Mixed Case Street Name Signs
Claim:  Federal regulations require states to upgrade all street name signs to use mixed case lettering.  OF AND  INFORMATION Examples:  [Collected via e-mail, October 2010] A friend heard this on the radio today.  It was reported that there will be a federal mandate in 2012 that street signs must have a capital letter only at the beginning and the rest of the street sign must be in lower case.  He said the report stated that baby boomers were apparently having a difficult time reading the signs printed in all caps. I find this idea a little preposterous.  He indicated that it would cost Milwaukee, WI over a million $ to make the change.  it was also reported that there would be no federal grants available to assist in paying for the new signage.  Can this possibly be true?  Is there nothing more important for the federal government to worry about than street signs? They have mandated... without any funding... that all municipalities change traffic signs to a combination of upper and lower case letters... have we not been able to read our signs until now? Have we been eternally lost?? Government needs to get a life ...vote  I heard a gentleman telling a friend that President Obama was in New York City and didn't like the fact that the street signs were spelled in all caps.  He requested that Mayor Bloomberg change ALL the streets signs so they only began with a capital letter and he agreed, to the tune of $1mil+.  The conversation at the local scrap yard was about a mandate either Federal or Washington State requiring the change of all the street signs to ones that contain upper and lower case lettering (I guess most have all upper case lettering). This seemed so absurd I did not believe it but the scrap recyclers were excited about the huge amount of aluminum scrap that would be coming. Given the huge budget shortfalls and proposed cutbacks by most everyone, I find it offensive that someone is even payed to think about the font of the street signs. I sure hope this is just a rumor. Origins:  In October 2010, news outlets reported on new federal regulations regarding street and road signs that would be taking effect before the end of the decade, as exemplified by the following excerpt from the USA Today national newspaper: In a nod to the fading eyesight of the nation's growing number of aging Baby Boomers, the federal government is requiring communities around the USA to change street name signs from all capital letters to a combination of capital and lowercase letters. The government says that makes them easier to read. Cash-starved localities also will have to dig deep for new, more reflective traffic signs to make them easier to see at night, especially by older drivers. Under Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations, communities have until 2015 to improve the nighttime visibility of roadside signs  such as stop, yield and railroad crossing signs. The issue is how well a sign redirects light from an automobile's headlights back toward the vehicle. Signs that fail to meet minimum standards must be replaced. Communities will be allowed to change the street name signs as they wear out. Unfortunately, the wording of some of these articles left readers unclear about exactly what the new federal regulations entail, leading to (mistaken) claims that officials in every state must upgrade all their street signs to used mixed case lettering by the year 2015. One of the new Federal Highway Administration regulations, as outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), addresses the retroreflectivity of traffic signs: MUTCD For many years vehicle operators and the transportation industry have realized the importance of legible traffic signs and quality pavement markings for the purpose of highway safety and economical traffic flow, especially in low-light conditions. Light from a vehicle's headlights striking retroreflective traffic control devices bounces back to the driver's eyes allowing them to more easily see the road. Therefore, most traffic control devices are covered with retroreflective materials. These include transparent decals with embedded microprismatic reflectors for traffic signs and paint that has small sunken glass beads in the pavement markings.  Retroreflectivity is used to allow drivers to more easily see vital traffic control devices in nighttime and low-light conditions. The FHWA regulations require that states must upgrade post-mounted guide signs (e.g., stop signs, speed limit signs, pedestrian crossing signs) to meet minimum retroreflectivity standards by 2015.  States must also upgrade street name signs and overhead guide signs to meet minimum retroreflectivity requirements by 2018. A second  and distinctly different  FHWA regulation requires that newly-installed street name signs (or replacements for existing street name signs) must use a combination of upper and lower case letters rather than all upper case (i.e., capital) letters.  Signs executed in predominantly lower case letters are  generally easier to comprehend than signs written in all upper case letters (because the shapes of lower case letters have greater distinctiveness between them), so the new lettering requirements should make road signs easier for drivers (particularly older motorists) to read. The conflation of regulations regarding these  two new types of standards for signage  retroreflectivity and mixed case lettering  has created the  impression that all states must change every street name sign to used mixed case lettering by the year 2015 (at considerable cost to those states). This impression is false.  The only connection between these two standards is that if states have to replace some of their street name signs to meet the new retroreflectivity standards (which they are required to do by 2018), then those replacement signs must use mixed case lettering.  Otherwise, there is currently no requirement that states remove and replace street name signs which use only upper case lettering  such signs may remain in place until they reach the end of their service lives. Last updated:  14 November 2010
In the race for governor, the story of the states attractiveness to business is a tale of two Ohios. In Democratic Gov. Ted Stricklands version, the states tax laws, location and workforce make it appealing, especially to small businesses. In Kasichs narrative, Ohios tax system and regulations are driving away all businesses.Each cites different studies to help make his case. In 2009, the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council ranked Ohio 11th in the nation and 1st in the Midwest for overall business climate, the governor said in a July 17 news release. We decided to take a closer look. Strickland, who made the statement in response to a Kasich ad that blamed the governor for Ohios jobs losses, was referring to a December 2009 study entitled Small Business Survival Index 2009: Ranking the Policy Environment for Entrepreneurship Across the Nation. The study was produced by the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, or SBE, a trade group that represents small businesses and advocates for less government regulation.The 2009 study -- the SBEs 14th survival index -- is a more objective look than say, surveys of CEOs or other business professionals, which do not rely on hard numbers. The SBE rankings evaluate states in 36 categories, including corporate and income  taxes, gas and diesel taxes, government spending, health care and energy costs, inheritance taxes, and workers compensation costs. Business and tax experts agree that these are among key factors business owners and entrepreneurs examine when considering where to locate.Ohio does rank 11th overall in the 2009 SBE index. But whether Ohio is No. 1 in the Midwest depends on how you define the Midwest.Strickland relies on the Ohio Business Development Coalition, which supports the states economic development efforts. In a news release, it defines the Midwest as Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota.The U.S. Census Bureau defines the Midwest differently. It doesnt include Kentucky, which lands in the South, but it adds Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.Ohio still beats them all -- except South Dakota. While Ohio is more likely to compete with nearby states, the Mount Rushmore States ranking tops SBEs entire survey. One reason: South Dakota is among a handful of states without a personal income tax. Small business operators find that attractive because, as the SBE and other groups often point out, about 90 percent of them file taxes as individuals -- sole proprietorships, partnerships and S-Corps -- and dont pay corporate income taxes.Stricklands critics like to cite the personal income tax rate, which is high compared to about half of the other states. The conservative Tax Foundation, which Kasich frequently points to, and others say Ohios personal income tax, coupled with local taxes, makes the overall tax burden unattractive to business. The Federation of Tax Administratorstallyof total state and local tax burden ranks 29 states better than Ohio.But the Federation of Tax Administrators warns that state and local tax burden calculations dont tell the whole story of any business climate. In Ohio, for example, tax reforms begun in 2005 replaced the corporate franchise tax with an activity tax, a move that has made Ohio more attractive to businesses.What would make that a bad tax would be an increase in its rate, says Thomas Zaino, a tax attorney and Gov. Bob Tafts state tax commissioner who helped lead the tax reform. Where Ohios tax system is out of kilter with other states is with personal income tax, which includes both state and local and school income tax. We are way out of line.This brings us back the 2009 SBE survey.It looked at Ohios top personal income tax rate at the time of 5.925 percent. And it considers both personal and corporate taxes and other categories that reflect the states larger narrative about business climate. So while Strickland may overstate Ohios Midwest ranking, his claim about the SBEs rankings is on point and the SBEs methodology reflects the larger context of the tax debate.We rate Stricklands claim Mostly True. Comment on this item. On 10 October 2016, an meme appeared featuring a photograph of Hillary Clinton accompanied by text of a purported quote from her during from the second presidential debate the night before:   The quote was not uttered by Clinton during the any presidential debate. It does not appear in the transcript of the event, nor can Clinton be heard speaking this phrase during the broadcast.  transcript broadcast It seems to have originated with a social media user named Rocky Raczkowski, who (according to his post) was not directly quoting Clinton, but was giving his interpretation of what he thought Clinton had said in response to a question about Supreme Court justices: Rocky Raczkowski   Raczkowski's interpretation was later shared by Mike Hewitt, a politician and radio show host, who posted the message as if it were a direct quote from Clinton, while darkly hinting at a media so corrupt that they refused to cover the what she had really said: message   Of course, the reason that most media sources did not report on this quote is that it is not a quote, but a highly subjective (and inaccurate) interpretation of her words. Here's Clinton's actual response to a question about how she would select a Supreme Court justice, which is nothing like the questionable paraphrase offered by Raczkowski and shared by Hewitt: QUESTION: Good evening. Perhaps the most important aspect of this election is the Supreme Court justice. What would you prioritize as the most important aspect of selecting a Supreme Court justice? RADDATZ: We begin with your two minutes, Secretary Clinton. Thank you. Well, youre right. This is one of the most important issues in this election. I want to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real-life experience, who have not just been in a big law firm and maybe clerked for a judge and then gotten on the bench, but, you know, maybe they tried some more cases, they actually understand what people are up against. Because I think the current court has gone in the wrong direction. And so I would want to see the Supreme Court reverse Citizens United and get dark, unaccountable money out of our politics. Donald doesnt agree with that. I would like the Supreme Court to understand that voting rights are still a big problem in many parts of our country, that we dont always do everything we can to make it possible for people of color and older people and young people to be able to exercise their franchise. I want a Supreme Court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a womans right to choose, and I want a Supreme Court that will stick with marriage equality. Now, Donald has put forth the names of some people that he would consider. And among the ones that he has suggested are people who would reverse Roe v. Wade and reverse marriage equality. I think that would be a terrible mistake and would take us backwards. I want a Supreme Court that doesnt always side with corporate interests. I want a Supreme Court that understands because youre wealthy and you can give more money to something doesnt mean you have any more rights or should have any more rights than anybody else. So I have very clear views about what I want to see to kind of change the balance on the Supreme Court. And I regret deeply that the Senate has not done its job and they have not permitted a vote on the person that President Obama, a highly qualified person, theyve not given him a vote to be able to be have the full complement of nine Supreme Court justices. I think that was a dereliction of duty. I hope that they will see their way to doing it, but if I am so fortunate enough as to be president, I will immediately move to make sure that we fill that, we have nine justices that get to work on behalf of our people. Claim:   Democrats and the Clinton administration received more campaign contributions from Enron and were more accommodating of Enron's lobbying efforts than Republicans and the Bush administration. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2002] SCANDAL IN THE WHITE HOUSE  Texas, an energy company, big money, Bush in the White House. This has all the makings of a Republican scandal. Certainly there is a political dimension here. Enron's chairman did meet with the president and the vice president in the Oval Office. Enron gave $420,000 to the president's party over three years. It donated $100,000 to the president's inauguration festivities. The Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times. The corporation had access to the administration at its highest levels and even enlisted the Commerce and State Departments to grease deals for it. The taxpayer-supported Export-import Bank subsidized Enron for more than $600 million in just one transaction.  BUT ...  the president under whom all this happened wasn't George W. Bush.It was William Jefferson Clinton. It was William Jefferson Clinton. Origins:   The debacle that was Enron was years in the making and will probably never be fully unravelled no matter how much time is devoted to investigating it.  Enron traded so much money and influence through its lobbying efforts for so many years  among both Republicans and Democrats, in federal as well as in state governments  that neither party can rightly take the moral high ground in decrying the scandal.  As The San Francisco Chronicle reported in 2002: Enron's tentacles ran so deep into Washington's political establishment that 71 sitting senators and nearly half of the current House of Representatives received Enron money during the last decade, including some who are now investigating the company's bankruptcy. And The Hartford Courant noted: The company also was generous with state and local candidates from both major political parties. Its tentacles were wrapped around high-profile figures in several administrations. The attempt made in the piece of netlore quoted above to deflect blame from the Bush administration and dump it onto the Clinton White House includes some major inaccuracies, such as the claim that "the Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times" during President Bill Clinton's tenure in office.  But as Brendan Nyhan revealed in a 2002 article, Enron CEO Kenneth Lay was never an overnight visitor at the White House during the Clinton adminstration  although, according to Nyhan, "Lay did, however, stay at the White House when George H.W. Bush was president." article As well, given the General Accounting Office's investigation into connections between Enron and Vice President Dick Cheney's planning of Bush administration energy policy, "the corporation's access to the administration at its highest levels" apparently continued well after Bill Clinton left the White House. According to USA Today: Dick Cheney Enron spent nearly three times as much money lobbying the Bush administration in the first half of 2001 as it initially reported.  The collapsed energy-trading company spent at least $2.46 million on efforts to influence energy and budget decisions and support its international ventures, according to an amended lobbying report Enron filed with the House and Senate on March 1. As for the supposedly shocking monetary figures bandied about ("Enron gave $420,000 to the [Democratic] president's party over three years. It donated $100,000 to the president's inauguration festivities."), those numbers don't come close to matching what was reported about Enron's contributions to George W. Bush and the Republican party in The Hartford Courant: contributions Since 1989, the Houston-based energy broker and its employees have made more than $5.7 million in contributions to federal candidates and political parties, nearly three-quarters of it to Republicans. Enron was George W. Bush's biggest contributor in the 2000 presidential campaign. Nor do they match what The New York Times uncovered: Enron, Arthur Andersen and Vinson & Elkins, a Houston law firm, are among the most generous contributors to Mr. Bush's 2000 presidential campaign. Enron has given more than $700,000 to Mr. Bush since 1993; no company has given him more. In addition, Enron's chairman, Kenneth L. Lay, was one of the "pioneers," raising more than $100,000 for Mr. Bush's e-mail campaign, and he and his wife gave a total of $10,000 to Mr. Bush's Florida recount fund. Enron and Mr. Lay also contributed a total of $200,000 to Mr. Bush's inaugural festivities. Last updated:  30 March 2006    Sources:   Keen, Judy.  "Enron Tale Drags Bush Aides Along."   USA Today.  8 February 2002  (p. A4).     Lochhead, Carolyn.  "Firm Gave Campaign Funds to Half of Congress."   The San Francisco Chronicle.  16 January 2002  (p. A12).     McCoy, Kevin.  "Enron Spent $2.5M, Not $825,000, on Lobbying Efforts."   USA Today.  8 March 2002  (p. B1).     Nyhan, Brendan.  "Another Bedroom Farce."   Salon.com.  21 February 2002.     Reaves, Jessica.  "Enron: What Should Cheney Do?"   Time.  30 January 2002.     van Natta, Don.  "Enron Spread Contributions on Both Sides of the Aisle."   The New York Times.  21 January 2002  (p. A13).     The Hartford Courant.  "Enron's Pervasive Influence."   24 January 2002  (p. A10). Gov. John Kasichs wish to sell off six state prisons has become yet another partisan political hot potato in Columbus. Then again, what isnt during budget season.But state Rep. Matt Lundy, an Elyria Democrat, kicked it up a notch with comments during a May 2 news conference called for the purpose of throwing cold water on the Republican governors plan to sell off five adult prison facilities and one youth detention center.Kasich has said the transaction could net Ohio a profit of $200 million.Lundy disagrees. He argues that there still will be bonds and improvement debts to be serviced and that will cut into the profit.He likened the proposal to an insane yard sale and questioned the logic of selling state assets during a down economic period when they may fetch low bids.He also accused Republicans in control of the House of helping Kasich to lure buyers.The substitute budget now adds in tax breaks and tax deductions for those who buy these prisons, Lundy said. The House passed its version of the budget on May 5.Politifact Ohio decided to take a closer look.The House did propose a sales tax exemption, income tax deduction and commercial tax exclusion for any buyer that strikes a deal with Ohio to take over the prisons offered for sale. Lundy said such friendly trinkets will eat away at the states expect profits on the deal.So, why was it included? Kasichs proposal didnt offer the tax breaks but the House Republicans did.House Finance Chairman Ron Amstutz, a Wooster Republican, said the tax provisions were added to assure that the private buyer of the prisons would be treated like any other state entity since they will essentially be performing a state function by housing inmates.Typically state entities dont pay taxes on their functions and that is true of local governments, as well, Amstutz said. And I think the desire is to maintain that status in order to provide for services at the lowest cost that we can.If the private entities were to pay these particular taxes, which go back to supporting the local communities where the facilities are located, then basically the state taxpayers would be subsidizing the local taxpayers at that point for a state function and typically we dont do that, Amstutz explained.State prisons spokesman Carlo LoParo noted, however, that any buyer of the state prisons would be expected to pay property taxes each year, which would net a huge amount of cash for the local governments where there facilities are located.Thats pretty substantial, LoParo said. He added that the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections had closely monitored the House negotiations to make sure that a carve out for property taxes was not stuck in.We took pains to make sure there were no loopholes, he said. We fully expect them to pay property taxes to those communities where the prisons are located.The impact for local governments could be substantial.For example, there are two facilities offered for sale that are in Marion -- the North Central Correctional Institution that houses adults and the Marion Juvenile Correctional Facility, which is currently closed.Combined, the two properties are valued at $100 million, which would result in about $1.5 million annually in property tax collections for that small city. LoParo said that should be enough money help Marions police force pick up criminal investigations at the two facilities, which would fall to the city and not state highway patrol, as is currently the case.So where does Lundy land on the Truth-O-Meter.Lundy is correct that the the substitute budget includes tax breaks and tax deductions for those who buy the prisons. There would be no sales tax on the purchase and there are other exclusions for income and commercial taxes.The administration is demanding that local property taxes absolutely be paid, which could yield significant revenue to local governments and schools.And Lundy is correct that the tax breaks and deductions in the budget bill were added in by the House.On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate Lundys comment as True. Claim: Edible Arrangements funds the terrorist organization Hamas. UNDETERMINED Example:   [Collected via Facebook, July 2014] A friend posted an "article" about Edible Arrangements supporting Hamas: "After you see what Edible Arrangments did for Hamas, you'll never buy from them AGAIN."  Being suspicious, I did a search and found a number of articles, all from late 2012, and all from questionable "news" sources.   Origins:  Edible Arrangements International is a U.S.-based business that specializes in selling "fruit bouquets," fruit baskets designed like floral arrangements.  As of 2014, the company was a 1,200-store chain with outlets in 14 countries, including the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Italy, Turkey, Hong Kong, Oman, India and China. Since at least as far back as 2012, rumors have circulated claiming that brothers Tariq and Kamran Farid, who founded the company, are "devout Pakistani Muslims" who have, through their Tariq Farid Foundation, donated money to organizations linked with Hamas, a Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist movement engaged in armed resistance and terrorism against Israel: rumors Tariq Farid Foundation Hamas Tariq Farid is the CEO of Edible Arrangements, which he started with his brother, Kamran Farid. Not only are they devout Pakistani Muslims, but they are major donors and fundraisers for American mosques, Islamic schools, and similar enterprises in Pakistan. Recent tax returns of their Farid Foundation, to which they and Edible Arrangements are major contributors, show that their foundation gives tens of thousands of dollars to extremist Islamic schools and mosques in America and to Islamic Relief, the HAMAS/Al-Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood "charity" which sends tens of millions of dollars to finance jihad around the world. The Anti-Defamation League (whose stated mission is to "stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment for all citizens alike") said of such rumors back in 2012 that: Anti-Defamation League We have received several such inquiries regarding recent allegations by Debbie Schlussel in an article critical of the owners of Edible Arrangements, which sells fruit baskets and the like. Schlussel claims that the owners of Edible Arrangements are funding Palestinian terror organizations, including Hamas, through their Farid Foundation. In our judgment, Schlussel's allegations lack context and nuance and she does not offer any clear evidence to support them. Even if the Farid Foundation has provided funding for some of the American Muslim groups she references, we believe it is an unsupported stretch to conclude that the Foundation or Edible Arrangements is funding Hamas. The ADL disclaimed these rumors again in August 2014: disclaimed A widely circulated rumor suggests that the owners of Edible Arrangements, a company that sells fruit baskets through a series of privately owned franchises across the country, are funding Hamas through a charitable foundation they support. Several ideologically motivated online sites are urging consumers to boycott the company due to their ties to terrorism." In fact, there is absolutely no truth to these unfounded assertions. While the Farid Foundation has provided funding to various organization in the U.S. and abroad, there is no evidence to suggest that any of those funds have been used to support terrorism.  Moreover, the company has clearly and unequivocally denounced terrorism, including those forms of terror used by Hamas. It should also be noted that the company's franchise owners come from a variety of religious backgrounds; some are Jewish, including the companys current president. We do note that in June 2014 Islamic Relief WorldWide (IRW) was banned from operating in Israel due to that country's belief that IRW "funnels cash to Hamas": Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon [has] signed a decree banning Islamic Relief Worldwide from operating in Israel. Israel believes IRW, which markets itself as a charitable agency that solicits donations from all over the world, funnels cash to Hamas. Yaalons ban was decided upon after the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet), the coordinator for government activities in the territories, and legal authorities provided incriminating information against IRW.  The organization has representatives worldwide, including Australia, the United States, and Britain, where it is headquartered. Some of their local branches in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria are run by Hamas operatives.  Ya'alon's decree makes it illegal for IRW to function anywhere in Israel, Judea, and Samaria. It will also be forbidden from transferring funds to any destination in Judea and Samaria.  "[The IRW] is another source of funds for Hamas, and we have no intention of allowing it to operate and assist terrorist activity against Israel," Ya'alon said. "This is another in a series of steps that we are taking against Hamas in Judea and Samaria and the pressure we are applying, the goal of which is to harm the organizations leadership and rank-and-file as well as its civilian infrastructure. These serve as the foundation from which Hamas operates among the local population." In March 2014, Blue MauMau reported on a sexual and religious harassment lawsuit against Edible Arrangements and founder Tariq Farid which referenced charitable organizations that the Farids allegedly support: reported Farid and his brother, Kamran Farid (Edible Arrangements' Chief Operating Officer), at all relevant times hereto have been the two trustees of a foundation called the Farid Foundation, operated out of the same location as Edible Arrangements. Farid Foundation makes significant contributions to Islamic causes and organizations,  including the Farid Foundation Pakistan; the Salma K. Farid Academy; Islamic Circle of North America Relief; the Muslim Coalition of Connecticut; the Inner-City Muslim Action Network; the Wallingford Islamic Center; Masjid AI-Islam; and the Islamic Association of Southern Connecticut. The funding for these donations is derived in large part from donations by Farid and his brother, and by Edible Arrangements and its affiliated entities. One of those organizations, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) supposedly has financial ties to Hamas, but the evidence presented for that claim only references web links from the ICNA web site to Hamas and similar groups, not any direct financial ties: ICNA evidence Open support for terrorist causes was available on the websites of regional ICNA branches, even after 9/11. As late as November 2002, the ICNA Southeast Zone website linked to the websites of Hamas, Hizballah, and terrorist organizations fighting in Chechnya, Afghanistan, and the Pakistani-Indian disputed region of Kashmir. Among its short list of recommended Islamic charities was the Islamic Society in Gaza, which openly touted its connections to Hamas. The day after the Blue MauMau article was published, Tariq Farid's legal representatives issued a letter challenging the truthfulness of its implications, demanding its retraction, and asserting, among other things, that Farid's foundation only donation to ICNA was made "to a special fund of the ICNA called 'ICNA Relief USA', an organization in New York City, which, among other things, helps women with temporary housing: letter This letter addresses a recent article regarding my clients, Tariq Farid and the Farid Foundation, that was written by Paul Steinberg under the pseudonym "Corbin Williston," and published on your website, Blue MauMau. The article is false and defamatory of Mr. Farid and the Farid Foundation, and we demand an inunediate and complete retraction. We also demand that the publication be immediately removed from all websites under your control.  The article has been deliberately written to falsely accuse Mr. Farid and the Farid Foundation of supporting the illegal acts of alleged terrorist organizations and the activities of alleged war criminals. Moreover, the article is written so that a reasonable reader would believe  that Edible Arrangements, the well-known business of which Mr. Farid is founder and CEO, also supports these alleged acts of terrorism. These statements, and the entire message of the article, are patently and outrageously false. Indeed, the author and publisher of these falsehoods could only have acted with actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth. The article asserts that Mr. Farid and the Farid Foundation supports terrorist activities overseas through the Farid Foundation's donations to the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA). In fact, the Farid Foundation's only contribution was to a special fund of the ICNA called "ICNA Relief USA", an organization in New York City, which, among other things, helps women with temporary housing. When a rumormonger made similar false accusations against the Farid Foundation some time ago, the Anti-Defamation League responded that such "allegations lack[ed] context and nuance and [the accuser] [did] not offer any clear evidence to support them. Even if the Farid Foundation has provided funding for some of the American Muslim groups she referenc[ed], we believe it [was] an unsupported stretch to conclude that the Foundation or Edible Arrangements [funded] Hamas." Most egregious and defamatory is the articles clear implication that Mr. Farid and the Farid Foundation supports the goals of an alleged terrorist (Ashrafuzzaman Khan) or overseas terrorist groups. There is not a shred of objective fact, cited or existing, to support this false assertion. In addition, the article is in part based on false allegations contained in a complaint of an ex-employee of Edible Arrangements. Mr. Farid and Edible Arrangements have refuted those allegations in their answer and will obtain dismissal of all claims in the litigation. Blue MauMau's original article has not been retracted, and its author published a follow-up the next day stating (in part): follow-up A few observations regarding the Edible Arrangements statement: The franchise does not dispute that the head of ICNA was recently convicted of war crimes in Bangladesh. The franchise says that Edible Arrangements actually gave money to "a special fund" of ICNA. In other words, although ICNA may have been run by a man convicted of torture and murder of 18 people, he also ran "a special fund" which "helps women with temporary housing." Members of the public may find this a distinction without a difference, and they may also find it relevant that Edible Arrangements does not see any problem with ICNA's history of behavior, nor does it see any problem with the head of ICNA being a party to torture. My guess is that the people who were tortured and murdered might disagree with Tariq Farid. The franchise says that a "reasonable reader" may believe that Edible Arrangements and Tariq Farid "support these alleged acts of terrorism."  Well, yes. That is a "reasonable" reading of the uncontroverted facts laid out in the BlueMauMau article. Whatever the truth of those issues regarding ICNA may be, the evidence for a direct financial link between ICNA and Hamas (and thus between Edible Arrangements and Hamas) still appears rather tenuous. Last updated:  2 August 2014    O'Connor, Clare.  "How Edible Arrangements Sold $500 Million of Fruit Bouquets in 2013."   Forbes.  8 April 2014.     Williston, Corbin.  "Edible Arrangements Suit Renews Questions of Terrorist Support."   Blue MauMau.  30 March 2014.     Williston, Corbin.  "Edible Arrangements Denies Funding Terrorists."   Blue MauMau.  31 March 2014.     The Jerusalem Post.  "Israel Bans Islamic Relief Worldwide from West Bank Due to Hamas Ties."   19 June 2014. Some fathers help their daughters by teaching them how to ride a bike. But if youre Dick Cheney, you do it by attacking her political rival on national television. The former vice president appeared on ABCsThis Weekon Oct. 27, 2013, to discuss national security issues, and was asked about the Republican primary battle in Wyoming between incumbent Sen. Mike Enzi and his daughter, Liz Cheney. ThoughLiz Cheney has previously said her father wouldnt be campaigning for her, he didnt pass on the opportunity to take a few shots at Enzi. He accused the three-term senator of getting about 84 percent of his campaign funds from Washington-based PACs, which Cheney said was more than any senator of either party. Enzi is far from the most prestigious, vocal or well-known lawmakers on the Hill. So we were surprised to hear that the three-term senator from Wyoming, of all places, is the upper chambers leader in percentage of donations from PACs. We decided totake a deeper look. Counting PAC money Off the bat, we ran into trouble with the term Washington-based PAC. The Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks campaign finance data, noted that most political action committees, but not all, are based in the nations capitol, and its difficult to separate which of Enzis donors are from D.C. What's probably safe to say is that the vast majority are not based in his home state, Viveca Novak at the center told PoltiFact (which is what Cheney was driving at anyway). According to data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, in the Senate campaign cycle beginning in 2009, Enzi raised $1.64 million, with $1.19 million, or 73 percent, coming from PACs. Thats not the 84 percent figure that Dick Cheney mentioned. Liz Cheneys campaign said they got to 84 percent by including a $74,463 transfer to the campaign from a joint fundraising committee, as well as $826,000 given to Enzis leadership PAC from other political groups. So the Cheney campaign counted those transfers as PAC money, while the center didnt. Using the centers data, Enzis percentage of PAC money is higher than any other senator -- by quite a bit actually. The next closest is Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., who has received 66 percent of his donations from PACs in the last five years. The disparity is even larger over the course of Enzis entire career. Nearly 70 percent of the $6.55 million the Wyoming Republican has raised since 1991 comes from PACs. In second is Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, at a distant 52 percent. A large chunk of Enzis PAC money comes from congressional leadership groups who are backing the senior senator over Cheneys challenge. He gets quite a bit from health groups, as well -- which isnt surprising, since he has worked prominently on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee for years. Its not that Enzi is taking more money from PACs than all of his colleagues, but a higher proportion of his money raised is from these outside groups Its worth noting that of the 10 senators who have relied the most on PACs this cycle, nearly all hail from states in the bottom third of the population rankings. Candidates from smaller states have a shallower pool of in-state donors to pull from, pushing them to rely on PACs in their increasingly expensive election fights. Cheney has proven to be a formidable fundraiser, pulling in $1 million between July and September, for her contest against Enzi. Doug Weber at the Center for Responsive Politics had another explanation for Enzis reliance on PACs. Enzi hasn't really raised and spent much in the past, Weber said in an email. His 2002 and 1996 elections were the cheapest Senate victories of their cycle. So it may be a function of a modest fundraising effort -- raising from individuals involves a lot more work. (Republican House Speaker John) Boehner raised more from individuals just this year than Enzi has since 1989. And even though Enzi tops this list, hes far from the most prolific fundraiser in Washington. In the current Congress,hes 356th in money raised, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Enzis campaign didnt deny Cheneys claims. While spokeswoman Kristin Walker noted that two-thirds of Enzis individual donors in the last cycle were from Wyoming, she added he has always raised the money he needed to be competitive. Our ruling While Dick Cheney differed from our nonpartisan sources on the final number, the fact remains he was right: Enzi has received a higher proportion of his money from PACs than anyone in the Senate. Its more a product of circumstancesEnzis from a small state and hes facing a strong challengerthan evidence that Enzi has gone Washington, as Cheney was implying. We rate it Mostly True. Here's a glimpse into a particularly brazen attempt at producing "clickbait" by making a huge claim about a beloved celebrity with an attraction-grabbing headline that is literally unrelated to the story underneath. A 17 November 2017 post on the web site ConservativeSociety.net bore a headline that featured a quote misattributed to actress Jennifer Aniston: "Me and All The Trump Supporter Celebrities Decide To Make A Company Named 'Celebrities For Trump,' Which Fight Against All Anti Trump Celebrities, I Think President Trump Needs Our Support."The idea, presumably, was that viewers would distribute the post online based solely on their reaction to the headline rather than the underlying story  because that story does not include Aniston's fabricated "quote," and no interview, no publication, nor any other proof of her interest in this subject is offered.To boot, this piece of clickbait appeared to be a mishmash of off-topic information and wholesale reproduction of another site's work.Instead of a reported story, the story under the headline opened seemingly in the middle of a recap of a December 2016 Saturday Night Live sketch concerning the president and a 16-year-old supporter, Pete Davidson.Four paragraphs later, the story turned into a "report" on a rumored collaboration between Aniston and singer Sheryl Crow on a clothing line. But this text was taken, verbatim, from a 26 October 2017 report published on the gossip site GossipCop.com.A Gossip Cop spokesperson told us they first encountered the story on another questionable web site, DailyNewPosts.com, in October 2017:The word-for-word use of our story, which is clearly unrelated to Donald Trump, is a clear example of willful copyright infringement. We plan to seek all legal remedies and demand the site remove our material immediately.Conservative Society's "story" lists DailyNewPosts.com as its source; however, the latter web site's version of the piece is no longer available.  A 17 November 2017 post on the web site ConservativeSociety.net bore a headline that featured a quote misattributed to actress Jennifer Aniston: "Me and All The Trump Supporter Celebrities Decide To Make A Company Named 'Celebrities For Trump,' Which Fight Against All Anti Trump Celebrities, I Think President Trump Needs Our Support."   The idea, presumably, was that viewers would distribute the post online based solely on their reaction to the headline rather than the underlying story  because that story does not include Aniston's fabricated "quote," and no interview, no publication, nor any other proof of her interest in this subject is offered. To boot, this piece of clickbait appeared to be a mishmash of off-topic information and wholesale reproduction of another site's work. Instead of a reported story, the story under the headline opened seemingly in the middle of a recap of a December 2016 Saturday Night Live sketch concerning the president and a 16-year-old supporter, Pete Davidson. sketch Four paragraphs later, the story turned into a "report" on a rumored collaboration between Aniston and singer Sheryl Crow on a clothing line. But this text was taken, verbatim, from a 26 October 2017 report published on the gossip site GossipCop.com. report A Gossip Cop spokesperson told us they first encountered the story on another questionable web site, DailyNewPosts.com, in October 2017: The word-for-word use of our story, which is clearly unrelated to Donald Trump, is a clear example of willful copyright infringement. We plan to seek all legal remedies and demand the site remove our material immediately. Conservative Society's "story" lists DailyNewPosts.com as its source; however, the latter web site's version of the piece is no longer available. Evans, Greg.  "'SNL' Pokes at Donald Trump's CNN Tweets  And Gives Shout-Out to Real-Life High School Supporter."
  Deadline.  3 December 2016. Weiss, Shari.  "Jennifer Aniston Launching HSN Clothing Collection?"
  GossipCop.  26 October 2017. Ripping thesweeping tax reformspushed by PresidentDonald Trumpand other leading Republicans, U.S. Rep.Mark Pocan, D-Madison, singled out the provision to eliminate the death tax. In an Oct. 18, 2017, appearanceon a talk showon Janesvilles WCLO radio, Pocan said: They (Republicans) go about getting rid of the estate tax -- which, to me, is the one that I wish more people would really understand. Theyve done a good of marketing it as a death tax -- you die and you get taxed. But the reality is, its a tax on the ultra-wealthy that the vast majority of people will never, ever, ever see in their life. Last year, two out of every 1,000 people paid an estate tax. So its not like a common tax thats out there. With the overall reform gaining momentum froma Senate votethe day after Pocans claim, anda House votea week later, lets see if his statistic is correct. Aimed at the rich? Thereisdebate about how the rich are treated by the reform proposal, which at this stage is considered only a framework, since it lacks details. Weverated as Mostly Falsea claim by House SpeakerPaul Ryan, a Janesville Republican who represents the congressional district that borders Pocans. Ryan said the framework, which he supports, is focused on tax breaks for the middle class and not about people who are really high-income earners getting a tax break. The framework does offer some benefits for the middle class, but whats more clear is there are specific provisions benefiting the wealthy. As for what is conventionally known as the estate tax, theTrump administration usesthe term death tax (asdo Ryanandother Republicans) in promoting how the framework would repeal the tax. Trump himself claimed ending the tax would protect millions of small businesses and the American farmer. But PolitiFact Nationalsrating was Pants on Fire: Only 5,460 estates even pay the tax each year, with only 80 being small businesses or farms. Pocans figure The Internal Revenue Service tells usthe estate tax is a tax on your right to transfer property at your death. It consists of an accounting of everything you own or have certain interests in at the date of death -- including cash and securities, real estate, insurance, trusts, business interests and other assets. In 2016, the year cited in Pocans claim, an unmarried individuals estate was potentially taxable only if the estates value exceeded $5.45 million. (The value had to exceed $10.9 million to be taxable, if there was a surviving spouse.) After deductions, such estates generally are taxed at40 percent. IRS figures showthere were 12,411 estate tax returns filed in 2016 -- but a tax was owed on only 5,219 of them. That smaller figure aligns with what PolitiFact National found. And the non-profit Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Centermakes a similar estimatefor 2017: 5,460 estates owing a tax.) In 2016, those 5,219 estates paid a total estate tax of$18.3 billion. Since annual estate tax filings include deaths that occur in previous years, the Tax Policy Center says that each year, there are roughly 5,000 estates that pay the federal estate tax out of roughly 2.6 million deaths each year. That comes to 2 of every 1,000. Point of view on the tax While he doesnt dispute the statistics,Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, told us there are other points to consider regarding the estate tax, saying: The estate tax affects far more people than the relatively small number who pay. Many people who own businesses and/or investments have to spend a lot of time and money on lawyers/accountants planning to avoid it. A substantial portion of the life insurance industry exists only to avoid the estate tax. And, indeed, that is an important criticism: it is one of the most inefficient taxes in the sense that the ratio of paperwork/avoidance to tax collections is very high . The estate tax is anti-saving and anti-investment. It encourages wealthy folks to consume their wealth before death because, if the rate is high, they dont want the government to grab it. For the rest of us, it would be better if wealthy people kept their money invested in the economy,  because that spurs growth. Its better for us if the wealthy hold large pools of savings rather than going out and buying expensive cars and yachts. A high estate tax rate encourages them to go out and buy expensive cars and yachts, which does nothing for long term economic growth. Our rating Pocan says that what Republicans call the death tax is the estate tax on the ultra wealthy which, in 2016, was paid by only two out of every 1,000 people. Republicans who are proposing to eliminate the estate tax do use the death tax term. In 2016, the tax, generally 40 percent, applied only to estates worth $5.45 million or more. After deductions, the tax was paid by only about two out of every 1,000 people who died. We rate the statement True. Scammers and malware purveyors are always looking for ways to entice online users into following web links that will lead those victims into the traps set for them, and offers of free airline tickets are prime bait in that pursuit of prey. Airline tickets are something nearly everyone uses and have considerable value, but their non-material nature and the fact that they're not tremendously expensive (compared to, say, a new car) makes it seem plausible to the public that they're something a business might actually be giving away for free as part of an advertising promotion. Virtually every major U.S. air carrier  including American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Southwest Airlines, Emirates, United Airlines, US Airways, Continental Airlines, Alaska Airlines, WestJet Airlines, Allegiant Air, and Air Canada  has been invoked in various online "free ticket" giveaway scams in recent years: Air Canada The primary type of free ticket fraud is the "sweepstakes scam," which is intended to lure victims into completing numerous surveys, disclosing a good deal of personal information, and then agreeing to sign up for costly, difficult-to-cancel "Reward Offers" hidden in the fine print. The scammers spread links via e-mail and Facebook that purport to offer free air travel tickets to those who follow those links. These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the airlines they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook "share" buttons and post comments to the scammer's site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two "Reward Offers" (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards): Pursuant to the Terms & Conditions, you are required to complete 2 of the Reward Offers from the above. You will need to meet all of the terms and conditions to qualify for the shipment of the reward. For credit card offers, you must activate your card by making a purchase, transferring a balance, or making a cash advance. For loan offers you must close and fund the loan. For home security and satellite tv offers you must have the product installed. You may not cancel your participation in more than a total of 2 Reward Offers within 30 days of any Reward Offer Sign-Up Date as outlined in the Terms & Conditions (the Cancellation Limit). Not only that, but the fine print on the "free" tickets offers typically states that by accepting its terms, the user agrees to receive telemarketing phone calls and text messages from a variety of different companies: Similar phony free ticket lures are used to spread malware. In those versions of the scam, those who attempt to reach the URL provided for the purpose of claiming the free tickets are instead victimized by a Facebook "lifejacking" attack, a malicious script that takes over a user's Facebook profile without their knowledge and propagates itself to their friends' accounts as well. lifejacking In short, those who seek "free" merchandise generally end up paying a dear cost for it. On 7 August 2018, Texas governor Greg Abbott posted a 9gag.com-branded meme on Twitter which included a statement attributed to former British prime minister Sir Winston Churchill about how "fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists":   However apt this quote may (or may not) be, it did not originate with Winston Churchill. Abbott deleted his tweet after critics pointed out that fact to him, but he said during a press conference that knowing who originally made the statement was "irrelevant" because he believed in its sentiment regardless of who said it: "What I tweeted was a sentiment that I had. It was irrelevant to me who may or may not have said that in the past. I didn't want to be accused of plagiarism for saying it. If no one else said it, attribute the quote to me because it's what I believe in." press conference So who does deserve credit? Similar quotes positing the idea that fascism would come to America disguised by a different name can be traced at least as far back as 1936 (although they weren't attached to Churchill's name until decades later).  On 18 March 1936, for example, the Cincinnati Inquirer reported on words delivered by Norman Thomas, an American Presbyterian minister who was running for president as the Socialist Party of America's candidate, at an informal luncheon: "Fascism is coming in the United States most probably, but it will not come under that name."   A few days later the same newspaper mentioned the same statement in a book review of In the Second Year, a dystopian novel by Storm Jameson set in a fascist Britain. That article added some additional words to the statement and reported that Thomas had been quoting Huey Long, an American politician who had been assassinated the previous year: Norman Thomas said recently in a speech made in Cincinnati "Fascism is coming in the United States most probably, but it will not come under that name." In this statement he was repeating the words of the late Huey Long, but Huey added: "Of course we'll have it. We'll have it under the guise of anti-fascism." No one has yet been able to document Huey Long's having made such a statement, however. Several variations of this quote have appeared in print since Thomas' 1936 remark. In 1938, for instance, Rev. Dr Halford E. Luccock of the Yale Divinity School said that "When fascism comes to America, and it has already come to some parts, it will not be marked with the swastika and labeled 'Made in Germany ... It will not even be called Fascism ... But will be called by that high-sounding and highly praised name - Americanism." Playwright Clare Booth reportedly had a similar take: "Speaking of Fascism," she writes, "Of all national ways of life, it is, perhaps, the most quickly habit-forming. It is the alcohol and the opium of the political systems; it will rob us eventually of our physical and mental and even moral powers, but it gives us temporary illusion of escape from an inimical world, a lift of the spirit, a feeling of superiority, of power ... also, we are warned (though not loudly, not often enough) when -- or if -- fascism comes in all America she will come so prettily costumed in red, white and blue as to be practically indistinguishable from a music hall's Fourth of July performance 'Rockette,' than which nothing could look more charmingly, happily, uniformly american.  Apparently Churchill's name was spuriously appended to this statement about fascism circa 2010 more than 40 years after his death (and with no supporting evidence). 2010 Timothy Riley of the National Churchill Museum told us that these words do not appear in any of the articles, speeches, or books penned by Churchill: "Winston Churchill authored over 15 million words  in articles, speeches, books and other writings. There is no evidence that the statesman wrote the words in question.  It is impossible to know if he uttered the words in conversation, but I am not aware of any of Churchills contemporaries who recorded or recalled the statement." The Cincinnati Enquirer.  "Fascism Coming  Under New Name!"
  18 February 1936. JYK.  "This and That."
  The Morning Call.  5 March 1939. McD, J.F.  "A 'Lively Age' to Come?'
  The Cincinnati Enquirer.  22 February 1936. McGaughy, Lauren.  "Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Tweets Fake Winston Churchill Quote About Anti-Fascists."
  The Dallas Morning News.  7 August 2018.