Fraudulent Scheme Involving Sharpie Anniversary Giveaway
In February2016, links began circulating on Facebookpromising a treasure trove of Sharpie brand markers to users who completed a short series of steps:   The embedded links led toURLs which were generated seemingly at random and didn't link to Sharpie's web site. Users who clicked through to claim the promised prize were routed to pages which appeared plausibly Facebook-esque(but werehostedoff Facebook):   As evidenced by the above-reproduced screenshots, the associatedURLs don'tmatch the official domains of Sharpie or Facebook. The fake giveaway was another version of the common survey/sweepstakes scams which urge readers to share freebie bait on Facebook, which then spreads the scam to more friends and groups. Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among brandsused as enticementsbyscammers, many aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users. Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureauexplained how to identify and avoidbad actorsimitating high-profilebrands on social media: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions.
Claim:  Osama bin Laden owns Snapple. Status:  False. Origins:  Snapple, the popular beverage company begun in 1972, has been a target of spurious "owned by someone evil" rumors since 1992. Those earlier (and entirely baseless) rumors linked the company with the Ku Klux Klan, not an Arab terrorist. (The KKK-Snapple connection was but one of many similar slanders tying a number of innocent businesses to the KKK  that particularrumored association was far from unique to Snapple.) rumored association But   times change, and so do those whom society views as the evildoers of the hour. Though the KKK is as odious as ever, its particular brand of detestability has been eclipsed by that of the terrorists cowering in the mountains of Afghanistan. One of the many rumors born in the aftermath of the September 11 attack on America links Snapple with Osama bin Laden and calls for a grassroots boycott of this company's line of products. Although bombs seem the obvious way to go after those who perpetrated the terrorist attacks on America, the real key to their undoing may well be economic. But that's not nearly as visceral a solution as going into Afghanistan with a war cry and guns blazing, and it's not one which the average person can participate in or support in a tangible way, and so rumors like the one tying Snapple to Osama bin Laden help fill the void.  The typical American wants to experience the sense of vindication that comes from toppling this manifestation of evil, and so calls to boycott companies which are rumored to be filling the war chests of bin Laden and his cronies therefore fall on highly receptive ears  many want to feel they're part of the struggle, but the very nature of the battle denies them that opportunity. Becoming part of an economic boycott would restore at least a part of that yearning for participation. That type of rumor, though highly welcome, often outruns the facts. That is the case with the call to spurn Snapple: In a lengthy Snapple press release, CEO Michael Weinstein wrote: press release Snapple has never had  and does not now  have any direct or indirect relationship of any kind whatsoever with Osama bin Laden or any other terrorist group or supporter. That same press release contains the likely reason behind this particular blossoming of the "allied with evil" rumor: If the source of these rumors is over our terminated relationship with a Saudi Arabian food distributorship, let me clarify this once and for all. Some of our products  along with products from other respected American beverage and food companies  were distributed by a company that had an investment from The Saudi Binladin Group. Snapple has never had any reason to believe, nor do we now, that this company had any relationship of any kind with terrorists. Nonetheless, several weeks ago, we terminated our relationship with this distributorship. Those unfamiliar with the Binladin Group might conclude from its name that it is Osama bin Laden's corporate presence. In truth, the Binladin Group is one of the many corporate entities owned or participated in by any number of Osama bin Laden's relatives, many of whom spell their surnames as Binladin. The infamous terrorist hails from a family that is both very large and incredibly wealthy. Osama has 54 siblings, and untangling the web of the family's finances and business associations is nearly an impossible task. Though it cannot absolutely be ruled out some of the income flowing into any of these entities reaches Osama bin Laden, it is widely understood that he is the family's black sheep and that many members of this wide-reaching and far-flung assembly of relatives have utterly disowned him.  Osama's half-brother, 35-year-old Abdullah Mohammed Binladin, the only member of the family to speak publicly about their notorious relative since September 11, said: "I affirm that the Binladin family and the Saudi Binladin Group have no relationship whatsoever with Osama or any of his activities. He shares no legal or beneficial interests with them or their assets or properties, and he is not directly or indirectly funded by them."  As to who does own Snapple, it's now part of Cadbury Schweppes, a large UK corporation famous primarily for chocolate and carbonated beverages. Cadbury Schweppes is a publicly traded company on the London Exchange. It is therefore not owned by any one person, but by  thousands. Snapple originated as Unadulterated Food Corporation in 1972 and was little more than a hobby enterprise begun by Leonard Marsh, Hyman Golden, and Arnold Greenberg, who at the time were selling juices to health food stores. The first of its famed teas wasn't introduced until 1987, and the success of that line changed the company. The concern was acquired by Quaker [Oats] in 1994, sold to Triarc in 1997, and sold again to Cadbury Schweppes in 2000.  Untangling the web of who owns what will be one of the biggest tasks those charged with fighting terrorism on the economic front will face in the years to come. It is more than likely the effort will prove that at least some of the terrorists or those who provide their funding have holdings in a variety of American companies that are innocently unaware of the details of each of their minor shareholders' private lives. (The international world of finance being what it is, a diversified portfolio is a must, and that holds true for terrorists as well as for the law-abiding.) That will not mean that those companies whose shares turn up in the wrong hands support terrorism; merely that one of the nasties bought a bit of stock without their knowing who he really was. When such holdings come to light, there will be an outcry against those companies as those looking for someone to direct their anger towards will at least momentarily feel they've found someone deserving of their ire. They'll be wrong, but that will probably do little to stem the tide of criticism they'll unleash. Barbara "who let the dogs out?" Mikkelson Last updated:  21 April 2008    Sources:  Dobbs, Michael and John Ward Anderson.  "A Fugitive's Splintered Family Tree."  The Washington Post.  30 September 2001  (p. A1).   Dunley, Ruth.  "Osama's 'The Black Sheep,' Brother Says."  The Ottawa Citizen.  8 October 2001  (p. A6). Wearing pink shirts and holding up signs, people gathered outside the Statehouse in Trenton recently as Democratic legislators led a rally to increase womens health care funding in the face of opposition from Gov. Chris Christie.When Assemblyman Herb Conaway Jr. (D-Burlington/Camden) addressed the crowd on June 20, he claimed Christie also has been cutting health care funding for another group: people with AIDS.This governor has cut funding repeatedly for people who have AIDS, who need drugs to save their life, said Conaway, a physician specializing in internal medicine. People who have AIDS today can live out their life...almost as long as anybody else if they get the drugs they need and this governor, time and time again, has cut that.PolitiFact New Jersey confirmed that the Christie administration had cut or proposed to cut state funding for AIDS and HIV services, but in two cases, other funding sources would allow the same number of individuals receiving those services to be served.When we asked Conaways chief of staff, Ethan Hasbrouck, to back up the statement, he pointed to two funding cuts in the governors proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 as well as a change made last year in eligibility for the AIDS Drug Distribution Program.Although a final budget for fiscal year 2012 was approved at the end of June, this Truth-O-Meter item focuses on the proposed budget at the time of Conaways statement. We later called Hasbrouck twice and sent him multiple emails to set up an interview with Conaway about our findings, but we never heard back.Lets review those three items one at a time.Hasbrouck said the fiscal year 2011 budget lowered the income eligibility for the AIDS Drug Distribution Program. That disqualified about 960 people from the program, saving $7.9 million.But the state later set up a new drug benefits program to assist those individuals who would no longer be eligible under the AIDS Drug Distribution Program. That new program was funded through additional rebates from pharmaceutical companies and a new federal grant program.The state increased AIDS Drug Distribution Program funding last year for people who met the new income eligibility, but reduced spending in other categories of HIV services, according to Dawn Thomas, a spokeswoman for the state Department of Health and Senior Services.Now, lets turn to the cuts in the originally proposed fiscal year 2012 budget.Hasbrouck correctly states that the governors proposed budget would have cut $4.7 million for special-care nursing facilities, including Broadway House in Newark, the states only long-term care facility for people living with HIV and AIDS.The second proposed cut cited by Hasbrouck was $3.7 million from the AIDS Drug Distribution Program.Although that state funding was proposed to be cut, the mix of funding sources would enable the same amount of participants to receive access to medications through both the AIDS Drug Distribution Program and the other drug benefits program, according to Thomas.But remember this: two of the funding cuts cited by Hasbrouck were only proposals at the time of the assemblymans statement.Heres how the final budget for fiscal year 2012 affects AIDS and HIV funding:The income eligibility for the AIDS Drug Distribution Program was restored to its previous level, but state funding for the program has been further reduced for a total cut of about $10.7 million, Thomas wrote in an email. Other funding sources will allow the same number of participants to be served, she wrote.The budget reduces overall funding for nursing facilities, but there is no longer a specific cut to special-care nursing facilities like Broadway House, Thomas wrote. The impact on those special-care facilities remains unclear, she wrote.Lets review:Conaway claimed at a Statehouse rally that Christie has repeatedly cut AIDS funding. His chief of staff pointed to three pieces of evidence, one from the budget approved last year and two from the proposed budget for fiscal year 2012.A spokeswoman for the state Department of Health and Senior Services confirmed cuts to AIDS and HIV funding in both budgets.But last year, a new program was created to assist people impacted by the eligibility change. This year, state funding was proposed to be cut, but other funding sources were to maintain services for participants. Conaway correctly stated that Christie has cut state funding for AIDS and HIV programs, but at least when it comes to pharmaceutical assistance, people continued to receive medicine for their AIDS and HIV treatment. We rate his statement Mostly True. To comment on this ruling, go toNJ.com. On 8 May 2018, U.S. President Donald Trump announced his administration's plans to withdraw the U.S. from an Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran. Shortly afterwards, the Facebook page "Far Left Veteran" shared a meme with a related quote attributed to Major General Paul D. Eaton: withdraw meme Paul D. Eaton   Maj. General Eaton is a retired U.S. Army officer who commanded operations to train Iraqi troops during Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003-04 before returning to the U.S. to become Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Training, United States Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia. That Eaton made the comment attributed to him above is documented by his verified Twitter account, where he posted that comment on the same day President Trump announced his intentions to withdraw the U.S. from the Iran deal: I have served with foreign Soldiers and armies all my professional life - including Iranian. The American Military word was trusted. I deeply regret @realDonaldTrump decision to walk away from the Iran Deal. He dishonors America and puts us and our allies at risk. #IranDeal @realDonaldTrump #IranDeal  Major General (ret) Paul Eaton (@PaulDEaton52) May 8, 2018 May 8, 2018  In a statement published on VoteVets.org, the major general provided additional opinion on the issue: statement Today, Donald Trump has moved us closer to a war with Iran, while he has also moved us closer to a nuclear war with North Korea. All this while we wage a war in Afghanistan. By decertifying the Iran deal, and putting the question of new sanctions before Congress, Iran will now consider restarting its nuclear program. Should Congress reinstitute sanctions, Iran will undoubtedly speed towards nuclear weapons, putting us on the path to war. If Congress inserts new triggers for sanctions, Iran will likely consider whether staying in the deal is worth it, at all. At the same time, North Korea now knows that any deal signed by the United States is not worth the ink it is written in, when it comes to Donald Trump. That chops diplomats off at the knees, as they struggle to find a non-military solution to the crisis in Korea. It moves us closer to nuclear war with North Korea. In short, today Donald Trump has put us on the path to two new wars, with nuclear weapons. We are very much less safe today, than we were yesterday. The path we are now on  massive loss of human life, on the scale of millions  is not a positive development for America, or humanity. We implore Congress to step in, and rein in this president. VoteVets.org.  "Statement of Major General (Ret.) Paul D. Eaton, Former Iraq War Commander, Senior Adviser to VoteVets, on Trump Decertifying Iran Deal."
  Accessed 9 May 2018. Donald Trump's public career has encompassed multiple controversial pronouncements by him about women, perhaps most notoriously his comment about his own daughter, Ivanka, that "if [she] werent my daughter, perhaps Id be dating her. comment A similar remark has been attributed to Trump about one of his daughter's childhood friends, Paris Hilton, the celebrity great-grandaughter of Hilton Hotels founder Conrad Hilton. According to a popular meme, Donald Trump once admitted that when Paris Hilton was a mere 12-year-old, he found her to be beautiful and sexually attractive:  This claim stemmed from one of several pre-presidential appearances Donald Trump made on Howard Stern's radio talk show. During that 2003 segment (which was also captured on video), Trump engaged in discussion about women he found attractive, and he brought up Paris Hilton, whom he said he'd known since she was 12 years old: video While Trump was discussing women he did or did not find attractive, he brought up Paris Hilton, a friend of his daughter Ivankas. Now, somebody who a lot of people dont give credit to but in actuality is really beautiful is Paris Hilton, he said. Ive known Paris Hilton from the time shes 12, her parents are friends of mine, and the first time I saw her she walked into the room and I said, Who the hell is that? Did you wanna bang her? Stern asked. Well, at 12, I wasnt interested, Trump said, Ive never been into that ... I've always stuck around that 25 category ... but she was beautiful. He then went on to call Hilton dumb like a fox and admitted that he had watched her sex tape.   However, contrary to the wording of the meme, Trump only said he found 12-year-old Paris Hilton to be "beautiful"; he didn't say that "he felt 'boom' when she walked in the room," proclaim that she was "sexually attractive," state that he "lusted" after her, or otherwise suggest he found the thought of a physical relationship with a child that age appealing. In fact, he specifically stated that he "wasn't interested" in a 12-year-old, instead preferring women around the age of 25 or so. However discomfiting it may be to hear mature men bring up a 12-year-old in a conversation about female attractiveness, this instance doesn't live up to its memetic billing. Satlin, Alana Horowitz.  "Trump Admits He Found 12-Year-Old Paris Hilton Attractive."
  HuffPost.  1 October 2016. Supporters of a California ballot measure that would remove some of Proposition 13s tax protections say claims shared thousands of times on Facebook and other social media platforms have distorted their initiative. The campaign for theCalifornia Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2020, also known as the split-roll measure,is still gathering signatures to qualify for the November ballot. It is backed by a group of union and social justice organizations. If approved by voters, the measure would hike taxes on factories, stores and other commercial and industrial real estate by requiring they pay property tax based on current market value rather than the value of the property when it was purchased. It would raise an estimated $7.5 billion to $12 billion annually, according to ananalysisby the nonpartisan Legislative Analysts Office. The money would be distributed to schools and local governments. The proposed ballot measure, however, would not touch tax protections for homeowners. Yet many claims on social media suggest the initiative would repeal all parts of Prop. 13, stoking concerns that residential property taxes could spike. Heres one example posted on Facebook Dec. 31, 2019:  A similar Facebook postby Bakersfield Tuff, a media company focused on racing and rodeo, was shared more than 2,200 times. Others have appeared on the platforms Next Door and We Chat, according to the campaign for the initiative. Do these claims distort the truth? We set out on a fact check to find out. Background on Prop. 13 In 1978, voters approved Prop. 13, which slashed property taxes and limited how much they could go up. It also tied tax rates to a propertys purchase price, rather than to the fluctuations of Californias real estate market, ensuring homeowners greater financial stability. The lawremains popularamong homeowners and business groups, who argue it allows neighborhoods to stay intact and older residents on fixed-incomes to remain in their homes rather than being forced out by high tax bills. Groups such asCalifornians to Stop Higher Property Taxeshave warned that removing Prop. 13s commercial tax protections will lead companies to pass along any increased tax burden to consumers. Critics of Prop. 13, on the other hand, say the law has cut too deeply into the foundation of tax revenue for local governments. Social Media Claims Completely False The campaign spearheading the November ballot measure contacted PolitiFact about the social media claims. They are completely false, said Alex Stack, spokesperson for theinitiative. It would completely protect and exempt all residential property, that means homeowners, renters and seniors. Thats backed up by the initiatives officialtitle and summaryprepared by the Attorney Generals office. That document says the measure exempts residential properties; agricultural properties; and owners of commercial and industrial properties with combined value of $3 million or less. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli) Becerra's Role The social media posts claimed Becerra was putting together plans to eliminate Prop. 13. Theres no evidence to substantiate that. Becerra and others attorneys general, however, have been criticized for drafting misleading ballot measure titles and summaries. For example,Becerra wasaccused of giving an earlier version of this measure a friendly write-up. But attorneys general do not initiate ballot measures. A spokesperson for Becerra declined to directly address the social media posts. Wesley Hussey, a political science professor at Sacramento State University, said the claim about Becerra planning to repeal Prop. 13 is clearly wrong and described the rest of the information as cleverly fuzzy. Its very intelligently written, he said of the posts, suggesting they may have originated with a political operative. Only one or two spots are wrong. A lot is political opinion. Theres no doubting the ballot measures significance, Hussey added. It would be a dramatic revision to Prop. 13. If passed, it would be by far the biggest change weve seen since voters approved the law, he said. Keith Smith is a political science professor at the University of the Pacific in Stockton, where he studies elections and voting behavior. He agreed the claim about Becerra was technically wrong. But given that the initiative represents a big change to Prop. 13, some voters may see it as a gateway to repealing the measure altogether. Asked if social media posts were accurate, he replied: It depends on your perspective. Is [Prop. 13] going away? No, its not going away. Is [the ballot measure] proposing to do away with some aspect of Prop. 13 that currently exists? Yes. The claims published on Facebook and other sites, Smith explained, could be more convincing to voters than any details in the ballot measure. Earlier this month,ABC 10 Sacramento examined similar claimsand found theres no effort to eliminate Prop. 13. Adding to the confusion about the proposed November ballot measure, theres a voter initiative on Californias March primary ballot calledProposition 13, the School and College Facilities Bond. But it has nothing to do with the landmark measure of the same name passed four decades ago. A spokesman for the California Secretary of States Office said that the numbers assigned to propositions are reused through the years, sometimes leading to duplicates. Our Ruling Social media posts claimed a November ballot measure would repeal Californias Prop. 13, and that Attorney General Becerra is putting together plans to eliminate the historic law. The proposed measure would undo Prop. 13s tax protections for commercial and industrial properties with a value over $3 million. It would be a major change to the law. But homeowners, small businesses and agricultural properties would not lose their Prop. 13 tax safeguards. Thats spelled out in the measures official statetitle and summary document. While Becerras office writes the legal titles and summaries for voter initiatives, the attorney general does not put forward ballot measures. Theres no evidence Becerra is trying to eliminate Prop. 13. In the end, the social media posts capture the real concern about potential changes to Prop. 13, but they also greatly misrepresent the specific changes the November ballot measure would make to it. We rate their claims about repealing Prop. 13 as False. FALSEThe statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. Read more about Prop. 13, its history and efforts to change it in'The Block That Prop. 13 Built,' a collaboration between CapRadio, CALmattersand public radio stations across California. Email us at[email protected]with feedback or contact us onTwitterorFacebook. Also, were starting a new project calledAsk PolitiFact California.Is there something in California government or politics that we should fact-check next? Send us a question, and one of our reporters and fact-checkers might reach out to find the answer. In recent weeks, the national media has poked fun at John Kasich for chomping through Italian subs and pasta in the Bronx and eating pizza in Queens  with a knife and fork. Back home, Ohio Democrats talked about something else: the governors out-of-state travel, and what it costs taxpayers in the only state he has won. The Ohio Democratic Party posted a graphic on itsFacebookpage on April 8, 2016, to bolster its complaint. Kasichs costly campaign, the image says, entails 177 days spent out of state and a tab of $350,000 to taxpayers. How did they calculate the days and dollars? We decided to look into it. The partys communications director, Kirstin Alvanitakis, pointed us to aMarch 26Columbus Dispatchstoryreporting that Kasich has been out of state at least 177 days as he pursued the presidency. TheDispatchtally includes days he spent exploring the bid before his official announcement July 21, 2015. AnAssociated Press storycontains the $350,000 figure. By law, a special unit within the state department of public safety is assigned to protect the governor, and nine state troopers guard him 24/7. So when he goes to Mikes Deli, so do they. State funds from the public safety departments non-highway program, which includes the governors security detail, is likely paying for rental cars, hotel rooms, flights, fuel, per diems and overtime while Kasich criss-crosses the country chasing delegates. But theDispatchstory describes how cagey state agencies are being with these specifics. Information that was public in the years before Kasichs run is now shielded. On payroll records, the governors detail was previously listed as the executive protection unit. Officials told theDispatchthat that designation that has been dropped to shield the troopers identities. To ensure safety and security, we do not discuss any of the resources used as part of the executive security detail, is the response repeated by agency spokespersons and the governors campaign staff alike. The Associated Press used another tool to approximate the cost: an interactive, searchable checkbook of state spending hosted on the website of Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, part of hisnationally recognizedtransparency initiative. We used the Ohio Checkbook to drill down into the data, which has been updated since the AP checked. Isolating the travel costs of the non-highway program, which is currently showing expenditures from July 1, 2015, through Feb. 2, 2016, the total now comes to $403,638. This chart shows how disproportionate the travel spending has been in 2016 so far, compared to prior years. Most of the transactions shown through the Ohio Checkbook lack details (General Travel Expenses is a recurring line item), but there are some expenditures that coincide with Kasichs campaign stops. Like a batch of hotel rooms booked over a series of days in December at the Wynn Las Vegas, the Renaissance Des Moines, the Doubletree Salt Lake City, and the Hampton Inn of Waterloo, all around the time period last December when Kasich bounced from a debate in Nevada, to a town hall in Iowa, to a fundraiser in Utah, and back to Iowa. Its not a staggering total, though some taxpayers might argue that $403,638 could be better spent on other state services. Kasich has poo-pooed any suggestions that he should drop out of the race before the Republican National Convention in July, which means the total taxpayer share from his campaign travel could continue to swell. (The average monthly spending from this fund in fiscal year 2016 is about $57,663. By comparison, $57,562 was the total spent in all of fiscal year 2014.) Other governors who ran for president have stuck taxpayers with tabs, too. Chris Christies security detail cost New Jersey taxpayers an estimated$614,000. Bobby Jindal racked up$400,000in Louisiana during his considerably shorter run through November 2015. Wisconsin taxpayers paid Scott Walkers security team$577,000in overtime alone before he dropped out in September 2015. Walker reimbursed about $260,000 to the state for expenses his campaign incurred. So far, the Kasich campaign has refused to disclose details about his security detail or its resources, or whether he similarly intends to give taxpayers a refund. We did not hear a response from Kasichs campaign, or spokesman Rob Nichols. Our ruling The Ohio Democratic Party said that in 177 days on the campaign trail, Kasichs security detail cost taxpayers $350,000. Our analysis confirmed that $350,000 is most likely a conservative estimate. At the current rate, the total could be twice that by the RNC in July. Since neither state officials nor Kasichs camp will confirm any details on the governors security, we have to rely on what we learned from the treasurers open records data. We rate this claim True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/f55505e5-5211-4178-9fd0-7d1b2854c596 Claim:  Two weeks before the opening of the movie Angel Eyes, Jennifer Lopez demanded that all the film's references to her be changed to "J.Lo." Status:  False. Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2001] The following is an amusing exchange of emails between J.Lo's publicist Lucy LeSueur and the head of publicity at Warner Bros (with whom she recently completed the movie Angel Eyes). it follows a faxed request from Lucy to change JL's billing from Jennifer Lopez to J.Lo. Read from top down.  From: Martha Hudson (martha.hudson@warnerbros.com)To: Lucille LeSueur (lucy@rogerscowan.com)Sent: Friday, May 4, 2001, 2:08 p.m.Subject: RE: "Angel Eyes" tweaks Yes, we got your fax...I thought Alan said Jennifer wanted to do anything to promote this movie. Martha HudsonPublicity ManagerWarner Bros. Pictures, International4000 Warner BoulevardBurbank, CA 91522-0001  From: Lucille LeSueur (lucy@rogerscowan.com)To: Martha Hudson (martha.hudson@warnerbros.comSent: Friday, May 4, 2001, 2:22 p.m.Subject: RE: "Angel Eyes" tweaks Of course, she wants to do *anything*. (Thought you said you got the fax.) She merely wants you to meet her halfway.  From: Martha Hudson (martha.hudson@warnerbros.comTo: Lucille LeSueur (lucy@rogerscowan.com)Sent: Friday, May 4, 2001, 2:30 p.m.Subject: RE: "Angel Eyes" tweaks Lucy, how can I put this? (I suppose I should phone, but I'm too upset): According to this fax, you're asking us to pull all the one-sheets, posters and prints of the movie in order to bill Jennifer as "J.Lo" instead of her fucking God-given name. This is *not* going halfway-unless she intends to pay for the millions out of her own pocket. We are talking here about a movie that opens in two weeks!! The junket is tomorrow!! Are you guys smoking crack over there with Robert Downey? The bottom line (and I've gotbackup on this): She signed onto this project as "Jennifer Lopez." She - so help me - is going to be billed as "Jennifer Lopez." We can't help it if she's decided to get a diva transplant.  From: Lucille LeSueur (lucy@rogerscowan.com)To: Martha Hudson (martha.hudson@warnerbros.comSent: Friday, May 4, 2001, 3:22 p.m.Subject: RE: "Angel Eyes" tweaks Okay, I'm going to do you a big favor, Martha. I'm not going to repeat what you just said to J.Lo. But only because I don't want to see her go to jail FOR RIPPING OUT YOUR ORGANS WITH HER BARE HANDS! I simply can't believe the lack of respect here. Maybe you can play these games with "James" Caviezel (or is it "Jim"? ... Gee, I guess he can't make up his mind, either.) But J.Lo, clearly, is no "James"/"Jim" Caviezel. She is the world's preeminent female celebrity. She has more talent in her ass than most people have in their tiny finger. J.Lo is not just an actress. She is not just a singer. She is not just a celebrity. She is a movement. (Why do I even have to say this?) She feels extra-determined that "Jennifer Lopez" isn't where her movement is at these days. She is "J.Lo."  From: Martha Hudson (martha.hudson@warnerbros.comTo: Lucille LeSueur (lucy@rogerscowan.com)Sent: Friday, May 4, 2001, 3:35 p.m.Subject: RE: "Angel Eyes" tweaks Okay, how about this as a compromise: I've seen this critic guy on the Internet. He calls Jennifer "J.Lo's Magical Butt." That enough of a "movement" for you? P.S.: I'd like to see "J.Lo" try to rip out my organs. I hear my liver would grow back anyway. Which is more than I can say for her movie career after this Piece Of Shit opens.  From: Lucille LeSueur (lucy@rogerscowan.com)To: Martha Hudson (martha.hudson@warnerbros.comSent: Friday, May 4, 2001, 5:05 p.m.Subject: J.Lo ill Miss Hudson:This note is to inform you that J.Lo has taken ill and will be unable to attend Saturday's press junket at the Four Seasons in Beverly Hills. She respectfully sends her regrets.  From: Martha Hudson (martha.hudson@warnerbros.comTo: Lucille LeSueur (lucy@rogerscowan.com)Sent: Friday, May 4, 2001, 5:42 p.m.Subject: RE: J.Lo ill Dearest Lucy: Kiss, kiss. We're sorry to hear about poor Jennifer Lopez. At least we won't blow our kissing-and-fawning budget tomorrow. We'll need it for that Travolta movie [Swordfish] coming up. Origins:  This    purported e-conversation between Jennifer Lopez's agent and a contact at Warner Bros. began arriving in inboxes in mid-May 2001. Because it fit with images already so strongly internalized (e.g., all media sensations are narcissistic and make impossible demands; all Hollywood agents are more caricature than person), many readers mistook it  for an actual private exchange that had somehow leaked to the Internet.  Even if one didn't quite catch the broader humor of this piece, however, a few details within it provided clues for the sharp-eyed reader that the whole thing was just a bit of satire:   E-mail for the Rogers & Cowan agency goes to rogersandcowan.com addresses, not to rogerscowan.com ones. Mail to lucy@rogerscowan.com bounced like a red rubber ball. Likewise, mail to the martha.hudson@warnerbros.com address was undeliverable.  Most telling of all was the purported name of Jennifer Lopez's agent at Rogers & Cowan: Lucille LeSueur. Last we heard from Lucille, she was planted in a mausoleum in Hartsdale, New York, having arrived at that destination in 1977. During her life, she was better known as the wife of Alfred Steele, Chairman of the Board of Pepsi-Cola, until his death in 1959. She also enjoyed some small personal recognition thanks to a lengthy film career under the stage name Joan Crawford. This lively back-and-forth that so entertained the Internet wasn't a real conversation;  it was a work of fiction created by an unnamed writer at Ifilm.com which was   published on that site under the "Hell Hath No Fury Like J.Lo's Magical Butt" on 16 May 2001.  published The piece struck all the notes people expect of folks in the film industry. The demand to change Jennifer Lopez's billing to "J.Lo" in all Angel Eyes material less than two weeks before the premiere was characterized by the agent as a "tweak," a term used to describe a small change, something so tiny it's barely worth mentioning. The posturing terminology of the agent ("I simply can't believe the lack of respect here") also fit the stereotypes, as did the blazing denunciation of the talent's demands ("We can't help it if she's decided to get a diva transplant") by the studio representative. But it was the larger presumption, that anyone that talented, famous, successful, and beautiful had to be self-absorbed to the point of insanity, that really fueled it. Long ago, Aesop told the story about the fox who lusted after grapes that hung just out of his reach, only to finally have to give up because they continued to elude his grasp. "Oh, they were probably sour anyway," he said as he slunk away.  Two millennia later, we still prefer our grapes sour. Barbara "makes better whine that way" Mikkelson Last updated:  10 August 2007    Sources:  Davis, Tony and Nick Leys.  "Spike."  Sydney Morning Herald.  15 June 2001  (p. 22). Two-and-a-half weeks before the 2016 presidential election, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump trailed behind Democrat Hillary Clinton by an average of 6% in national polls, a statistic that buoyed Clinton supporters, yet failed to rattle diehard supporters of Trump, who had managed, as The Guardian put it, to "confound expectations" all year: polls As smoke clears from weeks of political bombardment, White House watchers are convinced the only questions now are how big Hillary Clintons win will be and whether the Democrats can take Congress, too. Those Republicans still loyal to Trump cling to the hope that all the polls are wrong  that in barely two weeks time, angry voters will again stun the world. Over and over, Donald Trump is saying one word: Brexit. Donald Trump We will win, he told a rally in Pennsylvania on Friday. We will shock the world. This is going to be Brexit-plus. Hubris aside, some of his supporters remained worried about voter defections in the wake of the Trump "groping" scandal, prompting calls for an eleventh-hour get-out-the vote drive, not to mention homebrew efforts to rally people to the polls like the image macro below: groping drive   The Internet meme was accurate insofar as public opinion polls taken in October 1980 showed Democrat Jimmy Carter holding as much as an eight-point lead over Republican Ronald Reagan (a Gallup poll two weeks before the election had Carter at 47% and Reagan at 39%), yet Reagan won a landslide victory in the general election, beating Carter 489 to 49 in electoral votes and by almost 10% in the popular vote. (It should be noted that 6.6% of the popular vote also went to a third-party candidate, John Anderson.) poll victory To conclude from that single example that polls simply ought not to be believed is a stretch, however. The 1980 upset was anomalous, the polling organization Gallup says, and based on factors unique to that year's campaign: says Reagan's late-breaking surge that year is generally attributed to the only presidential debate between Carter and Reagan  held one week before the election, on Oct. 28  which seemed to move voter preferences in Reagan's direction, as well as the ongoing Iran hostage crisis, which reached its one-year anniversary on Election Day. After trailing Carter by 8 points among registered voters (and by 3 points among likely voters) right before their debate, Reagan moved into a 3-point lead among likely voters immediately afterward, and he won the Nov. 4 election by 10 points. By contrast, in 2016 the two major party candidates have already faced off in three head-to-head debates, all held well before Election Day, that have resulted in little or no improvement in Trump's underdog position in the polls.  And among the many issues and challenges facing America, none of them looms in the forefront the way the Iranian hostage crisis (and the Iranian Revolution in general) did throughout the final year of Jimmy Carter's presidency, as Jonathan Chait noted back in 2012 when Republican challenger Mitt Romney found himself in a similar underdog position against incumbent president Barack Obama in that year's campaign home stretch: [In 1980] the economy cratered (nothing remotely comparable has occurred this year) and then the Iranian hostage crisis, after an initial rally-around-the-flag blip, steadily corroded Carters popularity. No equivalent of those factors can be seen yet today, and pinning your hopes on a scenario where your campaign suddenly picks up ten points in the final month seems to be either an act of self-delusion or a ploy to keep anxious conservatives at bay. John Sides similarly observed when commenting on the 2012 presidential race that the notion President Carter held a polling lead over Ronald Reagan in 1980 right up until the very end of the campaign is something of a misconception:  observed ... 1980 is a poor comparison with 2012 for many reasons.  One is simply that the economy is not as bad in 2012 as it was in 1980. But there is another apparent misconception in the Romney campaign, which Nate Silver rightly picked up on: Carter didnt lead Reagan for much of the campaign.  The [poll tracking] plot shows what Chait describes, which is the ebbing of Carters poll standing throughout 1980.  Indeed, Reagan didnt need his convention bump  which he certainly got  to put him in the lead.  The Democratic convention helped erode Reagans lead but it never closed it altogether. At the end of the campaign, Reagan did surge, but this only increased his lead.  His surge appears to have been brought on first by the debate, and then perhaps by several other events in the final week of the campaign: "On Friday of that week the final economic indicator of the campaign showed inflation still seriously on the rise. And on Sunday morning, November 1, the Iranian parliament announced their conditions for freeing the American hostages. Jimmy Carter immediately abandoned campaigning and appeared on national television in the early evening to repeat much of what the public had been hearing all day. It was a week, in effect, with much that could affect the choices made by voters." Carters pollster, Patrick Caddell, believed that Irans rebuff doomed Carter, saying It was all related to the hostages and events overseas. Harry Enten of the statistical analysis web site FiveThirtyEight confirmed that in ordinary circumstances, October public opinion polls are usually reliable and highly predictive of final election results: confirmed In most years, the early-October polls [since 1952] were pretty close to the mark, with a correlation of +0.96 between the polls and the final result. Ten of the 16 elections featured errors of 3 percentage points or less, and in all but three campaigns, the polls were within 5 percentage points of the final outcome. Even in 2012, when Mitt Romney closed his deficit against President Obama after the first debate, the polls at this point still showed Obama leading. At this point in the election cycle, the average error of polls for all elections is just 3.3 percentage points (much lower than the 4.7-point error we found for just after the conventions), and every candidate whos been ahead in the popular vote in mid-October went on to win the election. Given the rarity of last-minute upsets, did Enten think Donald Trump still had a chance to stage a comeback and win the general election despite lagging 6% in the polls?  polls "Its possible," he wrote. "But it would be basically unprecedented." Is that an excuse for anyone, regardless of party affiliation, not to turn out to vote? No, it is not. Blanton, Dana."Fox News Poll: Clinton Tops Trump by 6 Points."
Fox News.18 October 2016. Enten, Harry."Is There Any Precedent for a Trump Comeback?"
FiveThirtyEight.12 October 2016. Harwood, John."History Suggests McCain Faces an Uphill Battle."
The New York Times.12 October 2008. Jones, Daryl."3 Unlikely Ways Donald Trump Could Win."
Forbes.17 October 2016. Roberts, Dan and Chalabi, Mona."Brexit Times Five: Could Trump Really Win Despite Polls Favoring Clinton?"
The Guardian.22 October 2016. Saad, Lydia."Late Upsets Are Rare, But Have Happened."
Gallup.27 October 2008. RealClearPolitics."General Election: Trump vs. Clinton."
22 October 2016. Reuters."Donald Trump Still Trails Hillary Clinton in National Polls.
22 October 2016. Stacey Evans, a Democrat running to be Georgias next governor, claims workers are at an economic disadvantage in part because of the states minimum wage. I want Georgia to be the best place to work, live, and raise a family. Right now, it isnt,Evans saidon her campaign website. Georgia is 40th in income inequality, 40th in high school graduation, and has the lowest minimum wage in the country. We wondered if Georgia in fact has the lowest minimum wage in the nation. It does, but its not alone (tied with Wyoming), and most of hourly wage employees are paid above the states minimum wage: at least $7.25, which is also the federal minimum wage. Georgias state law sets the minimum wage at $5.15 per hour, but the federal Fair Labor Standards Act still applies, meaning most employees are covered under thefederal minimum wageof $7.25 per hour. Wyoming, which equally has a $5.15 minimum wage, alsosaysthat when the federal minimum wage is higher than the states, the federal minimum wage applies to most workers. Like Georgia, Wyoming also has a $5.15 minimum wage, the lowest in the country. And while, thankfully, many Georgians are protected by a federal wage floor, many Georgians are not, said Adam Ney, research director for the Evans campaign. The fact remains that Georgia has the lowest minimum wage in the country and that we must increase it because everybody deserves a fair days pay for a hard days work. Who doesnt get the federal minimum wage? There areexemptionsin the law for certain farm workers, seasonal workers, health aides, and workers who receive tips. In 2016, Georgia had about 2.3 million workers paid hourly rates, and 51,000 of them (or 2.2 percent) were paid below the federal minimum wage,according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. An estimated 90,000, or 3.9 percent, were paid at or below the federal minimum wage. Overall, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina had the highest percentages of hourly paid workers earning at or below the federal minimum wage, at or about 5 percent, BLS said. Georgia is one of seven statesthat have either a lower state minimum wage than the federal standard, or no state minimum wage at all, said Wesley Tharpe, research director at the left-leaning think tank Georgia Budget and Policy Institute. In practice, the vast majority of workers in every state are subject to the federal requirement of $7.25 an hour, Tharpe said. Tipped workers, including servers, are also paid a lower hourly rate in most states including Georgia, Tharpe said. Some evidence suggests their tips dont always sum to get them about the required $7.25 federal rate, he said. Evans said Georgia has the lowest minimum wage in the country. Georgias minimum wage of $5.15 per hour is the lowest in the nation, but Wyoming also has the same minimum wage. Also, most of Georgias workers paid hourly rates earn the federal minimum of $7.25. Evans statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate it Mostly True. On 19 December 2016, a photograph purportedly showing a Russian flag on display at the Texas State Capitol was circulated on social media:  Many social media users shared the above-displayed photograph along with claims that it showed pro-Russian elements celebrating Donald Trump's election and insinuated that Russia had helped installed him as the next President of the United States. In fact, this image actually shows a group of demonstrators who were protesting Trump's election on the day Texas' electors met to cast their ballots for him, taken by a Texas Tribune photographer who goes by the handle @BobPhoto on Twitter: Russian flag flies at Texas Capitol prior to #ElectoralCollege @TexasTribune @bobphoto #txlege pic.twitter.com/0pcYFoY3bA #ElectoralCollege @TexasTribune @bobphoto #txlege pic.twitter.com/0pcYFoY3bA  bobphoto (@bobphoto) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016  Guys with Russian flag in line House gallery #ElectoralCollege #txlege @TexasTribune @bobphoto pic.twitter.com/PZ9YqtRdMj  bobphoto (@bobphoto) December 19, 2016 #ElectoralCollege #txlege @TexasTribune @bobphoto pic.twitter.com/PZ9YqtRdMj December 19, 2016  Aliyya Swaby, another reporter for the Texas Tribune, added some more context to these photographs when she shared an image of the protesters outside of the capitol building: Joke contingent of pro-Russia supporters shows up to "protect our investment" and ensure electors vote Trump pic.twitter.com/xuod4x3tWk pic.twitter.com/xuod4x3tWk  Aliyya Swaby (@AliyyaSwaby) December 19, 2016 December 19, 2016  This display was not one celebrating Trump's alleged friendly relationship with Russia; it was a tongue-in-cheek message delivered by a group of protesters.