Roof Despair Fund
FACT CHECK: HasCharleston shooting suspectDylann Roof's defense fund received more than $4 million in donations from supporters?  Claim: Charleston shooting suspect Dylann Roof's defense fund received more than $4 million in donations from supporters.   Example:   [Collected via e-mail and Twitter, June 2015] Is there any truth to this article at this time. Of course I am confident it is a matter of time before this happens.  Origins: On 25 June 2015, the websiteNewsWatch33 published an article titled "Charleston Church Shooter Dylann Roof Receives $4 Million in Donations from Supporters." According to that article, a group called Citizens For White Rights somehow managed to quietly drum up the exorbitant sum of $4 million in donations for an accused racially motivated mass shooter in just over a week, without any other media outlets taking notice: As he waits for his trial, supporters of Dylann Roof across America have banded together to fund raise for Roof's legal protection. According to the most recent information provided by the Citizens For White Rights, who is managing the account receiving the donations, they've raised a little over $4 Million for Roof's legal fees and possible bond money. Michael Lawson, attorney for Citizens For White Rights released this statement Our organization wants to ensure that Dylann Roof receives fair and equal treatment under the laws of our nation. With all of the publicity this recent incident is receiving along with the Black Organizations looking to make our client guilty, it's important that Dylann Roof is protected. The donations we are receiving will ensure his protection as we wait for trial as well as when the trial begins. The following screenshot was appended to the page, purportedly showing the balance of a fund raised for Roof's defense: However,this article is nothing but fiction; and its source, NewsWatch33, is a fake news site that coincidentally appeared on the scene just after the very similar NewsWatch28 fake news site apparently shut down  likely a switch intended to keep its operators one step ahead of Facebook's clampdown on purveyors of hoaxes. NewsWatch28 clampdown A Google search for "Citizens for White Rights" turns up no organization by that name. While it's possible (maybe even likely) that some donors have contributed money for Dylann Roof's defense, we've found no evidence of any extant campaign openly soliciting such funds. search Last updated:  25June 2015 Originally published:  25June 2015
Jefferson Smith has his sights set on the Portland mayors office, but state issues seem to pop up in his campaign. Little wonder, given that hes represented Portland in the Oregon House since 2009.One fact hes taken to repeating -- first during a candidates forum hosted by Family Forward Oregon and Mother PAC and later during a Rotary Club meeting -- is that at the state level we're spending more on tax expenditures than we are on public safety, health care and education combined.Tax expenditures is government-speak for what most of us call tax breaks. I think we should think about money beyond tax breaks, he said, just before making his claim. That is a handy tool. But it is a tool we've been using for years and years and years and years.Sure, tax breaks come in lots of different shapes and sizes -- seniors can deduct medical expenses, businesses can get breaks for green building improvements -- but could they really outweigh the amount the state spends on some of its core programs?We got to checking.Smiths campaign wasnt very helpful -- staffers had no source for his claim and his spokeswoman, Stacey Dycus, told us the idea was a random remark he made when explaining something.We were on our own. Thankfully, we know our way around the state budget.Our first stop was the states 2011-2013 tax expenditure report. The report pretty clearly lays out the amount of tax expenditures -- or breaks -- for the current biennium. All told, the state gives about $12 billion in income tax breaks, $19 billion in property tax breaks and just over $100 million in others, for a grand total of $31.3 billion in forgone revenues.Getting those figures was the easy part -- the hard part was figuring out what to compare them to. See, the states budget can be diced and parsed in dozens of ways. Generally, though, we talk about the states general fund and lottery budget -- this budget deals with the money that the state has the most discretionary power over -- and the total funds budget -- the money that includes cash we get from the feds for, say, Medicare and Medicaid, as well as food assistance programs.Lets start with the all funds budget. The current budget accounts for nearly $59 billion in total spending -- this is without the tax breaks. Of that, $13.5 billion goes to education and $3.6 billion goes to public safety. The health care figure is a little harder to come by. The best estimate we could dig up is the total funds budget for the Oregon Health Authority -- the executive bureaucracy that does the majority of the states health care work. That budget is just over $12 billion.If you add those three budget areas, you get $29.1 billion, about $2.2 billion short of the tax breaks the state gives. By this measurement, Smith is right.Now, the other way to do this would be to look at the general and lottery funds budget. This way might be somewhat fairer, given that so much of the total funds budget is made up of federal dollars. All told, the current general and lottery funds budget includes about $11.7 billion for health care, education and public safety. Obviously, thats quite a bit less than the $31.3 billion in state tax breaks.The problem here is, you cant directly compare those two figures. See, we said earlier that theres a report that pretty clearly lays out the various tax giveaway, but what it doesnt do is explain exactly how that money would be rerouted if it were being collected by the state. For instance, $19 billion of those giveaways are for property taxes. Most of that money would go to municipalities if it were collected -- not the state. There is an argument to be made that about 40 percent of the property tax revenue would go to local schools -- relieving a burden on the state and freeing up cash, but thats all indirect.That said, about $12 billion of those giveaways -- the part that comes by way of income taxes -- would wind up in the states general fund budget. Again, thats slightly more than the $11.7 billion the state pays on those three program areas.We wanted to add a little bit of context to all of this because tax policy is never so simple, so we made calls to folks in the states legislative fiscal and revenue offices and to the states chief economist. Paul Warner from the revenue office explained it the most clearly.Smith is technically correct, he said, that theres about $31 billion in lost revenue. But, he cautioned there would be a lot of steps to try and collect those dollars.The revenue document itself gets at this, too. It notes that the dollar impact listed for tax breaks is not the amount of revenue you could gain if you wanted to repeal all of them. It gets very technical and somewhat boring here, so well give you just one example: Federal land, which Oregon has a lot of, is exempt from property taxes. And, Warner notes, there's federal law that prohibits us from taxing federal land.Certainly some of these tax breaks are up for grabs if the Legislature decided to mine a few of them for increased revenues. On the books are laws for home mortgage deductions along with tax cuts for green energy, and property tax exemptions for private aircraft.Smith knows that. Last year, he pushed for a package of bills that would have tamped down on some of these credits, including one that would put a sunset date on all income tax credits, subtractions and exemptions. Indeed, the Legislature has since instituted a six-year cycle in which all credits will get reviewed before being renewed. Thats a little beyond the point, though.As for our ruling, Smiths claim is accurate. The state does spend more on tax breaks than it does on public safety, health care and education. This holds true whether you look at the larger all funds budget, or the smaller general and lottery funds budget. But there is some important context here, including the fact that many of those tax breaks are off limits to state lawmakers.We rate this claim Mostly True -- accurate but it requires some clarification. Return to OregonLive to comment on this ruling. Claim:  Lou Pritchett penned an "open letter" to President Obama. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2009] AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA Dear President Obama: You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me. You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you. You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support. You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American. You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll. You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.. You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others. You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail. You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad. You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector. You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one. You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves. You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world. You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations. You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals. You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people. You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient. You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do. You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view. You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing. Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years. Lou Pritchett Origins:  Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.   Lou Pritchett Mr. Pritchett confirmed to us that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter" quoted above: I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the 'experts' has had over 500,000 hits. In April 2012, the following update was added to the original: In April 2009, I sent President Obama and the New York Times a lettertitled "You Scare Me" because, as a candidate, he promised to"fundamentally transform America." Now, after observing his performancefor over three years, he no longer scares me  he terrifies me for thefollowing reasons: FIRST-- He has done more to damage America's standing in the world, tolower the standard of living in America, to impoverish future generationsand to shake our faith in the country's future than any other Americanpresident in history. SECOND-- With a compliant Democrat congress, a lapdog media and a weak,almost nonexistent Republican opposition, he has shattered the Americandream of job security, home ownership and rugged individualism formillions of Americans and has poisoned and divided our civil society withhis politics of envy, class warfare, race warfare, and religious warfarewhich he is using as fundamental building blocks for his 'socialist'agenda. THIRD-- culturally, he remains totally out of touch with traditionalAmerican values. This has absolutely nothing to do with race or where hewas born, rather it has everything to do with where, how and with whom hewas raised, schooled, educated, trained and associates with still today. FOURTH-- he has surrounded himself with naive academicians, lawyers,politicians, bureaucrats and socialist leaning czars who arrogantly thinkand behave exactly as he does.People who offer no balanced suggestions or devils advocate positions andthink in lock step with him that big government is the answer to all ourproblems. FIFTH-- he not only encourages but aids and abets the unionization of allAmerican industry, the albatross around the neck of the free market. Inturn, they provide the money and muscle to intimidate his opponents. SIXTH-- he has increased the national debt by over 30% in just threeyears. If re-elected and this rate of increase continues, America will beburdened with an unsustainable 20 trillion dollar debt which will resultin the Country's financial death. Recovery will be impossible ---- Americawill be the Greece of 2016. SEVENTH-- given his fanatical beholding to the 'environmental' and'man-caused global warming' fringe, he has deliberately discouraged U.S.fossil fuel exploration and production while wasting millions of tax payerdollars on solar, wind and algae experiments. He refuses to accept thatoil, gas and coal are not America's enemies, they are America's assetswhich, properly managed, could make us energy independent within ageneration. EIGHTH-- He views the U.S. as a power in retreat which abused its Worlddominance. Therefore he systematically apologizes round the world. LastMarch he whispered to Russian President Medvedev "--this is my lastelection. After my election, I have more flexibility". Just what is thesecret that Obama and Putin are concealing from the American people untilafter the election? With what other leaders has he made similar secretagreements? NINTH---and finally, after all his mis-steps, bad decision making, poormanagement, and zero leadership, the fact that he has the audacity to seekre-election should terrify every American.I predict that if re-elected, future historians and political interpreterswill look back at the eight year period 2008-2016, and conclude "the 44thPresident of the U.S. allowed the takers to overpower the payers whichresulted in the greatest economy in history vanishing from the face of theEarth". Lou Pritchett  April 15, 2012Farewell America, the World will really miss you! Last updated:  12 May 2012 Sen. Elizabeth Warren did not leave her signature issue behind when she became presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trumps most pugnacious critic. Donald Trump has already offered his big wet kiss to Wall Street. He has said, Hey guys, if I get in, I'm going to roll back all of those regulations, because it makes it too hard for banks to cheat people,  Warren said in a June 28 interview onThe View. Trump never said he wanted to make it easier for banks to cheat people, but he has said he wants to roll back regulations on Wall Street. In the context of the interview, Warren is likely referring to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protect Act, the premier piece of legislation regulating the banking industry after the crash. Warren has been a consistent crusader for stricter regulation of the financial industry. Early in the campaign, Trump distinguished himself from his rivals for the Republican nomination with some tough language directed toward Wall Street. The hedge fund guys didn't build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky, Trump said in aCBS interview in August. Atother points, he extended a similar critique to Wall Street Guys in general. Trump said that hedge fund managers get away with murder, but hes been unclear about what hed do to change that. One concrete Trump proposal on Wall Street was changes to the tax code that would change tax provisions benefitting hedge fund managers, but because of separate tax cuts for partnerships, his tax plan actually had the effect ofsubstantially improving their position. On Dodd-Frank, Trump has gone on the record again and again saying that the law is bad news for the economy and the banking industry. Hes called it a disaster, and a very negative force. Well before he launched his current presidential run, Trump attacked increased regulation after the financial crisis, which he said prevented loans to all but the very wealthy. And while it's not the same thing as a big wet kiss to Wall Street, Trump has said he expects bankers to appreciate his position. I think things have to be done with (Dodd-Frank), and I think Wall Street would like to hear that, Trump told Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo. The only bit of wiggle room here is that Trump has been inconsistent about how much of Dodd-Frank would be left when he finished with it. He has said he would get rid of it, repeal it or, almost word-for-word from Warrens statement, roll that back. He has also said, however, that there are some aspects you could leave, and that could be changed greatly instead of being eliminated. In Trumps most recent statement about Dodd-Frank, in a mid May interview with Reuters, he said he would release a plan within two weeks that would be close to a dismantling of Dodd-Frank. A month after his Reuters interview, the plan, which would presumably settle this question, has not been released. The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment for this story. Our ruling Warren said Trump wants to roll back all of those regulations on Wall Street banks. While we dont know what Trumps plan would look like exactly, he certainly wants to scrap a lot of the law. It might not be right to say all of those regulations, but Trump himself has been unclear on that point. We rate this 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. In May 2017, Gov.Scott Walkermade a claim about tax cuts since he took office in 2011. He said the cuts that had been approved, and those that were proposed in his 2017-19 state budget, would exceed $8 billion by the time the budget is done. Werated the statement True. Now the budget is done and Walker ismakingtheclaimwithoutqualifications. For example, he declared on May 31, 2018,on Twitter: Since taking office, we have enacted more than $8 billion in cumulative tax relief. Campaigning for a third term in the November 2018 election, its a statement Walker will repeat. Lets see if its right. More governors race fact checks: How Walker and the Democratic candidates for governorstack up on the Truth-O-Meter. The numbers The governors office provided us tallies from the State Budget Office. They show that through June 2019, when the current 2017-19 state budget ends, the tax cuts will exceed $8.85 billion. We also went to a nonpartisan source, the state Legislative Fiscal Bureau, which did calculations in May 2018 and arrived at a slightly lower figure. The fiscal bureau told us it estimated the reduction in general fund tax revenues and property tax revenues, as a result of tax law changes enacted since 2011, at $8.47 billion: Income and franchise tax reductions $4.82 billion Property tax reductions $3.56 billion Other tax cuts $90 million Total tax reductions 2011 through mid-2019 $8.47 billion Democrats' reaction We asked the stateDemocratic Partyabout Walkers claim. The party did not challenge the $8 billion tally, but criticized a number of Walkers policies. Like us on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter:@PolitiFactWisc Among them: The manufacturing and agricultural tax credit gave an estimated $22 million in creditsto 11 individualswho had an adjusted gross income of $30 million or more in 2017, according to the state fiscal bureau. Our rating Walker says: Since taking office, we have enacted more than $8 billion in cumulative tax relief. The states official nonpartisan budget scorekeeper puts the figure -- since Walker took office in 2011 and through the current budget that runs through mid-2019 -- at $8.47 billion. We rate Walkers statement True. Claim:   Letter to President Obama posted on Facebook thanks him for being 'selfish' and taking lavish vacations. CORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2013] Is 'thank you' letter to Obama from Yolanda Burroughs Vestal real?  Dear President Obama, I wanted to take a moment to say thank you for all you have done and are doing. You see I am a single Mom located in the very small town of Palmer, Texas. I live in a small rental house with my two children. I drive an older car that I pray daily runs just a little longer. I work at a mediocre job bringing home a much lower paycheck than you or your wife could even imagine living on. I have a lot of concerns about the new "Obamacare" along with the taxes being forced on us Americans and debts your are adding to our country. I have a few questions for you Mr. President. Have you ever struggled to pay your bills? I have. Have you ever sat and watched your children eat and you eat what was left on their  plates when they were done, because there wasn't enough for you to eat to? I have. Have you ever had to rob Peter to pay Paul, and it still not be enough? I have. Have you ever been so sick that you needed to see a doctor and get medicine, but had no health insurance because it was to expensive? I have. Have you ever had to tell your children no, when they asked for something they needed? I have. Have you ever patched holes in pants, glued shoes, replaced zippers, because it was cheaper than buying new? I have. Have you ever had to put an item or two back at the grocery store, because you didn't have enough money? I have. Have you ever cried yourself to sleep, because you had no clue how you were going to make ends meet? I have. My questions could go on and on. I don't believe you have a clue what Americans are actually going through and honestly, I don't believe you care. Not everyone lives extravagantly. While your family takes expensive trips that cost more than most of us make in two-four years, there are so many of us that suffer. Yet, you are doing all you can to add to the suffering. I think you are a very selfish and cold hearted man, who does not care what is best for the people he was elected by (not by me) to represent, but more so out for the glory of your name attached to history. So thank you Mr. President, thank you for pushing those of us that are barely staying afloat completely under water and driving America into the ground. You have made your mark in history, as the absolute worst and most hated president of the United States. God have mercy on your soul! Sincerely,Yolanda VestalAverage American Origins:  This open letter to President Obama ('thanking' him for being 'selfish' and taking lavish vacations)was posted on the Facebook page of Yolanda Burroughs-Vestal of Palmer, Texas, at the end of October 2013 and quickly picked up tens of thousands of shares and went 'viral' among online outlets. posted Facebook Last updated:  4 November 2013 On 27 June 2015, a Facebook post purportedly made by actress Jennifer Aniston comparing gay rights activists to soldiers caused a stir on social media: post  Within a few days, Aniston's supposed Facebook post had been shared more than 200,000 times, with many users who encountered it vowing to boycott the actress' movies over her alleged viewpoint.  The above-displayed post, however, was not made by Jennifer Aniston. The "Jennifer Aniston" Facebook page is not affiliated in any way with Jennifer Aniston the actress. Similar to other "like farming" scams, this "Jennifer Aniston" Facebook page employs sexy photos of the actress, inspirational quotes, and other shareable content in order to increase user engagement. The site's purpose, however, has nothing to do with presenting visitors first-hand information about the actress.  (Indeed, most of the links provided on this Facebook simply point to videos uploaded to YouTube by user Sam00962.) like farming In fact, the substance of the post attributed to Aniston came from "DV Dan," the admin of the Dysfunctional Veterans web site, who wrote of it: Dysfunctional Veterans   With the major publicity of the Iwo Jima/gay pride flag comparison photo going viral, it is a disappointment to me that, what appeared to be Jennifer Anistons account is receiving all the attention from a powerful statement stolen from my original post. It is why, when the post was stolen by the owner of this Jennifer Aniston account, I made the comment that I did not appreciate the post being taken from my page  DV Dan  without any credit. As the statement was made by myself, an actual U.S. Marine Veteran, it would have been nice to direct that attention to a much higher cause than gossip. Such as the fight we continue to face daily in the Veteran community. Our goal with Dysfunctional Veterans, DV Farm, DV Radio, and DV TV is to bring awareness to the estimated 23 a day. Suicide prevention and veteran support is something that actually needs the national attention behind it, not the color of a celebrity dress. As I made the post I did based on how I felt the depiction of the pride flag being raised in that manner disrespected the Marines and Navy Corpsman that fought, bled, and gave the ultimate sacrifice during WWII. The original post had been pulled due to constant reporting of it, and I was getting messages from veterans who felt offended by the depiction. They were offended due to not reading my words condemning the picture, they just saw the image and, like myself, knew it was wrong. I will state again that I have nothing against the LGBT community, however as it is their right to publicly call out what they find offensive to their cause. It is my same right to express what I feel is offensive to the veteran community. As it is also their right to portray Art in any fashion, there should have been more respect and consideration given toward the Men and Women that protect those constitutional rights. You may not agree with my views on this issue, however, one should not be hypocritical in the ways others express their views. Hate can be a two way street, not one with a one way sign. I hope the real Jennifer Aniston will see this message and contact me as she is gaining a lot of support for my statement. It would be a nice gesture to show her what we do within the DV community to bring both humor and seriousness into Veteran lives through the Dysfunctional Veterans Facebook Page.  Along with that, it would be great to show her how we work with Battle In Distress to combat the 23-a-day and reduce that number down to 0. Examples: [Hepburn, 2005] Stray dogs are being skewered on hooks and dragged behind boats as live shark bait. The cruel practice takes place on French-controlled Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean, where Prince William spent two holidays. A six-month-old labrador pup was recently found ALIVE with a huge double hook through its snout  like the dog above  and another through a leg. The pup was found in a coastal creek and is thought to have somehow freed itself from a fishing line. But other dogs and kittens have been chomped up and swallowed by sharks. The RSPCA plans to petition the French government, demanding an end to the hideous torture.  [Collected on the Internet, September 2012] PETITION: Please help stop French Islander and Mexican fishermen using live dogs and kittens as shark bait To: The French and Mexican Governments We have to stop this PLEASE help! French Islanders using live puppies and kittens as shark bait?? Please stop this senseless abuse to innocent puppies and kittens. French Islander and Mexican fishermen are using LIVE puppies and kittens as shark bait!! No living being should have to undergo this torture and insurmountable fear! This is inhumane and must stop NOW. Together we can make a difference and let our voice be heard as ONE. Please sign this petition and please pass this along. Thank you for caring. Blessed be Currently the penalty is only 2 years and $36,000 that is far too little for such a heinous crime. We urge that you raise the penalty to 10 years in prison with NO parole and a fine of $100,000. This will hopefully act as a deterrent and will stop these horrendous acts against innocent animals. Please do the right thing and help us stop these people. Islanders on the French controlled Reunion Island have been using live dogs as shark bait. The Sun claims that a six-month-old labrador pup was recently found alive with a huge double hook through its snout  like the dog above  and another through a leg. It is also claimed that local fisherman have also been using kittens! Reunion Island is an overseas dpartements of France and an official region of France, giving it the same status as a province or state in other countries. The claim that live dogs (and cats) were being used as bait by shark fisherman on Runion Island (a French-controlled territory just off the coast of Southern Africa in the Indian Ocean, east of Madagascar) started hitting the world press in August 2005 and picked up steam in early October 2005, when it was reported by publications such as the UK's Sun (an excerpt from which is quoted at the head of this page) and Sweden's Aftonbladet, complete with a heart-rending picture of a purported "bait dog" with a large hook through its muzzle. Animal rights groups such as the RSPCA have taken up the cause of putting a stop to the horrible practice. Runion Island Sun Aftonbladet RSPCA Many observers remain skeptical of such claims, however, positing theories that range from media and animal rights groups having been taken in by a hoax to a deliberate disinformation campaign being waged by activists who seek to end the slaughter of sharks for their fins and cartilage by Indian Ocean fisherman. Arguments have flown back and forth over the practicality and plausibility (or lack thereof) of Runion Islanders fishing for sharks in the manner described. activists A 2006 Runion newspaper article acknowledged the practice and reported the recent prosecution of a deliveryman (and amateur fisherman) on that island over animal cruelty charges associated with the described activity, suggesting that although there may be some truth to the shark-fishing claim, the practice does not appear to be as widespread or horrific (or tolerated) as implied by news reports in the foreign press. Rather than describing hordes of shark fisherman impaling live dogs on hooks and dragging them behind boats as shark bait, the article noted that employing dogs in shark-fishing was largely the province of a small group of amateur fisherman rather than large numbers of professionals, that the dogs used were generally dead animals picked up from roadsides or culled from the island's large population of unwanted strays (estimated at 150,000), and that the no-longer-alive animals were attached to unattended buoyed "shark trap" platforms rather than dragged alive behind boats. article The French embassy in Washington, D.C., also maintained that although the practice was not unknown, its occurrence and acceptance was not nearly as prevalent as recent news reports had made it seem: Dear Sir/Madam,Thank you for writing to us with your concerns. We too denounce the barbaric practices you refer to. Such acts are obviously illegal and will not be tolerated on French territory. But while we share your revulsion, we would like to emphasize that the practice of using live dogs or cats as shark bait is in fact exceptional and isolated. It was never widespread nor traditional, but introduced by ruthless individuals, and has been strictly banned for decades now. TV reports that raised initial indignation when they were aired in France and abroad in 2005 were filmed locally in 2003 following the discovery of a mutilated dog. The last few months have seen two identical events which received heavy media coverage (one of these events was soon determined to be a false alarm). But can these vile occurrences lead us to conclude that there is an ongoing tradition of barbarism on Reunion Island? Reunion Island, a French territory and a European region, obeys the laws and regulations of the French Republic and the European Union. It respects the rule of law and does not practice inhumane ancestral practices. The facts that elicited your complaint are the act of a few isolated, irresponsible parties who are being sought by the police and will be brought to justice. The authorities on the island are closely monitoring the situation; one person is in custody and appeared in court on Friday September 30, 2005. All suspicions of such acts will be investigated, and animal protection organizations that have any specific information on these matters are strongly encouraged to inform French police authorities. The French minister for agriculture and fisheries, Dominique Bussereau, is fully aware of the media and public outcry regarding this issue, and has written to the French National Assembly to emphasize that several measures have been taken to strengthen already existing laws. Veterinarians have been directed to immediately report any suspicious wounds to authorities, and the police will increase their inspections of fishing and pleasure vessels. Meanwhile, a sterilization campaign, launched in 2001 to reduce the number of stray dogs and cats on the island, continues. Animal rights are an important issue in France: over half of French households have at least one pet, and France has some of the world's most stringent animal rights legislation. French law provides for the prosecution of those who are cruel to animals. Voluntary cruelty to animals is punishable by a sentence of two years in prison and a 30,000 euro fine (equivalent to about $36,000). Sincerely, Press Office.Cordialement / RegardsService de Presse et d'Information / Press & Information ServiceAmbassade de France / Embassy of FranceWashington, D.C. The photo displayed at the top of this page, which has adorned several news articles and humane society-related web pages on this topic, is a frame from a 2005 video produced by the 30 Million Friends Foundation. The video purportedly documents the case of a dog that had escaped from fishermen who planned to use it as shark bait; skeptics have questioned the authenticity of the video, maintaining that it merely shows the aftermath of an accidental entanglement that has been mistakenly or deceptively misused for publicity's sake. video A similar video purporting to document the practice using kittens as shark bait appears to be a hoax, intercutting shots of kittens' being dunked in water and dangled from wires with unrelated footage of ocean fishing activity:  Hepburn, Ian.  Dogs Used as Shark Bait.
 The Sun. 1 October 2005. Mott, Maryann.  Dogs Used as Shark Bait on French Island.
 National Geographic News. 19 October 2005. Aftonbladet. Valpen Skulle Bli Hajmat.
  2 October 2005. Clicanoo. Lhomme, Le Meilleur Ennemi du Chien.
  30 September 2005. On Oct. 27, 2019, U.S. President Trump announced the death of Islamic State (IS) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. As news outlets quickly fielded reports about the terrorist leader's death, the Washington Post published an obituary that labeled al-Baghdadi an "austere religious scholar." Screenshots of this obituary headline were widely shared on social media along with criticism of the news outlet. Former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, for instance, posted the following message on Twitter: Stop, read this & think about it: last night a ruthless, brutal terrorist who threatened our country & is responsible for the death of American citizens was killed in a successful operation by US military & @washingtonpost described #Albagdadi as an austere religious scholar pic.twitter.com/Mjptm0Fa3Z @washingtonpost #Albagdadi pic.twitter.com/Mjptm0Fa3Z  Sean Spicer (@seanspicer) October 27, 2019 October 27, 2019  This is a genuine headline that briefly appeared on Washingtonpost.com. An archived version of the article can be found here. here The headline appeared on the Washington Post's website for about two hours. The story was published at 8:31 a.m. CDT, according to the article's timestamp. This headline was changed to "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, extremist leader of Islamic State, dies at 48" at about 10:35 a.m., according to archived links from the Internet Wayback Machine.  archived links Kristine Coratti Kelly, the vice president and communications general manager of Washington Post Live, posted a message on Twitter saying that the headline "should never have read that way." Regarding our al-Baghdadi obituary, the headline should never have read that way and we changed it quickly.  Kristine Coratti Kelly (@kriscoratti) October 27, 2019 October 27, 2019  The qualms over the Washington Post's headline likely served as the inspiration of a meme targeting another "mainstream media" outlet, CNN. Some social media users started to share an image that supposedly showed a screenshot from a CNN broadcast about al-Baghdadi's death featuring the chyron "Trump Kills Unarmed Father of Three": For the record, while the Washington Post briefly published a headline for al-Baghdadi's obituary labeling him a religious scholar, the above-displayed chryon is a digital manipulation featuring a years-old image of Don Lemon that never aired on CNN.   years-old image of Don Lemon Warrick, Joby.  "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Extremist Leader of Islamic State, Dies at 48."
  The Washington Post.  27 October 2019. Warrick, Joby.  "Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, Extremist Leader of Islamic State, Dies at 48."
  The Washington Post.  27 October 2019. Although Canada has its share of Starbucks outlets, the local Tim Hortons is the destination of choice for the average Canadian in search of a quick pick-me-up. The coffee vended there is exceptional, but just as important, most of these shops are open 24 hours a day, making a stop at these donut emporiums a personal ritual that can fit into anyone's daily routine no matter what shift he might work. Tim Hortons is Canada's best-known coffee and fresh baked goods chain, established in 1964 and now boasting more than 3,400 stores across Canada and over 800 additional locations within the United States. The chain's reputation rests just as much upon its coffee as its baked goods, so coffee not sold within twenty minutes of its first being offered for sale is thrown out to ensure that patrons always get a fresh cup of java for their money. According to the President and C.O.O. of Tim Hortons, Paul House, the coffee's special appeal to consumers is the result of a superior blend and careful quality control: The Tim Hortons special blend of coffee has been closely guarded from the beginnings of the chain, and is subject to stringent quality assurance measures by a team of coffee experts located at the Tim Hortons head office in Oakville, Ontario. "We do extensive testing and cupping of our coffee to ensure the highest quality standards are met, and now our people can extend that quality right into the roasting process here in Rochester," said [Paul] House. "We start with the best possible arabica beans from various countries of the world to create our special blend, and can follow those beans right through the roasting and packaging processes." Because folks are willing to line up to purchase Tim Hortons coffee rather than secure their daily cup from another source, some people have begun looking for a more sinister explanation beyond the obvious one of "The coffee is really good, the donuts are fresh, and they're always open." The combination of reasonable prices, tasty product, and numerous convenient locations appears to have spawned a particular rumor that attempts to explain the popularity of Tim Hortons' coffee: according to the whispers, the beverage has been made so alluring through the addition of nicotine, MSG, or "the maximum amount of caffeine allowed by law." In one elaborate version of the rumor, a Tim Hortons patron suffers a puzzling and severe allergic reaction after drinking some of the chain's coffee; only under duress (and an insistence on absolute secrecy) does a Tim Hortons executive disclose to the treating doctor a list of the ingredients in their "special blend"  a list that reveals the presence of nicotine. Variants of the basic rumor assert it's not the coffee itself that's loaded with nicotine, but the chain's coffee filters or that nicotine has been sprayed on the inside of its disposable cups. MSG But Tim Hortons coffee does not include nicotine, MSG, an usually high level of caffeine, or any similar additives. Just as the USA has its Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to oversee the safety of commercially-sold ingestibles, so Canada has its Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Neither agency would permit the knowing inclusion of dangerous substances in a foodstuff vended to an unwary public. CFIA Nicotine is one of the most powerful poisons known. Though we normally think in terms of arsenic and strychnine when the term 'poison' comes up, the truth is that nicotine is far more deadly. The lethal dose of arsenic for a 150 pound adult is 200 mg., for strychnine 75 mg., but for nicotine only 60 mg. Nicotine can and does kill even in relatively small amounts. Those who wear nicotine patches must exercise great care about the disposal of their used patches lest children or pets come in contact with the seemingly "spent" aids and become deeply sickened or even possibly die. Not surprisingly, nicotine is not permitted as a food additive in either Canada or the U.S. As for MSG, although the FDA has designated the additive "generally recognized as safe," many people claim to experience adverse effects (such as headaches) after ingesting it, so all consumables containing the substance have to be clearly labelled to indicate its presence. The "nicotine additive" rumor does not adhere solely to Tim Hortons; it has been kited about other business concerns whose products have proved to be highly (and some would say inexplicably) popular: A friend mentioned that since 1987, McDonalds was putting nicotine into hamburgers to make them addictive. I heard that McDonald's experimented with putting nicotine in their fries to create an addictive property. I just received an email from a friend which claims that Pokemon cards are coated with nicotine, so children will become addicted. The letter claims that Philip Morris company is behind this. In another form the rumor has been known to take, evil-intentioned companies or heartless universities are said to be slipping laxatives into their food to lessen the effects of food poisoning: While at lunch with some friends yesterday, i heard what to me, sounds like a classic urban legend. Apparently there is a tale making the rounds that claims all fast food restaurants inject laxatives into their food so that people will pass the food on quickly, thereby reducing the risk of patrons getting food poisoning. Some of my students have told me something that sounds like an urban legend. They say that the dining service here (Lafayette College) is "required" to put a certain amount of laxatives in the food so that in case people get food poisoning the food will get out of people's systems. In yet another form of the basic rumor, conscienceless fast food companies have been incorporating anti-emetics into their offerings to help patrons keep their food down: In a recent debate with some friends of mine, we started talking about McDonald's and my friends kept telling me that McDonald's add an ingredient that prevents people from throwing up after eating there. A blow to the heart of the rumor in all its manifestations is that extraneous chemicals could not be surreptitiously slipped into any company's ingestible products without leaving that concern open to a stream of customer lawsuits. In the case of nicotine, the number of wrongful death suits filed would be unimaginable, given that it wouldn't take much of that particular poison to kill someone. As for MSG, caffeine, laxatives, or anti-emetics, there is no substance so innocuous that it won't provoke allergic or violent physical reactions in some people. Whatever small advantage a company might gain by adding a little extra something that would addict clients to its offerings would be quickly offset by multi-million dollar losses in civil court and a loss of consumer confidence in the even higher court of public opinion. Folks ain't going to patronize a place known for killing or sickening its customers, no matter how good the coffee. The Tim Hortons rumors reached such prominence that in February 2004 the CBC news program Disclosure conducted its own investigation, one which included having samples of coffee from Tim Hortons (and a couple of competing chains) sent to a laboratory for analysis. The results: Tim Hortons coffee contained no measurable amount of nicotine and had, on average, less caffeine than coffee from either Starbucks or Second Cup. nicotine caffeine Tim Hortons' loyal customer base was built the old-fashioned way: good product served fresh in easily-accessible locations. Additional information:     Tim Hortons web site      CBC Disclosure investigation      Tim Hortons statement