After shedding jobs for more than 10 years, our manufacturers have added about 500,000 jobs over the past three.
At several points in his State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama noted the importance of manufacturing to the nations economy.Our first priority is making America a magnet for new jobs and manufacturing, Obama said. After shedding jobs for more than 10 years, our manufacturers have added about 500,000 jobs over the past three. Caterpillar is bringing jobs back from Japan. Ford is bringing jobs back from Mexico. After locating plants in other countries like China, Intel is opening its most advanced plant right here at home. And this year, Apple will start making Macs in America again.The claim about job numbers is an update of a line Obama included in his acceptance speech at the 2012 Democratic convention in Charlotte, N.C. We checked that one and rated itTrue.The main difference between Obamas two versions was that the timeline in the most recent claim has been extended by six months.Because of the wording of his claim, we are examining whether the numbers are right, not whether Obama's policies were instrumental. To check the numbers, we turned to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the federal governments official source for employment numbers. We used seasonally adjusted statistics for manufacturing jobs.Shedding jobs for more than 10 yearsIts not news that manufacturing jobs have been in decline in the United States in recent years, though sometimes with ups and downs. Generally, the decline has been due to broad economic shifts both inside and outside the United States, as well as changes in technology. Manufacturings share of U.S. employment was 29 percent in 1960, but it fell to just 9 percent by 2011. Even the raw numbers of manufacturing jobs fell over that period -- from 15.7 million to 11.7 million -- despite a large expansion of the overall U.S. workforce.Between March and April 1998 and December 2009 -- the decade-plus that Obama appears to be referring to -- manufacturing employment fell from 17.6 million to 11.5 million, a decline of just over one-third. So Obamas correct that manufacturing jobs had been shedding jobs for more than 10 years by the time he took office.Added about 500,000 jobs over the past three yearsDuring the period Obama chose -- from January 2010 to January 2013 -- manufacturing jobs began to rise again, by 490,000. We think that qualifies as about 500,000, as Obama put it.Its worth noting that while the reversal has been striking, this rise has still replaced only a fraction of the manufacturing jobs lost during the decade of decline. The manufacturing jobs gained during the turnaround replaced less than 10 percent of the jobs lost during the decade of decline.Our rulingThe rise in manufacturing jobs that Obama is referring to is modest compared to the prior decades decline, but he has described the numbers carefully. We rate his statement True.
On June 21, 2021, the day before New York City's mayoral primary election, a New York Times reporter claimed one of the Democratic candidates  Andrew Yang  said on a conservative talk radio show that people with mental illnesses need to be hospitalized in order for the city's economy to improve.  According to a tweet by the Times journalist, Emma Fitzsimmons, billionaire John Catsimatidis and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani had just spoken with Yang on 77 WABC's "Election Coverage" show. tweet Emma Fitzsimmons John Catsimatidis Rudy Giuliani Fitzsimmons said in the post, which hundreds of users retweeted for their own followers, at 4:18 (EST):   The attribution was correct. According to 77 WABC's video recording of the June 21 broadcast segment, which featured candidates of several New York races fielding questions from Catsimatidis and Giuliani, Yang phoned into the show and had the below-transcribed exchange: video recording Yang: We're poised to win this race, and then I'm going to get to work on delivering for New Yorkers the public safety we expect and deserve, which includes getting the homeless men who are struggling mentally into environments where they're safer and healthier. It's better for everyone. [...] Catsimatidis: One of the most important things with law and order in New York City, is we have all of these homeless people in the streets and lot of them are mentally ill. [...] What happened? Don't those people deserve treatment? Aren't we better of spending money to build hospitals to treat those poor people? Yang: 100 percent. We need to get them the care that they need, but that will also supercharge our economic recovery because we all see these mentally ill people on our streets and subways, and you know who else sees them? Tourists. And then they don't come back, and they tell their friends, 'Don't go to New York City.' We're never going to get our jobs back and our economy back if we don't get the mentally ill people who are on our streets in a better environment. It's going to be worth every penny. In other words,Yang did not explicitly say hospitalizing people with severe mental health issues was "the only way" (verbatim) to restart the city's economy after the COVID-19 pandemic. However, he did say "we're never going to get our jobs back and our economy back" without supposedly taking the step, implying the same thing. Hours after the radio interview, Yang told The New York Times that he stood by his comments on the radio show, again framing the issue as one of public safety. told The New York Times We all know that public safety is top of mind for New Yorkers, he told the newspaper. There will not be an economic recovery until people feel safe walking our streets and walking our subways. It was not the first instance of Yang, a former presidential candidate, saying people with severe mental issues perpetuate some of the city's economic and social problems. During a debate on June 16 with other Democratic candidates (there are 13 total), Yang said city officials need to get people with untreated mental health issues "off of our streets and our subways into a better environment," and that "mentally ill homeless men are changing the character of our neighborhoods," presumably for the worse. June 16 Yes, mentally ill people have rights, but you know who else have rights? We do: the people and families of the city, Yang said at the debate. We have the right to walk the street and not fear for our safety because a mentally ill person is going to lash out at us. Those comments sparked criticism among social media users who pointed out research that shows people with severe mental illness are far more likely to be victims of crime  not perpetrators  and the fact that mental health includes a wide spectrum of disorders that affect everyone. research The day after the debate, Yang responded to that outcry with the below-displayed tweet. responded   Full context here was mental illness is behind half of anti-Asian hate crimes, he said. We need to get them compassionate comprehensive care  and not let them languish on our streets. In February 2021, during U.S. Senate hearings on the confirmation of Merrick Garland as President Joe Biden's nominee for attorney general, a widely shared tweet purported to capture a startlingly frank exchange between Garland and Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas. The tweet, posted by @Roshan_Rinaldi on Feb. 22, contained a link to a PBS live video of the hearing, along with the following text: tweet Tom Cotton: "Can you make a commitment on resources?"Garland: "I don't make commitments unless I know the facts first."Cotton: "When we confirmed Bill Barr, he was able to make a commitment on resources. Why can't you do that now?"Garland: "Because I'm not a liar"   The tweet, which has since been deleted, was widely shared on Twitter and its text contents tweeted out by several users in separate tweets. It was also shared on the popular left-wing forum Democratic Underground. On Facebook, users enthusiastically shared screenshots of it in the hours and days that followed. The following screenshot demonstrates the popularity of the post on Facebook in February 2021: several users shared shared   In reality, Garland never called former Attorney General Bill Barr "a liar." Nor did he describe him in a way that could fairly be summarized in that way. The tweet paraphrased a real line of questioning from Cotton but grossly misrepresented both the wording and tone of Garland's response. @Roshan_Rinaldi's tweet was particularly misleading because it not only misrepresented Garland's utterances in response to Cotton's questioning, but also used quotation marks, thereby presenting the exchange between Cotton and Garland as a direct quotation, which it certainly was not. During a confirmation hearing on Feb. 22, Garland, a U.S. Circuit Court judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, faced questioning from Republican senators about the future of Special Counsel John Durham's investigation. In 2019, then-President Donald Trump asked Durham to investigate whether federal investigators engaged in wrongdoing or criminality during the early stages of investigations into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government actors during the 2016 presidential election. In 2020, Trump gave Durham the title and powers of a special counsel.  John Durham special counsel In particular, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, and later Cotton, asked Garland whether he would commit to providing Durham the resources he required in order to complete his investigation. Garland demurred, and both Grassley and Cotton pointed out (accurately) that Barr, during his confirmation hearings in January 2019, was willing to make such a commitment to continuing and resourcing the work of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who had been leading an investigation into possible collusion between Russia and Trump's 2016 campaign. accurately In order to provide the full and proper account of what Garland actually said about Barr (or rather, did not say), the following are excerpted transcripts and videos of his exchanges with Grassley and then Cotton: Grassley: I'm going to go to the Durham investigation. At Barr's hearing, he stated the following [with] regard to Mueller's investigation: "It's virtually [read: vitally] important that the special counsel be allowed to complete his investigation." Also, at that same hearing, Sen. Feinstein asked: "Will you commit to providing Mr. Mueller with the resources, funds and time needed to complete his investigation?" Attorney General Barr answered Sen. Feinstein with a one-word "Yes." With respect to Special Counsel Durham's investigation, I expect that he will be allowed to complete his investigation. If confirmed, will you commit to providing Special Counsel Durham with the staff, resources, funds and time needed to thoroughly complete the investigation? vitally Garland: Senator, I don't have any information about the investigation, as I sit here today. And another one of the very first things I'm going to have to do is speak with Mr. Durham, figure out how his investigation is going. I understand that he has been permitted to remain in his position, and sitting here today, I have no reason to think that that was not the correct decision.  Grassley: Okay. And I suppose that would be an answer that [means] he would only be removed for cause, then? Would that be your position? Garland: Well, Senator, I really do have to have an opportunity to talk with him. I have not had that opportunity. As I said, I don't have any reason, from what I know now, which is really very little, to make any determination on that ground. But I don't have any reason to think that he should not remain in place.   Later, Cotton followed up on Grassley's line of questioning, and the following exchange took place: Cotton: I want to return to Sen. Grassley's questions about the Durham investigation. Sen. Grassley asked you if you would commit, specifically, to ensure that John Durham had the staff, the resources and the time that he needed to complete that investigation. You said you didn't have the info yet, that you needed to speak to him, but you had no reason to think that him staying on was not the correct decision  Garland: That's correct, Sir, yes. Cotton: Why can't you commit, specifically, to saying that he will have the time, staff and resources he needs to complete his investigation? Garland: Well, again, it's because I'm sitting here and I don't have any information about what he needs, in his resources and the allocation of resources. But my  everything I know, sitting here, suggests that he should of course have those resources. Cotton: Judge, two years ago Bill Barr made that exact commitment about the Mueller special counsel [investigation]. He did not have that information, he had not consulted with the department. He was in the same posture you are. He simply said "Yes." Why can't you say "Yes" today, the way Bill Barr did two years ago? Garland: Again, my view about every investigation and every decision I make is I have to know the facts before I can make those kind of decisions. I don't know what went into his consideration, but for myself, I have to be there and learn what's going on, before I can make a decision. But as I said, I have no reason to doubt that the decision to keep him in place, and to continue his investigation, was in any way wrong. Cotton: Was it wrong for Bill Barr to make that commitment two years ago? Garland: Again, as I said, Senator, I'm not going to be making judgements about my predecessors. I don't think there's any purpose in that for myself. I want you to judge me on my own record and what I do going forward. Cotton: Was it wrong for Democratic senators on this committee to repeatedly demand that Bill Barr make that commitment two years ago? Garland: I think my answer would be the same.  As the videos and transcripts show, far from calling Barr "a liar" or saying words to that effect, Garland actually repeatedly refused openings to criticize Barr in any way. The wording presented in the viral tweet was inaccurate, and the underlying claim that Garland attacked Barr's honesty was a gross misrepresentation of what he actually said. 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. A scam that circulated on Facebook in late March 2021 claimed that anyone who shared and commented on a post would receive a bag full of goodies and a $75 Walmart voucher after validating their entry at a link included in the post (archived here). here   The text in the post read: To celebrate the great news of Walmart becoming plastic bags free by the end of 2021, we are giving one of these Walmart gift-bags to everyone who has shared & commented by 7pm 24th March,.Each person who does this will receive one of these gift bag full of goodies and a $75 Walmart voucher. After that, Validate your entry @https://bit.ly/2Qq4gwy Snopes spoke with a representative from the chain supermarket, who confirmed that the post was fake. This page is not affiliated with or endorsed by Walmart. We take any fraud impacting our customers seriously and continue to implement and improve upon measures designed to help guard against various consumer scams, Walmart spokesperson Casey Staheli told Snopes. The scam may have been inspired by an announcement made by Walmart on Feb. 21 declaring it was reducing its use of plastic bags. As part of the Beyond the Bag Challenge, an international consortium of large-scale vendors, Walmart announced that stores in Mexico and Central America would go fully bagless  and nearly three-quarters of stores in Mexico had stopped providing plastic bags by December 2020. announcement fully bagless Walmart stores also launched a pilot program in Vermont by implementing a reusable bags only requirement after it banned the use of plastic shopping bags in all stores effective July 2020, reported Vermont Biz. Vermont Biz However, the retailer did not make a promise to ban plastic bags from all its stores, nor did it offer any sort of gift bag or store credit for those that shared and commented on a Facebook post. For help identifying other potential scams, Walmart encourages consumers to visit the Fraud Alerts section on its website. Fraud Alerts Correction [March 25, 2021]: Vermont's "paper bag only" requirement was updated to reflect its newly imposed reusable bag only policy. The congressional contest between Democratic Rep. Betty Sutton and Republican Rep. Jim Renacci is among the nations most costly and hard-fought races, and has also devolved into one of the nastiest.After Renacci placed ads accusing Sutton of voting to raise taxes on just about everyone, Sutton fired back with an ad that claims Renacci supports tax breaks for millionaires like himself and tried to avoid paying taxes on nearly $14 million that he made.We play by the rules but Renacci thinks hes above them, says a male blue collar worker shown in Suttons ad.On the same day that Sutton unveiled the ad that accuses Renacci of avoiding taxes, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee made a similar assertion in adifferent ad, which says: Renacci tried to skip out on paying over a million in taxes..The tax avoidance claims in Suttons new ad echo charges that were raised against Renacci in 2010, when he first ran for Congress and defeated Democratic Rep. John Boccieri. They stem from a dispute Renacci had with the Ohio Department of Taxation, which accused him and his wife, Tina, of misreporting their income in 2000 and assessed them nearly $1.4 million in back taxes, interest and penalties.The Renaccis filed state tax returns that claimed they had a loss of $247,336 that year, but auditors determined they actually made $13,730,440. The couple filed a tax appeal when the state dinged them for $954,650 in back taxes, $146,938 in interest and $293,876 in penalties.The quarrel was over Renacci's trust income from an S corporation, which wasnt taxable for several years before Ohio's tax commissioner changed the states policy. S corporations permit income to be taxed at an individual rate for federal tax purposes, and avoid double taxation on corporate income. Renacci was among a group of taxpayers who fought the state decision. He contended the trust income should have been tax-free and that he had reasonable cause to exclude it on his tax return, tax department and court documents say.Others dropped their appeals, but Renacci continued to fight, even after a 2006 Ohio Supreme Court ruling in a similar case in which the court said the trust income was subject to taxation. In that case, the taxpayers reported their S Corporation income on their 2000 tax return and then unsuccessfully asked for a refund.A 2007 legal brief the state of Ohio filed in Renaccis case observed that nearly all other litigants who created grantor trusts in an attempt to shelter, i.e., exclude their S corporation income from Ohio income taxation gave up their appeals, and that the Renaccis were almost alone in their persistence. Court records show the Renaccis eventually sent the state more than $1.3 million, but they continue to argue that $359,822 that they paid in penalties and interest were improper.He was proud of his fight, and to have fought till the end, along with many other Ohioans for tax fairness, Renacci spokesman James Slepian told the Plain Dealer in 2010.When asked about Suttons new ad,  Slepian this month called her a desperate politician who knows shes losing and has no record to run on, and said shes  engaging in the bogus, gutter politics of recycled personal attacks that have defined her sad career in Congress.Indeed, the charges against Renacci are somewhat recycled. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union placeda television adin 2010 that contained a more extreme version of the charges that Sutton is making.That ad said he cheated on his income taxes, that he hid more than $13 million and was forced to pay $1.4 million in back taxes and penalties. Renacci filed a defamation suit against the union after the ads began to air.Court recordsshow he dropped the case on Feb. 3, 2011, shortly after he took office in Congress.PolitiFact Ohio founda claim in that ad to be Mostly True because Renacci could have disclosed the trust income on his state tax return, as the state warned he should, but he didnt. He also could have paid the taxes and contested the amount, but didnt. And he didnt amend his return, despite an explicit 2002 warning from Ohios tax Department that he could face penalties for fraud and failure to pay if he didnt. But Renacci ultimately worked within the system to resolve the case, paid the full amount that was due, and was not ever charged with tax fraud.The claim in this ad is an easier call. Reams of legal documents show that Renacci battled with the state over trust income from an S corporation, trying to avoid paying taxes on the $13.7 million at issue in the case.On the Truth-O-Meter, Suttons claim rates True. Are Democratic presidents better than Republican presidents at job creation? Former President Bill Clinton said so -- forcefully -- in his speech to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24, Clinton said. In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million). In the packed convention hall, it was one of the nights biggest applause lines. In 2010, we checked a similar claim from Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., who said that Democratic presidents have been considerably more effective at creating private-sector jobs. After crunching the numbers back to President Harry Truman, we found that jobs did indeed grow faster under Democratic presidents when adjusted for a presidents years served in office. So we rated the claimTrue. Clintons claim at the convention was worded differently, so we quickly re-crunched the numbers based on his specifications. Lets cut to the chase. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, here are the net increases in private-sector employment under each president, chronologically by party: RepublicansRichard Nixon: Increase of 7.1 million jobsGerald Ford: Increase of 1.3 million jobsRonald Reagan: Increase of 14.7 million jobsGeorge H.W. Bush: Increase of 1.5 million jobsGeorge W. Bush: Decline of 646,000 jobsTotal: Increase of 23.9 million jobs under Republican presidentsDemocratsJohn F. Kennedy: Increase of 2.7 million jobsLyndon B. Johnson: Increase of 9.5 million jobsJimmy Carter: Increase of 9.0 million jobsBill Clinton: Increase of 20.8 million jobsBarack Obama: Increase of 332,000 jobs Total: Increase of 42.3 million jobs. So Clinton is right. But well bring up a few points worth noting. This does not include government jobs The combination of private-sector jobs and public-sector jobs is a broader measurement of job creation than private-sector alone. But excluding government jobs would presumably hurt Democrats more than Republicans, given the two parties historical stances toward the role of government. The fact that Democrats finished so far ahead despite taking government jobs off the table makes it a more impressive accomplishment. The Democrats didnt benefit from population growth For our previous story, Brookings Institution economist Gary Burtless calculated that the U.S. working-age population actually grew slightly faster under Republican presidents, also making the Democratic accomplishment more impressive. Presidents deserves less credit for the good times and less blame for the bad times It's a truism of politics that when things go well, the president generally gets too much credit, and when things don't go well, the president usually gets too much blame. Shouldn't the Republican Congress of 1995-2001 get a share of the credit for Clinton's robust job growth? Shouldn't the Democratic House that served under Reagan? Most experts would say yes and yes. Since we published our previous story, we have changed our policy: We now factor into our ratings whether the politician or party deserves credit or blame for the statistical trend being analyzed. In this item, though, we will not factor in credit or blame, because both parties have had presidents serve during the time we looked at, meaning that both parties would have benefited and suffered in roughly equal proportions. Its unclear how much this finding says about our political and economic systems Job creation for each president depended to a certain extent on timing, external factors and luck. And as Yale political scientist David Mayhew pointed out for our previous story, conclusions drawn from a relatively narrow data set -- in this case, just 12 postwar presidencies -- need to be taken with a grain of salt. Our ruling Clintons figures check out, and they also mirror the broader results we came up with two years ago. Partisans are free to interpret these findings as they wish, but on the numbers, Clintons right. We rate his claim True. In January 2021, the website America's Best Pics shared a meme claiming that a prostitute named "Gerda Puridle" invented long eyelashes in 1880s: shared   The woman in this picture was not a prostitute, her name was not Gerda Puridle, and the claim about the origins of artificial eyelashes was made up out of whole cloth. The woman featured in this meme is Alice Regnault, a French actress and novelist who rose to prominence in the 1870s. This photograph appears to have been taken by French photographer Gaspard-Flix Tournachon (better known as "Nadar") circa 1879. It was included in a guide published a few years later called "Les Actrices de Paris" (The Actresses of Paris) by Emile Bergerat: appears to have been taken    Here's how Regnault was described in "Les Actrices de Paris" (translated via Google and edited for clarity): "An intelligent and flexible actress who, through commitment and hard work, has managed to escape a reputation as a 'pretty woman'  where the love of the masses kept her, as in a prison. So has the fine and elegant Mademoiselle Rgnault proven herself, for some time now." While Regnault laid claim to titles such as actress, novelist, and journalist, she did not invent elongated eyelashes. According to beauty magazine Marie Claire, humans were tinkering with and beautifying their eyelashes in ancient Egypt, though it wasn't until the late 1800s that people figured out that they could lengthen their eyelashes with human hair. An 1882 volume of "Medical Record" explained the process of creating artificial eyelashes: Marie Claire Medical Record False Eyelashes - Labouchere says in Truth: The Parisians have found out how to make false eyelashes. I do not speak of the vulgar and well-known trick of darkening the rim round the eye with all kinds of dirty composition, or the more artistic plan of doing so to the inside of the lid. No, they actually draw a fine needle, threaded with dark hair, through the skin of the eyelid, forming long loops, and after the process if over - I am told it is a painless one - a splendid dark fringe veils the coquette's eyes."  While the practice of artificially elongating eyelashes started in the late 1800s, the first patent for an artificial eyelash wasn't secured until 1911. Here's a look at inventor Anna Taylor's artificial eyelash patent:   Despite the fact that artificial eyelashes have been around since the late 1800s, and that Taylor filed a patent in 1911, many people credit filmmaker D.W. Griffith for popularizing artificial eyelashes with his 1916 film "Intolerance." The New York Times reported: reported One day in 1916, while filming "Intolerance," D. W. Griffith studied an actress in a Babylonian costume and felt something wasn't right. Seena Owen's eyes, he said, should be twice as large and "supernatural." He ordered his wigmaker to use spirit gum to glue a pair of lashes made from human hair onto Owen's eyelids. "One morning she arrived at the studio with her eyes swollen nearly shut," the actress Lillian Gish, who was also in the movie, wrote in her memoir. "Fortunately, Mr. Griffith had already shot the important scenes." Within a decade, false lashes became standard equipment for actresses  and for flappers who imitated the "baby doll" eyes that they saw on-screen. Gish claimed that Griffith invented false eyelashes, but like many Hollywood legends, this one proves to be not exactly true. In 1911, a Canadian woman named Anna Taylor received a U.S. patent for the artificial eyelash; hers was a crescent of fabric implanted with tiny hairs. And even before that, hairdressers and makeup artists tried a similar trick. A German named Charles Nestle (nee Karl Nessler) manufactured false lashes in the early 20th century and used the profit from sales to finance his next invention  the permanent wave. By 1915, Nestle had opened a New York hair-perming salon on East 49th Street, with lashes as his sideline. Nestle promoted false eyelashes as a guard against the glare of electric lights and hired chorus girls to bat their eyes at customers. To some men of the era, it was as if a booby trap had been introduced in the war between the sexes. "When a fair young thing looks at you mistily through her long, curling lashes, do not fall for it until you investigate," warned one columnist in 1921. "The long, curling eyelashes may not be hers, except by right of purchase."   In short, the claim that a prostitute named Gerda Puridle invented elongated eyelashes is completely made up out of whole cloth. Houston businessman Farouk Shami, running for governor, turned to his leading Democratic foe on Monday night and leveled a foul charge.In a televised debate, Shami told Bill White, the former Houston mayor: Our city is the third-most toxic city in the United States of America.White didnt take issue with Shamis description, but it was news to us. We decided to check into the Bayou Citys ick ranking.Shamis campaign said the candidate based his statement on a 2009 article in Forbes magazine putting Houston behind only Atlanta and Detroit for toxicity among major U.S. cities.The magazine said it based its rankings of the nations 40 largest metropolitan statistical areas on data provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.We counted the number of facilities that reported releasing toxins into the environment, the magazine said, the total pounds of certain toxic chemicals released into the air, water and earth, the days per year that air pollution was above healthy levels, and the number of times the EPA has responded to reports of a potentially hazardous environmental incident or site in each metro area's principal city.Its article states Houston's residents live with with air that's far filthier than it should be.Facilities in Houston released 88.7 million pounds of toxic chemicals in the environment in 2007, the magazine says, and the former site of a methanol fire and chemical explosion number among the city's 50 sites necessitating an EPA response. Factories that serve the local petrochemical industry emit benzene and 1-3 butabeine, toxins proven to be particularly harmful, that the area's intense sunlight and lack of wind keep trapped in the local area's atmosphere.Jim Lester, vice president of the Houston Advanced Research Center, a Woodlands-based nonprofit group that studies and promotes sustainable development, is quoted saying Houston has become one of the favorite places in the world for doing air-quality science. He saw that as a boon: The more people understand about it (air quality), the more changes are likely that will take us in a positive direction.When we reached Lester, he revisited pollution levels reported by industries and posted online by the EPA. In 2007, Harris County industries reported either releasing or disposing of 36.1 million pounds of toxic chemicals, while industries around Detroit in Wayne County nearly matched that dubious achievement, reporting the disposal or release of nearly 30 million pounds of toxic pollutants.Shami correctly referred to a recent national comparison. We rate his statement as True. On Oct. 22, 2019, a link to an op-ed entitled "Trump's Obama envy is getting even worse" was shared to a number of anti-Trump Facebook groups, such as Anti Donald Trump, original DONALD TRUMP CLOWN UNIVERSITY, and DEFEAT TRUMP 2020!, along with an alleged excerpt from the article in which the president claimed that former President Barack Obama had written the emoluments clause of the U.S.Constitution: Anti Donald Trump original DONALD TRUMP CLOWN UNIVERSITY DEFEAT TRUMP 2020! Trump Accuses Obama Of Writing The US Constitution Because He Knows The Constitution Is Very, Very Bad For Me Appearing on Fox and News, Trump accused Obama of writing the Constitution to make him look bad. I know for certain that he wrote the emoluments clause, because he cant stand to see me make so much illegal money, Trump said. Ive said all along, Obama is obsessed with me, Trump said, adding, He will do anything to make me look bad, but it never works and he cant stand to see me winning. Busy day and so much winning. Time for golf.   The text of this Facebook post does not relay a genuine quote from Trump. Trump did not claim that Obama wrote the emoluments clause of the Constitution during an appearance on Fox News, nor does this quote appear in the linked op-ed story published in The Washington Post. The Washington Post Trump appeared on Fox News on Oct. 21, 2019, for an interview with Sean Hannity. While Trump mentioned Obama a number of times during that interview, he didn't accuse his predecessor of writing the Constitution, which was written more than 200 years ago.  interview 200 years ago Some readers may have been taken in by the fake quote because it was published a day after Trump described the emoluments clause as "phony."  Vox reported:  reported President Donald Trump is still defending the White Houses decision to host next years G7 summit, a gathering of seven world leaders, at a Miami resort owned by Trumps business  even though he abandoned the plan after it was widely criticized. At a Cabinet meeting on Monday, he blamed the backlash against his attempt to profit from the G7 on you people with this phony emoluments clause, referring to a provision of the Constitution which prevents federal officials from being compensated by foreign governments. While Trump may have called the emoluments clause "phony," he did not claim Obama wrote it. We therefore rate this claim  Millhiser, Ian.  "The Emoluments Clause, Explained for Donald Trump."
  Vox.  22 October 2019. Robinson, Eugene.  "Trumps Obama Envy is Getting Even Worse."
  The Washington Post.  26 August 2019. A directory photo (perhaps a school yearbook) of a man supposedly named "Peter Griffin" bears a strong resemblance to another Peter Griffin, the "big, boisterous lovable oaf" featured in the Fox animated TV series, Family Guy. Family Guy  However, the same photograph previously appeared on the internet with a legend identifying its subject as Justin Blair Spaeth.  Justin Blair Spaeth is a real person (who bears a physical similarity to the Peter Griffin character but does not share his name), as evidenced by these snapshots of a Back Stage Blue (the thespian troupe of Notre Dame High School) production of "West Side Story." these snapshots Back Stage Blue The altered image has been shared on websites and social media since at least 2005, including in Twitter ads that lead to listicles and slideshows, such as this one:   Spaeth's image with the words "Peter Griffin" is included in the tweet as clickbait, as it does not even appear in the long list on the advertised website.