Did Kamala Harris Make These Contrasting Statements About Police?
Shortly after U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden named Sen. (and former California Attorney General) Kamala Harris as his running mate in August 2020, social media users began circulating a meme purportedly showing two contradictory statements Harris had made about the value of having more police on the streets, along with commentary painting Harris as a "lying hypocrite": meme   In a strictly literal sense, the meme correctly attributes to Harris two contrasting statements she made 11 years apart, as The New York Times noted in an August 2020 article about Harris' viewpoint on police misconduct: noted In her 2009 book, Smart on Crime, she wrote that if we take a show of hands of those who would like to see more police officers on the street, mine would shoot up, adding that virtually all law-abiding citizens feel safer when they see officers walking a beat. Earlier this summer, in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, she told The New York Times that it is status-quo thinking to believe that putting more police on the streets creates more safety. Thats wrong. Its just wrong. Whether those contrasting statements document Harris to be a "liar" or a "hypocrite" is a thornier question, however. Altering one's viewpoint about an issue over the course of many years is not necessarily hypocritical, especially if such evolution is based on additional knowledge and experience and/or shifting conditions -- it's only hypocritical if a given viewpoint is an insincere one, expressed for purposes of political expediency rather than genuine belief. In 2009, Harris was district attorney of San Francisco, but by 2020, she had served a six-year tenure as California's attorney general and was well into her fourth year as a U.S. senator. Certainly occurrences that took place, and the experience she accumulated, during that 11-year span might have prompted a change in her thinking. As well, it's important to note the context in which Harris made those statements. The first was taken from her 2009 book Smart on Crime, in a chapter that was specifically about the evolution of methods for fighting crime. The chapter was titled "Myth: The tools of crime fighting never change" and opened with the statement that "the secret of successfully reducing crime is that there is no one secret to successfully reducing crime," so Harris was arguing against a status quo approach and emphasizing the need for measuring how effectively police were actually making communities safer (rather than merely creating the appearance of safety): On one hand, if we take a show of hands of those who would like to see more police officers on the streets, mine would shoot up. A more visible and strategic police presence is a deterrent to crime, and it has a positive impact on a community. Virtually all law-abiding citizens feel safer when they see officers walking a beat. This is as true in economically poor neighborhoods as in wealthy ones. Police officers are a reassuring sign of a community's commitment to order, calm, and safety. More beat cops means more rapid response to assaults, traffic crimes, and robberies and has a profound effect on reducing quality-of-life crimes by simple presence. But in addition to putting more police on the street, we have to look at the way officers are being deployed and how we measure whether they are achieving the goal of creating a safer community. Her second statement came in the midst of nationwide protests spurred by the police custody death of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May 2020, when long-simmering issues of police violence and the treatment of Blacks by police came to a boil -- all while the U.S. was grappling with a nationwide shutdown due to the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic. At that point, many Americans decidedly did not hold to the notion that the increased presence of police made them safer (or made them feel safer) and gave rise to "defund the police" movements. It was in that context that Harris responded to a question about police by asserting that "status quo thinking" was wrong and that "we have to reimagine what public safety looks like": Q: Can I ask you about this idea of defunding the police? Whats your thinking on that idea? A: Well, its a concept. We do have to reimagine what public safety looks like. And heres the thing. It is status quo thinking to believe that putting more police on the streets creates more safety. Thats wrong. Its just wrong. You know what creates more safety? Funding public schools, affordable housing, increased homeownership, job skill development, jobs, access to capital for those who want to start small businesses, or who are running small businesses in communities. But, no, were not going to get rid of the police. We all have to be practical. But lets separate out these discussions. Many cities in our country spend one-third of their entire budget on policing. With all the responsibilities those cities have, one-third on policing? Put it in the context of the fact that over the last many decades, we have essentially been defunding public schools. If anyone thinks that the way were going to cure these problems is by putting more police on the street, theyre wrong. In the period between those statements, The New York Times observed, Harris has "struggled to reconcile her calls for reform with her record as a prosecutor" -- enduring criticism for not intervening in cases of controversial police shootings and for "yielding to the status quo" rather than pursuing "bold reform," while "her approach was subtly shifting" nonetheless: Since becoming Californias attorney general in 2011, she had largely avoided intervening in cases involving killings by the police. Protesters in Oakland distributed fliers saying: Tell California Attorney General Kamala Harris to prosecute killer cops! Its her job! Then, amid the national outrage stoked by the 2014 killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., came pleas for her to investigate a series of police shootings in San Francisco, where she had previously been district attorney. She did not step in. Except in extraordinary circumstances, she said, it was not her job. Still, her approach was subtly shifting. During the inaugural address for her second term as attorney general, Ms. Harris said the nations police forces faced a crisis of confidence. And by the end of her tenure in 2016, she had proposed a modest expansion of her offices powers to investigate police misconduct, begun reviews of two municipal police departments and backed a Justice Department investigation in San Francisco. Critics saw her taking baby steps when bold reform was needed  a microcosm of a career in which she developed a reputation for taking cautious, incremental action on criminal justice and, more often than not, yielding to the status quo. So yes, across an 11-year span, Harris did offer the contrasting statements about police displayed above. Whether they're evidence of hypocrisy on her part or of an authentic shift in her thinking and viewpoint is a subjective issue. Harris, Kamala with Joan O'C. Hamilton.  Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor's Plan to Make Us Safer.
  Chronicle Books, 2009.  ISBN 978-0-8118-6528-9  (p. 50).
 Lerer. Lisa.  "Kamala Harris Is Done Explaining Racism."
  The New York Times.  10 June 2020. Hakim, Danny et al.  "Top Cop Kamala Harriss Record of Policing the Police."
  The New York Times.  9 August 2020.
Since at least July 2021, online advertisements have displayed the words: "[Pics] Drone Captures Photos We're Not Supposed to See." It showed a purported drone photograph of a massive nest or other object hanging off a telephone pole or power lines. The ads appeared to promise answers. For example, this ad appeared next to an article on the 10news.com website. 10news.com  The ad showed a strange object blanketing power lines or a telephone pole.  A variation of the ad said: "Drone Snaps Photos No One Should Ever See." A third version read: "Photos That Can Give You A New Perspective." They were sponsored by the Definition.org website, which has quite the track record for misleading clickbait. The ad was hosted by the Outbrain advertising network. quite the track record misleading clickbait Clicking on the ads led to a 39-page slideshow article and a headline that read: "Drone Photos Taken In Mid Air Will Have You Feeling Uneasy." article The article contained several photographs that appeared to be shot from the air, whether by a drone, helicopter, or airplane. One claimed it showed the aftermath of a residential explosion. Another described a shot that was purportedly captured over Barcelona, Spain. We also found a picture that was said to show volcanic activity in Iceland. a residential explosion Another Barcelona, Spain picture Iceland We clicked through all 39 pages. The article never mentioned the photograph from the ad. It was clickbait. We clicked "next page" nearly 40 times so you dont have to. The picture in the ad was not captured high in the sky using a drone. It appeared to be shot on the ground by artist and photographer Dillon Marsh of Dillon Marsh Photography. We found no credit to Marsh on the Definition.org website. Dillon Marsh Dillon Marsh Photography The picture showed a large birds' nest for the sociable weaver, built on a telephone pole. The bird species lives in the Kalahari region of southern Africa. sociable weaver  Sociable weavers in Lijjersdraai Picnic Site at Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park in Northern Cape, South Africa. (Courtesy: Bernard Dupont/Flickr)  The only place they can be found in the United States is with the San Diego Zoo. The zoo described the nests built by sociable weavers as providing enough living space for an "entire colony as well as for future residents." The nests can hold up to 400 birds and can potentially last an entire century. described  Weaver birds' nests on the top of telegraph and telephone poles in the Namib desert region of southwest Africa. (Courtesy: Matt Mawson/Getty Images)  Nests built by the species are made from large twigs, dry grasses, straw, soft plants, cotton, fur, and fluff. The zoo also published that a "proper nesting tree has a long, smooth trunk and high branches to discourage slithering predators." This is perhaps what makes a telephone pole the perfect trunk for sociable weavers. The nests keep the sociable weavers cool in the summer and warm on cold nights. They welcome other birds inside, such as the South African pygmy falcon, pied barbet, familiar chat, red-headed finch, ashy tit, and rosy-faced lovebird. Vultures, eagles, and owls can also sometimes be seen on top of the nests. The added company is said to make for a more secure home from predators.  A view from underneath a sociable weaver nest. (Courtesy: Rui Ornelas/Flickr)  As for food, the zoo's page about the sociable weaver said that they "need less water than any other bird" and that "most never take a drink." They get their moisture from bugs. For more on the species, visit the San Diego Zoo website. San Diego Zoo website Several other photographs of the nests can be viewed on the Getty Images website. Several other photographs nests viewed In sum, ads promised to reveal something about a strange drone photograph that "we're not supposed to see." The long articles that resulted from the ads never mentioned the picture. In reality, it was shot from ground level and showed a massive nest built on a telephone pole by sociable weavers. Note: Photographs from Flickr are credited to Bernard Dupont and Rui Ornelas. Matt Mawson shot the Getty Images picture. The photograph in the ad, which went uncredited by the advertiser, appeared to originally be captured by Dillon Marsh. Bernard Dupont Rui Ornelas Matt Mawson Dillon Marsh Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us Sometimes, Snopes readers stumble on old stories that require us to revisit key moments of history. One such story was of the courageous actions of Neerja Bhanot, an Indian flight attendant on Pan Am flight 73, which was hijacked in 1986 by Palestinian militants on its way to the United States while on a stopover in Karachi, Pakistan. Neerja Bhano Many of our readers shared social media posts, and queries, asking us to detail some of the main events of the hijacking, including Bhanots death from a gunshot wound. posts   One reader asked us to confirm the following: When radical Islamic terrorists hijacked her A/C in Karachi, Pakistan she informed the pilots (who used their escape hatch to runaway) and kept both the passengers/remaining crew calm. When the terrorists demanded to know who the Americans were on the flight so they could execute them she gathered all the passports and hid the ones belonging to Americans under seat cushions. The terrorists confused and unable to determine the national origins of the passengers didn't execute anyone. When Pakistani police raided the plane she was able to nearly singlehandedly evacuate all the passengers as the firefight ensued. She being one of the last people on board did a last check and found three children still hiding. As she led the children to safety the surviving terrorists spotted the children and opened fire on them. Neerja jumped in the way of the bullets and was mortally wounded. She was able to evac the children to safety before dying from her wounds. Neerja was awarded the Ashok Chakra Award by India, the highest peacetime gallantry award possible. She was the youngest and first civilian to ever be awarded this honor. Through testimonies from the flight crew and passengers during the sentencing of one of the hijackers, and interviews done by the BBC, we were able to gather key facts from that fateful day. In 2004, Zayad al Safarini, a Jordanian hijacker who was part of the attack, was sentenced by a U.S. district judge to 160 years in prison. At the hearing for his sentencing, a number of passengers, flight attendants, and Bhanots brother, came forward to recount the events of the hijacking. The full transcript of their testimonies can be read here. testimonies BBC sentenced here The Palestinian militants who hijacked the aircraft were affiliated with the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), which was opposed to U.S. and Israeli policies in the Middle East, and was described as a secular international terrorist organization. When the hijackers boarded the plane, they began trying to identify any Americans on board. A 2016 BBC report included interviews with the surviving flight attendants, described the scene: described BBC report Sunshine, Madhvi Bahuguna and another flight attendant began collecting passports, quietly avoiding collecting any that were American. They then went through the bags of passports they had collected, secretly sifting out any remaining American ones and tucking them under their seats or concealing them in their clothing. Mike Thexton, a passenger on the plane, describes the act in his book What Happened to The Hippy Man? as "extremely brave, selfless and clever". "I may be biased but I feel that day proved that the flight attendants on board were some of the best in the industry." Descriptions from passengers and family members from the sentencing of Safarini detailed the moment that flight attendants were told to gather passports, and the ways in which they tried to protect the Americans among them. Aneesh Bhanot, Neerjas brother, who was not on the plane as these events took place, described this effort as one carried out by all the flight attendants together: Descriptions Neerja was an Indian citizen. All the other flight attendants were also Indian citizens. Mr. Safarini and his gang were targeting Americans, as was very obvious from the passenger calls which you heard later on. Neerja and all the other attendants knew this. That is why when they asked them to get the passports of all the passengers, they hid the American passports on the airplane. He also cited the testimony of another passenger that was published in the Cincinnati Enquirer in September 1986. A clipping of that paper is available below (in which Bhanot is referred to as Neerja Mishra):   Michael John Thexton, a British passenger, recounted the following: recounted Then came the call for passports, and I should have ignored it. But I felt that I had to obey orders. So I took out my passport and I handed it in, still thinking that the Americans would be in front of us, not reckoning the ingenuity and the extraordinary bravery of the stewardess who was making the collection in discarding American passports that had a white face. I suppose the British were [the] third choice for the terrorists. And after the Americans and the Israelis, mine was the only one of a small handful of British passports with a white face in that pile. I think maybe six or seven, something of that sort. So the call came over the public address for passenger Michael John to come forward, then Michael John Thexton, and I knew that they wanted to shoot me. Darrell Pieper, an American passenger, credited flight attendant Sunshine Vesuwala for protecting his identity. In his testimony, he said, Sunshine hid my passport when she realized the hijackers are looking for Americans. I'm grateful to her for her quick thinking and action, which again saved my life. credited Gregg Maisel, the attorney representing the U.S. government, said, the flight attendants, risking their own lives, deliberately refused to accept United States passports from some passengers and hid several United States passports under seat cushions. said Given that Bhanot played a big role in protecting the American passengers by hiding their passports, but was not the only flight attendant doing this, we rate this part of the claim as true. In this instance, even as Bhanot showed remarkable bravery in getting passengers to safety, she was not alone in this effort. According to Maisel, passengers escaped after Bhanot and others were able to open up some exits: escaped As the bullets and grenades flew, Neerja Bhanot, as well as other flight attendants and passengers, heroically managed to force open two exits in the economy section. The opening of the rear exit triggered inflation of the emergency slide, but the opening of the exit over the wing did not trigger the inflation of a second emergency slide. People clamored to reach both exits fearful that the hijackers would resume the assault.[...]This diagram illustrates the efforts of surviving hostages to escape the aircraft using the emergency slide and climbing onto the wing of the plane. While the slide was a safer escape route, the sheer number of people attempting to leave the plane through this exit at night resulted in additional injuries to some who were unable to exit quickly enough to avoid being crushed by others behind them.[...]At the direction of several flight attendants, other passengers reentered the plane climbing over the wounded and the dead and used the rear exit where the slide was inflated to the safer escape route. Aneesh Bhanot also recounted an article written by a Pakistani passenger: recounted There's another passenger from Pakistan, a gentleman called Hussein, who had written an article in a newspaper called the Star of Pakistan. And he wrote again that says as the lights went out at 10:00 p.m. we was herded with the passengers and the shooting started. From nowhere, his savior, Neerja, and I'm sure other flight attendants also did the same thing, had the presence and the nerve to steer through the pandemonium to lead the passengers where to go. Neerja, by sheer zest, it seems, single-handedly opened the chute. Her favorite words to him and other passengers were, get out, run. In this instance, since Bhanot appeared to have taken the lead in helping passengers escape and was also aided by other crew and passengers, we rate this part of the claim as a mixture, given that she did not do this alone. Bhanots death was described through different accounts, based on information gathered in the aftermath of the attack. Some reports said she was protecting three children, while flight attendants described her being shot during the escape. Jennifer Levy, another attorney representing the U.S. government, described Bhanots final moments: described When the lights went out just before the final assault, Ms. Bhanot ran for the emergency door and activated the inflatable chute. Instead of escaping as one of the first off the aircraft, she remained on board to help others out of the plane. She was shot in the final assault. Although she was taken off the plane alive by her fellow flight attendants, she died shortly afterwards of massive bleeding. Viraf Daroga, Pan Ams director in Pakistan, described how Bhanot was brought down from the aircraft through the emergency chute: described Those who were injured were picked up as they came down the chute, put in ambulances that came rushing to the aircraft, and were driven off to various hospitals. Neerja, the senior purser, was brought down by her colleagues and was taken to the hospital. She died in the hospital in the arms of one of my staff. Aneesh Bhanots testimony described how Bhanot was indeed protecting three children when she was shot and killed: described Neerja could have been the first one to escape from the aircraft as she opened the emergency door, yet she chose not to do that. Instead, she got the passengers out and gave her own life, as we are told, while shielding three small children from gunfire. Her actions probably saved hundreds of lives. The Pan Am Historical Foundation also described her death by saying As the hijackers opened fire on passengers and crew, Neerja Bhanot lost her life shielding three children from bullets. described Since reports differ on what happened during Bhanots final moments, and some details remain uncertain, we rate the overall truth of this claim as "Mixture." But there is no doubting that her actions, as well as the actions of other flight attendants and crew, saved many lives. She was posthumously awarded the Ashok Chakra award, which is India's highest civilian decoration for bravery.  Ashok Chakra award Claim:  An amendment to Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) requires gay residents to wear a sensor for identification.  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, April 2015] it basically says that Indiana is making a law where all gay people haveto wear a sensor to alert storeowners when they enter an establishment.sounds really fake to me, but, people have been re-posting it all oversocial media.   Origins:  On 28 March 2015, the Free Wood Post published an article titled "Indiana Requiring All Gay Residents to Wear Sensor That Will Trigger Alarm Upon Entering a Store". (Interestingly, that article was published prior to a large national debate that occurred after the owners of an Indiana pizza restaurant controversially supported the law during the course of a 31 March 2015 news interview.) article restaurant The  Free Wood Post's article didn't attempt to tread a line of plausibility in its claims: As an amendment to Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, all LGBT citizens will be required to register with the state so that they can be mailed a sensor to wear on their body at all times. The sensor is so that any business that doesn't want an LGBT individual entering their establishment will be notified immediately of their arrival and an alarm will sound. These sensors will be much like a modern day version of the 'Star of David' Jewish citizens in Germany were required to wear during the time of Hitler's reign. The article included a purported quote from Indian governor Mike Pence about the amendment to the RFRA: It's all about freedom. Freedom for these business owners to know all the money they're receiving didn't come from gay hands. That's the devil's money, really. And who wants to pay payroll or rent or taxes with the devil's money? Although (coincidentally) well-timed, the article was nothing more than a spoof published by a satirical web site. Free Wood Post's disclaimer page states: disclaimer Free Wood Post is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within FreeWoodPost.com are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental, except for all references to politicians and/or celebrities, in which case they are based on real people, but still based almost entirely in fiction. FreeWoodPost.com is intended for a mature, sophisticated, and discerning audience. Previous Free Wood Post articles included a claim that the FCC had labeled Fox News as satire, quoted Ann Romney on the wage gap, and suggested that Mitt Romney had said he could relate to black people because his ancestors owned slaves. Fox News Ann Romney Mitt Romney   Last updated:  16 April 2015 In early July 2020, social media users shared a meme that continued to fuel long-standing culture war animosity directed at former NFL player and civil rights activist Colin Kaepernick, this time by noting that he had been "hired" by Disney to "teach your kids about American history." culture war   The meme both sensationalizes and exaggerates Kaepernick's role with Disney. While it's true that Kaepernick has made an agreement with Disney and ESPN Films to create a documentary series focusing on race, that doesn't mean he has been "hired" by Disney to "teach children" about American history.  On July 6, the former San Francisco 49ers quarterback and Disney announced a first-look deal for a documentary series  to be produced by ESPN Films  about Kaepernick's experience, according to a press release from ESPN. press release "Colins experience gives him a unique perspective on the intersection of sports, culture and race, which will undoubtedly create compelling stories that will educate, enlighten and entertain, and we look forward to working with him on this important collaboration," Disney executive chairman Bob Iger said in the statement. Per the press release, the "first project in development as part of this deal is an exclusive docuseries chronicling Kaepernicks journey. Using extensive new interviews and a vast never-before-seen archive that documents his last five years, Kaepernick will tell his story from his perspective." Overall, the partnership "will focus on telling scripted and unscripted stories that explore race, social injustice and the quest for equity, and will provide a new platform to showcase the work of Black and Brown directors and producers." Kaepernick has been a lightning rod in popular culture since 2016, when he began protesting systematic racism and police violence against Black Americans by kneeling during the national anthem before NFL games. His protest was mimicked by other players, but it also became a recurring talking point among media pundits, some of whom accused him of disrespecting national symbols. This narrative has been echoed by the White House. accused echoed The issue Kaepernick raised with his protest has hardly gone away. In the spring of 2020, racial justice protests swept the country after a video went viral of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on the neck of George Floyd, a Black man, for almost nine minutes. Floyd died in police custody. The public outcry coupled with massive protests prompted a national conversation about racism and compelled many businesses  including entertainment companies  to reckon with their own failures when it comes to racial equality. Lopez, Isabelle."The Walt Disney Company Announces Overall First-Look Del with Colin Kaepernick."
ESPN Press Room.6 July 2020. Steinberg, Brian."Colin Kaepernick Signs First-Look Deal With Walt Disney."
Variety.6 July 2020. Adler, Dan."Our Never-Ending Culture Wars: Colin Kaepernick and Nikes Betsy Ross Air Maxes Edition."
Vanity Fair.2 July 2019. BBC."Trump: NFL Kneelers 'Maybe Shouldn't Be in Country.'"
24 May 2018. Johnson, Martenzie."Colin Kaepernick Tried to Tell White America."
The Undefeated.30 May 2020. Jobs in manufacturing, especially in the auto industry, drew so much attention in recent political campaigns that one observer speculated every man, woman and child in Ohio must spend their days building cars.PolitiFact Ohio knew that was a joke, but the focus on factories increased our interest in comments by Gov. John Kasich when he addressed the 2012 meeting of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation on Nov. 29, 2012. The Ohio Capital Blog recorded the event.Agriculture, Kasich said,  is the strongest industry in Ohio and the bedrock of the state of Ohio.We've heard similar comments from others: Sen. Sherrod Brown (the state's No. 1 industry), the state Department of Agriculture (Ohio's No. 1 industry) and the Farm Bureau itself (Ohio's top industry).It's a bipartisan claim.But PolitiFact Ohio wondered what measure makes agriculture No. 1. Employment? Dollars generated? Taxes levied? Square footage?So we called Kasich's office and the state Agriculture Department and asked for sources.Both referred us to OHFOOD, for Ohio food, which is an annually updated economic model developed by Thomas L. Sporleder, the much-cited professor of agribusiness at The Ohio State University.The model, by its own description, is designed to capture the inter-dependencies and linkages among various sectors and industries composing the complex economy of Ohio and specifically to provide estimates of the economic importance of the food and agriculture-related cluster, along with the general manufacturing and service sectors, of the Ohio economy.Agriculture Department spokeswoman Erica Pitchford Hawkins said the analysis is the most comprehensive study available of Ohio agribusiness, and we could find nothing comparable.The most recent, from June 2012, uses data from 2010 gathered primarily federal and county level agencies, Sporleder said.In 2010, the study found, the total food and agricultural cluster contributed 11.7 percent, or $105 billion, of Ohio's total economic output of $898.7 billion. The cluster's share of the gross state product of $477.7 billion was $51 billion, or almost 11 percent.Ohio's gross state product improved by 1.3 percent from 2008 to 2010, the study said, while the portion attributed to the agrifood cluster increased about 30 percent.The agrifood cluster accounts for 14 percent of Ohio employment, or about 1 of 7 jobs. It gained 1 percent from 2008 to 2010, a period when total employment declined about 3 percent.There are some points worth noting:In the OHFOOD study, the financial, legal and real estate cluster is listed as a larger private sector of the state economy than the agrifood cluster. Kasich's office, though, pointed out that the grouping of financial services, legal services and real estate activities is particular to the study. That grouping is not used by such agencies as the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.Sporleder told us the cluster is grouped because its all service related, but its not a supply chain in the way food and agriculture is.That leaves food and agriculture the biggest sector of the state economy.If youre only talking about commodities, thats not the case, Sporleder said, meaning the cluster is more than just farming. If youre talking wheat to flour to bread, you get the sector build-up. Its an interdependent supply chain.More than just farming, the agrifood or agribusiness cluster also encompasses processing, wholesaling and retailing, and food services. As a group, it accounts for $3 billion of the gross state product in the OHFOOD mode.Kasich described agriculture as the strongest industry in Ohio. Data shows that the agrifood sector is the largest sector of the states economy.His statement is accurate. On the Truth-O-Meter, it rates True. Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., offered several arguments against Republican efforts to pass a tax bill during an interview on CNNsState of the Union, including the impact of the deduction for state and local taxes and its effects on the balance of federal revenues and spending. But one criticism was procedural, echoing earlier Democratic complaints that Republican bills to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act had been crafted behind closed doors and without normal steps such as committee hearings. And let me tell you, there is a reason why this plan has been prepared in secret, why it's not being scored by the Congressional Budget Office, as it is traditionally,Durbin told host Jake Tapper. It's because it doesn't add up. Does Durbin have a point that the CBO has been unusually absent in this process? Not by the way ordinary viewers would hear it. The Senate Democratic whip, Dick Durbin of Illinois, appeared on CNN's State of the Union on Nov. 12, 2017. The CBO is Congress nonpartisan number-crunching office, best known for its detailed analyses of pending legislation. However, theres one exception to CBOs role in vetting proposed legislation: tax bills. That duty falls instead to a similar, nonpartisan congressional office known as the Joint Committee on Taxation. The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the Joint Committee (on Taxation) to provide revenue estimates for all tax legislation considered by either the House or the Senate, the committees websiteexplains. Such estimates are the official congressional estimates for reported tax legislation. And by the time Durbin had made his comment to Tapper, the joint committee had already published analyses of the House version of the tax bill. On Nov. 9, the committee published an analysis of the billsrevenue impact. Two days later, the committee publishedtwootheranalyses, including one on how the bill would affect various segments of the income spectrum. The joint committee has scored versions of both the House and Senate bills, said Eric Toder, a co-director of the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center. And they are the official scorekeepers for tax legislation. As it happens, CBO has also publishedone analysisof the bill, addressing estimated deficits and debt. But even this is based heavily on the Joint Committee on Taxations work, said Douglas Elmendorf, a former Democratic-appointed CBO director who now serves as dean of Harvard Universitys Kennedy School of Government. The joint committee provides the official estimates to Congress of the effects of proposed changes in the Internal Revenue Code, Elmendorf said. When a tax bill is voted out of committee, CBO releases an official cost estimate because CBOs statutory responsibility is to provide estimates for all bills voted out of committee  but that estimate is simply JCTs numbers with a CBO letterhead, and with due credit given to JCT in the text of the estimate. In other words, Elmendorf said, the Republicans are doing their duty. When we contacted Durbins office, spokesman Ben Marter pointed to a narrower interpretation of Durbins words. He said that in the Senate, Republicans have a potential problem with the Byrd rule, which determines whether a bill can be taken up under reconciliation, a process that effectively requires only 51 votes rather than 60 votes for passage. That violation would have to be fixed before their bill can move in the Senate, but the fix to address future revenue projections is being written in secret, and we likely wont see that until the bill is on the floor in the form of a substitute amendment, as they did with their health care bill, Marter said. Such a substitute amendment would become the bill, Marter said, and under the budget resolution, Senate Budget Chairman Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., could waive the requirement for a full score analysis before its voted on. An important point to remember about the Durbin teams analysis: Its based on speculation about future events. Durbins literal words gave viewers a different story -- that the Republicans are already blocking CBO from scoring the bill -- and that is incorrect on at least two levels. Durbin said the Republican tax bill is not being scored by the Congressional Budget Office, as it is traditionally. Under the most obvious interpretation of that statement, Durbin is incorrect. The nonpartisan analysis for tax bills is actually a task handled by the Joint Committee on Taxation, and the committee has been actively analyzing the Republican tax bills. We rate the statement False. Twenty-three years into his Senate tenure, Wisconsins Herb Kohl hasnt announced whether he will seek another six-year term in 2012.But as Republicansstep up their criticismof him, Kohl is making crystal clear his disdain for the kind of rough-and-tumble campaign environment that almost surely would be part of another campaign.Compared to his last couple races when Kohl used his massive personal fortune to vanquish underfunded opponents with soft-sell TV ads, it would be a new environment for the senator who owns the Milwaukee Bucks and built the Kohls department and grocery store chains.Inremarks to reportersin Madison on April 28, 2011, Kohl ruminated about the state of todays campaigns. He said people dont like anybody in public life because of venomous attacks and sniping among congressional members, something he said he engages in hardly at all.Then he got specific: Ive been through four campaigns and have not done any negative campaigning. And I dont get into any personal jousts with other people in public life. But thats just my style.So has Kohl really avoided any negative campaigning?Thats quite a claim in this age of mud-slinging and aggressive campaign tactics. We decided to check it out.Of course, it would be impossible to track down every campaign statement Kohl made since 1988 and copies of decades-old TV ads. So we focused our look-back to media descriptions of TV ads, debates and the candidates strategies in his four races. We also talked to the people who should know best: several of his former opponents or their aides, Kohls campaign staff, and a longtime political reporter.Kohl has of course benefited from negative attacks launched by groups supporting his campaigns, but he spoke only of his own campaigns conduct, so well limit our review to that.One more note before we begin: Because there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes negative campaigning, we asked Team Kohl what exactly he meant by his claim.Sen. Kohl has said that he believes campaigning is about telling the people of Wisconsin what hes done and what he plans to do, not tearing down his opponent or telling people not to vote for them, Kohl press secretary Lynn Becker said. He has not been deliberately malicious or factually dishonest in his campaigns or while serving in public office.Indeed, his two most recent opponents said there was no negative campaigning in their contests -- and had high praise for Kohl.He never did anything negative in his campaign. Hell have the job as long as he wants the job, said John Gillespie, founder of Rawhide Boys Ranch, who lost to Kohl in 2000.Say hi to Herb if you talk to him. Tell him I owe him a dinner, said Robert Lorge, Kohls 2006 rival.Fair enough. Those were landslide wins.What about the earlier contests?1988:Kohl was a surprise entrant in the Democratic primary, winning the nomination comfortably over former Gov. Tony Earl, Ed Garvey and Doug La Follette. Hefrustrated hisrivalsby limiting his debate participation and spending millions on TV ads.At the time,Earls media consultant David Axelrod chargedthat Kohls popular slogan -- Nobodys Senator But Yours -- was an implicit negative attack. It implied that candidates who -- unlike Kohl -- have to raise most of their campaign money are beholden to donors, said Axelrod, who later went on to help a guy named Barack Obama get elected president.Earlattacked Kohl as uninformed and error-prone, prompting Kohl campaign aide Bill Christofferson to call Earl desperate and guilty of misrepresentation.Insiders on both sides agree that Kohl ran no attack ads in the primary -- and none in the very tight general election that saw Republican state legislator Susan Engeleiterclose the gap to just a fewpointswith a series of ads targeting Kohl in the closing weeks.Engeleiter herself told us she has nothing but positive recollections of a pretty cordial campaign. She also praised Kohls dealing with her when she later was confirmed as administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration.La Follette and Garvey say today that they wouldnt call Kohls primary race negative. Regarding Kohls slogan, La Follette agreed with Kohl aide Christofferson, who said:  Herb Kohl was talking about himself, not anyone else, when he promised to be 'nobody's senator but yours. 'Indeed, Kohl explicitly used his positive campaign ads as a selling point, and called his victory a blow against negative campaigning.1994:In his first re-election campaign, Kohl wasted little timeaggressively portraying Republican opponent Robert Welch, a state lawmaker from Redgranite, as an extreme conservative and flip-flopper. At an early debate, he cited Welchs no-exceptions stance against abortion and his vow never to vote for a tax hike as extreme. According to media accounts, he did not explain the flip-flop charge.Afterwards, Welch told reporters Kohl was nastier than I expected.Later, after Welch attempted to tie Kohl to President Clinton, Kohl launched arare TV ad that focused on an opponentby name. Another followed. The ads accused Welch of distorting Kohls record. One said that fellow Republicans had criticized Welchs tactics -- something deemed misleading in aMilwaukee Journal fact check.The exchange led Welch to accuse Kohl of running a multimillion dollar mudslinging campaign. Kohl said it was Welch who went negative.The rhetoric heated up. At one point in the race, after Welch accused Kohl of religion bashing, Kohl spokesman Jeffrey Gillis said that  Welch's attack again shows that he'll say or do anything to get elected.So, that seems like quite a bit of snarling.Looking back, though, Welchs campaign manager Mike Maxwell doesnt have strong opinions about the back and forth.I dont know that Kohl was particularly negative through that election, he told us. He didnt recall the distort ad that Kohl ran. He did say that some might consider the extreme charge a negative attack.Kohl, Maxwell recalled, just had overwhelming resources and then he signed (Bucks first round draft choice Glenn Robinson) six days before the election. (We could not reach Welch for comment).Kenneth Lamke, a Milwaukee Sentinel reporter who covered the 1994 race, offered the strongest opinion we heard on whether Kohl went negative against Welch. He says yes.Lamke said the extreme charge by Kohl was within bounds but uncharacteristic of Herb. Lamke viewed the attack as unprovoked and an exaggeration; Gillis, the Kohl aide, said it was a response to the drumbeat of criticism of Kohl during the Republican primary. Lamke, we should note, asked us to describe his personal politics as leans Republican.We asked several political scientists to characterize the language of the Kohl ad. They reacted cautiously because we could not provide the ad itself, just direct quotes from it in media accounts. That makes it impossible to fully judge the tone. Vanderbilt professor John Geer, an author of a much-cited book on negative campaigning, said it sounded like a tame response ad -- not the kind of classic negative ad the public doesnt like. Darrell West, of the Brookings Institution, agreed. UW-Madisons Ken Goldstein said Kohls ad met the academic research definition of negative because it focused on Welch, not Kohl. The test of whether it was unfair is whether it was accurate, he said. So Kohls campaigns have been remarkably low-confrontation affairs, with the most notable exception being 1994, the first -- and perhaps only -- time Kohl aired TV spots going after an opponent.So how does Kohl fare on his statement that he has never campaigned negatively?Clearly, Kohl has spent the vast bulk of his time and money on upbeat, positive ads. Even his opponents agree strongly with that -- one even wants to buy him dinner.The only ad that pops up as arguably negative is the 1994 distort spot against Welch. It drew some critical attention, but is viewed as a pretty tame response ad. Beyond that, Kohls campaigns have engaged in some labeling and name calling. And Kohls aggressive 1994 portrayal of Welch as an extremist was arguably negative.Kohl is mostly on target here, with some minor exceptions.Mostly True. On 1 March 2016, a number of American states held "Super Tuesday" primaries. The next day, Google Trends tweeted that searches originating from the United Statesaboutemigrating from the toCanada reached an all-time high: Super Tuesday Searches for "Move to Canada" are higher than at any time in Google history #SuperTuesday pic.twitter.com/0KBJPrHdEO #SuperTuesday pic.twitter.com/0KBJPrHdEO  GoogleTrends (@GoogleTrends) March 2, 2016 Google offered no explanation for the spike, but on2 March 2016, the Washington Post published apiecethat maintained thatthe real winner of Super Tuesday was "Canada":  piece Donald Trump was projected to win in at least seven states. Chris Christie, who endorsed Trump last week, was shown standing behind the Republican presidential front-runner wearing an expression of unmasked horror. And, the government of Canadas immigration website was experiencing delays. Coincidence? The Internet didnt think so. By the end of the night, Trump had secured victories in seven states, well ahead of his competitors. But his popularity wasnt apparent on Facebook and Twitter, where users lamented the billionaire real estate moguls rise and contemplated fleeing the country ... Simon Rogers, a data editor at Google, noted that the phrases search popularity had increased by 350 percent between 8 p.m. and midnight Eastern. At midnight, the spike reached 1,500 percent. To quote Trump himself, Just look at the numbers, way up! The Washington Post included a tweet of a screenshot of the Canadian immigration web site published late on 1 March 2015:  Canada's immigration website is being overloaded with web traffic after Super Tuesday results. pic.twitter.com/JqxW8ZSUHB  jay newman (@Big_Dread) March 2, 2016 pic.twitter.com/JqxW8ZSUHB March 2, 2016  However, it wasn't immediately clear whether Super Tuesday (or any other specific event) spurred the search spike. U.S. News & World Report dug into the data, and discovered that the searches were indeed highest in two states where Trump won primaries on Super Tuesday (Massachusetts and Virginia). discovered But that outlet uncovered some other related search data that suggested the cause and effect wasn't necessarily cut and dried. For example, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders received equal attention in related searches, but no one seemed to be blaming the spike on him:    Vox pointed out that while the spike following the re-election of George W. Bush appeared smaller, that was also a periodbeforesmartphones and widespread use of social media. TIME reported that immigration did increasefollowing that election, but no one is sure specifically what caused thatuptick. (Confounding factors like a weak economy or increased internet relationships could have also been factors.) pointed reported Shortly after the story made its rounds, psychology professor Adam Alter speculatedthat few truly would leave the United States: speculated In truth, though, few of Trumps detractors are likely to leave the country because of Novembers results. And had Mitt Romney won in 2012, as I wrote then for the Atlantic, few diehard supporters of President Obamas would have done so, either. This pattern has a history: Twelve years ago, as George W. Bush took a commanding lead over John F. Kerry in the polls, Canadian immigration applications tripled. Visits to the immigration departments website skyrocketed from an average of 20,000 per day to 115,000 the day after Bush won the election. A small crop of diehard liberals followed through, but U.S-Canadian immigration was ultimately unchanged in the year following the election. Two years later, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh promised to move to Costa Rica if the Affordable Care Act passed. It did, but Limbaugh still lives in Palm Beach, Fla. Why do so many disgruntled voters threaten to leave the country, only to see so few actually follow through? Because people overestimate how much pain theyll feel when they experience a dreaded outcome. A key aspect of the rumor hinged on the number of Americans searching for ways to get out of the country on Canada'sofficial immigration site, but when we visited that link on 9 March 2016, a nearly identical error message appeared: link    The exact impetus for the rise insearchesfor the phrase "move to Canada" remains unclear.WhileAmericans on both sides of the aislethreaten to leave thecountry for political reasons during every election, studiessuggest that only a handful follow through with such plans. Also, reported error messages on the Canadian immigration website on 1 March 2016 were still in place on 9 March 2016, more than a weekafterthe spike in searches abated. On Feb. 21, 2023, a Twitter user posted a video with a caption that claimed it had been recorded by NASA "eight years ago" and showed two rectangular UFOs being flown by aliens. The tweet read, "Two UFOs recorded by NASA eight years ago have finally been released. Two rectangular UFOs are fast moving through an 'atmosphereless' region of space. It turns out that it transcends the technology of NASA." The tweet ended with the hashtag, "#Aliens." Readers likely won't be surprised to learn that this was not true. [See also:Is Outer Space 'Only an Hour Away' if You Could Drive Straight up at 60 MPH?] Is Outer Space 'Only an Hour Away' if You Could Drive Straight up at 60 MPH? The video truly was released by NASA, but it had not been "recorded" with cameras. The clip showed a digital animation created byNASA's Scientific Visualization Studio thatshowed two twin spacecraft satellites from theGravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) mission, not "two rectangular UFOs" being flown by aliens. (Twitter user @HoaxEye alsonotedthe truth behind this video.) Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) mission noted The part from the tweet appears at the 1:37 mark in the video's upload on theNASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory YouTube channel.  The original GRACE science mission ended in October 2017.NASApublished that its purpose had been to "study key changes in the planet's waters, ice sheets and the solid Earth": NASA An award-winning mission that's changed the way we study Earth's gravitational forces and the Earth system, the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, or GRACE, mission flew twin spacecraft in tandem around Earth to study key changes in the planet's waters, ice sheets and the solid Earth. In 2011, the gravity measurement technique pioneered by GRACE, which works by measuring changes in the push and pull between the twin spacecraft as they orbit Earth, was put to use on NASA's twin GRAIL spacecraft embarking on an ambitious mission to study the gravitational forces of Earth's moon. In more than 15 years of operations, the GRACE satellite mission revolutionized our view of how water moves and is stored on Earth. GRACE measured changes in the local pull of gravity as water shifts around Earth due to changing seasons, weather and climate processes. Among its innovations, GRACE has monitored the loss of ice mass from Earth's ice sheets, improved understanding of the processes responsible for sea level rise and ocean circulation, provided insights into where global groundwater resources may be shrinking or growing and where dry soils are contributing to drought, and monitored changes in the solid Earth. This story will be updated if further details come to light. "15 Years of GRACE Earth Observations." YouTube, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 15 Mar. 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKVPFyu_tHQ. "Grace - Earth Missions." NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/gravity-recovery-and-climate-experiment-grace. "Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE)." NASA.Gov, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/index.html. @HoaxEye. "That's Animated. Source." Twitter, 21 Feb. 2023, https://twitter.com/hoaxeye/status/1628273280669851651. @uBF2fV1cVQxRjQo. "Two UFOs Recorded by NASA Eight Years Ago Have Finally Been Released. Two Rectangular UFOs Are Fast Moving through an Atmosphereless Region of Space. It Turns out That It Transcends the Technology of NASA." Twitter, 21 Feb. 2023, https://twitter.com/uBF2fV1cVQxRjQo/status/1627956530774675457. Images reflecting an old rumor about the Rothschild Family's unimaginable accumulated global wealth hold that the Rothschilds are worth $500 trillion and hold more than 80% of the world's total wealth:   While the Rothschilds are indeed very wealthy, claims about their net worth such as the ones displayed above are grossly exaggerated. Conspiracy theories concerning the Rothschild family date back to the 18th century, and the family's wealth was largely responsible for the anti-semitic belief that "Jews control the world's money supply." The Rothschilds are frequently associated with theories about the Illuminati, the New World Order, and other dark money groups that supposedly pull the strings of world governments, and the Rothschilds have been blamed for everything from starting wars for personal gain to funding the Holocaust to assassinating U.S. presidents. Skeptoid delved into the Rothschild family history in 2012, noting that: history The greatest of these financial adepts was Mayer Amschel Rothschild, born in 1744 in a Jewish slum of Frankfurt. Not much is known about his early life, as his was one of tens of thousands of marginalized, outcast families. But once he came of age he became an apprentice at a small bank in Hamburg, where he learned the trade. Returning to Frankfurt at the age of 19, he offered his own banking services in a modest way, beginning with trading of rare coins and related investments. He was energetic, clever, and most of all he was charismatic. And he was smart, seeking out wealthy clientele, and associating with nobility whenever he could. By the age of 40, he had consolidated his most important business contact: the Landgrave William, the Elector of Hesse, one of only a tiny number of nobles empowered to elect the Holy Roman Emperor. When William was younger, he had engaged in the trading of rare coins with Mayer's father, and so the two had always known one another. When William inherited his own father's massive fortune, his friendship with Mayer Rothschild gave Mayer the ability to begin conducting larger international transactions. This was the point at which the Rothschild name became first involved with the manipulation of money behind the scenes of wars. Mayer was a firm believer in family business, and insisted on using his own sons  by then he had five  as his business partners. What he did next became the model for many powerful Jewish financiers who followed: He installed each of his five sons as his agents in the five major financial centers of Europe: the eldest Amschel Mayer Rothschild in Frankfurt, Salomon Mayer Rothschild in Vienna, Nathan Mayer Rothschild in London, Calmann Mayer Rothschild in Naples, and the youngest Jakob Mayer Rothschild in Paris. Although the Rothschild family has amassed great wealth since the 1700s, claims that they have a net worth of $500 trillion or that they own 80% of the world's wealth are problematic. For one, the world's total wealth was estimated as of 2015 to be only $250 trillion, half of what the Rothchilds alone are claimed to possess: wealth Global wealth reached 250 trillion US dollars in 2015, slightly less than a year earlier, due to adverse exchange rate movements. The underlying wealth trends do, however, generally remain positive, according to the Credit Suisse Research Institute's annual "Global Wealth Report." Also, the Rothschilds began acquiring their wealth in the 1700s, and since then the family has spawned hundreds of descendants, so there is no longer any centralized Rothschild family wealth.  The closest thing to a "Rothschild Family" business in 2016 is the Rothschild Group, a multinational investment banking company, but that firm does not in itself generate nearly enough income to back up claims about the family's wealth. In 2015, the Rothschild Group's annual revenue was approximately $500 million. In comparison, the world's largest company, Walmart, has an annual revenue of nearly $500 billion. annual Walmart It should also be noted that only one member of the Rothschild family is included among Forbes' 2015 list of the world's billionaires: Benjamin de Rothschild, who was ranked at number #1121 with a net worth of $1.61 billion.  list While the Rothschild family certainly was one of the world's most significant financial powers in centuries past, they no longer wield the same sort of influence over global affairs. Dunning, B.  "The Rothschild Conspiracy." 
  Skeptoid Media.  22 May 2012.  Kersley, Richard.  "Global Wealth in 2015: Underlying Trends Remain Positive."
  Credit Suisse.  13 October 2013.