty line, $56,000 is an unimaginable fortune, the likes of which they'll never see unless they hit the lottery. They therefore cannot pay to get their opinions published in a newspaper. $41,994 Barbara "money talks" Mikkelson Additional information:  Last updated:  2 December 2007
In February 2020, as fears surrounding the outbreak of a new coronavirus and a potential pandemic triggered the worst one-day drop in U.S. stocks since 2011, a chart began circulating via social media purportedly showing the "8 Largest Dow Jones Drops in American History." one-day drop What was notable about the chart was that all of the listed stock market drops had supposedly occurred during the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump:  The chart was accurate as far as it went, replicating information from the Wikipedia "List of largest daily changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average" page about the greatest single-day drops in the Dow: page  However, this chart only displayed net (or absolute) losses in the Dow, and obviously a drop of 1,000 points when the average stands at 25,000 is far less severe than a drop of 1,000 points when the average stands at only 5,000. As we detailed in another article, a chart of the largest single-day percentage (or relative) changes in the Dow shows that none of the top 10 single-day percentage drops in that stock index has occurred during the Trump administration: article Biggest one-day percentage stock index losses  (Sources: The Wall Street Journal's Market Data and Yahoo! Finance's downloadable Dow Jones data) Market Data data The largest single-day percentage drop in the Dow took place on Oct. 19, 1987  a day commonly known as Black Monday  when the Dow fell 508 points for a loss of 22.6% of its value. Black Monday Wikipedia.  "List of Largest Daily Changes in the Dow Jones Industrial Average."
  Accessed 28 February 2020. Wikipedia.  "Black Monday (1987)."
  Accessed 28 February 2020. Associated Press.  "Virus Anxiety Triggers Biggest 1-Day Market Drop Since 2011."
  Snopes.com.  28 February 2020. MacGuill, Dan.  "Does the Dow Jones Do Worse Under Republican Presidents?"
  Snopes.com.  8 February 2018. In May 2023, an old rumor began to spread in a scammy article that claimed singer and talk show host Kelly Clarkson was "forced" by producers of NBC's "The Voice" to lose weight. However, this was a false story. It was created in order to push a scam meant to fool consumers into signing up for expensive monthly subscription charges for keto and apple cider vinegar (ACV) weight loss gummies. The scam article appeared on exclusiveinsiderdeals.com. The website's domain was registered with Namecheap, while its hosting was with Cloudfare. exclusiveinsiderdeals.com registered The story showed the false headline, "Kelly Clarkson Forced To Lose 30 Pounds By 'NBC' Producers... She Lost 50! (Her Diabetes Finally In Control)." The page was misleadingly designed by scammers to resemble the "Today" show website. According to the story, Clarkson consulted with Dr. Mehmet Oz of the former "Dr. Oz" talk show, who told her to try to start her supposed weight loss journey with keto and ACV gummies. None of this was true. Clarkson, Oz, NBC, "The Voice," and "Today" had no involvement with any of this. Names and faces were used completely without permission. Over the years, a large number of CBD and keto products have been featured with this same sort of scammy article. For example, in 2018, we previously published a very similar fact check about Clarkson being fired from "The Voice." It, too, led to a diet supplement scam. fact check As of May 26, one of the products that was being pushed with Clarkson's name was SlimDNA Keto + ACV Gummies. Dr. Oz's name and a number of other scammy aspects also appeared on a SlimDNA product page on slimdnabrands.com. This domain was registered with Tucows and received hosting from Cloudfare. slimdnabrands.com If any readers were victim to one of these gummy scams, we recommend reaching out to your credit card company to alert them of the matter. These sorts of CBD and keto gummies scams often attempt to rope customers into hidden subscription charges of hundreds of dollars per month. We recommend being proactive and calling your credit card company immediately in order to stop further charges from taking place. Brockington, Ariana. "Blake Shelton Announces He Is Leaving 'The Voice' after Season 23." TODAY.Com, 12 Oct. 2022, https://www.today.com/popculture/tv/blake-shelton-leaving-voice-season-23-rcna51798. Evon, Dan. "Was Kelly Clarkson Fired from 'The Voice'?" Snopes, 20 Dec. 2018, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clarkson-fired-voice/. "WHOIS Domain Lookup." GoDaddy.Com, https://www.godaddy.com/whois/. A long-lived but inaccurate meme on social media ties an act signed into law in 1973 by President Richard Nixon to the development of for-profit HMO and health insurance agencies: Did you know that before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off health care? The Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973 passed by Nixon changed everything. In 1973, Nixon did a personal favor for his friend and campaign financier, Edgar Kaiser, then president and chairman of Kaiser-Permanente. Nixon signed into law, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, in which medical insurance agencies, hospitals, clinics and even doctors, could begin functioning as for-profit business entities instead of the service organizations they were intended to be. And which insurance company got the first taste of federal subsidies to implement HMOA73 *gasp* ... why, it was Kaiser-Permanente!   This text conflates two separate issues: the development of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) in conjunction with alleged cozy ties between Kaiser-Permanente and the Nixon Administration, and the legal permissibility of for-profit healthcare. However, as for-profit health care existed prior to 1973, the Health Maintenance Organization Act clearly did not create or enable that phenomenon. The growth of employer-sponsored health insurance was instrumental to the development of the current for-profit healthcare insurance system in America, which arose largely as a result of federally mandated wage freezes that occurred during and after World War II. This progression was described in a history of American Healthcare by Elisabeth Rosenthal, abridged in a Spring 2017 issue of Stanford Medicine: described When the National War Labor Board froze salaries during and after World War II, companies facing severe labor shortages discovered that they could attract workers by offering health insurance instead. To encourage the trend, the federal government ruled that money paid for employees health benefits would not be taxed. This strategy was a win-win in the short term, but in the long term has had some very losing implications ... Within a decade, the model spread across the country. Three million people had signed up by 1939 and the concept had been given a name: Blue Cross Plans. The goal was not to make money, but to protect patient savings and keep hospitals -- and the charitable religious groups that funded them -- afloat. Blue Cross Plans were then not-for-profit. As time wore on and medical science became both more advanced and more expensive, other organizations realized the existence of a market for plans tailored to younger and healthier people, and by 1951 both Aetna and Cigna were major players in offering major medical coverage in a for-profit model: For-profit insurance companies moved in, unencumbered by the Blues charitable mission. They accepted only younger, healthier patients on whom they could make a profit. They charged different rates, depending on factors like age, as they had long done with life insurance. And they produced different types of policies, for different amounts of money, which provided different levels of protection. Aetna and Cigna were both offering major medical coverage by 1951. With aggressive marketing and closer ties to business than to health care, these for-profit plans slowly gained market share through the 1970s and 1980s. It was difficult for the Blues to compete. From a market perspective, the poor Blues still had to worry about their mission of providing high-quality, affordable health care for all. In 1994, after state directors rebelled, the Blues board relented and allowed member plans to become for-profit insurers. Their primary motivation was not to charge patients more, but to gain access to the stock market to raise some quick cash to erase deficits. This was the final nail in the coffin of old-fashioned noble-minded health insurance. It is inaccurate to say that before 1973 it was illegal in the US to profit off of health care, as Aetna and Cigna had been profiting from health care for over 20 years before that. Ballooning health care costs became a serious political issue in the 1970s, and it was in this environment that the concept of HMOs grew in popularity. An HMO differed from the other insurance models in that it was a prepaid, managed plan that granted a patient access to a specifically contracted network of physicians and specialists, generally combined with some form of financing: HMO In traditional managed care plans (e.g., Health Maintenance Organizations) the money follows the "member," whether ill or not. Although there are many definitions of managed care, generally the term describes a continuum of arrangements that integrate the financing and delivery of health care. Purchasers contract with (or "own") selected providers to deliver a defined set of services at an agreed per-capita or per-service price. The concept had existed in various forms prior to the 1970s, but during the Nixon administration the HMO model was viewed as the solution to massive increases in government spending taken on by the federal government through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Both liberals and conservatives supported the concept at the time, as described by Stuart Altman and David Shactman in their book Power, Politics, and Universal Health Care: described Richard Nixon was concerned about health care costs. Federal spending for the Medicare and Medicaid programs had surpassed everyone's expectations. Their cost grew from 4.1 percent of the federal budget in 1961 to 11.3 percent by 1973. HMOs seemed to have everything Nixon needed ... They appealed to Nixon and Republican conservatives became they were a free market approach, and they preserved the private insurance market. Moreover, they did not require large government spending as in the case of liberal, Democratic reform proposals. Differences between liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans shaped the trajectory of legislation that would become the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, which was signed into law with bipartisan support. The act initially provided $45 million in grants and loans and $300 million in loan guarantees to spur the development of HMOs: initially With support from a broad coalition in Congress, President Nixon secured the passage of the HMO Act of 1973. The Act enabled individual HMOs to receive endorsement (referred to as qualification) from the federal government, and it required employers to offer coverage from at least one federally qualified HMO to all employees (dual choice). However, the dual choice requirement was never enforced, and many large HMOs, including Kaiser, never sought federal qualification. The Act did facilitate growth in HMO enrollment by helping to create several successful HMOs around the country, and it legitimized the HMO concept. Over time, the restrictions on which HMOs could receive federal endorsements were eased in a series of amendments to the act, leading to a massive increase in for-profit HMOs that medical historian Paul Starr described as the conservative appropriation of liberal reform: described Paradoxically, the efforts to control expenditures for health services also stimulated corporate development. The conservative appropriation of liberal reform in the early seventies opened up HMOs as a field for business investment. And in ways entirely unexpected, the regulation of hospitals and other efforts to contain costs set off a wave of acquisitions, mergers, and diversification in the nonprofit as well as profit-making sectors of the medical care industry. Pressure for efficient, business-like management of health care has also contributed to the collapse of the barriers that traditionally prevented corporate control of health services. In this light, it is fair to say that Richard Nixons support for HMOs presaged a dramatic transition in the American healthcare system that increased for-profit health insurance enterprises, but it is not fair to say that the act itself first made for-profit health insurance legal. The primary emotional hook in the meme is the assertion that the HMO Act was a handout to Edgar Kaiser, a friend of Nixons who donated heavily to his campaign for president. It is true that Kaiser advocated on behalf of the HMO Act to Nixons aide John Ehrlichman, and that the concept proposed in the bill was modeled on HMO plans already offered by Kaiser. The claim that the act was a quid pro quo, however, is belied by the fact that the original 1973 act, in its final form, did not allow Kaisers plan to be recognized: advocated not allow While Kaiser Permanente was in operation for many years before, it did serve as a model for the HMO Act of 1973. Paul Ellwood Jr., MD, a community physician working with the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, in 1971 found a model for his health maintenance organization vision in Kaiser Permanente ... Ironically, when Nixon signed the HMO Act in 1973 it had been so diluted by the political process from Ellwoods ideas that Kaiser Permanente, a central model at the outset, did not qualify as an HMO until the act was amended four years later. Such a truth also makes the memes claim that Kaiser was the insurance company to get the first taste of federal subsidies incorrect. Additional controversy stems from a conversation between Ehrlichman and Nixon captured in the Nixon White House tapes that makes it sound as though Nixon believed the motivation behind the act was that the less care [insurance companies] give [patients], the more money they make: conversation Ehrlichman: Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can ... the reason he can do it ... I had Edgar Kaiser come in ... talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because ... President Nixon: [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: ... the less care they give them, the more money they make. President Nixon: Fine. [Unclear.] Ehrlichman: [Unclear] ... and the incentives run the right way. President Nixon: Not bad. Kaiser Permanente contended that this was a crude and inarticulate paraphrase of what Edgar Kaiser was trying to explain to Ehrlichman, and that Nixons later statements to Congress about the act made it clear what the two men were attempting to explain. The issue was that doctors needed to be incentivized to provide preventative medicine to reduce overall healthcare costs, but the rate-based, for-profit insurance model currently in play did not provide incentives for this less profitable area of healthcare, unlike HMOs: crude and inarticulate Despite Ehrlichmans miscommunication, Nixon eventually grasped the Kaiser Permanente model of integrated, preventive health care. In a communication to Congress about his Health Strategy Initiative on Feb. 18, 1971, Nixon called health maintenance an important part of a new national health strategy. He continued: If more of our resources were invested in preventing sickness and accidents, Nixon said, fewer would have to be spent on costly cures. If we gave more attention to treating illness in its early stages, then we would be less troubled by acute disease. In short, we should build a true health systemand not a sickness system alone. ... Under traditional systems, doctors and hospitals are paid, in effect, on a piecework basis. The more illnesses they treat, and the more service they render, the more their income rises. This does not mean, of course, that they do any less than their very best to make people well. But it does mean that there is no economic incentive for them to concentrate on keeping people healthy. All told, little factual basis supports the memes assertion that Nixon altered the legality of for-profit insurance by signing the HMO Act of 1973, or its claims that the act was a secret method for Nixon and his cronies to enrich themselves. The only sliver of truth here is the fact that the increase in popularity of HMOs that occurred after passage of the act (and its amendments) greatly expanded for-profit health care in America. Rosenthal, Elisabeth.  "Insurance Policy: How an Industry Shifted from Protecting Patients to Seeking Profit."
  Stanford Medicine.  Spring 2017. Sekhri, Neelam K.  "Managed Care: The U.S. Experience."
  WHO Bulletin.  2000. Altman, Stuart and David Shactman.  Power, Politics, and Universal Health Care: The Inside Story of a Century-Long Battle.
  Prometheus Books, 2011.  ISBN 1616144564. Markovich, Martin.  "The Rise of HMOs."
  RAND Graduate School Dissertation.  7 August 2003. Starr, Paul.  The Social Transformation of American Medicine.
  Basic Books, 2017  (2nd edition).  ISBN 0465093027. Kaiser Permanente.  "Kaiser Permanentes Prominent Role in American Health Care Reform."
  22 June 2007. Wikisource.  "Transcript of Taped Conversation Between President Richard Nixon and John D. Ehrlichman (1971) That Led to the HMO Act of 1973."
  17 February 1971. As is the case for many Western democracies, the Canadian government's formal efforts to help refugees settle in the country have been the subject of much speculation, criticism and misinformation in recent years. In the fall of 2017, a viral Facebook post spread yet more misinformation about the benefits received by refugees in Canada.  On 1 September 2017, Facebook user Mike Marcoux posted what appears to be a photograph of an itemized breakdown of benefits associated with the Resettlement Assistance Program, along with the message: "This is what 1 illegal refugee gets with the federal assistance program $3874 per month." posted We have modified the image to obscure the name of the recipient, which was included in the original photograph:   Although this document appears to be authentic, according to the Canadian Council for Refugees, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting and advocating for refugees, its representation on Facebook was highly misleading: The document details payments to a family of five (not a single person) who were refugees accepted by Canada (and therefore are not in the country "illegally"), and most of the listed payments are one-time only resettlement assistance payments and not monthly benefits. A spokesperson for the Council told us the document showed "a start up breakdown of costs for a newly arrived Government-Assisted Refugee (GAR) family" and that the amounts shown were consistent with benefit rates in the province of British Columbia. Despite the apparent authenticity of the document, Marcoux's post grossly misrepresents the contents. Firstly, contrary to Mike Marcoux's post, there is no such thing as an "illegal" refugee in this context. By definition, beneficiaries of the Canadian government's Resettlement Assistance Program are individuals and families formally recognized by the Canadian government as refugees before they travel to Canada. According to the Canadian Council for Refugees, Government-Assisted Refugees such as those to whom this document appears to relate are "referred by the [U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees] to Canada because they have been identified as being in need of resettlement." recognized refugees Secondly, the document does not relate to one refugee, as the Facebook post falsely claims. The document clearly shows that these benefits are for a family of five people:   Third, the grand total value of the benefits ($3,874 CAD or $2,748 USD as of 28 January 2016) is not a recurring monthly payment, as the Facebook post falsely claims. The document clearly shows that the majority of benefits listed are one-off "start-up" benefits. The only regular monthly benefits are conveniently labelled "Regular Monthly Benefits," and consist of payments for food, rent and transportation, which, because of the size of the family, total $1,399 CAD per month ($1,094 USD as of 15 November 2017). These monthly benefits work out to $16,788 CAD ($13,132 USD) a year for a family of five (in addition to "start-up" benefits). Unless there are exceptional circumstances, these Resettlement Assistance Program benefits are only payable to refugees for one year. The amounts of benefits depend on the size of the family that receives them. If this document did relate to a single individual (as the Facebook post claims), the overall monthly payments could be expected to be significantly lower. The one-off start-up benefits which bring the total in this particular document to $3,874 also include a $375 loan for a security deposit for housing. Being a loan, that amount will have to be repaid to the federal government. Furthermore, depending on when this particular family arrived in Canada, they may be required to pay the Canadian government for the cost of their transportation into the country, which takes the form of loan debt. According to the Canadian Council for Refugees, the average loan debt between 2008 and 2012 was $3,090 CAD. transportation loan debt So while the document in the photograph does appear to be authentic, Mike Marcoux's Facebook post constitutes a gross misrepresentation of what's actually in it. The same document formed the basis of a similarly-outraged post on the right-wing blog "90 Miles from Tyranny" in December 2016. That blog post cited an earlier article by the now-defunct Magafeed web site, which is listed in the Fake News Codex as a "clickbait site with misleading, poorly [sourced], and outright false stories." post Codex It's hardly the first time that Canada's refugee policy has been the subject of false claims. For example, a factual error in a 2004 letter to the editor of the Toronto Star spawned a chain email and online memes falsely claiming that refugees in Canada receive more benefits each month than do Canadian pensioners. The rumor persisted for years. Toronto Star falsely Similar false rumors have been spread in the country's southern neighbor, the United States, often with the headline "INSANITY IS WHEN ILLEGAL REFUGEES GET $3,874 A MONTH IN FEDERAL ASSISTANCE WHILE SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS AVERAGE $1,200 A MONTH." false rumors English, Kathy.  "A Mistake That Travelled Around the World and Back Again: Public Editor."
  Toronto Star.  11 December 2015. Canadian Council for Refugees.  "Refugees and Income Assistance - Rebutting the Chain Email ("Pensioners' Myth.")
   Canadian Council for Refugees.  July 2013.  Citizenship and Immigration Canada.  "IP 3: In Canada Processing of Convention Refugees Abroad and Members of the Humanitarian Protected Persons Abroad Classes - Part 2 [Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP.)]
  Government of Canada.  13 January 2015. In mid-March 2019, the social media network The Other 98% shared a meme featuring an image of New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and text lauding her actions in the face of a deadly massacre targeting the Muslim community in the city of Christchurch: meme   Readers who were justifiably suspicious of content in a meme generated by a partisan source asked us whether its statements were true, and they were. Ardern garnered praise for guiding her country through grief in the wake of a mass shooting that claimed the lives of 50 people at two mosques on 15 March 2019 while Brenton Tarrant, a 28-year-old Australian suspected of being a white supremacist, was charged in the slayings. partisan source Ardern did wear a hijab, or veil, while honoring victims of the massacre. Professional news photographers captured images of Ardern wearing a gold-trimmed, black head covering during her 16 March 2019 visit to the Canterbury Refugee Centre: photographers NZ Prime Minister @jacindaardern is a remarkable leader. Here, she addresses mourners after the #Christchurch terrorist attack. ? pic.twitter.com/ccaiG6H0Fg @jacindaardern #Christchurch pic.twitter.com/ccaiG6H0Fg  news.com.au (@newscomauHQ) March 18, 2019 March 18, 2019  It is also true that Ardern confirmed victims and their families would receive financial assistance from the New Zealand government, although it might be a reach to claim she personally offered such assistance. But in a speech given on 17 March 2019, Ardern assured victims that New Zealand's Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), an agency that provides financial assistance to anyone in New Zealand who is injured in an accident, would be on hand to help them: speech ACC is putting more staff on the ground in Christchurch, working alongside the Ministry of Social Development at the community hub at Hagley. For ACC -- as Ive said before immigration status is not a factor -- it is based on the event happening here in New Zealand. In an event such as this -- murder or manslaughter -- the family is eligible for a funeral grant of around $10,000. There are also one-off payments for the deceaseds partner, children and dependents, ongoing assistance provisions for things like childcare and of course compensation for the loss of income. MSD [Ministry of Social Development] is providing standard forms of financial assistance also, such as helping with immediate needs and things like one-off grants for food payments. It will also be working with individuals and families to consider ongoing needs, such as benefit support. The country is currently making preparations for funerals for the 50 deceased victims. preparations Garrand, Danielle.  "New Zealand Helping to Pay Christchurch Shooting Victims' Funerals, Regardless of Immigration Status."
  CBS News.  17 March 2019. Beehive.govt.nz.  "PM Statement on Christchurch Shooting."
  17 March 2019. The Straits Times.   "New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern Wants to Discuss Live-Streaming with Facebook After Mosque Attacks."
  17 March 2019. Fifield, Anna.  "New Zealands Prime Minister Receives Worldwide Praise for Her Response to the Mosque Shootings."
  The Washington Post.  18 March 2019. U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted on May 31, 2020, that the United States would be designating "ANTIFA" as a "Terrorist Organization." Trump's tweet appeared in response to growing protests after the killing of George Floyd, a black man who died after a Minneapolis police officer kneeled on his neck on May 25:   Trump and several top officials, including U.S. Attorney General William Barr, have been blaming, without evidence, antifa and other groups they call "agitators" for the protests that have taken over cities across the United States. Barr also said in a statement that "The violence instigated and carried out by Antifa and other similar groups in connection with the rioting is domestic terrorism and will be treated accordingly." blaming statement But the United States currently does not have a process for designating domestic groups as terrorist organizations, which makes Trump's ability to enforce such a designation highly unlikely. Antifa, short for anti-fascist, is an amorphous movement of people who are opposed to fascism. They do not comprise an organized group, do not have a visible leadership, and acknowledge that they are secretive, so it is impossible to know how many people even count themselves as members. Anti-fascists lean strongly toward the left of the political spectrum, and many of them refer to themselves as socialists, anarchists, communists, or anti-capitalists. The positions of various antifa groups can also be difficult to define, but many of them support oppressed community members and protest against amassing of wealth by corporations. anti-fascist,  comprise refer positions Some antifa movements date their origins to the battle against European fascism in the 1920s and '30s. The BBC cited Mark Bray, the author of "Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook," as an authority in noting that "[Bray] says the modern American Antifa movement began in the 1980s with a group called Anti-Racist Action. Its members confronted neo-Nazi skinheads at punk gigs in the American Midwest and elsewhere. By the early 2000s the Antifa movement was mostly dormant -- until the rise of Donald Trump and the alt-right." Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook Antifa groups are not monolithic and employ a range of tactics. Many condemn the use of violence, but according to BBC News, some groups engage in aggressive confrontations, especially with far-right groups on the streets. Extreme factions have carried pepper spray, bricks, knives, and chains with them. BBC News Trump claimed members of the movement were responsible for acts of vandalism during the May and June 2020 protests against police brutality in the U.S., but in at least one case a white supremacist group was found to have posed as antifa on Twitter. Groups associated with both right and left, not just antifa, are being accused of inciting violence and looting during the protests. In most cases it is difficult to ascertain that antifa is solely responsible for the lawless activities occurring at some protests, and the culprits are still being investigated, as Keith Ellison, Minnesota's attorney general, observed on NBC's "Meet the Press": posed as antifa associated "The truth is, nobody really knows ...Theres been a lot of videotape taken by demonstrators of people who are very suspicious, who really did start breaking windows ... There have been other photographs of cars with no license plates. Very suspicious behavior. It would all have to be investigated, he said. Without any official structure to the group, or much evidence linking antifa to specific acts of violence, it would be difficult to prove that that body of activists is behind anything, Faiza Patel, director of the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security program, said: "As far as we know, antifa doesnt have bank accounts or assets or infrastructure ... Also there havent been any deaths attributed to anti-fascist violence, and one of the hallmarks of foreign terrorist organizations  a designation the U.S. government does make  is the acknowledgement of attacks that involve many fatalities." said Trump's ability to designate anti-fascists as a terrorist group is also highly suspect given that only foreign groups can be labeled as "terrorist" organizations under U.S. law, and "domestic terrorism" is not currently a federal crime in the U.S., according to the New York Times: foreign groups domestic terrorism A federal law defines terrorism as crimes of violence that are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government policy. But it distinguishes between international terrorism, which must have a foreign or transnational nexus, and domestic terrorism, which occurs primarily on American soil. Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries is a federal crime, giving the F.B.I. and federal prosecutors jurisdiction to take the lead. There is no equivalent crime of domestic terrorism, so law enforcement officials deal with such offenses using other laws that do not have terrorism in their labels, such as the state-level crime of murder. A 2017 report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on domestic terrorism similarly stated that: 2017 report The federal government does not generate an official and public list of domestic terrorist organizations or individuals. The development of such a list may be precluded by civil liberties concerns (i.e., inclusion in a publicly available list may impinge on a groups exercise of free speech or its other constitutionally protected activities). However, a lack of official lists or processes to designate groups or individuals as domestic terrorists makes it difficult to assess domestic terrorism trends and evaluate federal efforts to counter such threats. In 2011, an unnamed [Department of Homeland Security] official cited in a news report stated that unlike international terrorism, there are no designated domestic terrorist groups. Subsequently, all the legal actions of an identified extremist group leading up to an act of violence are constitutionally protected and not reported on by DHS. The CRS report also noted that although the U.S. does not officially designate domestic terror organizations, it does record individual terrorists and threats in its Terrorist Screening Database: While the government does not provide an official and public list of domestic terrorist organizations, it does include domestic terrorists (along with international terrorists) in its Terrorist Screening Database, commonly known as the Terrorist Watchlist ... While not naming specific groups, DOJ and the FBI have openly delineated domestic terrorist threats. DOJ has identified domestic terrorism threats to include criminal activity by animal rights extremists, ecoterrorists, anarchists, antigovernment extremists such as sovereign citizens and unauthorized militias, black separatists, white supremacists, and abortion extremists. In an interview with Snopes, Patel said that a number of different crimes can be designated as acts of terrorism: There is no single crime of either domestic or international terrorism. But both types of terrorism can be prosecuted under a number of statutes which constitute crimes of terrorism. The crime of hijacking an airplane, for example, is an act of terrorism. In fact, the government has available 51 different criminal statutes which can be applied domestic terrorism. It does not  and should not  have the ability to designate a domestic organization. This would allow the government to target political activity as terrorism, which is exactly what the White House and the Justice Department are trying to do by threatening to go after protestors under the guise of targeting Antifa. The State Department makes a list of designated "Foreign Terrorist Organizations" (FTO) available on their website. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), enforcing the terrorist designation for FTOs involves blocking assets, prosecuting individuals, and imposing immigration restrictions on FTOs, their members, and their supporters. Foreign Terrorist Organizations Government Accountability Office Patel added that the Secretary of State can designate foreign terrorist groups, but this triggers a range of consequences: "most important of which is the ability to prosecute anyone who provides the group with material support, no matter how minimal. In addition property and assets of persons linked to terrorism can be blocked, but only under a law that requires a connection to a mainly foreign threat." Thus, as a large, decentralized entity with no infrastructure or assets that we know of, designating and targeting antifa as a domestic terrorist organization could, according to some experts, create a dangerous scenario, as Patel told us: If persons who identified as 'Antifa' suspected of committing crimes that violate any of the federal crimes of terrorism or other criminal they could of course be properly investigated and prosecuted. The FBI has more than ample authority to investigate individuals they suspect of being engaged in criminal activity. The problem is the FBI's rules are so loose they can also investigate people who are not suspected of criminal activity, so these powers are easily abused. The FBI has a long history of investigating environmentalists and anti-war activists and recently fabricated a new terrorist threat of black identity extremists and it would be altogether surprising if they didnt spy on the protestors. The paucity of evidence directly connecting antifa to acts violence during protests, combined with the structureless nature of the group and the fact that the U.S. currently has no legal process for designating domestic terrorist organizations, leads us to rate this claim as  Al Jazeera.  "Trump Says US Will Designate Antifa 'Terrorist Organisation.'"
  31 May 2020. BBC Radio 4.  "Seven Things You Need to Know About Antifa."
  26 October 2017. Bogel-Burroughs, Nicholas and Sandra E. Garcia.  "What Is Antifa, The Movement Trump Wants to Declare a Terror Group?"
  The New York Times.  2 June 2020. Congressional Research Service.  "Domestic Terrorism: An Overview."
  21 August 2017. Hoffman, Jason, and Evan Perez.  "Trump Tweets Antifa Will Be Labeled a Terrorist Organization But Experts Believe That's Unconstitutional."
  CNN.  31 May 2020. MacFarquhar, Neil.  "Many Claim Extremists Are Sparking Protest Violence. But Which Extremists?"
  The New York Times.  31 May 2020. Robertson, Lori.  "Trump Cant Designate Antifa  Or Any Movement  Domestic Terrorist Organization."
  FactCheck.org.  1 June 2020. Savage, Charlie.  "What Could a Domestic Terrorism Law Do?"
 &nbsp ;The New York Times.  7 August 2019. The United States Department of Justice.  "Attorney General William P. Barr's Statement on Riots and Domestic Terrorism."
  31 May 2020. United States Government Accountability Office.  "COMBATING TERRORISM: Foreign Terrorist Organization Designation Process and U.S. Agency Enforcement Actions."
  June 2015. U.S. Department of State.  "Foreign Terrorist Organizations."
  Accessed 02 June 2020. Claim:  An employer issued a missive to his employees stating that any additional taxes on his business would result in his shutting the company down. LEGEND Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2008] To All My Valued Employees, There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country. Of course, as your employer, I am forbidden to tell you whom to vote for - it is against the law to discriminate based on political affiliation, race, creed, religion, etc. Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best. However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interest. First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life. However, what you don't see is the back story. I started this company 12 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living space was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business  hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the Goodwill store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had. So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, ****, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden  the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... you never realize the back story and the sacrifices I've made. Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for. Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and without wounds. Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why: I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough.  I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch. The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country. The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy. Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now. When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the mud of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep. So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child'sfuture. Frankly, it isn't my problem anymore. Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship. While tax cuts to 95% of America sounds great on paper, don't forget the back story: If there is no job, there is no income to tax. A tax cut on zero dollars is zero. So, when you make decision to vote, ask yourself, who understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of saving your job. While the media wants to tell you "It's the economy stupid" I'm telling you it isn't. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me in South Caribbean sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about. Signed,Your boss  Origins:  In the ramp-up towards the 2008 Presidential election and in its wake, a number of anonymous "Here's how you, the ones who voted for him, will directly suffer from a Barack Obama presidency" missives landed in inboxes everywhere. One such was putatively from a hard-working and generous grandfather telling his beloved liberal granddaughter that her support for Obama meant Grandpa was no longer going to be in a position to help her financially. Another was supposedly penned by CEO to his 140 employees informing them that thanks to the new taxes now surely headed his way, he'd have to lay off a few of them, so he was starting with those whose cars sported Obama bumper stickers." lay off The "To All My Valued Employees" letter quoted above is another of such ilk. In it, a boss threatens to shut down his company (thus wiping out the livelihoods of the 14 people who work there) if any more taxes are levied upon him, an outcome he views a virtual  certainty under an Obama presidency.  The piece is perhaps best viewed as an attempt to put into real-world terms the possible consequences to average folks if business is interfered with to the point of no longer being able to operate rather than as an actual letter sent by a real boss to his employees.  Although our earliest sighting of this item dates to 3 November 2008, textual clues within the missive (such as"Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best" and "So, when you make decision to vote") indicate it was likely penned sooner than just the day before the 2008 presidential election. The original author of this piece is unknown to us. While some versions are merely signed "Your Boss," others are attributed to Michael A. Crowley of Wake Forest, North Carolina, via inclusion of his signature block at the end of the piece. Crowley himself denies authorship, saying: In reference to the "To all my valued employees" letter currently circulating the internet:  This letter was forwarded to me by a colleague. While the letter may indeed be authentic, I was not the author and I do not know the identity of the original author. I forwarded it to the "John McCain Joe the Plumbers" email group prior to the election. Someone moved my contact information into the body of the message making it appear that I was the author of the letter. I would appreciate your removing my contact information prior to forwarding this message.  Michael A. Crowley, PE While sometimes people looking to distance themselves from soapbox pieces they've penned subsequently claim they found such contentious items elsewhere on the Internet and merely forwarded them to others, that is not the case here. More than just Crowley's own words of denial support his claim of non-authorship, with the key to that proof lying in the very signature block that has worked to convince so many of his being the real "boss" behind the letter. That signature block identifies his firm as Crowley, Crisp & Associates, Inc., a now defunct business entity that (according to North Carolina's Secretary of State) was formed in May 2007.  The missive so widely laid at Crowley's feet states "I started this company 12 years ago." Twelve years prior to 2008 was 1996. (His current firm, Crowley & Associates, Inc., was formed in October 2000.) Were Crowley the actual author, that line about when he began his company would have read "last year" or "8 years ago."  The response to the missive falsely attributed to him prompted Michael Crowley to pen his own letter on the plight of the small business owner, which can be read here. here In October 2012, David Siegel, the founder and CEO of Westgate Resorts, sent a modified version of this letter to all of his employees. He based his missive on that much-circulated 2008 piece, saying of his offering: "I did use the letter that had circulated before as a guideline, but I changed it [to fit my circumstances]. It speaks the truth and it gives [employees] something to think about when they go to the polls."  sent Last updated:  9 October 2012 In April 2017, a Bed Bath & Beyond coupon offer (purportedly good for $75 off any purchase) began circulating on Facebook under the guise of a Mother's Day promotion:   The "coupon" displays a domain name not part of the chain's legitimate web site, and the link takes Facebook users to a fraudulent web site posing as part of Bed Bath & Beyond, and instructs them to follow a simple set of instructions:Bed Bath & Beyond warned customers about the circulating phony discount in responses on their Facebook page:  page   This scam is almost exactly the same as earlier schemes targeting Home Depot, Costco, Amazon, and Kroger shoppers. Although the scams exhibited minor variations, they all feature three main identifiers. Home Depot Costco Amazon Kroger All require Facebook users to forward the phony coupon on to their Facebook friends, increasing the number of potential victims. They also instruct targets to complete out a simple survey and promise an outsized reward for a minor effort, a seemingly harmless task that often mines sensitive information such as e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth and credit card details. Finally, the completion of the "survey" never results in the receipt of a coupon for Bed Bath & Beyond (or any other known brand appropriated by scammers). Often, the ruse results in a subscription for difficult-to-cancel Reward Offers, or simply the disclosure of personal details to social media grifters. In a best-case scenario such efforts are a simple but effective like-farming scam, which can lead to embarrassment if the "liked" page is converted into an unpalatable one with risqu or rude content. scam The Better Business Bureau gave these three tips to identify these particular scams on Facebook: Facebook Dont believe what you see. Its 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 theres a link to their privacy policy. Watch out for a reward thats 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. On a scale of politically controversial topics, airline tickets might rank near the bottom, perhaps somewhere just above Roberts Rules of Order and a quorum call.And yet plane tickets have been part of some curious claims taken on by PolitiFact: Every time you buy an airline ticket, the federal government runs a background check on you -- PolitiFact Texas:Mostly False You can use food stamps for a plane ticket to go to Hawaii -- PolitiFact National:Pants on Fire Now coming down the runway is a claim byGary Kelly, chief executive officer of Dallas-based Southwest Airlines. Southwest carries themost domestic passengersin the U.S. and themost passengersat Milwaukees Mitchell International Airport.Kelly made his statement in a column he wrote for the February 2013 issues of the in-flight magazines of Southwest and of AirTran Airways, which Southwestacquiredin 2011.Taxes and fees amount to about 20 percent of a typical $300 round-trip domestic ticket, he stated. Thats higher than taxes on products like alcohol, tobacco and firearms.With spring break around the corner, and alcohol, tobacco and firearms always in season, lets see if Kellys claim takes flight.Cost of an airline ticketKellys opinion column focused on federal taxes on airline tickets and other products. His source for the taxes on an airline ticket isAirlines for America, the trade group that advocates for the airline industry. It spent $6.37 million in federal lobbying in 2012,accordingto the nonpartisan OpenSecrets.org.In December 2012, Airlines for Americaannounced detailsof a campaign it would undertake in 2013 to persuade lawmakers to reduce federal taxes on airlines and take other steps to help the industry.Just how high are those taxes?Southwest Airlines spokesman Brad Hawkins usedfiguresprovided by Airlines for America to give a breakdown of the four major federal taxes and fees on a ticket with a base price of $300. His example includes one connecting flight each way -- in other words, a ticket that includes two flights on the departure segment of the trip and two flights on the return. Based on Hawkins calculations, the $66.10 equals 22 percent of the cost of the $300 ticket, exceeding the 20 percent that Kelly claimed.As for the size of the taxes and fees, we found a Federal Aviation Administrationdocumentconfirming the excise tax and segment fee amounts; theyhelp fundthe FAA, which coordinates air traffic control and other aspects of the aviation system. (Anexcise taxis somewhat like a sales tax, in that it is paid on a purchase, but its often included in the purchase price. )Another FAAdocumentconfirms the passenger facility charge, which is collected by public agencies that run commercial airports and is used for FAA-approved projects at the airports. And a Transportation Security Administrationdocumentconfirms the Sept. 11 fee, which helps fund the TSA.We ran Kellys statement and his itinerary by Joakim Karlsson, a researcher with theAirline Ticket Tax Projectat the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the project studies ticket taxes and user fees added directly to airline tickets. He called Kellys statement mathematically correct, but fundamentally misleading.Karlsson noted that fares are usually quoted with taxes and fees included. So, a $300 ticket would include a base fare of about $239.Karlsson calculated that would trigger $61 in taxes and fees, which would still amount to 20 percent of the ticket cost, the same amount Kelly claimed.But more importantly, Karlsson said, the sample ticket that Kelly uses is not typical: So, a $418 non-stop ticket would include $54 in taxes and fees, or just under 15 percent of the total. (The taxes and fees in Kellys $300 ticket example, if the trip were non-stop, also would equal just under 15 percent. )That means the first part of Kellys claim is accurate, but leaves out important details.Taxes and fees on other productsAs for the second part of Kellys statement, the Southwest Airlines spokesman cited a 2011opinion columninThe Wall Street Journalby the chief executive officer of Airlines for America, the airlines trade group. The column argued that the taxes paid by airlines are at the same excessive levels as sin taxes imposed on alcohol, tobacco and gambling.But the column provided no figures to show how the various tax rates compare.We found the followingfiguresfrom the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, a division of the Department of Treasury. They represent only the federal taxes on these products. Some brands of beer cost more than others, some wine costs more in one part of the country than another, buying in bulk costs less, etc.But, to consider some examples, if a: None of this takes into account state and local taxes on the various products, but Kellys claim focuses on federal taxes.So, the tax rate on an airline ticket -- whether its 20 percent, as in the example Kelly cited, or the more typical 15 percent as cited by the MIT program -- is generally higher than the federal tax rates on the other products Kelly cited.One might argue that taxes and fees on airline tickets, which help fund aviation operations, are fundamentally different from sin taxes on things like cigarettes, which are meant to hold down consumption. But thats not an argument central to this claim.Our ratingKelly said: Taxes and fees amount to about 20 percent of a typical $300 round-trip domestic ticket. Thats higher than taxes on products like alcohol, tobacco and firearms.The first part of the claim is technically accurate, but misleading, given that the tax rate on a typical flight -- which costs more than $300 and doesnt include connecting flights -- is 15 percent. The second part of the claim, although it doesnt take into account price variations on various products, appears generally accurate.On balance, since the thrust of the claim was which had more taxes and which had less, we rate the statement Mostly True. When Elon Musk launched the Falcon Heavy rocket (and its payload of a Tesla Roadster) in February 2018, many saw it as a giant step toward commercial space travel and sending a human to Mars. Tesla Roadster Others saw something slightly more cynical, namely a giant advertisement: advertisement Elon Musk pulled off a double marketing coup with the first successful test launch of his Falcon Heavy rocket, the flagship of his private space-flight company SpaceX, and the subsequent debut of its payloada Tesla Roadster driven by a dummy nicknamed Starmanas the first car in space. While the launch was clearly one of the most dramatic moments of livestreaming in recent memory, its the live YouTube feed of Musks own cherry-red Roadster circling the Earth that will perhaps generate the biggest publicity boost for Musks emerging electric-car company. With a famously nonexistent ad budget, Tesla just secured a place in auto marketing history. In the wake of this monumental achievement of space travel advertising, a photograph purportedly showing a disapproving Carl Sagan holding a "No Billboards in Space" sign started recirculating on the internet:   This image isn't real. This photograph has been circulating online since at least 2010. A Redditor claimed in a 2011 posting of the image that they had created it for a photoshop contest on the web site Fark, but we were unable to locate the original contest.  2010 claimed created Regardless, this has image has been doctored. The original image showed Sagan holding one of the "Pioneer Plaques," not a sign reading "No Billboards in Space."  The Pioneer Plaques were launched into space in the early 1970s aboard the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecrafts. The idea was that the plaques, which contained a pictorial message, would relay some information about the spacecraft's origins in case it was intercepted by an extraterrestrial life form: message   It seemed to us appropriate that this spacecraft, the first man-made object to leave the solar system, should carry some indication of the locale, epoch, and nature of its builders. We do not know the likelihood of the Galaxy being filled with advanced technological societies capable of and interested in intercepting such a spacecraft. It is clear, however, that such interception is a very long term proposition.  Griner, David.  "With a $0 Ad Budget, Tesla Just Pulled Off One of the Greatest Marketing Stunts Ever"
  Adweek.  7 February 2018. Sagan, Carl.  "A Message from Earth."
  Science Magazine.  25 February 1972.