Did Channing Tatum Come Out as Gay?
On 28 May 2015, a news-like link began to circulate on Facebook claiming popular actor Channing Tatum came out as gay. The link's headline stated "Channing Tatum comes out as Gay," and the preview text read "Channing Tatum comes out as Gay following a number of rumours":  While the rumor was briefly popular on sites like Twitter and Facebook among Tatum's fans, it was generated by the site Feednewz.com. Feednewz.com is not a news site; rather, its primary purpose is the generation of user-submitted links that appear to be news stories. As with a similar viral hoax involving EastEnders actor Danny Dyer, the Channing Tatum hoax spread atypically far for a FeedNewz.com link due to user interest in the fabricated claim. Danny Dyer Claims like the one about Tatum often spread due to a compelling headline alone. Readers who clicked through to the appended link were greeted with the following image revealing the prank:  Channing Tatum did not reveal any new information about his sexuality, and he remained married to actress Jenna Dewan until they separated in March 2018.  Jenna Dewan
Claim:  Osama bin Laden owns Snapple. Status:  False. Origins:  Snapple, the popular beverage company begun in 1972, has been a target of spurious "owned by someone evil" rumors since 1992. Those earlier (and entirely baseless) rumors linked the company with the Ku Klux Klan, not an Arab terrorist. (The KKK-Snapple connection was but one of many similar slanders tying a number of innocent businesses to the KKK  that particularrumored association was far from unique to Snapple.) rumored association But   times change, and so do those whom society views as the evildoers of the hour. Though the KKK is as odious as ever, its particular brand of detestability has been eclipsed by that of the terrorists cowering in the mountains of Afghanistan. One of the many rumors born in the aftermath of the September 11 attack on America links Snapple with Osama bin Laden and calls for a grassroots boycott of this company's line of products. Although bombs seem the obvious way to go after those who perpetrated the terrorist attacks on America, the real key to their undoing may well be economic. But that's not nearly as visceral a solution as going into Afghanistan with a war cry and guns blazing, and it's not one which the average person can participate in or support in a tangible way, and so rumors like the one tying Snapple to Osama bin Laden help fill the void.  The typical American wants to experience the sense of vindication that comes from toppling this manifestation of evil, and so calls to boycott companies which are rumored to be filling the war chests of bin Laden and his cronies therefore fall on highly receptive ears  many want to feel they're part of the struggle, but the very nature of the battle denies them that opportunity. Becoming part of an economic boycott would restore at least a part of that yearning for participation. That type of rumor, though highly welcome, often outruns the facts. That is the case with the call to spurn Snapple: In a lengthy Snapple press release, CEO Michael Weinstein wrote: press release Snapple has never had  and does not now  have any direct or indirect relationship of any kind whatsoever with Osama bin Laden or any other terrorist group or supporter. That same press release contains the likely reason behind this particular blossoming of the "allied with evil" rumor: If the source of these rumors is over our terminated relationship with a Saudi Arabian food distributorship, let me clarify this once and for all. Some of our products  along with products from other respected American beverage and food companies  were distributed by a company that had an investment from The Saudi Binladin Group. Snapple has never had any reason to believe, nor do we now, that this company had any relationship of any kind with terrorists. Nonetheless, several weeks ago, we terminated our relationship with this distributorship. Those unfamiliar with the Binladin Group might conclude from its name that it is Osama bin Laden's corporate presence. In truth, the Binladin Group is one of the many corporate entities owned or participated in by any number of Osama bin Laden's relatives, many of whom spell their surnames as Binladin. The infamous terrorist hails from a family that is both very large and incredibly wealthy. Osama has 54 siblings, and untangling the web of the family's finances and business associations is nearly an impossible task. Though it cannot absolutely be ruled out some of the income flowing into any of these entities reaches Osama bin Laden, it is widely understood that he is the family's black sheep and that many members of this wide-reaching and far-flung assembly of relatives have utterly disowned him.  Osama's half-brother, 35-year-old Abdullah Mohammed Binladin, the only member of the family to speak publicly about their notorious relative since September 11, said: "I affirm that the Binladin family and the Saudi Binladin Group have no relationship whatsoever with Osama or any of his activities. He shares no legal or beneficial interests with them or their assets or properties, and he is not directly or indirectly funded by them."  As to who does own Snapple, it's now part of Cadbury Schweppes, a large UK corporation famous primarily for chocolate and carbonated beverages. Cadbury Schweppes is a publicly traded company on the London Exchange. It is therefore not owned by any one person, but by  thousands. Snapple originated as Unadulterated Food Corporation in 1972 and was little more than a hobby enterprise begun by Leonard Marsh, Hyman Golden, and Arnold Greenberg, who at the time were selling juices to health food stores. The first of its famed teas wasn't introduced until 1987, and the success of that line changed the company. The concern was acquired by Quaker [Oats] in 1994, sold to Triarc in 1997, and sold again to Cadbury Schweppes in 2000.  Untangling the web of who owns what will be one of the biggest tasks those charged with fighting terrorism on the economic front will face in the years to come. It is more than likely the effort will prove that at least some of the terrorists or those who provide their funding have holdings in a variety of American companies that are innocently unaware of the details of each of their minor shareholders' private lives. (The international world of finance being what it is, a diversified portfolio is a must, and that holds true for terrorists as well as for the law-abiding.) That will not mean that those companies whose shares turn up in the wrong hands support terrorism; merely that one of the nasties bought a bit of stock without their knowing who he really was. When such holdings come to light, there will be an outcry against those companies as those looking for someone to direct their anger towards will at least momentarily feel they've found someone deserving of their ire. They'll be wrong, but that will probably do little to stem the tide of criticism they'll unleash. Barbara "who let the dogs out?" Mikkelson Last updated:  21 April 2008    Sources:  Dobbs, Michael and John Ward Anderson.  "A Fugitive's Splintered Family Tree."  The Washington Post.  30 September 2001  (p. A1).   Dunley, Ruth.  "Osama's 'The Black Sheep,' Brother Says."  The Ottawa Citizen.  8 October 2001  (p. A6). Claim:  Senator Chris Dodd opined that a 5% down payment requirement "would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it."  Example:  [Collected via e-mail, May 2010] Democrats Vote Down 5 Percent Rule In a bid to stem taxpayer losses for bad loans guaranteed by federal housing agencies Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn) proposed that borrowers be required to make a 5% down payment in order to qualify. His proposal was rejected 57-42 on a party-line vote because, as Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) explained, "passage of such a requirement would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it." Origins:  One factor that fueled the subprime mortgage crisis of the 2000s was easy access given to home loans for those who were poor risks. As these loans almost inevitably failed, mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures not only rose but spiraled dramatically upwards, seriously affecting banking and financial markets around the world. Many people believe a tightening of lending practices would keep similar economic collapses in the housing market from occurring again, with one proposed tightening being the imposition of a five percent down payment requirement upon prospective home buyers. However, not everyone believes such a requirement would be the best way to deal with the issue, which leads us to the fictitious quote reproduced above. Although the debate was real, the quote wasn't  it was a fabrication which was penned by John Semmens of Semi-News, an online  publication billed as "A Satirical Look at Recent News,"  and appeared as the final item in his 15 May 2010 column. Other offerings from that column include "Election Officials to Bar Voluntary Showing of ID by Voters" (an item that included the made-up statement of a Wisconsin Election Board official: "Allowing those who have valid IDs to show them would intimidate those without IDs. They might be discouraged from attempting to vote. This would lower turnout and threaten the democratic process") and "Crist Refuses to Return GOP Donations" (which quoted Crist as saying: "Look, my view has always been caveat emptor"). column Semi-News is a satire publication, albeit one which draws upon the news of the day. Senator Bob Corker had proposed an amendment (S.A. 3955) to the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 which would have (among other things) instituted a residential mortgage underwriting standard requiring a five percent down payment from prospective home buyers. Democrats did oppose the amendment, with one reason given by Dodd being that  it would have disadvantaged home buyers who had good credit and solid incomes but lacked the cash to make required down payments.  S.A. 3955 Stability Act Last updated:  20 June 2010 In July 2021, photographs and videos started circulating on social media that supposedly showed the world's smallest cow, a 51 centimeters (20 inches) tall dwarf cow in Bangladesh named Raani (possibly spelled Rani): photographs   This is a genuine photograph of a very small cow in Bangladesh. It was taken by Munir Us Zaman, and is available via Getty Images with the caption: A dwarf cow named Rani (bottom), whose owners applied to the Guinness Book of Records claiming it to be the smallest cow in the world, walks next to a goat at a cattle farm in Charigram, about 25 km from Savar on July 6, 2021.  While this is a genuine photograph of a dwarf cow, Raani has not yet been officially declared the world's smallest cow. But Raani's owner, Abu Sufian, has already filed paperwork with the Guinness Book of World Records.  Sufian said: "Guinness has acknowledged our entry and will be doing an independent verification, but we are confident that Raani will get the award." Sufian said At the time of this writing, the official record holder for world's smallest cow (or world's shortest cow) belongs to Manikyam, a 61-centimeter-tall cow in India that has held the record since June 2014.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=walK6YEmFUURaani is certainly smaller than Manikyam and it seems likely that this itty-bitty bovine will soon be crowned the world's smallest cow. Raani, a Bhutti or Bhutanese cow, is reportedly 23 months old. France 24 reports that the other Bhuttis on this farm near Charigram in Bangladesh are more than twice Raani's size.  France 24 reports: reports Rani is a Bhutti, or Bhutanese, cow which is prized for its meat in Bangladesh. The other Bhuttis on the farm are twice Rani's size. "We did not expect such huge interest. We did not think people would leave their homes because of the worsening virus situation. But they have come here in droves," the manager said. Sajedul Islam, the government's chief vet for the region, said Rani is a product of "genetic inbreeding" and was unlikely to become any bigger. Raani has become a popular tourist attraction, with thousands of people flocking to this farm to catch a glimpse of potentially the world's smallest cow. Below is a video report from WION, a news outlet covering southern Asia:  See also on Snopes: Are Cow Farts Causing Global Warming? Are Warning Signs About Parachuting Cows Real? Did a K-9 Dog Bite a Cow, Deputy Tase a K-9, Cow Kick a Deputy? Did a Cow Really Sit on the Hood of this Car? Typhoid Mary was a cook. Working at that job made her single-handedly responsible for multiple outbreaks of typhoid fever, in and around New York City, about a century ago.PolitiFact Ohio couldn't help recalling that bit of history recently after reading advice for the flu season from the Centers for Disease Control, which urged sick people to stay home from work and school to avoid the spread of illness.The history was freshened by last week's news that a college cafeteria worker in Indiana had been diagnosed with typhoid fever, and it came to mind when we saw a release from Sen. Sherrod Brown saying that he is co-sponsoring the Healthy Families Act, which is being reintroduced in Congress.Also called the earned sick time initiative, the legislation would allow workers at businesses with 15 or more employees to earn paid sick days. Workers could earn up to one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked, up to a total of seven days.For far too many Americans, a day home from work means a day without pay, Brown said. Some 40 percent of private-sector workers in the U.S. dont have any paid sick days at all. Its worse for low-income workers  three in four dont have any paid sick days available.We wondered about the numbers. Brown's staff said the source was last year's National Compensation Survey from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.Its chart for paid leave benefits shows that 61 percent of all workers in the private sector have paid sick days -- meaning about 40 percent don't have them.Among the lowest-paid 25 percent of workers, the chart shows that 29 percent have paid sick days, meaning more than 70 percent don't have them.Among the lowest-paid 10 percent of workers, 18 percent have sick days, so 82 percent do not. (Three in four, the figure used by Brown, is 75 percent. )We found other figures as well:. More than three in four food service and hotel workers (78 percent) dont have any paid sick days, according to an analysis by the Institute for Women's Policy Research. Workers without sick days are more likely to go to work with a contagious illness, according to a 2010 survey by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center. And a 2011 study in the American Journal of Public Health estimated that a lack of sick leave helped spread 5 million cases of flu-like illness during the outbreak of 2009.Critics of the sick leave initiative, including the National Association of Independent Businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, say paid sick days add costs to low-margin businesses, are burdensome to business and result in lost jobs.In a recent survey of businesses by the Employment Policies Institute, Roughly 70 percent of respondents said that Connecticuts sick leave law was not good for business, the group said.PolitiFact Ohio is not rating the legislation, however -- only Browns statement on the numbers of workers who dont have access to paid sick days. We rate it True. During the 2020 U.S. presidential campaign, social media postings repeatedly warned readers that Democratic candidate Joe Biden was planning to slap a 3% federal tax on the value of homes, above and beyond any property taxes homeowners were already paying:   However, this warning about a Biden-backed federal property tax was specious. Property taxes in the U.S. are set and collected at the state, county, and city levels, and the announced Biden Tax Plan includes nothing that could be remotely construed as imposing an additional federal property tax on privately-owned homes. announced Biden Tax Plan The Tax Foundation, an independent tax policy nonprofit, summarizes the Biden tax plan as including the following primary elements applicable to individuals (rather than businesses): summarizes Imposes a 12.4 percent Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (Social Security) payroll tax on income earned above $400,000, evenly split between employers and employees. This would create a donut hole in the current Social Security payroll tax, where wages between $137,700, the current wage cap, and $400,000 are not taxed. Reverts the top individual income tax rate for taxable incomes above $400,000 from 37 percent under current law to the pre-Tax Cuts and Jobs Act level of 39.6 percent. Taxes long-term capital gains and qualified dividends at the ordinary income tax rate of 39.6 percent on income above $1 million and eliminates step-up in basis for capital gains taxation. Caps the tax benefit of itemized deductions to 28 percent of value for those earning more than $400,000, which means that taxpayers earning above that income threshold with tax rates higher than 28 percent would face limited itemized deductions. Restores the Pease limitation on itemized deductions for taxable incomes above $400,000. Phases out the qualified business income deduction (Section 199A) for filers with taxable income above $400,000. Expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for childless workers aged 65+; provides renewable-energy-related tax credits to individuals. Expands the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) from a maximum of $3,000 in qualified expenses to $8,000 ($16,000 for multiple dependents) and increases the maximum reimbursement rate from 35 percent to 50 percent. For 2021 and as long as economic conditions require, increases the Child Tax Credit (CTC) from a maximum value of $2,000 to $3,000 for children 17 or younger, while providing a $600 bonus credit for children under 6. The CTC would also be made fully refundable, removing the $2,500 reimbursement threshold and 15 percent phase-in rate. Reestablishes the First-Time Homebuyers Tax Credit, which was originally created during the Great Recession to help the housing market. Bidens homebuyers credit would provide up to $15,000 for first-time homebuyers. Expands the estate and gift tax by restoring the rate and exemption to 2009 levels. Similar analysis of Biden's tax plan by other entities include no mention of a federal property tax. analysis Watson, Garrett et al.  "Details and Analysis of Democratic Presidential Nominee Joe Bidens Tax Plan/
  Tax Foundation.  22 October 2020. Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.  "Understanding Joe Biden's 2020 Tax Plan."
  30 July 2020. Claim:  Monies given to the September 11 Fund are being used to defend suspected terrorists. Status:  False. Example:  [Collected on the Internet, 2001] It may be time for the 9-11 charity relief-fund police to begin phase two of their oversight campaign. If you haven't already heard about it, you're not going to believe this. You've probably read that some of the Sept. 11 relief money was granted to an organization defending people suspected of involvement in the very crimes that made these charitable efforts necessary. The offending organization, the "September 11th Fund," was established by the United Way and the New York Community Trust to receive and distribute donations to help victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. We're not talking about pocket change here. The Fund gave $171,000 to the Legal Aid Society, which is assisting in the legal defense of eight terror suspects now detained in Brooklyn, N.Y. That's like the Heart Association donating to the Society of Sedentary Butter Eaters. Actually, it's worse, because sedentarybutter-eaters harm themselves . . . they don't murder innocent people. Are you outraged yet? If not, there's more. The Fund, far from chastened by criticism from those outraged at the above, is up to further mischief. CNSNews.com now tells us that the Fund has made more than a million dollars worth of grants to various left-wing political groups  CNSNews' characterization, not mine, but it is undeniably correct. Origins:  The above are the opening paragraphs to a 20 November 2001 World Net Daily article written by David Limbaugh, titled "For the Victims?" It circulates in its shortened form (as quoted above) on the Internet rather than as the lengthier original article that continues onto other topics. original article In turn, information touted in the World Net Daily article was drawn from an 8 November article appearing on the National Legal and Policy Center web site. This NLPC press release states a 1 November Wall Street Journal article revealed that the LAS was providing civil legal assistance to eight detainees in the Special Housing Unit of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. The WJS article did indeed say "[New York's] Legal Aid [Society] represents eight [suspected terrorist] detainees  some of whom are still housed in the unit known as 'SHU'  all of them Arabs." The misunderstanding behind this whole matter thus originated with the Wall Street Journal, although it was the NLPC who gave it legs. article Officials of the September 11th Fund deny the allegation that they are funding the legal defense of terrorists. The New York Legal Aid Society echoes that denial, and its statement about the charge (as found on its web site) says:  On November 8, 2001, the National Legal and Policy Center charged that a six-week, $171,000 grant from the September 11 Fund to The Legal Aid Society was used to represent persons in detention accused of terrorism. This charge is not true. Grant funds have been used solely for advocacy on behalf of New Yorkers affected by the attack on the World Trade Center. The New York Legal Aid Society did receive $171,000 from the September 11th Fund, but the money was used for civil legal assistance for families affected by the tragedy who needed help getting access to wills, bank accounts, and insurance. The society also helped staff a family assistance center and provided consultation on a telephone hot line. In addition, attorneys from the Legal Aid Society's immigration unit interviewed several people detained by immigration officials because they had invalid passports or visas.  None of the financial assistance has gone to help terror suspects with their legal problems, although that last item  the interviewing of several foreign nationals who have been held by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) because of invalid paperwork  lays the groundwork for this misunderstanding. The LAS has in the past routinely involved itself in immigration matters, so its agreeing to talk to several INS detainees  some of whom were Arabs  after September 11 was business as usual for them, not a case of their "defending terrorists."  Likewise, that the LAS advised a few key detainees "You'll have to get your own attorney; we won't be representing you" can hardly be interpreted as the LAS' mounting a legal defense of terrorism suspects. According to the New York Legal Aid Society's statement about those meetings (also as found on its web site): After September 11, the Immigration Court asked the Society's Immigration Unit to interview a number of detainees of Arab or Middle Eastern descent because they had no legal counsel. The Society complied with the Immigration Court's request, conducted some interviews, and referred most cases to the private bar. Society Immigration Unit staff accepted three cases for representation and facilitated a settlement for one of these cases. We have recently learned that the other two cases involve issues beyond immigration violations, and our Immigration staff therefore cannot provide further immigration assistance. Accordingly, these two remaining cases have been reassigned to private counsel. The Legal Aid Society's civil staff has not represented and would not represent anyone on matters related to perpetrating the World Trade Center attacks. In other words, two of the three cases accepted by the LAS turned out to involve more than immigration matters, so the LAS immediately backed away from them once it knew there was more involved. (Reading between the lines, one can arrive at the conclusion these two detainees are being held in relation to the September 11 attacks, but the LAS statement does not come right out and say this.) The one case the LAS did retain was strictly an immigration case, as its policy is that "neither the Immigration Unit, nor the Society's Civil Division of which the Unit is a part, ever represents persons whose detention is predicated on issues other than alleged immigration violations." The Society firmly asserts it "is grateful to the September 11 Fund and to all others who have supported our disaster recovery work. These funds have been used properly, and have not been used to represent individuals accused of wrongdoing in the tragedy." The National Legal and Policy Center appears to view the New York Legal Aid Society's behavior as reprehensible, however. Dan Rene, spokesperson for the NLPC, said in a interview with the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: "If the Legal Aid Society, which has an annual budget of $135 million, received any money from the September 11th fund, it should have no involvement with the detainees and should devote 100 percent of its time to helping victims."  Rarely has a more foolheaded statement appeared in a newspaper.  Those who can't afford lawyers yet require legal representation don't fade from existence because a legal aid society has accepted a grant and agreed to provide additional services to a specific group of clients. By far the greatest demand on any legal aid society will be the provision of legal representation to the underfunded, making the devotion of "100 percent of its time to helping [Sept. 11] victims" a notion only a lunatic would entertain. Should a mother fighting for custody of her child be put on indefinite hold because a September 11 victim's will needs to be probated? Should an elderly man victimized by his landlord be told he'll have to make do with an unheated apartment for the winter because staffing a legal hotline for September 11 victims is the only business this particular legal aid society can concern itself  with?  A legal aid society is first and foremost a legal aid society. Its acceptance of an additional mission doesn't alter or erase its primary purpose for being, nor does it wipe from existence those who need its help. This particular Society has a history of involvement with INS detention cases. This is part of what it does, and that didn't change in the post-September 11 world, nor did INS proceedings for all manner of needy folks suddenly go away. The NY LAS should not be expected to turn away INS detainees it would at any other time have routinely seen and assisted just because some terrorism suspects might have immigration problems and thus might be included with harmless detainees. It's a "baby and the bathwater" issue  the better response is to sift through all the cases and reject the unsuitable ones rather than to reject them all out of hand, in effect punishing the innocuous for having been incarcerated at the wrong time. More information about what this particular  legal aid society does and who it helps can be found in its FAQ. FAQ The larger question of how monies donated to The September 11th Fund should be administered continues to trouble many. A number of the organizations that were the recipients of the beneficience of a nationwide outpouring of donations provide aid to victims, victims' families, and the wounded community of New York City in numerous ways other than direct payment to the families of victims. Some find fault with that, and some don't. (A constantly updated list of projects funded can be found on The September 11th Fund site.)  list of projects Debate over what services should be underwritten by the Fund helps speed along tales of fundular wrongdoings, imagined or actual. Though the cause for concern in this particular instance was unfounded, real anxieties find voice through the expression of such stories. In other words, we pass along such gossip because at some level we're disturbed by the handling of the September 11th Fund, even if that sense of unease amounts to nothing more than merely wondering if things are being handled properly.  As long as that sense of unease continues, so will the stories. Barbara "uneasy riders" Mikkelson Additional Information:   September 11th Fund FAQ     Statement About 'Detainee' Allegation  (NY Legal Aid Society)Last updated:  16 March 2008     Sources:   Crist, Gabrielle.  "Fund Officials Deny Sept. 11 Web Rumor."   Fort Worth Star-Telegram.  21 November 2001.     Cohen, Laurie.  "Detainees on INS Breaches Held in Solitary Status."   The Wall Street Journal.  1 November 2001.     Miller, Steve.  "Sept. 11 Fund Aids Defense of Detained Arabs."   The Washington Times.  9 November 2001  (p. A3).     Ruiz Patton, Susan.  "United Way Defend Sept. 11 Fund."   The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer.  10 November 2001  (p. A4). Claim:  An employer issued a missive to his employees stating that any additional taxes on his business would result in his shutting the company down. LEGEND Example:  [Collected via e-mail, November 2008] To All My Valued Employees, There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country. Of course, as your employer, I am forbidden to tell you whom to vote for - it is against the law to discriminate based on political affiliation, race, creed, religion, etc. Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best. However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interest. First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life. However, what you don't see is the back story. I started this company 12 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living space was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business  hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the Goodwill store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had. So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, ****, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden  the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... you never realize the back story and the sacrifices I've made. Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for. Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and without wounds. Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why: I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough.  I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch. The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country. The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy. Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now. When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the mud of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep. So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child'sfuture. Frankly, it isn't my problem anymore. Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship. While tax cuts to 95% of America sounds great on paper, don't forget the back story: If there is no job, there is no income to tax. A tax cut on zero dollars is zero. So, when you make decision to vote, ask yourself, who understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of saving your job. While the media wants to tell you "It's the economy stupid" I'm telling you it isn't. If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me in South Caribbean sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about. Signed,Your boss  Origins:  In the ramp-up towards the 2008 Presidential election and in its wake, a number of anonymous "Here's how you, the ones who voted for him, will directly suffer from a Barack Obama presidency" missives landed in inboxes everywhere. One such was putatively from a hard-working and generous grandfather telling his beloved liberal granddaughter that her support for Obama meant Grandpa was no longer going to be in a position to help her financially. Another was supposedly penned by CEO to his 140 employees informing them that thanks to the new taxes now surely headed his way, he'd have to lay off a few of them, so he was starting with those whose cars sported Obama bumper stickers." lay off The "To All My Valued Employees" letter quoted above is another of such ilk. In it, a boss threatens to shut down his company (thus wiping out the livelihoods of the 14 people who work there) if any more taxes are levied upon him, an outcome he views a virtual  certainty under an Obama presidency.  The piece is perhaps best viewed as an attempt to put into real-world terms the possible consequences to average folks if business is interfered with to the point of no longer being able to operate rather than as an actual letter sent by a real boss to his employees.  Although our earliest sighting of this item dates to 3 November 2008, textual clues within the missive (such as"Please vote who you think will serve your interests the best" and "So, when you make decision to vote") indicate it was likely penned sooner than just the day before the 2008 presidential election. The original author of this piece is unknown to us. While some versions are merely signed "Your Boss," others are attributed to Michael A. Crowley of Wake Forest, North Carolina, via inclusion of his signature block at the end of the piece. Crowley himself denies authorship, saying: In reference to the "To all my valued employees" letter currently circulating the internet:  This letter was forwarded to me by a colleague. While the letter may indeed be authentic, I was not the author and I do not know the identity of the original author. I forwarded it to the "John McCain Joe the Plumbers" email group prior to the election. Someone moved my contact information into the body of the message making it appear that I was the author of the letter. I would appreciate your removing my contact information prior to forwarding this message.  Michael A. Crowley, PE While sometimes people looking to distance themselves from soapbox pieces they've penned subsequently claim they found such contentious items elsewhere on the Internet and merely forwarded them to others, that is not the case here. More than just Crowley's own words of denial support his claim of non-authorship, with the key to that proof lying in the very signature block that has worked to convince so many of his being the real "boss" behind the letter. That signature block identifies his firm as Crowley, Crisp & Associates, Inc., a now defunct business entity that (according to North Carolina's Secretary of State) was formed in May 2007.  The missive so widely laid at Crowley's feet states "I started this company 12 years ago." Twelve years prior to 2008 was 1996. (His current firm, Crowley & Associates, Inc., was formed in October 2000.) Were Crowley the actual author, that line about when he began his company would have read "last year" or "8 years ago."  The response to the missive falsely attributed to him prompted Michael Crowley to pen his own letter on the plight of the small business owner, which can be read here. here In October 2012, David Siegel, the founder and CEO of Westgate Resorts, sent a modified version of this letter to all of his employees. He based his missive on that much-circulated 2008 piece, saying of his offering: "I did use the letter that had circulated before as a guideline, but I changed it [to fit my circumstances]. It speaks the truth and it gives [employees] something to think about when they go to the polls."  sent Last updated:  9 October 2012 Is this a mosquito? No. It's an insect spy drone for urban areas, already in production, funded by the US Government. It can be remotely controlled and is equipped with a camera and a microphone. It can land on you, and it may have the potential to take a DNA sample or leave RFID tracking nanotechnology on your skin. It can fly through an open window, or it can attach to your clothing until you take it in your home.  One of the current areas of research reportedly being undertaken in the scientific/military field is the development of micro air vehicles (MAVs), tiny flying objects intended to go places that cannot be (safely) reached by humans or other types of equipment. One of the primary military applications envisioned for MAVs is the gathering of intelligence (through the surreptitious use of cameras, microphones, or other types of sensors); among the more extreme applications posited for such devices is that they may eventually be used as "swarm weapons" which could be launched en masse against enemy forces. Some efforts in MAV research have involved trying to mimic birds or flying insects to achieve flight capabilities not attainable through other means of aerial propulsion. In 2007 a bug-like MAV model with a 3-cm wingspan was displayed at a robotics conference, in 2008 the U.S. Air Force released a simulated video showing MAVs about the size of bumblebees, and in 2012 engineers at Johns Hopkins University were studying the flight of butterflies to "help small airborne robots mimic these maneuvers." birds displayed video butterflies The specific mosquito-like object pictured above is, however, just a conceptual mock-up of a design for a MAV, not a photograph of an actual working device "already in production." And although taking DNA samples or inserting micro-RFID tracking devices under the skin of people are MAV applications that may some day be possible, such possibilities currently appear to be speculative fiction rather than reality. Some have claimed the U.S. government has not only researched and developed insect-like MAVs, but for several years has been furtively employing them for domestic surveillance purposes: The US government has been accused of secretly developing robotic insect spies amid reports of bizarre flying objects hovering in the air above anti-war protests. No government agency has admitted to developing insect-size spy drones but various official and private organisations have admitted that they are trying. But official protestations of innocence have failed to kill speculation of government involvement after a handful of sightings of the objects at political events in New York and Washington. Vanessa Alarcon, a university student who was working at an anti-war rally in the American capital [in September 2007], told the Washington Post: "I heard someone say, 'Oh my God, look at those.' "I look up and I'm like, 'What the hell is that?'. They looked like dragonflies or little helicopters. But I mean, those are not insects." Bernard Crane, a lawyer who was at the same event, said he had "never seen anything like it in my life". He added: "They were large for dragonflies. I thought, 'Is that mechanical or is that alive?'" The incident has similarities with an alleged sighting at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York when one peace march participant described on the internet seeing "a jet-black dragonfly hovering about 10 feet off the ground, precisely in the middle of 7th Avenue". Entomologists suggest that the objects are indeed dragonflies. Jerry Louton, an expert at the National Museum of Natural History, said Washington was home to large, impressively-decorated dragonflies that "can knock your socks off". Others maintain the technical obstacles involved in creating flying insect-sized robots have yet to be overcome: The technical challenges of creating robotic insects are daunting, and most experts doubt that fully working models exist yet. "If you find something, let me know," said Gary Anderson of the Defense Department's Rapid Reaction Technology Office. Getting from bird size to insect size is not a simple matter of making everything smaller. "You can't make a conventional robot of metal and ball bearings and just shrink the design down," said Ronald Fearing, a roboticist at the University of California at Berkeley. For one thing, the rules of aerodynamics change at very tiny scales and require wings that flap in precise ways  a huge engineering challenge. Scientists have only recently come to understand how insects fly. Even if the technical hurdles are overcome, insect-size fliers will always be risky investments. "They can get eaten by a bird, they can get caught in a spider web," Professor Fearing said. Leonard, Tom.  "US Accused of Making Insect Spy Robots."   The Telegraph.  10 October 2007. Weiss, Rick.  "Washington Abuzz with Talk of Dragonfly Spies."   The Sydney Morning Herald.  12 October 2007. One of the most iconic masks to feature prominently in movie history is that worn by the crazed killer character of Michael Myers in the Halloween franchise of slasher films, the first installment of which was released in 1978. But according to rumor, this frightful face originated with a character from a very different series and medium: Captain Kirk and television's Star Trek.   The 1978 horror film Halloween was produced on a very limited budget, and director John Carpenter didn't have funds for creating a custom mask. Carpenter told the Hollywood Reporter in a 2015 interview that the movie's art director instead picked up a mask of Captain Kirk at a magic shop and applied a few alterations to it to create the iconic look of Michael Myers: interview There was a choice we had to make, because we didnt have any money to make a mask. So the art director went up to Bert Wheeler's magic shop on Hollywood Boulevard, which was right up the street from our offices, and he got two masks. One was a clown mask, and one was a Captain Kirk mask. It was supposed to be Captain Kirk. It looked nothing like William Shatner, nothing like anybody, really. It was just a strange mask, which was perfect for us. So we spray-painted it, altered the eye holes and just did a couple things with the hair  and there you had it. I like to think it's Shatner, but it's not really. Similar versions of the story have been told by other members of the crew, including Rick Sternbach, who worked as illustrator/designer on Halloween 2, and William Shatner (who portrayed Captain Kirk) himself: Sternbach's story is of particular interest because he was one of the first to transition this movie legend into a movie fact: fact I was hired as an illustrator on Halloween 2 in 1981, working for production designer J. Michael Riva. In a supply cabinet at Pumpkin Pie Productions, we had one mask left from the original Halloween and no idea where to get any others for the sequel. It appeared that we'd need to go check out some of the toy stores and such, but I noticed that there was some wording molded into the neck area. There was a model number and [the words] "Don Post Studios." I made a call, read off the model number, and the word came back "it's our Captain Kirk mask." I asked if we could buy a number of them, and was told "We'll give you a box, just give us credit." With that, I turned the official dealings over to the higher-ups. Brush with greatness. Liberal comedian Bill Maher made an out-of-this-world comparison to poke a hole in the Republican argument that the estate tax threatens the livelihoods of family farmers. Of 5,000 Americans who paid the estate tax in 2013, 20 farmers paid it, Maher said on his April 17, 2015, show. Twenty-four Americans have been to the moon. More astronauts have been to the moon than farmers who paid the inheritance tax in 2013. There obviously is no relation between the number of farmers paying the estate tax and the number of Americans who went to the moon, but as a point of trivia, Mahers claim is an intriguing one. A reader asked us to do the magic that you do, which is determining whether Mahers point is accurate. One small step for fact-checkers ... Caveat No 1: Maher is using the number of astronauts who have been to the vicinity of the moon, not just the number of moonwalkers. Twelve Americans have walked the moons surface over six Apollo missions, starting with Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planting an American flag in 1969. (If youre not sure about whether the lunar landing really happened, you wont like this fact-check, but you may enjoy these bona fidemoon misconceptions.) Add another 12 American astronauts who orbited the moon but did not walk on it, and you get  24. NASA chief historian William Barry said the 24 Americans is a solid figure in that it doesnt double count Americans who made more than one lunar trip. There were several astronauts who flew to the Moon and orbited it on one mission and then were lucky enough to go back and land on it on a later mission, Barry said. Jim Lovell, for instance, made two trips to the moon in Apollo 8 and Apollo 13, but he never walked on it. (In this Smithsonian picture, Lovell and his crew emerge from the U.S.S. Iwo Jima after landing the spacecraftApollo 13in the South Pacific.) One giant leap for the truth What Maher calls the inheritance tax and what Republicans call the death tax is more accurately described as the estate tax. Some wealthy families face this tax when they pass on assets (cash, land, homes, stocks, etc.) to heirs after death. Most estates do not owe estate taxes. It affects about 5,500 Americans whose estates exceed the exemption limit of$5.43 million per person. If the estate is worth more than that, an heir could pay a tax rate up to 40 percent on the value of the estate above that limit. Even though it doesnt affect all that many people, it brings in big bucks for the government. Repealing it would cost about $270 billion over the next decade, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. In the week ahead of Mahers April 17 show, House Republicans approveda planto eliminate the estate tax, saying it can prove devastating to families  forcing them to sell land, lay off workers, and even shut down entirely. So did this tax really affect just 20 farmers in 2013, as Maher said? The number comes from an estimate by the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. Tax Policy Center economists wanted to get an idea of how the tax would affect estates, including those with farm and business assets, in 2013. All of their numbers are estimates based on the centersestate tax model. They defined family farms and businesses as estates having farm or business assets less than $5 million and half of the estate. These farms and businesses had taxable returns and total assets between $5 million and up $10 million. Its a definition that hones in on small farms and business  the most relevant in responding to the myth that many small farms and small businesses must be liquidated to pay estate tax, said Brandon DeBot, a research assistant at the federal fiscal policy division of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Using the Tax Policy Centers model, an estimated 20 small farms and small businesses would have had to pay the estate tax in 2013, amounting to a total of $6.9 million of tax with an average tax rate of 4.9 percent. So thats not just small farms, its small farmsandsmall businesses, which might not be a farm. Caveat No. 2: The number of farms and businesses is probably not exactly 20, as it is an estimate rounded to the nearest multiple of 10. That means the number is anywhere from 16-24. Caveat No. 3: Maher talked about family farmers, addressing the Republican argument about the plight of farmers who could lose their livelihood because of the estate tax. But family farms can be big farms, and thats where things get more complicated. Maher set up his comparison by discussing the plight of family farmers, but then later dropped the word family. That one word is important. The Tax Policy Center broadened the scope to include all farm and business estates, regardless of size, with at least half of their value from farm business activity. By that method, 120 farm and business estates would have had to pay the estate tax in 2013, said Roberton Williams, a Tax Policy Center fellow who worked on the model. Alan D. Viard, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who studies federal tax and budget policy, says the the estate tax has a lot of flaws, but the effect on farmers is just not the right grounds to criticize this tax. Mahers point was strong, he said. In 2001, House Republicans voted to repeal the death tax.New York TimesreporterDavid Cay Johnston scoured1999 IRS filings, phoned the American Farm Bureau Federation, and interviewed farmers in effort to find examples of working farmers who lost their farms because of estate taxes. He found none, writing that the reality of who is bitten by the estate tax is different from the mythology, as the overwhelming majority of beneficiaries are the heirs of people who made their fortunes through their businesses and investments in securities and real estate. And in 2001, the estate tax wasmore robust than it is now, with a lower exemption level of $675,000 and a higher top tax rate of 55 percent. It is a small number, bottom line, Williams said. Theyre going to be the exception rather than the rule. Our ruling Maher compared 24 American astronauts who have been to the moon to 20 farmers whom he said were the only ones to pay the estate tax. His count for astronauts who have been to the moon is reasonable, counting both American moonwalkers and those who have flown in its orbit during various Apollo missions. The larger point about only 20 farmers paying the estate tax is a little more complicated. A 2013nonpartisan study found 20 small farmsandsmall businesses faced the estate tax in 2013. Maher referred to family farms in setting up his claim. Saying small farms would have been better. And he dropped family in later references. Experts said Maher generally could have been more careful in his wording, but that his bit of trivia largely checks out, as does his point that the estate tax affectsvery few small farmers. We rate his claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/2edf78cd-008c-408e-ae35-939322661e70